Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
what if

Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

Recommended Posts

life almost certainly had multiple origins.

i cannot see how cells can transmit "solutions" to the various organs.

solutions, as in immunity.

 

and it all arose by chance?

 

well, you can choose between the absurd and the unfathomable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree that it certainly seems like it's the ONLY possibility.

but yet we have scientists such as koonin saying "we don't even have a plausible scenario".

that is basically science saying "we have no idea".

koonin is no nitwit, he happens to be (or was) the lead investigator at NCBI

 

Scientists do have an idea of how life originated, yet scientists do not have a plausible scenario without any gaps.

 

i say it violates physical law when it says you can increase the odds from less than 1 to 1.

you are essentially gaurenteeing the next flip will be heads, which suggests premonition.

randi all of a sudden springs to mind.

 

If you have an infinite number of attempts (universes) then anything that does not have a zero chance of happening will happen. That's not a violation of natural law but a consequence of math.

 

my guess is that this "operation" or process is epigenetics.

it somehow programs your genes in real time.

the genome itself is static with a slow decay rate, MA experiments confirms that.

i believe epigenetics checks that somehow.

more evidence for the epigenetic process is the fact that gene trees seldom correlate with species trees.

epigenetices can effect phenotypic changes without altering the genic code.

the immunity of cells is probably based on epigenetics

the above is why i believe epigenetics is what evolution is all about.

 

While epigenetics is certainly a part of evolution, it is by no means the only process of evolution.

 

I don't know what you mean by the genome being static.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "epigenetics checks that somehow".

 

I have no idea what epigenetics has to do with gene trees versus species trees.

 

Immunology is incredibly complex, and while there are probably epigenetic factors at play, I have no idea what you mean by immunity being based on epigenetics.

 

the question is, is it viable.

will it pass what needs to be passed and block what needs to be blocked?

how do you answer a question like that goku?

the only answer you can give is, it depends on whats inside.

so, creating a membrane doesn't really mean anything.

we can probably create all the stuff in the cell.

but when they are all brought together, it just sits there and rots.

 

I don't know what you mean by "viable"; membranes being one of the first structures of the cell to form is a highly viable model - a membrane by itself is obviously not alive and thus not a viable lifeform without other structures.

 

Small particles like monomers can often cross a primitive membrane whereas larger molecules like polymers cannot. The early primitive cell probably collected monomers from the surrounding environment and polymerized them inside the primitive cytoplasm trapping them.

 

Recall that this was a response to your question of whether or not all parts of the cell had to simultaneously come together all at once, and the answer is "no" as I demonstrated with the membrane.

 

okay, i have asked you once already.

do you believe i have misrepresented the authors, and please provide a post #

listen goku, i want answers, and i really don't care where they are.

science doesn't have a plausible scenario for how life got here.

science publishes papers on the possibility of multiple origins.

science has not formally demonstrated common descent, but has overwhelming evidence.

according to the above, the god scenario has not been ruled out.

if you want to call that "creationist" then go righjt on ahead.

and before you start, it's irrelevant what i think.

 

Yes, you do misrepresent the authors you quote. I don't have the time or patience to look through 25 pages for specific quotes and post numbers, and for the most part I thought I did express such concerns at the time you quoted them during our conversation.

 

Off the top of my head you have repeatedly took "no plausible scenario" to mean "no clue", and as I understand what you are saying you are misrepresenting what is being said. You took the paper talking about HGT in eukaryotes and other papers dealing with HGT to mean that HGT happens just as often in eukaryotes as prokaryotes and therefore the tree of life is completely destroyed at the eukaryotic level, when in fact no author or reference you have given even hints at either of those claims at all, and in the paper written by Koonin Koonin explicitly stated that the tree of life was valid at the eukaryotic level. One of your first claims was that FUEs were invented to account for non-genetic factors of inheritance, which is something you simply made up.

 

If you are entertaining the God scenario then you are entertaining creationism. Depending on how you define ruling out the God scenario, either you cannot ever rule out the God scenario as it is impossible to disprove God in a philosophical sense, or we can rule out the God scenario as a helpful idea to further advance our knowledge of life's origin as it ultimately becomes a God of the gaps fallacy the way you are using it.

 

i think you proved this to yourself when you searched for my quote, the only hit out of ten was to koonins book.

i bet less than 10% of laymen do not realize that science doesn't even have a plausible scenario.

