Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Evolution and Creation debate.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    26

    Evolution and Creation debate.

    I would like to debate anyone on evolution i supporote creation and say that there is no prove for evolultion what so ever.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,077
    Well, if there are no other takers...?

    I think it would be a good idea to start by asking what your understanding of evolution is. What do you think it means?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    26
    I would frist like to say that i understand evolution very well and just find no prove for macro, steller , cosmic, organic and micro. the only one that has real science behind is micro evoltion ( changes within the kind of anmail) i would like anyone to give me an exameple of the others. And the only reason you are diong a ad homined attack and kent hovind is because he is right and you calling him a lair just shows me how right he is and how wrong you are. so if any one has some prove please show me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,077
    Guys... 1 on 1?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.dino View Post
    I would frist like to say that i understand evolution very well
    That's a good start.
    so if any one has some prove please show me.
    Ok, well, what's your take on shared pseudogenes?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    26
    Ok, well, what's your take on shared pseudogenes?[/QUOTE]

    The factors governing pseudogene deployment and alteration, from primate to primate, are highly nonrandom. Consequently, assertions about the impossibility of independent shared ‘mistakes’6 are incorrect (Fig. 6). The only way that this conclusion could be contradicted would be through the performance of very detailed statistical tests which would examine all of the relevant factors.
    A valid statistical test of retrospseudogenes must, at a minimum, take into account the following:
    1. The fundamental overall nonrandomness (i.e. 50% random similarity in bases51) of the DNA molecule itself.
    2. The ubiquitous presence of indels and resulting subjectivity in the alignment of units.
    3. The liberties created by the after-the-fact invocation of missing loci.
    4. The several different levels of nonrandomness pertaining to the insertion points themselves in the genome.
    5. The large number of ‘trials’ (for independent ‘orthologous’ insertions) created by the vast number of known SINE units.
    6. The fudge factor created by tolerating varying and often considerable amounts of sequence differences in the flanking sequences (and flanking repeats) when accepting them as orthologous.
    7. The limited degree by which one SINE unit can differ from another,
    8. The nonrandomness of nucleotide substitutions, indels, etc., in the retropseudogene unit itself.
    Considerations 1–3, and 7–8, must likewise be tested in a manner that is relevant to classical pseudogenes.
    Until such tests are performed, and rigorously substantiate the premise that classical pseudogenes cannot possibly originate from the independent disabling of orthologous genes in different organisms, and that retropseudogenes cannot be inserted independently in the same corresponding locations in different primates, evolutionistic arguments about shared ‘mistakes’6 should not be given credence.
    Not enough is yet known about eukaryotic genomes to construct a comprehensive creationist model of pseudogenes. Nevertheless, the belief that ‘pseudogenes are unequivocal support for evolution’6 is invalid. New evidence is constantly being published that weakens or invalidates one or other long-held evolutionistic beliefs about pseudogenes. Now, more than ever, it is an exciting time to be a creationist scientist.

    I was pretty bussiey and i didnt have time to write it all my self so it is part of it form answers in gensis i can promise that i wlll write my own stuff it is just that i am busy
    Last edited by Dr.dino; 03-14-2008 at 12:09 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,077
    The factors governing pseudogene deployment and alteration, from primate to primate, are highly nonrandom.
    That's a very misleading statement, and here's why:

    If you roll a die, is the number it shows uppermost when it comes to rest random? I think we would agree that yes, it is random.

    However, AIG would, using the same logic as they use in the statement above, describe a die roll as 'highly nonrandom'. Why? Because a die only has six sides, six possible numbers it can show out of - well, how many numbers are there? Infinite!

    Observe:
    1. The fundamental overall nonrandomness (i.e. 50% random similarity in bases51) of the DNA molecule itself.
    This is pure 'die rolls are highly non-random' fluff. Let's make it even simpler: a coin can display only two sides when tossed, correct? Now imagine you have a coin and I have a coin and we both toss them - what are the odds of them coming up the same (both heads or both tails)? 50%, or 1 in 2, right?

    Ok, now say we toss the coins twice; what are the odds of us both getting the same pattern of heads and tails? 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

    What about tossing them 8 times in a row? 1/256 - starting to get unlikely.

    64 times in a row? 1/18,446,744,073,709,551,616, which is as near to impossible as makes no odds.

    Ok, ready for this? One single pseudogene, epsilon immunoglobulin, shared by humans and gorillas, is over 320 DNA 'letters' in length. That's just one of thousands.

    Clearly, the limited DNA 'alphabet' is no obstacle to deriving statistically significant conclusions from common sequences.
    2. The ubiquitous presence of indels and resulting subjectivity in the alignment of units.
    Indels, or insertion/deletion events, are not ubiquitous and in any case don't cause any significant uncertainty in the alignment of DNA between species.

