Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Back to School, Part 3

We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, and (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here.

With this as their start, Johnson and Losos next make a series of misrepresentations of the evidence. First, in an inset story on whale evolution, they show the student a highly selective graphic of the fossil sequence leading to the modern whale. In typical fashion the abundant fossil species that reveal how complicated is the evolutionary hypothesis are omitted. It is as though half a dozen fossils which unambiguously lead to the whale were discovered and nothing else.

Next the authors discuss vertebrate embryos with a graphic showing a reptile, bird and human embryo. They point out that all vertebrate embryos have pharyngeal pouches and a long bony tail. Also, the human embryos "even develops a coat of find fur!" They then inform the student that:

These relict developmental forms strongly suggest that all vertebrates share a basic set of developmental instructions.

But there are significant differences between the embryonic stages of the different vertebrates which the authors fail to mention. If similarities suggest common developmental instructions, then surely the many differences reveal developmental instructions that are not in common. And in any case, why is it that a common set of instructions, to whatever extent they do exist, are evidence for evolution? The authors reveal only selective evidence to the student and make an unjustified claim.

Johnson and Losos next make the circular argument that vertebrates have the same bones:

As vertebrates have evolved, the same bones are sometimes still there but put to different uses, their presence betraying their evolutionary past.

Here Johnson and Losos transition from presenting evidence for evolution to asserting evolution and interpreting the evidence according to the theory. Their phrase "As vertebrates have evolved," marks this unspoken move in the indoctrination. The student is no longer fed evidence for the theory, but instead the truth of the theory has become a given.

Hence the bones in different vertebrates are "the same." After all, they arose from a common ancestor. And since they are "the same," they betray "their evolutionary past." It all makes perfect sense to evolutionists.

And what about those similarities that could not have arisen from a common ancestor? Conveniently, those too are somehow evidence for evolution:

Similarly, in the lower portion of the figure, the marsupial mammals of Australia evolved in isolation from placental mammals, but similar selective pressures have generated very similar kinds of animals.

So similar structures in related vertebrates count as evidence because, after all, they arose from a common ancestor. And similar structures in distant vertebrates count as evidence because, after all, they arose independently from similar selective pressures. Got it (except that selective "pressures" don't generate anything, but don't tell the students that).

Next Johnson and Losos present those structures that have "no use at all!" Back to their whale example, they continue the theme of circular reasoning:

In living whales, which evolved from hoofed mammals, the bones of the pelvis that formerly anchored the two hind limbs are all that remain of the rear legs, unattached to any other bones and serving no apparent purpose.

That, of course, is not an empirical finding but a conclusion based on the assumption that evolution is true. In fact the whale pelvis probably helps in copulation. But so what? After all, whales "evolved from hoofed mammals."

Their next circular example is that vestigial organ, the human appendix. In the great apes it helps with digestion but "The human appendix is a vestigial version of this structure that now serves no function in digestion." So the appendix is evidence for evolution because it is vestigial, and we know it is vestigial because evolutionists say it is.

Unfortunately most students will not be aware of the indoctrination they are receiving. Not will they be aware of the substantial scientific omissions and errors that the text is riddled with. Regarding the appendix, the evolutionary expectation once again failed. As one researcher commented:

Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'

Indeed, many biology texts do because the science has been compromised by evolution. Religion drives science and it matters.

92 comments:

  1. It looks like we’re in for an endless series of quotemines from the Johnon and Losos textbook. In that light, Thomas Kuhn’s rather acerbic perspective on the scientific accuracy of textbooks may be helpful. From the opening paragraph of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

    That image [of science] has previously been drawn, even by scientists themselves, mainly from the study of finished scientific achievements as these are recorded in the classics and, more recently, in the textbooks from which each new scientific generation learns to practice its trade. Inevitably, however, the aim of such books is persuasive and pedagogic; a concept of science drawn from them is no more likely to fit the enterprise that produced them than an image of a national culture drawn from a tourist brochure or a language text.

    Pile high the straw, Dr Hunter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David, "Pile high the straw, Dr Hunter. "
    ==============

    What's the matter ??? Out of matches ???

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, the circularity of this argument never quite escaped me.

    “We have this attribute X as proof that evolution works like this … and we know that evolution works like this, because look at the evidence: this attribute X shows us that evolution works like this …”

    Not that I care, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Unfortunately most students will not be aware of the indoctrination they are receiving. Not will they be aware of the substantial scientific omissions and errors that the text is riddled with."

    "The authors reveal only selective evidence to the student and make an unjustified claim."

    "Here Johnson and Losos transition from presenting evidence for evolution to asserting evolution and interpreting the evidence according to the theory. Their phrase "As vertebrates have evolved," marks this unspoken move in the indoctrination. The student is no longer fed evidence for the theory, but instead the truth of the theory has become a given."
    =====================

    Then it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone at a future date when the detrimental effects of this cold and calculated indoctrination eventually germinate in that future generation of world leaders trying to piece together a natural world gone madder compared to the present one we all experience now.

    Child Pschologists warn parents all the time of the detrimental effects of the vicious world of make believe entertainment of Violent Video games of horrific mystical Netherwords created inside World of War Craft, Dungeons and Dragons, almost all modern violent movies, music, etc. An unhealthy environmental upbringing employed by parents for babysitting their kids and while they pursue personal interests without the bother of brats is going to come back to haunt them.

    While certainly every responsible parents should police and guide a child's choices of entertainment and outside associations, they should also take an active part in what their kids are learning in school and on a daily basis, not just during that secularist progressive invention called once a week 'quality time', but they deserve ALL your time.

    A caring parent in this day and age should never trust the authorities to adequately provide for the responsible educational material needed for a better future society. It's not even a church responsibility, since even the bible puts such responsibility on parents and no one else (not even Sunday School).

    Unfortunately we now have a "It Takes a Village" mentality (parents excluded). Problem is the "Village" has huge infrastructure flaws and the future maintenance workers their molding to take over any future Village running assignments have less than adequate tools for doing the job correctly.

    Do I hear "Soylent Green" anyone ???

