The Law of Biogenesis

[Isaiah 6:8]

What Venter did, was completely reprogram a bacteria to behave differently.

He did not create life.

I think not. If you reprogram something, you manipulate the settings, add commands, change commands, alter commands. What he did was remove the OS by taking out the hard drive circuit board, fan, and wires. Then he went a step farther than just inserting a new hard drive, circuit board, fan, etc, he actually inserted the instructions for doing it, which went yet another step farther because the instructions told the computer how to rebuild those parts itself, with the parts being different from the original parts.

well a computer can not do that. So lets use a robot. In which case yes you could reprogram a robot to do that, but then again we are right back to reprogramming. .

Also, no he did not. it was more of sticking a stick drive into the machine that over wrote the basic commands. he uses the example of reprogramming a computer to a different OS. . . Again HIS example, not mine.

you can tear apart the example all you want but that still does not mean he created life from non life.

[LuftWaffle]

I wasn't pretending. I affirmed I had forgotten, and as for the distinction, I don't care about it and am really not interested in learning about it. Its a creationist term that has little scientific basis. Kind of like the "kind" argument.

Okay, but that's not at all reasonable. If you're not prepared to accept any term other than evolutionary terms, then it's the quivalent of saying, "Prove Christianity using only Buddhist terms". I'm under no obligation to defend what I believe using your worldview's terms.

It's clear that you're not at all open minded about this, and by the fact that you're not even going to read we what say, any discussion with you would be rather pointless.

I wish you well.

[LuftWaffle]

Yes, you can think of it as odds, but because there's multiple types of mutations that calculation is under the actual value. If it is just one or two mutations I could see it as the product of random chance and not common decent, however when you look at the data it tells a very different story. What you end up seeing is distinct genetic markers in groups, and subsets of those groups that have their own distinct mutations in addition to the overarching group mutations, and subsets within those and so on. Often a genetic marker in one subgroup is a mutation in a gene that is already a genetic marker to the larger clade.

So what that means, for example, is that all animals have a specific set of genetic markers not shared by anyone else. And within that group, all mammals have their own unique genetic markers on top of those inclusive to all animals. Within mammals all primates share genetic markers only seen among primates, and in that clade the great apes have their own genetic markers, and within that us and chimps have our own unique genetic markers. This can be done for a multitude of groups and subgroups.

Add that all together and common decent explains it remarkably well.

Aren't the clades generally determined by their genetic markers? So if organisms are sorted into clades because of their genetics, then using the similarity of genetics in clades as evidence for evolution would be circular?

Also, I don't think that homology mecessarily proves evolution. If genes are blueprints for an organisms physical characteristics then similar looking organisms will by implication have similar genotypes. Similar genotypes would mean that those genes that are more prone to mutate, will more likely be mutated in those creatures that share that design. Likewise the genes that are less prone to mutation, or will kill/be less beneficial to the creature if mutated, will more likely remain unmutated.

Take an early nineties model BMW 7 series and 5 series. They have similar faults with their alarm systems, because their alarm systems are similarly designed. Finding a 7 series with a faulty tilt sensor and a 5 series with a faulty tilt sensor doesn't really prove they evolved from a common ancestor. The fact of the faulty tilt sensor can be explained in two ways.

Anyway, thanks for the explanations, it's been very enlightning.

I need to take some time off from discussions as I have some work to catch up.

God bless.

Edited July 25, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

[You see, you keep making untrue statements, that you change when proven wrong.

This is one of my favourite fallacies... the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

You shoot and where every the bullet hits, you move the bulleye to around that.

I've often encountered this one when talking to the experts on this topic.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

No actually I keep leaving out the details and framing terminology in layman's terms. Guilty as charged, but when I explain in correct scientific detail, and/or provide a reference, I get dinged for being a technical smarty pants.

It's really more the misrepresentations for which he's getting dinged.

If I had explained how methylation works (the technique that was used), would that have suited you?

The truth would suit.

In fact, it was recently implied that I use technical terminology in an attempt make me look smart and trap lay folks into looking like idiots, so I'm kind of stuck no matter what I use to explain science.

As long as the motive is mendacity, the media is immaterial, and with that I’m afraid he is quite stuck.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I wasn't pretending. I affirmed I had forgotten, and as for the distinction, I don't care about it and am really not interested in learning about it. Its a creationist term that has little scientific basis. Kind of like the "kind" argument.

Okay, but that's not at all reasonable. If you're not prepared to accept any term other than evolutionary terms, then it's the quivalent of saying, "Prove Christianity using only Buddhist terms". I'm under no obligation to defend what I believe using your worldview's terms.

It's clear that you're not at all open minded about this, and by the fact that you're not even going to read we what say, any discussion with you would be rather pointless.

I wish you well.

Hail Science!

