Did you ever wonder how mosquitoes find you so quickly? Next time you might try not breathing because they are attracted to the carbon dioxide you exhale. And how do insects detect carbon dioxide? Studies have found two different neuron cell proteins (neural receptors) that seem to do the job. And they do the job exquisitely.
Blood-feeding insects, as one study explained, use highly specialized and sensitive olfactory systems to locate their hosts. The study identified two dedicated neural receptors in flies which together cause nerve signals to be sent when carbon dioxide is present. The experiments found that the presence of both receptors is required—either one alone failed to sense the carbon dioxide.
As one scientist explained, such molecular sensor systems are “exquisitely sensitive” to carbon dioxide levels we don’t even notice. They are, indeed, “wonders of natural engineering.”
Given such an exquisite design, and given that both receptors are required because a single receptor working alone is ineffective, one might think that evolutionists might struggle to explain this engineering marvel.
But evolutionists have no such problem for, as evolutionist Ken Miller has explained, god would never have created the mosquito. It must have evolved.
Religion drives science and it matters.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Carbon Dioxide Sensors
Labels:
Complexity,
False expectations

Wow. You're not even trying any more, are you?
ReplyDeleteThere was one interesting quote in the abstract of that link to the "National Center for Biotechnology Information" website:
ReplyDelete(NCBI)
"Mutant flies lacking Gr63a lose both electrophysiological and behavioural responses to CO2."
----
So mutant flies lose this amazing ability ??? I thought copying error mutations were beneficial ??? I wonder if they've identified the pathway of lucky copying errors for the arrival of the brilliant mechanism in question to prove that it was a random copying error selected by biased "Unspecified Natural Magic" as being the evolutionary wonder that invented this whole amazing process in the first place ???
How in the world would someone even set up such an experiment using randomness as the driver and still adhering to the "Scientific Method" which is nothing more than after identifying this amazing phenomenon (sensor for detecting CO2), observing it carefully, asking questions, searching existing literature, proposing an experiment to gather more detailed data, obtaining specimens, designing an experimental apparatus, running controlled experiments and taking measurements, evaluating the findings, publishing, and suggesting applications for the benefit of humanity.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ????
Naahhh!!! If boldened without evidence/facts/data statements from storytelling invention were good enough for Darwin, then their good enough for good'ol modern evolutionary biology.
Both are necessary, it must be and example of irreducible complexity, right?
ReplyDeleteOr an example of the gene for one protein being doubled and evolving into two slightly different proteins.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1673/031.009.1901
See figure 1.
Eocene said "I thought copying error mutations were beneficial ???"
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that you thought this. It's as retarded as just about everything else you think about evolution.
Wow. Still beating this old drum? Just, wow. Haven't you worn a hole in it yet?
ReplyDelete...god would never have created the mosquito. It must have evolved.
No, it's not that 'God would never have created it', it's that the idea that God created it is not a scientific hypothesis.
Early on a Jovian morn.
ReplyDeleteDavid vun Kannon: Both are necessary, it must be and example of irreducible complexity, right? Or an example of the gene for one protein being doubled and evolving into two slightly different proteins.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1673/031.009.1901
Or both!
(Readers should note the phylogenetic tree represented in the paper.)
I love the smell of creationists being burned in the morning.
ReplyDeleteNot so fast! The last sentence of the discussion in the paper linked to by David vun Kannon:
ReplyDelete"In either case it is remarkable that multiple methods of perceiving carbon dioxide appear to have evolved in arthropods."
Aha! Remarkable, huh? So the evolutionists were surprised. IOW their theory didn't predict this!!! Waterloo!!!
Eocene said: "the usual mish-mash of misunderstandings."
ReplyDelete====================
This may be above your grade level (3rd?) so read very slowly and repeat several times for comprehension. That should keep you busy for the better part of the week.
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v103/n3/full/hdy200955a.html
Also note that none of the research described in Hunter's OP or the provided link was conducted by a creationist or an IDiot. What does that tell you? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
troy: So the evolutionists were surprised. IOW their theory didn't predict this!!! Waterloo!!!
ReplyDeleteHistorian surprised by Lincoln's sense of humor!
"Lincoln" is just a theory.
I've asked this three times now, and despite all the blithering not a single IDC has had the moxie to attempt an answer.
ReplyDelete"I'd just like the IDC crowd here to explain the logic for why the Intelligent Designer set up predator/prey relationships at all. Why design certain species of animal (gazelles, antelopes) with great speed to avoid being eaten, then turn around and design other species (lions, crocodiles) with all the tools to kill and eat the first species every chance they get? Why would a designer create caterpillars, then design a species of parasitic wasp that burrows into the caterpillars and eats them alive from the inside out?
Anyone? Are there multiple designers competing against each other?
How many designers are there, and how do you know?"
Sure be nice if one of you IDC brave souls actually answered pertinent questions instead of just waving those hands. Note also that I'm not making the statement "The Designer wouldn't make it that way" but the question "What is the logic in having two different designed animals with one trying to kill the other?" Doesn't that indicate more than one Designer working at cross purposes?
Thorton sounding religious:
ReplyDelete"
Anyone? Are there multiple designers competing against each other?"
=======
Hmmmmmmmmm, I don't know. Your the Metaphysicist that claims to know the mind of God, you tell us!!!
Cornelius said: "Blood-feeding insects, as one study explained, use highly specialized and sensitive olfactory systems to locate their hosts."