 

I have never heard from any real source, even when I was a little kid, that said we had solved the mystery of life's origins. I remember when I was a little kid and I wanted to know about the earliest periods of Earth and life, and so I looked through my science textbook through the public school, and there was maybe a paragraph or two basically saying how life arose was still a mystery but scientists were working on it. If laymen don't know that science doesn't have a complete model of abiogenesis then it is not some lack of transparency or some conspiracy by scientists to hide the truth, it's just that the person is ignorant and doesn't care enough to spend a few minutes looking it up.

 

I understand peoples' interests are different and most people don't find this stuff interesting - there's a lot of 'basic facts' out there that I am ignorant of because I am not interested in those fields, but there is a difference between experts withholding basic information from the public and the public not caring enough to do a cursory look into a field.

 

Do you think Koonin's book is the only text in all the world to talk about abiogenesis?

 

like i said earlier, i get my sources from various places.

i would say that close to 90% of what i posted here are from valid science sites.

 

At least you are implicitly honest.

 

Yet you seem to have a hard time understanding the "valid science" you post and/or the context surrounding those publications.

 

why not?

i'll tell you why not.

you can't fit it into your outdated darwinian paradigm, that's why.

the answer is simple, and i pointed it out above.

 

Lol, you make absolutely no sense. You didn't point anything out, at least not coherently. Gene trees are not expected to perfectly match species trees due to the branching pattern of evolution. I have no idea what you are trying to say or what your point is beyond that your caricature of modern evolutionary theory is wrong. As far as I can tell no modern professional biologist subscribes to your definition of "darwinism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have to respond to this post in 2 or more replies because i get an "too many quotes" error if i try to get all of it.

Scientists do have an idea of how life originated, yet scientists do not have a plausible scenario without any gaps.

correction, science is ASSUMING this stuff goko.

science doesn't know "which came first" but is assuming the RNA strand came first.

i posted a page about abio research from tours site.

the conditions called for in the lab setup would be impossible in nature on a planetary scale.

If you have an infinite number of attempts (universes) then anything that does not have a zero chance of happening will happen. That's not a violation of natural law but a consequence of math.

i will assume you are suffering from brain freeze.

there is absolutely no way to alter the odds of heads from 1/2.

this applies to ALL odds such as the coin toss.

it won't happen, ever.

While epigenetics is certainly a part of evolution, it is by no means the only process of evolution.

if multiple origins are assumed, it could very well be the ONLY process of evolution.

I don't know what you mean by the genome being static.

static, such as body plans.

species aren't the durable units of evolution.

I have no idea what you mean by "epigenetics checks that somehow".

i don't either, but MA experiments prove genomes decay (decrease in fitness) over time.

it's epigenetics that effect the genetic changes that stabilizes the genome. 

I have no idea what epigenetics has to do with gene trees versus species trees.

i believe it's the reason gene tree and species trees don't corelate.

epigenetics can effect phenotypic changes without altering the genetic code.

this is bound to show up on such a tree comparison.

 

okay, i'm gonna stop there ( i don't want to spend another hour typing a post).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immunology is incredibly complex, and while there are probably epigenetic factors at play, I have no idea what you mean by immunity being based on epigenetics.

it has to be.

it certainly isn't due to some "slow accumulating change".

I don't know what you mean by "viable"; membranes being one of the first structures of the cell to form is a highly viable model - a membrane by itself is obviously not alive and thus not a viable lifeform without other structures.

 

Small particles like monomers can often cross a primitive membrane whereas larger molecules like polymers cannot. The early primitive cell probably collected monomers from the surrounding environment and polymerized them inside the primitive cytoplasm trapping them.

 

Recall that this was a response to your question of whether or not all parts of the cell had to simultaneously come together all at once, and the answer is "no" as I demonstrated with the membrane.

and?

science has failed in its attempt at recreating life.

it's the problem itself that is preventing success, not a lack of research/ effort.

Yes, you do misrepresent the authors you quote. I don't have the time or patience to look through 25 pages for specific quotes and post numbers, . . .

oh well.

Off the top of my head you have repeatedly took "no plausible scenario" to mean "no clue", . . .

yes, and that's what it means.

science has no idea how life got here.

why is that hard for you to believe?

. . . and as I understand what you are saying you are misrepresenting what is being said.

see above.

i can't help it if you don't like it.

You took the paper talking about HGT in eukaryotes and other papers dealing with HGT to mean that HGT happens just as often in eukaryotes as prokaryotes and therefore the tree of life is completely destroyed at the eukaryotic level, . . .

all my stuff comes from respected sources, i believe it was koonin that said the tree of life as we knew it was destroyed.

he even said the concept belongs in a museum.

. . . when in fact no author or reference you have given even hints at either of those claims at all, . . .

uh huh, post numbers goku.

and in the paper written by Koonin Koonin explicitly stated that the tree of life was valid at the eukaryotic level.

yes, koonin does state the tree concept has value in specific areas.

