How much do we know. Part 2

[Subduction Zone]

we may be able to discuss Evolution after we have solved this: What is junk DNA, and what is it worth?

Why do you want to discuss non-coding DNA? You do realize that quite a bit of our genome is "junk". A good 80% at least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

there is no Evolution except finch beaks.

Oh my, you are just another denier of reality.

 

[Bear Wild]

there is no Evolution except finch beaks.

If that is all you know about evolution there is nothing to discuss

we may be able to discuss Evolution after we have solved this: What is junk DNA, and what is it worth?

What is there to solve? Get rid of the word junk and understand that the long sequences of DNA that did not have a specific function originally and now is understood as potential genetic material for evolution. It is clear that the length of the dna does not directly correlate with the complexity of the organism. The extra dna interacts with the environment and can create "hot" spots for recombination. This enhances the ability for variability to occur creating diversity (opposite of eugenics) thus is an evolutionary advantage. So now we explained junk DNA can we go forward.

 

[Bear Wild]

Oh my, you are just another denier of reality.

Yes another one. This one agrees that evolution explains finches beaks then it stops there. They also do not understand the difference between Darwin's theory of evolution and the term Darwinian socialism. No understanding of even basic evolution theory.

 

[leov]

If that is all you know about evolution there is nothing to discuss

What is there to solve? Get rid of the word junk and understand that the long sequences of DNA that did not have a specific function originally and now is understood as potential genetic material for evolution. It is clear that the length of the dna does not directly correlate with the complexity of the organism. The extra dna interacts with the environment and can create "hot" spots for recombination. This enhances the ability for variability to occur creating diversity (opposite of eugenics) thus is an evolutionary advantage. So now we explained junk DNA can we go forward.

I am waiting for science to answer...

 

[Bear Wild]

I am waiting for science to answer...

You just gave a reference to an article that shows how science explains it. So you don't have to wait any longer.

 

[leov]

Yes another one. This one agrees that evolution explains finches beaks then it stops there. They also do not understand the difference between Darwin's theory of evolution and the term Darwinian socialism. No understanding of even basic evolution theory.

I understand that evolution was and still is built in (like genetic codes) in original elementary matter from which everything else in universe or multiverse was built. All depends on external conditions.

 

[leov]

You just gave a reference to an article that shows how science explains it. So you don't have to wait any longer.

Because I read another article that had different opinion, motto is 'we do not really know'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that evolution was and still is built in (like genetic codes) in original elementary matter from which everything else in universe or multiverse was built. All depends on external conditions.

Sorry, your understanding appears to be incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I read another article that had different opinion, motto is 'we do not really know'.

Perhaps you used a bogus source. Such as a creationist one.

 

[Bear Wild]

I understand that evolution was and still is built in (like genetic codes) in original elementary matter from which everything else in universe or multiverse was built. All depends on external conditions.

?

 

[Bear Wild]

Perhaps you used a bogus source. Such as a creationist one.

Of course leov does not present that article so we can see it. He already created science is bad part 3 the sequal

 

[Bear Wild]

Because I read another article that had different opinion, motto is 'we do not really know'.

Why don't you supply the source for us?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It has been proven that some non living matter is capable of reproduction and change. One hypothesis regarding abiogenenisis is these replicating chemicals are involved in the first precursor organism. Is that not evolution ?

1. I have no idea what you are talking about concerning these supposed self-replicating non living chemicals.

2. The scientific theory of evolution is a theory of biology. It deals with living things. With the processes that living things are subject to, collectively called biological evolution. So no, non-living things aren't within the scope of explanation of biological evolution.

Please tell me, is there an actual rule in the theory that it only applies to living organisms ?

Yes, it's called "the scope".

It has been a very long time since I read Darwin, and he is outdated anyway.
I truly don´t know.

It's not hard. It studies living things and unravels the processes that living things are subject to.
It doesn't need to know where the living things originally came from. Life exists and we can study it.

Abiogenisis is a slicker form of the spontaneous generation of life.

