Thread: Creation 'Science' Made Easy

The best video of its kind I've seen yet. Learn a thing are two.

excellent

Originally Posted by gwahir

Good video, because it doesn't mock or condescend. I think we (edit: "we" scientists ) need more of this kind of thing. (+rep)

Yes, exactly.

And thank you sir.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Sure, youtube videos inspire quite the boners and back patting, but they don't actually say anything.

Did you actually watch the video, or are you making an assumption? I think this video is exceptional in that it's not like this, and that's why I posted it.

Also, you might have to be a "Dr." to discover this stuff and to expand our knowledge of it, but you don't need a doctorate to understand and communicate the basics of knowledge that has been discovered. Unfortunately, most YouTube videos are unable to do this effectively, but this one succeeds to some degree at least.

First of all...

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I mean, who's to say God didn't employ evolution? Certainly not me.

I don't know about the other people in this thread, but this isn't about whether or not God exists. Where did you get that idea, you stupid twat?

Even when I did believe in God, I also believed in and defended evolution. When I first expressed an interest in science as a young child (despite my parents being in the humanities), my conservative Catholic father bought me books on natural history. I didn't even know about the religious debate surrounding evolution until I was like 10.

So again, this has NOTHING to do with whether God does or does not exist.

lol, it outlined the scientific method; woopty doo.

Let me quote a line for you from the movie, assmunch:

Let's face it: most people don't know that much about science or what goes on in the scientific community

This video is about why creationism is NOT science. People don't understand why it's not, and that's why it has to be differentiated from what IS science. You don't seem to get it that there's lacking a very basic understanding of what is science and what isn't science.

That said, some scientists have made Darwin their personal prophet, and anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.

Just like some stupid physicists have made Newton their personal prophet, and anyone who disagrees with his theory of gravitation is an idiot? I know, why can't people keep an open mind and consider other alternative, untested, and completely refuted theories?

The prof I was talking about was wonderfully open minded and listed arguments for and against it, using facts and details the layman wouldn't understand.

So then what's the use of having these facts and details communicated to the lay community if they can't understand it?

Like I said, I think the basics of how science works, why we should trust scientists, and the basics of how evolution works and what proof we have for it can all be understood and grasped by the lay person.

The simple fact is that there are things wrong with the whole evolution thing.

The simple fact is that there are things right with the whole evolution thing.

The simple fact is that we don't understand every single detail about natural history or about the mechanism of evolution.

The simple fact is that we don't understand everything about most things. The simple fact is that if we did, scientists wouldn't have much to do, now would they?

Yes, our understanding of evolution is incomplete. Likewise, our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, as it is fundamentally incompatible with general relativity. However, I don't see people saying that it is "wrong" like they are saying evolution is wrong.

There is one thing that is correct to say: evolution is the only way that we can even begin to explain all the empirical evidence we've accumulated. We don't understand it completely. We're getting better at understanding how it works.

But a lack of current understanding is not a fundamental "problem" with the theory, as you say it is.

Originally Posted by sycld

The simple fact is that we don't understand every single detail about natural history or about the mechanism of evolution.

The simple fact is that we don't understand everything about most things. The simple fact is that if we did, scientists wouldn't have much to do, now would they?

Yes, our understanding of evolution is incomplete. Likewise, our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, as it is fundamentally incompatible with general relativity. However, I don't see people saying that it is "wrong" like they are saying evolution is wrong.

There is one thing that is correct to say: evolution is the only way that we can even begin to explain all the empirical evidence we've accumulated. We don't understand it completely. We're getting better at understanding how it works.

But a lack of current understanding is not a fundamental "problem" with the theory, as you say it is.

See guys, that is the beautiful thing about science. It is a strength that creationist try to turn into a flaw. Science adapts to new evidence. We achieve new evidence based on new discoveries, or discovering something new due to new technology. Just because something can not be entirely explained at this time does not mean it can not be explained, and must have been a god or deity that did it. If that was the case we still wouldn't know why it rains and where fire comes from. We take evidence and known facts and form a conclusion based on available knowledge. They use this as a flaw, saying we can "change our stance" on things, and that we don't understand everything. True, but that is a strength, scientist take new evidence if it becomes available to form a new hypothesis, if a creationist comes across new evidence they mangle it to fit their conclusion.

