Sunday, August 29, 2010

Bug With Bifocals Baffles Biologists

Take a close look at this organism—a very close look. Now answer these questions: Are you an evolutionist? Was this bug created by random mutations? Is it a Lucretian concoction? For evolutionists the answer is yes, all organisms must be such concoctions, and in so saying they are their own accuser—this is not about science.

And the retorts of evolutionists make matters worse. This indictment, they exclaim, is nothing but an argument from incredulity. Evolutionists have so twisted science that in their minds anything goes so long as it adheres to their religious dictates, and skepticism of their bizarre dogma becomes the enemy.

And then there is the complaint that those mutations really aren’t random. So the mutations knew what to design? Of course not, but, but …

But what? Of course the mutations are random with respect to the design. And that is the issue at hand.

Or there is the retort that natural selection remedies all. Those mutations aren’t random at all, they have been selected by a reproductive differential. But of course this after the fact selection does not dictate which mutations should occur. All selection does is kill off the useless mutations. The fact that most mutations don’t work doesn’t help matters as evolutionists imagine, it just reduces the chances of evolution’s miracle stories. The mutations are still random, there are simply fewer (far fewer) of them to work with because most don’t survive.

There’s no magic here that is going to pull amazing designs, such as this insect, out of the Darwinian hat. But to try to convince themselves of their foolish ideas evolutionists tell each other that natural selection creates these biological marvels.

In this case, it is not only a phenomenally complex insect, it is a bug with bifocals:

University of Cincinnati researchers are reporting on the discovery of a bug with bifocals -- such an amazing finding that it initially had the researchers questioning whether they could believe their own eyes.

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of truly bifocal lenses in the extant animal kingdom," the researchers state …

But evolutionary theory was supposed to be the only legitimate way to do science. Didn’t all of biology just happen to arise on its own?

The article explains that using two retinas and two distinct focal planes that are substantially separated, the larvae can more efficiently use these bifocals, compared with the glasses that humans wear, to switch their vision from up-close to distance -- the better to see and catch their prey, with their favorite food being mosquito larvae.

"In addition, we think that within the principle eyes, separate images of the same object could be focused on each of the two retinas, allowing each eye to function as 'two eyes in one,'" the researchers reveal in the article. The tubular-shaped eyes with the bifocals allow them to efficiently focus onto their two retinas, says Annette Stowasser, a UC biology doctoral student and first author on the paper.

Two eyes in one, that is incredible. Natural selection surely must have amazing powers. In fact such a concept could lead to new imaging breakthroughs:

"We're hoping this discovery could hold implications for humans, pending possible future research in biomedical engineering," Buschbeck says. "The discovery could also have uses for any imaging technology," adds Stowasser.

But in fact evolutionary theory contributes little to such findings:

As the researchers zeroed in on how the multiple eyes of this insect worked, they did even more research to try to disprove what they saw. They first used a microscope to look through the lenses of the two eyes detailed in the research article. They saw how the lens could make a second image grow sharper -- something that could only happen with a bifocal. "It was my first research project, and I seriously thought I made a mistake, and then we did additional research to try to kill the hypothesis," says Stowasser. However, their findings were confirmed with more research in addition to observing the operation of the lens and the two focal planes via a microscope. They saw the bifocal again when they used a method to project a narrow light beam through the lens. "Our findings can only be explained by a truly bifocal lens," write the researchers.

Such stories abound in science. The life sciences are full of such design marvels. Yet evolutionary dogma is completely unaffected. Indeed, evolutionists insist that evolution must be true—a fact every bit as much as the fact that the earth is round, that the planets circle the sun, or even gravity. Yes, there must be no question about evolution. Religion drives science, and it matters.

345 comments:

  1. Bifocals! What a great idea! And we thought we humans invented them. As it turns out, humans are more often copycats than inventors. Or in this case, we invented bifocals without knowing they already existed in nature. Isn't evolution wonderful? It can invent almost anything that is needed! The whole area of biomimicry shows that we mimic what the Creator created rather than invent new things. We delude ourselves if we think we are great inventors. After all, according to evolution, all these wonderful things were invented without any intelligence at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr Hunter:

    Now answer these questions:

    Are you an evolutionist?


    No, I am a biologist who occasionally finds evolutionary concepts useful.

    Was this bug created by random mutations?

    Random mutations probably played a role in the origin of this species of insect in history. But other factors are suspected to have been involved.

    Is it a Lucretian concoction?

    I don’t know what a Lucretion concoction is.

    For evolutionists the answer is yes, all organisms must be such concoctions, and in so saying they are their own accuser—this is not about science.

    Evolutionary theory is an empirically testable set of hypotheses. That is what science is about.

    But evolutionary theory was supposed to be the only legitimate way to do science.

    Tell that to the astronomers, physicists and chemists. Evolutionary theory is more or less useful to biologists. To ecologists and paleontologists, more useful. To biochemists, possibly less useful. It’s difficult for me to select a branch of biology in which it’s useless.

    But in fact evolutionary theory contributes little to such findings:

    Possibly. We’ll see…

    Yes, there must be no question about evolution. Religion drives science, and it matters.

    Question all you like. Scientists love questions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tokyojim said:

    "Bifocals! What a great idea! And we thought we humans invented them. As it turns out, humans are more often copycats than inventors."
    ==============

    How about humans being the great plagiarizers or Industrial espionage agents ???

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apparently The Designer (PBUH) didn't see fit to equip many of His Creations with these wonderfully useful bifocals. But we mere mortals must not question Him in His infinite wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr Hunter:

    The life sciences are full of such design marvels.

    Is this circular reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  6. David:

    "No, I am a biologist who occasionally finds evolutionary concepts useful."
    =====

    You mean like Debate forums ???
    -----

    David:

    "Random mutations probably played a role in the origin of this species of insect in history. But other factors are suspected to have been involved."
    =====

    Now let's see, this would be Tinker Bell and her magic wand (Unspecified Natural Magic) ???
    -----

    David:

    "I don’t know what a Lucretion concoction is."
    =====

    Hint - suspicion and political intrigue
    -----

    David:

    "Evolutionary theory is an empirically testable set of hypotheses. That is what science is about."
    =====

    This is absolutely false. Evolution demands belief even (actually especially) in the absence of employment of the most holy of holies "Scientific Method". What huge voids there are are filled in with animations and cartoons along with a mythological storyline.

    However, anyone who believes in the Biblical account of creation is demonized and villified if it is perceived that the "Scientific Method" appears to be even slightly lacking.

    Double Standards rule!!!
    -----

    David:

    "Tell that to the astronomers, physicists and chemists. Evolutionary theory is more or less useful to biologists. To ecologists and paleontologists, more useful. To biochemists, possibly less useful."
    =====

    Do you know the differences between the Hard Sciences and the Soft Sciences ??? Story telling is much easier with the 'Softies'. In fact some of our best 19th & 20th century fables have come from these people.

    David concluded this same thought:

    "It’s difficult for me to select a branch of biology in which it’s useless."

    Eocene said:

    Have you actually taken a good look at the complete global denergative condition of our planet Earth lately ???
    -------

    David:

    "Question all you like. Scientists love questions."
    ========

    Interesting, I'm curious then as to why they get so peeved (well, you know #@'&§% off) when questioned on their bogus methods for the conclusions (fables, myths, legends) they try and shove down the throats of those they consider beneath themselves ???

    ReplyDelete
  7. tokyojim:

    The whole area of biomimicry shows that we mimic what the Creator created rather than invent new things. We delude ourselves if we think we are great inventors.

    Tell that to Guglielmo Marcon, Thomas Alva Edison, Charles H. Townes, Nikolay Basov, Aleksandr Prokhorov, Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, William Shockley, and others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thomas Edison?

    The man who tried to stifle alternating current?

    The guy fumbled through "inventing"...

    ReplyDelete
  9. David:
    Evolutionary theory is an empirically testable set of hypotheses.

    Except that the theory of evolution does not have any testable hypotheses.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Clearly, there is no surer sign of divine plan than the sunburst diving beetle. A lens with slightly different optical properties in different regions? Two retinas coming from an ancestry with one retina? Next you'll be telling me that humans are occasionally born with twelve fingers instead of ten.

    The larva is an aquatic predator, and sensibly enough has gills (epipodites). It also has eyes with bifocal lenses and paired retinas, as noted in the OP. However, each of the two retinas is a thin strip. Because the creator didn't want to show too much favoritism towards the beetle (lest he be accused of an inordinate fondness for them), he failed to give these eyes any external musculature, so the larvae have to bob their head up and down to get a good look at anything so large as a larval mosquito. Video here.

    The adult is an aquatic predator too, but has no bifocal lenses, instead having the compound lens of typical adult insects. It also has no gills, even though there would clearly be use for them. Lacking gills, the adults have to grab a bubble of air and take it down with them much like a human would.

    Wait a minute, this is another lack of foresight, making it seem like the diving beetle evolved from ancestors with aquatic larvae but a terrestrial adult stage. Don't fall for it, it's not worth risking vultures tearing into your liver for eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eocene -


    Now let's see, this would be Tinker Bell and her magic wand (Unspecified Natural Magic) ???


    It never ceases to amaze me how you utterly fail to see it is your own position which is advocating 'Tinkerbell' magic - though you would be more likely to call it 'miracles' or 'divine intervention'. All three terms essentially make the same claim and have exactly the same scientific credibility though - none at all.


    David - Evolutionary theory is an empirically testable set of hypotheses. That is what science is about.

    Eocene - This is absolutely false. Evolution demands belief even (actually especially) in the absence of employment of the most holy of holies "Scientific Method".


    Utterly wrong. Evolution requires no beliefs - just an acceptance of empirical evidence aquired using the scientific method.

    The fact that you use the terms 'belief' and 'most holy of holies' mockingly implies you understand that belief (particularly religious belief) has no place in modern science. And you would be right on that point. But what you utterly fail to grasp is that evolution is neither based on, nor requires, any religious beliefs. That is just a falasehood that Cornelius Hunter cannot seem to get straight and it is a shame to see others such as yourself are gullible enough to swallow it - especially since you are both using it specifically to fuel your OWN anti-scientific, religious beliefs.


    However, anyone who believes in the Biblical account of creation is demonized and villified if it is perceived that the "Scientific Method" appears to be even slightly lacking.


    A case in point. Why exactly would an impartial, rational, studious person listen to the Bible's account of ANYTHING at all? Turning to the Bible merely follows the RELIGIOUS belief (ie, faith without facts) that it is the inerrant word of God.


    Interesting, I'm curious then as to why they get so peeved (well, you know #@'&§% off) when questioned on their bogus methods for the conclusions (fables, myths, legends) they try and shove down the throats of those they consider beneath themselves ???


    That is an incredibly loaded, question - more accurately a vitriolic rant thinly veiled as a question. And therein lies your answer. Scientists get 'peeved' when people with obvious religious biases, who clearly know nothing about science at all challenge and mock them in their own fields, not even realising just how out of their depth they are. And the fact that you consider them 'arrogant' is simply an indication that you just don't understand what they're saying. Does that answer you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. JoeG: Except that the theory of evolution does not have any testable hypotheses.

    Actually, the evolutionary hypothesis of secondarily aquatic animals having terrestrial ancestry is eminently testable. If phylogenetic analyses predict a contemporary aquatic group to have had a fully terrestrial ancestry, we should see an absence of gills, but the presence of lungs. By contrast, intelligent design predicts optimal adaptation for all aquatics, and that means gills.

    We can test this over many lineages, with forms that do extensive swimming and diving as well as those that are fully aquatic, because we certainly could (and do) see gills and lungs in the same animal.

    Amniotes are a clade with numerous adaptations for terrestrial existence, in which many lineages have become secondarily aquatic. Here are amniote examples of extensive aquatic behavior. Let's see the results:

    secondarily aquatic group [terrestrial ancestry] {gills or lungs}

    cetaceans [Artiodactyla] {lungs only}
    pinnipeds [caniform carnivorans] {lungs only}
    otters [terrestrial mustelid caniform carnivorans] {lungs only}
    mink [terrestrial mustelid caniform carnivorans] {lungs only}
    sirenians [tethytherian africotherians] {lungs only}
    beaver [Rodentia] {lungs only}
    muskrat [Rodentia] {lungs only}
    water shrews [terrestrial soricids] {lungs only}
    aquatic tenrec [terrestrial tenrecids] {lungs only}
    platypus [australosphenid mammals] {lungs only}

    penguins [Neoaves] {lungs only}
    cormorants [Neoaves] {lungs only}
    waterfowl [Neognathae] {lungs only}
    eusuchian crocodiles [Crurotarsi] {lungs only}

    sea snakes [elopomorphs] {lungs only}
    sea kraits [elopomorphs] {lungs only}
    marine iguana [Iguanidae] {lungs only}

    aquatic turtles [Reptilia] {lungs only}


    Evolution 18, Intelligent Design 0

    ReplyDelete
  13. Typical overblown headline by Dr Hunter, and a bit of hyperbole by the scientists themselves. These guys never heard of Anableps anableps, the foureyed fish? The top of their eye has a lens thickness good for focusing an image when interfaced with air, the bottom for water. Very useful to fish that swims on the surface with the eyes half out of the water. That is a bifocal lens, you don't need two retinas to make a bifocal lens.

