(October 31, 2017 at 8:20 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(October 31, 2017 at 7:20 pm)Cod Wrote: That sentence makes no sense. Logic is logic not philosophy, philosophy looks at logic and tries to make sense of it, logically speaking philosophy has no logical grounding philosophically.

Except logic is one of the main branches of philosophy. So...everything you said is complete nonsense.

Ahhhh, But Steve you forget one thing.. I am the almighty Cod and whatever I say makes sense, even when it doesn't seem to.

You on the other hand are just internet Steve, fallible and definitely unworthy.

(October 30, 2017 at 3:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: a. How complex organs/traits evolved without any survival benefit until they were complete (please give examples of partially formed non-functioning abilities found in nature today)
b. How are biological networks to have evolved? 
c. Why doesn't DNA support the "tree of life"?
d. Why there is a glaring lack of fossil records/intermediate forms.  
e. Junk (non-coding) DNA, originally thought of as the leftovers of mutations/transcription errors, yet we continue to discover purposes for it. 
f. Why natural selection is not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient...yet we have them.

To answer your questions:

a) by supporting other functions until they developed into their current forms (eg the bacterial flagellum was likely a sectretory gland until it developed as a locomotive instrument), or by not being detrimental until it was being found to be needed, or by slowly developing over time in effectiveness (eg the eye).
b) what is this I don't even. Phrase the question in an intelligble manner and I might be able to answer it. As it stands you're asking something equivalent to "when does knurd smell lavender?"
c) It does. Mitochondrial DNA is a powerful tool for showing the descent of many different animals, comparing genetic similarities shows relations between species and evolutionary paths
d) Not many places where living things die are suitable for fossilisation, then you've got stuff like plate tectonics, vulcanism, cataclysmic impacts and even other living beings feeding off the corpses to make the process even rarer.
e) Is a point in favour of evolution. Plus it simply means that our techniques for examining DNA is getting better and our scientific knowledge improving with it
f) Again a horribly parsed question (for somebody who's an english language native you're horrible at the language), deep time takes care of your answer. The Earth is 4.567 billion years old (take the biblical time frame and multiply that by 1,000,000) and life roughly 3-3.5 billion years old. On that scale natural selection works very well in ensuring that the fittest species survive. For example the genes that code for lactose tolerance have a low selection coefficient of somewhere between 0.09 and 0.19 in Scandinavian populations (source), however over even just 9,000 years (300 generations or thereabouts) this allowed Scandinavian peoples to develop high frequencies of lactose tolerance from a very low starting point.

(November 3, 2017 at 7:30 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 5:29 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  There equal because non of them represent information nor data. The numbers and letters have nothing assigned to them to believe they are anything at all.

Way to go avoiding answering a question. Using the same argument DNA contains no information because G, T, A and C have nothing assigned to them. Yet we know for sure that you accept that DNA contains information because otherwise you wouldn't be describing how recessive genes lead to a white spot in rottweilers. So we can see that you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest here.

No I'm not, that bunch of numbers and letters meant nothing until they are assigned a value.

Mathilda Wrote:OK, let's say that the strings above describe a system of 30 or 40 mechanisms that interact with each other. Each letter corresponds to the type of mechanism. The order in which the mechanisms appear is also important and affects how the system works.

If I want to give you the simplest recipe for recreating the system without losing information about it then I would tell you:

System A is 40 mechanisms of type 0.
System B is 3 sequences of mechanisms where each sequence is '1234567890'
System C can only be described as a single sequence of 30 mechanisms of types  'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234'

So I could encode this as:

System A: 40x0
System B: 3x1234567890
System C: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234

String A has more data (40 characters) but the least information is required to recreate it
String C has the most information but the same amount of characters (data) as String B.

Now imagine we mutated the type of one of the mechanisms of String A to get String D:

0000000000Z00000000000000000000000000000

The simplest way of describing this system without losing information is 10 mechanisms of type 0, 1 mechanism of type Z following by 29 mechanisms of type 0.

System D: 10x0, 1xZ, 29x0

See, new information has been added to the description of a system because of a mutation.

 that wouldn't happen in a natural situation, like you said you mutated it. in nature the mutation already exist in the DNA or the information becomes mutated for whatever reason. Either way the DNA has nothing new only corrupted info that was already there. Lab work doesn't count as a natural process and you know it. Even in the lab there has been no changing one kind into another.

GC

---

(November 3, 2017 at 9:30 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 5:29 pm)Godscreated Wrote: Seems you ignored the evolutionist who couldn't make things fit because of the information at hand.

