One of reasons evolutionists find their theory to be so compelling is the so-called “shared error” evidence. Designs that are shared between species are evidence for evolution, but junk that is shared between species are veritable proofs for evolution. This evolutionary interpretation of shared junk is yet another example the religious foundation of evolutionary thought. We might say it is another example of evolution’s junk religion.Similarities between species are evidence for evolution, but the evidence is decidedly mixed. While there are similarities that support the evolution expectation, there are others that contradict the pattern. But erroneous similarities are particularly persuasive for evolutionists.
For example broken genes, referred to as pseudogenes, are sometimes found to be disabled by identical mutations in cousin species. As evolutionist Jerry Coyne concludes in his book Why Evolution is True, “Only evolution and common ancestry can explain these facts.” [68]
That of course is the sort of non scientific, metaphysical, IF-AND-ONLY-IF claim which is fundamental to evolution. Coyne summarizes this important finding:
But if you believe that primates and guinea pigs were specially created, these facts don't make sense. Why would a creator put a pathway for making vitamin C in all these species, and then inactivate it? Wouldn’t it be easier simply to omit the whole pathway from the beginning? Why would the same inactivating mutation be present in all primates, and a different one in guinea pigs? Why would the sequences of the dead gene exactly mirror the pattern of resemblance predicted from the known ancestry of these species? And why do humans have thousands of pseudogenes in the first place? [69]
Should we laugh or cry? The evolution genre is loaded with such trash posing as science, yet I am still struck by the astonishing banality of evolutionary thought.
Of course Coyne omits the scientific details. He omits the findings of non randomness of mutations. And he omits the examples of pseudogenes that don’t fit the pattern, which require even evolutionists to admit to convergent mutations. He omits the fact that evolution fails to explain how the protein synthesis machine, including the genes, arose in the first place.
But can these omissions be at all serious when Coyne and the evolutionists know evolution must be true? After all, they know what a creator would and would not do, and obviously said creator would not have created these pseudogene patterns. Indeed, he wouldn’t have created pseudogenes at all. The evolutionist’s anti intellectualism is exceeded only by his certainty.
The fact that evolution struggles with the evidence is of little consequence—it is true by virtue of creation being false. So what if pseudogenes do not always cooperate. Elliot Sober calls this Darwin’s Principle.
This naïve and facile dorm room argument reveals the astonishing level of anti intellectualism at the heart of evolutionary thought. It is the junk religion behind the junk science. Religion drives science, and it matters.
Evolution is true because evolution is true. That seems to be the motto among atheists.
ReplyDeleteMats,
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain that many many theists also believe evolution is true?
Observe that the quote that Dr Hunter disparages is taken from a non-technical book intended for the non-scientific public. The book is a polemic. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good read.
ReplyDeleteThe important distinction between such books and the scientific literature is that such arguments do not appear in the scientific literature.
Distinctions matter.
CH:
ReplyDelete"For example broken genes, referred to as pseudogenes, are sometimes found to be disabled by identical mutations in cousin species. As evolutionist Jerry Coyne concludes in his book Why Evolution is True, “Only evolution and common ancestry can explain these facts.” [68]"
Perhaps Coyne should have written that the only scientific theory that can explain these findings is evolutionary theory. Or do you know of another? It goes without saying that an omnipotent creator might have done it too, but that's not a scientific theory is it?
Moreover, Coyne's book is a popular science book, written with the specific intention of undermining unfounded creationist claims.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: Similarities between species are evidence for evolution
ReplyDeleteNot a mere similarity, but a family resemblance (nested hierarchy).
Since Behe employs the same argument from shared pseudogenes to argue for common descent, then all of Dr. Hunter's remarks about people who use this argument also apply to Behe. So the real question is why does the ID movement, and especially UD, tolerate Behe? Sorry, but this is hypocrisy. Give up your criticism, Dr. Hunter, or call for the removal of Behe's blog from under the banner of UD. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
ReplyDeleteLOL! CH off on another of his anti-Coyne rants.
ReplyDeleteReally CH, if you were any more jealous of Coyne's success you'd be glowing bright green.
Convergent mutation of pseudogenes should cause evolutionists see that their theory falls short. A good theory can not ignore all the evidence. That is why new theories are needed that can honestly provide a better explanation of all that is observed. Newton's laws were good, Einstein's were better, and yet there is still something more than Einstein's... which even he was unable to conceive.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists abhor the thought of a designer copying pseudogenes because it doesn't fit into their immature industrial-age soot-bleaching efficiency models of what they think a designer should do.
The INFORMATION AGE offers great similarities to what we see in nature. It is not uncommon for software engineers or programmers to copy code and reuse it, comment out sections of code or leave unused code for later use, or for historical documentation... many reasons. Viewing the informational and code qualities of the living cell from an IT viewpoint (my background) is very interesting and the parallels are quite astounding.
Looking at the informational qualities of the living cell from an IT perspective fits extremely well.
Evolutionists are like cave men peeling tiles off the space shuttle because that is the only thing they find useful because the rest of it is "junk".
Hey Neal "liar for Jesus" Tedford:
ReplyDeleteWhere's that genetic evidence that shows we're all descendant from Noah?
Where's that proof that evolution is mathematically impossible?
You made the claims, so back them up or retract.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the mathematical impossibilities of evolution... here is one simple example among many....mutation rates are way too low to generate the genes and proteins necessary to build the Cambrian animals.
ReplyDeleteThe length of the Cambrian explosion as determined by fossil research -Conway Morris 1998 - is too short according to evolution theory itself.
A mutation rate of 10-9 per base pair per year yields only a 1% change in the sequence of a given section of DNA per 10 million years. So mutational divergence of preexisting genes cannot explain the origin of the Cambrian forms in that amount of time.
Evolutionists would say that "perhaps" a highly complex animal (that no one has found in the fossil record) pre-existed all of the Cambrian animals. Or, "speculate" that all these complex genes were just silently mutating to perfection and then bang they sprung forth in great variety and complexity in a geological instant.
The dog doesn't hunt and its time to retire it.
Neal "liar for Jesus" Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThe INFORMATION AGE offers great similarities to what we see in nature. It is not uncommon for software engineers or programmers to copy code and reuse it, comment out sections of code or leave unused code for later use, or for historical documentation... many reasons. Viewing the informational and code qualities of the living cell from an IT viewpoint (my background) is very interesting and the parallels are quite astounding.
The LAWN CARE AGE uses mechanical sprinklers to water the grass. It is not uncommon for gardeners to use them to wet lawns, flower beds...many reasons. Viewing the water sprinkling capabilities of rainclouds from a gardening viewpoint is very interesting and the parallels are quite astounding. So by Tedford "logic", this is strong evidence that rainclouds are purposely designed.
Right Neal?
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteRegarding the mathematical impossibilities of evolution... here is one simple example among many....mutation rates are way too low to generate the genes and proteins necessary to build the Cambrian animals.
The length of the Cambrian explosion as determined by fossil research -Conway Morris 1998 - is too short according to evolution theory itself.
A mutation rate of 10-9 per base pair per year yields only a 1% change in the sequence of a given section of DNA per 10 million years. So mutational divergence of preexisting genes cannot explain the origin of the Cambrian forms in that amount of time.
Another massive FAIL by liar for Jesus Tedford. You said you could show it was impossible, but you can't provide the evidence.
Please provide evidence the mutation rate of Precambrian animals was 10-9 per base pair per year across all genera and time range. Please provide evidence that a 1% change in DNA cannot account for the observed different morphological forms. You are apparently ignorant of the fact that even small genetic changes can produce huge morphological changes in a relatively short time, like those observed in the Hawaiian Silver Sword family of plants.
Evolutionists would say that "perhaps" a highly complex animal (that no one has found in the fossil record) pre-existed all of the Cambrian animals.
Define "highly complex". Explain why the Ediacaran fossils which predate the Cambrian by 80 million years don't qualify. BTW, the latest evidence is that complex multi-cellular life existed as early as 2.1 billion years ago
How does it feel to be so ignorant on evolutionary biology Neal?
Dan Criswell pointed out at ICR:
ReplyDelete======================================
In 1994, a group of Japanese scientists identified a DNA sequence in humans that had many similarities to the rat gene that codes for the enzyme (L-gulono-γ-lactone) that catalyzes the last step of vitamin C synthesis (Nishikimi et al. 1994). The human pseudogene sequence discovered has four of these 12 exons. (Exons are the modular coding regions of a gene.) These four human exon sequences have many characteristics of a pseudogene. There is a 70-80% sequence homology between the rat and human sequences depending on the exon, and two stop codons. Later analysis confirmed that these four exons are present in other primates as well (Inai, Ohta, and Nishikimi 2003). Humans are missing only the final enzyme for the last step in synthesizing vitamin C, but have all of the other enzymes necessary to convert glucose into vitamin C.
