Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Darwin's Startling Predictions

Good science is predictive. The Theory of Evolution is no different. Below I list some of the predictions made by Darwin himself.

1-When Darwin formulated his theory the prevailing scientific opinion was that the earth was only thousands of years old. Calculations done by Lord Kelvin based upon the possible limit for the age of the sun put the age of the earth at no greater than 20-40 million years. Darwin said that the earth would have to be at least hundreds of millions of years old for his theories to be true. Other scientific disciplines, including astronomy, geology, and radiometric dating have proved that Darwin was correct. Darwin's theory was the first piece of science to predict an earth that was this old.

2-At the time of Darwin the dominant scientific view regarding the inheritance of traits was that traits would be diluted in subsequent generations. For instance if a person was extra tall, over time his offspring would generally reduce in height towards the pre-existing average height. A tall human and short human would produce a medium sized human. For Darwin's theories to be true there had to be a means of retaining desired variations. The re-discovery of Gregor Mendel's work has confirmed Darwin's view that traits are not diluted, and genetics has helped explain why this is the case. This again was a bold prediction that contradicted the current views.

3-Based upon studies of human anatomy as well as the anatomy of other primates, Darwin and Huxley predicted that humans and other apes shared a common ancestor that most likely originated in Africa. DNA studies have shown that chimpanzees are our closest evolutionary relative. Many fossil finds in Africa, including such animals as Australopithecus africanus have confirmed Darwin and Huxley's predictions. Australopithecus afarensis is the oldest hominid species ever discovered, and was of course discovered in Africa. What makes this prediction even more amazing is that no hominid fossils had been discovered while Darwin was alive.

4-When Darwin formulated his theories fossils had not yet been discovered dating from the pre-Cambrian era. His theories required that this era would have to have been swimming with life. There must be life in this time frame. In the last 50 years abundant fossils have been discovered from pre-Cambrian eras.

Other predictions of the Theory of Evolution

1-Humans have 23 chromosomes, whereas other apes have 24. If we share a common ancestor with the other apes then two of our chromosomes must have fused to form one. A chromosome has what is called a telomere on either end, which functions to keep the chromosome from falling apart. Kind of like applying heat to the end of a rope to keep it from fraying. The interior of the chromosome has what is called a centromere. These are necessary for chromosome duplication. If humans and other primates share a common ancestor we should find that one of the human chromosomes looks like it is really two chromosomes butted up against one another. This new single chromosome would have a telomere on either end, two centromeres, and two more telomeres at the very center. So what do we see? Human chromosome #2 has exactly these features, with one of the centromeres deactivated.

2-Most mammals manufacture their own Vitamin C, whereas humans must acquire Vitamin C from food sources. If evolution is true our DNA should reveal that we have the genetic mechanism to create our own Vitamin C, but this mechanism has been de-activated for one reason or another. And of course this is exactly what we find. A mutation has de-activated the DNA that allows us to create or own Vitamin C. Furthermore other primates likewise have the identical de-activated Vitamin C manufacturing sequence.

3-As I discussed on the radio with Bob Dutko, there are certain viruses that transcribe there own viral DNA into the cell they have invaded. These are called retro-viruses. If a retro-virus attacked reproductive cells, then the offspring that result would retain the viral signature natively. Evolution would predict that animals more closely related to us would share more virus signatures in common with us, and these virus transcriptions would occur at the corresponding locations within the genome. Animals less closely related to us would have less. What does the DNA evidence show? Exactly what the theory of evolution would predict. To this point 7 shared ERV's have been identified between humans and chimpanzees. Less with other, less closely related animals. For instance, mice and humans share a common ERV. As evolution would predict chimpanzees also have this virus. Mice and humans share an older common ancestor, so you wouln't expect mice and humans to share an ERV that chimpanzees don't also have.

4-The Theory of Evolution predicts that four footed fish like creatures must have emerged about about 375 million years ago in the Devonian period. Rock of this age was exposed due to tektonic movement in Canada, so geologists went there looking for a fossil of a four footed fish like creature. And this is exactly what they found. It is called Tiktaalik.

5-Evolution predicts that whales were once land animals that drank fresh water. They moved first to fresh water, then to salt water. It is possible to determine if an animal drank fresh or salt water by measuring the slightly different oxygen isotopes that result. Sure enough the two oldest species of whale discovered contain oxygen isotope concentrations that show that they were fresh water animals. The later specimens were salt water animals.

What non-trivial, unexpected predictions has Creationism produced? None that I know of.

22 comments:

dcscccc . said...

hi jon. i study biology and i have answers to all yours points about evolution.

lets start with 2 things:

a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

b) from a material prespective the ape is more complex then this kind of robot

a+b= the ape need a designer

or even a self replicat watch .the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

scientist even find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U

plus- if the evolution theory is scientific, how can we disprove it?

have a nice day

Jon said...

Self replicating robot made of DNA? What is that? Ape is more complex than a self replicating DNA based robot? I know nothing about self replicating robots made of DNA.

I think I know what you're saying though. You're saying that if the less complex needs a designer then obviously the more complex would need a designer. Well, I just don't buy that.

Though I can understand why you do. That's reasonable. The human body is definitely complex, and we know complex things that are designed. Your view is the intuitive thing.

But the beauty of science is that it shows that what is intuitive can be wrong. If everything was easy we wouldn't need science. Things that are more complex don't necessarily need a designer.

The flagellum ID thing has been pretty well refuted in my view. Google "Bacterial flagellum debunked."

How to disprove evolution? Find a rabbit in Cambrian rock. Look at genetic sequencing for animals that are close on the evolutionary tree. Maybe a caribou and a moose. If they lack certain similarities, and suppose the caribou has certain similarities with humans that don't exist in the moose, then evolution is in big trouble. You could just go on and on with the disproofs. Prove that the earth is 6K years old. Or even just a few million years old. Evolution is in trouble, as I explained in the above post.

On the other hand disproving the "God did it" hypothesis is impossible. No matter what the evidence shows you can always say God did it that way. We can lay out the fossils in perfect sequence and that won't matter. God did it that way. ID is not falsifiable. It makes no testable predictions. And so it is not science.

dcscccc . said...

hi jon.

you said:

"Self replicating robot made of DNA? What is that?"-


lets say that find one on mars or other planet. is this kind of robot will be evidence for designer?



"But the beauty of science is that it shows that what is intuitive can be wrong"-

yep. but the claim "somthig complex like a robot dont need a designer" is a great claim. and great claim needed great evidence.the evolution try to do this.




"The flagellum ID thing has been pretty well refuted in my view. Google "Bacterial flagellum debunked.""-

you must look at this article:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do_car_engines_run_on_lugnuts002075.html

actually prof miller show a system called ttss. the ttss share 10 similar proteins with the flagellum. miller claim that this is prove that the flagellum can evolve step wise from the ttss. but miller is wrong. a car and airplan also share a lots of parts: wheels, feul ect. but there is no step wise from car to airplan even by intellegent designer. so the ttss cant evolve into the flagellum.



"How to disprove evolution? Find a rabbit in Cambrian rock."-

actually we find this kind of fossils all the time:

http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place

so the evolution is false?



" Look at genetic sequencing for animals that are close on the evolutionary tree. Maybe a caribou and a moose. If they lack certain similarities, and suppose the caribou has certain similarities with humans that don't exist in the moose, then evolution is in big trouble."-

we find this also:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/shark_proteins_080781.html



" Prove that the earth is 6K years old. Or even just a few million years old."-

take a look at this:

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


" No matter what the evidence shows you can always say God did it that way."-

i dont think so. id claim that eye for example cant evolve step wise. so if you will show how an organisem without eye evolve an eye- the id will disprove.


yours sincerely

Jon said...

lets say that find one on mars or other planet. is this kind of robot will be evidence for designer?

Are you proof reading what you post before submitting? I can't understand you.

yep. but the claim "somthig complex like a robot dont need a designer" is a great claim. and great claim needed great evidence.the evolution try to do this.

Again, I find this very hard to comprehend. I didn't say robots don't need designers. And of course any scientific theory requires a great deal of evidence. There is a great deal of evidence for the theory of evolution.

a car and airplan also share a lots of parts: wheels, feul ect. but there is no step wise from car to airplan even by intellegent designer.

But a car is not irreducibly complex. That's the point. The idea from Behe is that the individual components of a mousetrap by themselves serve no function. If you take away the spring from the mouse trap the mouse trap no longer does anything, nor does the spring. That's true for the mouse trap, but false for the flagellum, because the individual components are serving a function. This means the components can arise to serve other functions, then combine to serve the function of the flagellum.

so the evolution is false?

I was careful not to say that you can disprove evolution by finding a fossil out of place. That would be silly. While the theory of evolution is sound there is speculation about exactly when certain species emerged or whether an older species is today extinct (living fossils). When a former belief turns out to be false, say for instance a species was thought to be extinct and it turns out it still exists, this doesn't disprove evolution. It disproves the prior notion that the species was extinct. These are very different things.

A rabbit in Cambrian rock though is a different matter. There were no land animals then, no mammals at all of course. It a pretty dramatic thing. On your view there were always rabbits, at least after day 6. Why don't we ever find them in Cambrian rock? Why not human fossils beneath T-Rex? Why is it that when you go down things get simpler and simpler instead of appearing all jumbled like you'd expect on the biblical model?

Regarding sharks, I had said that "certain similarities" are required by evolution, but I didn't spell those out. Maybe that's a rabbit trail.