Because these points you make are not worth responding to. It just adds noise to the discussion, which is what religionists want because it means that it looks like there is a real debate between creationists and scientists.

So you claim that there is one evolutionary scientist who has has trouble reconciling his faith with the science? So what? There are many thousands of scientists who don't have this problem.
It does not nullify the scientific literature because scientific papers that pass peer review and get published need to meet a certain standard. The results stand by themselves.

Complete honesty is not a requirement for those papers and creationist are not all scientist but there are many creationist who are very good scientist and have their papers turned down because they disagree so much with the main stream science that has many flaws. why people buy into these flaws is beyond me, unless they care more about being published than actual truth.

(November 2, 2017 at 5:29 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  Thank you for admitting you know nothing about the breeding of Rottweilers, they were brought back from a gene pool of 19 dogs and are now healthier and certainly happy dogs who serve the human race in beneficial ways, so just lay off the crap we are hurting dogs because you hate this particular Christian. I have several vets who have been impressed with the care we give our Rottweilers. 
Breeding dogs to a certain physical standard if for their benefit and in many ways I know you can't understand so i want even bother to confuse your mind with such necessary things as good posture in a dog helps it live a more productive and healthy life with far less pain in it's older age. Breeding dogs to a standard has nothing to do with their longevity. There are dogs that have been breed for looks alone and suffer a great deal and most of the responsible breeders do not like it, we can't stop it so it will go on. 

Mathilda Wrote:Hmm, serve the human race. A very christian sense of entitlement you have there.

Humans were using dogs for their benefit long before Christianity, some of the first were men from North Africa to the Middle East, they were used to help man acquire food. I guess you know have a problem with secular man also. Dogs that are used for what they were breed for are happier dogs because it satisfies those urges within them. Why do you think there are so many pet dogs that cause so many problems in homes, answer, they are left to be what they want to be instead of being trained to be obedient animals that can live in a social setting. I guess you have problems with seeing eye dogs and all the other dogs that man uses to help the disabled, get of your high horse and recognize that dogs are useful to man in many ways and with good purpose.

Mathilda Wrote:What you say about breeding healthy dogs would all sound very convincing were it not for the fact that you said that you're trying to breed out white patches. Why not keep the white patches if health and function are your only criteria? And why not breed those 19 original rottweilers with other breeds rather than keep the gene pool so small? My criticism stands and your responses reveal how you are two-faced about what you believe and do. It also further nullifies your point about the information not being lost because you can't breed out a recessive gene. A gene pool of 19 rottweilers means that you have very little variation to work with.

We have a set standard to go by, it was set long ago. The white spot comes from a herding dog that was used to develop the Rottweiler. The breeders found it an undesirable trait for whatever reason and didn't want it to be a part of the breed, simple really and it has nothing to do with breeding healthy dogs, it's just part of the breeding standard process. We will always breed for health in rottweilers because it is most important to us, we just want show them when they have a white spot because it's outside the standard. All breeds have standards of appearance. If we didn't the dogs would soon not resemble what they are and the health aspect would soon follow. Answer to my bold, because they would not be Rottweilers, they are a very special breed one that can do many different things and they are one of the oldest breed, we can trace them back to the Romans. the people who rescued the Rottweiler understood what a great breed it was and desired to preserve it at their own expense, I'm very thankful they did. You are showing your hatred for this Christian, you can't stand it because I know so much about breeding dogs and why it's done. Yes the gene pool was limited and that's why we are careful about which dogs we breed. It's sad you can't appreciate what good dog breeders and trainers do, you need to take off your blinders of hate for Christians and learn a thing or two about something other than the different ways you can come up with to criticize those and those things you dislike, but hey if that shell you live in suits you stay there, but please leave the rest of us out of your pitiful state. 


[/quote]

Is there some reason that what happens in the lab...and yes we've seen speciation in the lab, can't happen in the field......where we've also seen speciation....?

That speciation can and does occur isn't an inference, it's an observation of a scientific fact. What the fuck is a "kind" anyway....lol? You're going to have to be a tad bit more specific.

I was wondering how GC could possibly argue with my explanation. Let's really break down his objection shall we and see exactly what he is saying.

(November 3, 2017 at 5:52 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  that wouldn't happen in a natural situation, like you said you mutated it. in nature the mutation already exist in the DNA or the information becomes mutated for whatever reason. Either way the DNA has nothing new only corrupted info that was already there.