    Of course, since this is an insect larva, the wonder is not that it has more than one eye, but that it has only two. As an adult, it has the many eyes (fused into the compound eye) of most insects. Do all those little eyes have separate lenses and retinas? Yup. So what is the big deal about the larva having multiple eyes if we know the adult has multiple eyes? Nothing much, but enough for Dr Hunter to morph "I was surprised." into "Evolution is a religion." once again. Thanks for the fail.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What David vun Kannon said. Dawkins wrote about Anableps decades ago.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius Hunter said: "...it just reduces the chances of evolution’s miracle stories."

    As Robert already mentioned, it boggles the mind that creationists keep dismissing evolution as 'magical' and 'miraculous' when they are proposing actual miracles as an explanation!

    Seriously guys, how hard is it to understand that the very purpose of science is to explain things without invoking miracles and magic?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cornelius Asked: 1. "Are you an evolutionist? 2. Was this bug created by random mutations? 3. Is it a Lucretian concoction?

    1. Yes, if by 'evolutionist' you mean one who accepts that evolutionary theory is thus far the best explanation for the diversity of life we see.

    2. Absolutely not. Even asking this question indicates that you either have no idea what evolutionary theory actually proposes, or that you are intentionally making a ridiculous straw-man caricature of it in order to mock it.

    3 This is harder to answer, because the primary result for a 'Lucretian concoction' is this article.

    "For evolutionists the answer is yes, all organisms must be such concoctions, and in so saying they are their own accuser—this is not about science."

    That's quite a bold statement that all evolutionists consider all organisms to be a 'Lucretian concoction'; a philosophical term that you seem to coined yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. CH: A suggestion for this blog. It would be nice to have links open in a new window (or tab) rather than in this same as that would make for much easier back and forth checking, copy/pasting etc.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The most astounding thing about this blog is that the Darwinians visiting and posting always prove Dr. Hunters statements about evolutionists all while trying desperately to prove him wrong!

    Go figure

    That's the Darwinian mindset. A text book case of cognitive dissonance and its effects on the mind. Like we say, "the truly insane don't know they are insane".

    Darwinians suffering from acute cognitive dissonance and its effects on the brains logic gates don't know they are reasoning in circles.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gary:

    "That's the Darwinian mindset. A text book case of cognitive dissonance and its effects on the mind. Like we say, "the truly insane don't know they are insane"."

    Funny, that's almost exactly how I see many creationists: as mentally ill. Their leaders more specifically as sociopaths bent on fleecing rubes such as you.

    Doesn't it give you even a little pause that nearly all scientists disagree with you? Have you seriously considered that it might be you who is insane, rather than the scientists who have studied the subject for many years?

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

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gary: In most browsers, holding CTRL while clicking will automatically open a link in a new tab. Alternatively you can right-click on the link to open a menu which will usually have some kind of "Open Link In New Tab" option. I'm in the habit of CTRL-clicking every link just to be sure. It's usually easier that way.

    Everyone else: The phrase "Lucretian Concoction" seems to be a reference to Titus Lucretius Carus, who wrote an epic poem whose title is usually translated as "On the Nature of Things" or "On the Nature of the Universe." From the Wikipedia page on Lucretius: "...the main purpose of the work was to free Gaius Memmius's (and presumably all of mankind's) mind of superstition and the fear of death." It later states "Lucretius identifies superstition (religio in the Latin) with the notion that the gods/supernatural powers created our world or interfere with its operations in any way."

    Presumably CH considers evolution to be a "lucretian concoction" because he thinks it's secretly a philosophical argument against religion, and not actually a scientific theory at all.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gary said...

    The most astounding thing about this blog is that the Darwinians visiting and posting always prove Dr. Hunters statements about evolutionists all while trying desperately to prove him wrong


    Gary...Gary...

    Aren't you the clown who keeps bragging he has mathematical proof that evolution was too improbable to happen naturally? But every time you're called on your bluff you suddenly vanish from the thread with urine stains streaking your trousers?

    Yep, you're the same guy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Another episode of

    "Golly gee whiz! Look how incredibly complicated! Godmustadunit!"

    Ho hum.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Troy illuminated:

    "Funny, that's almost exactly how I see many creationists: as mentally ill. Their leaders more specifically as sociopaths bent on fleecing rubes such as you."
    =================

    To be honest, there is a massive amount of truth to this and I heartily agree. However, your side is every equal the mirror image of the description you just published.
    -----------------

    Troy:

    "...Have you seriously considered that it might be you who is insane, rather than the scientists who have studied the subject for many years?"
    ================

    Unfortunately, when sience is shackled to an official mandate that of "Evolution is a fact", such biased predjudicial mindset tends to colour any research paperwork. Any other conclusions bring ostracism and banishment, kind of like the way things were done when the Ecclesiastical Hierarchies of old Europe ran the higher learning academia centuries ago. The sad thing is, rather than getting to the truth of all matters, we're still stuck in the same old Dark Ages era of dogma comes first.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ritchie made excuses:

    "Utterly wrong. Evolution requires no beliefs - just an acceptance of empirical evidence aquired using the scientific method.

    The fact that you use the terms 'belief' and 'most holy of holies' mockingly implies you understand that belief (particularly religious belief) has no place in modern science. And you would be right on that point. But what you utterly fail to grasp is that evolution is neither based on, nor requires, any religious beliefs. That is just a falasehood that Cornelius Hunter cannot seem to get straight and it is a shame to see others such as yourself are gullible enough to swallow it - especially since you are both using it specifically to fuel your OWN anti-scientific, religious beliefs."
    =====================

    Ritchie, Evolutionary Theory demands every much of the religiosity as anything churches spew forward. The dogma was a major foundational belief of the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks long before Charlie got his knickers in a twist against the churches and climbed the holy "Mount Improbable" on Galapagos where he received his visions which are constantly quoted in all the atheistic literature as if some sort of sacred gospel.

    The biblical account was the ONLY account that differed from all those Pagan superstitions. If in fact evolutionary doctrine were not a religion, then people such as yourself wouldn't be wasting their precious time here (when they could be doing more productive real world inventing of mechanisms for their fellow man's benefit ???) prosyletizing and evangelizing Evo-World as a holy truth and trying to make converts in almost every accessable forum on the Net.

    As far as Cornelius' reason for this blog, it's purely an exposure of the falicies of what is considered impirical scientific method. The facts show that most of these so-called proofs are nothing more than faith based wishful conclusions based on an already mandated dogma which is going to colour anything no matter how much you and the gang are in denial over this. The one thing I have observed with his blog is that he doesn't even (tho I haven't read every post) bring in any scriptural references from the bible, since this blogs purpose is always exposure of the flawed definition shell games of what constitutes real world impirical science as espoused in all the dictionary definitions. I on the other hand have no problem with bringing up scriptural references when it's called for. *wink*
    -----------------------

    Ritchie incorrectly stated:

    "Why exactly would an impartial, rational, studious person listen to the Bible's account of ANYTHING at all? Turning to the Bible merely follows the RELIGIOUS belief (ie, faith without facts) that it is the inerrant word of God."
    ==================

    Sadly, we are now forced to play shell games as to what the correct definitions of the word/terms 'rational' - 'impartial' - 'studious' actually mean. I find that both sides are guilty on this, something I have every confidence will raise your religious hackles. Both sides are guilty of letting their religious clerics do their thinking and study for them, and for the most part never really take a personal academic responsibility of researching the truth themselves other than read what their clerics preach from the Pulpits (be it church or university buildings.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Eocene -

    Sorry if it seems I pick on you, but it always seems to be you who has posted last when I come on here...


    Unfortunately, when sience is shackled to an official mandate that of "Evolution is a fact", such biased predjudicial mindset tends to colour any research paperwork.


    That is precisely the point. Science is NOT shackled to any such 'official mandate'. Any reasonable scientist will indeed listen to any alternative hypothesis which better explains the evidence of how life on Earth came to be - as long as you can justify it, and are then prepared to do the research to back it up.

    However, ID is not such a hypothesis. It is not scientific for several reasons, it has no supporting evidence and in effect, it explains nothing. It is religious dogma and nothing more. Scientists do indeed dismiss ID, and so they should, as they should dismiss all non-scientific, religious dogma. The issue arises when ID-ers kick and scream that they are not being given a fair hearing, or that scientists are prejudiced against them, when in fact their argument is simply not sceintific.

    Come back with a hypothesis which makes predictions that can be empirically tested, which does not call on supernatural forces, or which is simply a better (that is, more SIMPLE, not more COMPLEX) explanation of the existing evidence and you will indeed be listened to. ID will not be, because it fails to meet even these rudimentary standards.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ritchie's display of righteous indignation:

    "And therein lies your answer. Scientists get 'peeved' when people with obvious religious biases, who clearly know nothing about science at all challenge and mock them in their own fields, not even realising just how out of their depth they are. And the fact that you consider them 'arrogant' is simply an indication that you just don't understand what they're saying. Does that answer you?
    ==================

    No, that hardly answers anything.

    Let's go back in time a couple weeks ago. Wasn't it you who made the bolded statement that Science has nothing to do with, or concern with morality ??? Let's define morality Ritchie.

    Morality + definition =
    "Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)."

    Key aspects or qualities associated with the concept/term morality would be honesty, integrity, humility, truthfulness, etc. These are things that should be a part of science (so say those claiming infalibility of science), but often this couldn't be further from the truth. Often when exposure of fraud or scam is revealed example: ("Lucy, Evolution by Power Saw", etc), it is excused as a necessary evil to combat false religious ideas.

    When combining science and morality, it's more along the realm of Ethics issues and this is where things go wrong. At the very least, science subscribes to Amorality, which is nothing more than a passive indifference towards morality. When the leaders in the scientific community hold to a dogmatic philosophic worldview of there being no absolutes and truth is relative, then such things as integrity have zero meaning and should be deleted from the human vocabulary.

    Example: Ever apply for public 'Grant/s' research monies Ritchie ??? I have and so has my wife. However, in most scientific circles, what colours the application papers is the drive for money. I mean let's face it. There are dogmas to be proved, academic positions to be maintained, etc. Money colours truth. How so ???

    Let's say some sort of research on a particular aspect of evolutionary dogma (doesn't matter what field) has need of funds for furthering the research work. The grant application has need of facts/data to back your reasons for further funding your research. But what if the research data was ONLY 30% in favor of evolutionary findings, while the other 70% was totally negative ??? Does the researcher have to lie about ALL of these data facts??? Well, technically, not exactly. You simply hide that 70% negative data and bury it somewhere. Then you focus strictly on the 30% with massive amounts of embellishments, exagerations, additions, etc and all the while never once mentional the 70% negative data. On the material substrate surface, it doesn't appear on the application that you were dishonest or even lied about anything, since all you spoke about was the possitive 30%. But in reality, had you made any reference or even casual mention of the 70% negativity compiliation of your other findings, most likely you don't get the dough. This is where integrity fails and ethics is thrown out the window for what is considered the greater good.

    And it's not just grant applications, it's also textbooks, science magazines, television documentaries and any other form of indoctrination venue science today has control over. Now once again, to be fair, Churches have also done this for centuries and it has been individual men and women of integrity that were driven by a need for the truth who have exposed this over the centuries. Many of them even lost their lives doing so. Modern science is ever more the mirror image of anything about the religious past today.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eocene -


    The dogma was a major foundational belief of the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks long before Charlie got his knickers in a twist against the churches and climbed the holy "Mount Improbable" on Galapagos where he received his visions which are constantly quoted in all the atheistic literature as if some sort of sacred gospel.


    I love that religious metaphor here. But as I'm sure you actually know, it is inaccurate. For one thing, exactly what dogma do you think was a 'major foundatinoal belief' for the Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks? I'm confused. Are you saying the theory of evolution dates back that far?!

    Or are you, as I consider rather more likely, confusing the theory of evolution with something else (atheism perhaps)?


    The biblical account was the ONLY account that differed from all those Pagan superstitions.


    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHA!!

    Every culture around the world has it's own creation myths, each of which is unique. So you could claim any particular creation myth is 'different from all the others'. The only relevant question is whether they are accurate, and on that score the Bible fails just as soundly as any other.