It would seem from the evidence of a potential human pseudogene for L-gulono-γ-lactone and the presence of the other enzymes necessary for synthesizing vitamin C that humans have lost the ability to make vitamin C. However, there is more to this story. There are only four exons for the gene encoding L-gulono-γ-lactone in humans. Two-thirds of the homologous rat gene is completely missing. Most pseudogenes represent 90% of the entire functional gene. This DNA sequence, labeled as a pseudogene, might have an entirely different function than the rat gene.
Stating that only the last enzyme is missing for the pathway to convert glucose to vitamin C might imply to the untrained individual that there is a biochemical pathway that leads to a dead end. Actually, the biochemical pathway that leads to the synthesis of vitamin C in rats also leads to the formation of five-carbon sugars in the pentose phosphate pathway present in virtually all animals (Linster and Van Schaftingen 2007). There are several metabolic intermediates in this pathway illustrating that these substances can be used as precursors for many compounds in the cell. In the pentose phosphate pathway, five-carbon sugars are made from glucose (a six-carbon sugar) to be used in the synthesis of DNA, RNA, and many energy producing substances such as ATP and NADPH (Garrett 1999). Animals that synthesize vitamin C can use both pathways illustrated in the simplified diagram below. Humans and the other animals "less fortunate" than rats only use the pentose phosphate pathway.
There is no dead end or wasted metabolic intermediates, and there is no need to have the enzyme to make vitamin C since humans are able to get all of the vitamin C they need from food substances.
"There is no need to have the enzyme to make vitamin C since humans are able to get all of the vitamin C they need from food substances."
ReplyDeleteScurvy. Hippocrates described it. Plagued crusaders, explorers and the poor. Cases persist today, and are on the rise again.
I thought the fundamentalist story was that we lost the ability to make vitamin C because of the Fall.
ReplyDelete"For example broken genes, referred to as pseudogenes, are sometimes found to be disabled by identical mutations in cousin species. As evolutionist Jerry Coyne concludes in his book Why Evolution is True, “Only evolution and common ancestry can explain these facts.” [68]"
ReplyDeleteThis explains Devolution, not evolution. Even creationists believe in natural selection and mutations, etc. We just don't believe you can get anywhere by breaking things over a long period of time. This is an example of something breaking and becoming non-functional or disfunctional. These types of changes will not help an amoeba become an astronaut. I believe species have changed over time, but not in a positive upward direction. I believe they have devolved from their original created kinds. While this evolution/devolution was taking place, over the course of time, more and more mutations happened. Some of these mutations could be convergent mutations and others would have happened before the animal devolved into two related species.
If evolutionists believe in convergence when it comes to design, then evolutionists should have no problem if creationists too believe in convergence - convergent mutations.
Besides, this whole idea of pseudogenes is coming under question. Functions are being found where the evolutionists never thought to look. Not all the genes they label as pseudogenes are pseudogenes. So, it is hard to see how Coyne can claim this as evidence, or rather proof for evolution.
Neal :
ReplyDeleteYou're wasting your time with the inane drone that goes by the name Thorton here.
The lights are on the trash metal is blaring loudly but nobody's home.
Pastor Jim:
ReplyDelete"Even creationists believe in natural selection and mutations, etc. We just don't believe you can get anywhere by breaking things over a long period of time."
Is there anyone who does believe that? If so, citations please. If not, why bring it up?
"I believe they have devolved from their original created kinds."
Believe what you want, but this belief of yours is contradicted by the fact finding of tens of thousands of scientific papers. I leave it to the psychologists to figure out why anyone would believe against all evidence.
"Besides, this whole idea of pseudogenes is coming under question. Functions are being found where the evolutionists never thought to look."
It's the "evolutionists"/scientists that have found functions in some "pseudogenes". Creationists are wasting a colossal amount of time and resources on spreading lies and destroying education. They could have rid the world of hunger with all that effort. Imagine.
david: Dr Hunter disparages is taken from a non-technical book intended for the non-scientific public. The book is a polemic. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good read.
ReplyDeleteTranslation: The book is not telling lies under the cloak of techno jargons, it is just telling simple stupid lies to fool the rubes.
zacho: Not a mere similarity, but a family resemblance (nested hierarchy).
ReplyDeleteThis is like a broken record. He’s been playing this broken record so long that he doesn’t even know that it is broken. Zacho is clueless about nest hierarchy as evident by his statements here.
***
That is incorrect. It is a direct (mathematical) consequence of grouping by ancestry.
We're not talking about traits, but the mathematical pattern of descent along uncrossed lines when *grouped by ancestry*. We will discuss traits once we are clear on this.
***
He has everything backwards. The Darwinian ancestry is not a direct consequence of mathematics rather the mathematical formulation is directly dependent on the presupposition of the Darwinian fairytale of descent.
But most egregious is his lack of understanding that cladistics is based on derived apomorphic traits when he denies that it is not about traits and it is based on pure mathematics.
The Darwinian nested hierarchy is a fairytale, it always has been and it also will be.
Tokyojim: " I believe species have changed over time, but not in a positive upward direction. I believe they have devolved from their original created kinds."
ReplyDeleteIf I understand what you're saying, it is your view that if God makes something, you had better be darn sure you get the extended warranty on it. Is that accurate?
and CH, I'll save you the time: Metaphysics! Metaphysics! Metaphysics!
"Where's that proof that evolution is mathematically impossible?"
ReplyDeleteAstoudingly, this is a actually good question though no doubt posed with insidious motives.
I answer for anyone capable of reason.
The evidence is in statistical mechanics applied to the genome. Or if you don't get that it is in probability.
Of course most Darwinians reject the application of probabilities to their inane theory. Why are we not surprised? They reject anything and everything that befuddles their foolish world view and consequent "theory".
Tons of research has been done in an effort to discover what are the probabilities associated with chance and necessity having brought about life. This, of course, is where the Darwinian drone pipes up on Darwinism having nothing to do with life origins - another escapist route which does not even make any sense.
Nevertheless, Douglas Axe states for example, " Do you see the problem? On the one hand we’re supposed to believe that the Darwinian mechanism converted a proto-insect into a stunning array of radically different life forms (termites, beetles, ants, wasps, bees, dragonflies, stick insects, aphids, fleas, flies, mantises, cockroaches, moths, butterflies, etc., each group with its own diversity) well within the space of 400 million years. But on the other hand, when we actually do the math we find that a single insignificant conversion of binding sites would reasonably be expected to consume all of that time. The contrast could hardly be more stark: The Darwinian story hopes to explain all the remarkable transformations within 400 million years, but the math shows that it actually explains no remarkable transformation in that time."
Axe's research also demonstrated, in lab with site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme, that the probability of arriving at a single smallish protein of 150 AA's long is about 1 in 10^77
i.e. its not gonna happen
But it gets a lot worse because when including p for requirements for peptide bonds and L-amino acids the probability of producing a single I 50-amino-acid functional protein by chance drops to about 1 in about 10^164.
L-amino acids dominate on earth.
"If you mix up chirality, a protein's properties change enormously. Life couldn't operate with just random mixtures of stuff,"-Ronald Breslow, Ph.D., University Professor, Columbia University).
There is a better chance of pinpointing a single specific atom within the entire universe, entirely by luck, than a single functional 150 amino acid protein arriving by the same, and that's not a large protein.
"Barry Commoner, Senior director of the Critical Genetics Project says that there is more to life than DNA. It has been shown that a single gene can give rise to many protein variants by means of 'alternative splicing'.
Thus there is not a 1:1 correspondence between genes and proteins.
A group of 150 proteins together with 5 molecules of RNA (spliceosome) assemble at various sites in the mRNA and form a molecular machine that cuts mRNA into segments, which are then recombined in different orders. There is a gene in the fruit fly known to give rise to 38,016 different proteins. Crick asserted that the discovery of just one type of cell in genetic info passed from protein to nucleic acid or from protein to protein would "shake the whole intellectual basis of molecular biology" But that's what is happening." - John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science
I could go on and on and on.
The number statistical improbabilities involved in Darwinian theory constitute "mountains of overwhelming evidence" against it.
Anyone trying sell the "probabilities don't matter" bull shit is simply either lying or a blooming idiot.
Derick Childress said...