You say if we could show that the eye can evolve step wise this would disprove the God hypothesis. Here's a debate with one of the fore most Christian apologists on the topic of Intelligent Design where the critic of ID shows that the eye can evolve from basic steps. Note William Lane Craig, the Christian, note his response. He concedes that the eye can evolve step by step and accuses his opponent of not addressing ID responsibly, since even Behe says the eye is not something he would appeal to in order to make his case. Transcript here.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-intelligent-design-viable-the-craig-ayala-debate

So by your criteria the God hypothesis is disproven.

dcscccc . said...

hi again jon.

first, sorry for my anglish. its not my native.

i will try again my argument about the robot.

you said:



"I didn't say robots don't need designers. "-

ok. if we will find a robot with self replicat system and dna. is this kind of robot is evidence for design?


"There is a great deal of evidence for the theory of evolution."-

ok. lets start. what is your best evidence for evolution from yours prespective?



"But a car is not irreducibly complex. That's the point."-


ok. so how we can make a car by functional step by step? what is your first part to begin with?



". That's true for the mouse trap, but false for the flagellum, because the individual components are serving a function."-


not realy actually. the parts that the ttss have are not functional by themself. they are mix with other parts to make a ttss. so its indeed an irreducibly system. but even if its indeed true its not mean that the flagellum is not ic. for exmaple: we can remove a gps system from a car. the car still be functional. but its not mean that the car can evolve step wise.

2) the flagellum have at least 2 unigue proteins.so this alone refute this senario.



"I was careful not to say that you can disprove evolution by finding a fossil out of place. That would be silly."-



but here is what you said before:

"How to disprove evolution? Find a rabbit in Cambrian rock"-


its indeed a prediction of the evolution not to find a out of place fossil. but its also not true that we dont find such fossils. now the evolutionist trying to make a new theory to explain these fossils. but its prove that the evolution cant be test- and for this reason it isnt scientific.




"A rabbit in Cambrian rock though is a different matter. There were no land animals then, no mammals at all of course."-


2 things in this case:

1)first,where you draw the line? 50 milions years earlier than what we expect?100?150?


2)in this case they could say that the fossil is fake or get into the wrong layer somehow or anything else.



" On your view there were always rabbits, at least after day 6. Why don't we ever find them in Cambrian rock?"-


first, im not a young earth creationist(but i very open to that).

second: there is 2 simple options:

the rabbits population was too small to left fossils.or the designer make rabbits in some point in the history.



"Why not human fossils beneath T-Rex? "-


actually some of the fossils in the article i gave are push back to 100 my! its more impressive then that.




"Why is it that when you go down things get simpler and simpler"-



actually its not realy true.complex animals found just from near the begining (cambrian explosiion).plus- even if it was true: its predict by the creation model also.how? lets say that all animals create at once, according to this claim, what is the first kind of organisem that will appear in the fossil recoed?


" Here's a debate with one of the fore most Christian apologists on the topic of Intelligent Design where the critic of ID shows that the eye can evolve from basic steps"-

not actually. they start with "simple" eyespot. how simple it is? about 200 proteins for a minimal eyespot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_apparatus

"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins"

so its like we need to start from a camera with 200 parts.very complex just from the beginning.

but its not all. even if we try to change this minimal eyespot it will need a lots of new proteins. like to change a simple camera into video camera.

so prof ayala is wrong, big time.

have a nice day

Jon said...

first, sorry for my anglish. its not my native.

Oh, sorry. What is your native language?

ok. if we will find a robot with self replicat system and dna. is this kind of robot is evidence for design?

I would say yes.

ok. lets start. what is your best evidence for evolution from yours prespective?

In my opinion Endogenous Retroviruses are one of the best evidences. I first heard about them from a podcast, and the audio for that is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQgawJkxKF4

I'm going to just pause here because I think we have too many different subjects to address at one time. Let me know what you think of the above.

dcscccc . said...

ok jon. lets go on.


you agree that a self replicat robot with DNA is evidence for design. so...what is the difference in the case of ape for example?



now for the video- the video you linked claim 2 things:

a)that ervs are non-functional
b)that there is a phylogenetic tree among these ervs


these 2 claims however, are false.

ervs actually have fucntion,even very important one:

http://creation.com/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses


‘Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome.’


now for the second claim about phylogeny:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html


"We performed two analyses to determine whether these 12 shared map intervals might indeed be orthologous. First, we examined the distribution of shared sites between species (Table S3). We found that the distribution is inconsistent with the generally accepted phylogeny of catarrhine primates. This is particularly relevant for the human/great ape lineage. For example, only one interval is shared by gorilla and chimpanzee; however, two intervals are shared by gorilla and baboon; while three intervals are apparently shared by macaque and chimpanzee."


so bottom line is that the ervs are not an evidence for commondescent at all.



and by the way, my native language is hebrew.


yours sincerely

Jon said...