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whale evolution? Embryos? Appendix? ,,, If they are teaching those as evidence then they have no evidence!

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203

    Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution - June 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/current_textbooks_misuse_embry035751.html

    Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk

    Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - The faked drawings compared to actual pictures
    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Ontogeny2.jpg

    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

    Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr - 2010 - video
    http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000355_cicero_040710.mp4&dir=mp4/lectures

    Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis
    http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great Scott, Cornelius, you're absolutely right.

    In fact, the problem is far worse than you present, for it invades other areas of science too. I had a quick flick through a few science textbooks and just look at some of the things I pulled up:


    Every time you jump, you experience gravity. It pulls you back down to the ground. Without gravity, you'd float off into the atmosphere -- along with all of the other matter on Earth.


    How outrageous - stating as fact science's pet theory of gravity. How dare they make such religiously-motivated claims and simply assume the truth of their theory.

    Personally I am of the opinion that objects fall down when released because tiny pixies push them down. How dare they just ASSUME their theory is correct over mine!

    And here's more:


    What is a magnetic field? The space surrounding a magnet, in which magnetic force is exerted, is called a magnetic field. If a bar magnet is placed in such a field, it will experience magnetic forces. However, the field will continue to exist even if the magnet is removed.


    Again, they just assume the existence of this so-called 'magnetic field'. Pah! Don't they know all their observations can just as easily be explained by the assertion that every metalic object has a soul which feels either love or hate (and therefore attraction or repulsion) for certain 'magnetised' objects? How dare they just assume that their theory of 'magnetic fields' with their circumstancial evidence is correct and state it as fact. Clearly these people have a religious agenda against the idea of metal shavings having souls!

    Thank you Cornelius to opening my eyes about these damn religious scientists. I'm off to write a blog about how scientists have the audacity to assert that their massively well supported theories are fact, instead of repeatedly asserting that all scientific theories are always open to scrutiny and simply held until better explanations come along (and thus give me a tiny crack through which to assert that my frankly bonkers ideas about how the world works might just possibly be true).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius:

    "With this as their start, Johnson and Losos next make a series of misrepresentations of the evidence. First, in an inset story on whale evolution, they show the student a highly selective graphic of the fossil sequence leading to the modern whale."

    Misrepresentation or simplification? I'd say a simplification.

    But this link demonstrates a clear case of misrepresentation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's not a 'circular argument,' but consilience of a variety of evidence. We can establish details of evolutionary history from the nested hierarchy of morphology, embryonic development, genetics, biogeography, and the geological succession. From that, we can test various proposed mechanisms of evolution.

    Cornelius Hunter: And in any case, why is it that a common set of instructions, to whatever extent they do exist, are evidence for evolution?

    Because it supports the nested hierarchy, and because it leads to empirical predictions in other fields of research. For instance, homologous structures in the pharyngeal folds that lead to jaw bones in reptiles, lead to ossicles in mammals. This led to accurate predictions of fossil intermediaries.

    {{}} ≠ {}

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Living World textbook repeats the same tired old evolutionary arguments. However, it sounds like they finally sent the glued Peppered Moths and Haeckel's imaginative artwork into retirement. The textbook writers probably presented the best of the best as far as what they could present as evidence for evolution. There are no labs secretly holding the golden evidence in support of evolutionary theory that mortals would not understand.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cornelius, you are spending too much time on the readings of evolutionists - that is people who believe in evolution as ideology. Last time in another thread I asked you if you have ever corresponded with a scientist and presented your objections. Most evidently you have not. Have you corresponded with at least the authors of this work? As before so now. All you have to do is to frame your points so as to present an alternative hypothesis or even your null hypothesis, and apply for a grant.

    But you would first have rid yourself of some incorrect notions such as,

    ...(1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here,...

    You are stuck with an unscientific terminology here, which is evolutionist in origin. Only evolutionists believe that there are two separate "evolutions", while the s cientist uses these terms (if at all operationally) to refer to certain groups of processes

    ...(2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here,...

    Your claim that this is non-scientific is baseless because you have made no scientific claims yourself. There is nothing in your claim that lends itself to scientific inquiry. The metaphysical charge, we can ignore, because there is no logic to it.

    ...and (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here...

    Wrong on three counts. First of all fossils are factual observations, the finding of fossils, their features, their progression, are all fact, apart from the the other mountains of convergent evidence from geology. Facts are very hard to refute, and to your credit, you have chosen to leave them alone. Third you still don't get what the term macroevolution means in any context, leave alone this one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius Hunter: Got it (except that selective "pressures" don't generate anything, but don't tell the students that).

    Blatantly false. Most traits are polygenic. Strong selection pressure is a colorful turn of phrase for large correlation between genetics (and other heritable traits) and survival/reproduction. If indeed such a large correlation should arise for some trait so as to produce positive selection away from the mode, then novel genetic combinations due to matings of survivors will yield new phenotypes directed toward adaptation (positive feedback).

    The Siberian farm fox experiment, in which strong selective pressure was provided artificially by allowing only the tamest foxes to reproduce, is a classic example of how this works.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cornelius Hunter said...

    With this as their start, Johnson and Losos next make a series of misrepresentations of the evidence. First, in an inset story on whale evolution, they show the student a highly selective graphic of the fossil sequence leading to the modern whale. In typical fashion the abundant fossil species that reveal how complicated is the evolutionary hypothesis are omitted. It is as though half a dozen fossils which unambiguously lead to the whale were discovered and nothing else.


    CH, when will you be turning your righteous anger towards the American Automobile Association? Just last week I went to AAA and got a map of California so I could drive from SF to LA. Wouldn't you know it? That dishonest map was a misrepresentation of the evidence, and highly selective of what it showed! Sure it was accurate enough to get me there, presented all the major roads and many minor ones, but it deliberately left out important details that show how complicated driving to LA really is. They omitted info on where the potholes are, where to swerve to miss the dead raccoons, the best place to stop to get an ice cream cone. How dare they present this map as fact!!

    Seriously CH, your ranting gets more incoherent with each passing day. Why would you expect an introductory textbook on evolution to provide anything more than a high-level summary of the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Neal Tedford said...