[Don Fanucci]

I wasn't pretending. I affirmed I had forgotten, and as for the distinction, I don't care about it and am really not interested in learning about it. Its a creationist term that has little scientific basis. Kind of like the "kind" argument.

Okay, but that's not at all reasonable. If you're not prepared to accept any term other than evolutionary terms, then it's the quivalent of saying, "Prove Christianity using only Buddhist terms". I'm under no obligation to defend what I believe using your worldview's terms.

It's clear that you're not at all open minded about this, and by the fact that you're not even going to read we what say, any discussion with you would be rather pointless.

I wish you well.

LW its not that I'm not open to your explanations. I wouldn't be here if I was not because I learn much by interacting with people. But there are two ballfields to play on. We can argue creationism based on faith, and creationism based on science. The faith arguments, using how scripture is interpreted, are actually pretty good arguments based on what I have always believed about the consistency of scripture--the bible is a darn well-written book in spite of its age. So I end up arguing over interpetations, which often puts me at a disadvantage since that is my discipline, though I do note that when it suits certain people scripture is malleable or written in stone, depending on the issue. On the other hand, science is my expertise, and in those arguments, there are usually two issues that creationists argue. They spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution by reinterpreting the work of others, who are experts in their field, and much rarer, they try to make their own claims based on their own work. In neither cased do they follow the accepted rules of science, starting with applying the scientific method. So yes, I'll accept criticism of evolution, but when I rebut it, the its-too-complicated argument is really not a good come back, or Dr. so-and-so, who has a degree from the shake and bake divinity school and an MS in astronomy says.... I've even gotten criticized for using references (mandatory in research) or for reviewing the credentials of whatever creationist has made whatever claim (I presume that would be done in apologetics). So, there you have it. Don't know what else to say.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I wasn't pretending. I affirmed I had forgotten, and as for the distinction, I don't care about it and am really not interested in learning about it. Its a creationist term that has little scientific basis. Kind of like the "kind" argument.

Okay, but that's not at all reasonable. If you're not prepared to accept any term other than evolutionary terms, then it's the quivalent of saying, "Prove Christianity using only Buddhist terms". I'm under no obligation to defend what I believe using your worldview's terms.

It's clear that you're not at all open minded about this, and by the fact that you're not even going to read we what say, any discussion with you would be rather pointless.

I wish you well.

LW its not that I'm not open to your explanations. I wouldn't be here if I was not because I learn much by interacting with people. But there are two ballfields to play on. We can argue creationism based on faith, and creationism based on science. The faith arguments, using how scripture is interpreted, are actually pretty good arguments based on what I have always believed about the consistency of scripture--the bible is a darn well-written book in spite of its age. So I end up arguing over interpetations, which often puts me at a disadvantage since that is my discipline, though I do note that when it suits certain people scripture is malleable or written in stone, depending on the issue. On the other hand, science is my expertise, and in those arguments, there are usually two issues that creationists argue. They spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution by reinterpreting the work of others,

Everyone interprets the work of others. Who's tested everything?

But in the treatment of the work of others who was more faithful to the details, Don or Isaiah 6:8?

who are experts in their field,

But are they experts in assessing worldviews, or are biologists experts in engeneering, programming, statistics, chemistry or anything else that would be necessary for them to be the experts in the development of complex biochemical machines?

and much rarer, they try to make their own claims based on their own work. In neither cased do they follow the accepted rules of science, starting with applying the scientific method.

Only because the scientific method has been redefined as that which conforms to naturalism so the win is only by circular reasoning.

So yes, I'll accept criticism of evolution,

That has yet to be observed.

but when I rebut it, the its-too-complicated argument is really not a good come back, or Dr. so-and-so, who has a degree from the shake and bake divinity school and an MS in astronomy says....

How about all the common sense arguments that have yet to be addressed?

I've even gotten criticized for using references (mandatory in research) or for reviewing the credentials of whatever creationist has made whatever claim (I presume that would be done in apologetics). So, there you have it. Don't know what else to say.

The truth would be a good start.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I wasn't pretending. I affirmed I had forgotten, and as for the distinction, I don't care about it and am really not interested in learning about it. Its a creationist term that has little scientific basis. Kind of like the "kind" argument.

Okay, but that's not at all reasonable. If you're not prepared to accept any term other than evolutionary terms, then it's the quivalent of saying, "Prove Christianity using only Buddhist terms". I'm under no obligation to defend what I believe using your worldview's terms.

It's clear that you're not at all open minded about this, and by the fact that you're not even going to read we what say, any discussion with you would be rather pointless.

I wish you well.

