Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[The Barbarian]

9 minutes ago, JohnR7 said:

Science knows how to weaponize a virus to create world pandomia. Three cheers for science. 

Nature did a much better job than science.   Ebola is as scary as anything they invented at Ft. Detrick.  

That's not what we're talking about.

 

[The Barbarian]

24 minutes ago, JohnR7 said:

Science has their Adam and Eve. They just did not live at the same time. All of evolutionary theory is based on common ancestor. Also Science has their Edens. They call this a biodiverse ecology system. Science uses all of these Bible words and terms for a reason. 

It's not what you think it is.   Recent research indicates that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" may have lived at the same time.  But they are just the last common male and female ancestors of all humans today.   Neither is the real Adam or Eve.

 

[JohnR7]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Nature did a much better job than science. 

The HIV and Corona virus has been modified with a protein that makes them a lot more deadly. 40 million people have died from HIV/AIDS. Luc Montagnier, who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his work on HIV said in an interview that “the virus has come out of a laboratory in Wuhan, which has been specialising in these types of coronaviruses since the beginning of the 2000s”. Of course China claims it is impossible that virus could have excaped from their lab because they are a box within a box. Although the first people to be infected were delivery drivers from the local fish market about 10 miles from the lab according to google maps. 

[JohnR7]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

That's not what we're talking about.

The point is these people are not creditable. They can not be trusted. If they could be they would not have give us this virus. 

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sunflowers, like daisies, are flowering plants.   Just showing you one fact.   ...

“And of course, genes code for proteins. I thought you knew. ... How is it that a PhD in genomics doesn't know this?”

So let's recap;

1 – I originally entered the conversation with you because I thought you misrepresented creationists. You provided a creationist quote (from AIG) to support your position. Even after I explained several times in several ways that the quote doesn't logically support your initial claim, you insisted that it does (ignoring all my arguments). And even after I demonstrated that the provided quote was logically self-defeating to your initial claim, you continued insisting that it does support your claim (without any attempt to address my provided arguments). So you, acting as though I hadn't provided any arguments, was dishonest (to be fair, only mildly dishonest at this stage).

2 – In a second attempt to answer the same objection, you provided creationist quotes about the lack of “observed speciation” - which you claimed was “wrong”. This is an unrelated subject to the actual objection. So I can't be sure if this was an attempt at misdirection, or you just got the topics muddled in your head (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here). Either way, I was curious about your claim, so asked you to provide any supporting research for your accusation. You provided a reference. I read the paper and discovered it was not a report of “observed speciation”. You insisted it was. I quoted the paper itself to demonstrate that it could not be an example of “observed speciation”. You continued to insist it is such an example. I again pointed you to the fact that I used the paper itself to dispel your claim. You then tried to insinuate over several posts that I lacked a proper understanding of the concept of speciation. That seems to be your go-to strategy when someone calls out your error – to make a personal, unfounded insinuation that they lack the understanding or knowledge required to comment. So multiple layers of intentional dishonesty here.

3 – You later claimed that “many, many genes” demonstrated that humans have more in common with “daisies” then we have differences between us. I asked for the research supporting your claim because that was necessary to understand the criteria being used. You then made an unfounded insinuation that I didn't understand the basic genetics. You then provided an unreferenced image (not a research paper) addressing multiple species (but not “daisies”) of a single (not “many, many”) protein (not “genes”). Then made an insinuation that I lacked the understanding to have an intelligent discussion about the subject. Nevertheless, by any rational standard, it was perfectly valid for me to point out that your provided evidence did not support the original claim. And now in this post, your response is to make an unfounded insinuation that I lack understanding of gene translation.

Everything you have contributed to our conversation has been founded on dishonesty. For some reason, you have decided to adopt a win-at-all-costs approach to our discussion (including permitting yourself to be intentionally disingenuous) .

 

“ Tristen said: I'm not accusing “scientists” of “lying” – I'm accusing you of “lying”; an integrity issue amplified by your subsequent attempts at misdirection.

It's not surprising; creationists frequently engage in accusations of dishonesty as a means of misdirection. I never say anything I don't believe to be true herein. And you probably should avoid such accusations. I won't report you,but others might”

I am comfortable “accusing you of “lying”” because it is based on a demonstrated pattern of behaviour. It is not an Adhominem attempt to distract from rational argument, but rather holding you to account for your part in the conversation. I would love a rational discussion. But you seem to think I'm the only one accountable for my position, but you get to say whatever you want without challenge. Maybe you aren't used to being challenged on these issues – which is why you react in such a dishonest, personal way.

