(February 19, 2016 at 12:38 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 12:29 am)AAA Wrote: Yeah, it is nice. It's very nice. I don't get why to the atheist the null hypothesis is that it evolved. I think our first instinct ought to be design, and the alternate hypothesis (the one you test) should be that it evolved. And the evidence that it designed is that every process needed for life is determined by sequential information. Large amounts of it too. It is unlikely that it got there by chance (I calculated the odds of just one 100 amino acid long protein forming randomly a few pages ago, and it was mathematically impossible). There appears to be no inherent need for them to orient themselves into a functional sequence. So it's not necessity. What are you left with? You can say I don't know and hold out for a better answer, but don't tell me that there is more evidence that it happened without a designer. So far, a designer is the ONLY known cause that is capable of producing that much sequential information. Why do you think it happened without a designer?

Evolution isn't the null hypothesis. It's the theory that has been built from Darwin's original observations for over 150 years. The evidence for evolution and creationism have both been tested rigorously. Guess which theory has survived 150 years of rigorous testing by professional scientists and which one gets debunked by internet message board board posters in less than 150 minutes.

The mathematical impossibility of a modern cell popping up spontaneously isn't going to impress anybody. Hell, it's not even relevant. There are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution with more coming every single day while you and your ilk flail about with arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. All you've got is a gawd of the gaps argument with gaps being closed off daily. So, unless you want to present evidence for your creator and his process, and describe your methodology, all you've got is an ancient book and a bunch of bad arguments.

So basically you believe evolution because someone else told you the evidence supports it undeniably? And it's not the mathematical impossibility of a modern cell, it's the mathematical impossibility of a single, simple protein.

(February 19, 2016 at 1:01 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 12:29 am)AAA Wrote: Why do you think it happened without a designer?

You know as well as anyone here about this, you've been around here much too long. This isn't your first atheist forum either, I've seen you trolling around the one owned by Wolf, and Patheos when I was there. You aren't worth repeating it for.

You'll never learn anything if you keep on flapping away while never listening.

PAY ATTENTION!!!

Actually this is the only atheist forum I've been on. And I've only posted on 4 threads total the whole time I've been a member. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

(February 19, 2016 at 12:39 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 12:36 am)AAA Wrote:  I just posted it. Also you can't test it any better than you can test any other abiogenesis theory. Lets say that we mixed some chemicals in high pressure systems and got 20 amino acids linked together. Would this then be the accepted answer to abiogenesis? All we have done is demonstrated that it CAN happen. Now lets say that I go and introduce one amino acid to a solution at a time and add heat until they bonded. I form a purposeful sequence. Would intelligent design then be accepted? We have again demonstrated only that it CAN happen, we will never be able to say for sure which one DID happen. That's why the empiricism that you crave cannot be applied to the origin of life, no matter how much we both wish it could.

So, now your conflating abiogenesis with evolution. Give it up kid. They're two different things.

Everyone knows they are two different things. In the last post I was talking about abiogenesis. That is why I used the word "abiogenesis" every time.

All-Time Best Argument For Atheism: Anything said by AAA!

I almost got sucked in... You're a multi-forum troll that won't listen to anything anyone has to say and is intent on tearing down one thing instead of presenting evidence for another. Even the arguments you do suck (really, really super duper big number =/ mathematical impossibility, no matter how much you want it to).

Stick with your gawd of the gaps if you want, but I would recommend you do some actual study on scientific sites, not creation "science" sites that simply cherry-pick bits and pieces of other people work and present them in a contradictory (and intellectually dishonest) frame of reference. Educate yourself so you can quit making a complete fool of yourself. Or, don't. I really don't fucking care anymore.

(February 19, 2016 at 12:22 am)AAA Wrote: Well obviously the first cells wouldn't have been that complex, but when making statements like that about the past, you have now left the evidence and gone into speculation. That's fine, but when a scientist speculates, it can wrongly get associated with the empirical science that we all agree is where we should base our views. And I agree, it is not fun to watch someone who disagrees with evolution do such a poor job at attacking it like Ray Comfort or whatever. But just because they use weak arguments doesn't mean there view is completely wrong. I've seen some pretty bad atheist arguments too. 

