Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou seem to be under the impression that if a statistical study is
Epidemiology is a statistical study of disease. When used effectively the results obtained from epidemiology saves thousands of lives each year. Statistics = bullshit is not a good analogy.
Nothing but a stone age folk tale is a far better guide to how the world works. How stupid of me not to spot it. I've really made a fool of myself
good in one place, they all must be good everywhere else.
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerPrimordial DNA obviously did not require these proteins.
Hmm. OK. Fine. So I suppose you have an explanation of how complex strands of DNA can be formed by chance if DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 proteins, but these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA?
The only way this manufacturing process could have come about was if it all came into existance simultaniously.
...[text shortened]... r, but I'm sure you should be smart enough to figure out that you have a little problem here.
They evolved as DNA became larger and more complex.
Initially as binding factors that assisted transcription and
eventually into functional proteins. Now DNA can't work
without them.
Doesn't it say something that no one can give a method of measuring "functional complexity" - either theoretically or practically?
Clearly, it means absolutely nothing when someone asserts that "mutations cannot increase functional complexity" or "humans are more functionally complex than ameobas" etc.
Originally posted by KellyJayLet's put that "young earth" stuff to rest ,,read this site.
Well I believe you read it last night, but the data, what you are
calling a million year old process, did it come from a million year
old study, or a study that someone did that claimed the process
took a million years?
Kelly
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Originally posted by AThousandYounghere's an interesting take on complexity:
Doesn't it say something that no one can give a method of measuring "functional complexity" - either theoretically or practically?
Clearly, it means absolutely nothing when someone asserts that "mutations cannot increase functional complexity" or "humans are more functionally complex than ameobas" etc.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/complexity.html
Another dense article, but very interesting. I won't pretend to say that I really understand it yet as I've only skimmed it once.
However I did notice the distinct lack of the term "functional" as an adjective to "complexity". Often creationists will insist that whether or not complexity can increase via evolution, they are absolutely convinced "functional complexity" cannot. If any complexity can increase, only that complexity which is not "functional" will do so according to what they often say (as far as I understand it).
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungA painting can be complex, but it doesn't do anything. We are
Another dense article, but very interesting. I won't pretend to say that I really understand it yet as I've only skimmed it once.
However I did notice the distinct lack of the term "functional" as an adjective to "complexity ...[text shortened]... o so according to what they often say (as far as I understand it).
talking about systems within systems within systems creating
systems in niches. That are parts of systems, functionally
complex is the topic, a chess setup can be complex yet it does
not do anything.
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwe have been saying something similar to his " frozen accidents" concerning DNA probabilities.
Another dense article, but very interesting. I won't pretend to say that I really understand it yet as I've only skimmed it once.
However I did notice the distinct lack of the term "functional" as an adjective to "complexity". Often creationists will insist that whether or not complexity can increase via evolution, they are absolutely convi ...[text shortened]... h is not "functional" will do so according to what they often say (as far as I understand it).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by Thequ1ckPrimordial DNA obviously did not require these proteins.
Primordial DNA obviously did not require these proteins.
They evolved as DNA became larger and more complex.
Initially as binding factors that assisted transcription and
eventually into functional proteins. Now DNA can't work
without them.
How do you know this?
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't I wasn't there at the time but,
[b]Primordial DNA obviously did not require these proteins.
How do you know this?[/b]
'if you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left,
no matter how unlikely, is what happened'.
Adding a degree of complexity such as alien or
divine intervention then makes the system more
complicated than the possibility of it occuring
naturally.
Therefore until this theory is disproved it will
remain the most likely.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSo it is faith on your part, since it is what you believe not
I don't I wasn't there at the time but,
'if you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left,
no matter how unlikely, is what happened'.
Adding a degree of complexity such as alien or
divine intervention then makes the system more
complicated than the possibility of it occuring
naturally.
Therefore until this theory is disproved it will
remain the most likely.
that you have evidence for?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI have no evidence for the past
So it is faith on your part, since it is what you believe not
that you have evidence for?
Kelly
and personally I do not believe
anything that is not in the present.
No, it is not faith but just the most
logical explanation.
Show me something that contradicts
it or a more likely hypothesis
and I will listen with an open mind.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou believe in something you have no evidence for, but
I have no evidence for the past
and personally I do not believe
anything that is not in the present.
No, it is not faith but just the most
logical explanation.
Show me something that contradicts
it or a more likely hypothesis
and I will listen with an open mind.
because of lack of evidence to disprove it you accept it.
Why not say, no one knows and leave it at that? To go
beyond is simply saying that you will accept the best
story you are presented with evidence not required, or
at least admit that you are taking something on faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd everybody says: "AMEN!"
You believe in something you have no evidence for, but
because of lack of evidence to disprove it you accept it.
Why not say, no one knows and leave it at that? To go
beyond is simply saying that you will accept the best
story you are presented with evidence not required, or
at least admit that you are taking something on faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's a little more to it than that.
You believe in something you have no evidence for, but
because of lack of evidence to disprove it you accept it.
Why not say, no one knows and leave it at that? To go
beyond is simply saying that you will accept the best
story you are presented with evidence not required, or
at least admit that you are taking something on faith.
Kelly
Firstly I don't really believe in much
at all, I'm a little weird like that but
for the sake of behaving normally,
I will take a stance and say stuff.
Science is not really about belief.
It is about a series of more and more
detailed descriptions or hypothesis.
These hypothesis stand until another
description contradicts them and then
they are either re-evaluated or dropped.
Belief really doesn't come into it, it is
a language for describing what we observe.
So that we can carry out beneficial actions.
As for DNA, we have shown that evolution
is the most likely explanation by observing
patterns of inheritence and family divergence
in proteins and nucleic acids.
In addition we have observed this take place
on isolated colonies such as the galapagos
islands where scientists have actually recorded
the evolution of new species of birds.
So the theory of evolution really does have a lot
going for it.
I don't have to believe it but I can say it is the
most likely option.