An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Venter, Dolittle, Woese, everyone who has questioned the phylogenetic tree from a universal common ancestor, they all must be Creationists, and sneaky ones, too.

Except of course, Venter for one, didn't say any such thing. Read the link.

Please review the video of the discussion panel.

Venter, in response to a question from the astrpohysicist Paul Davies, inferred that life had had different starting points. In the video (from the 9 minutes 4 seconds point), Venter clearly states "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up. There may a bush of life... There is not a tree of life".

As further evidence of what Venter was actually saying just watch the video a little longer to see Dick Dawkins response, which was, "I'm intrigued at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction". Dawkins seems to have understood clearly what Venter was saying and seemed upset that the basis of his belief was under challenge.

So, Venter did explicitly say such a thing.

The argument provided in the "Duelling Scientists" article ignores that the tree of life as a conceptual framework allows us to test the science, even though such a tree need not actually exist in fact. Venter throughout the video repeatedly referred to the conceptual framework but also stated clearly that it was not fact.

there is still no dilemma, be it tree or bush or fungus.

This reminds me of a joke about various Russian communist leaders on a train. They are urgent to get to their destination but the train stops to refuel.

Lenin stands up and announces that he will inspire the engineers and get the train going. He leaves the carriage and comes back a minute or two later, announcing the train will be moving soon as the workers have been inspired to redouble their efforts.

After a minute with no movement, Stalin stands up and says "I'll sort it out". He leaves the carriage and there are numerous gunshots. He returns and sits down, saying "The workers who failed in their national duty have been removed. The train will be going soon, new staff have been appointed and they are highly motivated".

After some more minutes without any movement, Breznev stands and pulls down all the blinds over all the windows in the carriage. He sits down and announces "the train is now moving".

The fungus of evolution reminded you of a communist joke? because atheism i presume? perhaps they should have asked jesus to take the wheel... but then they would still be sitting there, waiting.

there is an atheist, communist, Nazi, and the pope sitting in a boat not far from shore, but far enough that they couldn't see the bottom. Having brought snacks with him, the atheist decides he is thirsty but the cooler is still back on land, they had figured they would wait until dinner but there is no harm in having a drink early. he walks right across the water and grabs one. the power of suggestion leads the Nazi and communist to follow his cue, casually strolling along the water to the shore to retrieve their beverages. the pope stares, fingering his jewelry and straightening his crown, disbelieving but unable to deny his own two eyes. he thinks, these people are making me look bad by doing miraculous things even though they are not men of god, whereas I am. if anyone can do it, it should be me. Bravely, he proclaims his intent and steps out of the boat. And promptly sinks to the bottom of the water, burdened with his tokens of divine authority and squirming uselessly. a moment of silence passes as they sip their drinks and watch the ripples fade away. then the Nazi says "you think we should have told him about the rocks?"

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Venter, Dolittle, Woese, everyone who has questioned the phylogenetic tree from a universal common ancestor, they all must be Creationists, and sneaky ones, too.

Except of course, Venter for one, didn't say any such thing. Read the link.

The argument that they have to be on the same tree of life because "they are all based upon the same DNA molecule" is a frivolous as suggesting that we should add cars and rocks to the phylogenetic tree because they are all made of atoms as well.

Transcription Coding variations indicate a disjoint between 'branches' of life. The sequence of evolution, as currently envisaged, requires a connection.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Venter, Dolittle, Woese, everyone who has questioned the phylogenetic tree from a universal common ancestor, they all must be Creationists, and sneaky ones, too.

Except of course, Venter for one, didn't say any such thing. Read the link.

Please review the video of the discussion panel.

Venter, in response to a question from the astrpohysicist Paul Davies, inferred that life had had different starting points. In the video (from the 9 minutes 4 seconds point), Venter clearly states "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up. There may a bush of life... There is not a tree of life".

As further evidence of what Venter was actually saying just watch the video a little longer to see Dick Dawkins response, which was, "I'm intrigued at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction". Dawkins seems to have understood clearly what Venter was saying and seemed upset that the basis of his belief was under challenge.

So, Venter did explicitly say such a thing.

The argument provided in the "Duelling Scientists" article ignores that the tree of life as a conceptual framework allows us to test the science, even though such a tree need not actually exist in fact. Venter throughout the video repeatedly referred to the conceptual framework but also stated clearly that it was not fact.

there is still no dilemma, be it tree or bush or fungus.

This reminds me of a joke about various Russian communist leaders on a train. They are urgent to get to their destination but the train stops to refuel.

Lenin stands up and announces that he will inspire the engineers and get the train going. He leaves the carriage and comes back a minute or two later, announcing the train will be moving soon as the workers have been inspired to redouble their efforts.

After a minute with no movement, Stalin stands up and says "I'll sort it out". He leaves the carriage and there are numerous gunshots. He returns and sits down, saying "The workers who failed in their national duty have been removed. The train will be going soon, new staff have been appointed and they are highly motivated".

After some more minutes without any movement, Breznev stands and pulls down all the blinds over all the windows in the carriage. He sits down and announces "the train is now moving".

The fungus of evolution reminded you of a communist joke? because atheism i presume? perhaps they should have asked jesus to take the wheel... but then they would still be sitting there, waiting.

there is an atheist, communist, Nazi, and the pope sitting in a boat not far from shore, but far enough that they couldn't see the bottom. Having brought snacks with him, the atheist decides he is thirsty but the cooler is still back on land, they had figured they would wait until dinner but there is no harm in having a drink early. he walks right across the water and grabs one. the power of suggestion leads the Nazi and communist to follow his cue, casually strolling along the water to the shore to retrieve their beverages. the pope stares, fingering his jewelry and straightening his crown, disbelieving but unable to deny his own two eyes. he thinks, these people are making me look bad by doing miraculous things even though they are not men of god, whereas I am. if anyone can do it, it should be me. Bravely, he proclaims his intent and steps out of the boat. And promptly sinks to the bottom of the water, burdened with his tokens of divine authority and squirming uselessly. a moment of silence passes as they sip their drinks and watch the ripples fade away. then the Nazi says "you think we should have told him about the rocks?"

a reply to: chr0naut

Except your comment about cars and rocks is specious. DNA is a complex molecule, with some fairly unique abilites. Atoms are atoms are atoms. So I am assuming you were being facetious

Now the comment on Transcription coding variation fallacy which you are trying to sell, is actually not evidence against evolution as currently stated, it is a common anti-evolution propaganda device. As you know full well, science is willing to change with the evidence, as long as the evidence is compelling. So speaking as a trained Bioinformaticist one is going need to have more than supposed coding variations, to invalidate evolution

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Except your comment about cars and rocks is specious. DNA is a complex molecule, with some fairly unique abilites. Atoms are atoms are atoms. So I am assuming you were being facetious

Now the comment on Transcription coding variation fallacy which you are trying to sell, is actually not evidence against evolution as currently stated, it is a common anti-evolution propaganda device. As you know full well, science is willing to change with the evidence, as long as the evidence is compelling. So speaking as a trained Bioinformaticist one is going need to have more than supposed coding variations, to invalidate evolution

Does the fact that all life is coded in the DNA molecule somehow make up for the fact that there are differences in transcription coding? If it does, then please explain how?

The issue is not that "everything must be related because - DNA", but how to explain the differences in transcription coding across domains. Can there be conditions which would provoke and promote the change?

Also, that it appears likely that there were multiple abiogenetic events, does not negate evolution at all. It only calls into question current evolutionary orthodoxy - as do many new scientific discoveries.

Science is always adapting to new challenges to assumedly unassailable paradigms.

The only way this could support a Creationist viewpoint is if there were no evidence at all for biologic evolutionary processes beyond the abiogenetic events. This is not the case as there IS a vast amount of evidence, that almost every mechanism driving biological evolution has been objectively observed and does actually occur.

It does not invalidate evolution, it is an additional mechanism that, alongside evolution, explains observed biodiversity more completely.

a reply to: chr0naut

The issue is not that "everything must be related because - DNA", but how to explain the differences in transcription coding across domains. Can there be conditions which would provoke and promote the change?

I don't understand your logic. Every transcription unit codes for one or more genes. The codes are unique to a particular species. But the DNA molecule itself is the database of four nucleotides which is ubiquitous to all forms of life on this planet. Can the transcription unit code change? Yes. Can the DNA database change? No - at least not to our knowledge.

Please explain what you're driving at. Thanks.

a reply to: chr0naut

You have yet to state, why on a biological level, "different coding" matters Also yes the fact every form of life uses DNA or RNA (note that later bit) is important.

a reply to: chr0naut

there is a process to adapting to such challenges and a process to modifying so called paradigms. finding error in a methodology does not automatically make the methodology useless, could be a case of improvement. we already know there is room for improvement, the key is remembering how to improve and committing to it. research in evolution appears to be doing so. all the same, if you are the one who improves current tools and techniques and revolutionizes these processes, you would be honored, not vilified.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Also these people seem to forget, Science allows for its self to be proven wrong. It will adapt to new evidence, and re-evaluate its theories.

What I don't get is these people who take a single bit of evidence, and say that this alone disproves a theory (say evolution). They can't say WHY it disproves it, just that it does.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Maybe you're missing a step. Or maybe there is more to it than you've read so far.

Try contacting a specialist in that field who's working directly with that problem and try to get your answers from them.

Or possibly there is a part of that specific theory that needs adjustment.

Could be many different solutions possibly.

It still seems a lot closer to being valid than a magic sky man.

If ServantOfTheLamb was after answers, there would not be topic, would be?
He is just trying to confuse himself to point that angry man in sky seem like 'only' option.

a reply to: chr0naut

Glad to see someone understands the post!

a reply to: SuperFrog

Oh yes! Lets point out the fact that Servant of the Lamb is Christian and imply that if he wasn't Christian he would agree with us! Oh his biases are in the way, anything he says is automatically invalid! Grow up.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

As a Christian creationist you have an inherant and unavoidable conformation bias when it comes to this topic. If you were being honest you would admit this...

a reply to: Prezbo369

That is the problem here, the creationist crowed, are not going to admit a conformation bias. They are also biased to assume those who are not pro-creationist are all atheists. Now to be fair the more staunch athiests in these threads assume that all the creationists are Christian, while not a bad assumption, we have had athiest IDers in these threads too. Which makes strange bed fellows for the ID-creationist crowd

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

You have yet to state, why on a biological level, "different coding" matters

Also yes the fact every form of life uses DNA or RNA (note that later bit) is important.

Well, either there is a mechanism that connects one style of decoding to another, providing a path through which one type of life could evolve into another.

Or, the branches may not actually relate to each other and appearences are misleading, a mirage of our patterm seeking brain.

If there's no mechansm for getting from one organism to another, then what might that mean?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Prezbo369

That is the problem here, the creationist crowed, are not going to admit a conformation bias. They are also biased to assume those who are not pro-creationist are all atheists. Now to be fair the more staunch athiests in these threads assume that all the creationists are Christian, while not a bad assumption, we have had athiest IDers in these threads too. Which makes strange bed fellows for the ID-creationist crowd

Life could still be uniquely created (abiogenetic starts) and also evolve into new forms, which is a probability that's entirely scientifically justifiable.

How could anyone oppose something so simple and rational?

a reply to: Prezbo369

There are plenty of theistic evolutionist. I see no contradiction between the theory and my personal beliefs. I simply am not convinced that we are aware of a mechanism that would allow cell to man evolution to occur.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Prezbo369

That is the problem here, the creationist crowed, are not going to admit a conformation bias. They are also biased to assume those who are not pro-creationist are all atheists. Now to be fair the more staunch athiests in these threads assume that all the creationists are Christian, while not a bad assumption, we have had athiest IDers in these threads too. Which makes strange bed fellows for the ID-creationist crowd

Life could still be uniquely created (abiogenetic starts) and also evolve into new forms, which is a probability that's entirely scientifically justifiable.

How could anyone oppose something so simple and rational?

That's merely speculation. We only know that it started at least once. Unless someone can present evidence of multiple life-forming events, then it remains speculative. "Could have" doesn't mean anything without evidence.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369

There are plenty of theistic evolutionist.

If you mean theists that accept evolution, then you're right yes there are. However unlike youself none of them invoke magic.

I simply am not convinced that we are aware of a mechanism that would allow cell to man evolution to occur.

You mean the theory of evolution by natural selection? The scientific theory that you deny?

a reply to: chr0naut

I think you misunderstand the definition of rational their neighbor. Anything which involves the idea of a supernatural being(s) is not rational by the very definition. I say this as someone into the occult Mind you my spiritual path does not blame the creation of the universe or living creatures on Gods.