Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Random Mutations and the Heroics of Evolution

A child once informed his friends his toy bulldozer could dig all the way through the Earth. But wasn’t the Earth too big? No, look at the Grand Canyon—it is proof of what such small shovels can do. Such childish logic, amazingly, shows up repeatedly in evolutionary “theory.” It is a treasure trove of bizarre and silly claims and justifications which rises to the surface, as with the child’s reasoning, when the evolutionist is questioned about his convictions. Consider, for example, the oft heard evolutionary mechanism of random mutation followed by natural selection which, like the toy bulldozer, apparently can do just about anything. When queried about this most amazing idea, the underlying evolutionary logic is revealed.

One response evolutionists give when confronted with their own extraordinary claims about random mutation and natural selection is to complain that mutations aren’t really random, and any such notion is clearly erroneous. They don’t just happen willy-nilly but in fact reveal non random patterns both across the genome and across time.

But this is an equivocation on the word “random,” which is used with reference to something. When evolutionists speak of random mutations, they mean that the mutations are random with respect to the need of the organism. There is no plan or intelligence behind mutations—evolution has no final causes.

When questioned about their bizarre claim that the entire field of biology is a consequence of such Lucretian bloopers, their rebuttal that mutations actually aren’t random after all reveals how shallow is their thinking.

Evolutionists are the ones who claimed mutations are random (with respect to the need) and the fact that mutations are not random over space and time does not change that Epicurean claim. (By the way, this is yet another evolutionary expectation that turned out to be false. That became clear when the empirical evidence caught up with evolutionary speculation.)

Another response evolutionists give when questioned about their startling ideas of the power of random mutation and natural selection is to focus on the latter. Mutations may be random but evolution certainly is not, for selection pressure brings out the winners.

Of course this is false. Selection “pressure” is another evolutionary euphemism. The only thing Darwin’s natural selection can do is kill off the faulty or inferior designs—it does not induce helpful mutations to magically arise. All evolutionary creations must arise from those random mutations.

Yet another revealing response evolutionists give when queried about their heroic claims of random mutation and natural selection is to complain that such a query is nothing more than a strawman rendition of evolution.

Random mutations, after all, are only one of a great many evolutionary mechanisms. One professor has listed almost fifty different so-called “engines of variation” that work together to build biology’s wonders. How silly to think random mutation was the sole artist in Darwin’s montage.

For example, biological variation can arise from changes in the expression levels of genes, which in turn can arise from changes to sequences that control such expression levels, or changes to the protein machines that bind to those sequences. And there are far more involved examples, such as the various forms of symbiotic mechanisms. The professor concludes:

So, next time you hear or read a creationist or IDer cite "RM & NS" as the sole explanation for evolutionary change, point out to them and everyone else that there are at least 47 different sources of variation

But does this really rescue random mutation from its overachiever status? No. Once again the evolutionary logic has bubbled up to the surface for all to see. The most obvious problem here is simply that biology’s various engines of variation are, according to evolutionary mandate, ultimately the product of, yes, random mutation.

Of course RM/NS is the ultimate explanation for evolutionary change. The fact that biology reveals incredibly complex adaptive and physiological changes does not give evolutionists license to invoke them as evolutionary starting points, without reference to their own origin.

Indeed, with evolution what we must believe is that its blind mutations just happened to create phenomenal mechanisms which, themselves, not only are astonishingly complex but become crucial agents of evolutionary change. The heroics continue to mount at an astronomical pace as evolution, we must believe, creates evolution. If a toy bulldozer can dig through the Earth, then why not?

243 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Given enough time (20 million or so years) and enough flow, even something as soft as a Colorado River could carve out something as long and wide and deep as the Grand Canyon.

    Unless one considers the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

    So the kid was on to something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One can try to look intelligent by making claims that could never be proven.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent post. However, in Evolution theory, not only the mutations are random but also the selective pressure.
    It's a bit like a casino roulette game. The ideas that only mutation is random is like to put your money on a number, let say 9, and then to play until the ball fall on a 9. On the other hand, in reality, in evolution not only the mutations are random but the selective pressure too. In the casino roulette game, it's a bit like changing randomly numbers (from 1 to 10000 for example) and hoping to get the ball falling on the same number (even though the ball can only fall on numbers between 1 and 37).
    It's much much more unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like the comparison of evolution to the toy bulldozer,,, but don't you think you are being to generous even with a toy bulldozer as to what RM & NS can actually do in reality?

    notes:

    As former president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre P. Grasse has stated:

    “What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”

    Scientists Discover What Makes The Same Type Of Cells Different - Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: Until now, cell variability was simply called “noise”, implying statistical random distribution. However, the results of the study now show that the different reactions are not random, but that certain causes (environmental clues) lead to predictable distribution patterns,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911204217.htm

    Revisiting The Central Dogma (Of Evolution) In The 21st Century - James Shapiro - 2008
    Excerpt: Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome (not replication errors). (of interest - 12 methods of information transfer in the cell are noted in the paper) http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/

    Random Mutations Destroy Information - Perry Marshall - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023143

    Mutation Studies, Videos, And Quotes
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjZjZnM5M21mZg

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. "One response evolutionists give when confronted with their own extraordinary claims about random mutation and natural selection is to complain that mutations aren’t really random, and any such notion is clearly erroneous."
    -Which Evolutionist ever claimed that Mutations are not random ?
    Of course Mutations are random and I would be surprised to see even one Biologist claiming something different. How did you get such a strange idea ? Is it the existence of mutational hotspots ? (If so, read up on the definition of "randomness" - it does in no way imply a uniform distribution of events)
    Or is it the sometimes observed increased mutation rate under stress in certain organisms ? (If so, think again - the rate of mutations has nothing to do with Mutations being stochastic or deterministic events).

    And this sentence:
    "Of course this is false. Selection “pressure” is another evolutionary euphemism. The only thing Darwin’s natural selection can do is kill off the faulty or inferior designs—it does not induce helpful mutations to magically arise."
    is more than strange.... Could you please quote even one Biologist who ever argued that Natural selection helps beneficial mutations to *ARISE*.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Andreas: [Q]uote even one Evolutionist who ever argued that Natural selection helps beneficial mutations to *ARISE*.

    I had no trouble understanding what Dr. Hunter meant. The word "pressure" in selection pressure implies a cause and effect relationship. That is, there is a force in nature that causes mutations to occur, and maybe even certain kinds of mutations to occur.

    Obviously that is not the case, and that is why "selection pressure" is really a poor term to use.

    As I have read the evolutionary literature I have become acccustomed to the use of the active voice. None of it can be taken literally; it is merely a convenient way of expressing oneself.

    For example, "the only thing natural selection can do is kill off faulty or inferior designs."

    What does this literally say. There is an active force in nature that has the ability to detect faulty designs and kill the organism that possesses them. Is this really what happens?

    ReplyDelete
  10. David,

    The subject was the toy bulldozer, not water. We know that water is one of the most effective solvents known. You missed the point, but it shows how in your thinking you are able to jump from one to another without making distinctions. This kind of "jump thinking" for lack of a better term is unjustified and seems to be a common trait among evolutionists. What is needed is more critical and focused thinking to turn someone away from the evolutionary fairy tales.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tough questions an evolutionist needs to ask themselves:

    1. What do I really know for sure about evolution?

    2. What's the bottom line as far as what we actually have observed empirically about evolution?

    3. What is the contrary evidence?

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

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Doublee:
    "Obviously that is not the case, and that is why "selection pressure" is really a poor term to use."
    - Cornelius did not complain about "selection pressure" being a poor choice of words (which it might be). He wrote "...it does not induce helpful mutations to magically arise" which is something that no Evolutionist ever claimed.

    "What does this literally say. There is an active force in nature that has the ability to detect faulty designs and kill the organism that possesses them. Is this really what happens? "
    - Imagine a population of bacterial cells with some individuals being resistant to Penicillin. If Penicillin is present in the environment, those individuals that are resistant are much more likely to reproduce than the individuals that are not resistant - which causes the allele(s) mediating resistance to penicillin to spread in the population. Whether you call this process an "active force" (how would you define this term ?) or not is mere semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  14. List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

    Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore

    Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
    Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Neal "liar for Jesus" Tedford said...

    Tough questions an evolutionist needs to ask themselves:

    1. What do I really know for sure about evolution?


    That it happens, and has been happening for at least the last 3.3 billion years. Many if not most of the mechanisms of evolution are known, although there is still work to be done on specific details.

    2. What's the bottom line as far as what we actually have observed empirically about evolution?

    Bottom line is we have over 150+ years of cross correlating and corroborating positive evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines supporting evolution. As an explanatory framework for observed biological phenomena it has never been seriously challenged.

    3. What is the contrary evidence?

    There are plenty of possible ways to falsify ToE, but to date none have been found.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tough questions an evolutionist needs to ask themselves:
    1. What do I really know for sure about evolution?
    2. What's the bottom line as far as what we actually have observed empirically about evolution?
    3. What is the contrary evidence?


    Tough question Neal must ask himself,

    "If I am so confident that the theory of evolution is vacuous, why am I asking these "tough questions" on some obscure blog instead of confronting scientists at the university in my neighborhood?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great post Cornelius. This toy bulldozer idea of course leaves out things like gigantic subterranean granite boulders. Evolution likewise doesn't factor in bad mutations that aren't enough for selection to filter out but build up over time. The vast, vast majority of observed mutations bad. John Sanford compares the "good" mutations to bailing out a sinking boat with a Dixie cup.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution...

    "One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ..."

    "[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school"."

    —Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript.

    ReplyDelete
  19. you can get the audio transcript of the Patterson quote here:

    http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/audios/c010.htm

    ReplyDelete
  20. @bornagain77:
    I would always be careful with such quotes, see for example:
    http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/examine.htm

    Also, for the sake of fairness, lets consider what Mr. Patterson thinks about Creationists quoting him:
    "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
    I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal
    mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982)."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bornagain-

    You're quite fond of the worst kind of argument from authority: one that deliberately mis-quotes authorities who believe the opposite of the quotemine!

    You haven't apologized for the last egregious run of quotemined, falsely attributed, and in some cases, fully made up quotes you spewed out here, and I debunked. Do we really need to go through this again?

    "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,
    and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982)."

    http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/missquot.htm

    Are you ethically challenged?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oops, Andreas beat me to it.

    Add to add the ethical abuse, the creationists are now SELLING the audio transcript. Look at the bottom of BA's link. Turn a profit on a unethically obtained secret taping.

    You know in many states it is even illegal to tape without permission of all parties?

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is an interesting point. That is quite the contradiction. To use the word 'random mutation' is intentionally injecting dogma into science. i.e. 'random' = no need for design or a designer.

    I'm no scientist, but I am curious about another apparent contradiction. Life is resilient, and it springs up at every possible opportunity, in the most extreme and hostile environments. We are currently looking for water on the Moon and Mars to prove that there once was life. And NASA et al seem to think that once you have water - boom – LIFE wuz there. How does this not totally contradict the dominant paradigm? Evolutionists don't have biogenesis, but they claim they know the approximate conditions in which it happened all on its own. How can both of these things be true? How can in one hand we look for life by just looking for signs of water, and in another situation say you need all of these conditions to be juuuuuust right to make it spring out of nowhere?

    I'm sure I could frame my question better. Ultimately, this is a mine field for the evolutionist in my opinion. For an evolutionist to use life’s resilience as proof that we don’t need a creator is absurd. Life is pre-programmed to be resilient. It’s not randomly resilient.

    ReplyDelete
  24. To use the word 'random mutation' is intentionally injecting dogma into science. i.e. 'random' = no need for design or a designer."

    No. We observe the nucleotide changes are actually random. For example, we can sequence a gene of bacteria, or a human, through generations. We observe the accumulation of random changes. Some don't even change the amino acid sequence. So they appear random-hitting the genome at random positions, with measurable frequency.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And yet Patterson said the words denigrating evolution with full intent of the meaning behind it,,, i.e. it is a "in context" quote and is not misleading, though the wording is not exact to the transcript, so it seems you guys have merely agreed that the truth of the emptiness of evolutionary theory should be hidden under the rug and find it unethical that creationists would want to reveal the truth of the extreme vacuous nature of evolution.,,, Thus it seems that if a creationists says evolution is full of hot air you will simply ignore it because he is a ignorant "creationist", yet if a leading evolutionist is caught airing full blown doubt of evolution in front of a audience full of other leading evolutionists it is considered unethical because,,,because,,,because he did not want to be embarrassed for revealing the truth? How convenient for you guys to lecture me on ethics so as to preserve the lie/religion of evolution!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The entire field of biology is a consequence of such Lucretian bloopers"

    Lucretian blooper huh? De rerum natura? Are you arguing it is a fundamental error to even try to describe the universe in natural terms? Death to science, long live superstition?