Creationist come to a conclusion, and use pseudo-science and false logic to make the evidence "meet" their answer, and not the other way around. Anytime you are trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion, instead of making a conclusion based on the evidence is pure insanity.

The one thing I don't understand is that a lot of religious people are so entrenched in their idea, that they come up with "reasons" why we heathen science based logical people do what we do... anything from being possessed by the devil to living in sin and not wanting to admit it. It's like talking to a wall, or a magic 8-ball, they are unable to accept new information. If scientific evidence truly showed a higher deity, such as the Christian God, that would be the common consensus. They act as if we would turn down eternal bliss if the evidence was there that it existed.

Let me just emphasize one thing here:

I don't give a flying fuck if people believe in whatever supernatural stuff they want to believe in. But when they start to attack science...

...it's personal.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

An organism with n chromosomes cannot procreate with an organism with n + x number of chromosomes.
You can only fit so much new information on a single chromosome before it would be too much, and too prone to malfunction.

Now, I agree natural selection is proven, etc... but where in time in the development of new species, and how praytell, is the new chromosome formed?

The probability of a servicable new species of organism (A) randomly being selected for is already slim, correct?

Add to that that another organism(B) must contain a relatively similar "trait" that has to have resulted in the same number as chromosomes as the original, and the probabilities become ridiculously small.

Think of it this way:

Chromosomes are like lego blocks.

The parents each contribute n number of blocks.

If one parent somehow aquires a new trait, which results in n+1 number of chromosomes, as opposed to the species' current n, then it the blocks won't fit, and a viable offspring is highly unlikely.

get it?

In the first sentence of your post, you say that two organisms with different numbers of chromosomes "cannot" procreate. Then, in the end of your post, you say that they can procreate but that a viable offspring is unlikely. Which is it?

I'll save you the effort: It's the second one. You were quite wrong when you said, early in your post, that different numbers of chromosomes prevent organisms from procreating. Organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can and do reproduce sexually and yield viable offspring. You are correct, however, insofar as viable offspring are often less likely when the parents have a mismatched number of chromosomes. That can indeed cause a problem. But of course, as any intelligent person should realize, "unlikely" isn't the same as "impossible". Bear in mind that we're talking about huge numbers of organisms mating over huge expanses of time. Even something that's "highly unlikely" to occur in any given single case becomes somewhat more likely when you give it a hundred billion chances. And in fact in many cases it's not that unlikely; it can be quite easy for organisms with different numbers of chromosomes to produce offspring that are not infertile.

As for how and when the chromosome count changes during speciation, that's no mystery either. The process of chromosomes breaking (or fusing, for that matter) is fairly well understood. In the case of breaking apart, it happens during mitosis when chromosomes with duplicated centromeres are pulled in opposite directions by the spindle fibers.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...osome_numb.php

Here's a site with a pretty easy-to-follow explanation, if you can stomach taking a science lesson from a gol'durned liberal atheist. I can't help noticing that you mocked gwahir for allegedly having a shallow grasp of the topic... but then when asked to elaborate on your objections to evolutionary theory, you chose such an elementary and easily-answered question as "where do the new chromosomes come from, huh?!"

Where did you think they come from... the invisible Hand of the Designer reaches into cell nuclei when it's time for speciation to occur and magically inserts the right number of new chromosomes?

Originally Posted by Syme

In the first sentence of your post, you say that two organisms with different numbers of chromosomes "cannot" procreate. Then, in the end of your post, you say that they can procreate but that a viable offspring is unlikely. Which is it?

I'll save you the effort: It's the second one. You were quite wrong when you said, early in your post, that different numbers of chromosomes prevent organisms from procreating. Organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can and do reproduce sexually and yield viable offspring. You are correct, however, insofar as viable offspring are often less likely when the parents have a mismatched number of chromosomes. That can indeed cause a problem. But of course, as any intelligent person should realize, "unlikely" isn't the same as "impossible". Bear in mind that we're talking about huge numbers of organisms mating over huge expanses of time. Even something that's "highly unlikely" to occur in any given single case becomes somewhat more likely when you give it a hundred billion chances. And in fact in many cases it's not that unlikely; it can be quite easy for organisms with different numbers of chromosomes to produce offspring that are not infertile.

