Creationists

[UltimateReality]

[wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?

No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?

 

[UltimateReality]

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.• Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

• Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

• Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

• Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.

wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
or how did they break the news to them? the same applies to the us part too.
as to the second and dumbest part of that statement:Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our BodiesHillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 18, 2005
Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:

• How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
• What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?

Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.

How Did Meat-Eating Start?

Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.

Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).

Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.

"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"

The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.


"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2
"From there we can extrapolate back to what two species of early humans may have done vis-à-vis each other two or three million years ago," Stanford said.



"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.

"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."

Diet and Teeth

Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.

Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.

"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."

Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.

Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.

"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.

"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies

This whole article is based on the speculative premise of common ancestry with the primates we are being compared to. Typical of nice evolution stories, there is no experimental data to back this up.

 

[Hollie]

Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.

As is so often the case with fundie creationists, they will purposefully lie and deceive to further their religious agenda.

There are no "Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup".

Darwin never proposed what you are attributing to his theory.

 

[Hollie]

I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.

wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
or how did they break the news to them? the same applies to the us part too.
as to the second and dumbest part of that statement:Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our BodiesHillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 18, 2005
Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:

• How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
• What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?

Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.

How Did Meat-Eating Start?

Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.

Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).

Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.

"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"

The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.


"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2
"From there we can extrapolate back to what two species of early humans may have done vis-à-vis each other two or three million years ago," Stanford said.



"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.

"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."

Diet and Teeth

Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.

Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.

"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."

Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.

Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.

"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.

"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies

This whole article is based on the speculative premise of common ancestry with the primates we are being compared to. Typical of nice evolution stories, there is no experimental data to back this up.

Typical of the science loathing fundies is to dismiss the scientific and academic work evaluating common descent especially as it applies to humankind.

NSF Current - November 2009

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.

Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.

Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.

So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.

So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..

Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.

What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.&#8226; Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

&#8226; Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

&#8226; Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

&#8226; Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.

Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.

false example there are no semi - neutral termites .

No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.

 

[Youwerecreated]

MORe ID bullshit!

Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

Evidently you are and you copy and paste them from your atheist sites

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.

I tried to explain the same thing to him, he doesn't have a clue even if he watches the video.

He will still think it all happened by chance ignoring the odds against it happening naturally.

 

[Montrovant]

Interesting quote. When does improbable become impossible? To put it another way, how atomically small do the odds have to become before something becomes impossible. In calculus, even though we can never get to a number, we can get so infinitesimallly close we can go ahead and say we are there. Doesn't this apply in probability equations as well? So basically what I'm really saying is it is impossible that DNA self assembled.

Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]

Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.

I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).

I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe. How the hell is THAT number determined?

Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).

 

[UltimateReality]

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.

I tried to explain the same thing to him, he doesn't have a clue even if he watches the video.

He will still think it all happened by chance ignoring the odds against it happening naturally.

Funny thing is we are light years away from figuring out exactly how the first dna came about from a scientific standpoint. As pointed out in Meyers video, the odds of even a simple protein assembling by amino acids "floating" into each other are astronomical. No literally, there is a one in less chance than their are electrons in the observable universe. Let me repeat that, less the one in a number more than there are ELECTRONS (you know those little things circling around atoms) in the observable universe!!! Evo's will balk at this evidence, saying there is some as of yet not understood method that resulted in the original proteins. Grant it, we are talking about the odds against a simple protein. We haven't even began to boggle the mind with the odds against dna. ALL of the possible methods presented haven't even come close. And we also know this, in all the differing environments of earth, it isn't happening today. If we travel to the bottom of the ocean or into the deepest cave, we don't find pools of even one or types of amino acids. Heck, we can't even begin to recreate a possible environment in the lab based on what we know about the young earth. Of course the evidence points the fact that it was in all sense of the word, a miracle, whether that be the religious kind or the absolutely impossible kind. Everything "alive" on the planet has had that life transferred to it from a previous generation going back millions or even billions of years. And yet, we are left with the gut feeling that there was someone or some thing involved in the creation of the first dna. Our gut tells us there is no way "it just happened accidentally. all the conditions were right." We know this because the conditions have never been right again. Some single cell organisms have even remained unchanged for billions of years. Evolutionist love to act like they know everything and it is a fact, but their belief is based in materialism (matter is the only reality). Since the origin's life can only be said to be a miracle, they just angrily take the stance of "our theory doesn't cover that". Every time I hear this argument, I just ask myself how seemingly educated people can accept such a stupid answer. The whole neo-darwinian theory is based on genetic mutations, but they haven't the slightest clue how genes came about. You can strike fear in their hearts at the very mention of the origins of life. They refuse to even touch the subject. Until such time as the discovery of how the first information was not only created, but replicated itself, evolutionists are just shadow boxing. They're like someone who claims to be expert on computer keyboards but gets extremely angry if you even dare question where computers came from.

