Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Does Gilbo Understand Evolution? Plus Logic Pretzel For Evos

Recommended Posts

Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..

Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.

 

I've attended 4 years of Tertiary study in Biology, so I'm quite sure I do. I was the student who'd think outside the box and ask my lecturers the hard questions, many of whom admit they couldn't answer them. Here is one...

 

Within the cell there are signal proteins used to tag deformed / incorrectly folded proteins. The tagged proteins are recycled for parts. IF evolution is based on slight changes (mutations) over time then wouldn't the mutated proteins be tagged and sent for recycling?

 

My lecturer ummed and arred on this question and admitted that she didn't know. She still believed in evolution, but didn't know or want to know how evolution could fit within this issue....

 

However the beauty of this question is that natural selection has nothing to do with it... You cannot just say natural selection and that solves the issue because the cellular recycling system is programmed to do its job regardless of whether something may be beneficial or not. Honestly I cannot comprehend how Biologists who know this would still believe in evolution... Its as if they suspend knowledge of Biology and logic whenever discussing or thinking about evolution...

 

After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?

 

Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.

 

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..

 

Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.

 

 

 

After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?

 

Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question wink.png

 

The question you placed to your professor was absolutey A-1, gilbo. You dropped the atom bomb on her brain.

 

I can't wait until you get into the classroom as a professor so you can inflict as much damage possible on evolution in the minds of students who haven't been taught to critically think things through like you just demonstrated. It is so badly needed.

 

Best wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The question you placed to your professor was absolutey A-1, gilbo. You dropped the atom bomb on her brain.

 

I can't wait until you get into the classroom as a professor so you can inflict as much damage possible on evolution in the minds of students who haven't been taught to critically think things through like you just demonstrated. It is so badly needed.

 

Best wishes.

 

Thanks Calypsis

 

Yeah its one of the reasons why I wanted to get into teaching. Here is a related quote I found it a week ago ;)

 

“Five percent of the people think;

ten percent of the people think they think;

and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”

Thomas A. Edison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Alzheimer's and Parkinson's arise due to inadequacies in the degradation system's ability to handle misfolded proteins. Furthermore, proteasomes and chaperone proteins could themselves be susceptible to mutation and compromise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.

 

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..

 

Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.

 

 

 

After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?

 

Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question ;)

What's funny is, while I was an evolutionist, my thinking was very close to the "monkey==>human" line. It was after I became a creationist that I learned what evolution actually was, and realized how ridiculous it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Alzheimer's and Parkinson's arise due to inadequacies in the degradation system's ability to handle misfolded proteins. Furthermore, proteasomes and chaperone proteins could themselves be susceptible to mutation and compromise

So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's funny is, while I was an evolutionist, my thinking was very close to the "monkey==>human" line. It was after I became a creationist that I learned what evolution actually was, and realized how ridiculous it is!

 

Monkey ==> human, FC? I don't believe that is what the current theory says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Monkey ==> human, FC? I don't believe that is what the current theory says.

Not saying it is. I'm saying when I was an evolutionist, that's what I thought. I've grown so much since becoming a creationist. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Alzheimer's and Parkinson's arise due to inadequacies in the degradation system's ability to handle misfolded proteins. Furthermore, proteasomes and chaperone proteins could themselves be susceptible to mutation and compromise

 

Great :)

 

So the times when the system doesn't recycle proteins, (as in the only time evolution would be able to occur), it leads to defects...

 

The warning bells should be ringing by now.

 

How can you believe in a process which in order to work requires the organism to be functioning defectively? Wouldn't natural selection select against such?

 

 

 

So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?

 

crazyguy.gif

 

Well they are change aren't they? One of the evolutionists definition of evolution is simply "change" so I guess that could fit ;)

 

 

 

Not saying it is. I'm saying when I was an evolutionist, that's what I thought. I've grown so much since becoming a creationist. smile.png

 

I can say the same :) It was only when I researched more and went into the "nuts and bolts" of evolution did I lose my belief in it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, topics as understanding the workings of natural selection, the supposed goal of evolution and the actions a person who believes in evokution comes to mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, topics as understanding the workings of natural selection, the supposed goal of evolution and the actions a person who believes in evokution comes to mind...