ReplyDeleteWhoah. Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that there exist a creature that can somehow 'smell' it's food source? Get out of town. This is completely unprecedented in the animal kingdom! What possible precursory system could this miracle have evolved from? It's like this 'sense' of 'smell' just popped up out of nowhere, with no evolutionary history in any other creature, ever! How can I go on accepting evolution after this?
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Anyone? Are there multiple designers competing against each other?"
=======
Hmmmmmmmmm, I don't know. Your the Metaphysicist that claims to know the mind of God, you tell us!!!
Another evasive non-answer noted.
Eocene said: "Thorton sounding religious:"
ReplyDeleteI thought ID was a scientific hypothesis. If that's the case, how is asking how many proposed designers there are 'religious'? How is asking someone to clarify their position on anything religious?
Derick "the god believer" Childress:
ReplyDelete"I don't doubt that you thought this. It's as retarded as just about everything else you think about evolution."
=======
How many ways can a person argue from an ATHEIST perspective, quote every holy reference from Dawkins and still delude themselves they are doing God's will ???
-------
Ritchie prayed:
"No, it's not that 'God would never have created it', it's that the idea that God created it is not a scientific hypothesis.
=======
Neither is experimentation using nothing more than random, undirected, blind pointless indifference without purpose or intent a scientific hypothesis for explaining how brilliantly put together mechanisms that science can't even properly understand let alone replicate, came into existance in the first place. In actual fact your position is not only unscientific, but one of an ANTI-SCIENCE stance.
Tells us Ritchie, how did nothing more than chemicals and physics create a CODE!!!
Tell us if the known process are in existance and were published somewhere, how Bill Gates got a hold of them and plagerized the findings and used those mysterious facts to evolve DOS into Windows Vista ???
Keelyn, good to hear from you... how's school going?
ReplyDeleteThorton said, "I'd just like the IDC crowd here to explain the logic for why the Intelligent Designer set up predator/prey relationships at all".
To maintain balance in the ecosystem. Without predator's, populations of prey would grow until the environment could not sustain them and there would be huge die-offs and a lot more suffering and ecological disasters. This is why hunting, for example, of white tail deer in the midwest is necessary. Man changed the predator/prey balance and white tail deer would spike and ultimately the environment could not sustain them. Man is at the top of the food chain and most people don't have a problem with eating animals. Do you?
a Child:
ReplyDelete"Whoah. Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that there exist a creature that can somehow 'smell' it's food source? Get out of town. This is completely unprecedented in the animal kingdom! What possible precursory system could this miracle have evolved from? It's like this 'sense' of 'smell' just popped up out of nowhere, with no evolutionary history in any other creature, ever! How can I go on accepting evolution after this?"
======
How long can a confirmed diehard Atheist live in the closet while claiming to openly believe that his god was killed by other humans centuries ago on a cross ???
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThorton said, "I'd just like the IDC crowd here to explain the logic for why the Intelligent Designer set up predator/prey relationships at all".
To maintain balance in the ecosystem.
Why was the Designer so incompetent that he couldn't set up a balanced ecosystem to start with, one that didn't require one design to kill another design?
Of course you realize that throws your "there were no predators and no death before Da Fall" previous claim right out the window.
You IDCers just can't keep your stories straight to save your life.
Keelyn smirked:
ReplyDelete"This may be above your grade level (3rd?) so read very slowly and repeat several times for comprehension. That should keep you busy for the better part of the week."
=======
I see you don't believe in the Scientific Method any more than the rest of the gang. Tell us, as a self proclaimed Physicist, how did codes with the built in information for manufacturing such brilliant mechanisms and nanomachines come into existance with nothing more than physics and chemicals ????
--------
Keelyn
Also note that none of the research described in Hunter's OP or the provided link was conducted by a creationist or an IDiot. What does that tell you? "
=======
This is so funny. You don't even understand or comprehend that , that is the very point of many of his article examples in his "Darwin's God" blog.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!! LOL
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteKeelyn, good to hear from you... how's school going?
===========================
If Keelyn is still in school that explains a lot about him/her/it!
Maybe Neal can answer this:
ReplyDeleteWhich member or members of Noah's family carried syphilis? What about other STDs?
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteKeelyn smirked:
"This may be above your grade level (3rd?) so read very slowly and repeat several times for comprehension. That should keep you busy for the better part of the week."
=======
I see you don't believe in the Scientific Method any more than the rest of the gang. Tell us, as a self proclaimed Physicist, how did codes with the built in information for manufacturing such brilliant mechanisms and nanomachines come into existance with nothing more than physics and chemicals ????
Any time you have imperfect self-replicators subject to differential reproductive success, you evolve increased complexity.
Speaking of the Scientific Method, when are you going to describe for us the magic 'genetic barrier' that prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating into macro ones? You tried to hand-wave away the question with that non-sequitur about Monsanto's work on a different 'genetic barrier' but that didn't work.
Thorton metaphysically ASSUMED:
ReplyDelete"Why was the Designer so incompetent that he couldn't set up a balanced ecosystem to start with, one that didn't require one design to kill another design?"
======
Religiousness just oozes all over the place on this one. So you think God was incompetent ??? Certainly as we look at the world around us and it's numerous ecosystem failures everywhere globally, no fault at all can be attributed to HUMAN ERROR through greed and selfishness ???
It was perfect from the start, but then some intellectual brought up a lame accusation of God's right to Sovereignty arguement and demanded that time be allowed to prove his side of the issue. Originally he got two people to buy into this, followed by billions. Now look where we are, the owners manual completely thrown out the window (actually made fun of and spat upon), the designer cursed and now with all those intellectual armchair mechanic's modifications leaking toxic fliuds and blowing smoke all over the place, then suddenly it becomes the manufacturer's (designer's) fault ???????????
troy said...
