Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Sean Carroll on Why DNA Proves Evolution

In his book The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll writes “the degree of similarity in DNA is an index of the [evolutionary] relatedness of species.” [98] This can only make sense if we first assume evolution is true. But Carroll's book is a defense of evolution, intended to demonstrate that the theory is true without first assuming it is true. He seeks to prove evolution is true, but he begins with evolutionary reasoning and interpretations. That is circular reasoning. Unfortunately such circular reasoning is a common motif in the evolution genre.

In recent years the genomes of various species have been decoded. It is an avalanche of disparate data, as genomes can contain a variety of types of messages. For evolutionists, these messages hold many secrets of evolutionary history. If the species share common ancestors, then the contents of their genomes should help decipher that evolutionary history.

For instance, mobile genetic elements are genome segments that can move about, inserting themselves at various locations within the genome. These insertions, according to evolutionists, are a random affair. After all, evolutionists assume that life is a fluke, and biology is one big kludge.

A few years back evolutionists claimed that retroviruses found in primate genomes proved common descent. The retroviruses, it was said, were the perfect evolutionary sign post. They were assumed to insert randomly into the genome and once inserted to stay put. Therefore, if two cousin species shared a similar pattern of retroviruses, then those retroviruses must have been inherited from a common ancestor. It would be too great of a coincidence for the retroviruses to have independently inserted into the two genomes (notice the circular reasoning).

These assumptions are routinely revised. Retroviruses patterns were found that cannot be explained by common descent (e.g., same pattern in only two of three cousin species). Apparently the retroviruses were not such perfect evolutionary sign posts as had been assumed. But evolutionists viewed such cases as anomalies, and rationalized them using ad hoc explanations. Such falsifiers have long since been discovered. They are just not advertised.

This dynamic has repeated itself with other types of genetic messages, such as pseudogenes and interspersed elements. Here is what Carroll had to say about the latter:

These landmarks are produced by accidental insertions of junk DNA sequences near genes. ... Once [an interspersed element] is inserted, there is no active mechanism for removing it. The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and is then inherited by all species descended from it. They are really perfect tracers of genealogy. [99]

Except, that is, when they aren't. This is simply a misrepresentation. Like retroviruses, and pseudogenes, interspersed elements occasionally violate the evolutionary pattern. Apparently they are not quite such “perfect tracers of genealogy.” To be sure, such outliers are unusual, but if they can be explained by mechanism (rather than inheritance), then so can the others. Carroll concludes that the interspersed elements:

can be explained only by the species sharing a common ancestor. ... biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt. [99]

This is, of course, false. In fact, interspersed elements patterns are explained without resorting to a common ancestor and the tremendous problems with such an explanation.

96 comments:

  1. Cornelius,
    If a new drug works 99% of the time, does the 1% of the time where it doesn't work invalidate the drug's effectiveness?

    ReplyDelete
  2. or, let's say someone is trying to predict local structure of proteins from their sequence. the predictions are only accurate 65% of the time, even after filtering out those with low probability. by your logic, this surely means that the entire predictive model is incorrect.

    Reference: Hunter, C.G., and S. Subramianam. 2003. Protein local structure prediction from sequence. Proteins: Structure function and genetics 50:572-579

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They [the retroviruses] were assumed to insert randomly into the genome and once inserted to stay put. Therefore, if two cousin species shared a similar pattern of retroviruses, then those retroviruses must have been inherited from a common ancestor. It would be too great of a coincidence for the retroviruses to have independently inserted into the two genomes (notice the circular reasoning)."
    That'd be circular only if it were not known whether retrovirus insertion is random or not. But it IS known. See e.g. here: http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v12/n14/full/3302570a.html
    While some retroviruses may have a preference for insertion in actively transcribed regions they do not insert site specific. The insertion site is random in all respects that is important for this argument.
    BTW, how are interspersed elements patterns explained without resorting to a common ancestor? What are the examples of retrovirus insertions or interspersed element patterns that cannot be explained by common descent?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "This is, of course, false. In fact, interspersed elements patterns are explained without resorting to a common ancestor and the tremendous problems with such an explanation."

    How?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Retroviruses patterns were found that cannot be explained by common descent (e.g., same pattern in only two of three cousin species)."

    This is interesting. Would you mind providing examples/sources?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Those nasty, stupid evilutionists, like Michael Behe, pseudogenes as evidence of common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980 - Richard Sternberg - Oct. 2009 - Excellent Summary
    Excerpt: A surprising finding of ENCODE and other transcriptome projects is that almost every nucleotide of human (and mouse) chromosomes is transcribed in a regulated way. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/how_the_junk_dna_hypothesis_ha.html

    Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119/refutation_of_endogenous_retrovirus_richard_sternberg_phd/

    Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation
    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract

    Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) - Page up for Pseudo-genes refutation
    http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Endogenous

    Junk DNA Found To Have High Level Function - List Of Over 100 Studies
    http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_25gqm4zzfd

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681/stephen_meyer_functional_proteins_and_information_for_body_plans/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bilbo,

    Do you find the pseudogene argument compelling evidence for Common Descent?

    These are my objections:

    1- Why wouldn't it be scrambled beyond recognotion after about 1 million generations since teh diveregence of chimps and humans?

    IOW here we have all these morphology changing mutations occurring to genes that do something and genes tat don't do anything stay the same?

    2- Evidence for genetic similarity does not explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ERVs same thing- why should they stay intact enough to be used as genetic markers after about a million generations?

    What would the bottle-neck be?

    Unless there is common insertion points what happened?

    One chimp had its germ-line infected, past it on to its offspring and then mated with the offspring who inherited the insertion?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joe G: Why wouldn't it be scrambled beyond recognotion after about 1 million generations since teh diveregence of chimps and humans?

    The rate of fixation of neutral mutations is approximately the rate of mutation. And the rate of mutation is low, on the order of 10^-8, compared to the number of generations 10^6.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe G: "Why wouldn't it be scrambled beyond recognotion after about 1 million generations since teh diveregence of chimps and humans?"

    Zachriel: "The rate of fixation of neutral mutations is approximately the rate of mutation. And the rate of mutation is low, on the order of 10^-8, compared to the number of generations 10^6."

    How can a rational being respond to such adamantine obstinate refusal to reason except to mock it? It's not just that 'modern evolutionary theorists' decline to reason in conformity to *actual* logic: they hold themselves free to disregard their own (false) logic when the need of the moment calls for doing so.