 

Can you address the points presented in the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is something you called upon yourself when you where so arrogant to make the topic title..

 

Hypothesis by dataforge:

Creationists do not understand evolution theory.

Disprooven when at least one creationist understands evolution theory.

 

Hypothesis by gilbo:

I am that creationist.

Disprooven when it is shown at least some aspects of evolution theory are not understood by gilbo. Not by going into detail about something Gilbo does understand. Or where he posesses greater knowledge then some.

 

Disproof provided with mention of specific topics Gilbo does not understand. Note that these are not some highly detailed topics, but rather thr general idea, order of magnitude monkeys to men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Great smile.png

 

So the times when the system doesn't recycle proteins, (as in the only time evolution would be able to occur), it leads to defects...

 

The warning bells should be ringing by now.

 

How can you believe in a process which in order to work requires the organism to be functioning defectively? Wouldn't natural selection select against such?

 

Actually, I think cheeseburger has a decent point. And your attack on these protiens wasn't a good one either as microevolution shows that mutations and defects get by fairly regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?

No but they are examples of wrongly folded proteins that go unchecked. They therefor invalidated Gilbo's argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised I'll respond here:

 

Can you go into a little more detail about your argument?

 

How many mutations are sent for recycling? All of them? Some of them? Most of them?

 

If not all of them, is there a particular type of mutations that are recycled, or is it just a random assortment of mutations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think cheeseburger has a decent point. And your attack on these protiens wasn't a good one either as microevolution shows that mutations and defects get by fairly regularly.

 

As FC said

"So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?"

 

They do get through but that is due to a deficiency in the recycling system... Which is detrimental and leads to other issues...

 

 

So in order to have evolution you need.

 

1- a beneficial mutation which has no detrimental side-effects

2- a break-down in the protein recycling system which (somehow) doesn't cause detrimental effects

3- a signal system tailored to the new mutations change in functionality (how does the signal system "evolve" before the new function occurs? How can the new function be utilized before there is a proper signal system?... Chicken and the Egg problem).

 

 

No but they are examples of wrongly folded proteins that go unchecked. They therefor invalidated Gilbo's argument.

 

READ my response please... Here it is so it isn't ignored...

 

Great smile.png

 

So the times when the system doesn't recycle proteins, (as in the only time evolution would be able to occur), it leads to defects...

 

The warning bells should be ringing by now.

 

How can you believe in a process which in order to work requires the organism to be functioning defectively? Wouldn't natural selection select against such?

 

 

 

As promised I'll respond here:

 

Can you go into a little more detail about your argument?

 

How many mutations are sent for recycling? All of them? Some of them? Most of them?

 

If not all of them, is there a particular type of mutations that are recycled, or is it just a random assortment of mutations?

 

The system is designed to seek out all wrongly folded or formed proteins and recycle them. The cell has no need for ill-manufactured goods.

 

When the system breaks down only then can wrongly folded or formed proteins get past the system.... Hence leading to disease... So the only time evolution would work is when you have a breakdown of the system which is a detriment.

 

 

 

That is something you called upon yourself when you where so arrogant to make the topic title..

 

What is "this"...

 

How is asking a question about myself arrogant?

 

 

 

Hypothesis by dataforge:

Creationists do not understand evolution theory.

Disprooven when at least one creationist understands evolution theory.

 

Yup and it is disproven (one o mate :) ).

 

I've attended tertiary study with a large percentage of my topics relating to evolution... IF I didn't understand evolution I wouldn't have been able to get the grades I did in those topics.

 

Ergo Dataforge is disproven by my very existence..

 

 

 

Hypothesis by gilbo:

I am that creationist.

 

Huh? So my stating I am a Creationist is a hypothesis? I thought it was a statement of who I am and what I believe...

 

 

Disprooven when it is shown at least some aspects of evolution theory are not understood by gilbo. Not by going into detail about something Gilbo does understand. Or where he posesses greater knowledge then some.

 

So its disproven when I don't understand or when I possess greater knowledge (meaning I do understand) ergo either way you claim it is disproven...

 

Seriously you're making no sense here.