One of your first claims was that FUEs were invented to account for non-genetic factors of inheritance, which is something you simply made up.

i couldn't remember exactly what was written, i later found and posted it.

 

okay, part 3 coming up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are entertaining the God scenario then you are entertaining creationism.

i don't like saying this because it's a creationist site, but, if the god scenario was true, then it most certainly isn't what most people conceive it to be.

Depending on how you define ruling out the God scenario, either you cannot ever rule out the God scenario as it is impossible to disprove God in a philosophical sense, or we can rule out the God scenario as a helpful idea to further advance our knowledge of life's origin as it ultimately becomes a God of the gaps fallacy the way you are using it.

i don't like discussing god, because science is ill equipped to deal with it.

as far as origins goes, we cn go about in 2 ways.

first, the "plausible" approach, where it can be demonstrated that life did indeed come about, on its own.

second, the "any" scenario, where the conditions wouldn't necessarily be what was on earth, but would still prove there wasn't a "spark" of life

I have never heard from any real source, even when I was a little kid, that said we had solved the mystery of life's origins. I remember when I was a little kid and I wanted to know about the earliest periods of Earth and life, and so I looked through my science textbook through the public school, and there was maybe a paragraph or two basically saying how life arose was still a mystery but scientists were working on it. If laymen don't know that science doesn't have a complete model of abiogenesis then it is not some lack of transparency or some conspiracy by scientists to hide the truth, it's just that the person is ignorant and doesn't care enough to spend a few minutes looking it up.

how do you compare that with what koonin had to say about it?

why is the only hit out of 30 to an ID site?

what's up with that goku?

koonins own words ". . ."dirty" rarely mentioned secret . . ."

Do you think Koonin's book is the only text in all the world to talk about abiogenesis?

of course not.

Yet you seem to have a hard time understanding the "valid science" you post and/or the context surrounding those publications.

it's you goku that has a hard time understanding that the modern synthesis IS DEAD. as in a doornail.

Lol, you make absolutely no sense. You didn't point anything out, at least not coherently.

yes i have, 2 or 3 times.

Gene trees are not expected to perfectly match species trees due to the branching pattern of evolution. I have no idea what you are trying to say or what your point is beyond that your caricature of modern evolutionary theory is wrong.

we aren't talking about perfection goku, and you know it.

species trees seldom corelate with gene trees, and i gave my opinion as to why they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What If: i don't like saying this because it's a creationist site, but, if the god scenario was true, then it most certainly isn't what most people conceive it to be.

 

This is the problem with people though isn't it, we speak as though we are the sole person with true knowledge and revelation and everyone else is in the wrong. You have learnt a few things about why evolution is codswallop, that's all. The rest is only your guessing. "Who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge?" - The Lord God (speaking to Job).

 

It isn't a matter of what, "most people think" because the revelation God gives us in scripture has nothing to do with what people think. It is a declaration by God, of what He done in history. It isn't an attempt by most religious people who got together to have a coffee, to invent some things about history.

 

Do we listen to an all-wise God, the very inventor of all things, or do we make guesses based on limited intellect?

 

This is why I say, it isn't about intellect. The revelation God gives about His creation, is spiritual, meaning He "opens the eyes of your heart".

 

But this depends upon how much the individual wants to search for God. "I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently will find me." - The Lord God.

 

Your search should start with what the creation (if it is one from your perspective) can tell you about the creator. It's a shame you're not willing to learn more because if "the God scenario" is true some facts that stick out like a sore thumb, should be your next quest.

 

Think about it...here are humans, we have morality and conscience and are clearly the only "persons" on the planet, in the sense that no other animals are like us. Does that fit with being "made in God's image"? What is God's image? A reflection. We reflect God, but obviously not in our faults, so then should the organism made in God's image, reflect God in a unique way? God creates, what do we do? We are the only one that creates code like God, be it binary code or quarternary code (DNA). We are the only ones that design things like He does, and the only one with the ability to. We speak, and have knowledge of morality. A coincidence?

 

What about the creation itself? Order, mathematics, design, beauty, consistency. What does the bible say? God is immutable, (consistency), is a Creator (design) and the "beauty of the Lord".  Mathematics..."His understanding is unsearchable".

 

We know that all things, all creations, are viable designs, and disease and malfunction, we actually know as scientific fact, cannot have been here at the beginning of creation. We know disease and malfunction happens later on, some diseases last century, came about last century. We know that all malfunction and disease, arises in time, rather than at the beginning of time, meaning logically at creation, there were no diseases or malfunction. Genesis says this. (coincidence?)