    LOOK at Zachriel's answer to Joe G's objection. COMPREHEND what Zachriel has said.

    And then laugh. Loudly.


    According to Zachriel, the overall rate of random mutation within the gemome is not great enough to have made much impact upon so-called pseudo-genes.

    And yet, simultaneously, according to Zachriel and all "Darwinists," the rate of fixation of beneficial random mutations within the gemome -- the rate of which is some orders of magnitude less than the over-all rate of random mutations to the genome; and, which beneficial random mutations are entirely hypothetical -- is great enough to account for all the differences between humans and other apes; and, indeed, to account for *all* differences between organisms.

    The *only* rational response to such pig-headed refusal to reason is mockery.

    Alternately, one might try to simply ignore the "Darwinists," but that's not a response.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JoeG-

    Zachriel answers your first point. I'll add that it is exactly those changes to the sequences that allow phylogenies to be inferred. The elements are still recognizable, but definitely changed in a coherent manner that tracks with time and genetic distance.

    Your second point relates to fixation, a well understood process"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_%28population_genetics%29

    Most of the Alu sequences, for example, are fixed, but more recent ones are dimorphic.

    I'm not sure why the apparent functionality of some of these elements would argue against evolution! For that matter, given the many deleterious effects (neurofibromatosis I, heart disease, and cancers for Alu alone) I'm not sure why it might argue for design either.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ilíon: According to Zachriel, the overall rate of random mutation within the gemome is not great enough to have made much impact upon so-called pseudo-genes.

    Instead of going on about the burdens of your logic and rationality, please respond directly to each point. Joe G had asked the very reasonable question as to why pseudogenes wouldn't be scrambled such that you couldn't trace ancestry back a million generations.

    1) The rate of fixation of neutral mutations is approximately equal to the rate of mutation.

    Do you understand this basic result of population genetics? It's not an empirical result, by the way, but a necessary consequence of population genetics.

    2) And the rate of mutation is low, on the order of 10^-8, compared to the number of generations 10^6.

    Having understood the first point, as it is an entirely rational and logical result, and as the rate of mutation can be directly ascertained, the second point should be straightforward. But ask if you have any questions.

    Ilíon: And yet, simultaneously, according to Zachriel and all "Darwinists," the rate of fixation of beneficial random mutations within the gemome -- the rate of which is some orders of magnitude less than the over-all rate of random mutations to the genome; and, which beneficial random mutations are entirely hypothetical -- is great enough to account for all the differences between humans and other apes; and, indeed, to account for *all* differences between organisms.

    Well, a couple of points. The rate of fixation of beneficial mutations depends on the selection coefficient and can be many orders of magnitude greater than the rate of neutral fixation. Again, this is something that is understood within the context of population genetics.

    More importantly, you misstated the Theory of Evolution. Fixation of beneficial mutations is not posited "to account for *all* differences between organisms." Darwin discussed the role of contingency in Origin of Species, and molecular biologists have discovered that drift is an important factor in molecular evolution. If you can misstate such a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology, perhaps your rational and logical mind will remind you that an argument built on a faulty premise is not sound.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "According to Zachriel, the overall rate of random mutation within the gemome is not great enough to have made much impact upon so-called pseudo-genes."

    Define "not much impact" They are pseudogenes, non-functional to begin with. They have an expected number of changes-which to a coding gene, could strongly alter or change function. They are absolutely recognizable, have an expected number of changes.

    For example, if I BLAST (look it up) the human Beta Hemoglobin pesudogene, I get 4 changes with Chimps, 6 with Gorillas, 15 with Rhesus and so on. The relation to phylogeny is apparent, and provides strong evidence for common descent.

    Now, any one of those changes is sufficient to inactivate or a gene, say keratin, or a muscle gene. (Accounting for our hairlessness, and weak jaw muscles). They don't amount to much in a psudogene, but single changes can cause profound phenotypic changes in coding and regulatory regions.

    As Zachriel points out, gene duplication and alterations in regulation, for example, also drive evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Zachriel: "Instead of going on about the burdens of your logic and rationality, please respond directly to each point."

    "Darwinists" do seem always to want to skip over the basis and get right down to the question-begging, don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Illion....you could say we're downright obsessed with little things like facts. Darned things for you-and you can't seem to answer a single point.

    Why is it we and apes and monkeys show such relations? I provided an example which reveals common descent and phylogeny from a simple alignment. This, in a non-functional pseudogene.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "... you could say we're downright obsessed with little things like facts."

    One can also say that the moon is made of bleu cheese.

    "Darned things for you-and you can't seem to answer a single point."

    I point out that you folk engage in question-begging (and other well-known logical fallacies).

    For instance --
    "Why is it we and apes and monkeys show such relations? I provided an example which reveals common descent and phylogeny from a simple alignment. This, in a non-functional pseudogene."

    At a minimum, you are engaging in question-begging.


    Until you folk solve your difficulties with logic, you can have no points.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And what grand philosophy are you using that renders every fact moot?

    My statements could fall under inductive reasoning, or alternatively, falsifiability. I presented observational statements based on genomics. Perhaps this bends towards naive falsificationism, but until a disproof and or better alternative to explain the data come along, this works for me.

    What's your alternative?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "And what grand philosophy are you using that renders every fact moot?"

    Intentional misrepresentation is *also* intellectual dishonesty.

    Unintentional misrepresentation is just ignorance.

    Or stupidity.


    There are three, and only three, general categories of explanation for why a person says/believes false things.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ilion,

    You're hiding from your inability to answer the questions.

    You appear to be neither a biologist nor a philosopher, just a gadfly that picks on a phrase or two per post.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And you are incredibly boring.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Robert is playing a game I call "deny-and-demand" ... apparently, he still hasn't figured out that I refuse to play the game.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Boring? Ha! If that is all you've got, I'll say goodnight.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I do believe that is would be more accurate to say that the pseudogene has no known function.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Zachriel:
    The rate of fixation of neutral mutations is approximately the rate of mutation. And the rate of mutation is low, on the order of 10^-8, compared to the number of generations 10^6.

    Are you trying to tell us that Common Descent is rendered "impossible" by such low mutations rates?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Do you evolutionists have any evidence that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans?

    Any evidence for any of that?