ReplyDeleteIf I understand what you're saying, it is your view that if God makes something, you had better be darn sure you get the extended warranty on it. Is that accurate?
That is an ill thought supposition and indeed your response is metaphysics.
Nevertheless, if what man does to what God creates is lethal the "extended warranty" to use your own analogy, is voided. Just like when you open your plasma tv to fix it when it aint broke.
Your response is also yet another example of the problem of pain or why does evil exist? An ages old dilemma that has been answered sufficiently innumerable times.
Gary said: "Nevertheless, if what man does to what God creates is lethal the "extended warranty" to use your own analogy, is voided. Just like when you open your plasma tv to fix it when it aint broke."
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to be belligerent, I'm just trying to understand your view, and asking as a fellow theist. Are you saying that harmful mutations are the result of something humans did? If that is the case, wouldn't that mean there couldn't have been any harmful mutations before mankind was around?
Gary: "Your response is also yet another example of the problem of pain or why does evil exist? An ages old dilemma that has been answered sufficiently innumerable times."
I personally believe that pain (and 'evil') exist because you cannot possibly have a universe with more than one free agent without the potential for conflict. The possibility of suffering is a necessary in order to have a universe with free will. You seem to be indicating that there is pain and suffering because of something a human or two once did. Again, if so, does that mean there was no pain or suffering (or harmful mutations) in the 4.5 billion years before humans were on earth?
"We know enough about how they (pseudogenes) arise that we do not need to postulate any mysterious designer or unknown function to explain them." We would scarcely be swayed by an accused criminal whose only defense was that "he should be found innocent because some time in the future evidence might be discovered that could exonerate him." As scientists we provisionally accept what the current evidence tells us, always recognizing that future data may require us to revise our view. Based on this current evidence, shared pseudogenes and retroposons represent ancestral genetic accidents arguing for an evolutionary model, and there is no reason--other than religious faith--to expect anything different in the future." (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/plaisted.html)
ReplyDeleteYou accuse evolution of being some sort of anti-science religion but then go on to make speculations yourself about what God would and would not do. A serious scientist wouldn't even consider God into the equation as it's an untestable variable.
teleological blog: The Darwinian nested hierarchy is a fairytale, it always has been and it also will be.
ReplyDeleteThe objective existence of the nested hierarchy is well-established, independent of theory.
Gary: There is a better chance of pinpointing a single specific atom within the entire universe, entirely by luck, than a single functional 150 amino acid protein arriving by the same, and that's not a large protein.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet functional proteins are regularly found in random sequences of amino acids.
Zachriel: Not a mere similarity, but a family resemblance (nested hierarchy).
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: This is like a broken record.
There is an important distinction between a pattern of similarity and a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is a highly constained pattern. We will continue to raise the issue whenever that subject is breached.
Gary said...
ReplyDelete"Where's that proof that evolution is mathematically impossible?"
Astoudingly, this is a actually good question though no doubt posed with insidious motives.
I answer for anyone capable of reason.
The evidence is in statistical mechanics applied to the genome. Or if you don't get that it is in probability.
Of course most Darwinians reject the application of probabilities to their inane theory. Why are we not surprised? They reject anything and everything that befuddles their foolish world view and consequent "theory".
Show us the probability calculations Gary, and justify the assumptions you made in each case.
Axe's research also demonstrated, in lab with site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme, that the probability of arriving at a single smallish protein of 150 AA's long is about 1 in 10^77
No it didn't. The actual number calculate by Axe was the range of 1 in 10^53 to 1 in 10^77. IDiot apologist Stephen Meyer started this lie and used the lower limit only. Axe himself has said his test methods use assumptions that examine only a very small sequence space and produce extremely narrow results, and that this work does not support intelligent design.
more on Axe's work
"Meyer relies heavily on a new paper by Axe published in the Journal of Molecular Biology. Meyer alleges that Axe (2004) proves that, “the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10^77.” But Axe’s actual conclusion is that the number is “in the range of one in 10^77 to one in 10^53” (Axe 2004, p. 16). Meyer only reports the lowest extreme. One in 10^53 is still a small number, but Meyer apparently didn’t feel comfortable mentioning those 24 orders of magnitude to his reader. A full discussion of Axe (2004) will have to appear elsewhere, but it is worth noting that Axe himself discusses at length the fact that the results one gets in estimating the density of functional sequences depend heavily on methods and assumptions. Axe uses a fairly restricted “target” in his study, which gives a low number, but studies that just take random sequences and assay them just for function – which Meyer repeatedly insists is all that matters in biology – produce larger numbers (Axe 2004, pp. 1-2). [2]"
link
But it gets a lot worse because when including p for requirements for peptide bonds and L-amino acids the probability of producing a single I 50-amino-acid functional protein by chance drops to about 1 in about 10^164.
Since evolutionary theory doesn't posit any protein had to assemble all at one by chance, what does that have to do with anything? Besides giving brainless IDiots like you an empty rhetorical drum to beat?
I could go on and on and on.
And you probably will, since it's all pulled out of your rear nonsense anyway.
teleological blog,
ReplyDeleteAs you are obviously eager to discuss the many technical details that underlie the modern synthesis, or "Darwinism" if you prefer, I'd like to remind you of my earlier invitation on a thread which you seem to have abandoned, here.
The thread is called "The technical details of evolution" and it's far easier to have a conversation in that thread format.
So I look forwards to seeing you over there!
Gary
ReplyDeletethan a single functional 150 amino acid protein
That does what, exactly?
zacho: The objective existence of the nested hierarchy is well-established, independent of theory.
ReplyDeleteThis is unbelievable. It is crystal clear to anyone who has done a cursory study on this subject knows that cladistics nested hierarchy must assume common descent, hence a presumed hierarchy. It is anything but objective.
I would ask the readers to take note that Zacho has never been able to layout the detail methodology of how cladistics goes about creating the existing Darwinian fairytale tree.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteblah blah blah
Hey TB, why did you cut and run when I offered those scientific papers for discussion? Why have you refused to enter any discussions in the ATBC thread set up especially for you?
For a guy who brags a lot about his scientific prowess you sure are hesitant to actually show any.
ChrisEB said: "A serious scientist wouldn't even consider God into the equation"
ReplyDeleteThus saith Richard Dawkins: "the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science."
teleological blog: It is crystal clear to anyone who has done a cursory study on this subject knows that cladistics nested hierarchy must assume common descent, hence a presumed hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteIt is crystal clear to anyone who studies biology that there is a natural classification of organisms into a nested hierarchy, regardless of theory. We can test this by drawing correlations. For instance,
If an organism has mammary glands, we can predict it will have a complex eukaryote cell structure with organelles, ingest other organisms for nourishment, have bilateral symmetry, integument, an alimentary canal, a bony head at one end with an array of sense organs, vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, jaws, ribs, four limbs during at least at some stage of life, neck, neocortex, endothermic, internal fertilization, four-chambered heart, lungs with alveoli and a muscular diaphragm, two eyes, three ear bones in each of two ears, hair or at least hair follicles at some stage of life, sebaceous glands, most will have heterodont dentition, etc.
All that from teats. It's not a trivial correlation, but one of the most important patterns in biology.
Gary said:
ReplyDelete================
I answer for anyone capable of reason.
The evidence is in statistical mechanics applied to the genome. Or if you don't get that it is in probability.
Of course most Darwinians reject the application of probabilities to their
inane theory. Why are we not surprised? They reject anything and everything that befuddles their foolish world view and consequent "theory".
========================
I trained in theoretical population genetics, the application of mathematics to changes in populations. This involved a lot of methods for calculating probabilities. In 1981 I published the first bibliography of papers in that field, finding 7,982 papers had been published by then. By now it is maybe another 4,000-5,000. At least a large minority concern stochastic processes, using Markov chains or Kolmogorov's Backward Equation. We use probabilities -- a lot.
So Gary, a quick question: why are you talking such nonsense?
Salvador said...
ReplyDeleteChrisEB said: "A serious scientist wouldn't even consider God into the equation"
Thus saith Richard Dawkins: "the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science."
Salvador, why did you quote-mine ChrisEB's words? Here is what he actually said:
ChrisEB: "You accuse evolution of being some sort of anti-science religion but then go on to make speculations yourself about what God would and would not do. A serious scientist wouldn't even consider God into the equation as it's an untestable variable.
CEB was specifically talking about CH's hypocrisy in calling evolution a religion, then turning around and claiming to know what God would do in the creation and function of pseudogenes.
Dawkins was talking about something completely different, whether the existence of a God at all can be a scientific hypothesis.