 

Think about it - you yourself say life had to have multiple origins. So then, since we know disease arises in time, then when that life orignated there were no diseases. Which guess what? Is exactly what Genesis says.

 

The true answer sits under your nose yet those with the answer you say are wrong, because of your guesswork.

 

"Who is this who darkens counsel without words of knowledge?" - The Lord God.

 

(you are suffering from Job-itis, the self-righteous position of thinking you know better than the living God.) (read the book of Job)

 

For "where were you", "What-If", when the Lord built the foundations of the earth?

 

:)

 

(Don't take this post as an attack on you, it isn't. I am just trying to show you some things. You are a man that sits with a bag full of gold, and admits it is shiny, admits it has weight, admits it could be gold yet ultimately thinks he knows better than those who know what it is, and that somehow it is a metal only he knows about.)

 

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." (your next quest IMHO. What is the IDer, if the ID shows certain truths that can't be denied!) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem with people though isn't it, we speak as though we are the sole person with true knowledge and revelation and everyone else is in the wrong.

i believe that most people that think about this stuff would find the religious god concept questionable.

this is probably why most support evolution (molecules to man), simply because they find the god concept irrational, and it isn't because they are "anti god" or "atheists".

even the religious question their belief.

would god actually condemn you for questioning his irrationality?

i would like to think god is just a little more enlightened than that.

honestly, what kind of "superior" being goes around saying "BELIEVE IN ME OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER ! ! !" ?

like goku said "don't let your brain fall out" (paraphrased)

You have learnt a few things about why evolution is codswallop, that's all.

correction, that's evolution as you know it.

i never once said evolution is false, nor does any of my sources.

The rest is only your guessing.

yes, but that is how science works.

you make an observation, then you start ad libbing (guessing) about what you witnessed.

in my opinion, the periodic table of the elements is a perfect example of science at work.

quite a few elements was found by "guessing".

"Who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge?" - The Lord God (speaking to Job).

well dear god, feed me some of that knowledge.

can we really will ourselves the perfect reality?

the evidence certainly seems to suggest it.

 

i'll stop there, still haunted by the spectre of "too many quotes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it - you yourself say life had to have multiple origins.

that's an assumption of mine, and of science.

apparently the first life was too complex (or diverse genetically) to be explained by one organism.

expressly:

LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse.

- The Last Universal Common Ancestor emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner.htm

The true answer sits under your nose yet those with the answer you say are wrong, because of your guesswork.

i cannot tell you, nor anyone else, what to believe.

if you agree with my opinions fine, if you don't fine.

i do hope you at least consider me as unbiased.

"Who is this who darkens counsel without words of knowledge?" - The Lord God.

yes, to come as children.

and i'll agree with that.

but, can you honestly envision a world like that actually existing?

humanity lost its innocence long ago mike, and the chances of reclaiming it is slim to none in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correction, science is ASSUMING this stuff goko.

science doesn't know "which came first" but is assuming the RNA strand came first.

i posted a page about abio research from tours site.

the conditions called for in the lab setup would be impossible in nature on a planetary scale.

 

Of course there is guess work involved, but it is an educated guess based on a combination of physical data and reason. The only reasonable scenario would be that RNA was around before DNA, but whether or not RNA was the first molecule of inheritance or not is still a mystery.

 

The Earth is not a single environment, but the whole point of various experiments regarding the early Earth and life is that there are sections of the Earth that are comparable to the lab conditions.

 

i will assume you are suffering from brain freeze.

there is absolutely no way to alter the odds of heads from 1/2.

this applies to ALL odds such as the coin toss.

it won't happen, ever.

 

You are confused. The odds for said event is 1/2 for any given trial, but if you have an infinite number of trials then you will get a heads in at least one of those trials - actually you will get heads an infinite number of times. Infinity is strange that way. Anything that is permissible will happen an infinite number of times provided you have infinite trials.

 

if multiple origins are assumed, [epigenetics] could very well be the ONLY process of evolution.

 

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Apart from the fact that we know epigenetics is only one out of many processes of evolution, what does multiple origins of life or one origin of life have to do with epigenetics?

 

i don't either, but MA experiments prove genomes decay (decrease in fitness) over time.

it's epigenetics that effect the genetic changes that stabilizes the genome.

 

If you have no idea what the words and phrases you are saying mean then why are you saying them, let alone saying them as if they are verified facts?

 

How does epigenetics stabilize the genome? What does that statement even mean to you?

 

i believe it's the reason gene tree and species trees don't corelate.

epigenetics can effect phenotypic changes without altering the genetic code.

this is bound to show up on such a tree comparison.