It's not. They both address the same question, sure. As processes / explanatory models, they are extremely different.

Creation by a being is not abiogenesis, it is creation by intelligent design.

It is the creation/origination of life from non-life by *some process*
Abiogenesis.

God did not take rain runoff from rocks, particulate matter from clouds, light, throw them together, and wait a few million years for a primitive organism to pop up.

And you know this....how?

You state that abiogenesis did occur.

It did. Life did not always exist. How could it, if the universe itself also has a beginning?

You have no knowledge of how

We don't know by which exact process abiogenesis can happen, correct.

I state that God created life

Which is a statement from ignorance.
I just stick to "i don't know".

I have no knowledge of how.

But you do claim knowledge of "who" - 'knowledge' that you can not demonstrate and which is really just a blind belief, not knowledge at all. You just pretend to know this. You don't actually know this. You just believe it. With no evidence.

Seems to me that we both have faith in a scientific unknown.

No.

You and I both agree that life originated somehow at some time.
That's a scientific known.

I then proceed to say that I don't know how or when. Which is in line with science, since it's scientifically unknown.

You, however, you claim to KNOW that some god did it. You're the one with the faith based belief system here, not me.

You believe or first parents were rocks

Please quote me where I ever professed to belief such.
Or retract your strawman.

I believe they were humans.

I know my ancestors were humans. Just like I know my very distant ancestors +500.000 years ago, weren't members of the species that we today call "Homo Sapiens Sapiens".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow, he so

sounds much like Dawkins ! The mouth part especially.

Perhaps you should review Professor Dawkins' scientific carreer.
It consists of a *tiny bit* more then a mere 7 peer reviewed papers that barely got cited.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“Irreducible Complexity is nothing but pseudoscience creationism BS. IC has already been debunked so many times, that Behe has becoming a laughing stock among biochemistry community.” Where is science in this statement?

No science requirement to exposed statements as being pseudo scientific.

There's nothing in IC that requires any debunking, as it only requires pointing out the failed logic and the fallacies, like argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity. That's all it is. Just one huge argument from ignorance.

"i don't know how this can be reduced, therefor it can't". That's not a methodology or useful principle. That's just a fallacy which gets invoked everytime a person is stumped by something.



Did you know, btw, that to be able to call ID (and IC) "science", Behe had to redefine what a "scientific theory" is? What was extremely funny, was that under his "new" definition... astrology also became a valid science. You know... horoscopes and such. Under the normal defintion of "scientific theory", ID isn't valid science. Go figure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If complex structure it requires planning to work, I worked as machine design engineer for years, I know. That what I see in nature not by random mutation but by genetic plan that built in in organisms. We do not know enough, yet.

It rather sounds like YOU not knowing enough yet.

Geneticists are very aware about how genotypes are related to phenotypes and how genotypes change over time through processes like mutation and selection.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You talking about ed hominem type of problems that have nothing to do with logic of appearing of complex biological structures. That what I noticed in institutional supporters of evolution, they tend on 'hanging noodles' on people's ears. Maybe that is why average education levels in US are dumbed down.

Pointing out how Behe's arguments fail and how IC isn't valid as a science objection or argument against or for anything, is not an ad hominim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is very unimportant. Just look at mechanical design of your arm...

What about it?

 

[leov]

No science requirement to exposed statements as being pseudo scientific.

There's nothing in IC that requires any debunking, as it only requires pointing out the failed logic and the fallacies, like argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity. That's all it is. Just one huge argument from ignorance.

"i don't know how this can be reduced, therefor it can't". That's not a methodology or useful principle. That's just a fallacy which gets invoked everytime a person is stumped by something.



Did you know, btw, that to be able to call ID (and IC) "science", Behe had to redefine what a "scientific theory" is? What was extremely funny, was that under his "new" definition... astrology also became a valid science. You know... horoscopes and such. Under the normal defintion of "scientific theory", ID isn't valid science. Go figure.

Did not see any meaningful refutation of Behe.