question for those who reject biological evolution

[leroy]

Again, sure they exist and are important in some instances, how is that fact applicable to the Bat/whale prestin convergence?

Ok from the article

1 the observation is that in some portions of the gene perstine (and other genes) bats and dolphins look more similar to each other……than when compered with other mammals, including mammals that are closer relatives. .. this means that in some regions of that gene we have the same amino acid sequence in bats and dolphins but not in other mammals.

Note that I am not saying that the whole gene is identical in bats and dolphins………the gene is similar but not identical in all mammals …… it is just that the similarities between bats and dolphins is grated than between closer relatives (say dolphins and blue whales)………… (so this is the observation made by the authors of the articles)

2 Given that they have the same variations (same amiono acids sequence) in the same genes and in the same places and given that bats and dolphins are not close relatives……. The obvious interpretation is that they suffered from the same mutations independently. (feel free to provide a different interpretation)

3 Given that genomes are typically 3Billon base pairs long , it is unlikely for 2 individuals to suffer independently by the same random mutations in the same place…. This would be like you and I copying a text and having the exact same spelling mistake in the exact same sentence and word, hence I think that nonrandom mutations better account for this observation.



You already accept that non random mutations occure and you already think that they played in important role in the evolution of organisms so why do you think that this specific observation is better explain by random mutations rather than non random mutatons?

..

My original point was that some observations are better explained by non random mutations, I simply presented this particular case as an example………… but even if I fail………. That will simply show that this specific example fails…….. it is still a fact that non random mutations occure and that they play an important role………. We agree on this general……..any disagreement would be on the specific examples.

 

[leroy]

I don't fear it, but saying there is some unknown mechanism that is responsible without saying what and how it works is either argument from incredulity or ignorance and when made by theists is usually a god of the gaps argument to slot your god in.

Well I am not making a God of the Gaps…………it is just that I personally don understand the details of these mechanisms and as far as I know nobody does.

We know that this mechanisms exists, we don’t know how they work…………what is so troubling about this?

 

[leroy]

God and religion are not factual, so completely irrelevant to science. What your language suggests is an intent to smuggle in religious assumptions.

The definitions of gods are why they can’t be taken seriously. Not only do the definitions lack evidence, they are also contrary to what we understand about how reality works.

No one has to argue against religious claims, all we have to do is expose the weaknesses.

How about the lack of evidence? God of the gaps is a dishonest ploy by those who want to deceive others by implying there’s a supernatural at work behind the scenes. Of course this is baseless as we see in the failure of Intelligent Design.

All I am saying is that if you had good reasons to reject the existence of God / Design ……then you shouldn’t be threaten by gaps in our knowledge nor my “anthropomorfic” language.

 

[Pogo]

Well if you think that my language is “anthropomorphic” feel free to rephrase it….. terms like NGE and non random mutatios are well understood and commonly used by scientists ……… when I use these terms I simply mean what scientists mean

It is your use of language and spelling that is at issue, you use the words that correspond with scientific understanding, but you change their meaning from the way scientists use them by anthropomorphizing them and then we question why you are using words in a way that they mean something other than the accepted use and whether you even understand the words.

This causes you to fail in communication, this failure is yours, if you wish to be understood, you need to use the language in the same way that others use it.

 

[Pogo]

Well I am not making a God of the Gaps…………it is just that I personally don understand the details of these mechanisms and as far as I know nobody does.

We know that this mechanisms exists, we don’t know how they work…………what is so troubling about this?

If you don't understand the mechanism, you should not posit it as a solution to a problem, it is also not true that we don't know how they work, they would not be accepted as mechanisms without understanding.

What is troubling is that you do not know how to construct a logical argument, it makes you appear foolish which I assume is not your intention.

Making arguments based on unknown but hoped for ideas is what god of the gaps is.

 

[Pogo]

All I am saying is that if you had good reasons to reject the existence of God / Design ……then you shouldn’t be threaten by gaps in our knowledge nor my “anthropomorfic” language.