 

Perhaps, but there is a more fundamental reason in the branching pattern of speciation, the uneven spreading of genetic information in the split, and subsequent loss of genetic material in one population but not another.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is guess work involved, but it is an educated guess based on a combination of physical data and reason. The only reasonable scenario would be that RNA was around before DNA, but whether or not RNA was the first molecule of inheritance or not is still a mystery.

it will be the biggest discovery science will ever make. 

The Earth is not a single environment, but the whole point of various experiments regarding the early Earth and life is that there are sections of the Earth that are comparable to the lab conditions.

it doesn't necessarily need to be earthlike conditions, as long as the result mirrors reality.

this would disprove the "spark" of life but it wouldn't prove life could arise on earth. 

You are confused.

yeh, i get that a lot. 

The odds for said event is 1/2 for any given trial, but if you have an infinite number of trials then you will get a heads in at least one of those trials . . .

there is no gaurentee of that goku, it DOES NOT become certain, it becomes more likely but it will NEVER be certain, no matter if you flipped that coin 50 times a second for the next infinity years. 

actually you will get heads an infinite number of times. Infinity is strange that way. Anything that is permissible will happen an infinite number of times provided you have infinite trials.

get heads an infinite number of times ????

????

. . . ???? 

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Apart from the fact that we know epigenetics is only one out of many processes of evolution, what does multiple origins of life or one origin of life have to do with epigenetics?

sure it does, it makes all the sense in the world.

evolution proper is evolution, it makes no distinction between macro, micro, bio, ad nausio . . .

genomes do not collect genes and then incorporate them into their genomes.

these genetic rearrangements are effected by the genome itself.

and i believe epigenics uses that as a kind of "sandbox" to effect the changes the genome calls for.

it also explains why gene trees do not corelate with gene trees. 

If you have no idea what the words and phrases you are saying mean then why are you saying them, let alone saying them as if they are verified facts?

you asked "how does epigenetics keep genomes in check"

i replied "i don't know".

- post 503 

How does epigenetics stabilize the genome? What does that statement even mean to you?

i've said this already, by effecting the genetic changes that are needed

Perhaps, but there is a more fundamental reason in the branching pattern of speciation, the uneven spreading of genetic information in the split, and subsequent loss of genetic material in one population but not another.

how would the genome know when to "split unevenly"?

besides, species aren't the durable units of evolution.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6672-is-evolution-a-proven-fact/?p=135133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no gaurentee of that goku, it DOES NOT become certain, it becomes more likely but it will NEVER be certain, no matter if you flipped that coin 50 times a second for the next infinity years. 

get heads an infinite number of times ????

????

. . . ???? 

B-E-L-C-H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What If: yes, to come as children.

and i'll agree with that.

but, can you honestly envision a world like that actually existing?

humanity lost its innocence long ago mike, and the chances of reclaiming it is slim to none in my opinion. 

 

Not sure what you mean by this. I don't think the earth will ever be the same as it was when created, because according to scripture it's a fallen world. So when God's Kingdom comes, that's the end of the world, in a sense, because of the, "new heavens and new earth". 

 

Can I envision a world at creation? Yes. Look in the fossils, the amount of compacted vegetation makes our present world a desert. There are fossils of dragonflies that were two foot long in the fossils and crocodiles that were fifty foot long.

 

Did you know reptiles don't ever stop growing? That means potentially the super-reptiles in the fossils lived for hundreds of years. 

 

What is the one thing we might expect if the world was better back then, than it is now? Longevity. The bible makes no sense when it tells us people lived for hundreds of years except it all makes sense, if the environment then, was much, much better than it is now.

 

As for disease, that is not an opinion, that is factual, we actually know disease arises in time, we actually know that at first X disease didn't exist, meaning something has to go wrong, in order for a disease to be there, meaning diseases were not designed to do what they now do but they are now mostly, "out of place". That is to say, things which lived off of the lush pre-flood world we see in the fossils, now may live off of animals and humans, or symbiotic or harmless viruses/diseases, now do harm by living in places they didn't live originally.

 

 

 

What If: i cannot tell you, nor anyone else, what to believe.

if you agree with my opinions fine, if you don't fine.

i do hope you at least consider me as unbiased.

 

Fair enough. Just be open to new information. It just seems you only stick with the information you yourself prize, and all other information you tend to discard or see as unimportant. Not only Koonin knows things, and knowledge is common.

