Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hereiam said:
40.png
Techno2000:
What was the environmental catalyst that triggered random mutations to produce the beautiful fragrance of the Rose?
Click to expand...
What makes you think there was an environmental and not supernatural catalyst?
Click to expand...
I believe it was 100% supernatural catalyst.
 
We start with observations. The predictions point whether the observations will increase or decrease.
 
Designs have fsci. The functional part is key. What do I want to do with the design?

Will my design work with 1 random part? How many parts do I need for my design to work?

Let’s take the mousetrap. Does it work with just the spring? Will it work as I designed without the spring?

The designer could design the mousetrap to work supernaturally without a spring.
 
rossum said:
This is not a prediction about ID or life, it is a prediction about scientific research, and hence of more relevance to the history of science than to biology.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. The prediction is science will find information dependency is required more and more.
 
rossum said:
This prediction has already been falsified. The Apo A-I Milano mutation is a point mutation, with only one mutation required: Arg -> Cys. It has a new function of reducing the build up of arterial plaque compared with the unmutated standard Apo A-I.

New protein functions may require one or more mutations. Those mutations may, or may not, be adaptive. My example of Apo A-I Milano was an adaptive single mutation leading to a new function. The HbC mutation is another example of a single adaptive mutation leading to a new function.
Click to expand...
The protein is not as beneficial as first glance would suggest. The protein is now less efficient in its primary purpose but has the secondary effect of helping the arteries. Once again the loss of function shows up.

Designed variation should be also considered.
 
Last edited:
Hey. This one took .036 seconds longer than the last one to go up! 🙂
 
Designs try to incorporate efficiency. When designing a cell phone, one goal is to mininmize power consumption.

Much of the so called “junk DNA” is now found to have function and called upon when needed much like the hard drive on your computer. We strive to increase raw disk space so we all can add programs and recall them and data when needed. Most of the time this data is not accessed and sits idle. One can only call the storage area “junk” if the entire area is 100% proven to not have any function.

Now say the HD has a sector that goes bad, and the OS recovers and rewrites the info to a stable area. The damaged area will still be visible until overwritten.
 
At its best, the tree, or bush, of life is speculative. Evolution predicts nothing. A list of assumptions is just that. As I’ve written, evolution has no scientific use.
 
A very good comparison. Even biologists later admitted their error when they referred to “Junk DNA” (areas that do not code for proteins) as leftover genetic stuff from our millions of years long journey from point A to point B. It was their biggest blunder to date. They got it all wrong.
 
rossum said:
Front loading has been disproved by the Luria-Delbruck and the Lederberg experiments. Random mutations can give the appearance of front loading, but that is just an appearance. If front loading is correct, then ID scientists should be able to analyse a flu virus and pick out the existing front-loading. Knowing what front-loading is present will allow the development of a vaccine that avoids all of the front-loading and is immediately effective. The fact that no commercial company is making big profits off this sort of work shows that this ID prediction is indeed false.
Click to expand...
No.

The virus and bacteria front loading is enormous. We have to know all the predictive paths it can take to cut it off at the pass. The computing power for this is enormous,

Most viruses and bacteria are beneficial and do not harm us.

An AI self learning machine - will we be able to stay ahead of it?

More illusions of design I suppose…

Your final statement is ridiculous. C’mon. Vaccines are big business. So are anti-biotics. And perhaps the big breakthrough is right around the corner.

Uh no.
 
No. Evolution has no predictive ability. Different strains of viruses occur and scientists have to deal with them as expressed not as predicted. In real time.
 
In animals, calorie intake has to match size and function.
 
Last edited:
They move on in search of it or gradually get weak and die if they find none.
 
and whole groups that were isolated and could nor reproduce with other like groups go extinct.
 
That’s it. There are two birds in the United States that look identical but cannot reproduce since they are isolated on different sides of the country.
 
buffalo said:
The protein is not as beneficial as first glance would suggest. The protein is now less efficient in its primary purpose but has the secondary effect of helping the arteries. Once again the loss of function shows up.

Designed variation should be also considered.
Click to expand...
So, you agree that the protein has a new function – the mutated protein functions differently from the unmutated version. Since this is a functionally new protein needing only a single point mutation, your claim of ID necessitating multiple mutations is falsified. Better to remove that one from your list.

You appear to be using a lot of old lists. It is worthwhile checking those lists from time to time to ensure that they are still correct.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top