Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

I'm not asking to frame the discussion just that someone from the creationist side come up with a single example from the last two thousand years where science and religion came into conflict over a fact and it turned out the church was right. There are any number of such examples where science turned out to be right, all I'm asking for is one, single, solitary example of where it turned out the religionists were right. This goes to their history of creditability and clear thinking, both of which I maintain have been in short supply (nonexistent in fact) for two thousand years.

No. It speaks to the qualifications/skill/knowledge in science of the involved parties.

Please, use the show me where I'm wrong, but don't duck the question with hand waving about who gets to "frame the conversation" or the has someone else answered or not answered your question(s). Those are red herrings, poorly disguised obfuscations, whose only purpose is to hide the fact that you (and more so ce4jesus to whom the challenge was actually issued) can't come up with a single such example.

LOL, I'll give it to you that scientists are usually better scientists than non-scientists.

Is it a point worth making though? Here are our science show-down matches and my predicted outcomes...

athiest scientist vs religious non-scientist...winner, athiest scientist.
religious scientist vs athiest non-scientist...winner religous scientist
athiest scientist vs athiest non-scientist...winner ahiest scientist
religous scientist vs religious non-scientist...winner religious scientist.

Your question seems aimed at making it a religion vs no religion question which may not demonstrate clear thinking. I think religious/non-religious works looks to be a "don't care" attribute with the telling attribute being scientist/non-scientist.

A more interesting question would be how do religious scientists fare compared to non-religious scientists. Personally I don't know but Newton and Pasteur did ok.

 

[Warthaug]

It was in a New Scientist article online(???). I can try to find it again for you if you like.

Scientific works do not get published in new scientist. Rather, it features articles written largely by their in-house staff, about discoveries published elsewhere.

So, at best, it was a quote of Carrol's.

And, yes, it was wrong to say that most mutations were lethal. Call it backtracking if you like, or assume you taught me something...either way is fine with me. My last "position," as you call it, is probably what I think. But just to verify...it seems that most mutations are neutral, however, of those that have a significant effect, most are harmful (as quoted by the talk.origins article). Yes, I read the rest of it by the way. And, yes, of course it agrees with the mainstream thoughts on the topic. The point was that you called me a liar specifically for stating that talk.origins said what I quoted.

No, I called you a liar before you posted that link - it's all in the thread, for anyone to see...

Again, someone asked what texts were teaching the Miller experiment. I simply gave a list without editorializing.

You mean aside from all those comments about "disproven science" being kept in texts...

For example:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3622392-post5311.html

And again, I don't think I've editorialized about whether or not we should teach how science has developed.

You haven't. But you did complain that science texts teach the Urey-Miller experiment "as fact", and complain that it represents teaching of "disproven science". You then listed a series of books that taught Miller.

I simply pointed out that in my copy of one of those texts, Miller was taught as the first experiment in abiogenesis research. This is the exact opposite of your claim - they were not treating it as fact, but rather using it as a historical example of how abiogenesis research formed. Hence the question about whether you think the historical progress should be removed, as that is what was in the text book you
were critisizing...

I have no doubts that what you say about Gould's beliefs that abiogenesis and evolution are separate entities. Where you were wrong was in claiming that someone else's post quoting Gould was taken out of context...you then provided the entire interview. And in the context of the interview Gould linked them together "necessarily."

The claim made was that Gould treated abiogenesis and evolution as the same thing. Clearly, he does not, as he talked about one giving rise to the other. Are you sure you're a teacher - your reading comprehension is a little off...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

The link does look like its from 2001. Thanks.

I should also have added that the assumption made in that article was also well founded, although overly simplified. There are several known, and observed mechanisms by which one chromosome can become split in two - largely due to an unequal crossover which spans the centromere. These types of crossovers have been observed and reported many time in the literature.

In contrast, loosing a chromosome is much more difficult - you have to transfer all of the essential genes, via a series of unbalanced translocations, to other chromosomes. Then you have to loose the residual fragment of the remaining chromosome - something our cell division machinery is setup not to do.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the latter is impossible; its just highly improbable, and AFAIK has not ever been observed.

