Disproving the Bible

[Losty]

Wow, was that a banhammer record?

I prefer trolls that are less aggressive and are thick with humor. If you're going to be a troll or poe then try to bring some entertainment to the table. This guy was just an obnoxious prick.

My favorite trolls are the ones who don't ever come here...

[SteveII]

As you recommended, I am researching non-creationist articles and comparing them to the article I mentioned before. TOPIC: Orphaned Genes. ISSUE: 10-30% of all genes of all species can't be traced to other species. Where do they come from?

I found an article describing a study of orphaned genes by Tomislav Domazet-Loso and Diethard Tautz of the Institut für Genetik der Universität zu Köln, 50931 Köln, Germany. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/10/2213.full 10.1101/gr.1311003; Genome Res. 2003. 13: 2213-2219; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

Near the end of the article, they have a section: There are three possible reasons why a gene can be an orphan gene.

1. The genes have newly evolved
2. The gene was an ancestrally shared gene but got lost in most evolutionary lineages.
3. The gene evolved so quickly that a similarity cannot be found in other species.

All three theories have problems. The conclusion starts with "The role of orphan genes in the evolutionary process remains enigmatic."

It seems to have been the prevailing theory that: "The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero." Jacob, Francois. June 10 1977. Evolution and Tinkering. Science, New Series, Vol. 196, Issue 4295, pp. 1161-1166. (Nobel prize winning geneticist) until the mapping of the genome found these orphaned genes.

Here is my problem. They listed three possible reasons for orphaned genes--none of which was that the organisms did not share a common ancestor (which would fit ALL the facts). You said that there is no bias in science. Tell me why this is not bias?

Okay so I read your article and and a few others about orphaned genes while as was at it.

Orphaned genes are genes that do cannot be linked to other lineages based on gene sequencing or to put it another way, these genes provide a new protein coding sequence not found in previous lineages. They constitute about 10 to 20% of all organisms genes. But identifying is difficult because so often they turn out to be genes that really do have links further back in the genome.

Your question is why none of the hypotheses for how these genes occur considers that organisms don't share a common ancestry?

Well, since the other 80 to 90 percent of the genes are not orphan genes and do evidence a common ancestor and the physiology of animals as well as were those animals exist and existed geographically and through time also evidence evolution, orphan genes are not evidence evolution did not occur.

However, since these orphan genes are by definition not the result of inverted transcriptions, merged, or truncated genes, the question is how did these mutations occur? Not surprisingly none of the hypotheses suggested is "magic."

If, as you appear to be proposing god mutated them, how would you test that? The hypotheses suggested are testable.

Jenny--No, I am not proposing God mutated them. I was merely pointing out that in the presence of *possible evidence* that we do not all have a common decent, that that conclusion is not even considered. This seems to happen time and time again. Pieces of evidence that call into question the common decent hypothesis are given elaborate theories to bolster the original hypothesis. This merely perpetuates the idea that common decent is true and ALL the science points that way--and then the cycle repeats.

My point is that scientist are not trying to falsify the hypothesis of common ancestor. They have already accepted it as true (which I think is bias). When theist scientist (that don't have this bias) gather up all the questions in one place, they are labeled at best, crackpots.

Here is a list of other legit questions. Of course there are theories to explain each one of them. Are they sufficient? Do these questions, when taken together carry any additional weight?
1. Fossil record for intermediate forms. You have to drink a lot of coolaid to make the claim that the fossil record proves common decent. It could just as easily be used to prove the opposite.
2. Genetics has wiped out the old "Tree of Life". Since different genes tell a different evolutionary story, it must be a web.
3. "Convergent Evolution". The odds of an organism developing a new useful feature is at the very least exceptional. To have the same or similar features evolve in parallel is simply staggering.
4. No vestigial organs or other features. Shouldn't we see all kinds of useless parts in all kinds of organisms on their way out?
5. I know this get's into the origin of life issue, but we now know the cell is one of the most complicated things on the planet.
6. GRNs are so complicated yet necessary for complex life. Chicken or the egg?
7. The ongoing net effect of random mutations is actually degrading functionality in human genetics.
8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

[FatAndFaithless]

Okay so I read your article and and a few others about orphaned genes while as was at it.