As for how and when the chromosome count changes during speciation, that's no mystery either. The process of chromosomes breaking (or fusing, for that matter) is fairly well understood. In the case of breaking apart, it happens during mitosis when chromosomes with duplicated centromeres are pulled in opposite directions by the spindle fibers.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...osome_numb.php

Here's a site with a pretty easy-to-follow explanation, if you can stomach taking a science lesson from a gol'durned liberal atheist. I can't help noticing that you mocked gwahir for allegedly having a shallow grasp of the topic... but then when asked to elaborate on your objections to evolutionary theory, you chose such an elementary and easily-answered question as "where do the new chromosomes come from, huh?!"

Where did you think they come from... the invisible Hand of the Designer reaches into cell nuclei when it's time for speciation to occur and magically inserts the right number of new chromosomes?

"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.

So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?

EDIT: also, meiosis is the word you meant to use.

DOUBLE EDIT: SHIT, I forgot about Robertson.

Hmm, I guess I was wrong.

The point I'm making is that I observed a problem with it, and created a hypothesis on my own.

I didn't google my facts and then defend them like a religious zealout on the internet.

But when they start to attack science...

...it's personal.

I'm not scared to admit I was wrong though, because it was a genuine problem that apparently has a solution, albeit still an iffy one. (it's too easy to say A+N is gonna be fine when in reality there's probably 50,000 Kbase pairs in each letter.)

HOWEVER,
I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

Wish I had a class with that guy.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.

No, this is wrong. You are making stuff up. You are pulling probabilities out of your ass to try and pretend like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. Successful procreation by two organisms with different numbers of chromosomes is not as unlikely as you are pretending it is.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?

LOL

So your counterargument is "LOL"? Do yourself, and all of us, a favor: When you're trying to argue a point, let's have a bit less "Lol hey guys im on the internet" and a bit more "actually addressing the issue".

Yes, new chromosomes are formed due to chromosome breakage, and a major cause of that is chromosomes with duplicated centromeres breaking during mitosis. And it works the other way too; e.g. different species of rodents have different numbers of chromosomes due to centromere fusion (this is pretty well-documented). Honestly, if you want to know more about this stuff (and you definitely should know more before you try to have arguments like this), go pick up any decent cytogenetics text and give it a read. You're not the first person to wonder where new chromosomes come from, you're not the first person to think they've cleverly spotted a hole in evolutionary theory by wondering where new chromosomes come from, and you're not the first person to get shut down when it turns out that the origin of new chromosomes during speciation isn't some great mystery. Really, did you seriously think you had spotted some gaping hole in the theory that all the scientists who accept evolution had overlooked?

Originally Posted by Syme

When you're trying to argue a point, let's have a bit less "Lol hey guys im on the internet" and a bit more "actually addressing the issue".

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Dude, my hypothesis was that an organism bearing n chromosomes originated at the same time as the organism with n+1 chromosomes. Any idiot can see that. Whether they were planted here by aliens, formed seperately out of proteins and fireworks, I didn't specify.

Here's the thing; I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

It turns out I was wrong, and I'm cool with that. I mean, I knew about Robertson, but I just hadn't made the connection.

I'll give you that, you understand it to a greater degree than I thought you would, but it just gets so old listening to liberal arts majors like Gwahir, Sycld, and simon go on and on about shit they've never bothered to do anything but circle jerk about.

Dude, to you guys, this is just a political issue, and/or extension of your personality.
You won't bother to think about genetics or evolution outside of those boundaries or this thread.



Also, I didn't realize saying, "Shit, I'm wrong" counted as trying to "squirm" my way out of being wrong.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

An organism with n chromosomes cannot procreate with an organism with n + x number of chromosomes.
You can only fit so much new information on a single chromosome before it would be too much, and too prone to malfunction.


Now, I agree natural selection is proven, etc... but where in time in the development of new species, and how praytell, is the new chromosome formed?


The probability of a servicable new species of organism (A) randomly being selected for is already slim, correct?

Add to that that another organism(B) must contain a relatively similar "trait" that has to have resulted in the same number as chromosomes as the original, and the probabilities become ridiculously small.