    The Living World textbook repeats the same tired old evolutionary arguments. However, it sounds like they finally sent the glued Peppered Moths and Haeckel's imaginative artwork into retirement. The textbook writers probably presented the best of the best as far as what they could present as evidence for evolution. There are no labs secretly holding the golden evidence in support of evolutionary theory that mortals would not understand.


    Have you signed up for any introductory college classes on evolution yet Tedford? Surely there must be at least one Community College in Michigan that would admit you, even with your abysmal high school academic record.

    Just take an actual course to two. Learn the real evidence instead of the swill you slurp up from AIG and UncommonlyDense. That way you won't look like such an ignorant boob who thinks "mitochondrial Eve" means there was only one woman alive 190,000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pressure, "Natural Selection (differential death)", reduces genetic information:

    In fact, Natural Selection, though repeatedly invoked by Darwinists as this 'great creative engine' for evolution that knows know bounds to its power, in reality, away from the Darwinists rhetoric and imagination, actually consistently reduces the genetic information of organisms. Here are some videos and quotes clearly making this point:

    Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - Dr. Georgia Purdom - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036808

    Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816

    Darwinism’s Last Stand? - Jonathan Wells
    Excerpt: Despite the hype from Darwin’s followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best. Natural selection - like artificial selection - can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_darwinisms_last_stand.html#more

    EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840

    "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..."
    Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED

    ReplyDelete
  15. ba77: Pressure, "Natural Selection (differential death)", reduces genetic information:

    Funny how all the links go to non-peer-reviewed apologetics and contain the same (high-school or intro undergrad) level of genetic understanding (thinking of one-to-one correspondence between genes and traits), and also conveniently ignoring the positive influence on allelic diversity presented by mutations, and the same for disruptive selection.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Foxes are still foxes, Dogs are still dogs, fruit flies are still fruit flies, corn is still corn, e-coli is still e-coli, and evolutionists continue to bring up weak examples of change to support their grand answer to the existence of all of life. It's like saying we can walk from Washington DC to Japan because we discovered Hawaii!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations
    Excerpt: This review demonstrates that our information about the strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations has increased dramatically in the past 2 decades, but many important issues about selection remain unresolved.
    http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/hoekstra/PDFs/Kingsolver2001AmNat.pdf

    Hopeful Monsters and Other Tales: Evolutionists Challenge Darwin - Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Jerry Fodor, a (atheistic) philosopher at Rutgers, is angry at the dogmatic Darwinists who see natural selection as the be-all and end-all of evolutionary change.,,, Fodor’s beef with natural selection appears to stem from its storytelling propensity. Why do people have traits like hair on their heads and dark hair with dark eyes? “You can make up a story that explains why it was good to have those properties in the original environment of selection,” he said. “Do we have any reason to think that story is true? No.”- Fodor co-authored the book "What Darwin Got Wrong"
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100224a

    Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism’s limits – Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini – Feb 2010
    Excerpt: Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly (ever) considered. ,,, Natural Selection has shown insidious imperialistic tendencies.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527466.100-survival-of-the-fittest-theory-darwinisms-limits.html

    Natural Selection Falsified - Dr John Sanford - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4587204

    No Matter What Type Of Selection, Mutations Deteriorate Genetic Information - article and video
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/nachmans-paradox-defeats-darwinism-and-dawkins-weasel/

    This following study is very interesting for the researcher surveyed 130 DNA-based evolutionary trees to see if the results matched what 'natural selection' predicted for speciation and found:

    Accidental origins: Where species come from - March 2010
    Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel's team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation - but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: "It isn't the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it's single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak."
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html?page=2


    etc.. etc.. etc...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Neal Tedford said...

    Foxes are still foxes, Dogs are still dogs, fruit flies are still fruit flies, corn is still corn, e-coli is still e-coli, and evolutionists continue to bring up weak examples of change to support their grand answer to the existence of all of life.


    How much would a dog have to change before it is considered a non-dog? Please be specific.

    It's like saying we can walk from Washington DC to Japan because we discovered Hawaii!

    In your poor example there is a distinct physical barrier - the ocean - that prevents the walk. In living species, what barrier prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating into macro ones? Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared."
    from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis

    “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)

    Evolution? - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898

    Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997
    “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
    Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist

    “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the position of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
    Roger Lewin - Historic Chicago 'Macroevolution' conference of 1980

    "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)

    etc.. etc.. etc...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells PhD Molecular Biology:
    Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bornagain77...quote "no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria."

    Does anyone have anythin to show this statement is false??? This is just what evolution needs. Anything?

    Thorton said, "How much would a dog have to change before it is considered a non-dog? Please be specific."

    =====

    If the definition of a species means that they have to breed then some dogs are unable to naturally breed with others. Does this mean that dog breeders are wrong in calling all them dogs? Of course not.

    I'm not the one claiming that dogs can change over time into non-dogs, so don't put them question to me. If they could, why haven't they already done so? You answer it and in thinking about it you may get to the most basic fallacy of evolutionary thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal Tedford said...

    Bornagain77...quote "no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria."

    Does anyone have anythin to show this statement is false??? This is just what evolution needs. Anything?


    Observed Instances of Speciation

    More Observed Speciation Events

    And before you whine "but they're still flies, still fish, etc.!!", remember you asked for examples of speciation, not "a fly turning into a non-fly" or "a fish turning into a non-fish".

    I'm not the one claiming that dogs can change over time into non-dogs, so don't put them question to me.

    Quit cowardly avoiding the question. You're the idiot who claims it can't happen. I want to see your criteria for judging if such evolution happened or not. Put up or shut up.

    If they could, why haven't they already done so? You answer it and in thinking about it you may get to the most basic fallacy of evolutionary thinking.

    Just because it can happen doesn't mean it must happen in every case you idiot. You probably haven't biked across the whole US, but because you haven't does that mean it's impossible that you could given enough time?

    There are plenty of documented ancestral lineages (like your favorite cetaceans) where the evidence shows macroevolutionary changes did indeed happen. If you wish to rebut the evidence, then explain and demonstrate the magic barrier that stops micro changes from accumulating into macro ones.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "then explain and demonstrate the magic barrier that stops micro changes from accumulating into macro ones."

