If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Panda's Thumb)   Recently scientists sequenced the coelacanth genome. Now the creationists have responded in the usual fact-free fashion. Here comes the real science   (pandasthumb.org) divider line 16
    More: Obvious, Discovery Institute, genetic sequence, genomes, Canadian National Exhibition, vertebrates, Answers in Genesis, Darwinian, Earth Science  
•       •       •

6410 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Apr 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-28 11:13:19 AM  
3 votes:

SurfaceTension: pivazena: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

I think I kinda get that. Thanks!


no prob!  The analogy isn't perfect, but think of a car.  Lots and lots of aspects of cars have changed as they've diversified over the past century, but the basic plan is the same-- 4 wheels, engine, axels. That's because the cars need to get from point a to point b, and these parts are vital. If there were genes to make these parts, they'd be the same for 100 years. Maybe some changes, bigger or smaller, two wheels instead of four, but the wheel is still round and rubber, you know? If a mutation came along and made oval wheels, that car wouldn't sell well and would be selected against. Other modifications like power windows or sunroofs or different colors or wood paneling are less central to the car, so they come and go with different car incarnations
rpm
2013-04-28 10:21:24 PM  
2 votes:

jso2897: But I don't confuse my metaphysical position with "reality". To say "God doesn't exist" you must believe in "God" - I don't, so I can't say that. Atheism isn't my religion - but it appears to be yours.


Nope. All someone has to do is provide evidence. That's not a religion.

Religions have had millenia to present evidence. None have. Null hypothesis still holds.
2013-04-28 10:06:11 AM  
2 votes:
It's not polite to mock retarded people.  But in this case I think we can make an exception.
2013-04-28 10:15:03 PM  
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: Ed Grubermann: Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.

You move the goalposts quite well.

".Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat"."
Really? Then why do they call it, oh my, can you believe it, a "faith"?


"They" don't. Only you do. And you might as well call it an "artichoke", for all the difference it makes in the context of this discussion. Science is still limited to answering physical questions - it neither responds to no fails to respond to the metaphysical.
The issue of the origin of species on our planet is a physical question, and only one scientific theory has ever been thunk up to address it.
There are, on the other hand, potentially, a million metaphysical explanations - but that's a different subject. Why even discuss the issue if it bores you that much? if you want to talk metaphysics, talk metaphysics in a metaphysics thread someplace. You're like a guy who sits down at a table where everybody is talking about cars and starts talking about can openers. It's actually kind of rude. i believe they call it "derailing", or, more pejoratively, "threadshiatting".
2013-04-28 05:11:45 PM  
1 votes:

rugman11: FloydA: That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to. You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.

It's probably not right to call my version of creationism "real creationism."  But it's not a small group.  Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.  But what happens is that people turn it into a dichotomy, with the 38% who are like me getting lumped in with the 16% as the "evolution side" and the other 40% as the "creation side," despite the fact that there's almost as large a contingent of science-accepting creationists as their is of Young-Earth creationists.



I think it might be more clear to refer to your group as "science-accepting religious people" or "science-accepting theists" (or replace "theist" with your particular denomination if you want to be specific).  The word "creationist" has come to be associated in the public consciousness with "people who deny the reality of biological evolution."   If you refer to yourself as a "creationist," people are likely to assume that you reject the theory of evolution.

Rightly or wrongly, the word "creationism" itself is extremely heavily loaded with connotations or biblical literalism, young-earth beliefs, "ex novo" fiat creation, and fixity of species.  It seems to me that you'll have a hard time "taking it back."

(I'm aware that people who share your beliefs are a substantial group.  My comments are solely directed at whether it is accurate to use the term "creationism" for those beliefs.)
2013-04-28 04:06:51 PM  
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


Just curious, which account of Creation do you have faith in? Genesis 1:1, or Genesis 2:4?
rpm
2013-04-28 04:02:08 PM  
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?

Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.


Let's see...
Virtual particles
Sum total of energy of the universe is 0
conservation of dna sequences
prediction and finding of intermediate forms

Evidence changing means hypothesis change. Welcome to science.
Evidence has changed, your book hasn't. Your god is dead.
2013-04-28 03:55:15 PM  
1 votes:

jso2897: Arumat: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.

Either way, that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory regarding the origin of different species. It does not address the origins of life itself, or of the Universe. This is one reason why so many deeply religious people accept it as fact, and only morons don't.


I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.  I turned his point around using science (statistical mathematics in this case) to (hopefully) make him sit down and stfu while adults are talking.  I never claimed that Evolution even attempts to explain the origin of life, and I'm aware it only deals with how that life changed over time after it came into existence.  I'll even help to explain the difference between a scientific theory (a verifiable but not 100% provable explanation for how/why something occurs, supported by evidence gathered from a variety of experimental observations) and a hypothesis (the expected outcome of an experiment defined before that experiment begins, which may or may not be verified by the observations that experiment produces, more akin to the layman's definition of theory as a guess).
2013-04-28 03:43:04 PM  
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?

Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.
Llike the evidence has changed and this is just one example. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/28/17958218-speed-of-light-ma y-not-be-constant-physicists-say?lite

"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.




So, god of the gaps argument? That's the best you can muster? You sir, are no Bevets!
2013-04-28 03:38:54 PM  
1 votes:

Mad Tea Party: Bevets is really gone? Wow, it's the end of an era.


It's okay, we have Quantum Apostrophe now.

Find him in every space thread.  You'll see.


/plate of 3D-printed shrimp
2013-04-28 02:05:50 PM  
1 votes:

The Billdozer: And this is supposed to rock religion how again?


It's not.  People don't do scientific research in order to "rock religion," they do it in order to find out how the world actually works.
If the facts of nature conflict with a person's unsupported beliefs, so much the worse for the beliefs, but that's not why we study those facts.
rpm
2013-04-28 01:47:52 PM  
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.


Vague outline? IT'S IN THE WRONG farkING ORDER. That's not vague, that's wrong

Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


We have evidence. You have what exactly?
2013-04-28 12:11:09 PM  
1 votes:
Is it too hard for Creationists to simply say "God let nature take its course"?
Seriously, trying to refute science just makes them look lie a Palin child..
rpm
2013-04-28 11:48:40 AM  
1 votes:

edmo: It's the usual "you don't have perfect evidence so it's not true" argument (found right here in my perfect Bible).


I know, right?
2013-04-28 11:19:13 AM  
1 votes:

Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.


they're all in church right now
2013-04-28 11:03:38 AM  
1 votes:

SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.


these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report