    For instance, these two sentences are recognisably the same despite one having an indel.
    For instance, these two sentnces are recognisably the same despite one having an indel.
    3. The liberties created by the after-the-fact invocation of missing loci.
    As above: is it 'taking a liberty' to use the massively significant similarity between those two sentences to infer that an 'e' is missing from the second one?
    4. The several different levels of nonrandomness pertaining to the insertion points themselves in the genome.
    More 'die rolls are highly nonrandom' fluff. Yes, certain kinds of pseudogene insertions tend to occur between genes rather than within them - so the die has merely millions of sides rather than billions. Certain other examples of insertion (eg the AIDs retrotransposition) favour particular 'hotspots' in the genome. But others don't. Humans and chimps share at least seven retrogene insertions at the exact same locations in their genomes. The odds against just one such event occurring independently in both are high enough, but seven?
    5. The large number of ‘trials’ (for independent ‘orthologous’ insertions) created by the vast number of known SINE units.
    Basically what they're saying is that if you have a hundred SINEs in a row, you can insert a 101st anywhere in that row and it will look the same. Which is of course true, but it still doesn't explain why two species would have the same number in the same place.
    6. The fudge factor created by tolerating varying and often considerable amounts of sequence differences in the flanking sequences (and flanking repeats) when accepting them as orthologous.
    I wasn't able to track down any info about this; I'm not even sure what they mean.
    7. The limited degree by which one SINE unit can differ from another,
    100-300 base pairs in length gives between 1267650600228229401496703205376 and 20370359763344860862684456884094000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible permutations. Limited, indeed

    [QUOTE]8. The nonrandomness of nucleotide substitutions, indels, etc., in the retropseudogene unit itself.[/QOTE]
    Evidence for which is...?
    Not enough is yet known about eukaryotic genomes to construct a comprehensive creationist model of pseudogenes.
    In other words, we have not the slightest clue how to explain them in creationist terms.
    Now, more than ever, it is an exciting time to be a creationist scientist.
    If I recall there's an ancient chinese curse along those lines
    I was pretty bussiey and i didnt have time to write it all my self so it is part of it form answers in gensis i can promise that i wlll write my own stuff it is just that i am busy
    That's fine, but going forward I don't think cutting and pasting chunks from AIG really counts as us having a debate. If you don't fully understand the arguments you're making, how will you know if I make a good or bad job of countering them? I could make a mistake and you might not catch it. I could just make up anything I like and you'd be none the wiser.

    So, we can continue to discuss pseudogenes in more detail if you like, but I want it to be a discussion between us, not me and AIG. Is that OK?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    26
    I will post my replay on tuesday becasue i am on a vaction so if i dont respond for days dont think I gave up.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,077
    Meanwhile I've been reading through the rest of the page. There's a heck of a lot of it, which lends it a certain aura of scientific authenticity all by itself, but it also serves to highlight just how huge a problem this is for creationism.

    Pseudogene function, for instance. Much is made of the fact that some pseudogenes have been found to actually do something - however, this is a paper tiger on a couple of levels:

    First, the circumstances which render some pseudogenes 'functional' (as in they contribute something) are not shared by most pseudogenes.

    Secondly, 'functional' pseudogenes do not perform the function of their working paralog (the gene they are a broken version of), but rather serve some other, incidental purpose. In human terms you might visualise this as using a broken computer to prop open a door. The AIG rationale, upon finding the same broken 'computers' propping open the same genetic 'doors' in both humans and chimps, is that because those computers serve a purpose they are evidence of an intelligently re-used design of doorstop. Which is pretty wacky logic. Indeed, it's the same old, tired 'vestigial features aren't vestigial because they have a function' argument applied at a genetic level.

    More later.
    Last edited by Peeling; 03-18-2008 at 10:08 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,077
    ...and since it is now later, here's more:

    Regarding point 1 above:
    1. The fundamental overall nonrandomness (i.e. 50% random similarity in bases51) of the DNA molecule itself.
    This is very interesting, and suggests either a level of mathematical ignorance at odds with the material being presented, or an intention to obfuscate.

    AiG is here treating DNA like a binary number, where the only values are 0 (an A/T pair) and 1 (a GC pair). And if you compare two unrelated binary numbers, the odds of any individual pair of digits matching is indeed 50%:

    11110111001111101101100010101001
    10000011111101110100101000111000

    Here the two numbers I entered at random match 18 digits out of 32, slightly more than average.

    However, protein-coding DNA - which pseudogenes would be if they weren't broken - is interpreted three base pairs at a time. If I do the same and convert the above numbers to Octal, we get:

    20375645070
    36717554251

    which doesn't match even one digit - below the expected average of 12.5%, but you get the general idea.

    On top of that, AiG are - unless I've missed something somewhere, wrong to treat DNA as a binary string at all. Although the pairs are always A/T and G/C, they can be either way around, making four possible values along each strand. This makes the expected degree of congruence 25% for unrelated strands, and a tiny 1.6% if you compare triplets (three pairs at a time).