    Actually the burden is on you to demonstrate that material processes can generate any functional information whatsoever!

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    ReplyDelete
  25. BA77:

    "Actually the burden is on you to demonstrate that material processes can generate any functional information whatsoever!"

    That has been shown over and over and over again, in numerous demonstrations of experimental adaptive evolution. Selection causes genomes to become correlated with their environments, meaning in information theoretical terms an increase of mutual information (total entropy minus joint entropy) of genomes and environment.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Troy please cite the peer review that falsifies Abel's null hypothesis

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thorton:

    Are any of the case you linked to clear unambiguous examples of one species turning into another? Or is the resultant variation consistent with normal intraspecies variation? Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  28. bornagain77 -

    Maybe I'm just completely missing the point, but what is that from Abel you've just posted? Can you explain it in simple terms? What does it have to do with evolution? And why should we be able to falsify it?

    ReplyDelete
  29. natschuster -


    Are any of the case you linked to clear unambiguous examples of one species turning into another? Or is the resultant variation consistent with normal intraspecies variation? Just asking.


    The notion of one species 'turning into' another is a little bit erroneous. More technically, what happens is one species splits into two (or more). This is speciation.

    Thorton's links do indeed show many cases of one species giving rise to at least two distinctly seperate ones.

    Convincing evidence? Read them for yourself and tell us.

    ReplyDelete
  30. These examples show haw dangerous it is just to accept everything you read in the science textbooks verbatim as gospel truth. Thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps it will help some parents make their kids aware of this and help them to be a more active listener and learner.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ritchie,

    In simple terms the Abel paper clearly points out the fact that material processes cannot create functional information. i.e. material processes cannot create a 'abstract representation' of itself. Whereas every time someone writes something they are demonstrating that intelligence can and does generate functional information. Moreover they demonstrate that they can 'intelligently' generate more functional information than can the entire probabilistic resources of the universe over the entire history of the universe;

    Signature In The Cell - Review
    Excerpt: Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html

    The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,,

    cΩu = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108

    cΩg = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96

    cΩs = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85

    cΩe = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70

    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27

    Probability of a protein?

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010
    Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin."
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1

    Probability of a gene?

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ritchie:

    It looks to me like the differences between the daughter species in all the cases mentioned may very well be within the normal range of intraspecies variation. Just asking Y'know.

    ReplyDelete
  33. bornagain77 said...

    Ritchie,

    In simple terms the Abel paper clearly points out the fact that material processes cannot create functional information. i.e. material processes cannot create a 'abstract representation' of itself.


    The "paper" published in "BIO-Complexity"???

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    A bunch of IDiots get together, create their own little pretend science magazine, self-publish their nonsense, and call it peer-reviewed.

    You IDCers crack me up!

    ReplyDelete
  34. natschuster said...

    Ritchie:

    It looks to me like the differences between the daughter species in all the cases mentioned may very well be within the norm


    Nope nat, not even close. It's 100% verified speciation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The fruit flies still can interbreed. Its the males that are sterile. The plants are angiosperms. Polyploidy works for them and not for others. The mouse shows changes n morphology, but might still be abole to interbreed. And in the case of the cichlids, it is assumed that they evolved over 4000 years. Was it actually observed?

    ReplyDelete
  36. And a lot of the other cases report assortive mating. But that isn't the same as reproductive isolation, is it? They also use terms like incipient species. Looks like they might be hedging their bets.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cichlids are actually an example of Genetic Entropy:

    Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852

    Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision - Oct. 2005
    Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments. The scientists showed that although an unexpectedly large group of these visual pigments are available to all the species, each expresses the pigments selectively, and in an individual way, resulting in differences in how the visual world is sensed.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051011072648.htm

    African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
    Excerpt: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----surprising implication of the study?---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages"
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905

    ReplyDelete
  38. natschuster said...

    And in the case of the cichlids, it is assumed that they evolved over 4000 years. Was it actually observed?


    You disappoint me nat. I thought you were better than that Ken Ham "Were you there??? Did you see it???" childish hand-waving.

    ReplyDelete
  39. bornagain77 says:"Probability of a gene?

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."


    This is infuriating rubbish. It is predicated on two misconceptions.

    Firstly, that genes are accidentally arranged - they are not. They evolve over time and may have at times higher or lower level of function, and serve different purposes in different organisms.

    Secondly, that genes are specified to the point where one can claim that a given nucleotide sequence is required for a given to be considered that gene.

    In the second case, take the case of cytochrome b - a good gene because it has been sequenced for many mammal species. Align sequences for cytochrome b for say 500 species (only 1/10 of mammals, so a drop in the evolutionary bucket of overall variation) and see how much sequence variation there is.

    I find there is about 20% sequence identity across the alignment when I do this. What do you find? 20% identity means that there are changes for at least some of these species across 80% of nucleotide positions. That number might even be higher if we include more species with codon insertions.

    This is cytochrome b, a highly expressed gene that encodes a protein in the electron transport chain, essential for metabolism. If cyt b can vary so much and still function, even within a taxonomically restricted section of life such as (some of) the mammals, then how can such a calculation be taken as a serious attempt at understand the odds of genes?

    ReplyDelete
  40. BA77:

    "In simple terms the Abel paper clearly points out the fact that material processes cannot create functional information. i.e. material processes cannot create a 'abstract representation' of itself."

    A ridiculous claim (typically, formulated in pompous sciency sounding words like "cybernetic cut", bwahaha) that is trivially easy to counter.

    The presence/absence of (entirely material) antibiotics resistance genes inside bacteria provides functional information about the presence/absence of (entirely material) antibiotics in the bacteria's environment.


    More rubbish:

    "A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified."

    Precisely pulled out of you-know-where. Followed by a caricature of a caricature of a probability model of evolution that only convinces deluded tards like BA77.

    ReplyDelete
  41. BA77:

    "Cichlids are actually an example of Genetic Entropy"

    Your brain is actually an example of alcoholic entropy.

