Racmanaz wrote:
That's all you have to say??? nothing to refute this?? You know he has predicted at least two things about this theory that were found to be true years later. He predicted that there would be oceans of water under the crust about deep or so......that has been confirmed by scientists. He also predicted that there would be missing Earths crust in the Atlantic ocean.........that has been confirmed back in 2007.
Actually, what has been shown by working scientists is that there is water bound up in an unusual mineral called ringwoodite about 225-400 miles below the crust. This is very different from flowing water as in an ocean.
Racmanaz wrote:
If Lenski's experiments was so ground breaking for evolution don't you think most of the Atheist leaders would be carrying that water bucket with them everywhere they debate? Yet none of them do in all the debates I have seen and I have seen many. So my own conclusion is that it's been so ineffective they decided not to use such a weak support evidence.
I'm very confident Dr Jeffery Tomkins knows what he is talking about and is educated well in his field. I would elect to listen to him than someone on UHH who claims his credentials on here. :) Have a good night
Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins earned a masters degree in plant science in 1990 from the University of Idaho, where he performed research in plant hormones. He received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University in 1996. While at Clemson, he worked as a research technician in a plant breeding/genetics program, with a research focus in the area of quantitative and physiological genetics in soybean. After receiving his Ph.D., he worked at a genomics institute and became a faculty member in the Department of Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson. He had become a Christian as an undergraduate at Washington State University in 1982, with a goal to eventually work as a scientist and author in the creation science field. In 2009, Dr. Tomkins joined the Institute for Creation Research as Research Associate. He is the primary author of The Design and Complexity of the Cell and a contributor to Guide to Creation Basics and Creation Basics & Beyond.
If Lenski's experiments was so ground breaking for... (
show quote)
Rac: I'm afraid your confidence in Dr. Tomkins may be misplaced. I just finished reading the original article,and he has simply either misunderstood it or misrepresented its finding. What McLaughlin et al reported was that amino acid substitutions remote from binding domains can alter binding affinity. This is neither positive nor negative, it just is, but it may help explain how changes in proteins can result in changed affinity while maintaining the underlying function (i.e., a proteolytic enzyme remaining as such, but binding to a different substrate, causing protein breakdown of a different substrate than is normal).
And while you are disparaging Richard Lenski's work, which resulted in 228 full length, peer-reviewed researchpublications, you might want to compare that to Tomkins' 1 publication, apparently out of his dissertation. The remainder of his published works are theoretical pieces at best, but no experimental science is actually involved.
The usual doubletalk by preachers masquerading as biochemists. In order for a protein to acquire a new function it might well have to lose its prior function. That happened in the case of the enzymes in the blood clotting cascade as well as in Lenski's experiments in which existing proteins in E. coli acquired the ability to metabolize glucose, a property they lacked prior to selection. Reading the summary at ICR, it looks like McLaughlin et al failed to look for other functions acquired by the mutated proteins. OTOH, they might have, but since I haven't read the primary paper, and am reluctant to rely on an ICR summary, I can't comment further. Take a look at Evolution of the new vertebrate head by co-option of an ancient chordate skeletal tissue
David Jandzik, Aaron T. Garnett, Tyler A. Square, Maria V. Cattell, Jr-Kai Yu & Daniel M. Medeiros
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature14000
for a nice example of a protein (FOX3) taking on a new role in the evolution of the vertebrate skeleton.
It's just scientists doing what scientists do - evaluating evidence and modifying their hypotheses based on the evidence. Especially enlightening in view of your questioning whether evolution science is actually science.
letmedance wrote:
[q
OldDoc, You must know by now that Evolution is Satan's snake oil. Rac will look at yor proof and dismiss it as evil lies produced by the Devil. He has rejected all proofs just as we reject all of his fractured science, tit for tat.
uote=OldDoc]It's the same old snake oil - give a wrong definition, then "prove" that by that definition your snake oil cures something. In this case, the wrong definition is of the second law of thermodynamics. Please see
http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/entropy.htm for a more rigorous discussion of thermodynamics. The second law has to do with energy. In attempting to simplify the second law we often describe the loss of organization, but that is not the second law. So what they've done is to create their own second law of thermodynamics in which an open system cannot must undergo increased entropy, so cannot become more complex, and used that "law" to show that evolution is impossible. The second law does not say anything except that in a closed system thermal energy becomes distributed. That is what the second law says, and no amount of biblicizing can change that.