    But ok, let's use their wrong figures anyway.
    They use the expected 50% congruence between unrelated strands to depict a 75% congruence as 'weak' evidence that they are in fact the same pseudogene. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Far from it.

    Taking two hypothetical 300 base-pair pseudogenes, we would expect a 50% base-pair correlation, purely by chance, if they were completely unrelated. But the odds of those same genes having 75% correlation or better purely by chance is 1 in 1,395,280,849,762,662,961. And remember, that's using their wrong, over-generous 50% value. Correct it and the odds rocket to way over one in a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion.

    75% matches are in fact on the low side of those available. 80%+ and 90%+ matches exist, for which the 'by chance' odds are simply mind-blowing.

    Essentially, AiG are either a victim or intentional benefactors of the counterintuitive nature of statistics. When one is told to expect a 50% match as a matter of course, one doesn't immediately intuit that a 65% match is a one-in-a-billion near-impossibility...
    Last edited by Peeling; 03-18-2008 at 05:41 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,077
    Not only, but also:
    Until such tests are performed, and rigorously substantiate the premise that classical pseudogenes cannot possibly originate from the independent disabling of orthologous genes in different organisms, and that retropseudogenes cannot be inserted independently in the same corresponding locations in different primates, evolutionistic arguments about shared ‘mistakes’6 should not be given credence.
    First of all, 'Until such tests are performed', implies that common descent has been inferred from pseudogenes without taking any of the preceding factors into account. However, the published statistical significance of shared pseudogenes already takes those factors into account. Moreover, it is thanks to the efforts of mainstream science that AiG even knows about those factors.

    Next, we get to the strawmen:
    rigorously substantiate the premise that classical pseudogenes cannot possibly originate from the independent disabling of orthologous genes in different organisms
    This demand is illogical. Of course it's possible for two genes to be independently disabled in the same way. It's just very unlikely. AiG knows this, scientists know this.
    and that retropseudogenes cannot be inserted independently in the same corresponding locations in different primates,
    Same logical fallacy again: nothing in evolution says it's impossible, just that it's a statistical unlikelihood. Some pseudogenes do exhibit preferential insertion points - which is why they're not used as evidence of common descent.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    26
    wait first i have to find out what your stand on this is. is it are you using pseudogenes for poor design and that poor design proves there isn't a creater? You have to tell before we contune

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.dino View Post
    wait first i have to find out what your stand on this is. is it are you using pseudogenes for poor design and that poor design proves there isn't a creater? You have to tell before we contune
    First of all, this isn't about disproving the existence of a creator. It's about coming up with the best possible explanation for the evidence.

    Pseudogenes are very strong evidence that modern species were not created seperately and individually, but instead share common ancestry. The logic is as follows:

    Genetic mutational events (deletion, substitution, insertion, duplication etc) usually involve a large degree of randomness. Sometimes these events result in the creation of pseudogenes: either a functional gene becomes broken (eg. the Vitamin C synthesizing gene in many animals) or a gene gets copied back into DNA somewhere random, but without the necessary surrounding 'tags' that would make it functional. With me so far?

    Ok, now imagine we look in two different species and we find that they share large numbers of near-identical pseudogenes - by which I mean their randomly re-inserted pseudogenes are in the same places in their genome, and are broken in almost exactly the same ways. How do we explain that?

    Well, before thinking about species, think about two individual people with a large number of genetic anomalies in common. Either the same random genetic events occurred within both people seperately, or they occurred within an ancestor they both shared - in other words, the two people are related.

    When the number of shared genetic mistakes runs into the hundreds and thousands, the first hypothesis falls over - the odds are just far too great. It would be like those two people shuffling and dealing identical sequences of 52 cards from a deck, over and over again, purely by chance. The only reasonable explanation is that the genetic mistakes occurred in an ancestor that both shared.

    There's more to it than that - for instance, when we measure the number of extra mutations that seperate two species, we can use that to estimate how long ago they shared a common ancestor - and that tends to agree with the fossil record of the evolution of those species.

    If you examine this evidence with an open mind, it's pretty much impossible to avoid concluding that common descent is true. If you fix it in your head that common descent is false before examining the evidence, you end up in all kinds of trouble - hence AiG's fancy-dancing around the subject.

    Still, the most important point here is the one I made in the first line of this post: none of this is about disproving the existence of god. Some people want to make it seem like that's the issue, because they have very particular ideas about what god ought to have done or the specific method he ought to have used when making humans. If there is a god, those people are being extremely rude to him because they're saying his methods aren't good enough for them.
    Last edited by Peeling; 03-26-2008 at 10:17 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    97
    WOW!! Dr dino seems to have left the debate. What a poor way to debate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •