Yet another anti-evolution thread...

[kinetekade]

You've probably had your fill of these threads, but I still think it's a good idea to check up on one every now and then... if only to see how different types of people continue to view science and religion. Sadly, they still seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.

"Believe it or Not" - First page (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=626116&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=1) - Last page (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=626116&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=4&vc=1) - All (4) pages (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=626116&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=all&vc=1)

The obnoxious AiG quoting and "goo to you" quips should tip you off that some of these are Sarfati drones.

Well, I'm not trying to one-up or outsmart anyone. I am interested in a sincere debate ... Both creationists and evolutionists who want to debate here, should understand both sides first. If evolutionists want a debate, I am just asking to learn the creation model first. - OldSchool

Well, any takers? I was a member for more than a year (banned a long time ago) and trust me - they've never received a proper thrashing. As far as they know, AiG has all the "evolutionists" on the run...

I just found this thread, so I'll comment and post quotes a little later.

[Dr.GH]

The thread is already locked. To bad, I wrote a reply. That is the problem with most YEC run sites: they will not tolerate alternate viewpoints, and they will cheat, and lie rather than lose. This is pure ego on their part, but, they lie even to themselves. They tell themselves that their distortions and their every prejudice are "God's will."

The reply I wrote:

Dogs

There are three basic sources that confirm the evolutionary hypothesis: biogeography: the physical distribution of life’s variation, paleontology: the fossil remains of ancient forms of life and the geological science that places them in chronological order, and molecular and physical phylogeny: the shared chemical and physical structure used to organize life. Not all species living or extinct are equally covered, for example bacteria are very hard to find in the fossil data as most lack any hard parts, and they are microscopic. But, living bacteria are very important as disease causes, and for basic chemistry. So they are very well understood chemically. Others, like foramifera, or ostracods have hard parts, are very useful to the petroleum inductry and are very well studied as fossils.

The fossil data for “Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Canis lupus familiaris” or the “domestic wolf” A.K.A.- dog, is not very complete compared to say the horse or humans. The dog goes where we humans go (they even preceded us into outer space), and so the biogeographic data is basically useless. But, the molecular data is actually better than for most groups of animals. Two very good papers are on the ‘net’ and are farily easy to read.

Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

Molecular evolution of the dog family
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

A webpage for anyone who would like the basics of molecular phylogeny:

Sequences and Common Descent - Page by Wesley R. Elsberry
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html

The clear result is that dogs are descendants of wolves at least 20,000 years ago and perhaps even earlier. The oldest dog I have personally excavated was 5,000 years old from California (site # Ca-Ora-423, horizon 4).


Molcular ‘motors’ and design.

The notion of “irreducible complexity” was introduced to the creationist literature by Michael Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box” (1996 New York: Touchstone (Simon & Schuster). One of the examples of an “irreducible” system was the bacterial flagella.

Several abstract were linked earlier in this thread that were presented as evidence that life was ‘designed.’ I think that a few observations will dispell this error, without detailing every paper.

First observation is that you must read the papers, and not just the abstracts. For example : Schliwa M, Woehlke G.2003 Molecular motors. Nature. 2003 Apr 17;422(6933):759-65, is not at all relevant to Behe’s design argumant, as the ‘parts’ of the intracellular transport systems Schliwa discussed are not “irreducible,” and Schliwa states very clearly how the data support the evolutionary origins of molecular motors:

“Motor mechanochemistry

Conformational changes

Our understanding of the molecular mechanisms that convert chemical energy into movement is most advanced for representatives of the myosin and kinesin families. High-resolution crystal structures of the motor domain uncovered an unexpected relationship between these two classes of motors: the region surrounding the ATP-binding pocket is virtually identical in structure, although sequence homology is restricted to only a few key residues. The architecture of the active site further revealed a relationship to the G proteins, suggesting that these three classes of molecules are of common evolutionary origin. This notion recently received support from molecular dynamics simulations suggesting that G proteins — usually mediators in signalling pathways — may be able to generate force.”

The references to Oster are actually relevant to Behe’s idea, but don’t yield any emperical support for “design” or ‘irriducible complexity.” You can read the entire article referenced to above in the following link.

G. Oster and H. Wang.
(2000) Reverse engineering a protein: The mechanochemistry of ATP synthase. Biochemica et Biophysica Acta (Bioenergetics) 1458:482-510.
http://nature.berkeley.edu/~goster/oster/BBA.pdf

More importantly, consider the conclusion that Oster gave in his recent essay Darwin's Motors, (2002) Nature 417:25 (2 May).

“In a broader sense, the idea of generating order by ‘selecting’ from random variations is hardly new -- it is the fundamental idea of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In the context of motor proteins, the ‘order’ created is a directional force, and the agents of selection are intermolecular attractions. Hence the idea of a Brownian ratchet keeps popping up in new contexts, providing a fertile stimulus to our thinking in disparate fields. Indeed, as the philosopher Daniel Dennett has said -- and I agree -- Darwin may have had the best idea that anyone ever had. Think about it.”

[kinetekade]

The thread is already locked. To bad, I wrote a reply. That is the problem with most YEC run sites: they will not tolerate alternate viewpoints, and they will cheat, and lie rather than lose. This is pure ego on their part, but, they lie even to themselves. They tell themselves that their distortions and their every prejudice are "God's will."

Damn. I'm disappointed but not surprised. The last time someone asked them why they locked these types of threads (since they have never gotten out of hand), the mods told him the discussions "no longer served God's will," and naturally that seemed ironic, considering that God's existence was often a popular topic of discussion in those locked threads. Nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to read through those pages and write a reply that they'll never get the chance to learn from. It's their loss, I 'spose. :)

I've skimmed through the first three links, but the last will have to wait until I reinstall Acrobat Reader. If you don't mind, I'll let you know if I have any questions once I get a chance to read them more carefully.

First observation is that you must read the papers, and not just the abstracts. For example : Schliwa M, Woehlke G.2003 Molecular motors. Nature. 2003 Apr 17;422(6933):759-65, is not at all relevant to Behe’s design argumant, as the ‘parts’ of the intracellular transport systems Schliwa discussed are not “irreducible,” and Schliwa states very clearly how the data support the evolutionary origins of molecular motors:

I didn't even bother to follow those links, so I didn't read the full articles. I get the impression that they didn't either.

For anyone interested, here's the PubMed link to that abstract - Molecular motors (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12700770&dopt=Abstract)

And the full article (nature.com - you need to be logged in) - Molecular motors (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v422/n6933/full/nature01601_fs.html)

Omskakas (ABC member) just opened up a follow-up thread since he has some unfinished business. Here's the link -

"What modern biology has to say about information increase in organisms" - First page (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=630037&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=1)

Dr. GH, you may yet have a chance to throw your hat into the ring.

Indeed. Gene duplication does not support evolution. Gene duplication does not make entirely new genes, just duplicates the ones already present. This does not lead to evolution! - Yu Yevon

Relevant Science mag articles -

Gene Duplication and Evolution (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5535/1551a)

The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5494/1151) (need to be signed in)

Gene duplication has generally been viewed as a necessary source of material for the origin of evolutionary novelties, but it is unclear how often gene duplicates arise and how frequently they evolve new functions. Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period. However, the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection. Although duplicate genes may only rarely evolve new functions, the stochastic silencing of such genes may play a significant role in the passive origin of new species.

- Lynch, M. and J.S. Conery, The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science, 2000.

[SpeedDemon]

Originally posted by kinetekade The obnoxious AiG quoting and "goo to you" quips should tip you off that some of these are Sarfati drones.

I really liked the blatant cut and paste jobs from various websites, all without credit. Yu Yevon seems to be the champion of that trick, and he even graciously accepts the praise from bystanders. Sad.

SD

[kinetekade]

I really liked the blatant cut and paste jobs from various websites, all without credit. Yu Yevon seems to be the champion of that trick, and he even graciously accepts the praise from bystanders. Sad.

SpeedDemon, those moderators have been doing that for as long as I can remember. The praise they receive is sickening, but the number of people they "convert" every week is appalling. Copy/page... copy/paste... "you sure showed that evil-delusionist!"

You might want to take a peak at this thread... 13 billion year old planet discovered? Biblical questions? (PAGE 5) (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=588253&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=6&vc=1)

Scroll down and look for falser's post. He calls them on their plagiarism...

Can any of you even make an argument without quoting a source? O.S. in two minutes I was able to find 3 website articles that you plagarized as own:

[...]

If you want people to read this material then just link to it, don't pretend you wrote it.

You are not even forumulating your own thoughts - you're just regurgitating propaganda. And you're patting eachother on the backs saying "good job on the cut and paste". Am I alone here in an episode of the twilight zone where everyone has been brainwashed? - falser

And of course they wouldn't have any of that...

I didn't plagerize anything. This isn't a research paper. I was simply showing the errors in talkorigins, which by evolutionary standards is outdated. However, that is the main souce you aquire your information from. I have shown my sources multiple times, nor have I ever claimed to have created the research.

All you have to do is click properties to see where the pics came from. I assumed that was common knowldege and that anyone could easily find the sources.

[...]

This is typical though. Instead of attacking the evidence I presented, attack me.

I attacked the illegitimacy of talkorigins whale evolution links(with evolutionary sources), yet instead of refuting any of the claims, I get personal attacks.

This is called an ad hominem attack and is typical when one is losing the debate. - OldSchool

Even the pictures they cycle in and out of their avatars/signatures are copyrighted. And if you really want to see some good 'ol fashioned plagiarism -

ABC Bodybuilding Bible Studies (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=357143&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=)

Try to find a single Bible study that isn't mostly copy/pasted YEC and apologetic material. Ugh... couldn't the copyright owners enforce their copyright and close some of this stuff?

[SpeedDemon]

Originally posted by kinetekade

Scroll down and look for falser's post. He calls them on their plagiarism...

And of course they wouldn't have any of that...


I didn't read that thread (weak stomach) but can I assume that someone gets accused of being a Nazi or of possibly preferring brown shirts?

SD

[Dr.GH]

It looks like they have dumped the entire forum. Maybe it is just a technical problem. Maybe they have realized that they will be humiliated.

[kinetekade]

It looks like they have dumped the entire forum. Maybe it is just a technical problem. Maybe they have realized that they will be humiliated.

Dumped the forum? Perhaps it was a technical problem. I'm able to access the forum fine now, but for some reason, I still have a little difficulty logging in over there... :rolleyes:

[Dr.GH]

If I login, I am totally blocked from the "shooting the breeze" discussion. It does not even show up on the menue, and I am blocked from linking to anuy message in that forum. If I don't log in I can read it, but not post.

I think that they ran my name on a search engine and have punked. Haahaahaaaaaaa

[kinetekade]

I think that they ran my name on a search engine and have punked.

They probably saw that Infidels was linking to their forum. That likely peaked their interest, so they traced the link back here to this thread. They waited for someone to register under a "Dr. GH" or something similar, and then banned that username from posting in that particular forum. From experience, I'd say that they would defend this preemptive block by convincing each-other that their forums are specifically for bodybuilding, and forgetting that the Shooting the Breeze forum they made is for all other discussion, including the large amount of religious material they post nearly every day.

You didn't even post anything yet over there, did you Dr. GH? And now you can't. Another victory in their eyes... the banners will read, "The Evilutionist ABC rebellion of 2003 has been quelled before it began! Praise!"

I am interested in a sincere debate ... Both creationists and evolutionists ... - OldSchool

OldSchool, if you happen to find your way back to this thread, start a new topic in the E/C forum. ABC can be your untarnished holy ground; stir up an actual debate here. Do your best to combat evolution and glorify creation on this forum. You'll see how well those cherished AiG articles of yours stand up to criticism. Seriously, do it. No, really. I'm looking forward to it. :)

*steps down from his soapbox* Ah! That felt good!