    ReplyDelete
  42. natschuster: It looks to me like the differences between the daughter species in all the cases mentioned may very well be within the normal range of intraspecies variation. Just asking Y'know.

    To evaluate that, you would need to survey population genetics. Do you have data to back up this assertion? Seriously, this is the equivalent of going to the doctor with a sore throat, getting a culture taken, having it turn up positive for strep, and then deciding to toss away your prescription because the doctors are clearly taken in by the germ theory of disease.

    ReplyDelete
  43. tokyojim said,

    These examples show haw dangerous it is just to accept everything you read in the science textbooks verbatim as gospel truth.

    It is foolish to accept anything you read anywhere as gospel truth.

    Perhaps it will help some parents make their kids aware of this and help them to be a more active listener and learner.

    Amen to that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Troy smirked and snided

    "BA77:

    "Cichlids are actually an example of Genetic Entropy"

    Your brain is actually an example of alcoholic entropy."
    ====================

    Unfortunately for us here reading this and for you personally Troy (among others), your mouth has sadly been an unflattering example of Cesspool Entropy. Guess that's why anonymity is golden.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Does Paul have reason to believe that proteins of similar function and sequences will evolve from one to the other??? NO!!!

    What makes matters much worse for the materialist is that he will try to assert that existing functional proteins of one structure can easily mutate into other functional proteins, of a completely different structure or function, by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence betrays the materialist. The proteins that are found in life are shown to be highly constrained in their ability to evolve into other proteins:

    Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe - Oct 2009
    Excerpt: Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution.,,,
    A time-symmetric Dollo’s law turns the notion of “pre-adaptation” on its head. The law instead predicts something like “pre-sequestration”, where proteins that are currently being used for one complex purpose are very unlikely to be available for either reversion to past functions or future alternative uses.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html

    Severe Limits to Darwinian Evolution: - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: The immediate, obvious implication is that the 2009 results render problematic even pretty small changes in structure/function for all proteins — not just the ones he worked on.,,,Thanks to Thornton’s impressive work, we can now see that the limits to Darwinian evolution are more severe than even I had supposed.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/severe_limits_to_darwinian_evo.html#more

    etc..etc..

    ReplyDelete
  46. "A problem with the evolution of proteins having new shapes is that proteins are highly constrained, and producing a functional protein from a functional protein having a significantly different shape would typically require many mutations of the gene producing the protein. All the proteins produced during this transition would not be functional, that is, they would not be beneficial to the organism, or possibly they would still have their original function but not confer any advantage to the organism. It turns out that this scenario has severe mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into question. Unless these problems can be overcome, the theory of evolution is in trouble."
    Problems in Protein Evolution:
    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html


    Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors - Doug Axe
    Excerpt: Contrary to the prevalent view, then, enzyme function places severe constraints on residue identities at positions showing evolutionary variability, and at exterior non-active-site positions, in particular.
    http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/AxeProteinEvolution.pdf

    Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness - May 2010
    Excerpt: Despite the theoretical existence of this short adaptive path to high fitness, multiple independent lines grown in tryptophan-limiting liquid culture failed to take it. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the double-mutant trpA gene. Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2

    Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - audio
    http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/05/testing_evolution_in_the_lab_w.html


    Experimental Evolution of Gene Duplicates in a Bacterial Plasmid Model
    Excerpt: In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence. http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp471464014664w8/

    ReplyDelete
  47. cytochome B studies also highlight the incongruence of using genetic similarities to try to impose a neo-Darwinian interpretation::

    Botching Evolutionary Science - Casey Luskin - April 2009
    Excerpt: The textbook touts the cytochrome C tree, but it ignores the cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: “[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied,, an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.” (See Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular Phylogenies Become Functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14: 177 (1999).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/the_biggest_problem_in_asking.html#more

    ReplyDelete
  48. This is the primary reason why genes CAN"T POSSIBLY EVOLVE:

    Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity

    The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism is this:

    To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained to random mutations by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle:

    If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.

    S A T O R
    A R E P O
    T E N E T
    O P E R A
    R O T A S

    Which is translated ;
    THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

    This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation.

    This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.

    The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Notes on polyconstraint:

    Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes."
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a


    First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm

    Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010
    Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm

    ReplyDelete
  50. BA77 screams:

    "This is the primary reason why genes CAN"T POSSIBLY EVOLVE"

    Yet genes have been observed to evolve, many times. But why let silly facts spoil your insane fantasies, right?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Troy once again please cite the study(ies), are you merely citing, for example, studies like nylonase???

    Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria

    Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design - William Dembski
    Excerpt: "the nylonase enzyme seems “pre-designed” in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically adaptable to novel functions."
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/

    In fact it is now strongly suspected that all changes in the genome, which are deemed to be 'beneficial', are now found to be 'designed' changes that still stay within the overriding principle of Genetic Entropy:

    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/

    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

    Bacteria 'Invest' (Designed) Wisely to Survive Uncertain Times, Scientists Report - Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: Essentially, variability of bacterial cells appears to match the variability in the environment, thereby increasing the chances of bacterial survival,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112102.htm

    De Novo Genes: - Cornelius Hunter - Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: Cells have remarkable adaptation capabilities. They can precisely adjust which segments of the genome are copied for use in the cell. They can edit and regulate those DNA copies according to their needs. And they can even modify the DNA itself, such as with adaptive mutations,,,,One apparent de novo gene is T-urf13 which was found in certain varieties of corn.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/11/de-novo-genes-evolutionary-explanation.html

    ReplyDelete
  52. Though the journal Bio-Complexity is in its infancy, the few papers that are found in it are none-the-less trustworthy in their integrity,, Even so, Abel's paper, which was disparagingly attributed to BIO-Complexity by Thorton, was actually published in:

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences

    here is the article once again:

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf

    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    i.e. can material processes generate any functional information whatsoever???

    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors
    Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/

    ReplyDelete
  53. BA77, I can see you are at it again.

    Feeling free to insert (Design) into a title without mentioning the parenthetical is entirely yours, and not the conclusion of the authors is a bit dishonest, no?

    Bacteria 'Invest' (Designed) Wisely to Survive Uncertain Times, Scientists Report

    vs.