 

Even if you can't decide if what God says is true and whether He really said it, unfortunately that won't change reality. We are all passing away. You yourself, only have a relatively short time left on earth. I could get hit by a car tomorrow. What am I saying? I'm saying, is it worth playing dice with God when He has done so much for us? Is it too much to ask, that one should believe in the good message? Ultimately you said it yourself, we are puny in our limited capacity to understand, but, "His understanding is unsearchable". If you are at least open, very open to the possibility that the Lord is God and the gospel is true, then you are in a good place of objectivity.

 

All the best with your quest. I'll let you off for now but you're on mikey-watch. ;):P

 

 

 

What If: yes, to come as children.

and i'll agree with that.

 

A good saying! Bless you Sir. You have spoken wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it has to be.

it certainly isn't due to some "slow accumulating change".

 

So how do you get epigenetics creating immune systems without the underlying nucleotides evolving first?

 

and?

science has failed in its attempt at recreating life.

it's the problem itself that is preventing success, not a lack of research/ effort.

 

Okay, but I was addressing your comment that all parts of the cell had to come together all at once, and that is simply not true.

 

oh well.

yes, and that's what it means.

science has no idea how life got here.

why is that hard for you to believe?

see above.

i can't help it if you don't like it.

 

In the context of what Koonin was saying "no plausible scenario" does not translate into "no clue how life got here". Koonin was highlighting steps in the process that are still unresolved; he was not saying there is nothing known about the origins of life or possible pathways. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

all my stuff comes from respected sources, i believe it was koonin that said the tree of life as we knew it was destroyed.

he even said the concept belongs in a museum.

uh huh, post numbers goku.

yes, koonin does state the tree concept has value in specific areas.

i couldn't remember exactly what was written, i later found and posted it.

 

You may quote respected sources, but you don't seem to understand what is being said half the time.

 

I explained those things as they came up throughout the thread; I am not going to drudge through 500+ posts just because you can't remember the gist of a conversation two or three weeks ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't like saying this because it's a creationist site, but, if the god scenario was true, then it most certainly isn't what most people conceive it to be.

 

There is more than one brand of creationism out there; a non-popular conception of creationism is no less creationist.

 

how do you compare that with what koonin had to say about it?

 

It's basically the same thing.

 

why is the only hit out of 30 to an ID site?

what's up with that goku?

koonins own words ". . ."dirty" rarely mentioned secret . . ."

 

I don't know what you are talking about. Don't confuse Koonin's poetic phrasing in his book for laymen with a dry admission of some conspiracy to hide the truth from the public.

 

it's you goku that has a hard time understanding that the modern synthesis IS DEAD. as in a doornail.

yes i have, 2 or 3 times.

we aren't talking about perfection goku, and you know it.

species trees seldom corelate with gene trees, and i gave my opinion as to why they don't.

 

As I've told you several times already I do not subscribe to what you consider to be the modern synthesis; I was not taught what you consider to be the modern synthesis in school beyond introductory material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
still goes.

goku is just as insane about this as you are.

increasing the number of flips will not increase the odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may quote respected sources, but you don't seem to understand what is being said half the time.

i know this, increasing the number of flips will not cause the probability to become 1.

it is not gaurenteed you will get heads.

be careful out there goku, there are people that will take advantage of your ignorance.

I explained those things as they came up throughout the thread; I am not going to drudge through 500+ posts just because you can't remember the gist of a conversation two or three weeks ago.

well then goku, without post numbers, all you are doing is making accusations without evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What If" I think you put my name in a quote but the Goku-guru actually said that thing about quoting sources. I know it was only a small error you made, but just in case the readers were confused, it was actually Goku you were quoting.

 

It's no big deal, as I say, the readers may be confused if they haven't followed closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What If" I think you put my name in a quote but the Goku-guru actually said that thing about quoting sources. I know it was only a small error you made, but just in case the readers were confused, it was actually Goku you were quoting.

 

It's no big deal, as I say, the readers may be confused if they haven't followed closely.

hmmm . . . i wonder how that happened?

i'll see if i can fix it.

 

actually it's been a pretty decent thread so far.

 

i can't edit the post (517}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That guru language aint comin' from me! 

 

:P 

 

 

 

Goku's uncle: i can't edit the post (517} 

 

Don't worry about it.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no gaurentee of that goku, it DOES NOT become certain, it becomes more likely but it will NEVER be certain, no matter if you flipped that coin 50 times a second for the next infinity years. 

get heads an infinite number of times ????

????

. . . ????

 

I'm no expert, but as far as I know mathematically it does become certain.

 

Take Fjuri's equation for example: P(at least one heads in X tosses) = 1 - 0.5^X

 

If you take the limit of X as it approaches infinity the term "0.5^X" becomes mathematically equivalent to zero. One minus zero is obviously one, therefore if you have an infinite number of flips you are mathematically guaranteed at least one heads.