    I suspect you think the Bible's account is distinguished from the rest by virtue of being true. But it is only your own religious beliefs which make you think this. Looked at impartially, the Bible's account is no different to any other creation myth, least of all when it comes to accuracy!


    If in fact evolutionary doctrine were not a religion, then people such as yourself wouldn't be wasting their precious time here...


    Why not? I think you'll find Cornelius Hunter is the one prosyletizing and evangelizing. I, and several others here, are merely trying to point out the factual inaccuracies, chasmic flaws in his logic, and painfully obvious religious bias so that gullible, scientifically illiterate people do not stumble here and take these posts at face value.


    As far as Cornelius' reason for this blog, it's purely an exposure of the falicies of what is considered impirical scientific method.


    No, that's what he'd like us to believe.


    The one thing I have observed with his blog is that he doesn't even (tho I haven't read every post) bring in any scriptural references from the bible,


    That is half-true. Cornelius does indeed steer clear of Biblical references. In fact, it seems he is always at great pains to obfuscate his own religious convictions. When confronted on the subject he is often coy, dismissive and nonchalant. However, this is because his chief accusation is that evolution is treated like a religion by scientists, and religion has no place in science - a point which is rather hamstrung when we appreciate Cornelius' own religious convictions.

    Cornelius is letting his own religious bias pollute his scientific views. But he apparently sees real scientists committing the crimes he himself is guilty of. It stems from the mindset of 'What I believe is absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees with me must be lying, mad, or mistaken'. It is a conviction that the religious mind nurtures with gusto. It takes a rational person to consider they genuinely might be wrong (and ironically it is only by doing this that you are more likely to arrive at the truth), and it seems neither he nor you are rational people.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Am Christian, I find this post confusing.

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

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eocene

    Perhaps you should take a look at this site it describes some of the inconsistencies of the bible!

    http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ritchie:

    "I love that religious metaphor here. But as I'm sure you actually know, it is inaccurate. For one thing, exactly what dogma do you think was a 'major foundatinoal belief' for the Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks? I'm confused. Are you saying the theory of evolution dates back that far?!"
    ===================

    This is funny. You've never actually done the research or read the archealogical secular findings of literary works by many of the more welknown famous Sages and Soothsayers who believed in life starting in the sea, fish turning into animals and animals into human form, have you ??? You do your own homework. Start with many of the Greek philosophers of whom most atheists admire so much. You might find it revealing and enlightening.
    ---------------

    Ritchie furthered:

    "I suspect you think the Bible's account is distinguished from the rest by virtue of being true. But it is only your own religious beliefs which make you think this. Looked at impartially, the Bible's account is no different to any other creation myth, least of all when it comes to accuracy!"
    ===================

    Once again you haven't done the homework. Most pagan myths like that of the Assyrians/Babylonians incorporate wars between gods. One killing the other and making the Sea out of his blood, or the Hindu myth of a flat Earth resting on the backs of two elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle. Or an atheist Greek intellect favourite, Altas holding up the Earth on his shoulders ???

    The biblical account is simply a chronological order of events in order of appearance and nothing more. There is absolutely no comparison. Nice try tho.
    -------------------

    Ritchie deflected:

    "I, and several others here, are merely trying to point out the factual inaccuracies, chasmic flaws in his logic, and painfully obvious religious bias so that gullible, scientifically illiterate people do not stumble here and take these posts at face value."
    =================

    This is an untruth and deliberate mis-statement of the facts. You and your gang do nothing more than make excuse after excuse for the fudging of truth, out right lying, fraud, assertions, assumptions and speculations for which science demands be believed as facts when in actuality they are nothing more than faith based beliefs. You are every equal a religious individual as a Cornelius Hunter or me.
    ----------------------

    Ritchie:

    "Cornelius is letting his own religious bias pollute his scientific views. But he apparently sees real scientists committing the crimes he himself is guilty of. It stems from the mindset of 'What I believe is absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees with me must be lying, mad, or mistaken'. It is a conviction that the religious mind nurtures with gusto. It takes a rational person to consider they genuinely might be wrong (and ironically it is only by doing this that you are more likely to arrive at the truth), and it seems neither he nor you are rational people. "
    ======================

    Interesting, so if you are to accept (say for example) the teaching of macroevolution as true, then you must believe that Agnostic and Atheistic Scientists will not let their personal biased beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings ???

    Here's even a more close to home example of a self promoting in your face intellectual named Oleg Tchernyshyov whose Bio says he was born in 1967 in Soviet Era Russia. Can you honestly tell me that such an insane idealogy which adhered to strict Darwinian principles when it ruled with an iron fist by banning most religions, burned churches, executed religious people for not worshipping the state or at best condemned them to Gulags in deep Siberia, can you definitely say that such a hideous upbringing never coloured his worldview towards becoming an Evolutionist ???

    ReplyDelete
  33. John:
    Actually, the evolutionary hypothesis of secondarily aquatic animals having terrestrial ancestry is eminently testable.

    That has nothing to do with an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    As a matter of fact that "hypothesis" fits in perfectly with front loaded evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Cornelius,

    "Of course the mutations are random with respect to the design. And that is the issue at hand."

    So true! I have had this conversation too many times on this blog. Evolutionists just don't get it. It must be on account of their religious orthodoxy.

    There is an obvious way to test evolution with the sunburst diving beetle. If the process was random then there should be more random failures than successes. If there is a random evolutionary processes then random creativity should be going on all the time. Given the numerous parts in the visual system there should be numerous random fluctuations: i.e. brains, retina, nervous systems, eyes that can/can't process bifocal vision. But this is exactly what we don't see. There is no random fluctuation of parts of the design. Therefore evolution poorly explains natural life.

    Also, if biological creativity is truly random and mindless then why does it stop after a successful design is stumbled upon. Evolution can not know this. It must always randomly produce new designs.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ritchie:
    Come back with a hypothesis which makes predictions that can be empirically tested,

    Exactly!

    Your position doesn't have a testable hypothesis nor does it make any predictions!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ritchie on ID:
    It is religious dogma and nothing more.

    Except ID doesn't have anything to do with religion.

    ID is based on observations and experiences.

    ID can be tested and potentially can be refuted.

    OTOH all you can do is say "evoltiondidit"...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Peter:

    "Also, if biological creativity is truly random and mindless then why does it stop after a successful design is stumbled upon. Evolution can not know this. It must always randomly produce new designs."
    =================

    This is the biggest problem for intellectuals who insist on an absence of any sort of intelligence design or goal driven directedness. Then they will suddenly show righteous indignation when you bring up random mutations because there are supposed to be all these other vital factors which biasly select for just the right choices. The problem though is that they continually apply personification values on non-sentience objects or things to explain all these amazing magical feats of a designed natural world.

    Apparently their answer to your above observation would be that "Unspecified Natural Magic" knows just exactly when to stop. You'll just have to accept their conclusions for no other reason than they are smarter than you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well that post stayed up. Let's have another go...

    Eocene -


    Wasn't it you who made the bolded statement that Science has nothing to do with, or concern with morality


    Probably. Sounds like something I'd say.


    Key aspects or qualities associated with the concept/term morality would be honesty, integrity, humility, truthfulness, etc. These are things that should be a part of science (so say those claiming infalibility of science), but often this couldn't be further from the truth.


    You totally miss my point. My point was that science deals in FACTS, and we cannot just draw moral conclusions from facts. If, for example, scientists prove the urge to steal is an entirely natural one, that says absolutely nothing whether stealing is right or wrong.

    You seem to think I was saying scientists have no obligation to behave morally as human beings. That's not the case at all, but it is applicable to EVERYONE, not just scientists.


    Often when exposure of fraud or scam is revealed example: ("Lucy, Evolution by Power Saw", etc), it is excused as a necessary evil to combat false religious ideas.


    Again with Lucy. I asked you before to explain your views on Lucy and Ardi, but you never did...


    Ever apply for public 'Grant/s' research monies Ritchie ??? I have and so has my wife. However, in most scientific circles, what colours the application papers is the drive for money.


    So what? Research is funded. Big deal. Religious institutes such as the Discovery Institute have enough money to make an emporer blush. Seriously, megachurches RAKE in the cash. If science was just a matter of finding what those who are paying your wages want you to find then we should be knee-deep in studies advancing evidence for ID and Creationism. But we aren't. At all. Which is rather telling - firstly obviously cash CAN'T just buy you scientific results, and secondly, science as an instituition obviously has more credibility than you are crediting it with.


    But what if the research data was ONLY 30% in favor of evolutionary findings, while the other 70% was totally negative ???


    Are you referencing a real study here, or are you just making all this up? I suspect the latter.


    Modern science is ever more the mirror image of anything about the religious past today.


    Just to be clear, are you saying you reject the whole of science? Or are you saying you distrust it just enough to accept the bits you like and rejects the bits you don't?

    ReplyDelete
  39. eocene

    post about research funding and grants is very interesting. It is a form of truth-mind control ( book 1984). Mathematician Berlinski writes about that ,too.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Eocene -


    You've never actually done the research or read the archealogical secular findings of literary works by many of the more welknown famous Sages and Soothsayers who believed in life starting in the sea, fish turning into animals and animals into human form, have you?


    What legends? What soothsayers? Name them. Show me them. Link to them. And explain in great and graphic detail exactly what they have to do with the theory of evolution. Back up what you're saying!


    Most pagan myths like that of the Assyrians/Babylonians incorporate wars between gods...
    The biblical account is simply a chronological order of events in order of appearance and nothing more. There is absolutely no comparison.


    What utter rubbish. The Biblical account is not just an 'order of appearance'. It is a claim that everything (in a given order) was made by God. And most creation myths features Gods. Whether in war or peace, sex or blood, by spirit or divine proclamation, by accident or by design, Gods ushered in the world as it is. The Bible's account is no different!

    And in any case, the Bible's order of appearance is wrong. Hardly speaks well for it's accuracy, does it?


    You and your gang do nothing more than make excuse after excuse for the fudging of truth, out right lying, fraud...


    It is easy to just scream 'LIAR' at anyone who disagrees with you. Refer back to my comments about being rational enough to consider you genuinely might be wrong.


    Interesting, so if you are to accept (say for example) the teaching of macroevolution as true, then you must believe that Agnostic and Atheistic Scientists will not let their personal biased beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings?


    In an ideal world, yes.


    Oleg Tchernyshyov whose Bio says he was born in 1967 in Soviet Era Russia. Can you honestly tell me that such an insane idealogy which adhered to strict Darwinian principles when it ruled with an iron fist by banning most religions, burned churches, executed religious people for not worshipping the state or at best condemned them to Gulags in deep Siberia, can you definitely say that such a hideous upbringing never coloured his worldview towards becoming an Evolutionist ???


    Where to begin?

    Firstly, you are equating the theory of evolution with Stalinist Russia. That is a fallacy par excellence! Read up on Stalin's director of biology Trofim Lysenko, who rejected Mendelian genetics and the theory of evolution in favour of the theories of a fellow Russian. He was allowed to openly persecute evolutionary biologists and critics of his system, even though it lead to famine and starvation for millions.

    Stalin's Russia had nothing to do with Darwinism, though that doesn't stop mindless religious fanatics equating the two. Stalin's Russia was a Communist dictatorship. This is not even SOCIAL Darwinism. You simply did what the dictator told you or you were killed. Which, frankly is EXTREMELY like God's arrangement with humanity - we do what he wants us to or He'll throw you into Hell. Is God such a Stalinesque dictatorial tyrant?

    Your problem seems to be that you seem to identify enemies and lump them all together. Communists, atheists, evolutionists - they all must be the same. Don't you have any ability to distinguish between them, or do they all fall under the same shadowy figure of 'enemy' in your head?

    But besides all that, what makes you think Oleg's opinion is coloured by his upbringing AND YOURS ISN'T? You have had an upbringing too. If you are an American citizen, then you were brought up in one of the most pious, religious countries in the developed world - one where Biblical literalism has a far bigger fan base than in most others. Why shouldn't we think YOUR worldview is coloured against evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ritchie:
    Religious institutes such as the Discovery Institute have enough money to make an emporer blush.

    The Discovery Institute is not a religious institution and I doubt you know anything about their finances.

    I am sure it doesn't compare to the US gov.

    And where is all the research peratining to blind, undirected chemical processes?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Joe G -


    Your position doesn't have a testable hypothesis nor does it make any predictions!


    A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has passed a minimum standard of empirical evidence.

    The theory of evolutiopn is a THEORY of evolution (ie, not a hypothesis). What does that tell you?


    Except ID doesn't have anything to do with religion.


    You mean apart from the fact that virtually everyone who advocates it does so explicitly to advance the hypothesis that God exists?