Bryan

 

[gary-ramey]

Naturally, organisms don't tend to migrate unless there is some selective pressure (like a food source goes away) to force them to. It's not like they just "decide" to walk off to some preconceived destination.

[Mexican Ant accent]"Hey, Amigo let's go to Tennessee, eh? I hear it's nice there."[/Mexican Ant]

500,000, years ago we didn't have cars and airplanes for species to easily stow away on. I don't know anything about your specific ant, but I would bet that they migrated as a result of being transported around.

Okay the word migrate threw you off. Expand their territory would be a better analogy and I compared it with killer bees which should have helped guide you. Although there's no doubt that modern transportation assists in the spread of invasive species, you can't deny that it seems odd it would take them 65 million years to make that simple migration. Especially given that the Killer Bees did so in less than 50 years.

 

[Thalassamania]

Bryan,

What's this that I just heard that as much as 80% of our DNA may be deactivated viral fragments?

 

[gary-ramey]

No, we would see evidence of a new one only, unless god went out of his/her/its way to make it appear otherwise.

Completely false. If God made a planet with a garden in place, it stands to reason the planet in question isn't a ball of lava waiting to cool. Funny, I don't recall what the tool is for measuring a rock/fossil that was created from nothing.

 

[Soggy]

Okay the word migrate threw you off. Expand their territory would be a better analogy and I compared it with killer bees which should have helped guide you. Although there's no doubt that modern transportation assists in the spread of invasive species, you can't deny that it seems odd it would take them 65 million years to make that simple migration. Especially given that the Killer Bees did so in less than 50 years.

No, I don't think it's odd at all. Among other things, Killer Bees fly and are somewhat unique in that we basically engineered them. Bees also aren't ants.

Have you actually researched this? I'm sure you went through a whole scientific study to come to a conclusion like this, right? Or are you just making a wild guess based on a complete lack of understanding?

 

[Warthaug]

Bryan,

What's this that I just heard that as much as 80% of our DNA may be deactivated viral fragments?

Remove the word "deactivated" and you're pretty close to correct.

A huge portion of our DNA is something we call "junk DNA", which is a horrible name, but I didn't come up with it.

Any ways, junk DNA doesn't code for proteins, but instead of being random DNA, is composed mostly of three things:
1) Pseudogenes
2) Transposable elements
3) ERV's

Pseudogenes are simply genes that are no longer expressed, as they lack some part required to be translated into protein. Transposable elements are the largest component of the "junk", and are essentially short sequences of DNA that have the capacity to jump around the genome through the action of viral proteins that have become trapped in our DNA. Generally speaking, these pieces of DNA don't encode for much, and get reproduced by genes contained elsewhere in our DNA. One example of these types of elements:

Transposon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ERV's are reteroviruses (HIV is a reterovirus, BTW) which have become "trapped" in our genome and now get transmitted from parent to child (in our DNA, not as a living virus). Unlike transposable elements, ERV's contain most/all of the genes you'd see in a retrovirus, and some can even form virus-like particles; some of which can even infect other cells. These ERV's are the major reason why we're not already using pig organs for transplant - there is a concern that a pig ERV (called, quite humorously, a PERV) could jump to humans and become a new pathogen...

Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the 80% number, it depends on who's counting. 80% sounds accurate to me, but those numbers change every time someone develops a new classification for these things.

Bryan

 

[Soggy]

Completely false. If God made a planet with a garden in place, it stands to reason the planet in question isn't a ball of lava waiting to cool. Funny, I don't recall what the tool is for measuring a rock/fossil that was created from nothing.

:blinking::mooner:

 

[gary-ramey]

Well interpretation of the Bible varies WILDLY even between people of the same denomination

Well spoken half-truth. The interpretation of the Bible is left up to the individual but to belong to a denomination means you accept their core beliefs. Furthermore, being Christian also means you accept the core beliefs of Christianity (Birth, death, resurrection of Christ, and the atonement). Not everyone who describes themselves as Christian, is a Christian.