I guess for robots I just can't conceive of how natural selection could bring them about. For instance robots use software and software is not something that works a little bit when it's simple and then serves a different function when complex. So if natural selection can't do it, how can it be done without design? But for organic living things that's different. Simple organic living things can work fine in a certain environment, and then more complex things can then work better, and this is how evolution works.

You say the video I linked to says:

a)that ervs are non-functional
b)that there is a phylogenetic tree among these ervs

You then rebut those points. But I relistened to the video. It said neither of those things. These have nothing to do with the argument about how ERV's show common ancestry for humans and other primates.

What I think you've probably done is listened to the video, but listened more closely to the creationist response. They talk about how ERV's can have a function, which seems plausible to me, but they pretend that the evolutionist argued that the ERV is completely non functional. But he didn't. So I think you're paying closer attention to the creationist than the evolutionist so you haven't really listened to the evolutionist argument. So naturally you will not be convinced if you don't listen carefully and fairly consider the argument.

Jon said...

Sorry, just a point of clarification. The video did say that the virus is inactive. That is, it no longer plays the same virus function that it once played in the past. So he said it "sits quietly". This doesn't mean it has no function, but that it no longer active as a virus.

If my father was infected with a virus at his reproductive cell then when I am conceived I will also have that virus signature at the corresponding genomic location. If a woman claims that a child is my son and they do a genetic test and he has the same virus signature at the same genomic location and nobody else does, then he's my son. This kind of thing is done in court all the time. If it's a valid principle in court with paternity suits, why doesn't the exact same principle apply to humans and chimpanzees? We see the common ancestry in the same way we would see it for a paternity suit. If it's good enough for the courts it's good enough for evolution. Instead of talking about whether these viruses signatures currently serve a function or instead of talking about the evolutionary relationship between viruses, talk about how there is no other explanation for common genetic sequencing in this way that we know of other than common ancestry. Tell us how what works in court in a paternity suit doesn't work when we consider chimpanzees and humans.

dcscccc . said...

ok jon.first to the robot with dna.you said:

"For instance robots use software and software is not something that works a little bit when it's simple"-


and this is exactly what we found in living things. like i show you before- even a minimal eyespot (even not an eye)is super complex and contain 200 different parts\proteins. so even from start there is no step wise to somthing more complex.



now lets get into the cantral claim against ervs as evidence for commondescent.

the main point is that the ervs are functional and made by the designer as active promoters just from the beginning of the creation. and not a result of virus infection.


b)another interesting idea(made by some scientist) is that the retrovirus itself infected from the ervs in the human genome!(this is because virus is a parasite, and because of this reason it need a host, so how it evolve in the first place is very mistryes).


c)even if its realy a product of infections, and because the ervs are functional, its mean that the infections are not random at all. so we actually predict that a lots of ervs will share among apes and humans. and even so, we find only 7 match in the same site from nearly 30,000 ervs!


bottom line- there is no evidence for commondescent here. and if the main argument for commondenscent is flaw. its mean a lot.

Jon said...

and this is exactly what we found in living things. like i show you before- even a minimal eyespot (even not an eye)is super complex and contain 200 different parts\proteins.

No, this is not EXACTLY what is found in living things. Software in robots is not like living thing. Transistors, diodes, programming. What organic living thing has these mechanisms? Yes, the eye is complex and so is a robot, but just because two things are complex this does not make them exactly alike.

the main point is that the ervs are functional and made by the designer as active promoters just from the beginning of the creation. and not a result of virus infection.

If ERV's can be functional (we don't know that they are all functional) this doesn't change the argument I'm making. Evolution predicts that we must not share more ERV's with any other animal than a chimpanzee, and it must decrease as we move towards less related cousins. This is what evolution offers that design doesn't: testable predictions that can in fact falsify the theory.

You then assert your conclusion. These are made by a designer. That needs to be proved, not asserted. If we discover that a particular ERV now serves a function in it's mutated state (that is, deactivated from it's prior virus function) this doesn't prove design. In fact it's very consistent with the theory of evolution. That's the whole idea behind evolution. Mutations result in functions that can make on organism more successful at reproducing. So it's no surprise to scientists that some ERV's currently have a function, one that might be different from the function it performed as a virus.

You say it's not the result of a virus infection, but the scientists say that they are. I'm not a geneticist, so my default position is to accept what science says. If you are going to say all of science is wrong you should justify your claim with some evidence from a credible source, like the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Jon said...

b)another interesting idea(made by some scientist) is that the retrovirus itself infected from the ervs in the human genome!(this is because virus is a parasite, and because of this reason it need a host, so how it evolve in the first place is very mistryes).