As far as I'm concerned, you have cultivated an atmosphere of mistrust. It is clear that you make claims without proper examination. So I will be challenging you to provide research (not just pictures or web articles) supporting every claim you make (assuming I don't agree). Because you have demonstrated that you can't be trusted – and that you need to be held to account for your claims.

 

“That would be to say that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe”

The Scientific Method employs Critical Reasoning. That means we can only attribute confidence to a claim to the degree it has been observed. That is what makes the Scientific Method so logically robust. Any claim of confidence beyond the observations is anecdotal, and requires a deviation from the Scientific Method (and it's robustness). It may still be called 'science', but it is important to make the correct logical distinction between the methods being used.

 

“That logical fallacy is easily removed by citing examples that we can”

It wouldn't be a “logic fallacy”, it would just be an error (if true). As always, I am happy to examine your “examples” (though remember, only the relevant research papers).

 

“It's analogous to the argument that while we know erosion can wear down a small hill (because people were around it to watch it happen), erosion can't wear down mountains because no one ever saw that happen. One would have to be very, very invested in denying erosion to deny the fact that erosion does wear down mountains, even though "deep history goes beyond the observations."”

This is a False Analogy. No one is claiming that something “can't” happen “because no one ever saw that happen”. I am saying that we can not claim that something necessarily happened if it wasn't observed – especially when there are alternative ways to explain the facts. That is, we can not claim to “know” what was not observed.

All claims of science remain subject to scrutiny (even the so-called 'laws' of science). That is eminently more true for claims about things made apart from direct observation (i.e. not by the Scientific Method).

 

“While convergent evolution can explain analogous organs, it couldn't explain analogous proteins”

I don't think this makes sense. What do you think organs are made of – if not a super-complex arrays of proteins, forming cells, forming tissues, forming organs? If something as complex as a functioning organ can 'evolve' independently, why not something relatively simple as a protein. And besides, as you so eloquently taught me above , it all comes down to the genes. Everything else is merely derivative.

 

“But as you learned from the cytochrome C case, the large number of amino acids in proteins assures that it doesn't give misleading results”

Is that what I learned (Lol)? Lucky you were there to teach me.

A functioning peptide can be 2 amino acids long. Perhaps it would be a good time for you to teach me about the arbitrary distinction between peptides and proteins.

 

“You're confusing convergent phenotypes with genomes”

Am I? And here I thought we were talking about proteins.

 

“Phenotypes are not the same as genotypes. I would have thought a PhD in genomics would know that. Every other biologist does”

There you go. Lol. It could be like a drinking game.

 

“ Tristen said: “It turns out that plants and animals” have more in common with each other, than we both do with microbes – which is not surprising to anyone. Claims about how we are “related” go beyond the facts.

It comes down to evidence. That's why scientists accept common descent; it fits the evidence”

And all the very same facts fit the Genesis model of creation. So all the bluster about “the evidence” fitting your preferred model is meaningless.

 

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

The HIV and Corona virus has been modified with a protein that makes them a lot more deadly. 40 million people have died from HIV/AIDS. Luc Montagnier, who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his work on HIV said in an interview that “the virus has come out of a laboratory in Wuhan, which has been specialising in these types of coronaviruses since the beginning of the 2000s”. Of course China claims it is impossible that virus could have excaped from their lab because they are a box within a box. Although the first people to be infected were delivery drivers from the local fish market about 10 miles from the lab according to google maps. [/quote]

Montagnier denies it was weaponized at all.  His hypothesis (which is disputed by other world-class virologists) is that it was part of research to find a vaccine for HIV.   So that doesn't support the conspiracy theory.

“That does not make sense. These are very small elements that we find in other viruses of the same family, other coronaviruses in nature,” virologist Étienne Simon-Lorière of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, explained to AFP.

“These are pieces of the genome that actually look like lots of sequences in the genetic material of bacteria, viruses and plants,” he says.

“If we take a word from a book and it looks like another word, can we say that one has copied from the other? This is absurd!”

Simon-Lorière is manager of the evolutionary genomic structure of RNA viruses at the Institut Pasteur, the report said.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/french-prof-sparks-furor-with-lab-leak-theory/

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Everything you have contributed to our conversation has been founded on dishonesty.

The argument didn't quite work out the way you planned.   Getting upset and accusing people of lying will only make it worse for you.    I would have thought a PhD in genomics would have been able to put up a better argument than "you're lying!"

