Science vs. Creationism

[Zulu]

Now you get it.
We ain't always sure about what Darwiniacs believe, and neither are they until they consult the prophets who make up the stories.

Now I start losing respect for you...

 

[PearlWatson]

Now I start losing respect for you...

What part do you find so objectionable?

This is nothing different than I've said all along.

 

[Zulu]

What part do you find so objectionable?

This is nothing different than I've said all along.

You seemed interested to here what the other side belives.... Guess it was just an act !!!

 

[PearlWatson]

You seemed interested to here what the other side belives.... Guess it was just an act !!!

You are the only one who doesn't seem to fit the dogmatic atheist mold, so I WAS interested in trying to understand the reasoning behind your belief, but I've considered Darwinism an ideology all along.

 

[Zulu]

You are the only one who doesn't seem to fit the dogmatic atheist mold, so I WAS interested in trying to understand the reasoning behind your belief, but I've considered Darwinism an ideology all along.

I'd say Dalamon and myself are the same... Both Religiously and Scientifically inclined!!!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

You are the only one who doesn't seem to fit the dogmatic atheist mold, so I WAS interested in trying to understand the reasoning behind your belief, but I've considered Darwinism an ideology all along.

I'm an atheist?

 

[Deleted member 848]

That is supposed to be simpler than 1 sentence on each of the two articles you posted? Was Brow's example even related to the two articles you posted?
I agree.

The two examples I mentioned were a bit more complex, and abstract to understand, so I went with a more relatable example that would probably be somewhat relevant, as hemoglobin is well known, and talked about lots. I went for a simpler example to explain, and understand.

Yes, I didn't oblige to your one sentence preference-- but that's because I have a tendency to try an educate, and display things in a readable, non-biased, and educational manner. Was my post hard to read & understand? If so, that wasn't the goal.

As you stated both globins where designed to shuttle oxygen around the body.

You misread my post. One shuttles it around the bloodstream (the body), the other shuttles only within tissues)

What's the new function duplication brings?

Umm, the new functionality of hemoglobin is it's ability to adjust its affinity of oxygen by binding to hydrogen ions, 1,3 BPG, and be able to carry out oxygen transfer in a body with a closed circulatory system. If your argument is that myoglobin and hemoglobin serve different functions (a hilarious argument, if so), then your argument would infer that one of them could simply replace the function of the other, which is impossible. They need to work in unison, and one cannot encompass the functions of both. Just because both genes are involved with oxygen transfer, it doesn't mean that they serve the exact same functionality. They play completely different roles in the body.

 

[PearlWatson]

I'd say Dalamon and myself are the same... Both Religiously and Scientifically inclined!!!!

babe would be part of that group as well, but you actually teach the ideology.

I consider Darwinism an ideology not a science, so you've somehow been able to merge both your Mormon and Darwin ideology.

Biology/Genetics are the sciences. Darwinism is the ideology.

Population geneticist: I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

babe would be part of that group as well, but you actually teach the ideology.

I consider Darwinism an ideology not a science, so you've somehow been able to merge both your Mormon and Darwin ideology.

Biology/Genetics are the sciences. Darwinism is the ideology.

Population geneticist: I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.

so Science is an ideology-free grasp of things?

#Amazing

 

[PearlWatson]

Myoglobin and hemoglobin are extremely genetically related-- 4 myoglobins that assemble together make a structure really, really similar to hemoglobin. This is how hemoglobin arose. This has been proven ad-nauseum.

Hence, hemoglobin, stemming from the historic-myoglobin...

This premise is the problem.

You say these 2 cogs in a complex system look the same so one must have blindly arose from the other, but there is a problem with that assumption.

The two cogs work in concert, so if you don't have one of the cogs the system doesn't work in the first place.

 

[Zulu]

babe would be part of that group as well, but you actually teach the ideology.

I consider Darwinism an ideology not a science, so you've somehow been able to merge both your Mormon and Darwin ideology.

Biology/Genetics are the sciences. Darwinism is the ideology.

Population geneticist: I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.

I actually teach "the modern synthesis of evolution" which takes a lot of ideas first presented by Darwin and Wallace, but their ideas presented 150 years ago aren't complete specifically cause they didn't have the pleasure of knowing about genetics!!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

This premise is the problem.

lol k...

You say these 2 cogs in a complex system look the same so one must have blindly arose from the other, but there is a problem with that assumption.

It's obvious that your knowledge of genetics is lacking, as you approach this 'cog-issue' in a narrow, one-dimensional manner. You need to find better justifications of ID tbh.

The two cogs work in concert, so if you don't have one of the cogs the system doesn't work in the first place.

maybe both cogs were created before the sophisticated circulation system was developed. Maybe the cog served an alternative function (at a less efficient rate) upon its creation, but it ended up being best suited for its eventual role. Expand your scope of possibilities, Pearl.

An excerpt from a paper that talks about Hb evolution:

The amino acid sequences of the α- and β-globins are approximately 50% identical, regardless of which vertebrate species is the source, arguing that these two genes are descended from a common ancestor approximately 450 million years ago, in the ancestral
jawed vertebrate (Goodman et al. 1987). Both α- and β-globins are about equally divergent from the monomeric myoglobin, an oxygen storage and delivery protein found in many tissues. It lacks the exquisite cooperativity of the blood hemoglobins, but its relationship to them is clear from both the primary sequence and the virtually identical three-dimensional structures, each containing the globin fold (Dickerson and Geis, 1983)