Now, let's deal with your assertion that it is proven that no new species have arisen. Take a look at the publications of Lenski, who, over a 30 year period observed the evolution of a new species of bacteria in the lab. As for the lack of transitional fossils, there are so many that I really am at a loss to reply other than to call BS on that assertion.
q br OldDoc, You must know by now that Evolution ... (
show quote)
[/quote]
Of course I know that Rac's mind cannot be changed by logical or scientific proofs. That isn't why I respond to him. My worry is that some naive reader will think that what he and his kind say is correct since there is no rebuttal. Anyone who reads this thread will readily see Rac's hands firmly clamped over his ears and hear the loud humming as he tries to drown out any view but his own.
Racmanaz wrote:
OK I see where he said that "evolution also appears to defy Entropy, the second law of thermodynamics that things decline over time, we see species go extinct and we don't have one recorded example of a new species ever becoming".
I don't see where he is in error with this, this is a proven fact that there are no new species that has arisen from another, unless of course one believes in the false theory of Darwinian evolution. Yet Darwinian evolution is not a fact at all, there is not one evidence of a complete intermediate line of transitional form of Darwinian evolution. If Darwinian evolution was true, we would have found millions many trillions of transitional fossils to complete at least thousands of lines of species evolving, but we don't have any at all.
Now when it comes to cellular entropy, No amount of energy will increase or add to the non material information code in the DNA molecule unless it is added by a non material agent. No material substance can ever create a non material information code into a DNA molecule, this is a proven fact. So, if energy can not add information to DNA, what happens in light of the Law of Entropy? I can tell you now that it will be in decline due to this law. This is the same with the origin of life it self, how did this first life begin and how could it have increased information to evolve when it can't even create non material information???
OK I see where he said that "evolution also a... (
show quote)
It's the same old snake oil - give a wrong definition, then "prove" that by that definition your snake oil cures something. In this case, the wrong definition is of the second law of thermodynamics. Please see
http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/entropy.htm for a more rigorous discussion of thermodynamics. The second law has to do with energy. In attempting to simplify the second law we often describe the loss of organization, but that is not the second law. So what they've done is to create their own second law of thermodynamics in which an open system cannot must undergo increased entropy, so cannot become more complex, and used that "law" to show that evolution is impossible. The second law does not say anything except that in a closed system thermal energy becomes distributed. That is what the second law says, and no amount of biblicizing can change that.
Now, let's deal with your assertion that it is proven that no new species have arisen. Take a look at the publications of Lenski, who, over a 30 year period observed the evolution of a new species of bacteria in the lab. As for the lack of transitional fossils, there are so many that I really am at a loss to reply other than to call BS on that assertion.
Racmanaz wrote:
I would have to see where he said this about the violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Maybe he was talking about the law of Entropy which Darwinian evolution does violate, we can see that everyday in this world. Everything living and non living substances are deteriorating, Darwinian "evolution" is not immune to this law (Entropy). Living organisms can NOT add non material information to it self, it can ONLY be added by an immaterial source, namely a non material Intelligent agent. In order for evolution to be possible, a non material information code MUST be added to the DNA molecule. No amount of thermodynamic energy added to a living organism can increase or add non material information code that is necessary to increase the possibility of a species evolving into another different type of species. This takes a non material information code that is carefully programmed into the DNA molecule. So the conclusion is, The Law of Entropy inhibits the process of Darwinian evolution from happening. Anyway, tell me where (time stamp) in the video he said or implied about the violation of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
I would have to see where he said this about the v... (
show quote)
See 2:50 for his misunderstanding of entropy and the 2nd law. The rest of your comments are too obtuse to even rebut.
BTW, I am mildly amused by the title of the presentation, "Divine Afflatus" since afflatus comes from the Latin afflatus, originally adflatu (compare English flatulence (digestive gas, fart)). We could pun on all day about this one.
Racmanaz wrote:
Now you watch, when people are unable to refute the message being presented....they will personally attack the messenger and attack me for posting this. When you can't refute the message, you end up attacking the messenger.<<<<<<<< :)
Don't need to attack the messinger - the message is nonsense enough. The second law of thermodynamics is also commonly known as the law of entropy, and the concept of evolution does not violate it, no matter what you call it. If you want the mathematical proof, I can provide it, but it will be fairly long and tortuous.
Racmanaz wrote:
Prove what is nonsense instead of yapping useless verbiage like the empty cranium "silver". I know you are smarter than him, at least you have a brain and know how to use it. So tell me what you think was incorrect about the content, lets see if you have what it takes to refute the evidence and be specific please. :)
OK, here's the nonsensical content rebutted: The first "irrefutable" claim in that presentation is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is false - in simple terms the second law applies only to closed systems, which are systems in which energy neither enters nor exits. The universe, for example, is a closed system. However, within the universe are many open systems, which are systems in which energy can enter and leave. Thus, a living organism maintains itself temporarily in a complex state by accepting energy from the surroundings and using that energy for self maintenance. To claim that the second law prohibits more complex structures from forming from less complex is a lie - it actually happened to you! You were conceived as a simple single fertilized egg, but look at you now - organs, systems and other complex stuff from a simple structure. So, the first irrefutable claim is refuted. I don't have time to refute the other claims, but they are the usual creationist misstating of science. Also, please note that my discussion of the second law is very superficial since I have used metaphor and analogy since the mathematics is too complex to present here, but it proves the same thing I just said in words.