Orphaned genes are genes that do cannot be linked to other lineages based on gene sequencing or to put it another way, these genes provide a new protein coding sequence not found in previous lineages. They constitute about 10 to 20% of all organisms genes. But identifying is difficult because so often they turn out to be genes that really do have links further back in the genome.

Your question is why none of the hypotheses for how these genes occur considers that organisms don't share a common ancestry?

Well, since the other 80 to 90 percent of the genes are not orphan genes and do evidence a common ancestor and the physiology of animals as well as were those animals exist and existed geographically and through time also evidence evolution, orphan genes are not evidence evolution did not occur.

However, since these orphan genes are by definition not the result of inverted transcriptions, merged, or truncated genes, the question is how did these mutations occur? Not surprisingly none of the hypotheses suggested is "magic."

If, as you appear to be proposing god mutated them, how would you test that? The hypotheses suggested are testable.

Jenny--No, I am not proposing God mutated them. I was merely pointing out that in the presence of *possible evidence* that we do not all have a common decent, that that conclusion is not even considered. This seems to happen time and time again. Pieces of evidence that call into question the common decent hypothesis are given elaborate theories to bolster the original hypothesis. This merely perpetuates the idea that common decent is true and ALL the science points that way--and then the cycle repeats.

My point is that scientist are not trying to falsify the hypothesis of common ancestor. They have already accepted it as true (which I think is bias). When theist scientist (that don't have this bias) gather up all the questions in one place, they are labeled at best, crackpots.

Here is a list of other legit questions. Of course there are theories to explain each one of them. Are they sufficient? Do these questions, when taken together carry any additional weight?
1. Fossil record for intermediate forms. You have to drink a lot of coolaid to make the claim that the fossil record proves common decent. It could just as easily be used to prove the opposite.
2. Genetics has wiped out the old "Tree of Life". Since different genes tell a different evolutionary story, it must be a web.
3. "Convergent Evolution". The odds of an organism developing a new useful feature is at the very least exceptional. To have the same or similar features evolve in parallel is simply staggering.
4. No vestigial organs or other features. Shouldn't we see all kinds of useless parts in all kinds of organisms on their way out?
5. I know this get's into the origin of life issue, but we now know the cell is one of the most complicated things on the planet.
6. GRNs are so complicated yet necessary for complex life. Chicken or the egg?
7. The ongoing net effect of random mutations is actually degrading functionality in human genetics.
8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

Wow. Some of your numbered points make me wonder if you've done any research into any of the responses to your claims at all. The quesiton about 'intermediate forms' is horseshit, been disproven I can't count how many times. I've already addressed your "tree of life" statement and how evolution is not linear and is very inefficient in many cases, and that a bush would be a much more accurate metaphor, with many branches that end, each with innumberable branches that also end, sudden truncations and useless deviations, beacuse evolution is not a goal oriented process. Whenever you bring up 'odds' or 'probability', I have to ask how you exactly calculated that probability, especially considering your misunderstanding of evolution in the first place.

As for vestigal organs, are you serious? Just to list a few that occur in humans: The appendix, the coccyx, wisdom teeth, the vomeronasal organ, certain ear muscles that do not function, the plica semilunaris tissue of the eyes, certain parts of genitalia and embryo development, and not to mention the list of junk DNA in our genome that doesn't appear to do much of anything. Seriously dude.

And just to your last point, again I ask to see your calculations of this improbability.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was merely pointing out that in the presence of *possible evidence* that we do not all have a common decent, that that conclusion is not even considered.

Wouldn't you have to find some of that "possible evidence", before you could claim that it isn't being considered? If you find any, by the way, let someone know about it. That'll put you in the scientific pantheon, so to speak. You'll have to shake a few hands, flash the smile, collect a nobel - that sort of thing. I'm sure it won't be too much trouble though.

(If you weren't aware, there are people looking for evidence that we do not all share a common lineage. They just haven't found what they're looking for, if they do...it's gonna get considered at great length.)

[Jenny A]

Here is a list of other legit questions. Of course there are theories to explain each one of them. Are they sufficient? Do these questions, when taken together carry any additional weight?

Well, no, mostly they aren't legit questions. They are questions that have been asked and answered so often and so decisively that they can hardly be called legit.

1. Fossil record for intermediate forms. You have to drink a lot of coolaid to make the claim that the fossil record proves common decent. It could just as easily be used to prove the opposite.