    ReplyDelete
  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

    More generally, the mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally 10−4 to 10−6 mutations per base pair per generation[4],

    and

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/mutation-rates.html

    In the case of females, this number is about 30, which means that each female egg is the product of 30 cell divisions from the time the zygote was formed (Vogel and Rathenberg, 1975). Human females have about 500 eggs. In males, the number of cell divisions leading to mature sperm in a 30 year old male is about 400 (Vogel and Motulsky, 1997). This means that about 9 mutations (0.3 × 30) accumulate in the egg and about 120 mutations (0.3 × 400) accumulate in a sperm cell. Thus, each newly formed human zygote has approximately 129 new spontaneous mutations. This value is somewhat less than the number in most textbooks where it's common to see 300-350 mutations per genome. The updated value reflects a better estimate of the overall rate of mutation during DNA replication and a better estimate of the number of cell divisions during gametogenesis.


    129 per generation times 1,000,000 generations- so why did the pseudogenes remain intact enough?

    Was it magic?

    Is that your mechanism?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Robert:
    As Zachriel points out, gene duplication and alterations in regulation, for example, also drive evolution.

    Surely not blind watchmaker evolution.

    And that is what is being debated.

    Perhaps you guys should read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetener to find out what your opposition has to say about gene duplication.

    Heck your position can't explain regulatory networks- those only make sense in a design scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Robert,

    My second point refers to the bottleneck that had to have occurred.

    Fixation just means that a certain trait is in 100% of the population.

    My point is the ERV and pseudogenes are in some specific locus throughout the "family"- ancestor and all descendents.

    In order for that to occur we should be able to trace back to one ancestor who had sex with its kids.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "129 per generation times 1,000,000 generations"

    Ok, but you have to divide by 3 billion bases!

    (129 * 1 000 000) / 3 000 000 000 = 0.043

    It isn't going to be scrambled eggs! This assumes neutrality, and 100% fixation.

    "Are you trying to tell us that Common Descent is rendered "impossible" by such low mutations rates?"

    Nope-plenty of changes there, along with duplication, HGT, etc., makes evolution. Just not enough to obscure pseudogenes between recent relatives...

    "In order for that to occur we should be able to trace back to one ancestor who had sex with its kids."

    Or anyone else in the population with the same change. Consanguinity does fix changes quickly! It seems pretty likely that our population sizes for most of human and primate history were not vast. Fixation ends up close to the rate of introduction for a small population and neutral pressure.

    There is also the matter of gene conversion, or unequal crossing over.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Joe G:
    "Do you evolutionists have any evidence that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans?

    Any evidence for any of that?"

    I've posted links on Hox gene duplication and divergence many times, on several blogs for you. Shame you won't avail yourself of the opportunity.

    "Perhaps you guys should read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetener to find out what your opposition has to say about gene duplication."

    What is it with you guys and the "Buy my book" pitch?

    I'll save my money, and use the publicly available genomes, publications, and books to back me. No reason to pay for obfuscation when the data is at your fingertips.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joe G: "Do you find the pseudogene argument compelling evidence for Common Descent?"

    The point is that Prof. Behe finds the pseudogene argument to be compelling evidence for Common Descent. So if Dr. Hunter wants to cast stones at those who use the pseudogene argument, he should start in his own glass house.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Robert,

    Please present the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.

    No bloviating just peer-reviewed papers.

    Also I didn't say to buy the book- I said READ IT.

    That way you would understand what your opponents are saying.

    You cannot refute something that you don't understand.

    Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Bilbo,

    When Dr Behe can start finding evidence for the differences observed people will listen.

    But relying on shared mistakes misses the objective- what accounts for the differences- ie physiological and anatomical?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Or anyone else in the population with the same change..

    So ERVs can insert at the same locus in different individuals?

    The same change can occur in different individuals?

    Well then that shoots down the similarity = Common Descent argument.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Or anyone else in the population with the same change..
    So ERVs can insert at the same locus in different individuals?

    The same change can occur in different individuals?

    Well then that shoots down the similarity = Common Descent argument."

    No-I meant cousins, etc-descendants of the original change. Unless you think hominid populations were very large, I don't understand the objection. I'm not sure what your fixation on fixation is. It's well understood, and observed. There's even an equation for it:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1210364/?tool=pubmed
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_%28population_genetics%29

    You also are completely ignoring gene conversion:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_conversion

    (Two alleles are homogenized).

    This process is known to occur in humans, even across pseudogenes and genes.
    http://www.wikigenes.org/e/ref/e/10447270.html

    And again, recent ones do show di-morphism (maternal and paternal alleles differ.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Robert,

    Now you are back to one individual having sex with its offspring.

    That is the only way to get the ERV or shared mistakes in the same locus throughout the population.

    The fixation on fixation?

    Well if an ERV or pseudogene is to be used as evidence for Common Descent they have to become fixed in the population.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Robert,

    Do you want to know what is known and understood?

    That even the most beneficial mutation has a better chance of getting lost the it does at becoming fixed.

    And if you have a large sexually reproducing population then forget about it- the only way for something to become fixed is by design.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Joe G,

    "Please present the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans."


    O.K. You can start here. Let me know if you want to debate the merits of these papers.

    Man is but a worm: chordate origins.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19003926
    (BMP, HOX, WNT signaling pathway evolution)

    Six major steps in animal evolution: are we derived sponge larvae?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18315817

    Parallel evolution of segmentation by co-option of ancestral gene regulatory networks.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20020480

    Evolution and Functional Diversification of the GLI Family of Transcription Factors in Vertebrates.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812723

    Evolution of a novel appendage ground plan in water striders is driven by changes in the Hox gene Ultrabithorax.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19649305

    ReplyDelete
  41. "For a diploid population of size N and (neutral) mutation rate μ, the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N) and the number of new mutations per generation is 2Nμ. Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is
    2Nmu*1/2N = mu. Thus the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations."

    Joe favors his opinion over facts....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Small populations=interbreeding at some stage.

    Gene conversion. Google it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Robert: Small populations=interbreeding at some stage.

    Even in fairly large populations, there is substantial gene flow that can result in such crosses. For instance, if the son of Henry Louis Gates Jr. married the daughter of Sgt. James Crowley, they would probably be recombining genes from a common ancestor. Gates and Crowley are both descendents of the Irish High King at Tara, Niall. They share the same y-chromosome, and most likely, many other genes. This after only a few dozen generations.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Man is but a worm: chordate origins.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19003926
    (BMP, HOX, WNT signaling pathway evolution)


    Assumes the transformation and then tries to find evidence for it.

    What mutations Robert? Does anyone know?

    Six major steps in animal evolution: are we derived sponge larvae?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18315817


    Same thing.

    Neither provides an experiment that actually demonstrates something.

    Parallel evolution of segmentation by co-option of ancestral gene regulatory networks.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20020480


    More assumptions no demonstrations.

    Evolution and Functional Diversification of the GLI Family of Transcription Factors in Vertebrates.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812723

    Evolution of a novel appendage ground plan in water striders is driven by changes in the Hox gene Ultrabithorax.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19649305


    Yes Robert if we assume that such transformation took place- that isn't the same as testing to see if the transformations can take place, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  45. "For a diploid population of size N and (neutral) mutation rate μ, the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N) and the number of new mutations per generation is 2Nμ. Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is
    2Nmu*1/2N = mu. Thus the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations."

    Joe favors his opinion over facts....


    I know the formula Robert.

    Do you have any real-life examples?

    Red hair is from a mutation- how long before all humans have red hair?

    Blue eyes- how long before all humans have blue eyes?

    ReplyDelete
  46. As for recombination, well that should argue against finding an ERV or pseudgene at the same locus after thousands of generations.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Zachriel:
    They share the same y-chromosome, and most likely, many other genes.

    Only if they are the sons, of the sons, of the sons, of the sons, of the sons, of the sons, of the sons, of the sons- and so on of Niall.

    If either or both are the son of a daughter of Niall, then they do not share the Y chromosome.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Even in fairly large populations, there is substantial gene flow that can result in such crosses."

    Good point, but there probably were not large populations for most of human/hominid history. I was just giving the simplest examples. Along with conversion, this accounts for the fixed elements.

    The more recent ones are dimorphic.

    Joe-the rates of those alleles in the population will remain fairly constant without selection, migration, etc. Of course, if the rest of the population failed, and Sweeds inherited the earth, blue eyes would be fixed almost instantly. The fixations we use to track phylogeny are ancient. Again, more recent insertions are dimorphic, and unfixed.

    I'm shocked in an hour or so you were able to read those six papers, comprehend them, and discount the evidence within them. You are either brilliant, or you have already reached the conclusion you will discount all evidences.

    The last paper, for example describes a gain of function in a single protein that regulates water strider leg length. When that protein knocked down, they develop little legs.

    The Hox papers all review papers like this:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/92/10/4492.abstract
    where paralogous mutant Hox genes, or those in other species have been expressed in mice, correlating specific changes with function.

    Same for the GLI transcription factors.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ilíon :

    Darwinian fundamentalists are not subject to the laws of logic like nomral people.

    They suffer from acute cognitive dissonance and do not know they are mentally ill. Thus no amount of fact of clear reasoning with facts can sway them.

    Like the insane, they don't know they are insane but may think normal folks are!

    It is useless arguing with minds confused by the multiple concetric circles of ill reasoning such as that displayed by Robert, Zachriel et al.

    For example:
    No Darwinist has ever met the challenge posed by the exitence of prescribed information and informational structures in bio systems. Not one! Not even close!

    There isn't a single first class intellect among them - certainly none that remains among them after objectively looking at the ever growing "mountains of overwhelming evidence" against Darwinism.

    The problem of the origin and nature of functional prescribed information in the genome is fatal to Darwinism.

    Indeed, the genome even contains meta information!

    Does that sway them? Of course not because they don't know what it is or what it implies and when you try to explain it to them they act as deaf and inert as rocks.

    They are all in mental holding patterns from which they will not be disturbed by mere facts!

    They still go on and on, ad nauseum over tiny details that have no actual bearing on the subject at all.

    Why? Because that's how circular reasoning works - and circular reasoning, as Dr. Hunter pointed out above, is part of their very framework!!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hitch (to me): "Darwinian fundamentalists are not subject to the laws of logic like nomral people. ... Thus no amount of fact of clear reasoning with facts can sway them."

    Indeed, which is why I would never so waste my time.

    Nothing I’ve said here (I didn’t always realize this unflattering truth about ‘modern evolutionary theorists,’ at one time I thought they were simply mistaken) was said in the forlorn hope of reasoning with these folk who decline (or refuse!) to conform their reasoning to logic and truth.

    For me, the logically risible-and-amusing assertions of ‘modern evolutionary theorists’ are but material to be used in helping normal, but intellectually and/or socially intimidated, persons see, grasp, and understand that there is no rational basis for feeling intimidated by the vociferous declamations of the Darwinsists. There is no ‘there’ there.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ilion:

    "I didn’t always realize this unflattering truth about ‘modern evolutionary theorists,’ at one time I thought they were simply mistaken"

    Right. That is why the "it is only a theory; and so it could be wrong" rejoinder is so dangerous. Evolution is not "only a theory," and evolutionists have made no "mistakes" in their thinking.

    They did not forget that NaCl forms an ionic bond, that H-bonds are directional, or that you add exponents when multiplying. No amount of correcting their science or logic will change their proofs because their conclusions are not predicated on such information, correct or otherwise. They know this world must have evolved, regardless of the facts. They are not prepared to engage seriously the science.

    What we are witnessing is another instance of religious certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with “religious certainty” … but it matters very much just how this “certainty” is arrived at, and how it is tested, and how it is expressed.

    AND, in the case of scientific pronouncements, “religious certainty” is quite out of place. Modern science isn’t even *about* truth … perhaps is was, in the beginning a few centuries ago, but it has not been since the positivists … thus, whether or not any particular scientific pronouncement is, or is not, actually true cannot be established via mere science.

    All the shrieking one constantly hears about how we anti-Darwinists are “harming science” is simply a reflection of the Darwinists’ scientism, of a lack of understanding (or care) for what modern science really is. It is, in fact (and to the extent that the phrases “harming science” and “anti-scientific” are even sensible), the anti-scientific adherents of scientism who are “harming science.”

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ilion cracks me up. At least Hunter runs has a vague critique of evolution (with no alternatives). But Ilion resorts to name calling. Really Illion? Do we make you that angry? Do you have so little to add that you resort to this vile behavior?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Robert is apparently a passive-aggressive person who is so deeply immersed in that particular crippling mindset that he can no longer reason, nor recognize logical reasoning when he encounters it.