    Funny, considering the other day you said:
    "There's nothing wrong with MN {methodological naturalism} in biology or any other area of science."

    What kind of methodological naturalism considers the supernatural? Isn't MN a Lucretian blooper?

    "Another response evolutionists give when questioned about their startling ideas of the power of random mutation and natural selection is to focus on the latter. Mutations may be random but evolution certainly is not, for selection pressure brings out the winners."

    You've got it!!! We observe the accumulation of mutations in the genome. They are random with respect to need. Their persistence in a population is not.

    "Of course this is false. Selection “pressure” is another evolutionary euphemism."

    Ehh? Euphemism? Pressure is perhaps a throw away word-selection suffices. Are you denying selection can and does occur?

    "The only thing Darwin’s natural selection can do is kill off the faulty or inferior designs..."

    Designs? Whose designs? How did you detect and quantify the design? Why are faulty or inferior designs generated to be killed off?

    If you mean selection will act to reduce or eliminate less favored alleles, you are correct. Evolution!

    "—it does not induce helpful mutations to magically arise. All evolutionary creations must arise from those random mutations."

    Yep. Who has claimed otherwise?

    So what we're left with is Cornelius's personal disbelief that random genetic variation plus natural selection is sufficient. There is no data, no empiricism, just his hunch. Random mutations are observed. Less favorable alleles are selected against. How then, is the converse-that more favorable alleles will be selected for even deniable?

    And his hunch has been disproved by experiments showing random variation plus selection generates products with novel functions, and by direct observation of evolution in progress.

    ReplyDelete
  27. RobertC:

    Randomly hitting the genome at random positions with measurable frequency sounds like a beautifuly designed mechanism. Would you take that farther and by implying that this mechanism in itself came about randomly?

    ReplyDelete
  28. you can trace bacteria evolving through time?
    .,,,To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

    The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637


    Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of change that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by verifying Dr. Vreeland's methodology was not introducing contamination:

    World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered (419 million years old) - Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. “We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had,” Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. “These six pieces were unique,,,
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-dna-bacteria-discovered.html


    These following studies by Dr. Cano preceded Vreeland's work:

    “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=281961


    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber
    Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution's "genetic drift" theory requires.)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/5213/1060


    30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD61439F93AA25756C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

    ReplyDelete
  29. cont.,,,

    Dr. Cano's work on ancient bacteria came in for intense scrutiny since it did not conform to Darwinian predictions. Yet Dr. Cano has been vindicated:

    “After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber."
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reductionist-predictions-always-fail/comment-page-3/#comment-357693

    In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the "Fitness Test" I had asked him about:
    Dr. Cano stated: "We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative "ancient" B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.":
    Fitness test which compared ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki

    Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria.

    ReplyDelete
  30. bornagain77 -

    I have no idea what the context was. The speaker said he was putting forth a case for discussion. I'm not paying $20 to the creationists who secretly taped him, and decided to turn a profit, to find out.

    All I have is his own words, that "In short the article does not fairly represent my views."

    "I do not support the creationist movement in any way."

    And last, most significantly for you:

    "The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument."

    You still haven't apologized for the outrageous and fabricated quotemines you were tossing around previously.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Randomly hitting the genome at random positions with measurable frequency sounds like a beautifuly designed mechanism."

    There's no actual mechanism-these are accidents, induced by UV, chemicals, oxidation, miscopying.

    And this "beautiful mechanism" plagues us.
    Cancer much?

    ReplyDelete
  32. RobertC

    Although I appreciate science, it's ability to completely suck the grandure and beauty out of life is astonishing. Thank you for making your point so very very clear.

    UV + chemicals + oxidation + miscopying = You... an accident.

    And how can you not call that a mechanism? A biological explanation of how a feature is created is EXACTLY that... a mechanism. Whatever. You can have the word. It's just a word.

    To say that this non-mechanism 'plagues us' seems narrow-minded considering it's your entire explanation for all existence of life (including your own).

    Try thinking abstractly for a second. A + B + C + D + Accidents = Life As We Know it. Just because accidents are part of the equation, it doesn't mean that the global function of that equation is an accident. Take B or C out, and you're up the creek. Thank God for B & C!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mechanism, process, whatever. My point is that it isn't a single process that has any recognizable feature of design-and has extremely unfortunate effects like cancer.

    "Just because accidents are part of the equation, it doesn't mean that the global function of that equation is an accident."

    I think you've basically summed up theistic evolution. Maybe one could believe life is intelligently designed to evolve. It would then be the burden of ID to show how that belief could ever translate into science, and why we would dispense with theism-neutral scientific evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  34. RobertC

    I feel you have just proved my original assertion. The term 'random', although it's roots describe the actual process of mutations, the implied dogma is that it's all an accident.

    ReplyDelete
  35. RobertC

    I think that the 'burden' lies more with Evolutionists. Proving the existence of God with Science is a silly notion. Science requires that you measure test and prove it. Since science is the Evolutionists god (cheesy I know), then you have to use science to disprove... i.e. conclude that life exists completely on its own. You don't have bio-genesis yet. You've got some work to do.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The term 'random', although it's roots describe the actual process of mutations, the implied dogma is that it's all an accident."

    So we can't use an accurate term to describe the science, because you mistake it for a dogmatic take on the meaning of life? Wow.

    "Since science is the Evolutionists god (cheesy I know), then you have to use science to disprove... i.e. conclude that life exists completely on its own. "

    You seem to think it is the goal of science to disprove god? This is silly. Many evolutionists are religious, and many religious people accept evolution. God might end up seeming somewhat superfluous as science's investigation into nature proceeds, but that is religion's problem, and not science's.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Robert C,,, lets see you are promoting a theory that only survives by the sheer deceptiveness of its adherents and you want me to apologize???? You have got to be kidding!!! Robert I have been called just about every name in the book by neo-Darwinists, have even been threatened with death by a couple of times, Yet I have never even seen so much as a sniffle of remorse from any of your comrades,, As well, I have consistently presented evidence that shows evolution to be false, yet neo-Darwinists never even engage the evidence when it gets hot and heavy, they just hide in obfuscation or play meaningless games as you are doing right now. As far as I can It never is about the evidence with neo-Darwinists but always about protecting their atheistic religion no matter what lie they have to tell.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ba77 wrote:
    "As well, I have consistently presented evidence that shows evolution to be false,…"

    You've cut and pasted quotes. The evidence is in the figures and tables of the primary literature, but you don't even look at those.

    "... yet neo-Darwinists never even engage the evidence when it gets hot and heavy, they just hide in obfuscation or play meaningless games as you are doing right now."

    Who produces the evidence, ba? Our side or yours?

    "As far as I can It never is about the evidence with neo-Darwinists but always about protecting their atheistic religion no matter what lie they have to tell."

    Yet the neo-Darwinists produce the evidence, while your side produces nothing but rhetoric. Project much?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Smokey states:
    "You've cut and pasted quotes. The evidence is in the figures and tables of the primary literature, but you don't even look at those."

    wrong and obfuscation

    "Who produces the evidence, ba? Our side or yours?"

    I didn't know truth had a side

    "Yet the neo-Darwinists produce the evidence, while your side produces nothing but rhetoric. Project much?"

    Wrong, neo-Darwinists force feed the evidence into their twisted atheistic worldview which in due time will be taught in history classes as a prime example of propaganda driven science. i.e. rhetoric!

    ReplyDelete
  40. here are some more quotes for you to deny the validity of:

    “But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information… All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
    Lee Spetner - Ph.D. Physics - MIT - Not By Chance

    "Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.” Sanford: Genetic Entropy

    “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations leads to speciation.”
    Lynn Margulis - Acquiring Genomes [2003], p. 29.


    Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? (Thomas Bataillon)
    Abstract......It is argued that, although most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favourable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate.
    http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v84/n5/full/6887270a.htm

    ReplyDelete
  41. Neo-darwinian-driven science is IDs best friend. Keep peeling and you'll keep finding layer after layer of embedded information and intelligence-mechanisms. It can be fruitful science, even if it is wrong in its underlying assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  42. bornagain77:

    Not being a biologist, I thought it would be instructive (for me) to evaluate one of your references a little. Taking:

    “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations leads to speciation.”
    Lynn Margulis - Acquiring Genomes [2003], p. 29.


    I found the book and the following description:

    How do new species evolve? Although Darwin identified inherited variation as the creative force in evolution, he never formally speculated where it comes from. His successors thought that new species arise from the gradual accumulation of random mutations of DNA. But despite its acceptance in every major textbook, there is no documented instance of it. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan take a radically new approach to this question. They show that speciation events are not, in fact, rare or hard to observe. Genomes are acquired by infection, by feeding, and by other ecological associations, and then inherited. Acquiring Genomes is the first work to integrate and analyze the overwhelming mass of evidence for the role of bacterial and other symbioses in the creation of plant and animal diversity. It provides the most powerful explanation of speciation yet given.


    I see nothing here supporting ID. In fact, phrases like "They show that speciation events are not, in fact, rare or hard to observe." directly oppose the ID view that speciation requires special assistance from a designer. The last sentence "It provides the most powerful explanation of speciation yet given" is a direct challenge to ID.

    Further reading on Margulis includes descriptions of how her work has become a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

    And yet you provide this to support your position? Very odd.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Let's take Margulis's symbiotic speciation one step further, since symbiosis was "speculative" in the first place so as to replace the complete failure of random mutations to produce information, (why does the failure of random mutations to produce information not interest you?) and Let's just see what the actual empirical evidence says about symbiosis at the most basic level Mike:

    Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors - July 2010
    Excerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.... There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100712b

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thus Mike, I will take her observations on random mutations and call her bluff on symbiosis!

    ReplyDelete
  45. bornagain77:

    Thus Mike, I will take her observations on random mutations and call her bluff on symbiosis!

    Ok. So let's say you are correct and Margulis is wrong. How does this say anything about ID?

    There is a certain amount of irony in this discussion. In many respects, ID has a symbiotic relationship with evolution - without any direct evidence of a designer, ID is forced to depend on finding weaknesses in evolution to advance its case. While a gap in our understanding of evolution says little or nothing about the validity of ID, it can be made to appear that way; this is primarily due to the success of evolution in absorbing or superseding other naturalistic explanations so that no other naturalistic options seem plausible.

    In that sense, ID has something of a parasitic relationship with evolution - it depends on the strength of that which it wishes to destroy.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mike:

    The primary strengh of ID, IMHO, is the fact that organism look like they were designed. If I compare a cell to something I know was nit designed, like a rock, and something that was designed, like a car, the cell looks more like the thing that was designed.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mike you state,

    ID has a symbiotic relationship with evolution - without any direct evidence of a designer,

    well I beg to differ. if anything has a symbiotic relationship with anything else in this deal, evolution is parasitic dependence on Theism and the ordered structure of science that the Theistic philosophy itself has founded! As well, the actions of Quantum Mechanics, which blatantly defy our concepts of time and space, gives direct evidence of a cause which is completely transcendent of time and space and thus completely undermines the materialistic presupposition of a "local reality" upon which evolution is built. Thus in complete truth of the matter, evolution has no direct evidence for the material entity that it presupposes to be the basis of its reality whereas Theism does have direct evidence of a transcendent cause for reality! As well as Dr. Hunter repeatedly points out evolutionists continually ignore overwhelming evidence for design by appealing to Theistic arguments. i.e. they say "God would not have done such and such that way". So Mike tell me exactly how evolution is not being parasitic in its form of argumentation here?

    ReplyDelete
  48. bornagain77,

    They're called quote-mines, because when you took the quote out of context, you changed the author's intended meaning.

    An appeal to authority is valid when

    * The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
    * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
    * The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
    * There is adequate consensus among authorities in the field and the authority is presenting that consensus.
    * There is no evidence of undue bias.
    (The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.)