LW its not that I'm not open to your explanations. I wouldn't be here if I was not because I learn much by interacting with people. But there are two ballfields to play on. We can argue creationism based on faith, and creationism based on science. The faith arguments, using how scripture is interpreted, are actually pretty good arguments based on what I have always believed about the consistency of scripture--the bible is a darn well-written book in spite of its age. So I end up arguing over interpetations, which often puts me at a disadvantage since that is my discipline, though I do note that when it suits certain people scripture is malleable or written in stone, depending on the issue. On the other hand, science is my expertise, and in those arguments, there are usually two issues that creationists argue. They spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution by reinterpreting the work of others,

Everyone interprets the work of others. Who's tested everything?

But in the treatment of the work of others who was more faithful to the details, Don or Isaiah 6:8?

who are experts in their field,

But are they experts in assessing worldviews, or are biologists experts in engeneering, programming, statistics, chemistry or anything else that would be necessary for them to be the experts in the development of complex biochemical machines?

and much rarer, they try to make their own claims based on their own work. In neither cased do they follow the accepted rules of science, starting with applying the scientific method.

Only because the scientific method has been redefined as that which conforms to naturalism so the win is only by circular reasoning.

So yes, I'll accept criticism of evolution,

That has yet to be observed.

but when I rebut it, the its-too-complicated argument is really not a good come back, or Dr. so-and-so, who has a degree from the shake and bake divinity school and an MS in astronomy says....

How about all the common sense arguments that have yet to be addressed?

I've even gotten criticized for using references (mandatory in research) or for reviewing the credentials of whatever creationist has made whatever claim (I presume that would be done in apologetics). So, there you have it. Don't know what else to say.

The truth would be a good start.

Yes lying about facts that are published proves desperation and a refusal to face any facts that go against you pre conceived ideas. This shows that you are not looking at the issue scientifically but emotionally.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Aren't the clades generally determined by their genetic markers? So if organisms are sorted into clades because of their genetics, then using the similarity of genetics in clades as evidence for evolution would be circular?

Genetics is considered the most reliable way of determining clades these days. But remember that originally DNA wasn't even known to exist yet. The fact that genetics supports common decent is a powerful piece of evidence. I don't think this is circular reasoning. Consider the DNA code, it is redundant and there are multiple ways to express the exact same protein. So when a mutation happens that doesn't change the protein it is a neutral mutation that is passed on to its descendants. If common decent is true than these types of mutations should line up nicely, similar to how other genetic markers show sub-groups within groups, and they do.

Also, I don't think that homology mecessarily proves evolution. If genes are blueprints for an organisms physical characteristics then similar looking organisms will by implication have similar genotypes. Similar genotypes would mean that those genes that are more prone to mutate, will more likely be mutated in those creatures that share that design. Likewise the genes that are less prone to mutation, or will kill/be less beneficial to the creature if mutated, will more likely remain unmutated.

In science you don't talk about proof, you talk about levels of evidence - the stronger the evidence the more likely said theory is true. Because the DNA code is redundant, you can get the same functionality with different sequences of DNA. So when you look at similar organisms, the sequence of DNA doesn't have to conform to common ancestry, but it does, and that is a big plus to evolution.

Take an early nineties model BMW 7 series and 5 series. They have similar faults with their alarm systems, because their alarm systems are similarly designed. Finding a 7 series with a faulty tilt sensor and a 5 series with a faulty tilt sensor doesn't really prove they evolved from a common ancestor. The fact of the faulty tilt sensor can be explained in two ways.

I don't want to come off as just blowing it off by saying 'cars aren't alive therefore the analogy isn't valid', but in a nutshell that's it. When it comes to common ancestry finding an accurate enough analogy is difficult as how life replicates is somewhat unique.

To look at it in another way, the idea that two organisms are similar and can be explained in two different ways (common ancestry vs. same designer). Yes, those are two explanations, but what you can do is look at the evidence and see if the evidence points you into a certain direction. In that respect not all explanations are equal. IMHO, this is a key part of science; you have multiple explanations as to why or how something is, and through gathering data and analyzing it, you determine which explanation (perhaps even a new explanation) best fits the data.

Hey D-9,

Concerning the last statement here, that's putting the onus of proof squarely on the shoulders of the evolutionist.

You're basically suggesting that we can find no suitable comparison for how life could have stemmed from common ancestry since nothing else in nature reproduces like biological organisms, so when we point out that nothing behaves according to Darwinian principles it's suggested that's because of the difference in self-replication.

OK, so if this process remains so outstanding that its non-comparable with any other natural process, then that's an outstanding claim which requires adequat evidential proof, and chance plus time under unguided natural forces.

That explaination does not fit the data since the odds are that it simply can't happen, and reproduction doesn't help the odds, because natural forces are not observed to produce order out of disorder and are statisitically incapable of doing so regardless of the number of attempts. Therefore reproduction isn't actually a salient objection, so it can be removed from consideration and once again the analogies become valid.