And all we are saying is that in a scientific discussion assuming a god to fill in unknowns is not allowed to either theists or atheists. This is especially true if one posits an omnipotent god as then no reasoned conclusions can be made.

 

[F1fan]

All I am saying is that if you had good reasons to reject the existence of God / Design ……

There’s no evidence of existence to reject. See how deceptive your language is?

We reject the claims by believers that some sort of God exists and operates in nature without evidence.

then you shouldn’t be threaten by gaps in our knowledge nor my “anthropomorfic” language.

The threat is ongoing fraud. Knowledge and science aims to be accurate and fzctual, snd eliminate assumptions like those used by theists. Religious assumptions are irrelevant to science.

 

[leroy]

It is your use of language and spelling that is at issue, you use the words that correspond with scientific understanding, but you change their meaning

Can you give an example of me chaining any meaning g?

 

[leroy]

If you don't understand the mechanism, you should not posit it as a solution to a problem,

Why not? We don’t understand what dark matter is, nor how it Works, nor where did it come from, but we still proposed it as an explanation for several observations..............

it is also not true that we don't know how they work, they would not be accepted as mechanisms without understanding.

Ok,. That is news to me, if scientists know these mechanisms work………good for them……….relevance?

 

[leroy]

And all we are saying is that in a scientific discussion assuming a god to fill in unknowns is not allowed to either theists or atheists. This is especially true if one posits an omnipotent god as then no reasoned conclusions can be made.

Fine, but nobody is doing that

 

[Pogo]

Can you give an example of me chaining any meaning g?

Non-random = anything you want it to mean to make up for your lack of knowledge.

 

[Pogo]

Why not? We don’t understand what dark matter is, nor how it Works, nor where did it come from, but we still proposed it as an explanation for several observations..............


Ok,. That is news to me, if scientists know these mechanisms work………good for them……….relevance?

if it is as hypothesized we know what it does, unlike you who just picks some word you have heard and decides it is the answer to the question at hand.
Relevant because what you are doing is why they can logically be applied instead of W A guessing

 

[Pogo]

Fine, but nobody is doing that

effectively you are, you are pretending that you have all the answers with no evidence.

 

[leroy]

Another article that you did not understand. Epigenetics is temporary. The article that you posted does not refute that.

Sure, if you show that Epigenetics is always temporal, I would be wrong and I would be happy to admit my mistake.

But you never support your assertions anyway…………so no worries


I also had the impression form previous posts that you accept Epigenetics as a relevant cause for the evolution of organisms ............ did you change you mind?

But as usual you are just grasping at straws of ideas that you refuse to understand. Sometimes the traits can even linger for a few generations. Pigs are interesting animals when it comes to epigenetics. The genes that are turned off and on can make them vary quite a bit.

It is my understanding that epigenetic changes can pass to the next generations permanently………if you show with a proper source that I am wrong …….then I’m wrong

Okay. But you are just kicking the can down the road. The origin of those genes still appears to be through random processes.

Well within the last 120 years it has been proposed in the scientific community that this is not always the case, mutations are not always random……………….. and multiple studies confirm that this is true.

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Correct, which means that you do not understand how epigenetics can have an effect on the allele frequency of a population. I told you that I could give an example.

no I dont understand that, I dont see the relevance, but sure an example would be interesting

Handwaving. Okay, so as usual when challenged you have nothing.

The challenge was to explain how these mechanisms work…………the answer is I don’t know , I personally don’t know, and I don’t know if any scientists understands .

But so what? non of my arguments relies on me understanding how these mechanisms work……… we know that this mechanisms exist………….knowing how the work would be grate but not necessary .

 

[leroy]

That this is an example of highly convergent evolution. The same genes evolved and when they say "same loci" they appear to mean "same area" of the gene. Genes are not short they are usually thousands of characters long. So same loci does not mean "same position and same mutations". If that would have been the case they could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice. Their ability to detect that refutes your interpretation.