    Your cite to authority failed because you simply haven't properly represented the views of the scientists you quoted, that the consensus view is, from your omission, "speciation events are not, in fact, rare or hard to observe."

    ReplyDelete
  49. bornagain77: As well, the actions of Quantum Mechanics, which blatantly defy our concepts of time and space, gives direct evidence of a cause which is completely transcendent of time and space and thus completely undermines the materialistic presupposition of a "local reality" upon which evolution is built.

    We can directly observe many of the mechanisms of evolution and can show that "local realism" is sufficient to explain complex adaptation. We can't show a monolith didn't tamper with the course of hominid evolution, but there is no scientific evidence to support that, or any similar supposition.

    ReplyDelete
  50. bornagain77 wrote: As well, the actions of Quantum Mechanics, which blatantly defy our concepts of time and space, gives direct evidence of a cause which is completely transcendent of time and space and thus completely undermines the materialistic presupposition of a "local reality" upon which evolution is built.

    Don't spout nonsense. Quantum mechanics does not defy concepts of space and time. Paradoxes arise from naive attempts to reduce quantum physics to classical concepts. But quantum mechanics respects the fundamental principles of physics like causality, Lorentz invariance and conservation laws.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Cornelius,

    The bulldozer is a very apt metaphor as you bulldoze through the inane rational for evolution. Nobody does it quite as good as you.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  52. ba77: As well as Dr. Hunter repeatedly points out evolutionists continually ignore overwhelming evidence for design by appealing to Theistic arguments. i.e. they say "God would not have done such and such that way".

    This is, of course, a specious argument. If adaptation construed as evidence for conscious "design" is a scientific argument, then the counterargument, citing evidence of poor, clumsy, and nonsensical constructions as evidence that life is not the result of conscious design is also scientific. Hunter and his ilk cannot have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  53. John: If adaptation construed as evidence for conscious "design" is a scientific argument, then the counterargument, citing evidence of poor, clumsy, and nonsensical constructions as evidence that life is not the result of conscious design is also scientific.

    The scientific argument is that a designer is an extraneous entity for explaining biological patterns such as the nested hierarchy, which have simple and well-tested natural explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  54. John:

    ID Proponents are not trying to have it both ways. They address the problems of bad design. It's just that no one can really say just what an omniscient designer would or would not do.

    ReplyDelete
  55. oleg, once again I remind you that perhaps you would like to write Alain Aspect, so as to correct him, since you think you know so much more than he does as to the complete failure of materialism, as it has been classically understood, to explain reality.

    The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4744145/

    ReplyDelete
  56. John you say in response to this:

    evolutionists argue God would not have done such and such that way".

    you state this

    "This is, of course, a specious argument."

    That is very humorous, please come forward with this "truth" of yours the next time a evolutionist tells me that the miracle of my eyesight actually evolved because God would not have designed the inverted retina and not because of any actual observational evidence he can present for eyes evolving.

    Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
    Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010)
    Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-ken-miller-is-right-about-our-backward-retina/#comment-354274

    "Evolution" gave flawed eye better vision
    Excerpt: IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. ,,, Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages. At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and "noise" that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157


    Moreover, the vestigial organ argument, like the "Junk DNA argument, is basically the "Bad Design" argument which is used by evolutionists. A argument that quickly leaves the field of empirical science and enters squarely into the field of Philosophical debate.

    Refuting The Myth Of "Bad Design" vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg

    ReplyDelete
  57. natschuster said...

    Mike:

    The primary strengh of ID, IMHO, is the fact that organism look like they were designed. If I compare a cell to something I know was nit designed, like a rock, and something that was designed, like a car, the cell looks more like the thing that was designed.


    That something merely "looks designed" is about a subjective and unscientific way for making your case as can be. Fluffy clouds can sometimes look like cars, houses, etc. but that doesn't make the clouds designed. And suppose what "looks designed" to you doesn't look designed to most everyone else? How do you decide who is right?

    Another big problem with your logic is the how superficially the "looks designed" applies. Once you get down to examining the details, cells and cars are nothing at all alike.

    What IDCers need to do, and have never done, is to come up with an objective way for determining their claimed designs in living organisms. So they just keep riding the personal incredulity train and wondering why science ignores their fact-free claims.

    ReplyDelete
  58. ba77,

    I have already told you that local realism has nothing to do with philosophy, so don't equate it with materialism. You don't know what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  59. natschuster said...

    John:

    ID Proponents are not trying to have it both ways. They address the problems of bad design. It's just that no one can really say just what an omniscient designer would or would not do.


    BINGO! That's why IDC isn't science. ToE explains quite well and gives logical, supported with evidence reasons for why we see the kluged together biological functions we do. The IDC handwave "the Designed works in mysterious ways" explains nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. oleg you say,

    "You don't know what you are talking about."

    but of course just dismiss me,,, I am a ignorant hick bumpkin creationist am I not.

    Yet regardless of what you may think of my mental capacity, or lack thereof, or my grasp on QM for that matter, methinks you are much to easily impressed with your own intelligence on the QM matter so as to deceive yourself into thinking Quantum Mechanics does not completely overthrow classical materialistic thought:

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.
    http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm

    ReplyDelete
  61. Wrong, neo-Darwinists force feed the evidence into their twisted atheistic worldview which in due time will be taught in history classes as a prime example of propaganda driven science. i.e. rhetoric!

    Ba77, this is an Area 51 argument, dangerously close to conspiracy mongering.

    Refuting The Myth Of "Bad Design" vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg


    It's fun to josh with creationists. For years the creationists would insist on the miraculousness of some organelle or process, unmindful of the utter uselessness of such posturing, and their lack of scientific merit. When the science advocate turned the tables by pointing out the flaws in certain human structures, the creationists flipped to claim that bad design does not mean absence of design. Enter the likes of preachers like Craig (who have zero scientific credentials, zero scientific accomplishments, and zero scientific capabilities) who find the ground suddenly slipping, and come up with a rejoinder of how the "bad design" actually is "good design"! So then Ba77 what is it? Is it good design or bad design? We know what it is of course, it is no design. Because the term design is not even worthy of being a placeholder, it is an empty and useless term, outside the context of what we use everyday. The design nonsense is not even an invention of the neo-creationists (aka IDs). They plagiarised it (without acknowledgment) from the paleo-creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  62. so ibeck, please tell me exactly how many vestigial organs you still believe in and please tell me exactly what percentage of junk DNA do you still believe in, and please tell me if you still believe the inverted retina to be a prime example of "bad design"

    Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
    Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010)
    Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-ken-miller-is-right-about-our-backward-retina/#comment-354274

    "Evolution" gave flawed eye better vision
    Excerpt: IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. ,,, Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages. At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and "noise" that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157

    ReplyDelete
  63. ibeck let me show you a "area 51" argument:

    Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein - The UFO Interview - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259

    ReplyDelete
  64. ba77,

    Bruce Gordon goes off the rails when he writes this: When such local variables are introduced, the predictions of the modified theory differ from those of quantum mechanics. A series of experiments beginning with those conducted by Alain Aspect at the University of Paris in the 1980s has demonstrated quite conclusively that quantum theory, not some theory modified by local hidden parameters, generates the correct predictions. The physical world, therefore, is fundamentally nonlocal and permeated with instantaneous connections and correlations.

    That simply does not follow. Quantum mechanics is an explicitly local theory. It's attempts to reduce it to classical physics that make it nonlocal. Don't try to square the circle and everything will be all right. Quantum mechanics is not reducible to classical. The physical world exhibits locality and causality, it's just not classical.

    ReplyDelete
  65. bornagain77: many vestigial organs you still believe in

    Vestigiality doesn't mean the structure doesn't have a function.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Peter said...

    Cornelius,

    The bulldozer is a very apt metaphor as you bulldoze through the inane rational for evolution. Nobody does it quite as good as you.


    You got the 'bull' part right anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  67. bornagain77 said...

    so ibeck, please tell me exactly how many vestigial organs you still believe in


    BA77, what does the word vestigial mean to you?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thorton,

    "You got the 'bull' part right anyway..."

    That's hilarious considering the extreme claim of evolution to explain all biological life in contrast to the complete lack of scientific proof.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  69. oleg, since finite "local" reality in fact arises from the infinite non-local world of QM, as is clearly demonstrated by Aspect though you refuse to see it, your attempts to separate the two worlds just so as to preserve your "local" thinking of materialism is vain. And I might add you unreasonableness is another shining example of materialistic thought impeding true scientific progress, at least for those who dogmatically cling to a materialistic/atheistic worldview in spite of the evidence screaming otherwise.

    notes:

    The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

    "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
    Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - (Of Note: Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every founder of each major branch of modern science also had a deep Christian connection.)

    ReplyDelete
  70. Like junk DNA of today for many years materialists predicted much of human anatomy was vestigial. Yet once again, they were proven completely wrong in this prediction.

    “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff


    For a prime example of evolution's failed predictions of vestigial organs, recently in October 2007, the appendix has been found to have essential purpose in the human body:

    Appendix has purpose:
    Excerpt: "The appendix acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker.
    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists:_appendix_has_purpose

    ReplyDelete
  71. Peter said...

    Thorton,

    "You got the 'bull' part right anyway..."

    That's hilarious considering the extreme claim of evolution to explain all biological life in contrast to the complete lack of scientific proof.


    LOL! Science doesn't provide proof. Science provides evidence.

    There are thousand of colleges, universities, libraries, natural history museums, genetic laboratories, biotech companies, etc. in the world where the evidence may be seen. There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific journals publishing newly discovered evidence every day. There are any number of good sites on line like here where you can get an overview of this evidence, or you could study the primary scientific literature directly. But you'll never cure your willful ignorance until you decide to look and learn.

    ReplyDelete
  72. ba77 wrote: oleg, since finite "local" reality in fact arises from the infinite non-local world of QM, as is clearly demonstrated by Aspect though you refuse to see it

    This is gibberish. Don't tell me what Aspect has done, I know that well enough. Learn some quantum mechanics yourself. (I'm not holding my breath.)

    ReplyDelete
  73. bornagain77 said...

    For a prime example of evolution's failed predictions of vestigial organs, recently in October 2007, the appendix has been found to have essential purpose in the human body:


    Hey BA77, vestigial doesn't mean "has no purpose". Vestigial means having lost or been modified from its original function.

    When you IDiots can't even get the simple scientific meaning of a term right, why are you surprised that science doesn't take your critiques seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Andreas: If Penicillin is present in the environment, those individuals that are resistant are much more likely to reproduce than the individuals that are not resistant - which causes the allele(s) mediating resistance to penicillin to spread in the population. Whether you call this process an "active force" (how would you define this term ?) or not is mere semantics.

    I am not quite sure what to make of bacteria developing resistance to penicillin. The fact that such experiments end up with the same results time after time suggests something more than true randomness.

    In this case, the term "selection pressure" (maybe "selection factor" is a better term) is in a loose sense applicable. There appears to be a cause and effect relationship.

    What about macroevolutionary events or seqeunces? What are the environmental pressures or factors that cause the major morphological trasformations evidenced in the evolution of the whale for example?

    If you could run a multi-million year experiment, what environmental variables would you change to effect the land mammal to whale tranformation? This would be like a giant anti-bacterial resistance experiment. Or would it?

    If Gould is correct (if you replayed the tape of history...), your hypothetical experiment would not have the same outcome as what is observed in the fossil record.

    About the only thing such an experiment would demonstrate is the mutations, indeed, do not "magically arise."

    ReplyDelete
  75. ibeck let me show you a "area 51" argument:
    Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein - The UFO Interview - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259


    Richard doesn't debate creationists and quacks, so that's not Ben Whine debating Dawkins. It is simply a cut-and-paste. If you want to debate Dawkins present yourself at one of his lectures and talk to him. Don't use cat's paws like Ben Whine.

    Dr.Henry or for that matter Dr. Planck's assertions are only as valid as their evidence. In neither case have they offered any evidence for mind/consciousness etc., not even some pseudomathematical "proof" (obviously they valued their discipline far, far, higher than did Swell). And besides Planck was simply channeling a Cliff Notes version of Advaita Vedanta which was popular in Germany for over a 100 years by Planck's time.