ReplyDeleteMaybe Neal can answer this:
Which member or members of Noah's family carried syphilis? What about other STDs?
T: "If we want to get really nasty, let's ask them to explain the Candiru fish that lives in the Amazon. This is a tiny parasitic fish that is attracted to human urine (from people relieving themselves while swimming or wading in the river) and swims up the victim's urethra where it embeds itself with painful razor sharp spikes. Once embedded, the fish is impossible to remove without surgery."
How about that Candiru fish Tedford? Did the Designer create it just to keep people from peeing in the Amazon?
Thorton said, "Why was the Designer so incompetent that he couldn't set up a balanced ecosystem to start with, one that didn't require one design to kill another design?"
ReplyDeleteWhat's your beef? Are you a vegan? A member of Peta?
There's a lot of people that enjoy a good steak and pay good money to eat it at expensive restaurants. Are you coming out against restaurants that serve meat? What about the farmers that raise the animals? You sound like are drifting off into some kind of metaphysical utopian commercial for PETA.
Pedant said...
ReplyDeleteI love the smell of creationists being burned in the morning.
=============================
I'm sure that got you extremely excited, didn’t it?
Thorton said, "If we want to get really nasty, let's ask them to explain the Candiru fish that lives in the Amazon. This is a tiny parasitic fish that is attracted to human urine (from people relieving themselves while swimming or wading in the river).
ReplyDeleteShame on them for peeing in the river! If there parents didn't teach them right, they have to learn the hard way!
Eocene -
ReplyDeleteNeither is experimentation using nothing more than random, undirected, blind pointless indifference without purpose or intent a scientific hypothesis for explaining how brilliantly put together mechanisms that science can't even properly understand let alone replicate, came into existance in the first place.
A scientific hypothesis is a tentative conclusion drawn for the purpose of then being tested against. The theory of evolution through natural selection was once such a hypothesis. Then it was tested. Now, having passed a minimum standard of evidence, it is a theory.
That is exactly how science works.
The idea that 'God created it' cannot be tested and therefore is not a scientific hypothesis.
See how that works?
"In actual fact your position is not only unscientific, but one of an ANTI-SCIENCE stance."
What delicious projection. Or are you simply so ignorant of what science ACTUALLY IS?
"Tells us Ritchie, how did nothing more than chemicals and physics create a CODE!!!"
Dunno. And I'm not sure anyone does. But I can tell you this - the only hope we have of finding out is by drawing tentative hypotheses and performing experiments to test them. That is science. And no other way of finding out truths about the world even comes close in terms of accuracy and reliability.
Anything that fails as a scientific hypothesis (eg, the idea that 'God did it') is intellectually vacuous and totally useless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford -
ReplyDeleteWhat's your beef? Are you a vegan? A member of Peta?
There's a lot of people that enjoy a good steak and pay good money to eat it at expensive restaurants. Are you coming out against restaurants that serve meat? What about the farmers that raise the animals? You sound like are drifting off into some kind of metaphysical utopian commercial for PETA.
I will.
I'm a veggie. And I consider it extremely cruel and unnecessary to eat meat. But the point was - why did God have to create the world in such a way that killing others to eat is necessary (for some creatures, which, by the way, does NOT include humans)? That seems an extremely cruel arrangement.
Or are you totally unmoved by the suffering and death of other animals? Perhaps you consider it no shame at all to see creatures killed?
But evolutionists have no such problem for, as evolutionist Ken Miller has explained, god would never have created the mosquito. It must have evolved.
ReplyDeleteBut Hunter has have no such problem with geology, or other scientific fields, as God would have never created the universe last Thursday with merely the appearance of age, implanted memories, etc.
Scott beliving Arnorld Schwartzennegger Sci-Fi flicks are real, suddenly had a vision:
ReplyDelete"But Hunter has have no such problem with geology, or other scientific fields, as God would have never created the universe last Thursday with merely the appearance of age, implanted memories, etc. "
======
I don't usually like the Cinema, but I do believe "Eraser" and "Total Recall" were make-believe fantasy Scott.
Eocene -
ReplyDeleteBut Scott's point stands. Is it 'religious' or 'metaphysical' of geology to dismiss Last Thursday-ism, or isn't it? The analogy works perfectly.
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThorton said, "Why was the Designer so incompetent that he couldn't set up a balanced ecosystem to start with, one that didn't require one design to kill another design?"
What's your beef? Are you a vegan? A member of Peta?
There's a lot of people that enjoy a good steak and pay good money to eat it at expensive restaurants. Are you coming out against restaurants that serve meat? What about the farmers that raise the animals? You sound like are drifting off into some kind of metaphysical utopian commercial for PETA.
You cowardly avoided the question Tedford. Please try again:
"Why was the Designer so incompetent that he couldn't set up a balanced ecosystem to start with, one that didn't require one design to kill another design?"
I notice you also were quiet on that "no death before Da Fall" nonsense. Are you retracting that claim now too?
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThorton said, "If we want to get really nasty, let's ask them to explain the Candiru fish that lives in the Amazon. This is a tiny parasitic fish that is attracted to human urine (from people relieving themselves while swimming or wading in the river).
Shame on them for peeing in the river! If there parents didn't teach them right, they have to learn the hard way!
So the Designer created those fish specifically to punish the indigenous tribes of the Amazon rain forest. Is that your claim now? Please be clear.
Ritchie hallucinated:
ReplyDelete"That is exactly how science works.
THE IDEA THAT 'GOD CREATED IT' CANNOT BE TESTED AND THEREFORE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC HYPTHOSIS.