The problem I have with these biosynthetic pathways evolving is the mechanism. I don't like the mechanism of mutation as the source of variation. It's a weak force. I think that most of the observed variation is explained by changes in gene expression due to epigenetic factors. The environment induces a change in the phenotype without damaging the genotype. Evolution is our capstone course though, and I'm only a junior, so I'll be taking it next year.

While I agree that it's speculation, it's speculation based on what we have observed, and doesn't quite meet the "just-so" criticism so often leveled at biologists who try to come up with hypotheses on how things could have happened based on the factors of which we're presently aware. What you're doing is getting the cart before the horse and saying, "Well, what we see operating today can't have just happened because reasons", and we point out that it's highly unlikely that life started out as "highly evolved" (I hate that term, and I know you must as well) as the living species today. I feel comfortable making such a speculation because it would be most surprising--to say the least--if we, the living species today and thus the victors in 4BY of Natural Selection competition, were no more complex than that which began reproducing, all those years ago. So when I see arguments that point out the complexity of current DNA structures and cellular assemblies stated as if this is a winning argument for Intelligent Design, I'm tempted to laugh but am too busy fearing for the future of my country.

I actually agree with you that mutation is only one of the factors involved in producing variation, especially in light of new research into epigenetic factors of gene expression. That said, we know how gene pools diversify and then streamline their variation: genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, recombination, and of course Natural Selection.

The question here is whether epigenetic factors can have a significant impact on the gene pool (if they are not produced by genes, themselves, then they cannot be acted upon by Natural Selection in terms of shaping said gene pool, and thus producing a "direction" in the evolution of that species). I'd say that mutation still produces the primary driving force behind the complexity of DNA to which you frequently refer, and epigenetics provides a "cushioning pad" in which alterations to the genetic programming, per the environment (or hormonal factors in the mother or individual, as influenced by that environment), can confer a survival advantage on that individual within the population, making that individual's genes more likely to be transmitted.

I recall your previous objections to mutation as a primary driving mechanism for evolution, but honestly I don't see why you think it's incapable of accomplishing everything we see in the gene pools of earth over a trillion generations.

(February 19, 2016 at 1:44 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I don't see why you think it's incapable of accomplishing everything we see in the gene pools of earth over a trillion generations.

'Cuz gawd!!!

You're fighting the good fight Rocket, but the audience is busy watching the ring girl and declaring her the winner.

(February 19, 2016 at 1:40 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I almost got sucked in... You're a multi-forum troll that won't listen to anything anyone has to say and is intent on tearing down one thing instead of presenting evidence for another. Even the arguments you do suck (really, really super duper big number =/ mathematical impossibility, no matter how much you want it to).

Stick with your gawd of the gaps if you want, but I would recommend you do some actual study on scientific sites, not creation "science" sites that simply cherry-pick bits and pieces of other people work and present them in a contradictory (and intellectually dishonest) frame of reference. Educate yourself so you can quit making a complete fool of yourself. Or, don't. I really don't fucking care anymore.

I'm not a "multi-forum troll" he just made that up because he's frustrated. I've literally only ever posted on 4 different threads on this forum. And I don't restrict myself to creation sites. And actually there is an established point when something is considered mathematically impossible. When you take into account the number of elementary particles, and the fact that they can't interact faster than the speed of light, you get that there could have only been some like 10^140 events in all of recorded history. If you want to say that we just happen to be that one time, then go ahead.

(February 19, 2016 at 1:54 am)AAA Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 1:40 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I almost got sucked in... You're a multi-forum troll that won't listen to anything anyone has to say and is intent on tearing down one thing instead of presenting evidence for another. Even the arguments you do suck (really, really super duper big number =/ mathematical impossibility, no matter how much you want it to).

Stick with your gawd of the gaps if you want, but I would recommend you do some actual study on scientific sites, not creation "science" sites that simply cherry-pick bits and pieces of other people work and present them in a contradictory (and intellectually dishonest) frame of reference. Educate yourself so you can quit making a complete fool of yourself. Or, don't. I really don't fucking care anymore.