    It would be most cruel of me even to attempt to argue with him: every point I might make would but more deeply wound his tender psyche.

    I’ll have to content myself with mocking his willful refusal to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ilion,

    You couldn't argue with me if you tried. Nothing you have said even amounts to a point. Ad hominem abusive at best, but closer to mindless prattle. I've seen you trounced on the merits when you tried actual science out on other blogs. Apparently you've learned your lesson not to engage, but just to stand back and sling poo.

    I think you are this Ilion of the human chromosome 2 as a disproof of evolution fame:

    http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2009/10/poor-ilion-still-peddling-gibberish.html

    No?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Oops, wrong link.

    I meant these two:
    http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/design_and_romans_120.html#comment-81545

    http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=13&Number=30335905&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=

    ReplyDelete
  57. Robert,

    You are guilty of a literature bluff.

    Obviously you didn't read the papers as not one demonstrated that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.

    They all assumed Common Descent and try to figure out how.

    However I want to test the premise of Common Descent and we cannot do that by assuming it.

    So perhaps you can point to one of the papers that actually does that- you know has an experiment that shows new protein machinery can arise from mutations.

    As for regulatory networks and transcription factors- again your position doesn't have any explanation for them.

    ReplyDelete
  58. And Robert,

    Thank you for finally understanding that fixation is not as simple as plugging in an equation.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Joe G: However I want to test the premise of Common Descent and we cannot do that by assuming it.

    That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. That's exactly how we test a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences. We deduce specific empirical implications that distinguish the hypothesis from other competing hypotheses, then we test those predictions. As an example,

    If the Earth is rotating, then it should bulge at the equator. If it bulges at the equator, then the equator is a bit farther from the center of the Earth, so the gravitational force should be a bit less. We can test this by measuring the period of a pendulum at different latitudes. Halley confirmed the retardation of the pendulum at St Helena, on November 7, 1677, confirming the rotation of the Earth. Eppur si muove.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Zachriel,

    We don't test something by assuming it and then that's it.

    As for scientific methodolgy you have no idea what that is.

    And as for testable hypotheses well your position doesn't have any.

    As proof present the testable hypothesis for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I find it just a little dishonest that I was talking about Common Decent and Zachriel intrudes with the Earth's rotation.

    But I find that Zachriel is more than just a little dishonest.

    Do you think your deception helps your case Zach?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Joe G: Thank you for finally understanding that fixation is not as simple as plugging in an equation.

    It might help if you explained the relationship between the mutation rate and the rate of fixation in the absence of selection.

    Joe G: We don't test something by assuming it and then that's it.

    That's right. As explained above, we assume the claim for the purposes of teasing out its distinguishing empirical implications. Then we test for those implications. But the assumption is intrinsic to the methodology. That's the very definition of a scientific hypothesis.

    Joe G: I find it just a little dishonest that I was talking about Common Decent and Zachriel intrudes with the Earth's rotation.

    It was an historical example to rebut your claim that we don't test a premise by taking it as an tenative assumption. Indeed, that is exactly what the scientific method entails.

    ReplyDelete
  63. ZAchriel:
    It was an historical example to rebut your claim that we don't test a premise by taking it as an tenative assumption.

    That wasn't my claim.

    My claim is you don't test the assumption with the assumption.

    But thank you for misrepresenting me- again.

    Zachriel- I know what you said about me pertaining to sets.

    That was pretty low, even for you.

    ReplyDelete
  64. ID guy: My claim is you don't test the assumption with the assumption.

    Your actual statement was as follows:

    Joe G: However I want to test the premise of Common Descent and we cannot do that by assuming it.

    That's exactly what the scientific method entails: We assume the premise of Common Descent in order to test it. Of course, the entail implications have to be deduced from the hypothesis, but be independent of it. You've clarified your position, so we're in agreement on that point.

    {It really isn't necessary to pepper all your comments with jibber jabber.}

    ReplyDelete
  65. Zachriel,

    All you have is jibber-jabber, lies and misrepresentations.

    You cannot test Common Descent by assuming it and then saying the assumption is the test.

    You cannot assume Common Descent is true and then use that assumption to say "well new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans had to have evolved."

    Stop misrepresenting me.

    But thanks for proving that you will go as low as you can to try to avoid the fact that you are a low-life.

    Do you really think that goes unnoticed?

    Only a fool can fool himself Zachriel- and you seem to think you can fool everyone including yourself.

    You rock- thanks for being a spokes-person for the theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  66. You do realize that if you don't understand what someone is saying it is best to ask for clarification rather than blindly thrashing about.

    However I understand that you and your ilk look for any slight crack to try to weave your tangled web of deception.

    Your parents must be very proud of you...

    ReplyDelete
  67. Joe G: Stop misrepresenting me.

    We *quoted* you. You since clarified your position.

    Joe G: You cannot assume Common Descent is true and then use that assumption to say "well new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans had to have evolved."

    What you can do is use the assumption of Common Descent to predict that there were organims with features intermediate between land vertebrates and aquatic vertebrates, then look in the appropriate strata to see if such organisms left fossils.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Zachriel,

    Does "We" refer to you and the mouse in your pocket?

    Or are you admitting you have multiple personalities?

    You quoted me and took it out of context.

    I would also expect intermediate-looking organisms given a degree of phenotypic plasticity from a common design.

    Also strata are sometimes dated by the fossils they contain.

    So the "appropriate strata" is in the eye of the beholder.

    But anyway Tiktaalik was found in the wrong place.

    It isn't an interemediate- just a mosaic.

    It is an example of what I would expect to find in that ancient environment- phenotypic plasticity for adaptation.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Joe,

    "Thank you for finally understanding that fixation is not as simple as plugging in an equation."

    Regardless of our discussion of the mechanisms, the equation is valid.

    Joe, you're not one to talk about a literature bluff. Those are a collection of articles I had to read. You apparently accomplished this in under an hour, and have ignored the functional data. I don't know how many functional examples you can deny and keep going. They refer to specific changes in gene expression, or mutations, that alter body plans and development.

    Your request: Please present the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans. This has been more than accomplished.

    What is 'wrong' with the water strider example?

    Since I apparently have to pull out the experiments and explain them to you, lets keep going.

