"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is basically why Creation Science isn't really science.

I reckon the term "creation science" shouldn't be used by proper scientists, or people on the pro-evolution side. It gives a false and completely unwarranted sense of respect to creationists who feed off its good name.

Doctor Jimbob

robindch wrote: »

I reckon the term "creation science" shouldn't be used by proper scientists, or people on the pro-evolution side. It gives a false and completely unwarranted sense of respect to creationists who feed off its good name.

Excellent point. Post edited.

shizz

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nah.

haha

RichieC wrote: »

I've never seen a rational argument from a creationist. I've seen some well produced clips on the internet that certainly look credible but, as with right wing think tanks, the credibility is only skin deep.

Don't get me wrong I completely agree, but this is the first time I've heard a creationist say that we should be able to tell the future because of evolution!

beerbuddy

Quick question is there any school in Ireland that teaches creationism.
I suspect a few up the North but not many ?

Doc_Savage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6K43WSZrmI&feature=player_detailpage#t=2116s

sorry to butt in lads but listen to the first few words out of Dembski's mouth here...

oh the irony.....

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Prof Dawkins [...] admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books)


robindch
You will recall from your own words that Dawkins said nothing of the kind. He did not say "that he doesn't have any specific evidence" for the evolutionary origins of mankind. He did say that in none of his previous books was such specific evidence "explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close."

It is quite reasonable to conclude that if he has written several books about Evolution and hasn't explicitly set out the evidence for Evolution ... then this evidence is unlikely to exist!!!
... and certainly I'm correct that, if it does exist he hasn't written it in his books.

wrote:

robindch

I don't expect you to read this book, or for you to understand it if you did.

But on this forum, you are expected not to lie.

I didn't lie ... I took a self-admitted fact ... that Prof Dawkins didn't set out the evidence for Evolution in his books ... and I made the logical deduction that the reason may be that the evidence may not exist.

Sarky

You lied.

It seems pretty pathetic to lie again when the permanent record is right there a few posts above you. Couldn't you have tried to liken anyone who proves you wrong to those responsible for the Holocaust?

robindch

J C wrote: »

I took a self-admitted fact ... that Prof Dawkins didn't set out the evidence for Evolution in his books ... and I made the logical deduction that the reason may be that the evidence may not exist.

You quoted Dawkins as saying "evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out" and that "this was a serious gap that I needed to close" and declared this was an "admission" that Dawkins has no "specific evidence for" the evolutionary history of mankind?

On a mod note, you are free to quote-mine whatever creationists you like and it's unlikely that anybody's ever going to go to the bother of verifying whatever creatrivia you dredge up.

However, as above, misrepresenting people who have dedicated their lives to contributing to the sum total of human knowledge is not allowed.

dead one

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nah.

Hi Doc, I M Neither a Creationist Nor an Evolutionist. You want to place me on the side of creationists because of my ignorance. If that is case then i would like to take side of evolutionist. How's that?.... .... Whether you're Creationist or Evolutionist. It wont benefit humanity... If you'r human with kind heart, this is the thing which benefits humanity... I see majority of evolutionists like are arrogant, They see other people as little, For example.

dlofnep wrote: »

Guys you'll have to forgive dead one's questions. They just are that uneducated. I don't know what country they grew up in, but science certainly wasn't part of their education.

What is this showing off. on the other hand, I haven't seen such thing in JC. I take side of JC because he isn't arrogant as evolutionists are. People like dlofnep are damaging cause of evolution by showing their arrogance.
Well done dlofnep, You've made us proud. This is the reason you aren't able to convince JC even after 500 pages.

robindch wrote: »

Because creationists appear to believe that knowledge of the future is possible, while knowledge of the past is impossible.

Welcome to the splendidly topsy-turvy world of creationism.

Robin, I am not goddamned creationist and i am not goddamn evolutionist. Both are cursed. Both think, both are right, God Damned Gobbies. A plague on both your houses, the house of creationism and the house of evolution ism. A frustrated curse on both sides. You curse creationism and creationists curse you and i curse both of you. God Damned Gobbies . I don't want waste my life in this sh!tty business.

dead one

swampgas wrote: »

You can have a very accurate and solid theory that cannot make specific predictions, but can still be very useful.

It's a bit like predicting the weather. We understand the basic physics behind it, but because of non-linear behaviour tiny random changes in the initial conditions can mean huge differences some time in the future.

The same applies with evolution in nature - small random changes now can mean big changes in the future. If you want to know more, try reading up on chaos theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)

Hi swampgas and thanks for information. If that is case then what makes you to take evolution as science. See, you predict weather on base of science/physics. Why not predict future of human race on base of evolution.... If evolution is really a science?... For example, Science says an asteroid will strike in near future... That's future prediction on base of science... why does evolution fail to predict changes in species in future.

cowzerp

dead one wrote: »

I see majority of evolutionists like are arrogant, They see other people as little, For example.

What is this showing off. on the other hand, I haven't seen such thing in JC. I take side of JC because he isn't arrogant as evolutionists are.

You have got to be Shiitting me!

His argument is based on blind faith and that of an old book wrote by brainwashed near cavemen!

Any eveidence that is sent his way is just passed on-Thats arrogance

Blind faith will do that to people.

dead one wrote: »

Why not predict future of human race on base of evolution.... If evolution is really a science?... For example, Science says an asteroid will strike in near future... That's future prediction on base of science... why does evolution fail to predict changes in species in future.

You can predict what you want but it would purely only be a prediction, Science deals in provable facts, guessing the future is not solid science when it comes to evelution because many things cause evolutionary changes and Human kind is so succesful that we won't need to eveolve too much the next 1000's of years unless we suddenly become less successful.

IT-Guy

dead one wrote: »

Hi swampgas and thanks for information. If that is case then what makes you to take evolution as science. See, you predict weather on base of science/physics. Why not predict future of human race on base of evolution.... If evolution is really a science?... For example, Science says an asteroid will strike in near future... That's future prediction on base of science... why does evolution fail to predict changes in species in future.

I've been reading through this thread for over a year and I admire the patience of those who are willing to explain ad nauseum the facts of evolution. It takes mental gymnastics on an olympic level (gold medal to JC!) to read the detailed explanations and depth of understanding therein only to dismiss it in favor of a myth/folk-tale/ written in a time when 'god' was the best-guess answer to what couldn't be explained.

@dead one: to use your asteroid scenario, scientists would hazard a guess at future species change if there were a 'belt' of mutations that interact with humans in a known and predictable fashion. It can't be predicted how various species will look in a few hundred/thousand years because the results of random mutations of the 25000 - 30000 genes that make up a human is unknowable at this point, the function of every gene isn't yet known.

I'm a lay person in terms of science but to take dead one's question further, once a complete understanding of the human genome is achieved, would it be possible to predict how a mutation on a certain gene sequence would affect a person or animal?

Beruthiel

IT-Guy wrote: »

I'm a lay person in terms of science but to take dead one's question further, once a complete understanding of the human genome is achieved, would it be possible to predict how a mutation on a certain gene sequence would affect a person or animal?

I am also a lay person. But, for the fun of it, I had my genome sequenced.
From looking at my genes, they were able to tell me things about myself that were true.
They were able to trace my last known ancestor back to Jordan over 6,500 years ago.
There is an awful lot of study in this area to do.
However, the parts that the do know already, would suggest, that in the future they will be able to tell you just about anything with regards to your dna.
It is a very exciting area of science research.

dead one

cowzerp wrote: »

You have got to be Shiitting me!

His argument is based on blind faith and that of an old book wrote by brainwashed near cavemen!

Any eveidence that is sent his way is just passed on-Thats arrogance

Blind faith will do that to people.

Isn't evolution a faith/religion. Why should i believe there is no faith/religion in your argument. Are you eyewitness of this evolutionary process. Evolution is theory as God is theory.

cowzerp wrote: »

You can predict what you want but it would purely only be a prediction, Science deals in provable facts, guessing the future is not solid science when it comes to evelution because many things cause evolutionary changes and Human kind is so succesful that we won't need to eveolve too much the next 1000's of years unless we suddenly become less successful.

What if alien from unknown dimensions invade on earth. If you can't see the unseen. What is purpose of All this research... If you can't save humanity in future then you science/logic is weak.

Beruthiel

dead one wrote: »

Evolution is theory as God is theory.

Evolution = backed by facts and evidence.
Religion = zero facts or evidence produced.

I see how the two could mistaken as the same....

dead one

Beruthiel wrote: »

Evolution = backed by facts and evidence.
Religion = zero facts or evidence produced.

I see how the two could mistaken as the same....

hi Beruthiel, thanks for information, Would you agree?

evolution= a process /science used by God for creation, I mean evolution as an agent of creation.

Sarky

IT-Guy wrote: »

I'm a lay person in terms of science but to take dead one's question further, once a complete understanding of the human genome is achieved, would it be possible to predict how a mutation on a certain gene sequence would affect a person or animal?

Short answer cos I'm on my phone: pretty much, yeah.

I'll try a longer answer once I'm near a proper keyboard.

dlofnep

dead one wrote: »

Isn't evolution a faith/religion.

No, it isn't. Evolution is a demonstrable fact, with mountains of evidence to support it.

dead one wrote: »

Evolution is theory as God is theory.

No, it isn't. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it explains a set of facts - The theory of Evolution explains the process for the fact of Evolution.

dead one wrote: »

What is purpose of All this research...

So hopefully, our kids don't turn out as ignorant about science as you.

Sarky

IT-Guy wrote: »

I'm a lay person in terms of science but to take dead one's question further, once a complete understanding of the human genome is achieved, would it be possible to predict how a mutation on a certain gene sequence would affect a person or animal?

Longer answer:

Pretty much, yeah. It could be a while though. The human genome has been sequenced, but that doesn't mean they know which genes do what yet. We don't even know just how many genes are present, exactly. Genes are much more fiddly than people usually realise. The dominant/recessive Mendel stuff most secondary school students end up learning is a gross oversimplification, for example, as it suggests that the recessive gene is inactive when it's still producing proteins that interact with other proteins. And those interactions are very complex. Change one thing and it can cause a massive cascade of changes. Which is, incidentally, of great use in designing drugs and antibiotics; create a substance that affects one little important gene, and it screws with every other gene it interacts with. Easy way to kill bacteria or tumours, knock out the protein with the most interactions.

It's not just a simple case of one protein interacting with another, though. some interactions are chemically strong, some weak. Some proteins interact with several others (some strongly, some weakly), some only interact with themselves, some change what other proteins interact with. some bind together to make different proteins not actually coded for in the genome. We're still not sure how many genes there are in humans because of several factors.

One of those is pseudogenes: generally genes that are damaged so they don't get expressed, or are expressed differently. Typically a small mutation will cause a new "stop" code in the middle of the gene (Or the removal of an existing one) so the protein ends up too short or too long, or the insertion of a new nucleotide or two will cause a frameshift mutation and entire sections of the protein are suddenly made of something completely different. but they can sometimes still have a function; some are accidentally transcribed because they're situated next to a fully functioning gene; Some are identified incorrectly because actually determining a gene's start and stop involves very complex algorithms which don't always get it right; Some are still functional, but the mutations cause the protein it codes for to assume a different shape which might cause it to stop interacting with some proteins or interact with new ones. Most of the time it just renders a gene (and some of the genes it affects) non-functional, but sometimes it doesn't.

There are other factors, like some regions of DNA being overlooked because they code for a protein so small it seems unlikely to do anything, but it still does. Figuring out the genetic sequences is one thing. Figuring out which bits of that sequence actually do stuff is another entirely, and requires everything from discrete mathematics to advanced organic chemistry to quantum physics.

Here's a picture of a small protein-protein interaction network for the human genome. It includes 1,700 proteins. Pretty complicated, isn't it? Note how many grey points denote proteins that are known to do something, but we don't know exactly what yet.

Now consider that current estimates suggest that human DNA codes for somewhere between 20-25,000 proteins. The complexity of such a network is hard to fathom. But, and this is the important part, it's not impossible to understand. Science has only scratched the surface of this stuff really, and we're starting to get a grip on some of it. As usual, it starts with the useful and profitable bits, so we know most about the sections of the genome that are involved in cancer and genetic disorders, and the results of that research has been invaluable in saving lives with new therapies.

It's like putting a really big jigsaw back together, when the jigsaw has a million pieces and it's a picture of something repetitive like a plate of beans, and when you slot two pieces together they change shape. In the last 50 years or so, what we've done is essentially find a corner piece that we can work outwards from. It'll take a lot of time, but eventually we'll figure out where all the pieces go and how they affect all the other pieces. Once that's done, predicting the changes caused by a given mutation or selective pressure will be pretty straightforward.

As with most of science, it's only a matter of time. Religious loons keep shouting "SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW X!". They keep forgetting the last word, the most important word, in that sentence. Science doesn't know X yet.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

Robin, I am not goddamned creationist and i am not goddamn evolutionist. Both are cursed. Both think, both are right, God Damned Gobbies. A plague on both your houses, the house of creationism and the house of evolution ism. A frustrated curse on both sides. You curse creationism and creationists curse you and i curse both of you. God Damned Gobbies . I don't want waste my life in this sh!tty business.

Two drunk creationists?

//facepalm

Bannasidhe

Originally Posted by dead one
Both are cursed. Both think, both are right, God Damned Gobbies. A plague on both your houses, the house of creationism and the house of evolution ism. A frustrated curse on both sides. You curse creationism and creationists curse you and i curse both of you. God Damned Gobbies . I don't want waste my life in this sh!tty business. [/I]

Should I be concerned that the fleas of a thousand camels may infect my Gobbies or are robindch's Gobbies the only Gobbies that have been cursed?

what exactly is a Gobbie?

Sarky

Isn't it a kind of fish?

oldrnwisr

Sarky wrote: »

Longer answer:

Great post. I'm lovin' that Genome Viewer. Very cool. Cheers.

Delirium

Sarky wrote: »

Isn't it a kind of fish?

Not according to urban dictionary :pac:

Sarky

So dead one hates blowjobs? That would explain a fair amount of... Well, yeah.

Bannasidhe

koth wrote: »

Not according to urban dictionary :pac:

No Gobbies at risk chez Bannasidhe then - as a confirmed rug muncher I'm safe - that's a relief and no mistake.

oldrnwisr

koth wrote: »

Gorillas & Humans Closer Than Thought, Genome Sequencing Reveals

Seems that some of JC's pals at ICR have scratched their heads trying to understand the paper above and come up with this feeble-minded crap:

Gorilla Genome is bad news for Evolution


PZ explains why their analsysis is bollocks:

A tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing


These people should really try to learn how to dig up.

joseph brand

Sarky wrote: »

Longer answer:
Here's a picture of a small protein-protein interaction network for the human genome. It includes 1,700 proteins. Pretty complicated, isn't it? Note how many grey points denote proteins that are known to do something, but we don't know exactly what yet.

That picture made my head sore. It's just TOO much.

Fascinating post, even though it caused my brain to curl into the fetal position and suck it's thumb.

Genghiz Cohen

Why is that image named the way it is?

EDIT: Ah
"Interacting" with himself...

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

It's like putting a really big jigsaw back together, when the jigsaw has a million pieces and it's a picture of something repetitive like a plate of beans, and when you slot two pieces together they change shape. In the last 50 years or so, what we've done is essentially find a corner piece that we can work outwards from. It'll take a lot of time, but eventually we'll figure out where all the pieces go and how they affect all the other pieces.

Well Dr. Sarky,
if you ever want to study one persons genome, let me know, I'll send you mine.
H5a1