If you really want to cause a Darwinist to have a hissy fit, just bring up the abiogenisis question or ask them "what is evil?".

 

[Montrovant]

Just thought I'd put this here before I head to sleep :

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance

It offers one possible avenue for life arising by chance that doesn't require the odds discussed in the video.

I didn't read all the comments (there are a ton) but I think those might be more interesting than the article itself. There seemed to be a lot of discussion going on between people taking a purely material view, an ID view, a religious view, or somewhere in between. I might go back to that later to read more.

 

[UltimateReality]

Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]

Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.

I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).

I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe. How the hell is THAT number determined?

Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).

He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?

As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:

The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]

Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:

"The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10&#8722;30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."

The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.

This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between.

http://www.numbersleuth.org/universe/

 

[UltimateReality]

Just thought I'd put this here before I head to sleep :

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance

It offers one possible avenue for life arising by chance that doesn't require the odds discussed in the video.

I didn't read all the comments (there are a ton) but I think those might be more interesting than the article itself. There seemed to be a lot of discussion going on between people taking a purely material view, an ID view, a religious view, or somewhere in between. I might go back to that later to read more.

Mon, I read the article. You need not look too far for the answer that invalidates this argument. The first poster Leslie, who seems to act like she isn't very knowledgeable, basically pokes wholes in the fallacious experiment.

Not only that, the RNA world hypothesis has recently been called into question.

Early evolution of life: Study of ribosome evolution challenges 'RNA World' hypothesis

Another question you should have been asking when reading about the experiment is: Where did the 300 long necleotides come from??? I wll tell by quoting from the article, "They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences." A red flag should be going off for you right now that any probability equations are invalid, because an intelligent agent was generating the basic structures for which their simulation would run on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide

 

[UltimateReality]

Thinking on this further, people tend to confuse the coded information in dna with the chemistry. But the dna structure is no more responsible for the mind blowing information code contained in dna than the chemistry of the ink and wood pulp are responsible for the information conveyed in a newspaper. The info in a newspaper started in an intelligent agents mind, and while chemical reactions in their arms and fingers interacting with electronic signals in a keyboard eventually resulted in newsprint, all of the steps can be traced back to the mind. The keyboard and ink and printing press didn't produce the information, they merely conveyed it. Make sense?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]

Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.

I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).

I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe. How the hell is THAT number determined?

Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).

I do, and it is sound. I tried pointing the same thing out to Daws, I just was not as thourough as his video was.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYucpEzvl6A]Evidence of Design - DNA. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Montrovant]

DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube

Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.

I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).

I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe. How the hell is THAT number determined?

Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).

He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?

As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:

The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]

Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:

"The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10&#8722;30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."

The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.

This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between.

Magnifying the Universe

What I wonder is if there might be influences which would change the probabilities involved. The numbers provided seem to work if every possibility has an equal chance of occurring; I don't know if there are reasons that some are more likely than others. Are certain amino acid connections more likely to occur than others? Once a certain connection occurs, does it make the next level of connections more likely to happen one way or another? Etc. etc. The numbers in the video may be accurate from a purely mathematical standpoint, but I don't know if there are other influences, physical laws or environmental factors which could radically change the numbers.

I'll get to other links later today, probably.

Oh, and UR, I haven't clicked your links about the size of the universe, but I've seen some fun size comparisons before; I realize that the universe appears to be vast almost beyond comprehension, and that matter and energy can be broken down into components ridiculously small. The scope of reality in both directions is mind-boggling. I actually see that as reason not to believe we have knowledge about any god; we can barely take in the incredible scale of things, to think we know and understand a being that could create it all seems almost crazy to me.

 

[daws101]

[wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?

No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?

well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self

 

[daws101]

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.

As is so often the case with fundie creationists, they will purposefully lie and deceive to further their religious agenda.

There are no "Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup".

Darwin never proposed what you are attributing to his theory.

I knew that so there was no reason to answer.

 

[daws101]

I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.

Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.

Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.

So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.

So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..

Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.

What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.• Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

• Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

• Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

• Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.

again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington’s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.

Are All Human Mutations Bad?


also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.