    ID is based on observations and experiences.


    Such as?


    ID can be tested and potentially can be refuted.


    How?


    OTOH all you can do is say "evoltiondidit"...


    It's truly stunning how you can project all this onto others. ID is guilty of every scientific crime you are accusing the theory of evolution of. And somehow you are just blind to it and project it right back. It really is a sight to behold.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ritchie

    "Again with Lucy. I asked you before to explain your views on Lucy and Ardi, but you never did..."
    =======================

    It was self explanitory. I asked you what would happen if someone who believes in the Biblical account of creation pulled the same stupid fraudulant stunt that Lovejoy did with his "Deer stepped on fossil and broke Lucy's hip" crybaby excuse and then proceeded to use your basic Binford Power Saw to diliberately reshape a totally half-cocked tinkertoyed remake of the hip bone (which didn't even perfectly fit BTW) to make it appear more human-like and you completely went sideways and deflected from answering the question, with the exception of the usual excuse making.
    ==================

    Ritchie:

    "So what? Research is funded. Big deal. Religious institutes such as the Discovery Institute have enough money to make an emporer blush. Seriously, megachurches RAKE in the cash."
    ===================

    You know the funny thing here is that I totally agree with you on this. Did you know the bible absolutely condemns them for all that obscene wealth pursuing ??? Are you aware that the bible condemns even a minister for receiving a wage for so-called religious services rendered ??? Did you know that the Bible shows that all the full time evangelizers (Apostles) of the New Testement (Greek Scriptures) are on record for pointing out that these men ALL had a personal secular means (Jobs) of support and did not engage in the fundraising crap we all know goes on in regards wealth creation by these MEGA-CHURCH EVANGELIZERS ???
    Do you care ???
    ---------------------

    Ritchie:

    "But we aren't. At all. Which is rather telling - firstly obviously cash CAN'T just buy you scientific results, and secondly, science as an instituition obviously has more credibility than you are crediting it with."
    ====================

    No Ritchie, I just happen to know how it operates and it's actually not that much different than many of the tactics employed by most churches. *wink*
    --------------------

    Ritchie:

    "Just to be clear, are you saying you reject the whole of science? Or are you saying you distrust it just enough to accept the bits you like and rejects the bits you don't? "
    ===================

    Wow, three fingers right back at-cha Pal.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Joe G -

    The Discovery Institute is devoted to getting creationist beliefs taught in the school as science. And you don't think this is religious?

    And if you're looking for research supporting the theory of evolution, why not open one of the several peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject?

    Where am I to look for empirical evidence supporting ID?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Eosene -


    I asked you what would happen if someone who believes in the Biblical account of creation pulled the same stupid fraudulant stunt that Lovejoy did with his "Deer stepped on fossil and broke Lucy's hip" crybaby excuse and then proceeded to use your basic Binford Power Saw to diliberately reshape a totally half-cocked tinkertoyed remake of the hip bone (which didn't even perfectly fit BTW) to make it appear more human-like and you completely went sideways and deflected from answering the question, with the exception of the usual excuse making.


    I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about here.


    Did you know the bible absolutely condemns them for all that obscene wealth pursuing ??? Are you aware that...
    Do you care ???


    If the Bible condemns the accumulation of vast sums of wealth, then fair play. But so what? What does that prove, other than the fact that megachurch leaders are hypocrits (at least according to your interpretation fo the Bible)?

    The Tao of Pooh says many profound and moral things. Do you care about that?


    No Ritchie, I just happen to know how it operates and it's actually not that much different than many of the tactics employed by most churches. *wink*


    Right. No need to actually back up your claims there. I'll just take your word for that then, shall I?


    Wow, three fingers right back at-cha Pal.


    I have no idea what that means.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ritchie said...

    Joe G -

    The Discovery Institute is devoted to getting creationist beliefs taught in the school as science. And you don't think this is religious?


    Don't forget this is the same Discovery Institute who published their "Wedge strategy" for attacking science and replacing it with Christian religious beliefs.

    Wedge Strategy

    The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". The strategy also aims to "affirm the reality of God." Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.

    And if you're looking for research supporting the theory of evolution, why not open one of the several peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject?

    Joe's search for ToE evidence is limited to the inside of his toaster repair shop. He's looked in the back room, under the counter top, but just can't find that scientific evidence anywhere!

    Hey Joe, did you try looking behind that pile of broken toaster heating elements yet?

    Where am I to look for empirical evidence supporting ID?

    The same place all the ID advocates find their evidence:

    1611 King James Version

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ritchie:

    "I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about here."
    ====================

    How convenient. LOL
    --------------------

    Ritchie:

    "If the Bible condemns the accumulation of vast sums of wealth, then fair play. But so what? What does that prove, other than the fact that megachurch leaders are hypocrits (at least according to your interpretation fo the Bible)?

    The Tao of Pooh says many profound and moral things. Do you care about that?"
    ====================

    Perfect, that's exactly what I thought. Next time, try harder not to live up to all my expectations.
    --------------------

    Ritchie:

    "Right. No need to actually back up your claims there. I'll just take your word for that then, shall I?"
    ===================

    Why don't you just do as you so please. You do anyway.
    -------------------
    Ritchie:

    "I have no idea what that means. "
    ===================

    Think Beatles "Blue Meanie Flying Glove" from the movie "Yellow submarine" when pointing the finger. Then look at where all the other fingers are pointing.

    *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  48. Eocene -


    How convenient. LOL


    You can't just make accusations like that up. You have to support them. Otherwise I could mention the time the Pope had a divine revelation and came out and told the world there was no God after all - the whole of Christianity is based on a lie...

    Please back up this claim. Link to something. Quote someone. Otherwise you could just be making up lies. How are we to judge otherwise?


    Perfect, that's exactly what I though. Next time, try harder not to live up to all my expectations.


    My intentions here have nothing to do with confirming or confounding your expectations of me. I made a point. You have not addressed it. The Toa of Pooh contains good moral guidance. But that's no reason to take it as the inerrant work of God, is it?


    Why don't you just do as you so please. You do anyway.


    Another evasion...


    Think Beatles...


    Oh yes, THAT again.

    But I'm not just picking and choosing what scientific truths to accept based on personal belief. I am perfectly happy to accept what the vast majority of scientists say. If the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists agree on something (such as the theory of evolution being correct), then I am perfectly happy to accept they know what they are talking about.

    That is not to say I take it all on blind faith. But I don't claim more than a fairly broad grasp of the topic. I don't claim to understand every detail. Yet you dismiss these experts (in their thousands, I might add) just because they don't happen to agree with your personal religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  49. David:
    Evolutionary theory is an empirically testable set of hypotheses.

    I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "empirically testable" in the context of your assertion. Here is one defintion, which is found on Wikipedia.

    The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

    The mechanisms of evolution, whether natural or the result of intelligent agency, that brought about the great morphological transformations are lost to history and cannot be directly observed. Science can only infer the mechanism of evolution from secondary observations.

    This situation is not unique to biology and the history of life. Atomic physics is based on inferring the existence of particles that cannot be directly observed. Experiments are performed in which results can be observed, and from those results science can infer the existence of things that cannot be observed. Such experiments and the results occur within practical time spans.

    Joe G:
    [T]he theory of evolution does not have any testable hypotheses.

    I tend to agree with Joe G on this point. A testable hypothesis for the theory of evolution would be one in which the results of the test would legitimately lead to the inference that that random variation and natural selection can account for the great morphological transformations observed in the fossil record.

    The sticking point is whether the fossil record and the many lines of secondary evidence provide a sound basis for inferring the mechanism of evoluiton.

    The only active tests that I am aware of that provide a legitimate basis for inferring the historical mechanism of evolution are the multigenerational tests with bacteria cultures.

    These tests suggest that there are limits to what evolution can do.

    Are there tests that have been or could be conducted that might counter the results of the multigenerational bacteria tests?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ritchie:
    The Discovery Institute is devoted to getting creationist beliefs taught in the school as science.

    That is a lie.

    Your position doesn't have a testable hypothesis nor does it make any predictions!

    Ritchie:
    A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has passed a minimum standard of empirical evidence.

    The theory of evolutiopn is a THEORY of evolution (ie, not a hypothesis). What does that tell you?


    It tells me that someone skipped some steps on the way to calling it a "theory".

    Except ID doesn't have anything to do with religion.


    You mean apart from the fact that virtually everyone who advocates it does so explicitly to advance the hypothesis that God exists?

    That is a lie.

    ID is based on observations and experiences.


    Such as?

    Everything I have already told you about.

    All the things you just shrug off.


    ID can be tested and potentially can be refuted.


    How?

    The same way all design inferences are tested and refuted.

    IOW your ignorance is meaningless.

    OTOH all you can do is say "evoltiondidit"...


    It's truly stunning how you can project all this onto others.

    It is a fact.

    Your position deson't have anything- if it did than Anthony Flew- former atheist- would not have said that ID is based on the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wedge Document- So what?:

    Thorton is just another paranoid conspiracy nut...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ritchie:
    I am perfectly happy to accept what the vast majority of scientists say.

    Said the mindless drone.

    OTOH I am perfectly happy to accept what any scientist can demonstrate.

    Ya see to me it all depends on WHY scientists accept the things they do...

    ReplyDelete
  53. throtard:
    Joe's search for ToE evidence is limited to the inside of his toaster repair shop.

    I don't have a toaster repair shop.

    And my search is limited every scientific journal, text books and anything else I can find.

    I don't find much so I come to forums like this to ask the evotards what it is that has them so convinced.

    And to my surprise all I get is evidence supporting baraminology and common design!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ritchie:
    And if you're looking for research supporting the theory of evolution, why not open one of the several peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject?

    Been there, done that- I have yet to find any articles supporting blind, undirected chemical processes nor the claim that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to do what you think they did.

    IOW Ritchie it appears that all you have is to ride on the coat-tails of so many thousands of atheistic scientists on an agenda...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Doublee said: "These tests suggest that there are limits to what evolution can do."

    Oh really? And what are those limits?

    If I were to conduct an experiment on erosion, and found that over 20 years, a certain volume of water moving over rock could erode it 1 meter, Your statement above would be like someone exclaiming: "These tests suggest that there are limits to what erosion can do; erosion has only been demonstrated to be able to erode rock 1 meter; to think that erosion could form the Grand Canyon, 1 mile wide in some places, is ridiculous.

    If I were sitting the fence on ID, the sheer number of absurd arguments and logical fallacies coming from its proponents would be enough to make me skeptical of the position.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Or the volume of water that carved the Grand canyon was larger than the volume you used.

    Then there is speed.

    As for tests and limits of evolution- Dr Behe wrote a book all about that...

    ReplyDelete
  57. Joe G -


    - The Discovery Institute is devoted to getting creationist beliefs taught in the school as science.

    - That is a lie.


    Refer back to Thorton's comment on the wedge document. You really dismiss this as a conspiracy theory?


    It tells me that someone skipped some steps on the way to calling it a "theory".


    Someone just made a slip-up which no-one has noticed for over a century? Doesn't wash.


    Everything I have already told you about.

    All the things you just shrug off.


    If you have a single piece of evidence for conscious, deliberate un/sub/super - natural intervention in nature, you would be a very famous man.


    The same way all design inferences are tested and refuted.


    Well in that case, ID would need to make a prediction which could then be tested and falsified. But what predictions does ID make? The essence of ID is to just look at natural features and say 'The Designer made it that way', which works for absolutely anything we could possibly find. It is simply not a falsifiable claim. To get more specific than that, we would need to speculate on what a designer would or would not design, which is something Cornelius Hunter has been decrying as 'religious' for as long as I have been following his blog.


    Your position deson't have anything- if it did than Anthony Flew- former atheist- would not have said that ID is based on the evidence.


    You keep trumpeting Anthony Flew as if he was some kind of ace card. There are atheists and there are theists. Sometimes people convert. Why exactly should Anthony Flew have any greater insight into theology than anyone else?


    Said the mindless drone.


    It is not irrational to place a certain degree of trust in experts. Especially in science where the emphasis is so strongly placed on evidence and rational argument. The VAST majority of scientists agree that evolution is true. That counts for something, no matter how much you may want to dismiss it.


    OTOH I am perfectly happy to accept what any scientist can demonstrate.


    ... to your satisfaction! And bearing in mind science deals not in proof, but in evidence, then it is likely no amount of evidence would ever be enough to satisfy you of something you just don't WANT to accept.


    I have yet to find any articles supporting blind, undirected chemical processes nor the claim that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to do what you think they did.


    You do not think microevolution happens? You don't think it has been demonstrated?