I'm afraid I cannot understand this sentence.

c)even if its realy a product of infections, and because the ervs are functional, its mean that the infections are not random at all.

The infection is not random. That's not the claim. The claim is that the position of the ERV within the genome is random. We know that based on the way we observe ERV's today. If you take a million different people who contracted AIDS, the position of the ERV within the DNA of the infected cell will vary from person to person.

so we actually predict that a lots of ervs will share among apes and humans.

So you're saying it would have been impossible for God to create chimpanzees and humans with different genomes such that chimpanzees and humans did not share deactivated virus signatures? Are we really to believe that if we failed to find common ERV's you would admit that the God hypothesis is false? That's obviously not true. God can do whatever he wants. He can have humans and chimps share virus sequences, or he can have us not share them. No matter what is observed the God hypothesis is safe. It makes no predictions that could conceivably falsify it, and that's one of the major differences between evolution, which is science, and the idea of design by God.

bottom line- there is no evidence for commondescent here. and if the main argument for commondenscent is flaw. its mean a lot.

There is only one known mechanism for common genetic sequencing. Common ancestry. Unique virus signatures shared between different living things at the corresponding locations in the genome is proof of common ancestry, just as it is proof in court of paternity. It cannot be dismissed as "no evidence" even if those virus signatures today all serve a function.

dcscccc . said...

ok' lets continue.



you said:
"No, this is not EXACTLY what is found in living things. Software in robots is not like living thing. Transistors, diodes, programming. "-


yes. there is a different. but we talking about Irreducible complexity. and this kind of complexity can found both in humans engineering and organisems. so the analogy is great. even evolution scientists compare these 2 things.



"Evolution predicts that we must not share more ERV's with any other animal than a chimpanzee, and it must decrease as we move towards less related cousins."-


first- we now talking about phylogeny. but even intellegent design predict this. because if the ervs are product of design. and because the reason that close genetic similarity= close morphology. its mean that we actually may indeed will find this.

secondly- i dont think evolution predict this either. i gave evidence of ervs that contradict the phylogeny. evolution dosnt predict this. and 7 share ervs from 30,000 its not so impressive. and how after 4.5 bilions years we share only 7 when in the last 6 my we add 30,000 new ervs in the genome?



"This is what evolution offers that design doesn't: testable predictions that can in fact falsify the theory."-


like i show before- the evolution prediction in the fossil field is false. we found a lot of out of place fossils and scientists still believe in evolution. so the evolution itself isnt a scietific theory.




"You say it's not the result of a virus infection, but the scientists say that they are. I'm not a geneticist, so my default position is to accept what science says."-


its not "science" but a part of the scientists community. part of them indeed except the creation model. according to survey from 2005 most of the scientist do believe in intellegent designer. and most of the biologists are open to id also. and this is in the case that this days the academia just learning about evolution without id or creationisem!.

2)the science isnt a democracy. science its all about evidences. we need just 1 scientist with just 1 evidence to disprove any scientific theory.in the past scientists claims that there is no such a thing like quasicrystal. but now we know that there is such a thing.



"If you are going to say all of science is wrong you should justify your claim with some evidence from a credible source, like the peer reviewed scientific literature."-

take this paper for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

the paper show that one in 10^60 sequences will be functionlal in a 150 amino acid protein. so we need 10^60 mutations for a new biological system.


"I'm afraid I cannot understand this sentence."-

meybe the erv infected from the human genome.



"The infection is not random. That's not the claim. The claim is that the position of the ERV within the genome is random."-


not realy. see this for example:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html

"But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing, practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified 'hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically"


and:


"Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes. This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor."

and i can go on.



"There is only one known mechanism for common genetic sequencing. Common ancestry."-


commondesign is also known mechanism. like 2 cars from the same company are very similar.


so again- there is no evidence for commondescent after all from the ervs field.


have a nice day

Jon said...

so the analogy is great. even evolution scientists compare these 2 things.

You can compare them in some ways, but when we're talking about how complex things that come about by natural selection the differences are key. Robots don't come about by natural selection because they don't start as simple molecules that replicate and progress to more complicated molecules that express themselves in different physical ways.

first- we now talking about phylogeny. but even intellegent design predict this.

That is not believable, as I stated last time. God does not NEED chimpanzees and humans to share virus signatures. You have to be honest and admit this. Sure, he could if he wanted, but he doesn't HAVE to. So intelligent design does not predict this. It predicts that God COULD have done this, but he also could have done something totally different.

like i show before- the evolution prediction in the fossil field is false. we found a lot of out of place fossils and scientists still believe in evolution.

I addressed this previously.

its not "science" but a part of the scientists community. part of them indeed except the creation model. according to survey from 2005 most of the scientist do believe in intellegent designer.