    Here is another classic experiment reviewed in the papers you "read":

    "Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%—would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects."

    http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

    Also, this one:
    The development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16488870

    Specific mutations resulting in alterations in body plan. Questions?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Robert,

    Do you really think I had to wait to read those articles until you linked to them?

    Do you think that you are the only evo to point them out?

    The papers refer to assumptions made assuming Common Descent.

    The brine shrimp is a perfect example.

    No one took brine shrimp embryos and manipulated them in such a way such that a fruit fly body plan arose.

    Birds with teeth is interesting but it is something humans accomplished. And all it really shows is that birds have a recessive trait for teeth that has been uncovered.

    As for the fixation equation I am still waiting on a real-life example.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Joe G: You quoted me and took it out of context.

    You've already clarified your position.

    Joe G: I would also expect intermediate-looking organisms given a degree of phenotypic plasticity from a common design.

    Post hoc. It's never ID Advocates who make these discoveries.

    Joe G: Also strata are sometimes dated by the fossils they contain.

    Or by geological methodology, by physics methodology. Multiple methodologies allows for higher confidence and accuracy. In any case, the researchers spent years in the Canadian Arctic, and found an organism with the predicted characteristics.

    Joe G: So the "appropriate strata" is in the eye of the beholder.


    The difference being that they found Tiktaalik.

    Joe G: It isn't an interemediate- just a mosaic.

    Of course it exhibits intermediate features. While retaining ancestral gills and scales, it also has a wrist joint with fins, mobile neck and lungs.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Do you really think I had to wait to read those articles until you linked to them?"

    I didn't realize you had the entire literature memorized by heart. More likely, your heart tells you to reject the entire literature out of hand.

    "No one took brine shrimp embryos and manipulated them in such a way such that a fruit fly body plan arose."

    No, but they did manipulate a fruit fly in such a way that brine shrimp body plans arose. At any rate, the experiments show insect UBX has a GAIN of function that allows it to repress Dll expression and limb development vs the crustacean protein. The functional motifs responsible for the gain of funtion (QAQA and AAAA) are known, and track with evolution. Also, within insects, localized UBX expression allows for differential patterning of body plans.

    "Birds with teeth is interesting but it is something humans accomplished."

    Wrong again. The talin mutant is a naturally occurring mutant. The scientists recapitulated the effect of the talin mutant in wild-type chickens by over expressing Beta-catenin. Besides reinforcing evolution by reactivating a ancient gene program, this work lead to this (falsifiable!!!) hypothesis: "We hypothesize that the loss of teeth in birds was due to the loss of direct apposition between an epithelial signaling center at the oral/aboral boundary and the underlying mesenchyme of the oral cavity competent to form integumentary appendages."

    Of course you would know this if you had read/understood/chose not to misrepresent the papers.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Zachriel:
    It's never ID Advocates who make these discoveries.

    ID isn't about fossils.

    Or by geological methodology, by physics methodology. Multiple methodologies allows for higher confidence and accuracy.

    How did Shubin et al., date the strata they found Tiktaalik?

    In any case, the researchers spent years in the Canadian Arctic, and found an organism with the predicted characteristics.

    You don't look for your grandfather in a list of your descendents.

    They were looking in the wrong place.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    The transition had already occurred.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    The difference being that they found Tiktaalik.

    They were looking for THE transitional form and found it in strata AFTER the transition occurred.

    IOW had they been privy to the recent find BEFORE they went searching they never would have went to the location they did.

    It isn't an interemediate- just a mosaic.

    Of course it exhibits intermediate features.

    Tat has nothing to do with what I said.

    BTW Tiktaalik doesn't have a wrist joint- possible wrist bones but no joint.

    Once again you respond with subterfuge.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Robert,

    I have asked you for a real-life example of fixation.

    You have failed to provide one.

    Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them.

    It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos.

    And no they didn't get a brine shrimp from manipulating a fruit fly.

    And again your position cannot explain HOX genes, regulatory networks and transcription factors.

    Do you understand that?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Robert,

    Did you read and understand that fruit fly/ brine shrimp paper?

    They took a protein from the shrimp and placed it into a fruit fly embryo.

    All that happened was the fruit fly developed rudimentry legs where full legs usually form.

    Man you are very gullible.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Joe G: ID isn't about fossils.

    That's the problem, of course. ID isn't about any-thing. ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design.

    Joe G: How did Shubin et al., date the strata they found Tiktaalik?

    Good question. They looked at a map, like this one. Geologists have already mapped much of the Earth's crust. Amazing how independent scientists working with rocks of all things can provide crucial information for biologists leading to the discovery of a heretofore unknown organism.

    Joe G: You don't look for your grandfather in a list of your descendents.

    An intermediate organism is usually just a close cousin. Intermediate organisms retain some primitive traits but also have derived traits that represent transitional structures.

    Joe G: Tiktaalik doesn't have a wrist joint- possible wrist bones but no joint.

    Shubin, Daeschler and Jenkins, The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb, Nature 2006.

    Joe G: a real-life example of fixation.

    A simple example is antibiotic resistance which fixes rapidly when under selection.

    Joe G: Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them. It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos.

    It is just one piece of evidence, but it is a verifiable and verified empirical prediction. Again, something that ID never bothers to do.

    ReplyDelete
  77. ID isn't about fossils.

    Zachriel:
    That's the problem, of course.

    Why is that? Can design be detected by looking at fossils?

    I don't think so.

    That is because not everything that has lived has been fossilized.

    Zachriel:
    ID isn't about any-thing.

    Only an ignorant person would say that.

    ID is about the detection and study of things that have been intentionally designed.

    Zachriel:
    ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design.

    Of course it does.

    ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.

    Things that are designed usually exhibit counterflow or work.

    The Design Hypothesis

    I will note it is much more than anything you can produce that supports your position.

    However your position doesn't offer any empirical predictions but relies on "it evolved" or "the blind watcmaker didit".

    How did Shubin et al., date the strata they found Tiktaalik?

    Good question. They looked at a map, like this one. Geologists have already mapped much of the Earth's crust.

    That just moves the question back.

    It doesn't answer it.

    You don't look for your grandfather in a list of your descendents.

    An intermediate organism is usually just a close cousin.

    Enough jibbar-jabber.

    In "Your Inner Fish" Shubin makes it clear he was looking for the transional between fish and land vertebrates.

    He was looking in a specific spot because he thought teh alleged earlier transition existed in a specific spot.

    He was looking under faulty pretences- the transition had already occured.