See how that works?"
==========
The idea that blind pointless undirected forces without purpose, goals or intent created the brilliant sophistication all around us is not a scientific hypothosis, unless your an ignorant gullible tribesman sitting around a Kampfire listening to mystic storytelling Shaman.
----------
Ritchie deflects:
"What delicious projection. Or are you simply so ignorant of what science ACTUALLY IS?"
==========
It's called "Scientific Method" Ritchie and Evos think evolution is the ONLY branch of science that is exempt from this Law. That's called ANTI-SCIENCE.
----------
Ritchie diliberately side steps again:
"Anything that fails as a scientific hypothesis (eg, the idea that 'God did it') is intellectually vacuous and totally useless."
==========
We're talking "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" here Ritchie, not World of Warcraft. The vaacum of Dark Matter is yours. Your the one that believes in an undirected pointless indifferent animist god force who begats brilliant intelligent mechanisms, not me.
On the topic of 'no death before the fall'...
ReplyDeleteLots of organisms thrive exclusively on decay (fungi, maggots, etc). What's the deal there? Did they not exist in Eden? Or if they did, how did they exist if there was no death, and thus, no decay?
Open question for everyone there...
Ritchie said...
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of 'no death before the fall'...
Lots of organisms thrive exclusively on decay (fungi, maggots, etc). What's the deal there? Did they not exist in Eden? Or if they did, how did they exist if there was no death, and thus, no decay?
Open question for everyone there...
Having a single logically consistent, coherent story has never been possible for the IDCers. Exactly what you'd expect since they're making it up as they go along.
Maybe we'll get Tedford or Eocene to tell us the one about how T-Rex was a vegetarian subsisting on carrots and watermelon before Da Fall.
Eocene used childish adjectives which he presumably think is funny/clever:
ReplyDeleteThe idea that blind pointless undirected forces without purpose, goals or intent created the brilliant sophistication all around us is not a scientific hypothosis,
Not by itself. Because it is a NEGATIVE CLAIM. It is, however, a DEFAULT POSITION - which means that unless you can POSITIVELY IDENTIFY creative forces involved in the creation of all the 'brilliant sophistication all around us' then you have no basis in just blindly invoking one.
Ecoene continued with his oh-so-witty adjectives:
It's called "Scientific Method" Ritchie and Evos think evolution is the ONLY branch of science that is exempt from this Law. That's called ANTI-SCIENCE.
The theory of evolution is not exempt from this law. It is completely subject to it. The law of evolution is absolutely no different from any other theory in science. It behaves exactly the same, was created in exactly the same manner, through the same process and is subject to the same scrutiny. It is the ID-ers who seem to erroneously believe that the theory of evolution is somehow different from ANY OTHER THEORY in ANY OTHER FIELD of science. It is not.
Eocene, again which his side-splittingly satirical commentry:
We're talking "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" here Ritchie, not World of Warcraft.
I don't think you even know what the scientific method is. Please demonstrate to the contrary, if you please, and describe the scientific method as you understand it.
Ritchie said, "Or are you totally unmoved by the suffering and death of other animals? Perhaps you consider it no shame at all to see creatures killed."
ReplyDeleteOf course not, but the predator/prey relationship in our world is necessary to minimize a greater suffering of mass starvation and disease. Keep in mind that you are superimposing your feelings on life/death into the animal world. God has placed a sense of eternity in the hearts of mankind but animals do not have that.
A temporal world, by definition, probably needs a predator/prey arrangement to keep the ecosystem functioning.
Neal Tedford -
ReplyDelete... the predator/prey relationship in our world is necessary to minimize a greater suffering of mass starvation and disease.
But it didn't have to be. God made it that way, apparently. And if that's the case, then it is a very cruel arrangement for him to make.
Keep in mind that you are superimposing your feelings on life/death into the animal world.
What reason do I have to think these feelings are inaccurate?
God has placed a sense of eternity in the hearts of mankind but animals do not have that.
How do you know? What is the basis of that claim? 'It says so in the Bible'?
Animals have their own personalities, their own temperaments, their own feelings. They can suffer and feel pain. They get excited and sad. They form social bonds.
And you are saying their deaths are utterly meaningless and worthless because they 'lack a sense of eternity'? What does that even mean?
A temporal world, by definition, probably needs a predator/prey arrangement to keep the ecosystem functioning.
Another baseless claim, as far as I could see. Why should it require such an arrangement? If God is incapable of creating a world without a predator/prey arrangement then He's not much of a powerful god is He? So much for omniscience!
Ritchie grasped at straws:
ReplyDelete"Lots of organisms thrive exclusively on decay (fungi, maggots, etc). What's the deal there? Did they not exist in Eden? Or if they did, how did they exist if there was no death, and thus, no decay?"
======
What are you talking about ??? All those things are the major componants of a massive sophisticated recycling system, including your cherished evolutionary Icon of worship E-coli.
The ONLY lifeform designed to live forever and not die were Human Beings, but the materialist arguement of independence and self-determination changed all that, didn't it now ???
---------
Ritchie said:
"I'm a veggie. And I consider it extremely cruel and unnecessary to eat meat. But the point was - why did God have to create the world in such a way that killing others to eat is necessary (for some creatures, which, by the way, does NOT include humans)? That seems an extremely cruel arrangement."
========
FACT: God didn't originally create the world that way if you read the Genesis account. Your side of the self-determination dogma, the deciding of what morally is good and bad, right and wrong issue caused this change. Originally we were to be Vegitarians. *A Light Turns On*
It wasn't until after the flood that the decree was given that flesh of animals could be eaten for food with the exception of it's blood which represented it's life had to be poured out on the ground. How about getting angry at Industrial Agriculture which the genius of Science has given mankind ???