    And since this is quote time, some quotes from Einstein

    To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.
    I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it...I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism...A man's moral worth is not measured by what his religious beliefs are but rather by what emotional impulses he has received from Nature during his lifetime...My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God

    ReplyDelete
  76. And yet, though Einstein was overturned in his materialistic based steady state postulation for the age of the universe, and his hidden variable postulation for quantum mechanics, you are going to trust his "intuitions" over the evidence? How special to look so blindly at what you only want to see. Myself I call that denialism.

    ReplyDelete
  77. oleg, though Aspect is crystal clear that local realism is falsified, you deny this and pretend that you know better. In fact you state completely contrary to Aspect:

    "Quantum mechanics is an explicitly local theory."

    What's more you consider yourself so much wiser than anything anyone else says contrary to your "local" materialistic worldview that you consider them ignorant, no matter what position they hold, and yourself superior. Go on with your fantasies if it comforts you, but don't expect me to join you in your delusions!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Thorton, since you think vestigial has always meant "having partial function" why don't you go back and erase all those needless tonsil, tailbone, appendix, etc.. etc.. removals that mutilated millions

    ReplyDelete
  79. ba77 wrote: leg, though Aspect is crystal clear that local realism is falsified, you deny this and pretend that you know better. In fact you state completely contrary to Aspect:

    ba, you can't even comprehend what I am saying. Of course local realism has been falsified. It's a specific set of ideas that is different from locality principles obeyed by the quantum field theory (the relativistic version of quantum mechanics). Local realism tries to blame quantum indeterminacy on the existence of local classical variables. That has been disproved. Locality of QFT remains valid.

    ReplyDelete
  80. oleg you state,

    "Of course local realism has been falsified."

    thus oleg materialism, as it has been classically defined to an "atom" through the centuries, is falsified.

    Materialism has had to undergo dramatic revision to account for this ,,,MWI, yet evolutionists act as if they are dealing strictly with Newtonian physics, save for Koonin here:

    I like this following paper for though it is materialistic in its outlook at least Eugene Koonin, unlike many materialists, is brutally honest with the evidence we now have.

    The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background:
    "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable;
    http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21


    Biological Big Bangs - Origin Of Life and Cambrian - Dr. Fazale Rana - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284466

    It should be noted that Koonin tries to account for the origination of the massive amounts of functional information, required for the Cambrian Explosion, and other “explosions”, by trying to access an “unelucidated and undirected” mechanism of Quantum Mechanics called ‘Many Worlds’. Besides Koonin ignoring the fact that Quantum Events, on a whole, are strictly restricted to the transcendent universal laws/constants of the universe, including, and especially, the second law of thermodynamics, for as far back in time in the universe as we can see, it is also fair to note, in criticism to Koonin’s scenario, that appealing to the undirected infinite probabilistic resource, of the quantum mechanics of the Many Worlds scenario, actually greatly increases the amount of totally chaotic information one would expect to see generated “randomly” in the fossil record. In fact the Many Worlds scenario actually greatly increases the likelihood we would witness total chaos surrounding us:

    The Absurdity Of The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - Last 5 minutes of this video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784630

    Though Koonin is correct to recognize that the infinite probabilistic resource of “Quantum Mechanical information waves” does not absolutely preclude the sudden appearance of massive amounts of functional information in the fossil record he is very incorrect to disregard the “Logos” of John 1:1 needed to correctly specify the “controlled mechanism of implementation” for the massive amounts of complex functional and specified information witnessed abruptly and mysteriously appearing in the fossil record. i.e. he must sufficiently account for the “cause” for the “effect” he wants to explain.

    ReplyDelete
  81. ba77 wrote: oleg you state,

    "Of course local realism has been falsified."

    thus oleg materialism, as it has been classically defined to an "atom" through the centuries, is falsified.


    LOL. You don't even know what local realism is. Find out, my friend, then come back.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htm

    “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook

    Ontological Argument Against Many Worlds - William Lane Craig - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641

    Atheism In Crisis - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4227733

    ReplyDelete
  83. oleg since you can't defend yourself you revert back to condescension?

    ReplyDelete
  84. bornagain77: ... since you think vestigial has always meant "having partial function" ...

    Darwin: An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.

    ReplyDelete
  85. oleg it is funny you think you got all this figured out,,, yet this one question that you deny is even a question keeps bugging me,,, I would really appreciate it if you would tell me exactly what entity is instantaneously entangling the particles now that hidden variables are refuted. i.e. since you are so smart please tell me exactly what is the name of the entity that is the "cause" of the "spooky action at a distance"

    ReplyDelete
  86. ba77 wrote: oleg it is funny you think you got all this figured out,,, yet this one question that you deny is even a question keeps bugging me,,, I would really appreciate it if you would tell me exactly what entity is instantaneously entangling the particles now that hidden variables are refuted. i.e. since you are so smart please tell me exactly what is the name of the entity that is the "cause" of the "spooky action at a distance"

    ba, I have already answered that question. There is no need to entangle those particles right after the measurement: they were already entangled. Can't you read?

    ReplyDelete
  87. oleg, Oh I get it now oleg, they are entangled not by hidden variables but by??? but by??? but by??? they were entangled because they were entangled until they weren't entangled!!! Whew what a relief,,, I guess I was just lost in my ole bumpkin ways there oleg, hope you don't mind me pestering you,,, well I will leave you alone now as I got to go hunt my dinner for lunch up in the holler

    ReplyDelete
  88. Yes, my ole bumpkin, photons in Aspect-type experiments are produced in an already entangled state.

    Typically, experimentalists use nonlinear optics to convert single photons into pairs of photons in such a way that polarizations of the two photons are interdependent. A pair is emitted in a state where one photon is polarized vertically, the other horizontally, or the other way around. Crucially, we do not know which one has which polarization. That is called an entangled state. Read the description of any such experiment.

    So the entangled state is there from the start. There is no need to create the entanglement at the point of measurement.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Zachirel said:
    "Vestigiality doesn't mean the structure doesn't have a function."

    So, wich is the definition of vestigiality?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Here is an experimental paper that you might choose to read, ba77.
    S. Gröblacher et al., "An experimental test of non-local realism," Nature 446, 871 (2007). doi:10.1038/nature05677.

    Alan Aspect wrote a News & Views piece on it:
    A. Aspect, "Quantum mechanics: To be or not to be local," Nature 446, 866 (2007). doi:10.1038/446866a

    Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Blas said...

    Zachirel said:
    "Vestigiality doesn't mean the structure doesn't have a function."

    So, wich is the definition of vestigiality?


    From Biology-Online:

    vestigial:
    refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.

    Vestigial doesn't mean "useless." Exactly as I previously stated, it means means having lost or been modified from its original function. Why can't IDC boneheads figure out a simple definition?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Thorton

    "LOL! Science doesn't provide proof. Science provides evidence."

    Typical delusional obfuscation. Science doesn't supply proof? Who is supplying the bull now. Ever heard of experimental proof. Of course you wouldn't because evolution has none. Every other experimental science requires it. But the bull in evolution requires that you ignore this fact. This is just another recurring refrain from the delusional evolutionists. Cornelius mentioned the other - ignoring their own claim of randomness to build enormously complex systems. To verify a scientific claim you need proof. Evolution has none. At least you are honest on that point. No one believes that the earth is flat because it has been proven by photographs from space. Most non-delusional people do not believe in evolution because there is no proof and the claim of evolution to create complex systems from random chance is ludicrous.

    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  93. Peter said...

    Thorton

    "LOL! Science doesn't provide proof. Science provides evidence."

    Typical delusional obfuscation.


    LOL! Another IDiot who doesn't understand the first thing about how science operates.

    Did you bother looking at the overview of the evidence I provided? Or are you just another blustering fool who thinks he already knows everything?

    That was a rhetorical question by BTW. You've already provided the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Thorton: "Vestigial doesn't mean "useless." Exactly as I previously stated, it means means having lost or been modified from its original function. Why can't IDC boneheads figure out a simple definition? "

    Because according your definition the concept of vestigial organ is useless. The organ have no function, the same function or a diferent function ¿Do you have another option to add in order to clarify the concept?
    So vestigial organ is anything smaller than the supposed original.

    ReplyDelete
  95. ba77, Fazale Rana is the same as Craig - zero science credentials/accomplishments/capability. Penrose isn't a player of the current study of cosmology. That calculation which you showed is about all there is to his arguments. Unless Penrose has any evidence or calculation to support his assertion on the probability of multiverses or what should happen in our universe, his arguments are worthless. Which is why his deliberations are to be found in paperbacks and not scientific literature.
    ba77 - FAIL! Gregg Easterbrook is a non-serious crackpot theory columnist, and while you are it, you might as well quote other deep intellects such as Madonna, Deepak Chopra and Britney Spears.

    Material is all there is. There isn't a bit of evidence for anything beyond, we know it, that's why you aren't producing any. There is absolutely nothing to contradict materialism. Far from being refuted, materialism rules and dominates. Scientists are free to go about their work without a care, whether they are theists or free thinkers or humanists or agnostics or whatever. That is why academia has a place for Ken Miller as well as a PZ Myers or Victor Stenger, and Vilayanur Ramachandran - their credibility rests on their credentials, achievements and capabilities. That is why academia has no place for a Jon Wells or Dembski or Caroline Crocker or Guillermo Gonzalez - they may have graduate science credentials but have no accomplishments or capabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Robert Wiedersheim was a 19th century German anatomist who was famous for publishing a list of 86 “vestigial organs” in his book 'The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History

    All the vestigial organs he listed have been discovered by medical science to have fundamental uses or simply act as a backup or complement the function of other organs.

    What is a vestigal organ then? It is an artificial label applied by Evolutionists based purely on ignorance of function and speculation of common descent fairy tales.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Blas said...

    Thorton: "Vestigial doesn't mean "useless." Exactly as I previously stated, it means means having lost or been modified from its original function. Why can't IDC boneheads figure out a simple definition? "

    Because according your definition the
    concept of vestigial organ is useless. The organ have no function, the same function or a diferent function.


    NO not the same functionality as before, reduced or modified function.

    Can't any of you IDC nitwits read for comprehension?

    What part of modified from its original function don't you understand?

    What part of reduced or altered function don't you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Neal "liar for Jesus" Tedford said...

    All the vestigial organs he listed have been discovered by medical science to have fundamental uses or simply act as a backup or complement the function of other organs.


    Vestigial still doesn't mean useless you idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Thorton said: "What part of modified from its original function don't you understand?

    What part of reduced or altered function don't you understand? "

    And how much "less function" made an organ a vestigial organ? Which is the unit measure for "function quantity"?
    And when and altered function make a "vestigial organ" and not "another organ" or an "evolved organ"?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Thorton:

    Organisms have exquisite little functioning nanomachines with purposeful integration of parts. In that way, they resemble machines. Now, we know that a machine requires more than the laws of nature to make it, it requires intelligent intervention. The question is whether the nanomachines in organisms could have been made without intelligent intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  101. IF vestigal organs can still serve a purpose how are they evidence for evolution? Is it because a designer would perfer to use a completely new part to serve a different purpose? Why?

    ReplyDelete
  102. ibeck, wow we must be so lucky to be in just the right universe, out of countless gazillions of universes out there, where the bizarre things we would expect to happen if Many World's Interpretation were true don't actually happen. Whew thank God for that!!!

    The ontological argument. Anselm's famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

    1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
    4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
    5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
    6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
    7. Therefore, God exists.

    Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4

    ReplyDelete
  103. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    Organisms have exquisite little functioning nanomachines with purposeful integration of parts.


    Only if you use the broadest possible definition of 'machine' to mean any structure that converts energy to mechanical work.


    In that way, they resemble machines.

    Now you're going with the a very specific definition of human built machines. That's equivocation, and it's quite intellectually dishonest.

    Now, we know that a machine requires more than the laws of nature to make it, it requires intelligent intervention.

    We know it for human designed machines only, not the broader definition of structures found in nature.

    The question is whether the nanomachines in organisms could have been made without intelligent intervention.

    Every piece of evidence we have to date says no intelligent intervention was required.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Nat, check out a good library online. Enter [vestigial organ] in the search field. Read every article you can list. Or else read Ken Miller's high school books and follow up with the relevant references. This is weighty stuff, not flim-flam written in tracts and pamphlets or delivered to unlettered mobs or some screed on a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  105. natschuster said...