Most people consider quote-mining a form of lying. Why did you do an out of context quote-mine ?
Dr. Felsenstein,
ReplyDeleteWe're honored by your visit. I attempted to send you Dr. Sanford's book to the address at your university. I hope you received it. Even if you disagree with the contents, I hope it still arrived. It was my thank to you for taking time to respond to some of the things I posted on the internet.
PS
Dr. Hunter, apologies for the side bar, but you are quited graced to have one of the worlds top geneticists offering comments.
Dr. Hunter, you insist that "only evolution and common ancestry can explain these facts" is non-scientific, banal, trash, and religious. Yet you don't offer any contrary explanation (which would, of course, decisively refute Coyne's claim). You could argue, of course, that there might be some other explanation ... but strictly speaking, Coyne does not say otherwise ("only common ancestry can explain," not "only common ancestry could explain;" perhaps tomorrow something else will also be able to explain it).
ReplyDeleteYou don't claim that "intelligent design" explains these things (which it doesn't, of course; "the Designer decided to do it this way" is not an explanation; it is simply kicking the need for an explanation a further step down the road, without providing evidence that the road actually goes that far). You do claim that there are various aspects of biology that can't be explained by common ancestry, but require explanations in terms of, e.g. convergent mutations, but that is no reason to suppose that the multitude of traits that actually fit the nested hierarchy aren't, in fact, adequately and correctly explained by common ancestry.
As far as I can tell, what you regard as banal ideological trash is the insistence that scientific theories actually explain the data in the first place, which is a complaint that implicates a much larger portion of science (roughly 100% of it) than evolutionary theory alone.
Salvador,
ReplyDeleteYou are not at uncommondescent now. You can't delete critical comments.
So, I'll ask you what you've already been asked once and ignored: Most people consider quote-mining a form of lying. Why did you do an out of context quote-mine ?
TB,
ReplyDeleteIt is crystal clear to anyone who has done a cursory study on this subject knows that cladistics nested hierarchy must assume common descent, hence a presumed hierarchy. It is anything but objective.
Why don't you nip over to the ATBC thread and we can talk about this? If it's "crystal clear" then we've got some biologists over there that will probably need to know this as it's quite important.
Or would you, for some strange reason, prefer not to talk to some biologists about biology?
Probability HAD no role in the evolutionary sequence. Everything WAS "determined" in the beginning or beginnings exactly as IS still the case with ontogeny. Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny -
ReplyDelete'Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
jadavison.wordpress.com
There is also no compelling reason to assume a single origin of life and accordingly a common ancestry. Leo Berg postulated "tens of thousands of primary forms," a position which still remains compatible with the testimony of the fossil record, a record which can never be reconciled with Darwinian gradualism.
ReplyDelete"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell
People believe what they want to believe, what they were born to believe. Then they naturally gravitate to others with the same predispositions.
"Birds of a feather flock togeher."
Cervantes
"I was born a liberal and I will die a liberal."
Helen Thomas of the White House Press Corps.
jadavison.wordpress.com
Dr. F: I noticed at your website the following: "Inferring Phylogenies, published by Sinauer Associates.
ReplyDeleteKnown typographical errors in the book, with their corrections".
Should we not conclude from the presence of typographical errors that this book was not the product of intelligent design? ;)
Neal: "Evolutionists are like cave men peeling tiles off the space shuttle because that is the only thing they find useful because the rest of it is "junk"."
ReplyDelete"Quote of the day!".
Those who deny past reproductive continuity with change (evolution) are the "cave men." So are those who blindly assume it is still going on.
ReplyDelete"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
jadavison.wordpress.com
RkBall said:
ReplyDelete================
Dr. F: I noticed at your website the following: "Inferring Phylogenies, published by Sinauer Associates.
Known typographical errors in the book, with their corrections".
Should we not conclude from the presence of typographical errors that this book was not the product of intelligent design? ;)
================
Yes. The (distressingly large) numbers of typos in the first printing means that some of my design of the book was not intelligent.
And the persistence of some of those typos from the first printing to later printings is definite evidence that the later printings have come about by Descent With Modification. Each later printing is copied from the preceding one, with correction of many, but not all, of the typos. It thus did not originate in a separate act of creation.
jadavision: [quote]There is also no compelling reason to assume a single origin of life and accordingly a common ancestry. Leo Berg postulated "tens of thousands of primary forms," a position which still remains compatible with the testimony of the fossil record, a record which can never be reconciled with Darwinian gradualism.[/quote]
ReplyDeleteI presume the universal view among neo-Darwinists is for LUCA http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor
Talk about mind-boggling effort, but where will it all lead? Is the goal of all of this a "really good" description of LUCA, or "pretty good" or "comprehensive"?. I would suggest that neo-Darwinists need a shrine, and a great, even supreme one would be a monument at the spot of the advent of "LUCA" and I presume there will a plaque with the date of this advent inscribed. This was one of those universe-changing events, one that could be said to be arguably THE pivotal event in the period since the Big Bang era. Or at least the era since the first reproducing organism arose. It would thus seem to be a natural outgrowth of our growing and eventual comprehensive knowledge of LUCA, so naturally we can expect a monument not only to this event but also a monument to the final triumph of this science and to the brilliance of the researchers. Anyone have an estimate for when we can expect the erection of the monument?
MSEE
ReplyDeleteAnyone have an estimate for when we can expect the erection of the monument?
It's already in place. It's called "the biosphere".
Joe Felsenstein said, "Yes. The (distressingly large) numbers of typos in the first printing means that some of my design of the book was not intelligent."
ReplyDelete===================
Are you allowing then that "some" of life's design wasn't intelligent, but most of it was?
===================
Also said "And the persistence of some of those typos from the first printing to later printings is definite evidence that the later printings have come about by Descent With Modification."
===================
Software engineers routinely copy code from various programs. Copying can involve design. In fact, most of what we design is not original but copied with modifications. So why is a designer copying genetic information any less of a theory than descent with Modification...other than for reasons of materialistic prejudice?
Neal "liar for Jesus" Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteSoftware engineers routinely copy code from various programs. Copying can involve design. In fact, most of what we design is not original but copied with modifications. So why is a designer copying genetic information any less of a theory than descent with Modification...other than for reasons of materialistic prejudice?
Because in science theories have large amounts positive supporting evidence. You don't have a theory, you have an unsupported and unfalsifiable hypothesis.
That's why IDC as you offer it up isn't science.
Years ago I offered the challenge - Name a living animal species and its living immediate ancestor. That challenge has never been met. I say it can't be met because such events are no longer occurring. The Darwinians see evolution in action everywhere they look, but when confronted directly, they wilt like day lillies unable to support their thesis with a single example. They naively believe that every creature is in a state of genetic plasticity, slowly adapting to a changing environment, a notion without a shred of experimental or descriptive support. On the basis of what we can actually prove there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn which is that the present fauna and flora represents the immutable climax of a progressive goal directed process now complete.
ReplyDeleteThe error that the "Fundamentalista" make is to assume that because evolution cannot be shown now to occur, it never existed in the past. The atheist "Darwinista," unable to imagine a goal directed process, blindly proceed convinced that every organism is a candidate for evolutionary transformation. Both of these congenitally entrenched "mindsets" are unable to accept the testimony of the experimental laboratory and the fossil record both of which render each camp hopelessly wrong. The truth lies elsewhere in a planned phylogeny which terminated very recently with Homo sapiens. In the roughly 100,000 years we have existed we have witnessed untold thousands of extinctions without a single documented replacement. In other words -
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
jadavison.wordpress.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletejadavison said...
ReplyDeleteYears ago I offered the challenge - Name a living animal species and its living immediate ancestor. That challenge has never been met. I say it can't be met because such events are no longer occurring.
The pygmy raccoon (Procyon pygmaeus) is a species of dwarf raccoon that is found only on the island of Cozumel off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Its living immediate ancestors are mainland raccoons (Procyon lotor).
Pygmy raccoons are a classic example of both allopatric speciation - speciation due to geographic isolation - and insular dwarfism - reduction is size when geographic range is severely limited, typically on an island.
Now your challenge has been met.
Thorton, an alias I presume.
ReplyDeleteHardly.
The test for true speciation is the sterility of the hybrid between the two forms. That is how we know that the horse and the donkey are separate species. Darwinians are loathe to test their hypothesis because they KNOW it is inadequate. That is why they have never tested Darwin's finches. Finches are among the easiest birds to domesticate. The canary is a finch. Based on field observations by the Grants, Darwin's finches apparently are all one species.