    I guess you're going to draw a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. But the only difference here is time. Refer back to Derick Childress' comment on erosion at 9:07.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ritchie,

    Refer to wedge document so what

    There isn't any testable hypotheses for the theory of evolution- I can tell because you chumps refuse to produce one.

    Plenty of evidence for ID has been produced.

    However there isn't any evidence this is all just an accident- ie an accumulation of accidents.

    Intelligent Design- The Design Hypothesis

    Anthony Flew was an atheist who argued against ID until finally he couldn't hand-wave away the evidence any longer.

    Not one of your alleged vast majority of scientists can supprt the claims of the theory of evolution.

    There isn't any evidence that supports the claim that microevolution can add up to macroevolution.

    All you can do is throw time at small changes- that ain't science...

    ReplyDelete
  59. evotards... this is new one to me

    IDiots... I heard this before

    ha ha -it's entertaining

    ReplyDelete
  60. Joe G said...

    Or the volume of water that carved the Grand canyon was larger than the volume you used.

    Then there is speed.


    Is that what you're on Joe? Everyone else who has seen your fact-free ranting thinks it's crack.

    As for tests and limits of evolution- Dr Behe wrote a book all about that...

    Jack Chick drew up some interesting cartoons about evolution too. Both have the same level of scientific validity and support.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thortard chimes in with its usual vacuous bull.

    The question isn't if Dr Behe's claims have scientific support- rather that it is that your position lacks scientific support.

    Thorton on crack

    LoL!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Joe G one day

    "I have never said there's no evidence for evolution"

    Joe G the next day

    "The question isn't if Dr Behe's claims have scientific support- rather that it is that your position lacks scientific support."

    That big red nose and size 47EEEEEEEE shoes look good on you Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Joe G -


    Refer to wedge document so what


    The irony is delicious! Even this document reveals the theological bias of the Discovery Institute. From the document:

    "We admit it. We think the materialistic world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the late 19th century is false and we want to refute it... We are challenging the PHILOSOPHY of scientific materialism, not science itself. Our detractors fail to make this critical, but obvious, distinction. We don't know why."

    Here's why - BECAUSE WITHOUT THE ASSUMPTION OF MATERIALISM THERE IS NO SCIENCE, at least, not as we currently understand the term!

    I can't see why you cannot grasp this. Without the assumption of materialism, we would simply be unable to perform science.

    Yes, science does restrict itself to material explanations for material events. But this ensures all results are testable and repeatable - cornerstones of the scientific method. Do away with materialism from science and you could invoke magic and miracles as an explanation for anything. Which is presumably exactly why the Discovery Institute is in favour of doing so - all of a sudden miracles (and thus ID) becomes scientifically tenable. They just don't see that to make ID science, you have to do away with an absolutely essential part of science.

    In short, science without the assumption of materialism is simply not science any longer.

    I'm willing to admit it is easy to overblow the conspiracy side of the wedge document scandal, and perhaps to a degree it has been. Though I tend to believe it is far more credible than you are trying to make out given the weight it was given by Judge John E. Jones at 2005 Dover ruling.


    There isn't any testable hypotheses for the theory of evolution- I can tell because you chumps refuse to produce one.


    The hypothesis is that life on Earth diversifies through a process of random mutation and natural selection.

    Did I say 'hypothesis'? Whoops, I meant 'theory' since, y'know, it has all that evidence backing it up.

    What is the testable hypothesis of ID?


    Plenty of evidence for ID has been produced.


    Such as?


    Anthony Flew was an atheist who argued against ID until finally he couldn't hand-wave away the evidence any longer.


    I know who Antony Flew was. He was a philosopher and atheist through much of his life. It was only in the last few years of his life that he had an extremely controversial conversion.

    For one thing, he showed many signs of mental decline. After reaffirming in 2001 that he was still an atheist, he began to endorse the pseudoscientific speculations of Gerald Schroeder. When colleague Richard Carrier wrote to confirm this, he admitteded he had been taken in by Schroeder entirely. Then he later seemed to endorse him again.

    Times journalist Mark Oppenheimer described him as suffering severe memory gaps, unable to define such terms as 'abiogenesis', and by all accounts (including Christian apologist Roy Varghese), Flew merely put his name to a book Varghese himself had written - the infamous There Is a God.

    The impression one gets is of the cynical exploitation of an elderly man in mental decline. Not exactly the coup you seem to think it is.

    But in any case, so what if he did convert? I am not an atheist because I followed Antony Flew, and I doubt anyone else was. You seem to be invoking the argument from authority, but if you do that then how are you going to explain away the truly vast number of experts who do oppose ID - the ones who never convert? You seem to want to take Antony Flew as the ONLY authority that matters - I wonder why...


    There isn't any evidence that supports the claim that microevolution can add up to macroevolution.


    Why wouldn't it? Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer time frame. If microevolution works, why not macroevolution? What is the barrier?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ritchie said "In short, science without the assumption of materialism is simply not science any longer."

    Great post Ritchie, but I might have instead phrased this: "In short, science without the assumption of naturalism is simply not science any longer."

    Naturalism and materialism are often used interchangeably; the difference is subtle, but important. That's why the phrase 'methodological naturalism' is used, and not 'methodological materialism.'

    ReplyDelete
  65. "I have never said there's no evidence for evolution"

    Thortard:
    Joe G the next day

    "The question isn't if Dr Behe's claims have scientific support- rather that it is that your position lacks scientific support."

    Thorton, you are an imbecile.

    There is a huge difference between evolution and your position.

    Evolution isn't being debated.

    Your position, which makes unsupported claims, is being debated.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Ritchie:
    Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer time frame.

    So you say yet you cannot support that claim.

    And again if all you have is just to throw time around then you don't have anything.

    Ritchie:
    Here's why - BECAUSE WITHOUT THE ASSUMPTION OF MATERIALISM THERE IS NO SCIENCE, at least, not as we currently understand the term!

    You are full of shit.

    Science is about knowledge- period.

    I can't see why you cannot grasp this. Without the assumption of materialism, we would simply be unable to perform science.

    Nonsense.

    Newton performed science and was using a materialistic frame from which to operate.

    The hypothesis is that life on Earth diversifies through a process of random mutation and natural selection.

    No, that is the vague claim.

    However it cannot be tested- I asked for a TESTABLE hypothesis.

    Anthony Flew was an atheist who argued against ID until finally he couldn't hand-wave away the evidence any longer.


    I know who Antony Flew was. He was a philosopher and atheist through much of his life. It was only in the last few years of his life that he had an extremely controversial conversion.

    It was only "controversial" to the hardcore atheists with a hard-on for Flew.

    They were hurt.

    And here you are repeating the utter lies and bullshit those freaks started.

    You seem to want to take Antony Flew as the ONLY authority that matters - I wonder why...

    You have serious issues and should seek help...

    ReplyDelete
  67. Joe G said...

    There is a huge difference between evolution and your position.

    Evolution isn't being debated.

    Your position, which makes unsupported claims, is being debated.


    What is your definition of evolution Joe?

    What is your understanding of the theory of evolution?

    What is my position?

    Here's a hint. It isn't that "blind undirected chemical processes" are solely responsible for life's diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thorton:
    What is your definition of evolution Joe?

    I use the one in all biology textbooks.

    This one works also

    What is your understanding of the theory of evolution?

    Everything scientists have written about it.

    What is my position?

    Thorton's position

    Here's a hint. It isn't that "blind undirected chemical processes" are solely responsible for life's diversity.

    Well that is what the current theory of evolution posits so you must have some alternative position.

    Pandas thumb:

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    ReplyDelete
  69. What is your understanding of the theory of evolution?

    Everything scientists have written about it.


    But that's not what you have been claiming here and on other C/E boards. Your version has almost nothing to do with what actual scientists have written.

    Thorton: "What is my position? Here's a hint. It isn't that "blind undirected chemical processes" are solely responsible for life's diversity."

    Joe G citing panda's Thumb. "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."


    The PT definition doesn't say "blind undirected chemical processes". It says an unguided, unplanned combination of random variation (the chemical part) plus natural selection, the non-random non-chemical part.

    Since you're too dumb to parse a simple sentence, it's no wonder you can't understand anything more technical than a toaster.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Thorton:
    But that's not what you have been claiming here and on other C/E boards. Your version has almost nothing to do with what actual scientists have written.

    Liar. As if you can do anything but lie...

    The PT definition doesn't say "blind undirected chemical processes". It says an unguided, unplanned combination of random variation (the chemical part) plus natural selection, the non-random non-chemical part.

    1- natural selection is blind

    2- natural selection is a result

    3- it is the result of 3 processes that have at least a random element

    4- random variables on the input gives us a randomized output

    And I guess you are too stupid to understand the other links I provided that support my claims.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
    in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:

    "Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement." page 4 (bold added)


    Then we have:

    “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

    That says the whole process is unguided and unplanned.-> ie undirected.

    Natural selection is blind.

    blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Geez if thortard is too stupid to understand that...

    ReplyDelete
  73. The theory of evolution and blind, undirected chemical processes:

    Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
    in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:

    Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)


    Then we have:

    “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”


    and:


    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley


    From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.


    Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10



    The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro

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

    ReplyDelete
  75. cont.

    What Causes Mutations?:

    Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
    1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals


    2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

    Causes of Mutations:

    1. DNA fails to copy accurately
    Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.


    2. External influences can create mutations
    Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.

    ReplyDelete
  76. and finally-

    DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:

    DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer

    ReplyDelete
  77. Joe G: As a matter of fact that "hypothesis" fits in perfectly with front loaded evolution.

    Front loaded with stupidity? (diving animals without gills)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Joe G said...

    "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

    That says the whole process is unguided and unplanned.-> ie undirected.

    Natural selection is blind.

    blind, undirected chemical processes.


    LOL! Natural selection isn't a chemical process JoeTard.

    Best stick with fixing those toasters.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Thortard:
    LOL! Natural selection isn't a chemical process JoeTard

    LoL!! I never said it was.

    Try to folow along-

    Natural selection is blind- so that refers only to the "blind" part of "blind, undirected chemical processes".

    ReplyDelete
  80. John:
    Front loaded with stupidity? (diving animals without gills)

    Yes John- apparently you were front loaded with stupidity.

    But that doesn't refute FLE.

    ReplyDelete
  81. So accordingly natural selection is blind and (allegedly) all mutations are (via) undirected chemical processes.

    As opposed to ID which says selection isn't necessarily blind (targeted search) and at least some mutations are directed (for example via built-in responses to environmental cues).

    ReplyDelete
  82. JoeTard said...

    Thorton
    LOL! Natural selection isn't a chemical process JoeTard

    LoL!! I never said it was.

    Try to folow along-

    Natural selection is blind- so that refers only to the "blind" part of "blind, undirected chemical processes".


    Double LOL! Not only can't you parse a simple sentence, you're too stupid to write one with the adjectives in the correct place either.

    Toasters Joe. It's the only thing you're half-way competent at.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Wow- I just proved- again- that my claims are correct and thorton is a know-nuthin' evotard.

    Now all the thortard can do is make up a mistake that doesn't exist.

    To sum up thortard cannot parse a simple sentence, doesn't understand the English language and is very ignorant of the theory of evolution and science.

    I guess bluffing and lying are all you are compotent at...

    ReplyDelete
  84. By all means- tell us what you think is wrong with the following sentence-

    Natural selection is blind- so that refers only to the "blind" part of "blind, undirected chemical processes".

    ReplyDelete
  85. thortard:
    Toasters Joe. It's the only thing you're half-way competent at.

    I am batting 1.000 at refuting your nonsense and exposing your ignorance.

    Must be luck...

    ReplyDelete
  86. I am not very competent at spelling....

    Oh well- fire my editor!

    ReplyDelete
  87. If JoeG hasn't driven everyone away, I have a question for Doublee.

    You say the standard theory is not enough to explain "great morphological transformations observed in the fossil record"

    Which great morphological transformations do you have in mind? Can you state one in particular, in the form "_______ (or something like it), which lived and was fossilized ______ million years ago, transformed into _____, which lived and was fossilized _______ million years ago"? If you can't specify your objection in that form, I think your more general statement of what is lacking in evolutionary biology does not accurately describe your concern.

    ReplyDelete
  88. (Not that it matters much, but the John at 6:24 PM 8/30/10 is not the same John who commented earlier in the thread.)

    ReplyDelete
  89. If JoeG hasn't driven everyone away, I have a question for Doublee.


    c'mon John

    It's Thorton too

    but I must say it's quite interesting to me(being relativrly new to this)

    ReplyDelete
  90. Eugen:

    If JoeG hasn't driven everyone away, I have a question for Doublee.


    c'mon John

    It's Thorton too
    ======================

    This is about the only flaw with these boards. At some point Neanderthal behavior , foul language, etc takes over and Cornelius should just lock the thread (If his blog Control Panel even has such a tool) because neither side is interested in common ground at this point. Well, that is if any of them even remotely have such a desire in the first place. Thus far viewing the history of these threads I simply don't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  91. John:
    Front loaded with stupidity? (diving animals without gills)

    Yes John- apparently you were front loaded with stupidity.