 

 

 

Disproof provided with mention of specific topics Gilbo does not understand. Note that these are not some highly detailed topics, but rather thr general idea, order of magnitude monkeys to men.

 

Where was this mentioned? What specific topics?

 

If you want to claim I don't understand something I'd very much like to see the evidence for such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system is designed to seek out all wrongly folded or formed proteins and recycle them. The cell has no need for ill-manufactured goods.

When the system breaks down only then can wrongly folded or formed proteins get past the system.... Hence leading to disease... So the only time evolution would work is when you have a breakdown of the system which is a detriment.

 

Okay, but what makes a protein wrongly or correctly folded or formed? Will all mutations make a wrongly folded or formed protein, or only some mutations? If not all mutations, then is there a particular type of mutation that more often results in a wrongly formed or folded protein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted 09 October 2014 - 02:44 AM

gilbo12345, on 09 Oct 2014 - 02:46 AM, said:snapback.png

The system is designed to seek out all wrongly folded or formed proteins and recycle them. The cell has no need for ill-manufactured goods.

When the system breaks down only then can wrongly folded or formed proteins get past the system.... Hence leading to disease... So the only time evolution would work is when you have a breakdown of the system which is a detriment.

 

Okay, but what makes a protein wrongly or correctly folded or formed? Will all mutations make a wrongly folded or formed protein, or only some mutations? If not all mutations, then is there a particular type of mutation that more often results in a wrongly formed or folded protein?

 

Indeed! There's a huge range of outcomes possible in a mature protein from any mutation/s, and often a huge tolerance and adaptability in such 'error checking' machinery. If we're talking point mutations that change a single amino acid, such changes can have net zero effect on the folding of the protein and/or on aspects of physiochemistry like buoyancy, hydrophobicity, mass etc. .. all aspects that such 'systems for seeking out wrongly formed or folded proteins' might be optimised to detect ... but that single amino acid change caused by a point mutation can for example have massive difference in chemical charge (ie ionic properties), and when the mature protein escapes past the 'system seeking wrong etc', then it can have a very different set of interactions with other proteins in the cell environment or the external environment.
Long story short, a point mutation can have a vast number of possible effects on a resultant protein, many of which will simply bypass past the 'error checking systems' undetected, or be of a tolerable degree of error that they're either ignored or some copies are ignored, enough to escape into the environment and for natural selection to act upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A protein's structure is the basis for its function ergo improper folding is very much a big problem.

 

In order to have a new function "evolve" the protein would need to be folded so incorrectly in order to be able to perform said new function, hence it would be picked up on by the system.

 

Essentially with this system in place you cannot have a function "evolving" into a different function since by the time the changes are noticeable to affect the protein structure, (and thus its function), it would be removed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This response is to the OP "pretzel" and precedes my reading of the responses--so that I don't get influenced by them.

Does the question imply that it is known that mutated proteins are not tagged and sent for recycling?

Without regard to that: one of the change mechanisms of the theory is the one that is the subject of your question. With regard to this one mechanism, a mutated protein is one category or some very large set of categories within which a vast number of possibilities of biologically plausible mutations may be considered for some or another cell. Please note that I didn't write "vast number of conceivable".

You have used the very broad designation for your subject, "the cell". Is your question confined to some particular form that you have not made explicit? What cells, where, when and under what precise conditions? Did "these cells"--you identified a collective with "the cell"--exist ever or is it an abstract consideration? Note that the cells must have been present at some time prior to "present-day complex life" for your question to have any bearing on the theory.

In the end, your question presumes your present-day "the cell" is not the end result of whatever biological 'Evolution' had occurred over Earth's history. In other words, the process of tagging/recycling may not have been an issue during whatever occurred from "first-life" to present-day "the cell": that the present-day "the cell" may actually tag mutations for recycling into perpetuity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within the cell there are signal proteins used to tag deformed / incorrectly folded proteins. The tagged proteins are recycled for parts. IF evolution is based on slight changes (mutations) over time then wouldn't the mutated proteins be tagged and sent for recycling?