Incidentally, do you believe that pygmy human beings are not Homo sapiens? Should they be Homo pygmaeus?
Just because some taxonomist decides two forms are different species means absolutely nothing.
The marine and terrestrial lizards of the Galapagos have been arbitrarily placed in separate genera yet we now know they have hybridized. I do not know if the products have been tested for fertility and I doubt any Darwinians would dare to find out. You see Darwinians are not scientists and never have been. They are atheist mystics who worship the Great God Chance.
It is my conviction that true speciation is quite impossible through the agency of sexual (Mendelian) reproduction.
Sorry Thorton, but no cigar. True speciation like any other scientific question can only be resolved by experiment, something Darwinians fear like the plague.
Who is next?
jadavison.wordpress.com
jadavison said...
ReplyDeleteJust because some taxonomist decides two forms are different species means absolutely nothing.
Actually, what some deluded old kook on the internet proclaims is the proper criteria for testing "true" speciation means absolutely nothing.
You issued a challenge, the challenge was met. Now you've pulled out the rocket powered goal posts. Sorry jadavison, but no cigar.
Was the pygmy racoon actually scene evolving from the full size racoon? Or is that an assumption?
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteWas the pygmy racoon actually scene evolving from the full size racoon? Or is that an assumption?
No assumption. It's been confirmed by both genetic testing and fossil evaluation.
Evolutionary history of the critically endangered Cozumel dwarf carnivores inferred from mitochondrial DNA analyses
Abstract: The pygmy raccoon Procyon pygmaeus and dwarf coati Nasua nelsoni, both endemic to Cozumel Island, Mexico, are two of the most endangered carnivores in the world, and their persistence requires active management. However, the taxonomic status of these populations remains unclear. Therefore we investigated mitochondrial DNA variation using the control region to examine the genetic uniqueness and evolutionary history of these taxa. Using strict phylogenetic criteria, species-level uniqueness of the Cozumel taxa was difficult to discern based solely on haplotype groupings and identification of unique alleles. However, population genetic approaches indicate significant population differentiation between Cozumel and mainland populations and we suggest that these taxa should be treated as distinct management units from their mainland conspecifics. Coalescent analysis indicated that the pygmy raccoon diverged from the mainland about 3050–200 111 years before present (ybp) and the Cozumel coati 1263–82 896 ybp; dates that can be further constrained by incorporating known-age subfossil specimens from Cozumel as well as the geological history of the island. Thus, although it is likely that the island taxa colonized Cozumel before the Mayan peoples populated the island, we are unable to definitively reject the hypothesis that colonization by these taxa was not human facilitated.
But they didn't actually see it happen.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteBut they didn't actually see it happen.
Eyewitnessing an actual event, especially a long term one that took thousands of years, is not required for scientific verification. Just as in any other area of scientific investigation, valid conclusions can be made from the evidence the event left behind.
jadavison said...
ReplyDeleteThe test for true speciation is the sterility of the hybrid between the two forms. That is how we know that the horse and the donkey are separate species.
jadavison, are lions and tigers the same species? They produce hybrid offspring called ligers, the females of which are often fertile.
How about lions and leopards? Same species? The hybrid offspring are called leopons if the leopard is the father or lipards if the lion is the father. Both hybrids are fertile.
The real story is, speciation is not a binary event that produced fertile offspring one generation and infertile ones the next. In a speciation event as the two populations genetically diverge, you get a gradual lessening of viability over time of any hybrid offspring.
A classic example of this are ring species such as the california salamander Ensatina. From an original single population they have diverged into five distinct subspecies in a geographic 'ring' around California's central valley. Experiment (those experiment you claim scientists never do) show that while hybrids between groups still occur, they are at a significant selection disadvantage.
STRONG SELECTION AGAINST HYBRIDS AT A HYBRID ZONE IN THE ENSATINA RING SPECIES COMPLEX AND ITS EVOLUTINARY IMPLICATIONS
"Abstract: The analysis of interactions between lineages at varying levels of genetic divergence can provide into the process of speiation through the accumulation of incompatiable mutations. Ring species, and especially the Ensatina eschscholtzii system exemplify this approach. The plethodontid salamanders E. eschscholtzii xanthoptica and E. eschscholtzii platensis hybridize in the central Sierran foothills of California. We compared the genetic structure across two transects (southern and northern Calaveras Co.), one of which was resampled over 20 years, and examined diagnostic molecular markers (eight allozyme loci and mitochondrial DNA) and a diagnostic quantitative trait (color pattern). Key results across all studies were: (1) cline centers for all markers were coincident and the zones were narrow, with width estimates of 730 m to 2000 m; (2) cline centers at the northern Calveras transect were coincident between 1981 and 2001, demonstrating repeatability over five generations; (3) there were very few if any putative F1S, but a relatively high number of backcrossed individuals in the central portion of transects; and (4) we found substantial linkage disequilibrium in all three studies and strong heterozygote deficit both in northern Calaveras, in 2001, and southern Calaveras. Both linkage disequilibrium and heterozygote deficit showed maximum values near the center of the zones. Using estimates of cline width and dispersal, we infer strong selection against hybrids. This is sufficient to promote accumulation of differences at loci that are neutral or under divergent selection, but would still allow for introgression of adaptive alleles. The evidence for strong but incomplete isolation across this centrally located contact is consistent with theory suggesting a gradual increase in postzygotic incompatibility between allopatric populations subject to divergent selection and reinforces the value of Ensatina as a system for the study of divergence and speciation at multiple stages."
So here we have a speciation event taking place right in front of your nose. Scientists are studying and learning from it, but I suppose you haven't been a scientists for so long you forgot what they do.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteBut they didn't actually see it happen.
Dude, remind me to find you for a jury trial, where all the prosecution has is a smoking gun, fingerprints, DNA evidence, and motive. Cause if noone seen it, you must acquit? LOL.
The test for true speciation is the sterility of the hybrid between the two forms.
ReplyDeleteOK.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. The authors tested for speciation and found sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
We could also throw in hawthorn flies, which have speciated to infect apples. The populations show limited, and increasingly diminished, hybridization.
Didn't the Dobzhansky experiment only produce sterile male hybrids?
ReplyDeleteAccording to this article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-4C3KYND-2&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1399974169&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e4507720abfaef3ced15697c366093e
Hawthorne fly evolution is more complicated than first thought. The adaptation to apple eating might be the result of preexisting traits.
Species never arose through gradual divergence. Only varieties or subspecies can be produced gradually. Dogs are the perfect example. Subspecies and varieties are not incipient species. They are dead ends doomed to extinction.
ReplyDeleteThere is no point in trying to reason with the Darwinian mindset. There is nothing to discuss or debate because Darwinism is not science. It is a congenital disease whose victims are unable to evaluate the world in which they find themselves. I see no point in continuing here as it is obvious that I am wasting my time. That alone made it worth the effort.
jadavison.wordpress.com
Cornelius Hunter,
ReplyDeleteYou have permitted "Thorton," whoever that is. to call me a "deluded old kook on the internet." Accordingly your weblog has been found unsuitable for my futher participation. Those venues that promote such methods will never contribute anything of value to the great mystery of organic evolution.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
jadavison said...
ReplyDeleteSpecies never arose through gradual divergence. Only varieties or subspecies can be produced gradually. Dogs are the perfect example. Subspecies and varieties are not incipient species. They are dead ends doomed to extinction.
Yet we still have gobs of scientific evidence that clearly shows they did evolve.
Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog
I can't get any evolution-deniers to explain the results of this paper on a bet. Wonder why that is?
There is no point in trying to reason with the Darwinian mindset. There is nothing to discuss or debate because Darwinism is not science.
I'm presenting scientific research and trying to discuss it. You're the one refusing to deal with the evidence.
I see no point in continuing here as it is obvious that I am wasting my time.
...and Dohn Javison when faced with actual scientific evidence bails from yet another discussion board. Good luck finding yet another spot to spread your kooky rantings.
"JAD's past rationality is undeniable, his present rationality undemonstrable."
ReplyDeleteI love it so!
All this fuss over whether "true" speciation has been observed to occur or not is irrelevant. What is relevant are two easily observable facts. The first is, populations that exchange genes are more alike genetically than those that don't. Secondly, populations that are reproductively isolated from each other (even partially) will diverge genetically from each other over time. It is the maintenance of divergence (and its resulting diversity) which is far more important than hybrid sterility itself.
ReplyDeleteDave Wisker
"The pygmy raccoon (Procyon pygmaeus) is a species of dwarf raccoon that is found only on the island of Cozumel off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Its living immediate ancestors are mainland raccoons (Procyon lotor)."
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that they are both RACCOONS. This is why universal common descent has many skeptics. You take variations in the Raccoon family as evidence that every living thing on earth descented from chemicals in a warm little pond eons ago. Most people look at that and see that as being an unbelievable stretch of the imagination. Do you have a better example?
jadavison, Please don't leave now, you're more fun than Joe G, and much more articulate.
ReplyDeleteNeal "liar for Jesus" Tedford said...
ReplyDelete"The pygmy raccoon (Procyon pygmaeus) is a species of dwarf raccoon that is found only on the island of Cozumel off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Its living immediate ancestors are mainland raccoons (Procyon lotor)."
The bottom line is that they are both RACCOONS.
Hey idiot, the challenge was to name a parent and daughter species, not animals from two different genera or families.
This is why universal common descent has many skeptics. You take variations in the Raccoon family as evidence that every living thing on earth descented from chemicals in a warm little pond eons ago. Most people look at that and see that as being an unbelievable stretch of the imagination. Do you have a better example?
Many, like the papers on canid evolution, the ensatina salamanders, and tbx4 genes in cetaceans. I've presented them to you repeatedly but you've cowardly run from the evidence every time.
I do not "bail," I "abandon" flame pits when they adopt the tactics we see here, the same tactics that characterize After The Bar Closes, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, richarddawkins.net and EvC, tactics that render productive discourse impossible. If you are willing to disclose your identity, you are all welcome at my weblog where your behavior here will not be tolerated. I regard my website as the only civilized venue presently available for the discussion of the great mystery of our origins.
ReplyDeleteNone of you will show up under those restraints. I have already proved that so just go right on with your cowardly masochism. You are only harming yourselves.
It doesn't get any better than this.
I love it so!
jadavison.wordpress.com
Neal writes:
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that they are both RACCOONS. This is why universal common descent has many skeptics. You take variations in the Raccoon family as evidence that every living thing on earth descented from chemicals in a warm little pond eons ago. Most people look at that and see that as being an unbelievable stretch of the imagination. Do you have a better example?
No single example of observed speciation can be used as evidence of universal common descent, and no evolutionary biologist would even try to claim that. So that leaves one wondering just what, exactly, you are expecting. Universal common descent is not an observed phenomenon; it is instead an inference drawn from several lines of evidence.
Dave Wisker
jadavison said...
ReplyDeleteI do not "bail," I "abandon" flame pits when they adopt the tactics we see here, the same tactics that characterize After The Bar Closes, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, richarddawkins.net and EvC, tactics that render productive discourse impossible.
LOL! You bailed because you can't deal with the scientific evidence. It's what you always do because you're a cowardly kook who can't face reality and won't post in venues you can't control.
I have already proved that so just go right on with your cowardly masochism.
You're also a raging hypocrite whining about 'flaming' when you do exactly what you accuse others of.
Are lions and tigers the same species? Are lions and leopards the same species? Why are you too cowardly to answer?
Thorton
ReplyDeleteYou lie. I have always welcomed insults and have without exception preserved the first and sometimes second such messages as I recently did with PZPolice. If you had read my blog you would know this.
Accordingly, I now invite you to join woot and PZPolice and a few others by insulting John A. Davison on his turf. I will preserve your message as I did with them. I collect insults and treasure them. I have yet to be insulted by a user using his given name and don't expect I will be.
And so the ball is now in your court. If you fail to comply with my request, I will report back here and elsewhere that you failed to respond to my generous offer.
That offer extends to anyone else who wants to spew his loathing of me on my weblog. They will be given one golden opportunity to vent their cowardly spleens. What would be even better would be for such souls to use their given names but I ask too much I am certain. I still am waiting to hear from Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Royce Elsberry and Clinton Richard Dawkins, all of whom I have personally invited to participate.
While they have all banished me, I welcome them and always have. Their failure to engage their adversary in a public forum defines their character, especially as they promote and allow their followers to insult me in their stead. To my knowledge, no genuine scientist has ever refused to defend his convictions. Those three are not scientists by any stretch of this investigator's imagination. Neither are their many followers who must hide their identity.
HUGE LOL! Dohn Javison, you're a hoot! It's nutty old self-important kooks like you who keep the laughter on da intertubes strong! Nice attempt at whoring your blog to get more traffic, but I think I'll pass. I don't roll in the mud with pigs, or go into loony bins with kooks.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you forgot to answer the questions:
Are lions and tigers the same species? Are lions and leopards the same species?
If you fail to comply with my request, I will report back here and elsewhere that you are still the deluded kook you always were.
Just published on my blog -
ReplyDeleteghitch - July 14, 2010 [Edit]
John,
Thorton is a 1st class nitwit who has not a second of waking moments within his evolutionary pipe dreams – along with this other kid over there named Ritchie and um … well gee, its too long to list.
I enjoy reading you stuff – even the insults.
The clown that goes by the name Woot is amusing to read.
Unfortunately for him – you “owned him” before he even got started.
Darweeners (a term I borrow from you) either never realize or never admit that they’ve been “owned” in any debate. Their psychedelic “science” blinds them to the point of stupidity.
As Hoyle so aptly stated,
“Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view [Darwinism], new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine].” (Hoyle, F., “Mathematics of Evolution,”
Keep rocking the sinking Darwinian Titanic. A titanic piece of BS that Darwin came up with to rid science of God.
-
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteYou really should be ashamed of yourself. You are turning out to be no better than Wesley Royce Elsberry or Paul Zachary Myers. Have you no pride, no standards of ethical behavior, no dignity. If you do then how can you allow trash like Thorton and others like him to prevail?
If you would like to further discuss these matters, you are welcome to do so on my blog. The "Why Banishment?" thread would be the perfect place.
Of course if you share their opinion of me, don't bother. That will soon become clear.
jadavison.wordpress.com
jadavison said...
ReplyDeletesnivel snivel snivel whine whine whine
Didn't you loudly proclaim yesterday that you were leaving? I'd hate to think you were lying about that too.
Thorton and the others like him are giving Cornelius Hunter's blog a very bad name. Of course if that is what Cornelius Hunter wants, that is what he will get, what he is already getting.
ReplyDeleteI have never sniveled and never whined. I expose trash wherever I encounter it and I have encountered it here - big time! It is a dirty job but one I enjoy immensely.
It doesn't get any better than this.
jadavison.wordpress.com
OK Dohn Javison, thanks for admitting you lied about leaving just to get attention.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't care if you go or stay. Having a deluded old kook who's nuttier than a Snickers bar posting makes for great entertainment!
Have you figured out yet if lions and tigers, or lions and leopards are the same species?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteThat hardly contitutes an explanation. It is your blog and I wash my hands of it for the same reason you won't find me at Pharygula, After The Bar Closes, EvC, Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent or richarddawkins.net. They all banished me but I leave this flame pit voluntarily in disgust.
When you lie down with dogs you may get up with more than fleas; perhaps sarcoptic mange or even drooling hydrophobia.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
jadavison.wordpress.com
jadavison said...
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
snivel snivel snivel whine whine whine even more
For a guy who claimed he wasn't going to post here anymore you sure post here a lot.
That hardly contitutes an explanation. It is your blog and I wash my hands of it for the same reason you won't find me at Pharygula, After The Bar Closes, EvC, Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent or richarddawkins.net. They all banished me but I leave this flame pit voluntarily in disgust.
Since all those separate and independent organizations removed you for the same reason, seems like the problem isn't with them but with you.
JaDavison,
ReplyDeleteOne difference between you and Cornelius is that apparently he thinks his views can hold up to the scrutiny of an open dialogue, and you don't. Now, I don't know you from Adam, but you do come across as eccentric, and 'kooky' may not be an inaccurate description either. If you find fault in someone for allowing his critics to respond, instead of hiding behind a delete key, then go pout in your own sandbox.
Sorry to return but I have no intention of leaving while Thorton and others continue to offer commentary which has nothing to do with science.
ReplyDeleteI do not whine, pout or delete. I confront, challenge and expose. That is why I am usually banished because ideologues fear confrontation like the plague.
There is no place for "dialogue" or "debate" or even "discussion" in the scientific process. There is only "discovery" and the acceptance of that discovery. Several scientists, including myself, have independently discovered and proved that Darwinism in all its many guises is a myth, a fantasy and a blind alley which has yielded nothing of value to our understanding of the origins (plural) of life and its subsequent evolution. Furthermore, there was never any role for probability in those origins. Every significant evolutonary step was an instantaneous event in which probability played no role whatsoever. Mendelian genetics and obligatory sexual reproduction also played no role because neither is capable of producing new life forms. Quite the contrary, sexual reproduction, population genetics and allelic mutation can only fine tune the products of "prescribed" evolutionary events in which they played no role whatsoever. Until this reality is accepted, Darwinian mysticism will continue to prevail.