    But that doesn't refute FLE.


    This is a perfect example of the intelligent design "argument." Ignorance of evidence and name-calling.

    NT (no turtle) John

    ReplyDelete
  92. Eocene: This is about the only flaw with these boards. At some point Neanderthal behavior , foul language, etc takes over and Cornelius should just lock the thread (If his blog Control Panel even has such a tool) because neither side is interested in common ground at this point. Well, that is if any of them even remotely have such a desire in the first place. Thus far viewing the history of these threads I simply don't see it.

    Along with finding interesting research to critique, allowing the discussion to continue (aside from profanity) is the major strength of this blog that separates it from drone chambers like UD. So two cheers for Cornelius even if his interpretations of biological data seem to be askew of reality.

    Eocene, it's hard to find common ground when you have opponents who aren't sure if the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. I guess it's older than last night's meatloaf; that we can agree on.

    ReplyDelete
  93. data seem to be askew of reality.


    John ,we don't know what exactly makes reality anyway(if you want to get philosophical)

    BTW I read links on e.coli.Very interesting and little too biological for me.It seems e.coli is some variation of family proteobacteria.

    ReplyDelete
  94. John said,

    " allowing the discussion to continue (aside from profanity) is the major strength of this blog that separates it from drone chambers like UD"

    That's funny because this blog is posted on UD. So blogging here is blogging on UD.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  95. John:
    This is a perfect example of the intelligent design "argument." Ignorance of evidence and name-calling.

    Umm you started with the name calling and the ignorance is also yours...

    ReplyDelete
  96. John observed:

    "Eocene, it's hard to find common ground when you have opponents who aren't sure if the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. I guess it's older than last night's meatloaf; that we can agree on."
    ======================

    Despite what the major fundies believe, those are not 24 hour literal days. Their insistance on it being taken literally rings hollow when the same Holy book they claim literal belief in condemns them for their political involvement in this world's affairs when it commands to keep separate from the world. The major problem is this insistance that YEC 144 hour Creationism (a term coined for a political pressure group in that infamous Arkansas court case) be given equal allowance in the schools science curriculum along with evolution. Me personally, I wouldn't want either philosophy shoved into the school system, but not being political, it's really none of my business what the government/s do one way or the other.

    Is that common ground enough ???
    -------------------

    John stated:

    "This is a perfect example of the intelligent design "argument." Ignorance of evidence and name-calling."
    ===================

    While I can whole heartedly agree with this, you need to call it both ways. Thorton is an equal opportunity trash talker and no one (with the exception of a few of Cornelius' warnings/deletions/edittings) has ever remotely attempted to muzzle his man's behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Eugen said we don't know what exactly makes reality anyway(if you want to get philosophical).
    ---------------------------------------
    I absolutely agree with this statement. Physicists disagree on the quantum-mechanical description of reality. And yet quantum theory is amazingly accurate and widely applied.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Peter Wadeck said...

    John said,

    " allowing the discussion to continue (aside from profanity) is the major strength of this blog that separates it from drone chambers like UD"

    That's funny because this blog is posted on UD. So blogging here is blogging on UD.


    Except UD has banned most every scientifically literate person who has posted there so the "ID Pretend Science Boys Club" can be unopposed.

    The UD guys are free to post here but almost none will. They can't deal with actual scientific evidence being presented in a venue they can't censor.

    I'll tip my hat to CH again. His views of science are orthogonal to reality, but he is honest enough to allow open discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  99. my buddy espagnat understands that sometimes we have to go a bit deeper. Don't do it too often - it's scary!


    for example:

    go search for what is electron made of...

    you'll be suprised

    ReplyDelete
  100. Eocene whined...

    While I can whole heartedly agree with this, you need to call it both ways. Thorton is an equal opportunity trash talker and no one (with the exception of a few of Cornelius' warnings/deletions/edittings) has ever remotely attempted to muzzle his man's behavior.


    Awwww, poor wittle Eocene. he doesn't understand the science, doesn't like being called on his bluster, so he cries about the words hurting his delicate little ears.

    I freely admit I've become quite jaded in dealing with IDC dishonesty for so many years. I used to have more patience with blustering IDiots, but no more. They come with snark like you do, they get snark back.

    Big difference is, I know and understand the science involved. You don't. I'd gladly and calmly discuss the technical issues all day long, but no one from the IDC camp wants to. Instead we get boneheads like Tedford talking about Noah's genes, and you babbling about Monsanto's genetic barrier, and Joe the toaster guy with his "blind chemical processes" strawman.

    So cry us a river Eocene. At the end of the day evolutionary science will still be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Eugen said:

    "John ,we don't know what exactly makes reality anyway(if you want to get philosophical)

    BTW I read links on e.coli.Very interesting and little too biological for me.It seems e.coli is some variation of family proteobacteria."
    ===================

    Actually we do know what reality is. One of the most under used tools when it comes to scientific endeavors and most especially when it comes to such studies with "E-coli" or any other such micro-world level bacterial experiment is something called "Common Sense". The amazing thing is as long as I personally have been involved working along side those claiming to be every bit an intellectual, is that "common sense" becomes a distant phenomena only found in Layman and it seems they can no longer comprehend or grasp the concept. With E-coli as an example, why not ask "common sense" questions like:
    "In it's natural environment, where does E-coli live ???

    Hmmmmmmmm, usually commonly found in the lower intestines of the digestive tracts of warm blooded organisms.

    "What normal common everyday purpose or function do they perform as a service to their hosts ??? "

    Hmmmmmmmm, recycling and processing food injested by the host and they do what ever it takes to accomplish this, unless of course something gets out of balance.

    Instead we get boldened philosophical statements of perceived observations and an interprtation of the data influenced by the idealogy of the researcher. With all of the latest up to date understanding of the complex organization within these nano-machines and the goal driven informational coding system which controls and guides these machineries for a purposed outcome, such a bias of undirected purposeless chance and luck simply flies out the window.

    We get the same garbage with the other famous evo-poster child of "Nylonase" bacteria. But then again, "common sense" gets thrown out the window again when there is an idealogy at stake. Oh, but such an element as nylon was never a natural occurrence in the environment before. (Yeah, until Human Greed and selfishness had a hand in it's creation) Using their favourite catch phraze, "So What?" Everything comes from this Earth. The microbiological world are the hidden machinery behind the above ground visible world we all see, feel, smell, taste and generally experience in life and without them we'd be screwed royally. We need them to do what they do and accomplish this by whatever engineering means they are driven to accomplish through the encoded informational system within their DNA for that purpose.

    Here's another example of something not found in the natural world that bacteria can engineer itself to recycle and digest. Remember Chernobyl (Genius of Soviet Atheistic science) and the unnatural radiation blunder which destroyed and poisoned life in that area ??? Sunflowers with their root systems hosted in a symbiosis relationship by a bacteria which apparently had the ability to digest, chew up and spit out the environmental poisoning (particularly Strontium-90) brought about by human idiocy could be recycled efficiently and provided as food for it's host for which there were no radiation traces in their tissues. These Sunflowers and their bacteria can also be used in other applications to absorb lead, arsenic, zinc, chromium, copper, and manganese, and yes once again were successfully used to clean up uranium and strontium-90 from contaminated soil in the Ukraine after the Chernobyl disaster, one of the worst nuclear power plant accidents in history.

    I'm sure Mr Professor of the Dept of Plant and Soil Sciences at University of Kentucky, user, "aghunt" (Aurthor Hunt) could explain further since such technologies should be right up his alley. Actually, it's one of my favourites.

    But again, "common sense" is usually dumped in favour of trying to intellectualize everything to keep the ignorant Layman in their place.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Eocene said...

    Actually we do know what reality is. One of the most under used tools when it comes to scientific endeavors and most especially when it comes to such studies with "E-coli" or any other such micro-world level bacterial experiment is something called "Common Sense". The amazing thing is as long as I personally have been involved working along side those claiming to be every bit an intellectual, is that "common sense" becomes a distant phenomena only found in Layman and it seems they can no longer comprehend or grasp the concept.


    Wow. Nothing you could post could demonstrate your total lack of understanding of science more.

    "Common sense" tells you the world is flat. "Common sense" tells you the sun orbits the Earth. "Common sense" tells you heavier things fall faster than light ones.

    Probably the biggest achievement of science is to remove subjective "common sense" and replace it with objective procedures for determining reality. If you can't grasp that most basic fact you're hopeless.

    But again, "common sense" is usually dumped in favour of trying to intellectualize everything to keep the ignorant Layman in their place.

    No, it's to keep ignorant layman from making bad decisions based only on their ignorance and misunderstandings. That's another good reason to fight for scientific literacy. A scientifically illiterate voting public usually makes terrible policy decisions regarding important topics like energy, the ecology, climate change, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Buddy Eugen,
    Yes it is indeed scary.
    The advent of quantum mechanics shattered our common-sense notions about how the world works.
    However, many scientists have considered quantum biology both unlikely and unscientific. They said that the thermal noise of biological systems seemed too great to allow for quantum weirdness.
    The discovery of quantum effects behind photosynthesis silence the critics. The energy in photosynthesis explores all of its options and retroactively deciding upon the most efficient pathway.
    In the meantime, scientists will continue looking for more evidence of quantum biology, which has been also been posited in the structure of DNA and operations of the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Thorton:
    I freely admit I've become quite jaded in dealing with IDC dishonesty for so many years.

    Nice projection.

    You have proven to be one of the most dishonest people who post.

    for example:

    Thorton:
    "Common sense" tells you the world is flat.

    Absolutely not.

    If the world was flat we would be able to see much farther than we can- ships would not appear to come up from the horizon when approaching the port.

    "Common sense" tells you the sun orbits the Earth.

    Why would it?

    That's another good reason to fight for scientific literacy.

    You should heed your own advice as you are scientifically illiterate.

    And another lie:

    and Joe the toaster guy with his "blind chemical processes" strawman.

    How is it a strawman when I supported the claim with real references?

    That's right it's a strawman because throton is an ignorant SOB...

    ReplyDelete
  105. And BTW I never posited any "blind chemical processes"-

    I said blind, undirected chemical processes- and I supported that claim with references.

    OTOH thorton has never supprted any of his claims.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  106. thortard:
    Big difference is, I know and understand the science involved.

    Liar.

    You don't appear to know much of anything beyond lying.

    ReplyDelete
  107. John:
    If JoeG hasn't driven everyone away,

    How did I drive them away- by exposing their nonsense and ignorance?

    That would do it...

    ReplyDelete
  108. John:
    You say the standard theory is not enough to explain "great morphological transformations observed in the fossil record"

    Which great morphological transformations do you have in mind?


    For me, the "poster boy" for a great morphological transformation is the evolution of a land mammal into a whale.

    There are other significant morphological transformations that are not recorded in the fossil record, which is an interesting observation by itself. I am thinking of the bat, which has no fossilized precursors, and the turtle, which first appeared with a fully formed shell.

    Then there is the transformation of the bellows lung of a reptile into the pass-through lung of the bird, which, of course, can't be fossilized.

    When evolutionists talk about the evolution of the eye, they miss the whole story. What they need to talk about is the evolution of the vision system and all the interrelated parts.

    As I am wont to do, I like to look at evolutionary transformations as engineering problems, and system engineering problems at that. Evolutionists seem to want to look at evolution from the viewpoint of parts: the right parts will come along in the right sequence and arrange themselves into subsystems, the subsystems into systems, and the systems into whole organisms. In other words, evolution is a bottom-up process.

    What if more than one part is needed before a subsystem with a selectable function is created? Can parts be created with selectable functions that somehow will be able to fit with some future part not yet created?

    If evolution can work as a bottom-up process, it is indeed a wondrous mechanism. Can evolution be understood as a bottom-up process when it seems that a top-down process is required?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Alright, the blog SW is deleting posts again.

    Can someone look into this, please?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Doublee said, "What if more than one part is needed before a subsystem with a selectable function is created? Can parts be created with selectable functions that somehow will be able to fit with some future part not yet created?"

    This is a great question and gets to the most fundamental problem with evolution. The evolutionists at this site have pointed to leaves growing and water eroding the Grand Canyon as analogies to evolution.

    It is such a basic flaw in their logic that they seem to gloss over it. They seem to be concerned with parts getting bigger or smaller... wings growing bigger and stronger, etc, but not the actual origin of the new organ and its supporting infrastructure. They haven't a clue as to how evolution actually originated the organ itself, but that is supposed to be the very essence of evolution. They have not addressed the most basic of problems... they are just tinkering around the edges of change.