    Tiktaalik is not the transitional Shubin et al., were looking for.

    Tiktaalik doesn't have a wrist joint- possible wrist bones but no joint.

    Shubin, Daeschler and Jenkins, The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb, Nature 2006.

    Great- look at the diagram- in vertebrates with a wrist joint the ulna and radius articulate the wrist.

    Not with Tiktaalik.

    It isn't a wrist joint.

    a real-life example of fixation.

    A simple example is antibiotic resistance which fixes rapidly when under selection.

    That is all you ahve? Artificial selection?

    Thatnk you for continuing to demonstrate the vacuity of your position.

    Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them. It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos.

    It is just one piece of evidence, but it is a verifiable and verified empirical prediction.

    Piece of evidence for what?

    Verified empirical prediction of what?

    I say it is a piece of evidence that shows that birds once had teeth.

    It isn't evidence that birds evolved from reptilees nor dinosaurs.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Zach:

    ========
    Joe G: ID isn't about fossils.

    That's the problem, of course. ID isn't about anything. ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design.
    ========

    So evolution is mandated. This is what it's all about--non scientific arguments.

    When you argue for mere common descent, without specifying mechanism, then that's good science. But when someone argues for design, without specifying mechanism, then that's bad science.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Joe G: ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.

    That's not a valid observational prediction. It's a vague claim about whether science can account for some strawman of your own devising. Compare that to a valid prediction such as Halley's prediction of the comet, or Shubin's prediction of Tiktaalik.

    Joe G: In "Your Inner Fish" Shubin makes it clear he was looking for the transional between fish and land vertebrates. He was looking in a specific spot because he thought teh alleged earlier transition existed in a specific spot. He was looking under faulty pretences- the transition had already occured.

    Tiktaalik certainly qualifies as an intermediate organism. That doesn't mean it was on the direct line of descent. Indeed, it is rarely possible to make such a determination. However, it was certainly close cousins to the lineage that led to land vertebrates.

    And again. The discovery of Tiktaalik is a phenomenal accomplishment. Handwaving, not so much.

    Zachriel: A simple example is antibiotic resistance which fixes rapidly when under selection.

    Joe G: That is all you ahve? Artificial selection?

    Antibiotics and resistance exist in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Cornelius Hunter: So evolution is mandated.

    Not at all. What is mandated in science are testable hypotheses.

    Cornelius Hunter: When you argue for mere common descent, without specifying mechanism, then that's good science.

    Lacking omniscience, what we do in science is make what valid determinations we can and work from there. Common Descent is strongly supported by the evidence for most taxa, evidence we can certainly discuss. This evidence allows us to order the transition of organisms, and therefore order the transition of organic structures. Having done so, we can then compare these transitions to the mechanisms we can observe, such as natural variation, sources of variation and natural selection.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "I have asked you for a real-life example of fixation."

    Any allele at 100% in any population would be considered fixed, if that population is isolated, or the totality of the species. I don't even get your point. Are you actually disputing fixation does occur? I can't even think of a defense of that position! In a lab, you can do this in a few crosses with Drosophila alleles, or maize, or any experimental organism.

    Anyway, here is one where it has been traced in nature:
    Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of Ectodysplasin alleles.
    Colosimo PF, Hosemann KE, ..., Schluter D, Kingsley DM Science 2005 Mar 25 307 (5717):1928-33

    Or Directly observed:
    Rapid fixation of a distinctive sequence motif in the 3′ noncoding region of the clade of West Nile virus invading North America
    Gene Volume 399, Issue 2, 15 September 2007, Pages 152-161

    Or any of the other thousands of papers that come up is you do a pubmed search. I won't bother searching further, as you'll disregard them anyway. Human examples in recent history are harder, due to migrations mingling separated populations, and the lack of recent bottlenecks affecting the whole population. Prior to this, the Duffy allele, the lack of the B blood group allele, and obvious traits such as skin and hair color were fixed within populations.

    "Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them. It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos."

    So they just genetically "changed" from "toothy-proto-birds" to "birds?" That is evolution. And the molecular mechanism is being laid clear.

    "And no they didn't get a brine shrimp from manipulating a fruit fly."

    No, they proved a gain of function mutation leads to body plans. This was precisely your original query. Now you want someone to make a fruit fly from a crustacean, or vice-versa. There are labs working on crustaceans as model organisms, in attempt to express the fly genes. Of course, if they accomplished this, you would dismiss it as artificial.

    Hox genes are an excellent example of evolution. They have duplicated, and diverged to new functions. The water strider legs, the chicken teeth, and the fly legs all demonstrate how the evolution of key members of that pathway can alter it.

    "And again your position cannot explain HOX genes, regulatory networks and transcription factors."

    Odd wording. "Cannot explain" Their evolution? Their function? Hox genes are sequence-specific DNA binding transcription factors that participate in development. And on the contrary, that is exactly what those papers do. They track the evolution of those very things (Hox and other transcription factors that affect regulatory networks) and functionally test them, develop hypotheses, and refine them.

    ReplyDelete
  82. ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.

    Zachriel:
    That's not a valid observational prediction.

    Of course it is.

    Who are you to say it isn't?

    It's a vague claim about whether science can account for some strawman of your own devising.

    It is a specific claim about how science determines design from nature,operating freely.

    As for your bald claim of a strawman- please be specific and explain exactly what that strawman is.

    As for Tiktaalik- it was a failed prediction.

    Shubin went looking for a specific transitional and was looking in the wrong place.

    I can't help it if you are too messed up to understand tat fact.

    Perhaps you should read "Your Inner Fish" it is all there.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Robert,

    Show me the fixation equation aplied to a real-life wild population.

    And if birds with teeth "evolving" into birds without teeeth is all you have then your position is useless.

    As for HOX genes please provide the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates HOX genes evolved via blind, undirected processes.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Robert,

    All the brine shrimp/ fruit fly experiment shows is that if a brine shrimp protein is introduced to a fruit fly egg the fruit fly will not fully develop its mid-thorax legs.

    That is it.

    No new body plan was created.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Joe G: ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.

    It's not an empirical prediction. An empirical prediction says look here and this is what you will see. Your "prediction" concerns what can or cannot be accounted for. We've provided you examples on a number of occasions, but you don't seem to ever remember them. Here's a few.

    Halley's Comet
    Retardation of the Pendulum
    Michelson–Morley experiment

    Joe G: Perhaps you should read "Your Inner Fish" it is all there.