Think of it this way:


Chromosomes are like lego blocks.


The parents each contribute n number of blocks.

If one parent somehow aquires a new trait, which results in n+1 number of chromosomes, as opposed to the species' current n, then it the blocks won't fit, and a viable offspring is highly unlikely.

get it?

(Okay, I thought you were just here to act as a foil to show how we mere lay people shouldn't even think about science, as none of us can understand anything anyway, but now I realize you're a supporter of creationism.)

And an intelligent design proponen's (i.e. your) answer to this is "It's too hard to hard to understand, so it must be impossible, and thus I'm going to simply throw away all the strong evidence that supports evolution and simply say God dun it according to genesis because it's easier for me to believe?"

Originally Posted by bacon ops

"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.

So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?

EDIT: also, meiosis is the word you meant to use.

DOUBLE EDIT: SHIT, I forgot about Robertson.

Hmm, I guess I was wrong.

The point I'm making is that I observed a problem with it, and created a hypothesis on my own.

I didn't google my facts and then defend them like a religious zealout on the internet.

Now what the fuck are you talking about?

You're proud of yourself for asking a question you didn't know the answer to and standing up to someone who wasn't as ignorant as you are about what scientists have discovered? What "religious zealotry" are you talking about? He knew or found the answer and explained it to you.

And what the fuck hypothesis are you fucking talking about here? I didn't read a hypothesis, just a proud declamation of ignorance.

It's good that you admitted you were wrong. It's moronic that you then say that you're the better one here for lacking knowledge.

I'm not scared to admit I was wrong though, because it was a genuine problem that apparently has a solution, albeit still an iffy one. (it's too easy to say A+N is gonna be fine when in reality there's probably 50,000 Kbase pairs in each letter.)

HOWEVER,
I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

Wish I had a class with that guy.

Jesus Christ. That's a crutch even though there's empirical evidence that these processes did occur over huge periods of times and over millions of generations?

Also, yes, these exceedingly rare ridiculously improbably events did occur and are what drove speciation.


EDIT: Oh, so this was your "hypothesis":

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Dude, my hypothesis was that an organism bearing n chromosomes originated at the same time as the organism with n+1 chromosomes. Any idiot can see that. Whether they were planted here by aliens, formed seperately out of proteins and fireworks, I didn't specify.

No you didn't. What you said was that it's "impossible" for an an organism with n chromosomes to evolve from an organism with m chromosomes.

Here's the thing; I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

Again, it's good that you admitted you're wrong. I'm just so surprised that you think you're better for

And everything you know you're "parroting" from lectures and textbooks. See we can play this stupid, immature game too.

Originally Posted by sycld

(Okay, I thought you were just here to act as a foil to show how we mere lay people shouldn't even think about science, as none of us can understand anything anyway, but now I realize you're a supporter of creationism.)

And an intelligent design proponen's (i.e. your) answer to this is "It's too hard to hard to understand, so it must be impossible, and thus I'm going to simply throw away all the strong evidence that supports evolution and simply say God dun it according to genesis because it's easier for me to believe?"



Now what the fuck are you talking about?

You're proud of yourself for asking a question you didn't know the answer to and standing up to someone who wasn't as ignorant as you are about what scientists have discovered? What "religious zealotry" are you talking about? He knew or found the answer and explained it to you.

And what the fuck hypothesis are you fucking talking about here? I didn't read a hypothesis, just a proud declamation of ignorance.

It's good that you admitted you were wrong. It's moronic that you then say that you're the better one here for lacking knowledge.

Jesus Christ. That's a crutch even though there's empirical evidence that these processes did occur over huge periods of times and over millions of generations?

Also, yes, these exceedingly rare ridiculously improbably events did occur and are what drove speciation.

The simple truth is that you don't, in actuality, understand the processes at work here to a fraction of the degree that I do.

Sure, it's easy to toss everyone aside and say that they're a stupid "creationist"

The truth is that everyone who supports whatever you want to call intelligent design isn't a fundamentalist christian, and doesn't dismiss everything about evolution.

That's what science is about, dude: asking questions.
It isn't about watching youtube and feeling smug.


I'm saying you're the religious zealout.

You have blind faith in evolution.