    Bacteria 'Invest' Wisely to Survive Uncertain Times, Scientists Report

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112102.htm

    Lol.

    By the way, could you summarize Abel's cybernetic cut for me? What experiment would suffice to falsify it?

    ReplyDelete
  54. BA77:

    "Troy once again please cite the study(ies), are you merely citing, for example, studies like nylonase???"

    Crack open any introductory textbook, available in a library near you.

    ReplyDelete
  55. By the way, could you summarize Abel's cybernetic cut for me? What experiment would suffice to falsify it?

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    For a broad outline of the 'Fitness test', required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles:

    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

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

    ReplyDelete
  56. It has now been demonstrated Bio-Complexity can be mathematically quantified as functional information bits(Fits).

    Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity:
    Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak:
    Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions.
    http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf

    Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236
    Entire video:
    http://vimeo.com/1775160

    ReplyDelete
  57. To show a violation of Genetic entropy, the fitness test must be passed by the sub-species bacteria against the parent species bacteria. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it has gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits)(Of note: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that purely material processes can exceed the much more constrained '2 protein-protein binding site limit', for functional information/complexity generation, found by Michael Behe in his book "The Edge Of Evolution"). This fitness test, and calculation, must be done to rigorously establish that Genetic Entropy has been violated.

    note:

    "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")

    ReplyDelete
  58. BA77 asserts:Does Paul have reason to believe that proteins of similar function and sequences will evolve from one to the other??? NO!!!

    Excuse me, my main point - which comprised perhaps 80% of my post - was that there is far less retention of identity in proteins than you might think. This wholly invalidates your appalling calculation regarding the probability of gene evolution. It also directly contradicts yourassertion that proteins are universally "highly constrained". This is straight from observation and not from inference.

    Secondly, to refer directly to the point I quote above, which you post a bunch of "evidence" for I would say this: perhaps you should consider gene duplication events. There is no shortage of evidence that gene duplications a) occur regularly b) are sometimes retained c) result in additional new function and d) at least sometimes evolve non-adaptively.

    For some reason you post some dribble that cytochrome b hasn't produced great phylogenies across broad taxonomic groupings. Well no kidding, genius. I already pointed out that it's highly variable. That means that it's really good for finescale phylogenetic studies at low taxonomic levels. However, the chances of repeat mutations increases as time between divergences increase, making it extremely difficult to use for broad taxonomic studies.

    Fortunately, it only represents 1140 bp out of the 16,000bp in the typical mitochondrial genome and only 1140 bp out of billions of bp in the (say) human genome. As other genomic regions mutate and evolve at different rates, we get really good phylogenies using different genes that are broadly congruent with the fossil record and morphology. This is not a matter of cherry picking genes that work, it is a matter of choosing ones that are appropriate for the job.

    ReplyDelete
  59. 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

    Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009
    Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

    ReplyDelete
  60. A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - May 2010
    Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html

    Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE’s Claims of “Nested Patterns” Supporting a “Tree of Life”
    Excerpt: Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” and “one group suggests one biogeographic pattern, and another group suggests another” is because the genes and organisms have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that not all living organisms are ancestrally related, thereby fulfilling a testable prediction of the orchard model.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/testing_the_orchard_model_and.html

    ReplyDelete
  61. Me: By the way, could you summarize Abel's cybernetic cut for me? What experiment would suffice to falsify it?

    BA77: Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video

    Lol. When asked to summarize the work of one author, you link to the video of another. Don't worry, no one actually comprehends Abel. That's why his papers are never cited. Except by you. I thought you might bring some insight into the traversal of the cybernetic cut. Alas, no. Just another case of spewing out references that you vaguely think support you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Bones, molecules...or both?
    Excerpt: Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled?,,, When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging (between Darwinists) within systematics.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406230a0.html

    The universal ancestor - Carl Woese
    Excerpt: What then was this universal ancestor? A discrete picture of the ancestor began to emerge only when many more sequences representing all three phylogenetic domains became available. These sequences could be seen as putting phenotypic flesh on an ancestral phylogenetic skeleton. Yet that task has turned out to be anything but straightforward. Indeed, it would seem to require disarticulating the skeleton. No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full

    Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/shilling-for-darwin-the-wildly-irresponsible-evolutionist/#comments

    Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?
    Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913459

    Uprooting The Tree Of Life - W. Ford Doolittle
    Excerpt: as DNA sequences of complete genomes have become increasingly available, my group and others have noted patterns that are disturbingly at odds with the prevailing beliefs.
    http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/courses/2_Doolittle_2000.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  63. Whatever Robert I can't force you to be fair.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The Truth About Evolution - Transitional Fossils
    Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution. A major adaptive radiation is the simultaneous appearance of many diverse forms of a group, for example, birds, with wide geographical distribution. The appearance of the invertebrate phyla in the Cambrian was a major adaptive radiation. Besides the invertebrate phyla, the fossil record shows that vertebrates have undergone so many major adaptive radiations that it is the norm for their appearance. Carroll writes: "the phylogenies of all major vertebrate groups show an irregular, episodic history of occasional large-scale radiations followed by the long-term survival of a relatively small number of basically distinct structural and/or adaptive types." These radiations are inexplicable by evolution because so many diverse forms appear virtually simultaneously without fossil evidence of interrelationships. Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are:

    a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today.
    b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown.
    c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish.
    d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown.
    e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record.
    f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found.
    g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown.
    h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown.
    i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown.
    j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds.
    http://tellall.org/fossils.htm

    ReplyDelete
  65. Robert just to show how unfair you are, I listed this study by Abel:

    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors
    Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/

    The I showed the paper by Szostak that showed how to mathematically define functional information in molecular biology, then I showed you the fitness test that needs to be passed to show a violation of Genetic Entropy. I don't think I can be much more specific,,, Do you want to see the paper where Durston does the math for several proteins?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Here you go Robert:


    Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors - 2007
    Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,,
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47

    ReplyDelete
  67. bornagain77, you sure do give your copy and paste buttons quite the workout, and don't get me wrong, it's a very good thing to post references to things you think support your claims, but can you explain in your own words any of the things you're posting to demonstrate that you actually understand them?