    IF vestigal organs can still serve a purpose how are they evidence for evolution? Is it because a designer would perfer to use a completely new part to serve a different purpose? Why?


    Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because they dovetail perfectly with and corroborate all the other positive evidence for common descent.

    One thing I've noticed about IDC buffoons is that they just don't understand you can't look at each piece of evidence separately, you have to consider how all the pieces fit together in the big picture. It's called scientific consilience, and it matters big time.

    IDCers try to look at each bit of evidence in a vacuum, and come up with some ad hoc hand wave for each. They'll come up with lame excuse A for one piece of evidence, lame excuse B for another piece that directly contradicts A, lame excuse C for a third piece that directly contradicts both A and B.

    Vestigial organs are exactly like that. Take the vestigial eyes in sightless cave fish and cave insects. ToE has an explanation for how they got that way. Sighted fish and insects colonized the cave niche thousands or tens of thousands of years ago. In that environment eyes were a large energy expense that no longer provided any fitness benefit, so through genetic variation filtered by selection they gradually evolved into being non-functional. The estimated timelines for such changes matches the genetic evidence, and it matches the geological timeline evidence for cave formation. The pieces fit together in one coherent story.

    All we get from the IDC goobers is "well, the mysterious Designer put nonfunctional eyes in the fish for reasons we don't understand". That's not an explanation for anything, it's the most pathetic excuses for not caring about the science.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Thorton (Norton),

    "LOL! Another IDiot who doesn't understand the first thing about how science operates."

    No evidence so you have to resort to ad hominens. How typical of a person who's words are hollow. Yell louder and maybe you can drown out the truth. Face it, your secular worldview is unsupportable. Try as you might, you can not successfully argue that there is no God because in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  107. ba77:

    "1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
    4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
    5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
    6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
    7. Therefore, God exists."

    The silly stuff theologians come up with. What is the definition of great? How is a maximum of greatness defined? Can we haz some precision?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Peter said...

    Thorton (Norton),

    "LOL! Another IDiot who doesn't understand the first thing about how science operates."

    No evidence so you have to resort to ad hominens.


    Above I linked you to a wonderful site with a great overview of the evidence. Here's another from the U. of California / Berkeley

    Evidence for Evolution

    Not my problem if you're too lazy to read it and prefer to live in your ignorant little Fundy world.

    Try as you might, you can not successfully argue that there is no God because in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Better ixnay on the Odgay thing. ID is suppose to not be about religion, remember? I'd hate to see you get into trouble by forgetting to spout the approved party line.

    ReplyDelete
  109. When Dr Hunter says:
    Of course RM/NS is the ultimate explanation for evolutionary change. The fact that biology reveals incredibly complex adaptive and physiological changes does not give evolutionists license to invoke them as evolutionary starting points, without reference to their own origin.

    He is speaking at odds with Margulis, Shapiro, et al. (Picking Margulis and Shapiro because they are on BA^77's quotemine list.)

    The huge number of bridge hands isn't due to mutation changing a four of clubs into a seven of hearts. It is due to shuffling.

    Evolution is an abstract set of ideas, and can be proven to lead in certain directions in the abstract.

    Try science, Cornelius. You might find the change refreshing.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Cornelius tried science. He's just not very good at it. Three papers, not much cited. I wonder if he even wrote them himself.

    ReplyDelete
  111. BA^77,
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

    What rules of deduction is Craig inventing to come up with these? They would also apply to the maximally evil being, right? The maximally blue being? The maximally _me_ being? It is nice to know that I exist in every possible universe!

    ReplyDelete
  112. Thorton said: "The pieces fit together in one coherent story."

    "Vestigial still doesn't mean useless you idiot. "

    " they gradually evolved into being non-functional."

    I think you have to try to make more coherent your story

    ReplyDelete
  113. troy said...
    Cornelius tried science. He's just not very good at it. Three papers, not much cited. I wonder if he even wrote them himself.

    The new scientific paradigma Good science= #publication on high impact pair rewied magazines

    ReplyDelete
  114. Neal said: "All the vestigial organs he listed have been discovered by medical science to have fundamental uses or simply act as a backup or complement the function of other organs."

    Neal, 'vestigial' does not mean completely useless.


    Thorton said: "What part of modified from its original function don't you understand?

    Blas said: What part of reduced or altered function don't you understand? "

    Blas, what part of altered don't you understand?


    Neal, Nat, Blas, and and others: Guys, I'm completely on your side when it comes to theism, but it's just embarrassing to watch you mangle the definition of a simple biological term over and over and over and over and over again.

    Ostriches have vestigial wings. The wings, which were used for flight in an ancestor, are not used for flight anymore. They do have current functions: they help the animal balance while running, and sometimes are used to give shade to chicks. But they are still vestigial.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Blas,

    Unfortunately that is so. A good publication record, an active research program, generation of new hypotheses, the ability to generate interest in the science community, all these, mark a scientist apart from a non-scientist.

    Sometimes science advocates prove to be giant fellers - like Nick Matzke who ended Dembski's silly posturing on the flagellum and later on went to help the plaintiffs at Dover take apart Minnich in cross. Matzke is now doing his PhD at UC-Berkeley. Carl Zimmer and Brian Switek are two science journalists who have become experts in biology and are very highly regarded for their expertise.

    ReplyDelete
  116. bornagain77:

    well I beg to differ. if anything has a symbiotic relationship with anything else in this deal, evolution is parasitic dependence on Theism and the ordered structure of science that the Theistic philosophy itself has founded!

    The rest of your response has been addressed quite well by others on this forum, but I couldn't pass this one up.

    Science stands perfectly well on its own, thank-you. It does not depend on the presence or absence of theistic thought of any stripe. Your examples are either a twisting of the naturalistic assumption of science, or a reference to arguments that would only arise in ID-related discussions where you inserted the designer into the equation yourself first.

    The idea that theism founded science is, at best, a severe over-simplification of the development of science, IMHO. Either way, it says nothing about the relationship now, nor is science bound by a past relationship.

    On the other hand, the parasitic relationship between ID and evolution is quite obvious, and acts on both the [pseudo]scientific and the PR/Marketing level. You reinforce it every time you post a reference to a gap in evolution rather than a piece of direct evidence for the designer. So, if you don't like it, start providing direct evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  117. It looks liek the definition of vestigal has changed. It use to mean that it no longer has a function, so God couldn't have made. Now it means that the function has changed so that evolution is the more intellectually satisfiying explanation since it explains why this thing was used for a new purpose and not something else.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Darn, typo

    "liek" should be "like"

    ReplyDelete
  119. 美麗的事物是永恆的快樂,它的可愛日有增加,不會消逝而去................................................

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

    ReplyDelete
  121. natschuster said...

    It looks liek the definition of vestigal has changed. It use to mean that it no longer has a function, so God couldn't have made. Now it means that the function has changed so that evolution is the more intellectually satisfiying explanation since it explains why this thing was used for a new purpose and not something else.


    No, the definition of vestigial as it applies to biological forms has not changed since its inception. It has never meant "no longer has a function". IDCers have been misrepresenting the true definition, through ignorance or willful deception, in order to push their dishonest rhetorical arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  122. natschuster: It looks liek the definition of vestigal has changed. It use to mean that it no longer has a function, so God couldn't have made.

    No. It's the same definition as originally proposed by Darwin in Origin of Species in 1859.

    Darwin: An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.

    In other words, the original function of a vestigial structure is diminished or absent entirely, but may have some secondary function. You may want to familiarize yourself with Darwin's argument.

    ReplyDelete
  123. S:"Who produces the evidence, ba? Our side or yours?"

    ba77: "I didn't know truth had a side"

    The question was about evidence. Evasion noted.

    S: "Yet the neo-Darwinists produce the evidence, while your side produces nothing but rhetoric. Project much?"

    ba77: "Wrong, neo-Darwinists force feed the evidence into their twisted atheistic worldview…"

    Wow! You're claiming that neo-Darwinists don't produce evidence? Who produces new evidence, then?

    "...which in due time will be taught in history classes as a prime example of propaganda driven science. i.e. rhetoric!"

    That's amazingly lame, even coming from you. Why doesn't your side produce any evidence, ba? Why does everyone on your side lack sufficient faith to go into the lab or into the field?

    Why don't you try doing something, for example?

    ReplyDelete
  124. I learn a lot about new discoveries from the Disvcovery Institure website. They use the same data as the evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  125. natschuster said...

    I learn a lot about new discoveries from the Disvcovery Institure website. They use the same data as the evolutionists.


    Only problem is, they snip out and throw away the 98% they can't dishonestly misrepresent or spin. If you keep swallowing uncritically the swill they produce you will deserve all the ridicule you'll get.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Only a tiny subset of the data, natschuster. If you limit yourself to Disco press releases, you have a very limited window on recent discoveries in science. Nature has weekly podcasts about them and their editors talk directly to the authors of hot-off-the-press articles. I suspect that Discovery's Evolution News & Views was an idea stolen from the eponymous feature in Nature.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Nat,

    Why doesn't your side produce any new data?

    ReplyDelete
  128. http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

    ReplyDelete
  129. Here's some more:


    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main

    ReplyDelete
  130. natschuster,

    How many research papers (not critiques) has BIO-Complexity published in total?

    ReplyDelete
  131. natschuster said: "It looks [like] the definition of [vestigial] has changed."

    Ignoring for now everyone else's point about this, you have at least admitted that you can see and understand that the definition being used by others is not the same as the definition that you yourself are using. Please, PLEASE, I beg of you don't forget this. I've seen far too many people come to such realizations only to see them completely forget or ignore them forever after. Or worse they convince themselves that theirs is the REAL definition, and the other one is just a trick.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Thorton said: "No, the definition of vestigial as it applies to biological forms has not changed since its inception. It has never meant "no longer has a function".

    So, your example of the eyes of cave fishes as vestigial organs is not longer valid.

    Zach said: "Darwin: An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other."

    Wich was the secondary function of ostriches wings?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Blas: So, your example of the eyes of cave fishes as vestigial organs is not longer valid.

    A vestigial organ doesn't have to have a secondary function. Please follow the link you've been provided three times now, and read Darwin's discusson on rudimentary organs.

    Blas: Wich was the secondary function of ostriches wings?

    The primary function of a bird's wing is flight. Now, think hard. What are some of the secondary functions?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Oleg:

    So now its a question of volume and not quality?
    And I provided a link to more stuff in the previous post.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Thorton,

    "Not my problem if you're too lazy to read it and prefer to live in your ignorant little Fundy world."

    The so called evidence is not proof, but a selection of doubtful evidence which ignores the real evidence which refutes evolution - the fossil record, complex biological systems, etc. A mountain of useless evidence proves nothing, that's is why proof is required. That is the basic scientific requirement that delusional evolutionists can not understand. My opinion is based on the totality of the scientific evidence. Your secular view is based on nothing but wishful, error filled thinking.

    You can not be arguing from the science, you must be arguing for secularism. No matter how hard you wish that there was no God that created the universe you will never be able to wish Him away. The evidence is overwhelming. Always was, and always will be. Take a look at the rise of the Muslim faith in America. There is a mosque that is going to be built beside where the twin towers were. As secular America bites the dust and another religious society will spring up to replace it - 'Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the world.' America has a Muslim president, lol.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  136. Blas said...

    Thorton said: "No, the definition of vestigial as it applies to biological forms has not changed since its inception. It has never meant "no longer has a function".

    So, your example of the eyes of cave fishes as vestigial organs is not longer valid.


    Sigh... Go back and read the definition again:

    vestigial: refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.

    Vestigial has never meant JUST "no longer has a function".

    Is it because English is not your first language that you are having such a hard time understanding a simple definition? Or are you this thick headed about everything in life?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Blas said: "Because according your definition the concept of vestigial organ is useless."

    after some some dialogue on what 'vestigial means, Blas then said: "So, your example of the eyes of cave fishes as vestigial organs is not longer valid."

    Blas, it seems as your understanding of what qualifies as 'vestigial' jumped from "has no function" to "has to have a function" I don't think it's the case that we're not being clear; it seems more like you don't want to understand the term. I'll try to define it as simply as I can: A vestigial structure is a structure that is no longer serving the purpose that it originally was evolved/designed for. It may have a new purpose. It may not. An ostrich's wing is vestigial because it no longer helps in powered flight, though it has other functions. A kiwi's wing is also vestigial because it no longer helps in powered flight, though it appears to have little to no function.