So are you saying that mutations happen or not? Basically you are in full equivocation mode at the moment. Let's rephrase exactly what you said to keep the same meaning:

"Mutations do not happen in nature. In nature the mutation already exists in the DNA. Or the DNA becomes mutated. The DNA has always been corrupted."

An utterly meaningless sentence.

(November 3, 2017 at 5:52 pm)Godscreated Wrote: Lab work doesn't count as a natural process and you know it. Even in the lab there has been no changing one kind into another.

So now you need to explain why lab work does not count. Saying "and you know it" does not count, sorry. What is it about a lab that means that the process is not equivalent? Ever heard of computer simulations? We now know you do not understand what information is so I suppose there is no reason to assume that you understand what a computer simulation is or why they are useful.

For the record. Mutations do happen.

Human mutation rate revealed

Quote:Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

This number — the first direct measurement of the human mutation rate — is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons and rare disease screens.

But I have no doubt that you will continue to state that mutations do not add information to the system without knowing what information is, in the belief that mutations both do and do not happen and that something can be corrupted without first being not corrupted.

(November 3, 2017 at 2:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Argument from personal incredulity, Steve.  Even you can do better.

I really don't think he can.

(November 3, 2017 at 5:52 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(November 3, 2017 at 7:30 am)Mathilda Wrote: Way to go avoiding answering a question. Using the same argument DNA contains no information because G, T, A and C have nothing assigned to them. Yet we know for sure that you accept that DNA contains information because otherwise you wouldn't be describing how recessive genes lead to a white spot in rottweilers. So we can see that you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest here.

No I'm not, that bunch of numbers and letters meant nothing until they are assigned a value.

Hold on - by "that bunch of letters and numbers", are you referring to the G T A C bases of DNA? They do have a value, in exactly the same sense as H2O. They're shorthand for the nucleotide chemicals guanine, thymine, adenine and cytosine. They're not a code, or a language, or stuff made up by evilutionist scientists.

(November 3, 2017 at 5:52 pm)Godscreated Wrote: Complete honesty is not a requirement for those papers and creationist are not all scientist but there are many creationist who are very good scientist and have their papers turned down because they disagree so much with the main stream science that has many flaws. why people buy into these flaws is beyond me, unless they care more about being published than actual truth.

Ah right the usual conspiracy theory excuse of mainstream scientists suppressing the truth. This is is a hallmark excuse of pseudo-science.

Truth is that most genuine scientific papers get rejected even when the scientists doing the peer review agree with the results. This is because the standards a paper to be accepted are very high and there are many criteria which need to be met. The science needs to be falsifiable and reproducible, the language must be concise, all conclusions must be backed up by the evidence yet say no more than that, and there needs to be a proper literature review so all existing evidence for and against needs to be accounted for. The results also need to be significant enough with all alternative explanations accounted for. This is just not possible if you are a creationist.

But if you do have a deeply unpopular view and do meet these criteria then your paper will still most likely be accepted. I have seen plenty of such papers accepted. Nor do you have to be part of an established institution. Anyone can submit a paper and expect to be published if they meet the criteria I have laid out.

But it's easier for a creationist to say that mainstream science is suppressing the truth than to admit that they can't do genuine science. And people who do not understand science believe them because they it allows them to maintain their superstitious beliefs.

Quote:https://www.dnalc.org/view/16982-The-Eye...unked.html


Click - if you are not afraid of accidentally learning something.

I didn't have time to watch the video....

Do they have new facts concerning the evolution of the eye;  or did they just shine up some old "just so" stories?
My favorite part of the old show, was when with some nifty slight of hand, they pull some lenses, some cones, and other stuff out of thin air (abracadabra style) when they think no one is looking.  I'm always curious if this is the case, then why don't we see this kind of stuff popping up all over the place? It seems only to be where and when needed (which doesn't sound very random or unintentional to me).

(November 3, 2017 at 7:56 pm)Mathilda Wrote: So now you need to explain why lab work does not count. Saying "and you know it" does not count, sorry. What is it about a lab that means that the process is not equivalent?

From what I've been able to glean from the context of his denials, his disdain of controls in a lab environment and his absolute fucking refusal to clarify his stance, he seems to think controls are something placed on experiments in order for the scientists to get the results they want.

Of course, I'm still waiting for him to quit using my word choice as an excuse for dodging the question whether or not the color of a goat's coat can be modified by having them fuck in front of striped or spotted sticks so don't hold your breath waiting for a reasoned response from GC.