That's a separate question. I'm not asking about the % of scientists that accept intelligent design or evolution. I'm asking about which geneticists accept that these virus sequences in fact are not the result of a virus infection. I've never heard that this is in dispute, so if you are going to say it you should back up your claim with evidence.

Jon said...

the science isnt a democracy. science its all about evidences. we need just 1 scientist with just 1 evidence to disprove any scientific theory.in the past scientists claims that there is no such a thing like quasicrystal. but now we know that there is such a thing.

Actually science kind of is democracy. What is scientific is that which has been proved via the scientific method, and part of that method is acceptance within the scientific community. It's not an infallible process, so this process can lead to conclusions that are wrong. If 1 scientist is right and the entire community is wrong that doesn't mean that the conclusion of the 1 correct scientist is scientific. Science and truth are not exactly the same. Darwin's conclusion wasn't scientific when he initially proposed it because it wasn't accepted until later. He was right from day 1, but his conclusion wasn't scientific until it had been proved and accepted.

the paper show that one in 10^60 sequences will be functionlal in a 150 amino acid protein. so we need 10^60 mutations for a new biological system.

I didn't ask you to prove that sequences are currently functional. I made clear in my last post that not only do I accept that, I expect that, so for you to try and prove what I've already clearly accepted means we're not communicating very well here. It will be difficult for our discussion to be fruitful.

"Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes. This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor."

Even if the infections sites were random this wouldn't guarantee that two hosts couldn't be infected at the same site. In science you deal with probabilities. It is extremely unlikely that our shared sequencing is the result of independent infections, though it is possible.

"There is only one known mechanism for common genetic sequencing. Common ancestry."-

commondesign is also known mechanism. like 2 cars from the same company are very similar.


Cars don't have genomes. It is still true that the only known mechanism for common genetic sequencing is common ancestry.

dcscccc . said...

"You can compare them in some ways, but when we're talking about how complex things that come about by natural selection the differences are key."-



what is the conection to the topic of ic? we now talking about kind of complexity. we found this kind of complexity both in living things and man made machines. so again- if there is no step wise for complexity of man made object. why do you think there is step wise in living things?





"Robots don't come about by natural selection because they don't start as simple molecules that replicate and progress to more complicated molecules that express themselves in different physical ways."-



lets say that someone indeed made a robot like this. or even made a self replicat material with dna. is this kind of self replicat material can evolve to a robot?



" Sure, he could if he wanted, but he doesn't HAVE to. So intelligent design does not predict this."-



actually i agree. but evolution doesnt predict this either. for exmaple: even now scientists dont know for shure who is closer to human:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html



"Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends."

" What's more, the study authors argue, the genetic evidence itself is flawed."

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."


so its not clear after all. so even evolution doesnt predict more share ervs.



". I'm asking about which geneticists accept that these virus sequences in fact are not the result of a virus infection. I've never heard that this is in dispute, so if you are going to say it you should back up your claim with evidence. "-


here is a peer review paper by peter borger:

http://creation.com/vige-introduction


"Darwinists are wrong in promoting ERVs as remnants of invasions of RNA viruses; it is the other way around. In my opinion, this view is supported by several recent observations. RNA viruses contain functional genetic elements that help them to reproduce like a molecular parasite. Usually, an RNA virus contains only a handful of genes. Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the agent that causes AIDS, contains only eight or nine genes. Where did these genes come from? An RNA world? From space? The most parsimonious answer is: the RNA viruses got their genes from their hosts."




"What is scientific is that which has been proved via the scientific method"-


yep. and the scientific method is evidence that doenst base on believe..




"I didn't ask you to prove that sequences are currently functional. "


the paper just show that the functional sequences among the dna sequences is very rare. dna becuase this reason we need near 10^60 mutations to make new system via evolution. it will need bilions of years!



"Cars don't have genomes. It is still true that the only known mechanism for common genetic sequencing is common ancestry."-


i dont think so. even if we will find 2 cars with dna and genomes. the best explanation for these 2 cars will be a commondesigner. you dont think so?

Jon said...

if there is no step wise for complexity of man made object. why do you think there is step wise in living things?

Because organic living things replicate by means of a genome, which replicates imperfectly, sometimes leading to altered physical traits that allow the next generation to replicate more successfully. This is natural selection. This is a process that could have started with simple chemical replication. Simple molecules that make copies of themselves, sometimes imperfectly. The simple initial molecules can conceivably lead to more complex molecules, like your genome.

If conceivably a person crafted a simple molecule, and that molecule was then able to replicate and be subjected to natural selection, and then it evolved into a complex thing, like an animal, then sure, the initial product would have been designed. But we'd have no way of knowing it was designed because it is indistinguishable from processes that we know occur naturally without design.

lets say that someone indeed made a robot like this. or even made a self replicat material with dna. is this kind of self replicat material can evolve to a robot?