Sorry, but actually the fossil record is rather amazing. It doesn't represent even the tiniest fraction of all the species that have ever lived, yet it still show some pretty fantastic sequences of mutation. Some of them can be seen here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

2. Genetics has wiped out the old "Tree of Life". Since different genes tell a different evolutionary story, it must be a web.

Not even sure what you mean here.

3. "Convergent Evolution". The odds of an organism developing a new useful feature is at the very least exceptional. To have the same or similar features evolve in parallel is simply staggering.

You mean like the independent development of flight in both birds and bats? Hardly staggering. And when it happens, and it happens a lot, the each independent development clearly uses the materials at hand. Bat wings and bird wings are vastly different in bone structure. Bat wings have the same bones in the same order as other mammals. Bird wings have bone structure resembling dinosaurs not mammals. It's evidence of common descent, not against common descent.

4. No vestigial organs or other features. Shouldn't we see all kinds of useless parts in all kinds of organisms on their way out?

Yep and we do. Have you had to have your wisdom teeth pulled? Appendix removed? Cave dwelling animals almost always have vestigial eyes often covered over with skin.

5. I know this get's into the origin of life issue, but we now know the cell is one of the most complicated things on the planet.

Yes it is getting into the origin of life issue.

6. GRNs are so complicated yet necessary for complex life. Chicken or the egg?

And yet again this is getting into the origins issue.

7. The ongoing net effect of random mutations is actually degrading functionality in human genetics.

Really? Not even quite certain what you mean: humans are becoming less fit? or humans no longer pass traits on genetically as well as they used to? What?

8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

Those saying that this usually begin calculating probability of mutations without accounting for selection of traits.

But the part of your question that deserves an answer is this:

My point is that scientist are not trying to falsify the hypothesis of common ancestor. They have already accepted it as true (which I think is bias). When theist scientist (that don't have this bias) gather up all the questions in one place, they are labeled at best, crackpots.

First, make no mistake, there are many theist evolutionists. The Catholic church has officially accepted evolution. What there aren't is fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Islamic evolutionists.

So why are fundamentalists who gather up a number of problems with how the evolutionary model works labeled "crackpots?" First, because most of them are not scientists and their problems are so often just quote mining (a form of lying) or refusal to look at the evidence. Second, because they start with the premise that the Bible is an accurate source of scientific knowledge which is frankly cuckoo. Third, because they do not suggest a viable alternative theory. Spontaneous new life forms is not a viable theory unless you can explain how it happens. God did it, is not an explanation that explains anything.

[Minimalist]

8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

What are the mathematical improbabilities of a being who exists outside of space and time and who just poofed everything into existence one day for shits and giggles?

Sometimes you people amaze me with your inability to consider your statements.

[JesusHChrist]

8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

What are the mathematical improbabilities of a being who exists outside of space and time and who just poofed everything into existence one day for shits and giggles?

Sometimes you people amaze me with your inability to consider your statements.

The odds are exactly 1 in 10^238,146,665

Against ALL ODDS! Isn't God GREAT!

[SteveII]

Jenny--No, I am not proposing God mutated them. I was merely pointing out that in the presence of *possible evidence* that we do not all have a common decent, that that conclusion is not even considered. This seems to happen time and time again. Pieces of evidence that call into question the common decent hypothesis are given elaborate theories to bolster the original hypothesis. This merely perpetuates the idea that common decent is true and ALL the science points that way--and then the cycle repeats.

My point is that scientist are not trying to falsify the hypothesis of common ancestor. They have already accepted it as true (which I think is bias). When theist scientist (that don't have this bias) gather up all the questions in one place, they are labeled at best, crackpots.

Here is a list of other legit questions. Of course there are theories to explain each one of them. Are they sufficient? Do these questions, when taken together carry any additional weight?
1. Fossil record for intermediate forms. You have to drink a lot of coolaid to make the claim that the fossil record proves common decent. It could just as easily be used to prove the opposite.
2. Genetics has wiped out the old "Tree of Life". Since different genes tell a different evolutionary story, it must be a web.
3. "Convergent Evolution". The odds of an organism developing a new useful feature is at the very least exceptional. To have the same or similar features evolve in parallel is simply staggering.
4. No vestigial organs or other features. Shouldn't we see all kinds of useless parts in all kinds of organisms on their way out?
5. I know this get's into the origin of life issue, but we now know the cell is one of the most complicated things on the planet.
6. GRNs are so complicated yet necessary for complex life. Chicken or the egg?
7. The ongoing net effect of random mutations is actually degrading functionality in human genetics.
8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