    Back to your point. By the very nature of complex, integrated systems the components parts are fitted into the whole.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Neal Tedford said...

    It is such a basic flaw in their logic that they seem to gloss over it. They seem to be concerned with parts getting bigger or smaller... wings growing bigger and stronger, etc, but not the actual origin of the new organ and its supporting infrastructure. They haven't a clue as to how evolution actually originated the organ itself, but that is supposed to be the very essence of evolution. They have not addressed the most basic of problems.


    Yes science has you idiot. There is a whole new branch of research, evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) , that deals with the formation and evolution of morphological features. Try doing some research on HOX genes for body plans, or PAX genes for eyes, or TBX genes for limbs.

    You just never tire of demonstrating your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I had four posts vanish in the last hour. Screw it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Thorton:
    Yes science has you idiot. There is a whole new branch of research, evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) , that deals with the formation and evolution of morphological features. Try doing some research on HOX genes for body plans, or PAX genes for eyes, or TBX genes for limbs.

    Been there, done that.

    Even read both of Sean Carroll's books- "Endless Forms..." and "Making of the Fittest".

    The only hope for evo-devo are mutations to developmental genes producing something other than the observed deformaties that mutations to those genes produced.

    Listen guys "The Island of Dr Moreau" is science FICTION.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Has anyone actually seen a change to an evo-devo gene like the HOX or PAx lead to a viable morphological change? To the best of my knowledge changes to the HOX gene in fruit flies does not produce a housefly, but rather a dead or defective fruit fly.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Natschuster (amongst others) asks:Has anyone actually seen a change to an evo-devo gene like the HOX or PAx lead to a viable morphological change? To the best of my knowledge changes to the HOX gene in fruit flies does not produce a housefly, but rather a dead or defective fruit fly.

    Sure. Ultrabithorax is a hox gene that, in Drosophila supresses wing formation, such that the third thorax segement has halteres (small structures that help the fly to balance) as is seen in Dipterans (two-winged flies). Mutation to ultrabithorax can result in Drosophila expressing a second set of wings - as seen in earlier diverged fly lineages.

    This is a substantial change as the feature of having four wings is a characteristic that occurs in an entirely different order of flies. In other words it is an even bigger morphological change than between houseflies and fruit flies.

    ReplyDelete
  116. And just think- another mutation and it gets another pair of legs making the jump from insect to arachnid!

    A flying arachnid!

    Perhaps it will evolve web spinning capabilities so it can catch and eat itself...

    What isn't to like about the theory of evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Paul

    I understand that Ultrabithorax doesn't fly very well. I would imagine that it would have a hard time surviving outside a laboratory.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It looks like evo-devo is just another empty shell in the great evolutionary shell game.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I (Turtle John) asked Doublee: Which great morphological transformations do you have in mind? Can you state one in particular, in the form "_______ (or something like it), which lived and was fossilized ______ million years ago, transformed into _____, which lived and was fossilized _______ million years ago"?

    Doublee replied: For me, the "poster boy" for a great morphological transformation is the evolution of a land mammal into a whale.

    I found a cute timeline of whale evolution at science.discovery.com So where do you see an unevolvable gap? Between pakicetus (60 million years ago) and ambulocetus (50 million years ago)? Ambulocetus and rodhocetus (45 million years ago)? Rodhocetus and squalodon (20 million years ago)? All of the above?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Evo-devo is pretty much their last hope Neal.

    I am OK with letting it run its course.

    In the end it may be that their own work is what it will take to get them to change their position about evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  121. John,

    How the heck can we test any of those alleged transformations?

    ReplyDelete
  122. As for turtles, a quick google search turns up two different fossil finds reported in 2008 of turtles without complete shells.

    Bats seem to be a tougher nut to crack. But I don't think the unanswered questions are so significant that it's appropriate to abandon a mainstream theory that can explain so much.

    Turtle John

    ReplyDelete
  123. Test

    Posts are still disappearing.

    ReplyDelete
  124. John:
    But I don't think the unanswered questions are so significant that it's appropriate to abandon a mainstream theory that can explain so much.

    What does it explain?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Joe G said...

    John:
    But I don't think the unanswered questions are so significant that it's appropriate to abandon a mainstream theory that can explain so much.

    What does it explain?


    Natural selection. It explains why we have intellectually rewarding, interesting jobs in science and you're stuck fixing toasters.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Joe asks what the mainstream theory of evolution explains.
    The general distribution of species in time and space.
    The fact that antibiotics frequently become less effective over time.
    What alternative explanation do you have for those observations, Joe? I don't think the word "baraminology" does a lot of explaining.

    ReplyDelete
  127. natschuster says:"I understand that Ultrabithorax doesn't fly very well. I would imagine that it would have a hard time surviving outside a laboratory."

    Fine - it is a single mutation. The evolution of lineages does not end after a single mutation.

    But consider what this means - we have an extremely good model for the transition from the earlier diverged, four-winged flies, to the more recently derived two-wing flies that are so common now.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Thorton pounded the Pulpit:

    "No, it's to keep ignorant 'layman' from making bad decisions based only on their ignorance and misunderstandings. "
    ===================

    Spoken like your typical self-righteous Clergyman.

    Thanks for sharing.
    --------------------

    ReplyDelete
  129. Paul:

    Flies with the ultrabithorax mutations might not live long enough for the next mutation to happen. They are poor fliers.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Turtle John said: But I don't think the unanswered questions are so significant that it's appropriate to abandon a mainstream theory that can explain so much.
    -----------------------------------

    If we want to probe these unanswered questions, then quantum physics being the most fundamental theory of matter and energy, is poised to help us in this regard.
    Currently, there are two approaches to adaptive mutations, based on the quantum theoretical principles from Ogryzko and McFadden & Al-Khalili. You may disagree with these approaches but they cannot be rule out. The only way to find out is to fund more research into quantum biology.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Kool, suddenly I'm part of the gang.

    I had my posted deleted as well.

    *eyes rolling*

    ReplyDelete
  132. What does it explain?

    Thorton:
    Natural selection.

    The theory of evolutioon explains natural selection?

    LoL!.

    ReplyDelete
  133. John:
    Joe asks what the mainstream theory of evolution explains.
    The general distribution of species in time and space.


    Baraminology and FLE also do that.


    The fact that antibiotics frequently become less effective over time.

    You should read the following refutation of your claim:

    Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

    IOW that also fits in with baraminology and FLE.

    ReplyDelete
  134. thorton:
    It explains why we have intellectually rewarding, interesting jobs in science and you're stuck fixing toasters.

    My last position was as a research scientist and before that I traveled the world bringing leading edge technology with me- and now I am retired.

    Wanna know something else?

    I bet my earnings doubled yours...

    ReplyDelete
  135. Earliest bat fossil has nothing to do with the proposed evolutionary mechanism of blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Thin shelled turtles have nothing to do with the proposed evolutionary mechanism of blind, undirected chemical processes.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Paul:
    But consider what this means - we have an extremely good model for the transition from the earlier diverged, four-winged flies, to the more recently derived two-wing flies that are so common now.

    Only in your dreams

    ReplyDelete
  137. John:
    I don't think the word "baraminology" does a lot of explaining.

    The word doesn't but the concept does.

    ReplyDelete
  138. thorton:
    It explains why we have intellectually rewarding, interesting jobs in science and you're stuck fixing toasters.

    Just because you take out the trash that scientists leave behind doesn't mean you have a job in science...

    ReplyDelete
  139. Joe G:

    "My last position was as a research scientist"

    Bwahaha. Name a journal you published in.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Is there a baraminology journal?

    ReplyDelete
  141. "My last position was as a research scientist"

    troy:
    Name a journal you published in.

    Publishing does not make one a scientist.

    It's the work that does that...

    ReplyDelete
  142. David:
    Is there a baraminology journal?

    Is there a universal common descent via blind, undirected chemical processes journal?

    ReplyDelete
  143. "Publishing does not make one a scientist.

    It's the work that does that... "

    I'm sure your "work" is too top-secret and we don't have the clearance level to see the results...

    Pants on fire

    ReplyDelete
  144. I'm so curious. Could it be a new generation of nuclear-powered laser-guided fire-and-forget toasters?

    ReplyDelete
  145. troy said...

    Joe G:

    "My last position was as a research scientist"

    Bwahaha. Name a journal you published in.


    For Joe it was the Journal of Advanced Toaster Repair

    Joe's claim to be a scientist is another of his standard internet lies, like claiming to be a war hero fighting terrorists. On other boards he claimed to be a scientist because his degree says "Bachelor of Science Electronic Engineering". In other words, he's a low level technician. His "research" in a science lab involved taking oscilloscopes out for calibration. At least that's what he told everyone before.

    ReplyDelete
  146. throton:
    Joe's claim to be a scientist is another of his standard internet lies

    Nope it's a fact.

    like claiming to be a war hero fighting terrorists.

    I never made that claim.

    IOW thorton is the liar here.

    On other boards he claimed to be a scientist because his degree says "Bachelor of Science Electronic Engineering".

    Nope that is just another lie.

    In other words, he's a low level technician. His "research" in a science lab involved taking oscilloscopes out for calibration. At least that's what he told everyone before.

    And finish it off with more lies!

    Geez thortard do you really think your lies afre meaningful?

    ReplyDelete
  147. troy:
    I'm sure your "work" is too top-secret and we don't have the clearance level to see the results...

    I am sure you are a lying imbecile who couldn't understand the results.

    ReplyDelete
  148. thorton is a low-life child molester suffering from the effects of syphilis...

    troy is his accomplice.

    ReplyDelete
  149. On other forums thorton and troy have bragged about the number of children they have molested.

    ReplyDelete
  150. LOL! Joe's sooooo funny when he gets caught making up stories about his wonder scientific accomplishments.

    When he goes ballistic like now is the surest sign he's been called on his empty boasting.

    We've seen it all before.

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  154. "what the theory of evolution positits"

    Calm down, Joe. You're starting to make Freudian slips...

    ReplyDelete
  155. thortard:
    Joe's sooooo funny when he gets caught making up stories about his wonder scientific accomplishments.

    thorton is such a lying loser-what stories have I made up about my scientific accomplishments?

    Everything you have said about me has been a lie.

    Ya see lying is all that pediphilic coward can do.

    It can't support its position- heck it lives in denial about what the theory of evolution posits.

    So it has to make shit up about its opponents in order to "win".

    And yes we have seen this all before...

    ReplyDelete
  156. fixed it troy.

    calm down- if all you can do is pick on typos it is a sure sign you don't have anything else...

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

    ReplyDelete
  158. And of course you don't have anything else so you have to lie, make shit up and pick on typos.

    Good job...

    ReplyDelete
  159. Some Joe G science:

    Joe G at ARN

    "That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

    For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play."

    ReplyDelete
  160. The fallacy with evolution is so basic that it is completely missed. Turtles with just a bottom shell still have a shell. Stone flies with small wings, still have wings. Evolutionists are just dealing with changes along the edges and not explaining their origins. Embryo's have all the genetic code necessary to build their organs.

    There is a reason embryo's stay in their egg shell or womb until they are developed sufficiently. Half developed embryo's don't survive outside their special environment.

    Evolutionists are really saying that they can guarantee that every complex organ can be developed in an incremental fashion from scratch with each small increment in the accumulating structure conveying a benefit. Many mutations must occur in just the right places in order to get even a small wing to be expressed.

    But the difficulty goes deeper than this... How does natural selection filter the various mutations before they get expressed as even a small wing? Just a happy accumulation of the just-right neutral mutations along with some just-right beneficial ones and poof the first fly is born with a wing or turle with a shell?

    ReplyDelete
  161. Doublee: For me, the "poster boy" for a great morphological transformation is the evolution of a land mammal into a whale.

    There are other significant morphological transformations that are not recorded in the fossil record, which is an interesting observation by itself. I am thinking of the bat, which has no fossilized precursors, and the turtle, which first appeared with a fully formed shell.


    Keep in mind that organisms rarely fossilize, appropriate strata are not always available. Nevertheless, the overall nested hierarchy in time is strongly supported, and there are a number of fossil lineages well-represented in the fossil succession.

    But, unlike IDers, scientists continue to search for more and more evidence in order to extend our understanding of evolutionary history. You've been provided exactly that evidence which you said didn't exist; regarding transitional whales, bats and turtles; and in the predicted strata. Please acknowledge this.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Kyler:
    Some Joe G science:

    Joe G at ARN



    Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.

    I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.

    Then there is astronomy. On any given night I can have 3 telescopes pointing skyward. 2 4,5" aps with a 910mm FL(one automated and one manual) as well as a 10" ap with an 1125mm FL.