 

What makes you think every change to a protein will be tagged for recycle? Since there is variation within each species, surely it is logical to conclude that there is a range of acceptable proteins for the cell to package up and distribute without them being tagged for recycle?

 

We observe changes to proteins without them being recycled. Too bad all the one's I know are of the harmful sort like sickle cell's hemoglobin. But really whether the mutation is beneficial or harmful is ultimately beyond the point, as you said so yourself the proteins doing the tagging have no way of knowing if this change is good or bad, they are running on chemical autopilot.

 

All you really need is an example of a mutated protein that wasn't tagged for recycle, for good or ill; as you said they can't tell if it is good or bad, if it can happen to bad mutations it can happen with good ones too.

 

Also as cheeseburger said, the proteins responsible for the formation and distribution of other proteins are also subject to mutation as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also as cheeseburger said, the proteins responsible for the formation and distribution of other proteins are also subject to mutation as well.

 

I'm thinking, cheeseburger? Was Goku refusing to write some member's name? No: there it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.

 

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..

 

Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.

 

 

 

After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?

 

Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question wink.png

I always wondered why many scientists and non-scientists say "creationist have no credentials or not real scientist"? It has become a broken record of excuses they use these days.

Hey Gilbo, I am curious to know the particular question you asked your Professor? Forgive me I have missed it.

 

Thanks my friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered why many scientists and non-scientists say "creationist have no credentials or not real scientist"? It has become a broken record of excuses they use these days.

Hey Gilbo, I am curious to know the particular question you asked your Professor? Forgive me I have missed it.

 

Thanks my friend

 

No worries Kairos :)

 

Well the question I asked her was on the back of her lecture about the protein recycling system, the idea came to me in class.

 

 

 

I merely asked her that since malformed proteins are tagged for recycling and evolution is based on small changes to said proteins wouldn't that lead to issues for evolution since the changes (at least those relating to changes in functions) would then be deemed as malformed proteins and thus are removed by the tagging system, (or something to that effect).

 

I hope that helps.

 

 

What makes you think every change to a protein will be tagged for recycle?

 

Did I make such a claim?

 

Protein function relates to their structure hence if evolutionists are going to propose that functions change over time that is some serious change within the structure of the protein... The tagging system double-checks the structure of proteins hence if such a change in function were to occur it should be picked up on by the system.

 

Of course if the system was damaged then it would allow for the changed protein, however such a thing leads to disease... Ironic that evolution (the progression to more complex states) would require the organism to a enter diseased state.

 

 

We observe changes to proteins without them being recycled. Too bad all the one's I know are of the harmful sort like sickle cell's hemoglobin. But really whether the mutation is beneficial or harmful is ultimately beyond the point, as you said so yourself the proteins doing the tagging have no way of knowing if this change is good or bad, they are running on chemical autopilot.

 

Perhaps in this case the change was slight enough to escape the tagging system's "notice"... However consider what I said about protein function, IF the function were to change that would denote a large change in structure and thus would be picked up on.

 

The fact that the haemoglobin performs the same job is testament to this, the change is so slight that it escapes the notice of the system.

 

 

 

All you really need is an example of a mutated protein that wasn't tagged for recycle, for good or ill; as you said they can't tell if it is good or bad, if it can happen to bad mutations it can happen with good ones too.

 

No that is what YOU really need... You'd need to demonstrate how a protein which was originally coded for X function has now shifted to Y function and isn't tagged by the protein recycling system. Until this happens the dilemma stands.

 

 

Also as cheeseburger said, the proteins responsible for the formation and distribution of other proteins are also subject to mutation as well.

 

And?

 

As I already mentioned alterations to the protein recycling system lead to disease.

 

Additionally this would be yet ANOTHER assumption evolutionists are forced to concede in order to believe in their "theory"... Perhaps we should apply Occams razor here?

 

 

So you assume that somehow a protein "just so happened" to mutate a new function

and you assume that this protein "just so happened" to have a beneficial function

and you assume that this protein "just so happened" to bypass the protein recycling system

and you assume that this protein "just so happened" to have its signal cascade system altered to fit perfectly with the new function

and you assume that this mutation "just so happened" to fix within a population despite genetic drift

...etc... etc... etc...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms