The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar

What???

Do you know how a debate works?

First, you haven't responded or refuted any evidence presented. Not in the OP or any other post in this thread. You just complained about Sanford writing a book after he retired. That's the sum of your posts so far on this thread. Others have managed to try and debate the mountains of evidence presented in this thread but the sum of your knowledge or lack thereof is complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.

There's no need to move the goal post with you because you haven't debated anything. You make these vacuous statements that are meaningless as it pertains to the evidence presented in this thread.

Just look at all your post. They're devoid of any meaning or any debate. Your knowledge is non existent in this area because you haven't said one thing as it pertains to the information presented in this thread.

So you have 2 extremes

FIRST EXTREME

Krazyshot tries to answer questions by posting links to 40 page PDF's and then saying go fish.

SECOND EXTREME

peter vlar says there's no evidence presented on this thread and he provides nothing but complaints about a Scientist writing a book after retirement

Which is it?

Did Krazyshot try to answer non existing evidence or did peter vlar recognize that he couldn't debate or refute any of these things so he gave us a bunch of nonsense?

Both show they have no answers to these questions.

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.

It's like they have given up trying to at least sound credible. I'm still waiting to hear how any of this violates basic chemisty.

It's like reading the YEC recipe for making the earth's birthday cake;

1 bag of you tube hippies
1cup of Noah's water (only way to explain where it all went)
1/2 cup misappropriated terminology and conjecture
3 dinosaur eggs separated (cuz they know where to find live ones)
Baked in the ovens of hell and allowed to cool for 6000 years on the gardens ledge

Ice the cake with appeal to authority and add a dash of scripture on top to decorate and make it look nice.

Frankly, as I said at no point has the OP ever stated how any of these claims violate basic known chemistry. As for the rise of protiens, the basic building blocks were shown to be able to arise just fine in an "Unintelligent" scenario with Miller Urey. So the OPs claims are irrelevant until they can show there is some external cognitive entity acting on every chemical reaction that is taking place. This includes every time your body exchanges NA and K in the Sodium Potassium pump. Everytime your cells divide, Everytime you taste or smell. Everytime you decide to ingage in extracurricular activities. Every time your Kidneys fill the bladder with waste or your liver processes waste. Why pay for doctors.

According to them, It can't be the alcohol that damages livers or the smoking damaging lungs but rather an intellegent being condemning a person to pain and suffering or even death. Sickle cell Anemia can't be a mutation that affects the shape of the hemoglobin cells creating a shortage of receptors to lock onto oxygen, but while not completely fatal, it just so happens it becomes dominant in low sea level areas with high oxygen concentrations as well as inhibits malarias ability to bind in areas with high concentrations of malaria. Oh might as well add that one too. Everytime you breath, it's not the hemoglobin binding to the oxygen but rather god holding them together (though they might have a hard time explaining blood loss causing death.)

These threads are simply ridiculous. It even has it's own broad field called organic chemistry. Every function in the body is related to chemistry, all the way back to how atoms arrange themselves. There is a reason hexagonal chains are the most stable configuration and why carbon works very well in that role and it has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

a reply to: Cypress

Ok I am curious, as a Chemist. What bit do you think does or does not violate basic chemistry? No seriously I am willing to discuss that. Oh and I am an organic chemist. SO go for it.

a reply to: whereislogic

What a convenient vague definition capitalizing on the ambiguity of language with the rest of your comment.

Nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

The word "evolution" specifically and exactly means 'change over time'. That is the precise and unambiguous meaning of the word.

What is ambiguous about the use of the word in 'these kind of arguments' is that because the word applies to anything and everything that changes over time, that the study of evolution as it applies to biology MUST therefore be expanded to include the everything that changes over time. "You" seem to want to disallow the possibility of managing the bounds of the field of study.

As was pointed out in a previous post, everything is connected in a chain of many, many links. From the Big Bang to the Expanding Universe, to the Cosmos, to Planetary Science, to Geology, to Pre-biotic conditions, to Biology, to Ecology, to Climate Science, etc, etc, etc. They are all LINKED, and they can all be discussed and studied separately.

You cannot study or discuss Geology of a Planet unless the Planet exists; but once the Planet Exists its Geology can be discussed without having to know how it came to exist. Of course how it came to exist creates the fundamental starting point for the Geology. If you don't have tectonic plates that move, then you cannot discuss the consequences of moving tectonic plates.

But in "these kinds of arguments" we are not discussing cosmological evolution, or geologic evolution, or environmental evolution. We are discussing biological evolution. That is specifically the kind of evolution "You" have a problem with and that is specifically what is meant when the word "evolution" is used in the context of "this kind of argument".

There is no ambiguity anywhere. The term is absolutely understood in the context it is being used. "You" are the one that is trying to force ambiguity into the argument by dragging unrelated 'links of the chain'. In biological terms, the Pre-Biotic environment did NOT evolve into life. Biology does not use the word in that way. it uses the word "abiogenesis" for that process. "Biology" is the study of LIFE. "Biological Evolution" is the study of the CHANGE OVER TIME that all LIFE experiences. "Abiogenesis" is the study of how LIFE emerged from the pre-biotic environment.

In strict dictionary terms, of course the pre-biotic Earth environment 'changed over time' to a biotic environment. That is, strictly speaking, evolution.

HOWEVER, Science is a very precise discipline. Cosmologists know that when they use the word 'evolution' in a discussion about the universe, they know they are talking about Cosmological Evolution and not for example the Big Bang Theory - with NO AMBIGUITY (in fact Cosmologist seldom use the word except in popsci discussions). Likewise, when Biologists use the word 'evolution' in a discussion about Biology they know precisely that they are talking about Biological Evolution and not for example Abiogenesis - with NO AMBIGUITY. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about it. The study of how LIFE emerged from the PRE-BIOTIC environment is a DIFFERENT field of study with in Biology. These are essentially cultural agreements to ensure that everyone is 'on the same page' - ground rules with in the discipline.

On the other hand, when anti-Evolutionists like you use the word 'evolution' they are specifically and with intentionality loading it with the vagueness and ambiguity that you are trying to project on scientists. In fact the best definition of the word 'evolution' when used by you in your context would be 'science'.

That is part of the reason you will never me able to make a coherent argument, you don't begin to understand how very out of phase your understanding of the English language is with the Scientific community with which you seek to engage. Of course, you aren't really seeking to engage anyone, nor are you trying to figure out 'whereislogic'. So you have no real reason to align your conceptual landscape with others. By refusing to recognize technical terms and the nuances they reflect, you can fool yourself that you are actually communicating when all you are doing is multiplying your ignorance.

Sad really.

a reply to: Cypress

Ok so lets pick on one thing in this post, Sickle cell. Throughout the entire post you are misrepresenting the view of scientists. Chemists and Biochemists. But here you pick a very real example of biochemistry...

Sickle Cell is one of many mutations in the genetic code, that causes issues. A single change in the code for amino acids changes from glutamic acid (a polar amino acid) to Valine (a non polar amino acid). GAG changes to GTG. The result, HbS. What discovered this? Science.

So quit with the weasel words.

Where's the examples of random mutations adding new information and function to the genome?

a reply to: neoholographic

Well if this is directed at me, you don't understand the difference between Chemistry, Biochemistry and genetics. Luckily I am both a Synthetic ORganic Chemist (if you need specifics) and Bioinformaticist (biochemistry discipline) in training.

So you want new function, caused by mutation.

TRIM5-CypA

a reply to: cooperton

Let's start compiling a list of things that would have all needed to be in the first viable cell:

What in bloody blue blazes would lead you to the conclusion that the first living 'thing' was anything resembling a 'modern' cell? That is just crazy talk, and leads to your absolutely mind-boggling misunderstanding of what the initial living 'things' would have been like.

Here is my favorite refresher course (turn your speakers up for maximum impact):



Come back when you understand the difference between what the earliest forms of life would have been like and what a modern cell is like.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Well if this is directed at me, you don't understand the difference between Chemistry, Biochemistry and genetics. Luckily I am both a Synthetic ORganic Chemist (if you need specifics) and Bioinformaticist (biochemistry discipline) in training.

So you want new function, caused by mutation.

TRIM5-CypA

Try again.

TRIM5-CypA is the fusion of two pre-existing genes. It doesn't change the function of TRIM5 or CypA so there's no new function. Just pre existing genes fused together.

Where is the evidence that a random mutation created a new function or new information?

a reply to: neoholographic

Try again.

TRIM5-CypA is the fusion of two pre-existing genes. It doesn't change the function of TRIM5 or CypA so there's no new function. Just pre existing genes fused together.

Where is the evidence that a random mutation created a new function or new information?

Try again.

The fusion of the two 'pre-existing' genes is PRECISELY the random mutation you are requesting.

Monkey gene that blocks AIDS viruses evolved more than once

The gene, called TRIM5-CypA, well characterized elsewhere (AIDS, 2007; PNAS, 2008), is a hybrid of two existing cellular genes, TRIM5 and CypA. The combination produces a single protein capable of blocking infection by viruses closely related to HIV. Surprisingly, this is actually the second time researchers have identified a TRIM5-CypA gene in monkeys. The other hybrid gene, called TRIMCyp, was discovered in 2004 in South American owl monkeys.

There is your NEW FUNCTION. The mutation produced a new gene which produces a new protein which provides a very valuable function.

You really should attempt to learn about that which you seek to dismiss before you put your ignorance on display.

a reply to: rnaa

Sorry wrong, and you should read the article you posted.

Evolutionary biologists refer to the acquisition of a similar adaptation in different species as "convergent evolution," an example being the independent appearance of flight in both birds and bats. The Harvard team's genetic evidence indicates that the two TRIM5-CypA genes constitute an unambiguous and particularly striking example of convergent evolution. Moreover, the kinds of molecular events required to construct the two TRIM5-CypA genes are thought to be rare.

That the process occurred at least twice during primate evolution suggests that the combination of the TRIM5 and CypA genes provided a strong evolutionary advantage to the individuals in which they originally appeared. An intriguing possibility is that the newly formed genes prevented infection by prehistoric viruses related to modern AIDS viruses. If so, this could mean that AIDS-like epidemics are not unique to our time, but in fact may have plagued our primate ancestors long before the modern AIDS epidemic.

This is convergent evolution that has nothing to do with creating any new information or new function. It's a rare convergence of two pre existing genes. The addition of CypA to TRIM5 allows TRIM5 to recognize different groups of viruses.

So, 1 there's no new information or function and 2:

THERE'S ZERO EVIDENCE THAT RANDOM MUTATIONS ARE THE CAUSE OF ANY NEW INFORMATION OR FUNCTION.

Why do you make this assumption when there's no evidence to support it?

a reply to: neoholographic

Sorry wrong and you should learn to understand English before trying to engage in a complex argument about which you clearly do not understand. I have to assume that English is not your first language here, if it is I apologize in advance and suggest that you wait a few years to gain a bit of adult vocabulary before engaging in adult conversations.

This is convergent evolution

Yes. And your problem with this is what exactly?

Do you understand what the term 'convergent evolution' means? Did you read the article I posted? It explains it very clearly, and that explanation is in the first sentence of the snippet you posted.

"Convergent Evolution" is the descriptive term for mutations that occur in different locations and species that do similar things. It is not something different to random mutation, it is random mutations that have similar results.

So the separate mutations occurred in populations of different species in different parts of the world that produced a similar gene function. The combination of CypA and TRIM5 to form TRIM5-CypA is ONE mutation event. That it happened in two different populations is an example of 'convergent evolution'.

Get it? The combination is not 'convergent evolution', it is one mutation. That it happened twice is an example of 'convergent evolution'.

that has nothing to do with creating any new information or new function.

Again you should read the article and try to understand the adult level English. Actually you don't even have to read the article; in the paragraph I posted I put the relevant information in bold. Here it is again just to make sure you can see it:

The combination produces a single protein capable of blocking infection by viruses closely related to HIV.

It's a rare convergence of two pre existing genes.

Well, sort of, but you are trying to confuse the issue by using the word 'convergence' to describe the process and that is mistaken at best and disingenuous at worst.

The two genes did NOT 'converge', they 'combined', and the resultant combined gene has nothing to do with 'convergent evolution'. They 'combined' as the result of a random mutation. This combination is NOT what is meant by the term "convergent evolution" and you should not try to confuse yourself or your readers by trying to 'overload' technical terms with common terms.

The addition of CypA to TRIM5 allows TRIM5 to recognize different groups of viruses

So, 1 there's no new information or function

TRIM5-CypA does not 'recognize' viruses of any kind (at least there is no evidence of that according to the information available in the article). However if it did, that is new information and new function.

TRIM5-CypA DOES produces a NEW protein that neither of them produced before the combination. That is most definitely NEW information and new function.

and 2:

THERE'S ZERO EVIDENCE THAT RANDOM MUTATIONS ARE THE CAUSE OF ANY NEW INFORMATION OR FUNCTION.

Of course there is: the very existence of the combined TRIM5-CypA is evidence that a random mutation occurred that combined the two separate genes TRIM5 and CypA into one new gene. Even you admitted that when you described the process as 'converged'.

Why do you make this assumption when there's no evidence to support it?

It is not an assumption; it is a statement of obvious fact, which you explicitly conceded when you tried to describe the process as a 'convergence'. TWO previously existing genes combined to form ONE new gene. That is a mutation. The new gene produces a NEW protein. That is new information and new function.

That you refuse to understand what it is that constitutes a mutation (or perhaps you do but just refuse to acknowledge that you do) is going to forever put you at a disadvantage in discussions with those who do. You really ought to correct this problem before you try arguing against stuff you just don't understand.

a reply to: rnaa

Sadly for you, the source article you quoted supports exactly what I'm saying.

Evolutionary biologists refer to the acquisition of a similar adaptation in different species as "convergent evolution," an example being the independent appearance of flight in both birds and bats. The Harvard team's genetic evidence indicates that the two TRIM5-CypA genes constitute an unambiguous and particularly striking example of convergent evolution. Moreover, the kinds of molecular events required to construct the two TRIM5-CypA genes are thought to be rare.

Again, a rare event that doesn't provide any new information or function. There's zero evidence to support this nonsene.

This in no way supports evolution but intelligent design. You keep saying that a random mutation is responsible for creating new function and new information but you haven't provided the evidence to support this.

You assume, random mutations create new function and information but that notion is just absurd.

If I take the alphabet and scramble and shake up the letters and part of the letters spell out thatway, what's responsible for giving meaning to the sequence of letters thatway? You're saying, the scrambling of the letters is giving new meaning to the sequence of letters.

Let me repeat this because this is just idiotic.

You're saying the shaking and scrambling of letters CREATES meaning in a sequence of letters.

There's no evidence that random mutations do this and based on what we're learning about junk DNA and the ENCODE project, it shows DNA sequences can have dual meanings that are regulated and expressed by what was previously called junk. Here's another example from talk origins.

RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

Again, why is it assumed that random mutations gave meaning to the sequence RNASE1B?

This argument falls flat on it's face because there's no evidence that random mutations can give meaning to a gene sequence especially with the evidence of functionality in what was called by Darwinist Junk DNA.

originally posted by: cooperton
So you're admitting it was designed, but you think, for example, humans, look unintelligent?

You are purposely taking my word out of context to misconstrue my point. Also, not really. I think humans overvalue their intelligence just like we have overvalued every other aspect of how humans relate to the universe. Earth isn't the center of the universe. It is a tiny planet that revolves around a star that, while very large in comparison to it, is only about average in size as far as stars go. We aren't the most numerous species on the planet. Just about all hobbies, evils, charities, and actions in general that humans do can be seen duplicated in nature.

So no, I don't think we are all that intelligent actually. We just have big egos.

This isnt evolution though. When Japheth migrated north through the Caucus mountains, thus giving rise to the Caucasians, the average skin tone of these people became lighter because less melanin was required to absorb sunlight at higher altitudes - Would you say this is evolution? Surely not - and neither is dog breeding.

Why not? Adaptation is part of evolution. Life changes over time and examples like that are just one example of it happening.

Until humans can create cyborgs that can match the potential of the human, which would require all of the following: free will, self-repairing mechanisms, reproduction mechanisms, creative abilities, intuition, emotions, a central pump that can work non-stop for over 100 years (heart), the ability to learn, stand upright, adapt to various environments, and so on - I will consider that God has much more intelligent prowess than humans.

That really isn't that unrealistic of a thing though... We may achieve doing that very thing within our lifetimes with the way technology develops. Plus, it'll be able to do all of those things MUCH more efficiently and with less waste produced. Humans produce a lot of waste and are very inefficient on how we process energy.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic
I could care less about your unreasoned attempt to declare evolution false.

You have it mixed up. We are arguing for a Reasonable Intelligent account of the creation of life. it is some evolutionists, on the contrary, who are saying there was no reasonable intelligence involved.

You mean intelligent design hypothesis wants to piggyback on the credibility of modern evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This in no way supports evolution but intelligent design.

I'm trying to follow along with your argument but it doesn't make sense in the context highlighted above. Are you saying life is by intelligent design? Or are you saying that evolution is intelligent design? Or are you saying that the way life changes and adapts to its environment is actually by intelligent design (and not evolution)? Or are you saying that life does not change and adapt to its environment (i/e does not evolve)? Or do you just have an issue with the fact the evolution has been defined as a random walk in the park? You can't deny that life changes, can you?

a reply to: Noinden

It was actually a late night rant against YEC and ID, so I probably did a poor job wording and trying to express what I wanted to get across. I was tired and just coming off a double shift so my bad on that one. Normally, I wouldn't even bother posting because it is pointless and chemistry is far from my strong suit, however, never does once does the OP address where any of their claims act outside the boundaries of chemistry. That is the problem I have with all these threads lately. Even the abiogenesis debate IMO, is not even whether abiogenesis happened, but what conditions are needed to act as a catalyst and the role the early earth played.

As for my official view. At no point does any specific area violate chemistry. Every basic day to day requirement for life is a chemical process and the evidence shows that intelligence is required to preform those functions. So until the YEC crowd can show evidence that life is anything other than a series of complex chemical reactions, there is no reason to entertain the idea of intelligent design at any level of life, from formation through evolution. Everything the OP posted fails to do so.

My apologies for my last post being an off the cuff rant.

a reply to: rnaa

This is all fine a good. But where it gets hazy is trying to define the point when life actually emerged. What was the very first life? Was it LUCA? Evolution relies on the LUCA to be valid, but do we know what that was? Or how that evolved into being? Was it just one type of organism or many? Did life emerge in just one puddle or all over the planet at the same time? The answers to these questions, I think, have deep implications for how things evolve.

It's understandable that biology would only concern itself with life once it's emerged. But with evolution, which is modelled on ancestors and lineages and phylogenetic trees and such, you can't ignore what the very first instance of life was. And naturally one might then wonder what the previous ancestor to that was, and so on. Why do we consider life to be nothing but chemistry, but then ignore that same chemistry when it comes to how life came to be?

I'm not able to buy into intelligent design, but evolutionary theory is vastly incomplete and too often relies on assumptions. It's the "greatest theory ever conceived" yet leaves more questions than answers.

a reply to: rnaa

Why don't you ignore the video from Wazooloo about "Define evolution" some more will ye. Rinse and repeat the same capitalization on the ambiguity of language, Eccl.1:9. Thanks for the demonstration, without people like you, I'd be lost in the same mental quagmire you're in. Best evidence for the reliability and accuracy of the bible for me.

Just keep on pretending you can switch to the definition "change over time" in a thread like this whenever you feel like it, just like the examples Krazysh0t used to pretend that evolutionary philosophies somehow have influence on the way medicines are developped (by just pretending that the study of drug resistances is studying "evolution" cause it's studying "change over time"). Clearly when people in this thread are using the word "evolution" they don't want people to only think about "change over time" (which would include design changes that weren't caused by the laws of nature, which is why they make it so vague deliberately so they can pretend you can't tell the difference between something that was designed and something that was caused by the laws of nature and to lower the requirements for what they refer to as "evolution" by just defining it by describing a fact that could apply to all sorts of things that are changing but have nothing to do with mutations acted upon by natural selection, or macroevolution/"Darwinian evolution", quoting Shapiro).