 

If you are mathematically guaranteed a head in at least one flip, and you have infinite flips, that means you are going to get an infinite number of trials with that one outcome.

 

It's like you have a number line ranging from zero to infinity and you count all the whole numbers, and I think it is obvious that if you do that you will end up with an infinite number of numbers. You can do the same thing with only the odd or even numbers, or only the numbers divisible by 10 or 100 or 100 trillion or only count the prime numbers and you will still end up with the same infinity despite that those numbers are less dense within the same number line. Infinity is weird like that.

 

sure it does, it makes all the sense in the world.

evolution proper is evolution, it makes no distinction between macro, micro, bio, ad nausio . . .

genomes do not collect genes and then incorporate them into their genomes.

these genetic rearrangements are effected by the genome itself.

and i believe epigenics uses that as a kind of "sandbox" to effect the changes the genome calls for.

it also explains why gene trees do not corelate with gene trees.

 

Genomes get new genes and modified genes through mutations. Epigenetics is basically involved in the regulation/expression of those genes.

 

How does any of this deal with whether or not there is one or multiple origins of life?

 

Do you accept that gene trees and species trees do not correlate due to things like the branching pattern of speciation, uneven distribution of genetic material during the split, and subsequent loss of genetic material in one population but not others?

 

you asked "how does epigenetics keep genomes in check"

i replied "i don't know".

- post 503 

i've said this already, by effecting the genetic changes that are needed

 

If you have no idea how epigenetics keeps genomes in check - what does that even mean? - why do you say that as if it is a verified fact?

 

What do you mean by stabilizing the genome?

 

how would the genome know when to "split unevenly"?

besides, species aren't the durable units of evolution.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6672-is-evolution-a-proven-fact/?p=135133

 

The genome of a population doesn't always split evenly during a reproductive split due to things like genetic drift. Just think about it, and I think it is fairly obvious that a perfect split of genetic information among branching populations would be extremely rare and not likely to happen in the real world.

 

As an analogy take any city and divide it up into two populations. What is the likelihood that these two populations will have the exact same number of blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, arabs, and any other ethnicity you wish to name? The chances are probably extremely low. Now instead of something like ethnicity, we look at the frequency of all alleles which would be magnitudes more complex than evenly splitting apart people based on ethnicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know this, increasing the number of flips will not cause the probability to become 1.

it is not gaurenteed you will get heads.

be careful out there goku, there are people that will take advantage of your ignorance.

 

You are confusing the probability of a single trial with the probability of getting an outcome at least once in multiple trials.

 

well then goku, without post numbers, all you are doing is making accusations without evidence.

 

There's post 355 where you misinterpreted the HGT in eukaryotes.

 

You continually say that "no plausible scenario" means "no clue", I don't see why you even need a post number for that. Just look at your own quote and read it, and you'll see that Koonin was talking about a plausible scenario of getting translation and transcription, not that science has "no clue" how life got here.

 

Do you accept that the tree of life is valid for multicell eukaryotes? Recall that previously you suggested that the tree of life was dead even for such organisms by invoking HGT.

 

You basically admitted that you misinterpreted the concept of FUE in the last series of posts by saying you "couldn't remember" what it meant at the time you brought it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert, but as far as I know mathematically it does become certain.

 

Take Fjuri's equation for example: P(at least one heads in X tosses) = 1 - 0.5^X

 

If you take the limit of X as it approaches infinity the term "0.5^X" becomes mathematically equivalent to zero. One minus zero is obviously one, therefore if you have an infinite number of flips you are mathematically guaranteed at least one heads.

 

If you are mathematically guaranteed a head in at least one flip, and you have infinite flips, that means you are going to get an infinite number of trials with that one outcome.

 

It's like you have a number line ranging from zero to infinity and you count all the whole numbers, and I think it is obvious that if you do that you will end up with an infinite number of numbers. You can do the same thing with only the odd or even numbers, or only the numbers divisible by 10 or 100 or 100 trillion or only count the prime numbers and you will still end up with the same infinity despite that those numbers are less dense within the same number line. Infinity is weird like that.

 

 

 

Genomes get new genes and modified genes through mutations. Epigenetics is basically involved in the regulation/expression of those genes.

 

How does any of this deal with whether or not there is one or multiple origins of life?

 

Do you accept that gene trees and species trees do not correlate due to things like the branching pattern of speciation, uneven distribution of genetic material during the split, and subsequent loss of genetic material in one population but not others?

 

 

 

If you have no idea how epigenetics keeps genomes in check - what does that even mean? - why do you say that as if it is a verified fact?