    ReplyDelete
  68. What makes matters much worse for the materialist...

    BornA77,

    What has made matters worse and worse for non-materialists like you is the fact that nothing, in the last 200 years has done anything to change the fact that material is all around us. We materialists have no problem whatsoever, it is you irrationalists who have a problem resorting to the "Demon Theory of Friction". The problem, you know that, is the utter irrelevance of your protests. Nobody cares. Why Cornelius himself for all his railing against evolution hasn't gotten around to writing a single proposal. This makes good sound bites alright before the faithful. Otherwise it is a good joke!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Derick Childress the question is can YOU cite peer review evidence to pass the fitness test by 140 functional bits?

    ReplyDelete
  70. So jbec, do you believe materialism to be true?

    To update you a bit, materialism, as has been classically defined throughout the ages, is shown to be false:

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

    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
  71. BA77 - it is impossible to tell who you when your posts are simply a list of videos and abstracts.

    Do you wish to address the specific problems I have highlighted in your fallacious calculation of the improbability of genes, or are we done here?

    ReplyDelete
  72. BA77 said: "Derick Childress the question is can YOU cite peer review evidence to pass the fitness test by 140 functional bits?"

    First, you'll have to repeat that in coherent English. Do you mean "Can you cite peer reviewed evidence? Should the "peer review evidence" pass a fitness test? Like, I should run the fitness test on the paper?

    And besides, I wasn't actually contesting anything you said. I was just asking if you could explain any of it in your own words, instead of just posting links to other's videos, and copy and pasting the abstracts from the studies.

    I'm not sure you can get your own thoughts down on paper intelligibly, let alone summarize the complex ideas of others.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Check out this pathetic website of David L. Abel. It lists his publications, and then recycles them over and over again under many different subject headings, creating the false appearance of a huge publication list. The reality is of course that he has published a handful of poorly cited pompously written papers.

    Are there any non-ethically challenged ID "scientists" at all?

    ReplyDelete
  74. "... If similarities suggest common developmental instructions, then surely the many differences reveal developmental instructions that are not in common. And in any case, why is it that a common set of instructions, to whatever extent they do exist, are evidence for evolution? The authors reveal only selective evidence to the student and make an unjustified claim."

    Some Darwinists like to make the logically dubious claim that the fact that all mammalian species have precisely seven neck vertebrae *must* be counted solely as evidence for UIND (un-intelligent non-design). Yet, oddly enough, the fact that bird species have no “standard” number of neck vertebrae must also be counted solely as evidence for UIND.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Foxes are still foxes, Dogs are still dogs, fruit flies are still fruit flies, corn is still corn, e-coli is still e-coli..."

    This has always struck me as a very funny argument to make. It's basically a true statement, but the fact that people think that this is an argument against evolution and/or common descent demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both evolution and common descent. I think it's supposed to refute the idea that an organism changes from one thing into something unrelated. For example, if birds evolved from reptiles, then that means a crocodile turned into a duck. But since crocodiles are always crocodiles then they can't be ducks, therefore evolution is false (I admit that's a bit of an exaggeration of your stance, but I think I got the essential idea behind it correct).

    Here's how it really works, though. At one point in history such creatures as foxes and dogs didn't exist yet. There were only such things as Echinoderms, Arthropods, and (my personal favorite) Chordates. These were effectively the species of their time. They weren't the base of any major branch of taxonomy as we know them yet, but instead were just leaves on the so-called tree of life as it existed then. Just as foxes and dogs are leaves on the tree of life as we know it today. Descendants of the chordates were numerous enough that different groups changed in differing ways so that eventually they appeared entirely different from each other. Some were mammalian, some were reptilian, and others were amphibian (if you'll pardon a vast over-simplification). But you know what the most amazing thing is? As different as they all are, they are all still chordates. Even today, after millions of years, chordates are still chordates! Let me repeat that, because it's important for you to understand this point and what it means. Chordates ARE STILL chordates!

    In the same way, dogs will still be dogs in the future. If they survive long enough and in enough numbers, different groups of dogs will likely diverge enough to be considered different species. When this happens, they will not suddenly cease to be dogs anymore, but will be considered separate branches with the same base known as "Dog". In fact, it is precisely because dogs continue to be dogs that we see the nested hierarchy that we do in nature. It's why animals are still animals, chordates are still chordates, mammals are still mammals, carnivores are still carnivores, canids are still canids, and canines are still canines. It's why dogs are STILL all of these, even after millions of years of evolution. It's also why they will continue to be all of these, as well as still being dogs, until the very last descendant is dead and gone.

    So yes, foxes are still foxes, dogs are still dogs, fruit flies are still fruit flies, corn is still corn, and e-coli is still e-coli. And all of their descendants will remain so. However, that fact in no way refutes evolution as you seem to think it does. It only refutes your own misunderstanding of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  76. bornagain77: Derick Childress the question is can YOU cite peer review evidence to pass the fitness test by 140 functional bits?

    When asked to clarify your position, you post a question. When we read the cites you provide to respected authors, we find that you have quote-mined them, and that their contentions are often directly contrary to your position.

    We have strong evidence of Common Descent, and we can point to many lineages where complex and irreducible structures evolved through incremental and selectable stages. The evolution of the mammalian middle ear, for instance, easily exceeds your ill-defined measure in 'fits.'

    If you wish to discuss this in detail, that would be fine. But quote-mines don't constitute an argument. We can start with the evidence for Common Descent.

    ReplyDelete
  77. The question of whether material processes can generate any functional information whatsoever is not a trivial concern. That no Darwinists on this thread has cited direct evidence showing functional information actually being generated is very telling to their poverty of actual evidence to support their proposed mechanism of RV+NS. That many Darwinists would then attack the people who question neo-Darwinism instead of honestly addressing this grave lack of empirical verification for their theory does not bode well for the state of their theory nor for the integrity of their character as to honest inquiry of the evidence.

    Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181


    Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=en

    "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject."
    James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist

    ReplyDelete
  78. Modus Tollens - It Is Impossible For Evolution To Be True - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5047482

    ReplyDelete
  79. It is also interesting to note that the what material processes seem utterly incapable of doing, generate functional information, is exactly what 'intelligence' does almost as a force of habit. In fact using Darwin's own line of reasoning of inferring a presently acting cause to explain remote events in the past one is forced to admit, if he is honest that is, that 'Intelligence' is the only known cause, now in operation, that is capable of explaining the origination of functional information.

    Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651

    ReplyDelete
  80. Though the preceding line of evidence gives room to Dawkin's UFO conjecture,,,,

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

    ,,, it is actually found through quantum mechanics that the universe 'is mental',,,

    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.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  81. BA77:

    "Modus Tollens - It Is Impossible For Evolution To Be True"

    No amount of logical reasoning can refute facts, let alone millions of facts recorded in the scientific literature. Evolution has been observed - over and over again. To say it is impossible for evolution to be true is as deranged as saying that it is impossible for gravity to be true.

    "The question of whether material processes can generate any functional information whatsoever is not a trivial concern."

    It is actually trivial because the question has been answered in the affirmative.

    Perhaps you should explain - in your own words, without any links to your favorite Jesus-videos - what you mean by functional information.

    ReplyDelete
  82. BA77: "That no Darwinists on this thread has cited direct evidence showing functional information actually being generated is very telling to their poverty of actual evidence to support their proposed mechanism of RV+NS"

    BA77, perhaps you could define functional information for us, and tell us how we could quantify it so we could actually tell if it's being generated or not. Without a precise definition, and a way to quantify it, there is no way to answer your question.

    It would be like me asking you to describe exactly how much banglesplorp is in an apple.

    And, again, I'm asking that you define it by putting it into your own words, not quote-mining a dozen obscure papers or linking to metacafe videos.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Troy you state that functional information has been generated, yet,,,

    "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject."
    James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist

    The following expert doesn't even hide very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity;

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence of chance and necessity producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Thus Troy since you seem to be privy to evidence these experts are not privy to ,,, do you mind writing them and telling them of the empirical evidence for the generation functional complexity/information by the chance and necessity of material processes? I am sure you would want to stop such lies dead in there tracks.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Derrick, with all due respect, if you belittle what I've already cited, you surely are not going to accord 'my words' any respect either. Thus as far as I'm concerned I have outlined the problem in more than sufficient detail for you to understand and with that task accomplished I bid you gentlemen ado,,,

    ReplyDelete
  85. Explain what you mean by functional information. Stop the quote-mining for just a minute. Is that too much to ask?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Too late. It appears it is too much to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  87. BA77,

    James Shapiro and Franklin Harold are incorrect. Even as early as 1996 in Shapiro's case it didn't mean a thing. If you think it does all you should do is to frame a scientific hypothesis and shop around for a research grant. Behe by repeating these opinions is simply showing himself up to be an ignorant has been which indeed he is since he stopped doing any research decades back.

    And don't bother about "functional information" because it is another one of those meaningless terms - stock-in-trade for creationists. It has no operational definition and serves no scientific purpose. And guess what all information is functional, and generated by material. When you can show me mind, consciousness, pink unicorns, and mares' nests, we will talk. As for the professor Richard Conn Henry he is talking fluff. There is nothing in physics (his chosen discipline) that points, let alone shows, any such thing as mind and consciousness. Which is why Henry's opinions are published in opinion literature, not in scientific papers. just like Granville Sewell who knows that if he submits one of his ridiculous and laughable opinions on evolutionary theory vs. 2nd Law of T'Dynamics, he would be the laughing stock of the mathematical community. BA77 you should read through scientific literature rather than watch absurdly comical speeches by the likes of Behe, who I am sure will mathematically explain what he means by "reeks design" reeks how much, design how much? Dembski, Behe, Wells, Nelson and others are so scared of debate and being questioned that they hide behind comment disabled blogs. What is the chance that these self-styled experts will ever run the scientific gauntlet? Zilch. BA77 it took about 30 years for the old creationism to be relegated to absurdity. Neo creationism is already headed for obscurity in barely ten years.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I wonder, is it too much to ask DarwinDefenders to knock off the pointless -- and logically perverse -- habit of whinging and accusing "Quote Mining!" when a DarwinDenier quotes a Darwinist admitting an anti-Darwinist point?

    ReplyDelete
  89. I wonder, is it too much to ask ScienceDeniers to knock off the pointless -- and intellectually dishonest -- habit of quote mining in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  90. You have to remember textbooks are not scientific journals. You cannot expect or realistically present the exhaustive task of scientific discourse in kids' textbooks. So to criticize authors for making leaps in knowledge while trying to fit an understandable version of evolution in a short chapter lacking true scientific vocabulary and language, is grossly unfair. A person compiling a biology textbook is not going to be an expert on every detail of every field. The responsibility is to represent the discourse going on at a scientific level in a peer-reviewed setting, in a simple way that students can understand.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Troy,

    Here is how functional information is defined by some ID-ers:

    functionally specified complex information” (or, “function-specifying complex information” or — rarely — “functionally complex, specified information” [FCSI])) is a commonplace in engineered systems: complex functional entities that are based on specific target-zone configurations and operations of multiple parts with large configuration spaces equivalent to at least 500 – 1,000 bits; i.e. well beyond the Dembski-type universal probability bound.

    In the UD context, it is often seen as a descriptive term for a useful subset of CSI first identified by origin of life researchers in the 1970s – 80′s. As Thaxton et al summed up in their 1984 technical work that launched the design theory movement, The Mystery of Life’s Origin:

    “. . . “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as could might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity.” [TMLO (FTE, 1984), Ch 8, p. 130.]

    So, since in the cases of known origin such are invariably the result of design, it is confidently but provisionally inferred that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design.

    From: http://www.uncommondescent.com/glossary/

    ReplyDelete
  92. Concerning, quote-mining, this is what I have to say.

    Quote mining is dishonest because it takes statements out of context. But just because someone is quoted doesn't necessarily mean it is a quote mine. At some point, you can't say that a person did not say something that you wish they hadn't said.

    ReplyDelete