Sounds like grate opportunity to support your claim.

You have been trying to say that the mutations were the same when they were not.

Well that is what I understood from the articles, that is what the author of the National Geographic article understood and this is what the author of the AIG article understood.

I will not change my mind just because you say so.......................if you whant to convince me you have to support your claims

1 that loci in this context means "same general área"

2 that if my interpretation is correct could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice............... (+ expalin what traits are you talking about)

 

[Pogo]

Sure, if you show that Epigenetics is always temporal, I would be wrong and I would be happy to admit my mistake.

But you never support your assertions anyway…………so no worries


I also had the impression form previous posts that you accept Epigenetics as a relevant cause for the evolution of organisms ............ did you change you mind?



It is my understanding that epigenetic changes can pass to the next generations permanently………if you show with a proper source that I am wrong …….then I’m wrong





Well within the last 120 years it has been proposed in the scientific community that this is not always the case, mutations are not always random……………….. and multiple studies confirm that this is true.

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

no I dont understand that, I dont see the relevance, but sure an example would be interesting

The challenge was to explain how these mechanisms work…………the answer is I don’t know , I personally don’t know, and I don’t know if any scientists understands .

But so what? non of my arguments relies on me understanding how these mechanisms work……… we know that this mechanisms exist………….knowing how the work would be grate but not necessary .

It is generally not considered a good idea to go spouting off about things you don't know anything about.

But you be you.

 

[leroy]

Non-random = anything you want it to mean to make up for your lack of knowledge.

You are so desperate that you have no other option but to lie about me……………..non random has been defined multiple times both my me and the sources. You made that up


Non random in this context means what scientists say it means , you can quote a single comment made by me, where I used a different definition for nonrandom……….. and you know it

 

[Pogo]

You are so desperate that you have no other option but to lie about me……………..non random has been defined multiple times both my me and the sources. You made that up


Non random in this context means what scientists say it means , you can quote a single comment made by me, where I used a different definition for nonrandom……….. and you know it

But it doesn't mean that to you, to you it means whatever I've heard is non-random to use to fill in my imaginary solution.
It is just your non-reasoning thought process, and we know it.

 

[F1fan]

Fine, but nobody is doing that

Not overtly, but covertly. As i have noted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok from the article

1 the observation is that in some portions of the gene perstine (and other genes) bats and dolphins look more similar to each other……than when compered with other mammals, including mammals that are closer relatives. .. this means that in some regions of that gene we have the same amino acid sequence in bats and dolphins but not in other mammals.

No, not the same. You keep saying the same when your quote itself says "more similar". More similar means "not the same"

Note that I am not saying that the whole gene is identical in bats and dolphins………the gene is similar but not identical in all mammals …… it is just that the similarities between bats and dolphins is grated than between closer relatives (say dolphins and blue whales)………… (so this is the observation made by the authors of the articles)

2 Given that they have the same variations (same amiono acids sequence) in the same genes and in the same places and given that bats and dolphins are not close relatives……. The obvious interpretation is that they suffered from the same mutations independently. (feel free to provide a different interpretation)

3 Given that genomes are typically 3Billon base pairs long , it is unlikely for 2 individuals to suffer independently by the same random mutations in the same place…. This would be like you and I copying a text and having the exact same spelling mistake in the exact same sentence and word, hence I think that nonrandom mutations better account for this observation.



You already accept that non random mutations occure and you already think that they played in important role in the evolution of organisms so why do you think that this specific observation is better explain by random mutations rather than non random mutatons?

..

My original point was that some observations are better explained by non random mutations, I simply presented this particular case as an example………… but even if I fail………. That will simply show that this specific example fails…….. it is still a fact that non random mutations occure and that they play an important role………. We agree on this general……..any disagreement would be on the specific examples.

Ignoring the rest since it looks just like lame apologetics.