    This straw-man tactic of incorrectly defining a term, then attacking the erroneous definition is a favorite among YECs like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. "Scientist say these structures prove evolution because they have no function. Well, here's function a, b, and c, and this one may have a function we just haven't discovered yet, ergo, evolution is false"

    ReplyDelete
  138. Peter said...

    Thorton,

    "Not my problem if you're too lazy to read it and prefer to live in your ignorant little Fundy world."

    The so called evidence is not proof, but a selection of doubtful evidence which ignores the real evidence which refutes evolution - the fossil record, complex biological systems, etc. A mountain of useless evidence proves nothing, that's is why proof is required. That is the basic scientific requirement that delusional evolutionists can not understand.


    If you're too stupid to understand the scientific requirements for positive evidence and not 'proof' there's no hope for you.

    My opinion is based on the totality of the scientific evidence. Your secular view is based on nothing but wishful, error filled thinking.

    Your opinion expressed here is based on a combination of your religious beliefs and willful ignorance of the actual scientific evidence. Evidence that has been shown to you multiple times but that you're too lazy to even look at.

    You can not be arguing from the science, you must be arguing for secularism. No matter how hard you wish that there was no God that created the universe you will never be able to wish Him away.

    The scientific theory of evolution being discussed has absolutely nothing to do with a God or Gods. That's just you projecting your ignorance and religion based bigotry once again.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Peter:

    My opinion is based on the totality of the scientific evidence.

    Wow, that's impressive. Does that mean you've read every scientific paper that's been published? What about evidence still to be discovered. What's coming out in Science next week?

    And what's your proof?

    ReplyDelete
  140. natschuster,

    We're not even talking quality. There is no research to speak of.

    ReplyDelete
  141. David vun Kannon said...
    BA^77,
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

    What rules of deduction is Craig inventing to come up with these? They would also apply to the maximally evil being, right? The maximally blue being? The maximally _me_ being? It is nice to know that I exist in every possible universe!"


    Unfortunately it is not Craig's logic that is flawed, but yours. All your proposals of other potential maximally_beings is subsumed by a maximally_great_being otherwise such a being would not be maximally_great. Do you get that?

    Premise 2 (above by BA77) follows from this aspect of a maximally_great_being who's position cannot be successfully challenged otherwise it will not be a maximally great being.

    Therefore a maximally_anything_you_wish_to_think_up (evil, blue, you...) just does not count for anything against a truly maximally_great_being. You have to break the logic just to have your way.

    Incidentally, a maximally_great_being decide for itself how great any other being would be, not you...

    ReplyDelete
  142. Regarding vestigial organs, here's an excerpt from Robert Wiedersheim's book'The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History'

    "In the course of generations in consequence of the adaptation of the body to special conditions of life they have been so to speak put out of the running subjected to reduction or degeneration and now persist as
    mere vestiges. Such organs which remain inexplicable by the doctrine of special creation or upon any teleological hypothesis can be satisfactorily explained by the theory of selection."

    "wholly or in part functionless" (Wiedersheim 1893, p. 200) and have "lost their original physiological significance" (p. 205).


    The book is available free online via google.

    So it's derived from the word "vestiges". Webster defines vestiges as "a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms"

    It is an altogether subjective approach to identifying these so-called vestigal organs. Wiedersheim says that wisdom teeth are vestigal.

    Too bad Wiedersheim, I have all my wisdom teeth and have never had one problem with them, although they have been very helpful to me.

    ReplyDelete
  143. LOL! Pastor Neal shows the source of his scientific knowledge, trots out a textbook published in 1893.

    This board need a [rolleyes] smilie.

    You might want to consider getting something a little more up to date there Tedford. I know it comforts you IDCers to cling to the past, but science has come a long way since the 19th century.

    BTW, when are you going to show us that evidence we're all descended from Noah you claimed to have? Did that come from an 1893 book too?

    ReplyDelete
  144. BTW Tedford, vestigial teeth are known in numerous mammal species, from mice to manatees.

    Phylogenetic memory of developing mammalian dentition
    Peterkova,Lesot,Peter
    J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 306B, 234 - 250, 2006.

    "Abstract: Structures suppressed during evolution can be retraced due to atavisms and vestiges. Atavism is an exceptional emergence of an ancestral form in a living individual. In contrast, ancestral vestige regularly occurs in all members of an actual species. We surveyed data about the vestigial and atavistic teeth in mammals, updated them by recent findings in mouse and human embryos, and discussed their ontogenetic and evolutionary implications. In the mouse incisor and diastema regions, dental placodes are transiently distinct being morphologically similar to the early tooth primordia in reptiles. Two large vestigial buds emerge in front of the prospective first molar and presumably correspond to the premolars eliminated during mouse evolution. The incorporation of the posterior premolar vestige into the lower first molar illustrates the putative mechanism of evolutionary disappearance of the last premolar in the mice. In mutant mice, devious development of the ancestral tooth primordia might lead to their revivification and origin of atavistic supernumerary teeth. Similarity in the developmental schedule between three molars in mice and the respective third and fourth deciduous premolar and the first molar in humans raises a question about putative homology of these teeth. The complex patterning of the vestibular and dental epithelium in human embryos is reminiscent of the pattern of Zahnreihen in lower vertebrates. A hypothesis was presented about the developmental relationship between the structures at the external aspect of the dentition in mammals (oral vestibule, pre-lacteal teeth, paramolar cusps/teeth), the tooth glands in reptiles, and the earliest teeth in lower vertebrates."

    More info on tooth development and evolution here

    Evo-devo of mammalian molars

    I know how much you love discussing scientific evidence for things like atavisms and vestigial functions.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Peter:

    Take a look at the rise of the Muslim faith in America. There is a mosque that is going to be built beside where the twin towers were. As secular America bites the dust and another religious society will spring up to replace it - 'Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the world.' America has a Muslim president, lol.

    Yes, Muslims have grown from 0.5% of the US population to 0.6% since 2001. Ooh.

    If "secular" America bites the dust, it won't be by Muslims; it will be from religious bigots like you who can't recognize that a secular government that promotes freedom and equality of all religions protects your freedoms as well.

    But something tells me this argument is wasted... :-(

    ReplyDelete
  146. David,

    "Wow, that's impressive. Does that mean you've read every scientific paper that's been published? What about evidence still to be discovered. What's coming out in Science next week?

    And what's your proof?"

    Try to understand the context. Norton (Thorton) did not give me all the evidence in the world that people use to rationalize away God with evolution. I was emphasizing the necessity to look at all the evidence - not all published articles, but all types of evidences, something lacking in his view, and the view of all evolutionists.

    Try understanding Cornelius' posts would be a could beginning to understand why evolution is ludicrous.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  147. Mike,

    "Yes, Muslims have grown from 0.5% of the US population to 0.6% since 2001. Ooh.

    If "secular" America bites the dust, it won't be by Muslims; it will be from religious bigots like you who can't recognize that a secular government that promotes freedom and equality of all religions protects your freedoms as well.

    But something tells me this argument is wasted... :-("

    Don't forget the millions of illegal immigrants flooding the borders replacing the 40 million babies that were killed by the secular abortionists - secular America is collapsing. It has a birthrate below replacement. It is being wiped off the face of the earth because of the destruction of the family by secular morality. Is that what you mean by the government protecting society?

    It won't happen over night so delusional secularists won't even know what happened to them. Secularism is not sustainable. It never has been, and never will be. I understand fully your view, alas, you are incapable of understanding the truth of the consequences of secularization. If you think I'm wrong take a look at the secular European societies. Every secular society is a dying society.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  148. Peter said: "You can not be arguing from the science, you must be arguing for secularism. No matter how hard you wish that there was no God that created the universe you will never be able to wish Him away."

    I can't speak for Thorton, but I'm a Christian, have been for over 20 years.
    I completely accepted evolution before becoming a Christian, rejected it afterwards on theological grounds, but after recognizing in myself a severe confirmation bias that seems to afflict most IDCers, and after carefully evaluating the issue, I have personally come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is extremely well supported by the scientific evidence.
    So the tired old canard that people who accept evolution are simply pushing an atheistic or materialistic agenda are just plain nonsense. We could be simply mistaken* about the issue, It doesn't mean we're dishonestly pushing an agenda.

    "America has a Muslim president, lol."

    If your postings are just an example of Poe's Law, then I admit it, you got me.

    *In the same way we could be mistaken about the earth rotating around the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Peter said...

    Try to understand the context. Norton (Thorton) did not give me all the evidence in the world that people use to rationalize away God with evolution.


    Your religiously driven ignorance is truly astounding.

    The theory of evolution is a well supported scientific theory. It has nothing to do or say about any God(s), pixies, sprites, elves, leprechauns, or any other supernatural entities.

    That you, personally, feel threatened by an empirically verified reality you don't understand is your problem, not science's.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Peter:

    I was emphasizing the necessity to look at all the evidence - not all published articles, but all types of evidences, something lacking in his view, and the view of all evolutionists.

    And what sort of "evidences" are you proposing? If they're not in articles, where do we find this evidence?


    Try understanding Cornelius' posts would be a could beginning to understand why evolution is ludicrous.

    Cornelius' posts generally boil down to the following:

    "I want to convince people that God exists so I write a blog where I say that I can't imagine how evolution can possibly work so despite the evidence it's all wrong and God exists. QED"

    ReplyDelete
  151. Derick,

    "So the tired old canard that people who accept evolution are simply pushing an atheistic or materialistic agenda are just plain nonsense."

    It is impossible to address every possible issue in every sentence. Sure you may be Christian, but that does not change the overall social dynamics of evolution and society.

    Barack Hussein Obama is a symptom of a shift in American politics that has resulted in part from decades of secularization.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  152. I quoted Wiedersheim because he was the one who seriously coined the vestigial concept or was pretty close to it. The tendency then was to lean more towards the "put out of the running" side of the vestigial definition.

    There is no doubt that some degeneration has taken place, and who ever argued that it hasn't? It's even biblical. Certainly the theory of evolution is not needed in order to study and observe degeneration or loss of function.

    Degeneration of cave fish does not automatically support claims that animals with no genes for eyes can evolve into animals with eyes. It has been empirically shown that loss of function is not uncommon. Going the other way is what is controversial.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Peter:

    Secularism is not sustainable. It never has been, and never will be.

    Ok, I'll bite. If a religiously based society is so much better, then why not a Muslim society? After all - it will take care of the abortion issue and support the family. Surely this will be better than what we have now.

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

    ReplyDelete
  155. Peter wrote:
    "Barack Hussein Obama is a symptom of a shift in American politics that has resulted in part from decades of secularization."

    You mean because he was democratically elected in a landslide, unlike the guy who started two wars, won neither, and ran the economy into the ground?

    When are you emigrating, Peter?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Derick, my bias against evolution is based on the lack of sufficient evidence for purely naturalistic processes to originate and encode biological information. Nature just doesn't do it, and to have faith in some kind of freaky once in a gizillion muliverse chance of happening is a whole lot less reasonable that accepting the appearance of design for what it is.

    Secondly, the innumerable multitude of intermediates is mostly missing from the fossil record. Just the Cambrian explosion should cause you to pause and rethink your position.

    Third, the complete pathways for the evolution of an organ are missing and honestly inconceivable in molecular detail. There is a parallel here to software coding. You just can't make big feature changes to application software one command at a time. Something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Pastor Neal violated the Ninth Commandment again:
    "Degeneration of cave fish…"

    What exactly is degenerate about them? Since vision demands ~20% of our oxygen intake, aren't fish with no eyes less degenerate than fish with eyes in the dark?

    "... does not automatically support claims that animals with no genes for eyes can evolve into animals with eyes."

    Um, Pastor Neal, like everything else, the eyes aren't built on the basis of some group of special genes for eyes. They are built using on the basis of what came before, a constraint that an omnipotent designer and builder does not have.

    "It has been empirically shown that loss of function is not uncommon."

    Same with gain of function. Was the lens crystallin protein designed de novo, Pastor Neal?

    ReplyDelete
  158. Pastor Neal continues to violate the Ninth Commandment:
    "Derick, my bias against evolution is based on the lack of sufficient evidence for purely naturalistic processes to originate and encode biological information."