Wow. Some of your numebred points make me wonder if you've done any research into any of the responses to your claims at all. The quesiton about 'intermediate forms' is horseshit, been disproven I can't count how many times. I've already addressed your "tree of life" statement and how evolution is not linear and is very inefficient in many cases, and that a bush would be a much more accurate metaphor, with many branches that end, each with innumberable branches that also end, sudden truncations and useless deviations, beacuse evolution is not a goal oriented process. Whenever you bring up 'odds' or 'probability', I have to ask how you exactly calculated that probability, especially considering your misunderstanding of evolution in the first place.

As for vestigal organs, are you serious? Just to list a few that occur in humans: The appendix, the coccyx, wisdom teeth, the vomeronasal organ, certain ear muscles that do not function, the plica semilunaris tissue of the eyes, certain parts of genitalia and embryo development, and not to mention the list of junk DNA in our genome that doesn't appear to do much of anything. Seriously dude.

And just to your last point, again I ask to see your calculations of this improbability.

Are you kidding me about the fossil record. Do you really think it shows what you think it does. If evolution were true, there would have been ancestors and transitional creatures between each genus, family, order, class, and phylum in the layers below the Cambrian Explosion. Where are they.

Your tree of life explanation? You simply stated that it was confusing and inefficient and that it was a bush. Well, it's not. A bush does not branch low and then reconnect further up so some genes can get from that branch to the other branch to match the observation. Genes are telling different evolutionary stories and drawing them does not explain them.

It seems the vestigial parts list is getting smaller--starting with the appendix. It now seems to "serve an important role" http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...tion-of-t/ Also, plenty of mammals have appendixes. The coccyx is an anchor point to muscles--hardly useless. Other examples--perhaps remnants of the past, but perhaps, like the appendix, we just don't know the purpose yet.

Junk DNA? Read http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/1159.summary

[The Grand Nudger]

Just to be clear, if I told you that evolution began at the very moment of "the cambrian explosion" you wouldn't have any issue with that? That would handle the question nicely, yes?

And yes, bushes do exactly that....they even graft onto other bushes stocks. That's how we produce most tree fruits, actually. It's an ancillary point, I just thought that it might amuse you. Ever wonder why they can do that? Why we can take the "legs" of one type of lifeform, and attach it to the "arms" of another? Or, why we have to to that in the first place?

[Esquilax]

Are you kidding me about the fossil record. Do you really think it shows what you think it does. If evolution were true, there would have been ancestors and transitional creatures between each genus, family, order, class, and phylum in the layers below the Cambrian Explosion. Where are they.

Do you have any understanding of how rare fossil formation actually is? It's not just "animal dies+time= fossil!" there are a lot of intermediary steps, not to mention the risk of any potential fossils getting destroyed in one way or another, not to mention them simply not being dug up through accident or what have you... the simple fact that the fossil record is so comprehensive and lacks any contradictory evidence for evolution is itself staggering evidence of just how accurate the theory is.

Actually think about your contention here: what you're basically saying is that we have so much evidence for evolution, but why don't we have an unreasonably high level of evidence for it? It's completely idiotic, not helped at all by the fact that you're willing to believe creationism despite the fact that you have no fossil evidence at all for it: is it just ideas that you disagree with that need such huge amounts of proof?

Your tree of life explanation? You simply stated that it was confusing and inefficient and that it was a bush. Well, it's not. A bush does not branch low and then reconnect further up so some genes can get from that branch to the other branch to match the observation. Genes are telling different evolutionary stories and drawing them does not explain them.

It does map them, however. Whoever said the tree of life was drawn to explain the various evolutionary lineages? It's a map, it's visual shorthand. It no more was made to explain things than a real map was drawn to explain mountains.

Handily, genetics, the fossil record, and the many observable instances of evolution that happen all over the globe do explain those lineages.

It seems the vestigial parts list is getting smaller--starting with the appendix. It now seems to "serve an important role" http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...tion-of-t/ Also, plenty of mammals have appendixes. The coccyx is an anchor point to muscles--hardly useless. Other examples--perhaps remnants of the past, but perhaps, like the appendix, we just don't know the purpose yet.

So you're willing to indulge in an argument from ignorance and just assume that they have a purpose?