Instead of focusing on the Evil Barbarian, put some work into a cogent argument.   That might be much better for you.    Again, I'm surprised that a PhD in Genomics would not be aware of the Genomic literature.   Here's something to read:

Zhou, X., Lin, Z. & Ma, H. Phylogenetic detection of numerous gene duplications shared by animals, fungi and plants. Genome Biol 11, R38 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-4-r38

The history of eukaryotic evolution is one of ever-increasing diversity and complexity at multiple levels. The increases in genotypic and phenotypic complexity are usually associated with expansion of gene families. For instance, it has been shown that the diversification of gene families involved in cell differentiation and cell-cell communication contributed to the origination of multicellularity [1]. Other well-known examples are the MADS-box genes in plants [2] and olfactory receptor genes in animals [3]. These multigene families are subject to birth-and-death evolution and most new genes arise by gene duplication [3].

Gene duplication has been a ubiquitous phenomenon during eukaryotic history and has contributed to evolutionary innovation by generating additional genetic material for functional divergence and novelty [4]. After gene duplication, one of the duplicates might be released from selective pressure and have the potential to evolve new functions ('neofunctionalization') [4]. Alternatively, the two duplicates can accumulate different degenerative mutations and each retains a subset of the ancestral functions ('subfunctionalization') [5]. In addition, in certain situations, such subfunctionalization can lead to the optimization of subdivided ancestral functions in each duplicate, thus contributing to adaptation [6]. Besides its important role in the evolution of new gene functions, gene duplication also greatly contributes to the speciation process through the divergent resolution of duplicated genes in different populations [7]. Large-scale gene duplication events have been documented in animals and fungi, and are particularly frequent in plants [8–14] and are believed to be associated with dramatic increases in species diversity, such as the radiation of vertebrates and the diversification of flowering plants [15, 16].

One of the most important evolutionary milestones is the early diversification of eukaryotes [17]. In the early 1990s, the 'crown-stem' model (Figure 1a) of eukaryotic phylogeny was proposed based on the study of small-subunit ribosomal RNA sequences [18–20]. This 'crown-stem' model suggests that plants, animals and fungi form a crown group in the eukaryotic tree and separated from each other more recently than some early branching protists. More recently, an alternative view of the early evolution of eukaryotes has emerged from phylogenomic studies and is increasingly accepted [21]. According to this view, eukaryotes are classified into six supergroups (Figure 1b): Archaeplastida (includes plants and green algae), Opisthokonta (includes animals and fungi) and four other supergroups of protists, including Excavata, a group of ancient protists that includes members with complex flagella and without functional mitochondria [21–23]. More recent studies further suggest that the number of supergroups might be more than six [24, 25]. These supergroups would have diverged during the early phase of eukaryotic evolution, sometimes described as a 'Big Bang' event [17], although the diverging order of these supergroups is difficult to resolve and different root positions of the eukaryotic tree have been proposed [26–29]. In a number of scenarios, the split between Archaeplastida and Opisthokonta is among the earliest known eukaryotic divergences, before the divergence of other major protist groups from either Archaeplastida or Opisthokonta [26, 27, 29]. Therefore, the separation of plants from animals/fungi would be much more ancient than what was suggested by the 'crown-stem' model [18–20]. Even if the position of the root of the eukaryotic tree is between Excavata and the other supergroups, the split of the lineage with plants and the lineage with animals/fungi was still before those of several other protist groups, including Chromalveolata and Amoebozoa.

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fgb-2010-11-4-r38/MediaObjects/13059_2009_Article_2331_Fig1_HTML.jpg?as=webp

Edited September 2, 2020 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

This is a False Analogy. No one is claiming that something “can't” happen “because no one ever saw that happen”. I am saying that we can not claim that something necessarily happened if it wasn't observed – especially when there are alternative ways to explain the facts. That is, we can not claim to “know” what was not observed.

So you think we can't conclude that mountains are reduced by erosion?   Seriously?   There are all stages of the process available to see right now.    And sorry, the story that we can't know anything we didn't actually observe happening is just not credible.   

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

It comes down to evidence. That's why scientists accept common descent; it fits the evidence”

 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

And all the very same facts fit the Genesis model of creation. So all the bluster about “the evidence” fitting your preferred model is meaningless.

Nope.  And even honest YE creationists admit that it doesn't.  Would you like me to show you, again?

 

[David1701]

10 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

Science has their Adam and Eve. They just did not live at the same time. All of evolutionary theory is based on common ancestor. Also Science has their Edens. They call this a biodiverse ecology system. Science uses all of these Bible words and terms for a reason. 

You mean secular "science" has its "Adam and Eve", as Christian science has the real Adam and Eve.  Secular science has "Edens", just as Christian science has the real Eden.  This is not surprising, since the devil likes to counterfeit and replace.