    You've never looked. You're bearing false witness.

    "Nature just doesn't do it, and to have faith in some kind of freaky once in a gizillion muliverse chance of happening is a whole lot less reasonable that accepting the appearance of design for what it is."

    Then explain the design of crystallin.

    "Secondly, the innumerable multitude of intermediates is mostly missing from the fossil record. Just the Cambrian explosion should cause you to pause and rethink your position."

    The fact that when we find them, they fit the nested hierarchy should cause YOU to pause, but you just lie instead.

    "Third, the complete pathways for the evolution of an organ are missing and honestly inconceivable in molecular detail."

    Honestly? You're anything but honest. Explain your conception of the design of multiple organs from the pharyngeal arches, then.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Pastor Neal,

    Did you lie when you claimed that genetic studies show we're all descendants of Noah and his family? Citations please, or admit you're a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Tedford:

    Nature just doesn't do it, and to have faith in some kind of freaky once in a gizillion muliverse chance of happening...

    Please show your calculations.

    ...is a whole lot less reasonable that accepting the appearance of design for what it is.

    What it is, is the appearance of design. Even five-year-olds can tell the difference between living things and artifacts, but creationists have duped themselves into believing otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Neal:

    Third, the complete pathways for the evolution of an organ are missing and honestly inconceivable in molecular detail. There is a parallel here to software coding. You just can't make big feature changes to application software one command at a time. Something to think about.

    You guys should know that every time
    you compare biological systems to software those of us who've written code die a little inside. And you look silly.

    And you certainly can make major changes to software one command at a time. You can, for example, enable or disable or re-purpose other chunks of code with a single command. You can also write new chunks one command at a time if you so desire - we usually don't do it this way, but it's often seen in beginners. No one claims evolution is optimal, just that it works.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Neal Tedford said...

    Derick, my bias against evolution is based on the lack of sufficient evidence for purely naturalistic processes to originate and encode biological information.


    Please provide a scientifically rigorous definition of "biological information" as you are using the term.

    Please provide an objective method of measuring "biological information" so it can be determined if natural processes cause it to increase or decrease.

    Nature just doesn't do it, and to have faith in some kind of freaky once in a gizillion muliverse chance of happening is a whole lot less reasonable that accepting the appearance of design for what it is.

    Please provide your probability calculations for making this claim, along with supporting evidence for any assumptions in those calculations.

    Secondly, the innumerable multitude of intermediates is mostly missing from the fossil record. Just the Cambrian explosion should cause you to pause and rethink your position.

    Please provide a calculation for the number of fossils we should expect to find, along with supporting evidence for any assumptions in those calculations.

    Third, the complete pathways for the evolution of an organ are missing and honestly inconceivable in molecular detail.

    Inconceivable to an uneducated, scientifically ignorant layman like you does not mean inconceivable to everyone. Folks who study and research this topic for a living can conceive of such pathways quite easily, and have already accumulated much positive evidence of their existence.

    There is a parallel here to software coding. You just can't make big feature changes to application software one command at a time. Something to think about.

    As was shown above, you are as ignorant about software design as you are about evolutionary biology.

    Now where's your evidence we all are directly descended from Noah?

    ReplyDelete
  163. I would have to say that this particular post is probably one of the lowest quality posts of those that Dr. Hunter has posted so far, being so
    content free as well as being misleading.

    Many of Dr. Hunter's posts tell us something about biology, or some biological structure. Of course, as with all of Hunter's posts, the purpose is anti-evolution (and usually anti-science) through strawman demolition.

    In this post Dr. Hunter mischaracterises the science of evolution by attacking the language used in popularized accounts of the subject. The imprecise use of the term "random," which as Dr. Hunter points out correctly is used as the opposite of "teleological" is not an indictment of the subject of evolution.

    If evolutionary
    biology were a mathematical theory, like the
    mathematical theories of physics, then this
    would be an issue, but it isn't. Evolution is a data-grounded theory. Scientific fields often co-opt the terminology of other disciplines, often changing the meaning of the terms in the process.

    The basic process of evolution is "descent with modification and natural selection"----in other words--reproduction. Hunter does not provide an alternate process of the origin of species,
    he provides only his usual naysaying on the subject.

    Indeed, if "random mutations" are used in a handwavey fashion by "evolutionists", then we can only surmise that so-called "intelligent" design theorists (who may be intelligent, but do not have a theory) are all candidates of repetitive stress injuries of the wrist, and must be frequently hospitalized for supersonic carpal tunnel syndrome.

    So called "intelligent design" describes NO process whatsoever! Indeed, because the notion of common descent seems to be rock solid, if "ID" really happened, then it must be added as one of the many mutation processes, but as to what the mystery process of ID actually is? Nobody seems to want to talk about that.

    Of course, the unimaginative Dr. Hunter doesn't stop to think about the exponential divergence of non-linear systems due to small variations in initial conditions, or if he does, he doesn't want to let his non-scientific group of followers know that "yes, Virginia, there are simple processes that result in growingly complex phenomena". Look up the term "nonlinear system".

    ReplyDelete
  164. Smokey,

    "Degeneration of cave fish…

    What exactly is degenerate about them?"

    Even evolutionists use that term, so are you arguing against them too? Do you have a point or do you simply want to be contrary?

    "...eyes. They are built using on the basis of what came before,"... are you kidding?

    Interesting that you mention crystallin. I suppose you are going to give us a story on how crystallin was a happy accident of enzymes (many times over)?

    "De novo?" Perhaps contact lenses weren't designed either, since glass or plastic was used for other applications as before contact lenses came out.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Mike,

    "And you certainly can make major changes to software one command at a time. You can, for example, enable or disable or re-purpose other chunks of code with a single command. You can also write new chunks one command at a time if you so desire - we usually don't do it this way, but it's often seen in beginners. No one claims evolution is optimal, just that it works. "

    Adding a major software features does not come by a little code tweaking. Since the context of my reference was having to do with the development of a new organ the software parallel would be equal to a major new feature, not simply the tweaking of existing code. If you believe that then you believe it possible to evolve Windows NT into Windows 2008 by one line code changes and disabling chunks of existing code.... by the way, where did your "chunks of code" that you are repurposing come from? Previous re-purposing? Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Neal:

    Adding a major software features does not come by a little code tweaking. Since the context of my reference was having to do with the development of a new organ the software parallel would be equal to a major new feature, not simply the tweaking of existing code. If you believe that then you believe it possible to evolve Windows NT into Windows 2008 by one line code changes and disabling chunks of existing code.... by the way, where did your "chunks of code" that you are repurposing come from? Previous re-purposing? Think about it.

    OK - you are now chest-deep in the silly I spoke about earlier.

    Your original statement was "You just can't make big feature changes to application software one command at a time." In fact, even with development tools and code re-use, someone still has to do exactly that - write one line of code at a time to build the new feature. And Windows 2008 probably *did* evolve from Windows NT by a combination of re-using chunks of existing code and writing new code. Which, at some level, had to happen one command after another.

    You are taking an already weak analogy between a biological entity and a clearly human designed entity with known processes and pushing the bounds of that analogy to pointless detail. The funny part is when the biological entity (which you claim was designed) doesn't match the human designed entity you blame me for the discrepancy.

    It's your analogy. If it doesn't work, don't use it.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Hey Neal,

    Where's that genetic evidence showing Noah is a universal ancestor? You claimed you had it. Did you lie?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Pastor Neal, who routinely makes claims he has no intention of supporting, wrote:

    "I suppose you are going to give us a story on how crystallin was a happy accident of enzymes (many times over)? "

    I'm going to ask you why the beta- and gamma-crystallins are related to small heat shock proteins.

    Is your God so untalented that he can't whip up a new protein with the right refractive index?

    Having asked you that, I'm sure that you won't answer in any substantive way.

    Where is your mathematical proof for your claims?

    ReplyDelete
  169. Mike,

    To clarify on the one line code thing... you do not add a major software feature by writing one line of code, compiling and executing, and repeating the process many times. You may need to do this to fix a bug or tweak something, but you do not undertake upgrading a major software feature one line at a time. You would find yourself in the unemployment line pretty fast. And yes, Windows NT did "evolve" but not on its own and not by just reusing old code. Newer Windows Server OS has lots of new code that was intelligently designed and encoded(despite the bugs and the wisecracks).

    Most programs would fail if you kept adding one line of code at a time and then executing the program after each line is added. Certainly you should know that even when you are making a small maintenance type change you usually have to carefully change several places in the program(s).

    It is not a weak analogy, but a strong one. DNA contains the genetic instructions for the development and functioning of all living things. It is a long-term information storage unit that has the instructions needed to construct other parts of the cell like proteins and RNA. Even Bill Gates saw the similarity. The analogy is great and I'll gladly stick with it. Did I answer all your objections or did you need something else clarified?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Smokey:

    The crystallins are known to perform various enzyme functions as well as refract light. That could be why they look like enzymes.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Smokey,

    "I'm going to ask you why the beta- and gamma-crystallins are related to small heat shock proteins.

    Is your God so untalented that he can't whip up a new protein with the right refractive index?"

    Seems like he whipped out the trilobite eye pretty quick. There are lots of different eyes in His creation that can do some very incredible things and work very well."

    You're on very thin ground logically and neck deep in negative theological fluff.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Neal Tedford: Seems like he whipped out the trilobite eye pretty quick. 

    The first trilobites appeared 4 billion years after Earth's formation, and 115 million years after the first metazoan fossils. Good thing Yahweh's self-employed; it would be hard to keep a job at that rate of productiion.

    ReplyDelete
  173. But they showed up with fully formed compound eyes with calcite lenses.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Nat, that's because there are only a handful of localities preserving early Cambrian and late Proterozoic strata worldwide. Think about it. What percentage of the Earth consists of sedimentary rocks in good shape exposed at the surface and collectable for some "narrow interval" of 1 million years, say 545-544 million years ago? A tiny, tiny fraction. And yet suffice it to say that the entire world was in existence for the whole of that duration. Furthermore, trilobites have a calcified skeleton, but their lobopod ancestors did not and required exceptional circumstances to be preserved. We are fortunate to have a few exquisite sites like those preserving the Chengjiang biota. Trilobite eyes are preceded in the record by the eyes of the lobopods. It is naive to view the fossil record as being anything approaching "complete" as is implied by waxing on about "fully formed" compound eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Nat wrote:
    "The crystallins are known to perform various enzyme functions as well as refract light. That could be why they look like enzymes."

    Nat, they "look like" enzymes because they are clearly related to them. If you disagree, explain the nested hierarchies for both types: the beta/gammas with heat shock proteins, the others with their relatives. Be sure to explain why an omnipotent designer would do it in that way instead of making something new.

    Don't use the word "similar" in your answer. Explain the DIFFERENCES.

    Pastor Neal continues to bear false witness:
    S:"I'm going to ask you why the beta- and gamma-crystallins are related to small heat shock proteins. Is your God so untalented that he can't whip up a new protein with the right refractive index?"

    "Seems like he whipped out the trilobite eye pretty quick."

    Not at all. You didn't answer my question. Why am I not surprised?

    "There are lots of different eyes in His creation that can do some very incredible things and work very well."

    Yes there are, but He created them by evolution, as the nested hierarchies clearly show.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Neal:

    To clarify on the one line code thing... you do not add a major software feature by writing one line of code, compiling and executing, and repeating the process many times. You may need to do this to fix a bug or tweak something, but you do not undertake upgrading a major software feature one line at a time. You would find yourself in the unemployment line pretty fast.

    Well, actually one could do this; we just choose not to. On the other hand, a major feature addition isn't added in a single step either. Beginning programmers quickly learn that the time saved by not compiling is often offset by the difficulty in debugging larger and more complex units of code. This is why large software projects have detailed schedules for completion and testing of sub-components of the project.

    The additional feature doesn't just appear - it's built incrementally.

    And yes, Windows NT did "evolve" but not on its own and not by just reusing old code. Newer Windows Server OS has lots of new code that was intelligently designed and encoded(despite the bugs and the wisecracks).

    In my experience, engineers frequently use the word 'evolve' when discussing a progression of products or product lines, all clearly designed. There never seems to be any confusion with other uses of the word.