Racmanaz wrote:
A Smithsonian biologist said,
The modern evolutionary synthesis convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation.
Leigh, E., The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism, abstract in Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14(12):495498, 1999; p. 495
br br A Smithsonian biologist said, br br The ... (
show quote)
It would have helped if you had read beyond the abstract. This theoretical paper (it presents no data) is actually a discussion of the role of natural selection on individuals vs. on populations. It accepts the event of evolution, and places natural selection at the core of this event, and proceeds to discuss the work of Fisher, which examines how mutation produces either large or small changes in individuals, and how those changes can be modularized and lead to macroevolutionary changes. The paper was published in 1999, and since then there has been much experimental work that demonstrates that mutation is not the only driver. Genomic rearrangement, for example, explains the appearance of many heritable changes such as the appearance of flagella and the blood clotting cascade (I mention these two because it has been a creationist claim that such developments are impossible absent a designer). Laboratory studies have demonstrated, for example, in bacteria that organisms that cannot metabolize glucose can acquire the capacity to do so by repurposing other metabolic enzymes they already posses to do this task.
Racmanaz wrote:
No sir, naturalistic science is designed to develop a theory based on scientific facts not confirm what you believe is a fact already. This is why naturalistic theories fail so often, they are built upon assumptions of what you want it to be....it's pure faith in hopes that science will confirm it, but it hasn't done that very well at all...it's been overhauling it lol. This is why Creation science is superior to just naturalistic science alone. Science on the other hand rarely if ever conflicts with the Creation model, it actually confirms it :)
No sir, naturalistic science is designed to develo... (
show quote)
You are not correct. Naturalistic science does not base theories on fact, as you claim. Naturalistic science bases theories upon actual observations, then makes predictions which can be tested. Creation "science" has yet to make a prediction that is testable since the existence of a magical being whose motivations are, by definition, unknowable makes objective testing impossible. The insistence on a scientific slant to what is a religious belief has always befuddled me. Religious beliefs are, by their nature, unverifiable, and untestable, hence, not scientific. One must believe in such beliefs, and the objective world shouldn't interfere with this. The only reason why religious adherents would try to develop a scientific slant, IMHO, is to make the introduction of crypto-religious indoctrination into public education possible. Fortunately, the SCOTUS and many lower courts have seen through this scam.
Racmanaz wrote:
I'm sorry but the evolution theory has not only been tweaked over and over, it's been overhauled which indicates it was wrong from the start. :)
No, revising a theory merely indicates that science is doing what it should - growing to incorporate new observations as it asymptotically approaches the truth. In the case of evolution, details have been revised, but the core concepts remain after 150 years of efforts by reputable and disreputable scientists to disprove them.
Racmanaz wrote:
LOL not even close buddy, the pendulum trajectory of science discoveries have actually been in the direction of Creation and away from naturalism. What has been troubling for the atheist is the discoveries of the complexity of the universe and life, especially the micro world.
The increasing recognition of the complexity of the universe and of life is not troubling - in fact, it is exciting and fills me with joy. especially when I see that all that we learn in biology is 100% consistent with the concept of evolution, although sometimes we have to tweak an idea here of there, but hey, that's science.
Racmanaz wrote:
Lol no reputable scientist will say Darwinian evolution is scientific because its not its not observable, if it were we would be seeing macroevolution today and we don't so you are wrong again.
OK, here I am, a reputable scientist (25 peer-reviewed papers, 3 books, multiple book chapters, a grant reviewer for the NIH, etc.), and I say that Darwinian evolution is scientific because it relies on scientific principles to describe the universe. That yahoo on the video is truly a scientific illiterate - he seems proud of the fact that he forgot the periodic table- who proceeds to lecture us about chemistry. At that point I had to stop watching for the survival of my keyboard and monitor.
Racmanaz wrote:
YouTube is not the source of the information it is only used as a transport of an information. there are plenty of YouTube videos done by NOVA, NATGEO, NPR and other atheists and evolutionist outlets that posts on YouTube, I guess you consider those junk and unscientific and unverifiable as well
They might be entertaining (or not), but they aren't science, regardless of who puts them up.