I'm not a "multi-forum troll" he just made that up because he's frustrated. I've literally only ever posted on 4 different threads on this forum. And I don't restrict myself to creation sites. And actually there is an established point when something is considered mathematically impossible. When you take into account the number of elementary particles, and the fact that they can't interact faster than the speed of light, you get that there could have only been some like 10^140 events in all of recorded history. If you want to say that we just happen to be that one time, then go ahead.

I swear, if I haven't seen the triple-sized "A" under the banner of know-everything arrogance over on those forums and blogs, well I'll just plead my special privilege to declare true anything I wish just as you do, consistently.

B'by, Trollface!

(February 19, 2016 at 1:44 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 12:22 am)AAA Wrote: Well obviously the first cells wouldn't have been that complex, but when making statements like that about the past, you have now left the evidence and gone into speculation. That's fine, but when a scientist speculates, it can wrongly get associated with the empirical science that we all agree is where we should base our views. And I agree, it is not fun to watch someone who disagrees with evolution do such a poor job at attacking it like Ray Comfort or whatever. But just because they use weak arguments doesn't mean there view is completely wrong. I've seen some pretty bad atheist arguments too. 

The problem I have with these biosynthetic pathways evolving is the mechanism. I don't like the mechanism of mutation as the source of variation. It's a weak force. I think that most of the observed variation is explained by changes in gene expression due to epigenetic factors. The environment induces a change in the phenotype without damaging the genotype. Evolution is our capstone course though, and I'm only a junior, so I'll be taking it next year.

While I agree that it's speculation, it's speculation based on what we have observed, and doesn't quite meet the "just-so" criticism so often leveled at biologists who try to come up with hypotheses on how things could have happened based on the factors of which we're presently aware. What you're doing is getting the cart before the horse and saying, "Well, what we see operating today can't have just happened because reasons", and we point out that it's highly unlikely that life started out as "highly evolved" (I hate that term, and I know you must as well) as the living species today. I feel comfortable making such a speculation because it would be most surprising--to say the least--if we, the living species today and thus the victors in 4BY of Natural Selection competition, were no more complex than that which began reproducing, all those years ago. So when I see arguments that point out the complexity of current DNA structures and cellular assemblies stated as if this is a winning argument for Intelligent Design, I'm tempted to laugh but am too busy fearing for the future of my country.

I actually agree with you that mutation is only one of the factors involved in producing variation, especially in light of new research into epigenetic factors of gene expression. That said, we know how gene pools diversify and then streamline their variation: genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, recombination, and of course Natural Selection.

The question here is whether epigenetic factors can have a significant impact on the gene pool (if they are not produced by genes, themselves, then they cannot be acted upon by Natural Selection in terms of shaping said gene pool, and thus producing a "direction" in the evolution of that species). I'd say that mutation still produces the primary driving force behind the complexity of DNA to which you frequently refer, and epigenetics provides a "cushioning pad" in which alterations to the genetic programming, per the environment (or hormonal factors in the mother or individual, as influenced by that environment), can confer a survival advantage on that individual within the population, making that individual's genes more likely to be transmitted.

I recall your previous objections to mutation as a primary driving mechanism for evolution, but honestly I don't see why you think it's incapable of accomplishing everything we see in the gene pools of earth over a trillion generations.

Yeah, but you know the complexity needed for life. Somewhere between 250-400 proteins along with a DNA sequence that codes for them all and can interact with them. This isn't even what we have observed, this IS speculation. So going beyond that is even more wishful speculation. But that is what I don't like about both naturalistic views for life's origin and young earth creationism. Both are similar in that there is a story with which the new data must be shoved into. That is why I like the intelligent design theory. They don't say much about what they think happened, but this leaves plenty of room to accommodate new data. It is less dogmatic. 

Also there has been research showing that histone modifications can actually occur in the parent, and it passes it on to the offspring. This is a heritable form of genetic variation that gives the illusion of a changing genome, when in reality it is just different genes being expressed. 

I don't think mutation can account for the genetic complexities we see because given current mutation rates, which are very low, we would need much more time than a few billion years to get where we are. Also when we do see mutations they almost always have no effect. If they do, it's almost always detrimental to the function of the sequence. So relying on extremely rare events to improve the genome seems irrational.