    Most programs would fail if you kept adding one line of code at a time and then executing the program after each line is added. Certainly you should know that even when you are making a small maintenance type change you usually have to carefully change several places in the program(s).

    Sure. Your original point was this sequencial addition couldn't happen. It is entirely possible to have programs that do allow this process, and other programs can have segments where step-by-step addition of code is feasible even if we chose not to do that. Whether they're common or not is immaterial - they can (and do) exist.


    It is not a weak analogy, but a strong one. DNA contains the genetic instructions for the development and functioning of all living things. It is a long-term information storage unit that has the instructions needed to construct other parts of the cell like proteins and RNA.

    As a rough explanation of what DNA is for, sure. I would tend to use a blueprint/project plan analogy, thinking of the role of DNA in development. Also, I would see an application as the code itself, whereas you and I aren't DNA. This is a matter of taste, IMHO. The problem comes when you try to continue the analogy in greater detail.

    Did I answer all your objections or did you need something else clarified?

    Yes. If anyone is bothering to read this thread, they're probably wondering the same thing as I am - what was your original point?

    If you want to use a comparison between DNA and software, that's fine. However, that analogy
    is a functional comparison that works regardless if you think DNA evolved or was designed.
    Trying to use the nature of software to show that something could not evolve is well past
    the useful level of the analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Mike,

    Adding a new major software feature does require many changes and to continue to believe that you could implement such a new feature by adding a line, compiling and executing is nonsense.

    Interesting though that you can imagine that a major software upgrade can be done this way. I'd like to see you actually do it. Ironic that what you conceive as possible in software you see in biology. For all practical purposes (and that is what real life is) you do not code a program one line at a time, compile and execute to add a major software feature or upgrade. Even more so with biology. To imagine it in some fuzzy, unrealistic way is fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  178. If they have similar functions, then I would expect them to have similar structures. I have to use the word similar because that is what we are discussing.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Mike said...

    If you want to use a comparison between DNA and software, that's fine. However, that analogy is a functional comparison that works regardless if you think DNA evolved or was designed. Trying to use the nature of software to show that something could not evolve is well past
    the useful level of the analogy.


    I've never understood how IDCers can continue to be so dense as to use analogies as evidence for design.

    Analogies are just that - analogies. They break down at anything more than the most superficial of levels. IDiots will focus on the small similarities and always ignore the huge differences.

    I have a human designed RainBird yard sprinkler that waters my lawn just like a shower from a rain cloud. To a boneheaded IDCer, that's evidence rain clouds were intelligently designed.

    ReplyDelete
  180. natschuster said...

    If they have similar functions, then I would expect them to have similar structures.


    Why? Powered flight has arisen in animals at least four separate times - pterodactyls, bats, bird, insects. All four have wings that have a similar function - convert muscle power to aerodynamic lift - but their wing structures are all quite different.

    Stop dwelling on the small similarities and start paying attention to the much larger differences.

    ReplyDelete
  181. 我真心在追求我的夢想時,每一天都是繽紛的。因為我知道每一個小時都是實現理想 的一部份。..................................................

    ReplyDelete
  182. natschuster: If they have similar functions, then I would expect them to have similar structures.

    Not mere similarity, but a family resemblance (nested hierarchy).

    ReplyDelete
  183. Neal:

    Adding a new major software feature does require many changes and to continue to believe that you could implement such a new feature by adding a line, compiling and executing is nonsense.

    OK. You use these phrases loosely, but in Computer Science there is a world of difference between "Can't be done", "Could be done, but xxx", and "common practice". In this world, when you say something can't be done, that's a fairly major statement. (Look up RSA if you want an example of where these distinctions impact your life considerably.) So, when you say that you "just can't make feature changes one command at a time", I am bound to point out that, in fact, this is theoretically possible. And I've always pointed out that this isn't how we normally do things.

    So let's move to common practice. In fact, when faced with a large application change, the first step is to break the problem into smaller and smaller sub-units. These are specified, coded and tested largely independently. In other words, you are compiling and testing long before you get anything that looks like the finished product. Good designs will also try to re-use and re-purpose other code. So if your thesis is that software is not built in increments, common practice suggests otherwise. We may not do it at the level of individual lines, but incremental it is all the same.



    Interesting though that you can imagine that a major software upgrade can be done this way. I'd like to see you actually do it. Ironic that what you conceive as possible in software you see in biology. For all practical purposes (and that is what real life is) you do not code a program one line at a time, compile and execute to add a major software feature or upgrade. Even more so with biology. To imagine it in some fuzzy, unrealistic way is fantasy.

    As I suspected, you're holding on to your analogy far more strongly than is expected of any analogy. Let's recap:

    You think that something like your liver can't arise from incremental changes and hence is designed. However, you don't know who the designer is, what design paradigms they use, what abilities they have, how they execute a design, or when they did this. The only thing you know is they probably aren't human. Despite these limitations, you compare your liver to an entirely different thing (software) that does something different, is non-biological, and is designed by humans - the one entity you're pretty sure didn't design your liver. Furthermore, when inspecting how humans design software, we discover that the process most commonly used is largely incremental in nature which is entirely different from the point you were trying to make. And finally, none of this says anything about how your liver actually arose, since these are analogies and everyone knows that analogies aren't evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Mike,

    "Ok, I'll bite. If a religiously based society is so much better, then why not a Muslim society? After all - it will take care of the abortion issue and support the family. Surely this will be better than what we have now."

    There are several sustainable religious societies to choose from. Muslims are one. It is interesting that in Israel the secular Jews have a below replacement fertility rate while the non-secular Jews have a positive fertility rate. In other words the traditional Jews are replacing the seculars. That seems strange for a country of people who wrote the foundational books of the Bible. It is strange but true.

    Another possibility is to return to our pre-secular social structure. This certainly would be the least dramatic change. The alternative is total annihilation. :)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  185. Peter:

    There are several sustainable religious societies to choose from. Muslims are one.

    If the US changed to a theocracy based on Islam, would you convert or try to maintain your current religion? And how would you personally see this as an improvement?


    Another possibility is to return to our pre-secular social structure. This certainly would be the least dramatic change. The alternative is total annihilation. :)

    Ahh - what "pre-secular" social structure are you thinking of? Colonial America?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Zachriel:
    Not mere similarity, but a family resemblance (nested hierarchy).

    You don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

    That is evidenced by your refusal to provide a valid reference defining a nested hierarchy and describing the rules for constructing one.

    ReplyDelete
  187. thorton:
    Stop dwelling on the small similarities and start paying attention to the much larger differences.

    All your position does is dwell on the similarities because it sure as hell cannot explain those differences.

    ReplyDelete
  188. smokey:
    The fact that when we find them, they fit the nested hierarchy should cause YOU to pause, but you just lie instead.

    You don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

    Of course you could prove me wrong by providing a valid reference defining nested hierarchies and describing the rules of constructing one.

    But we all know that isn't going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Mike,

    "If the US changed to a theocracy based on Islam, would you convert or try to maintain your current religion? And how would you personally see this as an improvement?"

    If the US changed to a theocracy it would not be by coercion, but by attrition. Nobody would be forced to change their religion. Secularists would just go extinct.

    "Ahh - what "pre-secular" social structure are you thinking of? Colonial America?"

    America started to die in 1972 with the introduction of no fault divorce. This change was not possible when American society followed Christian morality. In order to return to a living country the US will have to adopt the measures that has worked in the past, and had been accepted by society for millenniums, American morality circa America 1972.

    Think of this as a test of the materialist assumptions in evolution. If there is no God responsible for life then separation of church and state should have no impact. However, if the materialistic assumption of evolution is incorrect then when we separate ourselves from God, the creator of life, then we should see a severing of the force which sustains life. This is in fact what we see in the US and all the secular European states.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  190. natschuster: "If they have similar functions, then I would expect them to have similar structures."

    And if they have identical functions, would you expect them to have identical structures?

    ReplyDelete
  191. natschuster: "If they have similar functions, then I would expect them to have similar structures."


    smokey:And if they have identical functions, would you expect them to have identical structures?

    Neither is a requirement-

    The point is if similar/ identical function is observed then similar/ identical structures would not be a surprise.

    And if similar/ identical function with disimilar structure means there is more than one way to "get 'er done".

    In that case we would have to look at the wider view- there could be a very good reason for having to have more than one option- usually is anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Peter:

    In order to return to a living country the US will have to adopt the measures that has worked in the past, and had been accepted by society for millenniums, American morality circa America 1972.

    Ahh, back in the days when you could completely trust the President of the US. Oops.

    One of my recollections from 1972 is lots of people saying how bad morality was then and things were so much better circa 1950.


    Think of this as a test of the materialist assumptions in evolution. If there is no God responsible for life then separation of church and state should have no impact. However, if the materialistic assumption of evolution is incorrect then when we separate ourselves from God, the creator of life, then we should see a severing of the force which sustains life. This is in fact what we see in the US and all the secular European states.

    So when life was perfect in 1972, we still had scientists promoting that nasty evolution. Isn't it possible that what you're seeing is just cultural change and has nothing to do with evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  193. Mike,

    "So when life was perfect in 1972, we still had scientists promoting that nasty evolution. Isn't it possible that what you're seeing is just cultural change and has nothing to do with evolution?"

    Evolution -> God did not create life -> therefore we can live as if there is no God -> we do not have to follow the teachings of the Bible. No fault divorce -> 50% divorce rate -> 1.8 children per 2 adults -> extinction.

    No fault divorce would never have happened if the US based it's laws on the Bible, under God, as it had for decades.

    Is it a co-incidence that every socity that teaches evolution becomes secular and then critically wounds its family structure?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  194. Peter:

    Evolution -> God did not create life -> therefore we can live as if there is no God -> we do not have to follow the teachings of the Bible. No fault divorce -> 50% divorce rate -> 1.8 children per 2 adults -> extinction.


    The birth rate in the US hit a post-WWII high of ~25 per 1,000 around 1953, then dropped to 14.9 per 1,000 in 1974, then immediately started to rise to 16.9 per 1,000 in 1990, and has since dropped to 14.1 per 1,000.

    Since the biggest drop happened before no-fault divorce in 1972, how exactly did no-fault divorce affect this?

    No fault divorce would never have happened if the US based it's laws on the Bible, under God, as it had for decades.


    I never knew we did this. What process did the US Supreme Court use to base its decisions on the Bible?

    Is it a co-incidence that every socity that teaches evolution becomes secular and then critically wounds its family structure?


    Can you provide a few examples of societies that don't teach evolution and have strong families?

    ReplyDelete
  195. Peter wrote:
    "Evolution -> God did not create life -> therefore we can live as if there is no God -> we do not have to follow the teachings of the Bible."

    Um, Peter, those who claim to follow the teachings of the Bible most loudly are those who ignore its teachings about divorce.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

    Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:

    Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)
    % who have been divorced

    Non-denominational ** 34%
    Baptists 29%
    Mainline Protestants 25%
    Mormons 24%
    Catholics 21%
    Lutherans 21%

    Variation in divorce rates by religion:
    Religion % have been divorced
    Jews 30%
    Born-again Christians 27%
    Other Christians 24%
    Atheists, Agnostics 21%

    Try and wrap your head around reality, Peter. Just be careful so that it doesn't explode...

    ReplyDelete
  196. Isn't it obvious? Religious conservatives are not supposed to have sex before marriage, so they are more likely to get married on a whim before properly knowing one another, just so they can get laid. Then it turns out they don't really like each other, so they get divorced. No mystery there. Hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Troy:

    I always struggle with the thought processes behind much of this. If morals come from God and are absolute, why the need to legislate morals? Social changes like Roe vs. Wade, no-fault divorce or inter-racial marriage happen when significant portions of populations agree with them, but apparently they need to be protected from doing bad stuff (for their own good) by people like Peter.

    I also find it odd that legislation is needed for all these supposed moral failings, yet he imagines a theocracy as some kind of utopia where people wouldn't be required to change religions. Even a cursory knowledge of history suggests that most theocracies quickly determine that the worst moral failing of all is to be the wrong religion.

    ReplyDelete
  198. smokey,

    How do you know how closely those divorced couples followed the Bible?

    How do you know that the people calling themselves "christian" really are?

    ReplyDelete
  199. Awesome, Joe pulls a no-true-Scotsman. Joe, the man who can produce a fallacy quicker than you can blink your eye.

    ReplyDelete