The first to recognize the failure of Mendelian (sexual)genetics as an explanation for evolution was William Bateson, the Father if Modern Genetics, who confessed to his son Gregory Bateson -
"that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a 'blind alley' which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general."
I believe that statement has proven to be accurate.
I thought I would give Thorton, Derek Childress and some others who frequent this blog more fuel with which to insult me. I thrive on abuse, especially from adversaries who find such tactics necessary.
Enemies are so stimulating."
Katherine Hepburn
The truly pathetic ranting of a full-blown kook.
ReplyDeleteReally sad part is, years ago Davison was a productive member of the scientific community before losing his marbles and slipping into these delusions.
I challenge Thorton to identify himself with his full name, age and place of employment. If he fails to do this right here he will prove that he is a cowardly worm not worth stepping on. That goes for anyone else who must hide his identity.
ReplyDeletejadavison said...
ReplyDeleteI challenge Thorton to identify himself with his full name, age and place of employment. If he fails to do this right here he will prove that he is a cowardly worm not worth stepping on. That goes for anyone else who must hide his identity.
LOL! Sure thing Dohn Javison. I'll do that as soon as you post your name, address, phone number, social security number, bank account number and balance, numbers of at least two major credit cards along with PINs, and your mother's maiden name.
You're nuttier than a case of Snickers.
Thorton just exposed himself as a charlatan. Who is next?
ReplyDeletejadavison said: " I challenge Thorton to identify himself with his full name, age and place of employment. If he fails to do this right here he will prove that he is a cowardly worm not worth stepping on."
ReplyDeleteHey Thorton, while you're at it will you go ahead and post your blood type, underwear brand preference, gym membership history, 3rd grade spelling report card, and favorite aquatic bird, y'know, to prove you're not a charlatan?
thanks in advance.
Derick Childress said...
ReplyDeletejadavison said: " I challenge Thorton to identify himself with his full name, age and place of employment. If he fails to do this right here he will prove that he is a cowardly worm not worth stepping on."
Hey Thorton, while you're at it will you go ahead and post your blood type, underwear brand preference, gym membership history, 3rd grade spelling report card, and favorite aquatic bird, y'know, to prove you're not a charlatan?
thanks in advance.
I wear size 10E shoes and my favorite ice cream is mint chocolate chip. Does that help?
It's sad, but Davison has been a belligerent raging kook ever since he first began posting on C/E boards years ago. That's why he's been kicked off of so many.
In a way I'm torn. Part of me feels bad making fun of an elderly guy who is clearly no longer possesses of a full set of mental capabilities. The cheese has done slid off his pizza as the saying goes. But another part thinks that's not an excuse for his obnoxious behavior, and that he deserves ridicule.
Not only have I been banished from every Darwinian "groupthinktank" on the internet, I also have been banished 4 times from Uncommon Descent, all for the same reasons. I have presented an hypothesis that that can never be reconciled with either the Darwinian fantasy or a personal God, an hypothesis that recognizes everything we know for certain from the fossil record and the experimental laboratory.
ReplyDeleteAll in all I am very proud of the way we several critics of the Darwinian hoax have been received by the evolutionary community. I am but the extant representative of the many great biologists who have provided me with the basis for a new hypothesis for organic evolution, an hypothesis that will survive long after Darwin's childish notions have become an embarrassing chapter in the book of Truth and Knowlwedge. That time passed by long ago. Only the Darwinians still believe it hasn't.
My proudest achievement was to become a charter member of Paul Zachary Myers' "Dungeon," also described as his "Hate File." I recommend that everyone peruse that list of inmates and pay special attention to the language that pervert uses to describe me, my friend Martin and others who have challenged Myers' support for a godless, purposeless evolution. Myers is obviously mentally ill, consumed with hate for any person or institution that represents the Judeo-Christian ethic in any way. He shares his loathing with Richard Dawkins for Christianity generally and especially the Roman Church. No real scientist would ever engage in such revealing behavior. They both degrade themselves constantly.
I want to congratulate Derick Childress for using his real name. I hope he will live long enough to realize what a fool he has made of himself with his arrogant insults.
As for my obnoxious behavior, I can't hold a candle to trash like Elsberry, Dawkins, Myers and their followers. Every forum I entered resulted in the same outcome. I remained civil until my hosts became hostile at which time I responded in kind.
The most significant feature of my history on the internet is the refusal of my enemies to express themselves on my turf. Only anonymous blowhards like woot and PZPolice have ever responded to the open invitation to insult me on my blog. I have welcomed them and left their words as testimony that they visited me. By way of contrast, their leaders are terrified to insult me on my ground because they live in the constant, nagging fear that they have dedicated their entire lives to a myth, an illusion, a hoax. They have you know!
It doesn't get any better than this.
jadavison.wordpress.com
Typical Gish gallop. Bring up a specific complaint and then talk all around that point without really addressing it, make claims without supporting them, and then declare victory. How sad.
ReplyDeleteWhy oh why have I not been kicked off this one?
ReplyDeleteIt is no different than Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, EvC, richarddawkins.net, Uncommon Descent or any other weblog dedicated to a myth whether Genesis or Darwimpianism. You Philistines are all alike, utterly oblvious to the evolutionary literature, welded to absurdities and incapable of rational intercourse.
Einstein described "you people" perfectly -
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions....Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
Ideas and Opnions, page 28
I have been laughing at you poor souls for years. I have developed a callous on my right thigh from slapping it so much as I read the drivel which continues to emanate from intellectual ghettos just like this one. The only thing that distinguishes this "forum" from most is its masochistic insistence on continuing to absorb my contempt.
It does'nt get any better than this!
jadavison.wordpress.com
jadavison said...
ReplyDeleteWhy oh why have I not been kicked off this one?
A sadist and a masochistic were marooned together on a desert island.
The masochistic said "beat me hit me hurt me cause me pain!"
The sadist thought for a bit and said ".....no."
...
The real answer of course is that you are irrelevant. No one cares about your kooky blithering anymore.
Thorton, you poor misguided jerk, that story is as old as Methuselah. I'm the sadist and you are the masochist and I will continue to abuse you and others like you as long as I am allowed. In the meantime, learn how to punctuate your stale, stupid comments.
ReplyDeleteI am very relevant. So were my distinguished predecessors, not a religious or atheist fanatic in the lot. The proof that I am relevant is your refusal to ignore me.
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
Dr Hunter, you say:
ReplyDelete"Well, there are many people who are living a lie. "
How do you know you're not, and they are?
Rich Hughes:
ReplyDelete===
"Well, there are many people who are living a lie. "
How do you know you're not, and they are?
===
Evolutionists say all of biology just arose on its own. They then say this is an undeniable fact, beyond all shadow of a doubt, just as much a fact as is gravity. But when you ask them to explain why this is true, they cannot backup their claims. Nonetheless, of course they continue to make their claims. This is not a situation of reasoned discourse and objective thinking.
If I'm lying, then there must be an obvious proof / explanation for why evolution is a fact, which I'm covering up. But I have openly asked on this blog for the proof.
Dr. Hunter, thanks for your reply and also for doing a decent (fair) moderation job.
ReplyDeleteAt the top of your bog, you have:
"How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters"
So you accept (a priori) religion and superimpose it as a framework on science. It is in this context I ask:
"How do you know you're not, and they are?"
Thanks!
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteIf I'm lying, then there must be an obvious proof / explanation for why evolution is a fact, which I'm covering up. But I have openly asked on this blog for the proof.
And you have been provided with the explanation at least a dozen times. Why you continue to dishonestly pretend no one has answered you is very telling. I guess you never got to that "thou shalt not bear false witness" part of the Bible.
Rich Hughes:
ReplyDelete===
Dr. Hunter, thanks for your reply and also for doing a decent (fair) moderation job.
At the top of your bog, you have:
"How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters"
So you accept (a priori) religion and superimpose it as a framework on science.
===
No, I don't superimpose it on science, evolutionists do.
===
It is in this context I ask:
"How do you know you're not, and they are?"
===
Because unlike evolutionists, I'm not making any claims based on religious premises.
okay - Thanks, my understanding is increasing.
ReplyDeleteI was of the understanding that people who believe in evolution come from mant different faiths and sometimes non at all. Which *specific* religious views are driving it?
Rich:
ReplyDelete===
I was of the understanding that people who believe in evolution come from many different faiths and sometimes non at all. Which *specific* religious views are driving it?
===
You can see examples of the *specific* religious views by reading through the blog. For a discussion, you can see my books, for example, in Chapter 2 of Science's Blind Spot. Or for a quick-look, you can see this:
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/Figure15.jpg
These religious and metaphysical beliefs are not strongly aligned with traditional faiths you may be thinking of. Enlightenment and pre Enlightenment era Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and skeptics made similar claims that are foundational to evolutionary thought.
Darwin and Wallace were deeply immersed in these traditions, as is obvious in their writings. Subsequent evolutionary thought, up to today, is simply a rehearsing of this history of thought applied to more recent scientific findings.
Isn't that a 'genetic fallacy'? people of all faiths are fine with evolution - in my limited experience the folks that take issue do because of there own religious predispositions, not because of the science.
ReplyDeleteRich:
ReplyDelete"Isn't that a 'genetic fallacy'?"
No, read the final paragraph of what my comment. Or better yet, read Jerry Coyne's *Why Evolution is True*, or Elliot Sober's work.
"people of all faiths are fine with evolution ..."
They're not merely "fine" with evolution.
"- in my limited experience the folks that take issue do because of there own religious predispositions, not because of the science."
Those people are crucial to evolution. Rich, if you believe all of biology just happened to arise by itself, then perhaps you've got some cards you're not showing.
I don't know. You've got a PHD - you know knowing is hard :-)
ReplyDeleteHow it started and how it developed are to my mind two different questions. There are many explanations on offer, from the Omphalos hypothesis to a 6k year biblical narrative and beyond. So I ask myself, what makes a good explanation? I find the evolutionary narrative to be well supported by many consilient lines of data and well as being coherent with the world I see.
Do I reject 'God' in this narrative? Only because there is no evidence of his participation - although he could 'just be using nature'. Do I get to reject the Omphalos hypothesis and the 6k biblical narrative? Absolutley. The 6k narrative is actually much easier to disprove.
Rich:
ReplyDelete"I find the evolutionary narrative to be well supported by many consilient lines of data "
You mean like:
-Non homologous development in closely related species?
-Unique genes in only one of a pair of closely related species?
-Fossils that persist unchanged after appearing abruptly?
-Advanced designs so widespread that they must have been present from early on?
-Repeated structures and designs in distant species that must have, somehow, repeatedly evolved independently?
-The sense of right and wrong that must have evolved?
-Consciousness
Rich, do you understand that the mechanisms that are supposed to create the biological diversity, for natural selection to act upon, were not present in early evolution?
Does it make sense to you ("coherent with the world you see") that evolution created profoundly complex structures and mechanisms, only because they happened to arise and then selected, and then later serendipitiously those same structures and mechanisms would be crucial for evolution.
If your answer is "yeah, sure", then I'm curious how you arrive at that conclusion, because this seems so problematic to me. I'm not saying it is impossible, but that it is an unlikely, just-so story, constructed because evolution is assumed to be true.
And the arguments for why evolution is a fact entail religious / metaphysical premises.
I didn't say it is complete (it would be unscientific to regard anything as complete) - but it is very well supported in morphology, genetics, the fossil record etc and we even understand some of the mechanisms of variation and selection.
ReplyDeleteSome of your concerns are legitimate, but I don't think convergent evolution has any issues from an optimisation standpoint and 'right and wrong', well they seem to be shared social constructs not absolute values - we may agree and disagree.
You're amazed at what is and what has happened, I think we all are. But I'd suggest the species that we see are a tiny subset of the species that could have been - and of course there are many (95%?) species that failed along the way.
If you find evolution unlikely, abductively, what is your better explanation?
Thanks - enjoying this exchange.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius said:
ReplyDelete"You mean like:
-Non homologous development in closely related species?
-Could you give examples?
-Unique genes in only one of a pair of closely related species?
-Could you give examples? How closely related do you mean? And how do you define 'unique' genes? (I'm could conceivably have a point mutation that gives me a 'unique' allele not found in my first cousin; is that evidence that we're not actually related?)
-Fossils that persist unchanged after appearing abruptly?
-The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change. -Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species
So how exactly is this a 'failed prediction' of evolution when Darwin predicted it in 1859?
-Advanced designs so widespread that they must have been present from early on?
-Uh, you mean like they were present in some sort of 'common ancestor' or something? Again, what do you mean by 'advanced'?
-Repeated structures and designs in distant species that must have, somehow, repeatedly evolved independently?
-You mean like how organisms that live in similar environments have acquired similar traits due to similar selection pressure? It seems to me that things like light sensitivity, flight, and good hearing might be traits that would be pretty useful to a creature. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that useful structures would arise in multiple lineages. (also, funny how these same structures often work in vastly different ways -bat vs. bird wings, or compound eyes vs. 'lens' eyes, to name a few examples.)
-The sense of right and wrong that must have evolved?
-Yeah, It's not like co-operation, empathy, or sense of fairness convey any survival advantage in social animals is it? And it's not like the rudiments of morality-like characteristics are found in other species, is it? But of all your points here, this one is perhaps the most compelling.
-Consciousness
-Puh-lease, Cornelius. We can barely define consciousness, let alone quantify it, let alone speculate about what causes it or where it comes from. (if you've got evidence that consciousness doesn't require a brain, I'm all ears.)
Derick
ReplyDelete-Could you give examples?
No, Cornelius cannot. Once you get down to the specifics it all goes quiet.
What genes, what structures, what designs?
-Unique genes in only one of a pair of closely related species?
Citation please.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteYou really are not familiar with the biology. Not surprising since evolution has so compromised education.
===
-Puh-lease, Cornelius. We can barely define consciousness, let alone quantify it, let alone speculate about what causes it or where it comes from.
===
Shouldn't that give you pause for thought about evolutionary claims?
Cornelius: "Derick: You really are not familiar with the biology."
ReplyDeleteThen perhaps you could familiarize me with some examples of non homologous development in closely related species, or of unique genes in only one of a pair of closely related species. (along with your definitions of 'closely-related' and 'unique')
Me: "We can barely define consciousness, let alone quantify it, let alone speculate about what causes it or where it comes from."
Cornelius: "Shouldn't that give you pause for thought about evolutionary claims?"
If I understand that you somewhat agree with that statement, shouldn't that give you pause for thought about declaring that consciousness can or can't be explained in physical terms? I'm not saying that consciousness absolutely will be fully explained in physical terms at some point in the future; I'm saying that to say that it won't is presumptuous.
Derick:
ReplyDelete===
If I understand that you somewhat agree with that statement, shouldn't that give you pause for thought about declaring that consciousness can or can't be explained in physical terms? I'm not saying that consciousness absolutely will be fully explained in physical terms at some point in the future; I'm saying that to say that it won't is presumptuous.
===
You're the one making the "fact" claim. Funny how evolutionists often seem to shift the burden of proof. They make the claim, and then it is the inquirer's responsibility to disprove it.
"They make the claim, and then it is the inquirer's responsibility to disprove it."
ReplyDeleteOr come up with something with better support, anyway....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius, I am absolutely not making a fact claim; I'm doing nearly the opposite: I'm pointing out that you are. Rich originally said: "I find the evolutionary narrative to be well supported by many consilient lines of data and well as being coherent with the world I see," to which you replied with a list of observations that you apparently consider to contradict that claim; observations that are implied to be evidence against biological evolution. At the end of that list was 'consciousness'. I merely pointed out that consciousness is understood so poorly at the present that it could not possibly be 'evidence' for or against evolution, or for or against ID. (or for or against any position at the moment)
ReplyDeleteAnd there was no shifting of the burden of proof. You made the claim that there exist examples of non homologous development in closely related species, and of unique genes in only one of a pair of closely related species; two things that you claim exist; I merely asked you to provide such examples. When a person claims that something exists, the burden of proof is on them. No shifting here.
CH: "You're the one making the "fact" claim."
No, you were the one claiming that consciousness can't be explained in physical terms; I was only saying that it's too early to tell at this point.
CH: "Funny how evolutionists often seem to shift the burden of proof."
Funny how creationists often seem to not recognize who the burden of proof rests with in the first place.
Again, when you make the claim that examples exist which refute evolution, the burden of proof is on you to present them, not on anyone else to prove they don't exist.
So can we have those examples?
Cornelius, I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. I really would like to know the examples you're referring to. I don't have any reason to believe that evolution has to be true; I'd like to know if it isn't.
ReplyDeleteSo what are those examples?