It's kind of tough to answer questions about imaginary things that we can't examine, but let's suppose someone did design a molecule that for whatever reason due to natural selection changed in such a way that it looked like a robot. What is your question about it?

actually i agree. but evolution doesnt predict this either. for exmaple: even now scientists dont know for shure who is closer to human:

When I talk about "Evolution" I mean the prevailing scientific consensus about it. Remember the discussion about how science kind of is like democracy? Science is what the experts in the field accept. One person publishing a paper that disagrees with the overwhelming consensus can't be called representative of the "Theory of Evolution."

Regardless, the point I'm making is not that chimps are most closely related to us. The point is evolution predicts that whatever animal is most closely related to us, that is the animal that should share the most virus sequences. If that were orangutans then fine. I believe the major reason people don't accept the orangutan hypothesis, despite shared physical traits, is the genomic similarity with chimps.

here is a peer review paper by peter borger:

Why do you say that's a peer reviewed paper? It doesn't appear to be.

i dont think so. even if we will find 2 cars with dna and genomes. the best explanation for these 2 cars will be a commondesigner. you dont think so?

Even if I did it wouldn't change what I said. It is still true that the only known mechanism for common genetic sequencing is common ancestry. Right? Now, it could be God too. God can make our genome look a lot like a chimp genome. He can make us look like a watermelon plant. He can do whatever he wants. But evolution can't. Evolution has limits. We can't have rabbits in Cabrian era rock. We can't have an earth that's only thousands of years old. All kinds of things are off limits. They make our view falsifiable.

Not so for God. Sure, our common genome with chimps could be due to the designer deciding we will look the same. I'm not saying your view is falsified. God can make us share ERV sequences. He can make us not share them. He can do anything. It's an unfalsifiable view. No matter what we observe you can never be proved wrong.

I just find that a view that really puts it's neck out there is more believable. Like Einstein. He said that on the theory of relativity we'll be able to see light bend. So when there's an eclipse you'll see a star appear to shift out of position. If it doesn't happen his theory is wrong. When it did happen that gives him credibility. A view that makes no predictions, takes no risks, is always right no matter what is observed, to me that's not a credible view.

dcscccc . said...

:"but let's suppose someone did design a molecule that for whatever reason due to natural selection changed in such a way that it looked like a robot. What is your question about it?"-



the main question is if its possible or not by step wise. and the answer is not. for exmaple: lets say the we want to add a motion system to the robot. a minimal motion sysyem need a minimum 2-3 parts. so there is no step wise to add this so the robot will never evolve a motion sysyem. the same for vision system(eyes) and so on.




" Science is what the experts in the field accept."-


this is not the case with evolution. some scientists believe in evolution and some not.




" One person publishing a paper that disagrees with the overwhelming consensus can't be called representative of the "Theory of Evolution." "-


so according to this there is no such a thing like quasicrystal because one scientist find this?


yep, now the consensus is that this kind of crystal is real. but in the past the consensus dont accept this. so consensus isnt a way to know the true.



" The point is evolution predicts that whatever animal is most closely related to us, that is the animal that should share the most virus sequences."-


yes. but now if we know that chimp share more ervs. and because the fact that the claim that chimp is more closer to human is in doubt. so even so and even if its true the evolution will not disprove. and where is the limit? one more erv? 3? 7?



"I believe the major reason people don't accept the orangutan hypothesis, despite shared physical traits, is the genomic similarity with chimps. "-

yep. but even the genetic similarity have a problems. some part is close to humans and some part is not.



"Why do you say that's a peer reviewed paper? It doesn't appear to be. "-


jornal of creation is indeed peer review:

http://creation.com/journal-of-creation



" Evolution has limits. We can't have rabbits in Cabrian era rock. "-



what about human with dino fossils? is this kind of fossil will disprove evolution? and if the answer is yes. why?



" It's an unfalsifiable view. No matter what we observe you can never be proved wrong. "-



i dont think so. if we talk about the creationist view- then you can disprove it. prove me that the human evolve from fish or anythig more ancient and you will disprove creation.



"A view that makes no predictions, takes no risks, is always right no matter what is observed, to me that's not a credible view."-



i agree.look above my coment about fossils.

Jon said...

the main question is if its possible or not by step wise. and the answer is not. for exmaple: lets say the we want to add a motion system to the robot. a minimal motion sysyem need a minimum 2-3 parts. so there is no step wise to add this so the robot will never evolve a motion sysyem. the same for vision system(eyes) and so on.

Just because you can't right now imagine how a living thing could develop a robot like feature naturally, this actually doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm not saying it's possible either. We're here speculating about an imaginary object. I'm not sure we can really put these kind of limits on it.