    Okay.

    Shubin: Tiktaalik reveals the early stages in the evolution of our wrist, palm, and finger area.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  86. ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.

    Zachriel:
    It's not an empirical prediction.

    Of course it is.

    An empirical prediction says look here and this is what you will see.

    And I said exactly that in my design hypothesis.

    You ignored my design hypothesis as if your ignorance is meaningful discourse.

    You also ignored request after request for a testable hypothesis for your position.

    Again you think your ignorance means something.

    Strange.

    As for Shubin's failed prediction if you had read "Your Inner Fish" you would knmow about it.

    I explained it above and all you can do is ognore that too.

    Do you really think your ignorance helps you?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Shubin: Tiktaalik reveals the early stages in the evolution of our wrist, palm, and finger area.

    Yeah millions of years AFTER those characteristics had already appeared.

    Wait, that would mean Shubin lied...

    ReplyDelete
  88. Zachriel: ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design.

    Joe G: Of course it does. ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.

    That is clearly meant as a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction. It is not.

    Your "Design Hypothesis" has even less scientific merit.

    Joe G: If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.

    The "prediction" is not entailed.

    Joe G: Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe.

    There are actually at least two inconsistent sets of physical laws, relativity and quantum mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  89. C.Hunter: "When you argue for mere common descent, without specifying mechanism, then that's good science. But when someone argues for design, without specifying mechanism, then that's bad science."

    Another example (of the common intellectual hypocrisy of proponents of Darwinism) has to do with the asserted distinction, a intellectual "wall of separation," if you will, between 'methodological naturalism' and 'philosophical naturalism.' Does it not seem odd, at least, that 'modern evolutionary theorists' will not contemplate that there is a corresponding "wall of separation" between 'methodological designism' and 'philosophical designism?'

    Why, it's enough to make one suspect that that asserted "wall of separation" between 'methodological naturalism' and 'philosophical naturalism' may be, at best, as substantial as tissue paper.

    ReplyDelete
  90. The IDers have pushed this thread off its original topic, which was Hunter's claim that genetic similarities, no matter how large, now matter their quantity or quality, can never, ever prove a common origin of humans and chimps, or vertebrates and arthropods, etc.

    This is what I call "Rapist Logic": the logic a rapist uses when genetic similarity proves he is guilty. Let's see how it works!

    Prosecutor: DNA incredibly similar to the accused was found on the victim, Ms. Dee Duction. Therefore, we conclude that the accused, Mr. Cree Ationist, raped and murdered Dee Duction.

    Cree Ationist: Objection. Logical fallacy. No DNA similarities of any conceivable amount can ever prove common origin.

    Prosecutor: Also, the blood under the victim's fingernails matches the blood type of the accused.

    Cree Ationist: Circular logic. The circular logic consists of him having a ton of evidence that fits his theory and disproves mine. Because the evidence proves his theory, he is using circular logic. If he wasn't an atheist, he'd understand that.

    When he objectively described evidence proving I committed the crime, he was assuming I committed the crime! Oh, the circular logic!

    ...By the creationist definition of "circular." Creationists define the word "circular" as meaning "proves us wrong."

    Prosecutor: We also have a videotape of the crime. The the accused looks just like the perpetrator in the video...

    Cree Ationist: Oh, the logical fallacies! Similarities cannot prove common origin. The perpetrator and I both need eyes to see. Thus, functional requirements explain why he and I have eyes of the same color and eyeglasses of the identical rare Italian design.

    He and I both need hair to keep our heads warm. Thus, functional requirements explain why we have hair of the identical color and styled in identical hairdos.

    He and I both need noses to breathe. Thus, function explains why we have noses of the identical size and shape and with moles in the same place.

    Prosecutor: the hair of the accused was found on the victim, and his alibi for the night of the murder was a lie.

    Cree Ationist: Circular logic, circular logic! La la la la! [puts fingers in ears] Nannoo nannoo nannoo! I'll just keep saying "circular logic" until some idiots believe it and the jury hangs.

    Prosecutor: In his diary, the accused wrote: "Last night I raped and murdered Dee Duction."

    Cree Ationist: Other explanations are possible.

    Prosecutor: Such as?

    Cree Ationist: The DNA, blood and hair similarities, and the writing in my diary, could have been created directly by God for unknown purposes. To trick us, maybe. Or to show off His infinite power and glory! God is great! But an atheist like you wouldn't understand that, huh wouldja atheist!?
    The prosecutor clearly has a metaphysical presuppostion that causes him to exclude supernatural violations of the laws of physics as possible explanations for the rape I committed last Wednesday. It's just his dogmatic religious belief that apparent rapes and murders can’t be caused by miraculous violations of the laws of physics!

    Prosecutor: But if supernatural explanations can be used to wave away vast similarities between evidence and the distinct specific predictions of theories, then you can never prove ANY criminal is guilty!

    Cree Ationist: Now you're cathing on, genius! If we can trick ordinary people into never using reason or looking for evidence to back up statements, then perverted religious leaders and their corporate overlords can do anything and will never be held accountable!

    If you want some more laughs at the expense of anti-scientists, you can read my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Talk about false advertising.

    ReplyDelete
  92. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  93. p.s. Hat tip for the new "ID" definition.

    Diogenes-love the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Thankee Robert.

    I find your comments most pithy.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "As for HOX genes please provide the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates HOX genes evolved via blind, undirected processes."

    "Blind, undirected"....as opposed to created? Non-falsifiable. Not even science.

    Those reviews contain a number of mechanisms for the duplication and divergence of genes. They assume natural processes, but I suppose theistic evolution is equally welcome. Of course, I think what you are looking for is a paper that refutes ID: an impossibility, since you've now inserted religion into the sphere of science.

    How can I ever prove a designer didn't make a protein that looks like it evolved? For that matter, since all nature is created, how does one separate design from nature? It all gets silly when it gets non-scientific, and your infinitely regressive queries for a paper where the natural evolution of a crustacean to a fly without human interference is proved, while ruling out divine interference or 'frontloading' with all mechanisms known are getting tiresome. It'll be a while on that one.

    Your "Immaculate Design" directly inserts religion into the sphere of science and the classroom.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Thankee Robert. I find your comments most pithy."

    Oh? Rather wooden and simultaneously soft? ;)

    ReplyDelete