 

What do you mean by stabilizing the genome?

 

 

 

The genome of a population doesn't always split evenly during a reproductive split due to things like genetic drift. Just think about it, and I think it is fairly obvious that a perfect split of genetic information among branching populations would be extremely rare and not likely to happen in the real world.

 

As an analogy take any city and divide it up into two populations. What is the likelihood that these two populations will have the exact same number of blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, arabs, and any other ethnicity you wish to name? The chances are probably extremely low. Now instead of something like ethnicity, we look at the frequency of all alleles which would be magnitudes more complex than evenly splitting apart people based on ethnicity.

"I'm no expert, but as far as I know mathematically it does become certain."

 

 

And that is really the only way to make the mindless MYO mud to man myth work. isnt it?.. But instead of hypothesizing about something being able to happen by theoretically giving it an unlimited amount of time to occur. Wouldnt it be much more practical to consider if it is logical to believe that it DID occur?

 

Under your scenario of unlimited time and attempts, 100 Monkeys typing on keyboards WILL Eventually Type one of Shakespeare's plays.. It is a 100% Certainty MATHEMATICALLY...

 

But Creationists lack the kind of faith required to think it is LOGICAL to believe it would ever happen On a PRACTICAL level..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing the probability of a single trial with the probability of getting an outcome at least once in multiple trials.

 

 

 

There's post 355 where you misinterpreted the HGT in eukaryotes.

 

You continually say that "no plausible scenario" means "no clue", I don't see why you even need a post number for that. Just look at your own quote and read it, and you'll see that Koonin was talking about a plausible scenario of getting translation and transcription, not that science has "no clue" how life got here.

 

Do you accept that the tree of life is valid for multicell eukaryotes? Recall that previously you suggested that the tree of life was dead even for such organisms by invoking HGT.

 

You basically admitted that you misinterpreted the concept of FUE in the last series of posts by saying you "couldn't remember" what it meant at the time you brought it up.

 

 

"You are confusing the probability of a single trial with the probability of getting an outcome at least once in multiple trials."

 

 

Yes, he is, he seems to have a mental block on that concept.. HOWEVER, You are still betting against the house in such a massive way that I dont think you fully realize it either..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert, but as far as I know mathematically it does become certain.

 

Take Fjuri's equation for example: P(at least one heads in X tosses) = 1 - 0.5^X

 

If you take the limit of X as it approaches infinity the term "0.5^X" becomes mathematically equivalent to zero. One minus zero is obviously one, therefore if you have an infinite number of flips you are mathematically guaranteed at least one heads.

 

If you are mathematically guaranteed a head in at least one flip, and you have infinite flips, that means you are going to get an infinite number of trials with that one outcome.

 

It's like you have a number line ranging from zero to infinity and you count all the whole numbers, and I think it is obvious that if you do that you will end up with an infinite number of numbers. You can do the same thing with only the odd or even numbers, or only the numbers divisible by 10 or 100 or 100 trillion or only count the prime numbers and you will still end up with the same infinity despite that those numbers are less dense within the same number line. Infinity is weird like that.

 

 

 

Genomes get new genes and modified genes through mutations. Epigenetics is basically involved in the regulation/expression of those genes.

 

How does any of this deal with whether or not there is one or multiple origins of life?

 

Do you accept that gene trees and species trees do not correlate due to things like the branching pattern of speciation, uneven distribution of genetic material during the split, and subsequent loss of genetic material in one population but not others?

 

 

 

If you have no idea how epigenetics keeps genomes in check - what does that even mean? - why do you say that as if it is a verified fact?

 

What do you mean by stabilizing the genome?

 

 

 

The genome of a population doesn't always split evenly during a reproductive split due to things like genetic drift. Just think about it, and I think it is fairly obvious that a perfect split of genetic information among branching populations would be extremely rare and not likely to happen in the real world.

 

As an analogy take any city and divide it up into two populations. What is the likelihood that these two populations will have the exact same number of blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, arabs, and any other ethnicity you wish to name? The chances are probably extremely low. Now instead of something like ethnicity, we look at the frequency of all alleles which would be magnitudes more complex than evenly splitting apart people based on ethnicity.

 

Genomes get new genes and modified genes through mutations.

 

Surely during the stretch from mud to DNA to Man there must have been octillians of such mutations.. Did they just suddenly stop when man came on the scene? We sure dont see them today.. We see variation and adaptation due to scrambling of EXISTING Genetic information, but not what you are positing...

 

I wonder why? Just kidding, I already know why.. You dont have to answer that as it was merely a rhetorical question

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