But it's completely untrue that the eye would never be developed via small steps. Here's a brief explanation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

" Science is what the experts in the field accept."-

this is not the case with evolution. some scientists believe in evolution and some not.


In my understanding a "scientific" position is a position that has been accepted as true after having gone through the scientific method. This does not mean that every individual scientist agrees. So for instance almost all scientists accept the Theory of Relativity, but if you find an individual scientist that disagrees this doesn't mean Relativity is not the scientific position.

yep, now the consensus is that this kind of crystal is real. but in the past the consensus dont accept this. so consensus isnt a way to know the true.

Yes, that's why I said previously that science and truth are not the same thing. A claim can be scientific and wrong. Science is the best method I know of for evaluating a truth claim, so it is normal for people to accept that it is truth. However we have discovered later that a claim that was scientific was actually wrong. Like gravitation for instance. The scientific view was that F=ma prior to Einstein, but now we know that relativity modifies this equation.

and because the fact that the claim that chimp is more closer to human is in doubt.

I wouldn't say it's in doubt. It's disputed, but that's true of every scientific claim. But take a look at your article. It still accepts the view that the animal most closely related to us shares more genomic similarities. He says the reason we believe the chimp to be closer is because we've only looked at a small segment of the genome. If we look at a larger segment it would become clear that orangutans are more closely related. So the underlying point I'm making about genomic sequencing remains. If we are closer to the orangutan then if we examine more of the genome we'll find more ERV similarities with the orangutan.

Jon said...

jornal of creation is indeed peer review:

It claims that for itself, but it is not.

what about human with dino fossils? is this kind of fossil will disprove evolution? and if the answer is yes. why?

Of course one fossil out of place wouldn't disprove evolution, because for instance a creationist could take a shovel, dig up some Jurassic rock, and deposit a human skeleton. There can be exceptions for circumstances that are strange like that. But generally yes, human fossils shouldn't be found along side fossils deposited 100 million years ago, having been deposited by sediments that were laid down at that time, because humans hadn't evolved by that point.

i dont think so. if we talk about the creationist view- then you can disprove it. prove me that the human evolve from fish or anythig more ancient and you will disprove creation.

If evolution continues to be accepted by more and more Christians then Christians will just say that this is the way God did it. It's like the rotation of the earth. Most Christians believed the sun went around the earth because they thought the bible taught this. Now that it's proved to be wrong they just say that this is the way God did it. Many Christians already accept evolution, including past Popes. Many protestants do as well. They just say God used evolution. So God is still the creator. This was his means of creating. Sure, you'll have to modify your view of what creation was like, but you can never disprove the notion that God created it.

"A view that makes no predictions, takes no risks, is always right no matter what is observed, to me that's not a credible view."-

i agree.look above my coment about fossils.


As I say, proof of evolution does not disprove creation. God could have used evolution.

dcscccc . said...

hi again jon.


you said:


"Just because you can't right now imagine how a living thing could develop a robot like feature naturally, this actually doesn't mean it's impossible"-


actually we know that there is no step wise.we do know that a motion system or a minimal camera needed a least 2-3 parts for minimal function. its not a belife.




"But it's completely untrue that the eye would never be developed via small steps. Here's a brief explanation"-


not realy. see this article by dr hunter:


http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.il/2014/02/this-journalist-uses-critical-thinking.html


like i said before: the minimum is a lot.




"Yes, that's why I said previously that science and truth are not the same thing. A claim can be scientific and wrong"-


so if the evolution is wrong and scientists still believe in this theory- what does it mean for your opinion? see this movie for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g




" If we are closer to the orangutan then if we examine more of the genome we'll find more ERV similarities with the orangutan "-


no. because your video claims that we aleady know that chimp has more share ervs. so in this case they can say that meybe the ervs infection happaned without full fixations or some ervs delete from the genome.=there is no way to test the theory.



"Of course one fossil out of place wouldn't disprove evolution, because for instance a creationist could take a shovel, dig up some Jurassic rock, and deposit a human skeleton. "-


but i now talk about real fossil that date milions of years.


"But generally yes, human fossils shouldn't be found along side fossils deposited 100 million years ago,"-


not realy. if we will find a human fossil with dino the evolutionist will say that the human evolve earlier then we thought. so again- fossil of human with dino will not falsified evolution.





"If evolution continues to be accepted by more and more Christians then Christians will just say that this is the way God did it. "-


but its contradict the bible. so they cant say this. there is a limit for what they can say. they cant say that there is no god for example.




"As I say, proof of evolution does not disprove creation. God could have used evolution"-


scientific theory isnt just about disproving somthing but even about proving somthing. so yes- i do think i can prove that intellegent design exist.


another question- if we will close a giant room for bilions of years. do you think its possible that if we will open the room after this time we mey be find a car inside?

dcscccc . said...

hi jon. are you still here?