    And that is just the tip of the ole iceberg.

    That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

    For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play.


    Whatever Kyler...

    ReplyDelete
  163. Zachriel:
    Nevertheless, the overall nested hierarchy in time is strongly supported, and there are a number of fossil lineages well-represented in the fossil succession.

    Nested hierarchies are not evidence for evolution and your idea of "well represented" leaves much to be desired.

    But, unlike IDers, scientists continue to search for more and more evidence in order to extend our understanding of evolutionary history.

    And the more they look the better ID looks.

    You've been provided exactly that evidence which you said didn't exist; regarding transitional whales, bats and turtles; and in the predicted strata.

    And nothing that says the proposed evolutionary mechanism of blind, undirected chemical processes had anything to do with it.

    Nothing in evo-devo which demonstrates changes in devo genes can account for the transformations required.

    Nothing but speculations based on the assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Neal Tedford: How does natural selection filter the various mutations before they get expressed as even a small wing?

    Complex adaptations evolve by incremental, selectable steps. Wings in birds evolved from arms which evolved from legs which evolved from fins which evolved from primitive gill structures.

    Gillis, Dahna & Shubin, Shared developmental mechanisms pattern the vertebrate gill arch and paired fin skeletons, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Zachriel:
    Complex adaptations evolve by incremental, selectable steps. Wings in birds evolved from arms which evolved from legs which evolved from fins which evolved from primitive gill structures.

    How can any of those claims be tested?

    And then how can we test that blind, undirected chemical processes didit?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Joe G: Nested hierarchies are not evidence for evolution

    Metazoa is predicted to have evolved by uncrossed descent, forming a tree structure. The leaves on a tree when grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy. This predicts a non-trivial correlation of traits, which is strongly supported by observation.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Joe G said...

    Kyler:
    Some Joe G science:

    Joe G at ARN

    Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.


    We know Joe - toasters use electronic circuits and electricity.

    (chuckle) Tell us more about the ticks liking watermelon and dragonflies playing. Did you write up that groundbreaking scientific research and submit it to any journals?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Joe G: How can any of those claims be tested?

    You were just provided tests, by looking and finding intermediate structures.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Wow. It's like kindergarten around here.

    "I'm right and you're wrong!"
    "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!"

    "Well, I make more money than you!"
    "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!"

    "Yeah, well you're a kaka-poopoo-head!"
    "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!"

    I admit it was amusing for a moment, but geez, guys. Give it a rest already.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Zach said, "Complex adaptations evolve by incremental, selectable steps. Wings in birds evolved from arms which evolved from legs which evolved from fins which evolved from primitive gill structures. "

    Tell that to the cambrian phyla. Did insect wings also evolve from legs?

    ReplyDelete
  171. Zachriel:
    Metazoa is predicted to have evolved by uncrossed descent, forming a tree structure.

    That is false- uncrossed decent is not a prediction of evolution.

    Zachriel:
    The leaves on a tree when grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy.

    I would love to see you write that one up-

    IOW Zach time to put your money where your mouth is- show us the nested hierarchy of a full grown hemlock.

    This predicts a non-trivial correlation of traits, which is strongly supported by observation.

    Those traits are the basis of any nested hierarchy...

    ReplyDelete
  172. How can any of those claims be tested?

    Zachriel:
    You were just provided tests, by looking and finding intermediate structures.

    Intermediate structures are not evidence for anything except that such organisms existed.

    And your "test" doesn't deal with any evolutionary mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Hey thorton,

    I take it that you are still upset that I exposed your lies and your ignorance.

    Oh well blue-boy, deal with it...

    ReplyDelete
  174. Phenotypic plasticity explains the appearence of intermediate forms...

    ReplyDelete
  175. Neal Tedford: Tell that to the cambrian phyla.

    We should first examine the cases where the evidence is clearest. Are we okay with the origin of bird wings?

    Neal Tedford: Did insect wings also evolve from legs?

    From gills, as expanded respiratory surfaces, from epipods in branched legs, from distal-less controlled body wall outgrowths in urbilateria.

    Joe G: uncrossed decent is not a prediction of evolution.

    Indeed, a phylogenetic tree is the only diagram in Origin of Species.

    Zachriel: The leaves on a tree when grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy.

    Joe G: I would love to see you write that one up-

    We have it on good authority.

    Joe G: Intermediate structures are not evidence for anything except that such organisms existed.

    They are predictions from theory. That's why paleontologists will consult with geologists to find the appropriate strata, then mount expeditions in the search for fossils.

    ReplyDelete
  176. uncrossed decent is not a prediction of evolution.

    Zachriel:
    Indeed, a phylogenetic tree is the only diagram in Origin of Species.

    Darwin didn't have the knowledge we now have.

    Crossings are OK- they do occur.

    The leaves on a tree when grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy.

    I would love to see you write that one up-

    We have it on good authority.

    Actually it was just your say-so and if you can't write it up then your word is meaningless.

    Intermediate structures are not evidence for anything except that such organisms existed.

    They are predictions from theory.

    From what theory?

    FLE predicts them. Baraminology predicts them. Phenotypic plasticity predicts them.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Neal:Did insect wings also evolve from legs?

    Zachriel:
    From gills, as expanded respiratory surfaces, from epipods in branched legs, from distal-less controlled body wall outgrowths in urbilateria.

    So goes t6he speculation- however there isn't any science to support it.

    ReplyDelete
  178. IOW Zach time to put your money where your mouth is- show us the nested hierarchy of a full grown hemlock.

    ReplyDelete
  179. You keep trying to play the Dogma card, Dr. Hunter:

    http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/

    ReplyDelete
  180. Let's take a close look at Dr. Hunter's argument - a very close look.

    Clearly, his post commits the equivocation fallacy as he smuggles in the theistic definition of intentional and directed 'creation' which he and his theistic audience accepts. He does this by asking the following question.

    Q: Was this bug created by random mutations?

    He then essentially goes on to note the 'absurdity' of assuming an intentional and directed event could be caused by a random mutations. (which is itself a misrepresentation of evolution)

    This would be like asking Hunter if he thought this bug was 'formed' by a supernatural process, then spending several paragraphs noting the absurdity of assuming a process has intent, direction, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Zach,

    It's so easy to say stuff about insect wing evolution, but just saying it doesn't mean it happened that way. You said concerning insect wing evolution, "From gills, as expanded respiratory surfaces, from epipods in branched legs, from distal-less controlled body wall outgrowths in urbilateria. "

    Wow! It sounds so intelligent and so good that one can imagine it happening. I'm not being sarcastic, but astounded at how easy you make it sound.

    But from the Oxford journal of Heredity we read,

    "Insect wings are an evolutionarily significant novelty whose origin is not recorded in the fossil record. "

    Reference:

    http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full
    /95/5/382

    Of course they go on to describe their hypothesis, but notice how many times they have to make assumptions.

    The bottom line is that what you said is based on gross speculation. Your very convincing line about insect evolution is nothing more than unsubstantiated bunk.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Joe G: Darwin didn't have the knowledge we now have.

    Darwin was quite aware of hybridization. So?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Joe G responding to Zachriel:
    Intermediate structures are not evidence for anything except that such organisms existed.

    And your "test" doesn't deal with any evolutionary mechanism.


    This is the ultimate sticking point in my view. At the risk of an overly simplistic generalization, it seems that all of the evidence that evolutionists cite for evolution can tell us nothing directly about the mechanism of evolution.

    If the two sides of the debate can't even agree on what constitutes evidence for the mechanism of evolution, we will continue to chase each other around in circles, and accomplish nothing more than creating a very deep rut and lots of dust.

    I make the naive assumption that we are all interested in true explanations for the history of life.

    Some have suggested that the answers can be found in "evo-devo". Great, let the discussion begin.

    I have read very little aobut evo-devo, so such a discussion would be very helpful to me.

    If evo-devo cannot ultimately answer the fundamental question of mechanism, where does science go next?

    ReplyDelete
  184. Joe wrote:

    Joe G: Intermediate structures are not evidence for anything except that such organisms existed.

    Joe,

    Are you aware of the problem of induction?

    I'm asking because you seem to be either unaware of the impact it had on science or you think there is some solution to the problem which allows evidence to provide positive support anything in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Zachriel: We should first examine the cases where the evidence is clearest. Are we okay with the origin of bird wings?

    Neal Tedford: It's so easy to say stuff about insect wing evolution, but just saying it doesn't mean it happened that way.

    For some reason, you avoided the point.

    Your argument seems to be that there are areas of the posited evolutionary history which are uncertain. And because there are Gaps, the evidence we do have doesn't count. That's a fallacious argument. The nested hierarchy is strongly supported, in particular, vertebrates.

    It's best to start with the strongest evidence. We can establish Common Descent across a wide variety of taxa. From that, we then may be able to explore the more questionable cases.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Doublee: At the risk of an overly simplistic generalization, it seems that all of the evidence that evolutionists cite for evolution can tell us nothing directly about the mechanism of evolution.

    Common Descent provides an important outline of the historical transitions involved. From that, we can discuss various mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Neal Tedford: "Insect wings are an evolutionarily significant novelty whose origin is not recorded in the fossil record."

    Here's something a bit more recent, in case you are interested. The research supports evolution from two different developmental components.

    Niwa et al., Evolutionary origin of the insect wing via integration of two developmental modules, Evolution & Development 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Zach said "From that, we then may be able to explore the more questionable cases."

    Questionable cases, like insect wing evolution?

    All we have seen on this blog are questionable cases of evolution.

    Your retreating from your matter-of-fact statement on insect wing evolution.

    What do you know for sure about evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  189. Neal Tedford: Questionable cases, like insect wing evolution?

    The evolution of insect wings is very ancient and the evidence is tenuous. However, recent studies are helping to unravel the story.

    You keep avoiding the point for some reason. Your argument seems to be that there are areas of the posited evolutionary history which are uncertain. And because there are Gaps, the evidence we do have doesn't count. That's a fallacious argument.

    We should begin with Common Descent, which is supported by the nested hierarchy. Vertebrates leave plenty of fossils, so we might start there.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Here's an article about the recent Evolutionary origin of the insect wing via integration of two developmental modules paper.

    Insect wing evolution revealed in recycled genes: Both genes were already present in the wingless ancient ancestor of today's flying bugs, the researchers note, because they had other jobs to do. One plays a role in development of the insect shell (vestigial) and the other helps limb growth (wingless). Add them together and you have a shelled limb — a wing, they conclude.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Neal Tedford said...

    What do you know for sure about evolution?


    We know for a fact you don't understand it, even a little.

    Evolutionary origin of the insect wing via integration of two developmental modules.
    Niwa et al
    Evolution & Development, Vol 12-2, pages 168–176, March/April 2010

    Abstract: Insect wing is a key evolutionary innovation for insect radiation, but its origins and intermediate forms are absent from the fossil record. To understand the ancestral state of the wing, expression of three key regulatory genes in insect wing development, wingless (wg), vestigial (vg), and apterous (ap) was studied in two basal insects, mayfly and bristletail. These basal insects develop dorsal limb branches, tracheal gill and stylus, respectively, that have been considered candidates for wing origin. Here we show that wg and vg are expressed in primordia for tracheal gill and stylus. Those primordia are all located in the lateral body region marked by down-regulation of early segmental wg stripes, but differ in their dorsal–ventral position, indicating their positions drifted within the lateral body region. On the other hand, ap expression was detected in terga of mayfly and bristletail. Notably, the extensive outgrowth of the paranotal lobe of apterygote bristletail developed from the border of ap-expressing tergal margin, and also expressed wg and vg. The data suggest that two regulatory modules involving wg–vg are present in apterygote insects: one associated with lateral body region and induces stick-like dorsal limb branches, the other associated with the boundary of dorsal and lateral body regions and the flat outgrowth of their interface. A combinatorial model is proposed in which dorsal limb branch was incorporated into dorsal–lateral boundary and acquired flat limb morphology through integration of the two wg–vg modules, allowing rapid evolution of the wing.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Zach said, "Your argument seems to be that there are areas of the posited evolutionary history which are uncertain."


    Everything you say is uncertain. You don't just have gaps, you have nothing but a huge collection of life forms that have similarities and you choose to force your interpretation on their origin. The glaring contradictions should be red flags for you to not be so sure of your conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Katie bar the door! They need to make it a rule that biologists can't become evolutionary scientists until they have at least a minor in engineering. Last time I looked a wing was a lot different than either a shell or a leg nearly every way, but who cares about such mundane details when wishful thinking is made into an art form.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Zachriel:
    We should begin with Common Descent, which is supported by the nested hierarchy.

    That is a lie.

    Nested hierarchies only support the premise that we can catergorize things.

    ReplyDelete