hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Quote Anders Anderson

  “That's the goal of all scientists in any field of science.”

  Wrong. Archaeologists and geologists don’t limit themselves to strictly “naturalistic” explanations for things like the pyramids in Egypt. They don’t insist that only “natural” processes such as ‘wind’ and ‘earthquakes’ can be invoked for such complex sandstone structures.

  The discoverer of genetics Mendel did not insist that only “naturalistic explanations” for the origins be considered. He was a creationist.

  Likewise the founder of modern classification Linnaeus did not insist that the origins of the animals that he was classifying be limited to only “naturalistic explanations” He was a creationist.

  Qutote Anders Anderson

  “Nature is what we can perceive, measure, detect, and try to understand.”

  Yes we can perceive, measure, detect, and try to understand things found in nature. However that does not mean that we must limit ourselves to only “naturalistic explanations” for the origins of the universe and things found in it.
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  If you limit yourself only “naturalistic” explanations, then you are now committed to either random chance or some sort of evolutionary scheme (which can include random chance).

  There are many “naturalistic” options available for evolutionists to “select” from. ReMine called this ‘Natural’ selection.

  For example:

  -Separate Ancestry (multiple biogenesis)

  -Common Ancestry

  -Lateral Transposition (can move a character across lineages)

  -Convergence (The independent evolution of similar traits)

  -Loss of Character

  And many more!
  

  -So let’s say cytochrome c was “identical” in all species. Evolutionists could “select” either Common Ancestry or Lateral Transposition “explain” the pattern. (They would then tell us that if it was created by a creator that it “should be random”, and use the odds against random chance as evidence for evolution. See my earlier posts on this thread).

  -Let’s say instead that cytochrome c was “random” across all species. Evolutionists would have no problem. They would simply say it was randomized by mutations. (They would then say (as some already do that if it were created it “should be identical.”)

  -Let’s say that human cytochrome c was identical to yeast and that chimp cytochrome c was identical to a lizzard. Evolutionists would attribute it to Lateral Transposition.

  That evolutionists are willing to invoke such “explanations” is documented from their own writings (see the afore mentioned book).

  Keep in mind that the evolutionists commitment to “naturalistic explanations” is a total commitment. So for them it’s just a process of finding the most plausible (least unlikely) naturalistic “explanation” that they can come up with, no matter how unlikely.
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Something that most people are not aware of is the incredible flexibility of “evolutionary theory”.

  This is well documented in the book “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine.

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
  

  This “flexibility” should always be kept in mind.

  The goal of evolutionists is to “explain” everything found in nature naturalistically.

  This is really the “bottom line” for them (they will even go so far as to insist that science be defined as the search for “naturalistic explanations” Such a view excludes the possibility of creation a priori .
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  From this point forward on this thread I am minimizing direct dialogue with the poster cofty.

  
  

  
  
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  “There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. There are just scientists who accept the evidence for common ancestry and superstitious folk who don't.” Cofty

  “Virtually all scientists are 'evolutionists' in the second sense of the word as you used it, but only a percentage of those are 'evolutionists' in the first sense as Alaya uses it.” Cofty

  Why should anyone consider taking the time to do any sort of serious dialogue with a person like this ?
  
  
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. There are just scientists who accept the evidence for common ancestry and superstitious folk who don't.

  If “there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', then why do you find the word “evolutionist” in evolution literature?

  The above is from an article by Francisco J Ayala (a prominent Evolutionary Biologist).1998 Brittanica Macropaedia

  Note the paragraph that begins with “Evolutionists debate . . .”
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hh

  
  

  H
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  3 - DNA sequences vary in a pattern that exactly corresponds to the relationships previously identified by evolution.

  Life’s hierarchical pattern was recognized by creationist scientists PREVIOUS to modern evolutionary theory. The fact that cytochrome c sequences conform to this same pattern does not mean that evolution is the only option.
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hooby you really don't understand it do you?

  There are three possibilities.

  With 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c functional sequences there are only “three possibilities”?

  Talk origins and other evolutionists here imply that Its either “random” sequences or its evolution!

  You imply that if it’s not “random” sequences or “identical” sequences, then it must be evolution!

  Why do Evolutionists like to present the argument in ways that are so favorable to evolution?
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Related to what I wrote earlier on this page, I want to point out something commonly found in these arguments. That is the evolutionists implicit claim that we SHOULD EXPECT a creator to use RANDOM sequences for different created organisms.

  From the talkorigins article:

  “Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, . . .”

  “For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.”

  “In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee SHOULD BE RANDOM with respect to one another.”

  What is the evidence for this claim? This is actually a subtle theological claim. It’s an implicit claim that a creator “should” use “random” sequences. Other Evolutionists here have made basically the same statement, or even adding that if evolution is not true that we “should not” see any patterns of relatedness in the cytochrome c sequences for different species!

  No justification is ever given for the “should” and “should not” . There mere fact that there are a lot of hypothetical functional sequences does not necessarily mean that a creator therefore “should” use random sequences in each created kind, or that a creator “should not” form a pattern.

  Evolutionists like to use evidence against random chance to make evolution “look” scientific. Even if it means making implicit theological claims about what a creator “should” or “should not” do.