Now if you really want to get angry at something for the Survival of the Fittest killing fields, then why not get angry at Darwin and other Evolutionists who participate in this brutal killing arrangement that biased Tinker Bell brought about ???? In the natural world checks and balances are normal to life. Your opinion and thinking on this matter is a personal choice one and nothing more.
--------
Ritchie said:
"Or are you totally unmoved by the suffering and death of other animals? Perhaps you consider it no shame at all to see creatures killed?"
========
Are you as equally angry at the mistreatment of other human beings by other humans using Darwinian principles ????
Yes, I'm angry at the mistreatment of our natural world (includes everything, not just animals), but I believe I've even gotten made fun of for my stance on this environmental issue here also. Do you think your fellow meat eating atheists will now attack you for the above statements ??? I doubt it. It's called double standard. I believe you or one of your buddies here may well be on record here laughing at my natural approach to health through the use of herbal medicine. This is one of the things which moved me towards Botany in the southwestern USA.
"Another baseless claim, as far as I could see. Why should it require such an arrangement? If God is incapable of creating a world without a predator/prey arrangement then He's not much of a powerful god is He? So much for omniscience! "
ReplyDelete======
WOW , righteous indignation of faith based metaphysics fireworks exploding everywhere.
I made a snarky comment about a lack of reasoning in the OP:
ReplyDelete""Whoah. Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that there exist a creature that can somehow 'smell' it's food source? Get out of town. This is completely unprecedented in the animal kingdom! What possible precursory system could this miracle have evolved from? It's like this 'sense' of 'smell' just popped up out of nowhere, with no evolutionary history in any other creature, ever! How can I go on accepting evolution after this?"
To which Eocene yammered: "How long can a confirmed diehard Atheist live in the closet while claiming to openly believe that his god was killed by other humans centuries ago on a cross ???"
Eocene, I've made my beliefs clear to you a number of times. I can't imagine how many traumatic brain injuries would have to be inflicted on someone to make them not understand that if someone has a different view than you of the process in which God made everything, it does not make them an atheist. Even if I were a deist (which I'm not) who believed that a god caused the Big Bang and stepped aside, never to be heard from again, that would not make me an atheist either. I feel like I would have to explain this to a 4 year old less frequently.
Yes, I agree with some atheists that darwinian evolution is the best explanation for how life got to be the way it is; some Christians don't.
I also agree with some atheists that the earth revolves around the sun; some Christians don't. I agree with some atheists that communicable diseases are caused by microorganisms; some Christians don't. I agree with some atheists that the earth is more than 6,000 years old; some Christians don't. The list goes on and on.
Your ignorant ranting is getting old. Educate yourself on what evolutionary theory actually says, then come back and discuss. (look up the definition of 'atheist' while you're at it.)
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteRitchie said, "Or are you totally unmoved by the suffering and death of other animals? Perhaps you consider it no shame at all to see creatures killed."
Of course not, but the predator/prey relationship in our world is necessary to minimize a greater suffering of mass starvation and disease. Keep in mind that you are superimposing your feelings on life/death into the animal world. God has placed a sense of eternity in the hearts of mankind but animals do not have that.
A temporal world, by definition, probably needs a predator/prey arrangement to keep the ecosystem functioning.
Tedford, shouldn't you check with your church elders first before you go claiming that God designed in animal death and suffering as an integral part of the world from the get-go?
Isn't that a direct contradiction of Christian doctrine?
LOL! Tedford the heretic!
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteThe idea that 'God created it' cannot be tested and therefore is not a scientific hypothesis.
Strictly interpreted, I agree with what you say. Evidence and reasoning may justify a design inference in biology, but they cannot justify a "God inference".
It is interesting to note, however, that Richard Dawkins said religion is a scientific hypothesis.
A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.
Not surprisingly, he comes to the following conclusion.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The real question for me is not whether "God did it", but whether a design inference in biology is justified. Design inferences are justified everywhere else in our material world.
Is there a rational basis for rejecting a design inference in biology? If a rigorous method for infering design is developed that has proven reliable in every case that has been tested, then by what rationale would science reject a design inference in biology? Either the design inference methodology works or it doesn't.
Of course, there is the "black swan" problem. If all swans are white, the inference is that the next swan I find will also be white. But I cannot rule out that I will not find a black swan.
For me it is a waste of time to argue whether the design inference in biology is science. The real question is whether the design inference is legitimate on its own merits. In the end, it will make no difference whether we classify the design inference in biology as science or not.
"....Ken Miller has explained, god would never have created the mosquito. It must have evolved."
ReplyDeleteCould you provide the context and quote for this assertion?
I think you are again conflating a personal argument against design (in this case a religious perspective on the incompatibility of ID and Christianity) with scientific evidences for mosquito evolution.
The molecular evolution of these receptors seems quite traceable.
Also, your assertion that a two-component system is 'irreducibly complex' ignores that the ancestral receptor may have been functional alone, (homodimer) and duplication and divergence split and refined functionality between two components of the system.
Doublee said...
ReplyDeleteIs there a rational basis for rejecting a design inference in biology? If a rigorous method for infering design is developed that has proven reliable in every case that has been tested, then by what rationale would science reject a design inference in biology? Either the design inference methodology works or it doesn't.
Yes, there are rational reasons to reject such an inference. The rigorous method of design detection used in every case today relies on 1) objective pattern matching of the suspected designed object with a known designed similar object, or 2) additional information gathered beyond the suspected designed object itself, like evidence of the identity of the designers or evidence of the manufacture of the object (materials used, tool marks, etc.) There are no known cases where design has been inferred just from knowledge the object itself. Even SETI tries to pattern match signal types known to be used by humans, on the idea that there are only a finite number of ways to modulate electromagnetic radiation.
The ID claims for design detection in biology meet none of these accepted criteria. Instead we get subjective claims of “it looks designed to me, so it must be designed” ( see the bacteria flagellum for a prime example), appeals to explainable phenomena like irreducible complexity, claims of meaningless made up buzz-terms like “functional specified complex information”, or bogus probability calculations based on incomplete data and unsupported non-scientific assumptions.
Science is perfectly justified in rejecting the design inference of biological entities based on the lack of objective evidence.
Thorton, Troy, Ritchie, you're not helping. You're throwing this thread off topic-- just when we have Cornelius Hunter in our sights!
ReplyDeleteCan we get back to the original (much more interesting) topic of this thread!? CO2-sensing proteins in mosquitoes!
Dr. Cornelius ONCE AGAIN employs a Peckerhead argument. He describes a complex biological system, then asserts that, in effect, We All Know it could not possibly have evolved!
I call this a "Peckerhead" argument because creationists point to the bill of one woodpecker (just one species of woodpecker) and say it is so complex, it could not possibly have evolved. They don't bother to even compare one woodpecker species against others, or their bills against the bills of related species.
But the complexity of any biological system, by itself, cannot prove or disprove evolution. Evolution is a theory of COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY. You can't disprove it (or prove it) without comparing a structure against the structures in many, many other species!!!
You must at least TRY to build a phylogenetic tree or else you cannot disprove evolution! (nor prove it either). OK maybe it's hard to build a phylogenetic tree, but you have to at least TRY!!!
Cornelius Hunter's arguments are now as dumb as Answers in Genesis' Peckerhead arguments-- lazy, lazy, lazy.
By analogy: this is like Cornelius Hunter saying you can disprove Newton's theory of gravity, merely by pointing to an asteroid and saying, "We All Know it could not have gotten to that sky-quadrant by Newton's theory!"
No, we all DON'T know! You have to TRY to compute the orbit with Newton's theory-- DO THE ANALYSIS!!! -- then show the observed trajectory does not fit the theoretical orbit!
Cornelius Hunter is not doing a taxonomic analysis! So this whole thread is a WASTE OF TIME-- it is IRRELEVANT TO DARWIN'S THEORY if you don't make a phylogenetic tree, or do some kind of cross-species comparison.
However, luckily, REAL SCIENTISTS (not Cornelius) actually did some comparative genetics! Real scientists DID construct phylogenetic trees-- for the very proteins, the CO2-sensing mosquito proteins, that Cornelius says obviously could not have evolved!
Surprise! It exactly fits gene duplication-and-specialization models! It's just gene duplication and point mutations, people! Look at the phylogenetic trees, for crying out loud!
Scientific references on mutation of CO2-sensing proteins in mosquitoes:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v103/n3/full/hdy200955a.html
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1673/031.009.1901
Cornelius Hunter is burned! Burned! Can we evolutionists keep on that topic please!? Let's not let him weasel out of the cross-hairs! He's in the cross-hairs! Get him!
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThe ID claims for design detection in biology meet none of these accepted criteria. Instead we get... bogus probability calculations based on incomplete data and unsupported non-scientific assumptions.
Then science needs to come up with realistic probability calculations. A science that depends on random events needs to determine the probability of those events occurring in the time available. If the core requirement of the theory of evolution is ignored then the theory becomes nondeterminant.
What would your conclusion be if it ever was shown (using calculations that everybody accepted) that the chance that a given evolutionary event could occur is beyond Dembski's universal probability bound? [10 exp(-150)]
Doublee said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
The ID claims for design detection in biology meet none of these accepted criteria. Instead we get... bogus probability calculations based on incomplete data and unsupported non-scientific assumptions.
Then science needs to come up with realistic probability calculations. A science that depends on random events needs to determine the probability of those events occurring in the time available. If the core requirement of the theory of evolution is ignored then the theory becomes nondeterminant.
Er, no, science doesn't. Science has plenty of other positive evidence to determine conclusively what happened without needing to do any meaningless probability calculations.
To the best of our evidence, the probability of life occurring without the need for an Intelligent Designer is 1.
What would your conclusion be if it ever was shown (using calculations that everybody accepted) that the chance that a given evolutionary event could occur is beyond Dembski's universal probability bound? [10 exp(-150)]
Have someone do it first, then ask me. What would your conclusion be if God suddenly re-appeared and said "You IDC dopes, of course I used natural evolutionary processes over billions of years to form the life you see now. Didn't you find all the evidence I left?"
Neal Tedford said: “Keelyn, good to hear from you (I know you don’t really mean that, Neal)... how's school going?”
ReplyDelete===
School is going very good, Neal. Thank you for asking. How is whatever you do going?
Anybody figure out the disappearing post problem yet? I've removed all tags, and it's fairly short. Is it a browser problem? (I'm running Safari 5 on Mac OS 10.6)
ReplyDeleteThorton, are you praying to Galopogos to have my posts removed again?
Eocene said: "A mouthful of mumbo typical of people who are astoundingly ignorant of science."
ReplyDelete===
Ummm, what? Oh. I see now. In other words, you didn't read any of the material that was presented in the link I provided. Ahhh, shucks. Isn't that sweet? And you thought that nobody would notice. Tsk. Shame on you.
Keelyn puked:
ReplyDelete"Eocene said: "A mouthful of mumbo typical of people who are astoundingly ignorant of science."
===
Ummm, what? Oh. I see now. In other words, you didn't read any of the material that was presented in the link I provided. Ahhh, shucks. Isn't that sweet? And you thought that nobody would notice. Tsk. Shame on you."
===
Sorry Madam, but I've read the idealogy/philosophy all before. You need to go back to basics and understand what the importance of "Scientific Method" is to real science. You need to disassociate yourself from the Cult of Scientology. So here is it again as originally outlined by Cornelius. Maybe just maybe you might benefit from following this methodic rule. It may require self-discipline and staying away from all the Animal House Frat Parties, but the rewards are still worth it.
" Most of the elements of classic science are here: noticing an interesting phenomenon, observing it carefully, asking questions, searching existing literature, proposing an experiment to gather more detailed data, obtaining specimens, designing an experimental apparatus, running controlled experiments and taking measurements, evaluating the findings, publishing, and suggesting applications for the benefit of humanity."
Evolutionary biology spits on this supposedly etched in stone rule of science. Apparently, given the sad state of our natural world, it appears to be nothing more than cosmetics anyway.
Look you IDiot, you're just lazy and stupid. The references to the scientific papers above do a phylogenetic analysis that outlines the evolutionary pathway to the CO2-sensors. THEY DISPROVE THE WHOLE THESIS MADE BY CORNELIUS IN THIS POST, which was, that scientists don't know how CO2-sensors evolved. They do know.
ReplyDeleteLike all ID proponents, you're too freaking lazy to even look at the data! Instead, your just have excuses for your laziness:
======= Eocene: =======
Sorry Madam, but I've read the idealogy/philosophy all before.
====================
Those papers have phylogenetic analyses in them! You LIE when you call them ideology/philosophy, without even looking at them. And you misspell "ideology."
No wonder fundamentalists are underrepresented at real universities... their religion makes lazy and egomaniacal.
By when you call these scientific papers "idealogy/philosophy" without reading them, you're a LIAR. Lying for Jesus. And when you say you've read it all before, you're LYING. How much science HAVE you read, really? One of Jack Chick's comic books? Kent Hovind's website?
Lying, lazy, egomaniac for Jesus.
Eocene said: "??? Mostly irrelevant and incoherent jabber."
ReplyDelete===
In other words, you are still thoroughly clueless of the actual research and data. Understood. Thank you for verifing that.
"Sorry Madam, but I've read the idealogy [sic]/philosophy all before."
ReplyDeleteThat's a great way to stay educated about a subject. If you've read about it once, you need never read anything about it again, right?
I guess it's good that the first thing you ever read about astronomy wasn't Ptolemy's Almagest, or you'd be arguing with those ideological nitwits who claim against all evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. "What about Copernicus you ask? I already know what that ideologue would say, so why should I read him?"
Diogenes in Dakonian rage spewed:
ReplyDelete"Look you IDiot, you're just lazy and stupid."
"Like all ID proponents, you're too freaking lazy to even look at the data! Instead, your just have excuses for your laziness."
====
This is entertaining to say the least. Right straight out of the Dawkinian religious literature hand book.
Thanks for playing along chief.
----
Keelyn again spit-up:
"Eocene said: "??? Mostly irrelevant and incoherent jabber."
===
"In other words, you are still thoroughly clueless of the actual research and data. Understood. Thank you for verifing that."
===
No, the very words are you are comfortable with your Sci-Fi worldview. Have fun at those parties and remember to be responsible when drinking.
---
Bad Ventures cost everyone:
"That's a great way to stay educated about a subject. If you've read about it once, you need never read anything about it again, right?"
===
No, I've read about as much Kool-Aid as I care to. The Scientific Method is supposed to be a foundational corner stone of scientific discovery, but the ONLY branch of science given an already mandated pass on this is evolutionary biology. And for what ??? Because it's everybody's favourite modern day religion.
Again, the point of Cornelius post here on the subject is that telling wild speculative stories are the way evolution is proven, that is given you've indoctrinated enough people into accepting it, willingly or by force.
I love the the phony righteous indignation too, when pointing out the imperfections of your Church. All I've seen on these blog comments is excuse making for the pseudo truth methods employed by these geniuses in the articles Cornelius has exposed, rather than actually explaining of where Cornelius' observations are wrong. But then of course, when actual learning is believed only necessary to be done in a lab, or reading on the internet, who needs old fashioned outdated field biology observations ???
So to sum up: "What Is Truth???"
Eocene:
ReplyDelete"But then of course, when actual learning is believed only necessary to be done in a lab, or reading on the internet, who needs old fashioned outdated field biology observations ???"
Rubbish. Take a look at recent issues (here is the most recent) of the journal Evolution, one of the top journals in evolutionary biology. Plenty of papers on field studies in there.
Troy assumed:
ReplyDelete"Rubbish. Take a look at recent issues (here is the most recent) of the journal Evolution, one of the top journals in evolutionary biology. Plenty of papers on field studies in there."
====
I am not allowed to look at any of those papers beyond their abstracts because of the country I live in apparently doesn't allow permission. But I see no references to real world outdoor field biology obsevations. What I did find were many studies dealing with things like the "Evolution of Altruism" and such like which lend to more metaphysical speculations. I also pegged many references to explanations arrived at by means of illustrativce computer simulations and bioinformatics animations and that just brings us back to more cartoony proofs being assigned and labled with the term FACT with no other proof than a just so story (in this case cartoon).
On another note: Why is it that I have to review your material from your flavourite websites and make comment, yet I have referenced several website links on description of what the scientific method is and how it is supposed to be the corner stone of scientific discovery and inquiry and yet not one resident genius here has commented or explained why their asinine theory doesn't have to meet the criteria for strictly following the Scientific Method ??? A meaningful tool by which other can also experiment exactly with the same method and arrive at the same exact conclusions.
Here it is again as posted by Cornelius some time back:
"Most of the elements of classic science are here: noticing an interesting phenomenon, observing it carefully, asking questions, searching existing literature, proposing an experiment to gather more detailed data, obtaining specimens, designing an experimental apparatus, running controlled experiments and taking measurements, evaluating the findings, publishing, and suggesting applications for the benefit of humanity."
On another note: at luch time today I was flicking around the TV stations in the lounge for news and ran across something I hardly have time for or interest in and it was the Sci-Fi gamer flick, "Stargate SG-1". The small clip I saw used in that show was a classic metaphysical religious chant phraze of, "given enough time, evolution can create amazing things", and it hit me where this indoctrination really gets most of it's traffic. Hollywood and Evolutionary Theorists have provided each other with some of their most valuable fable invention for parishoner solicitation more than any so-called peer-reviewed journal abstract could ever hope to accomplish.
People in a relaxed setting at home in front of their TVs while admittedly being entertained through our latter day mind numbing devices, are also being unknowingly indoctrinated by means of animation and fantasy world of Science Fiction where everything comes true. (see Walt Disney) Most modern day young generation evolutionists are also heavy online gamers in the mystacism worlds created by Geeks who themselves have no concept of what a real life is outside of the internet. It suddenly becomes apparent why the true dictionary meanings of words/terms get muddled among their group, since their concept of what makes up the real world is ONLY through spending 2/3 of their daily time in front of some type of electronic screen monitor.
You need to get out more Folks. The majority of you don't even realize this world is involved in multiple major crisis on both a social and biological levels.
Eocene:
ReplyDelete"I am not allowed to look at any of those papers beyond their abstracts because of the country I live in apparently doesn't allow permission."
That has nothing to do with the country you live in. The publishing company (Wiley) wants to make a buck by charging for access. Even article authors have to pay. $500 per full-color graph at Evolution. Set my grant back $2500 recently. The Society for the Study of Evolution is non-profit, but the publisher is most definitely not.
"But I see no references to real world outdoor field biology obsevations."
Really? A paper with "wild populations" in the title doesn't suggest field biology observations?
INVESTIGATING EVOLUTIONARY TRADE-OFFS IN WILD POPULATIONS OF ATLANTIC SALMON (SALMO SALAR): INCORPORATING DETECTION PROBABILITIES AND INDIVIDUAL HETEROGENEITY
In this paper they observed wild salmon, using mark-recapture techniques, as clearly stated in the free online abstract.
Other papers in that issue also report field data, but I can't make you see it if you don't want to.
"I also pegged many references to explanations arrived at by means of illustrativce computer simulations and bioinformatics animations and that just brings us back to more cartoony proofs being assigned and labled with the term FACT with no other proof than a just so story (in this case cartoon)."
Oh yeah? Example?
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteTroy assumed:
============================
Well assuming is all they do, so this shouldn't really surprise you!
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteTroy assumed:
"Rubbish. Take a look at recent issues (here is the most recent) of the journal Evolution, one of the top journals in evolutionary biology. Plenty of papers on field studies in there."
====
I am not allowed to look at any of those papers beyond their abstracts because of the country I live in apparently doesn't allow permission
So you've never actually read any scientific papers. Got it. That probably explains why you don't know that every paper which performs an experiment has a methods and materials and supplemental information section detailing exactly what was done so that others may repeat and verify (or fail to verify) the work. It's all part of that scientific method process you don't understand.
How does that trying to bluster and fake your way through things you don't understand work for you in real life?
troy said...
ReplyDeleteEocene:
"I am not allowed to look at any of those papers beyond their abstracts because of the country I live in apparently doesn't allow permission."
That has nothing to do with the country you live in. The publishing company (Wiley) wants to make a buck by charging for access. Even article authors have to pay. $500 per full-color graph at Evolution. Set my grant back $2500 recently. The Society for the Study of Evolution is non-profit, but the publisher is most definitely not.
While many journals keep their articles behind paywalls, there are also many places that allow free access to the entire text. Sites like PubMed or Google Scholar can be used to search the primary scientific literature, and more often than not you'll find links to full papers on your subject of interest.
But first you have to want to read and learn.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteocene,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what country you live in, but in the US, all federally funded studies must be made public access within 12 months of publication (most are much faster).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
and Click on "Free Full Text" after a search, or use this as a limiter (where XYZ are your search terms:
XYZ AND "loattrfree full text"[Filter]
RobertC
ReplyDelete"ocene,
I'm not sure what country you live in, but in the US, all federally funded studies must be made public access within 12 months of publication (most are much faster).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
and Click on "Free Full Text" after a search, or use this as a limiter (where XYZ are your search terms:"
====
Hi robert
I'm over here in Scandinavia and when I clicked on any of those full text or PDF links, a red message pops up saying I'm not allowed to read them because the country I reside in has no permission to do so. If I so wish to read them, then i must pay the price $$$$$.
Thanks for the help.
Eocene said:
ReplyDelete"On another note: at luch time today I was flicking around the TV stations in the lounge for news and ran across something I hardly have time for or interest in and it was the Sci-Fi gamer flick, "Stargate SG-1". The small clip I saw used in that show was a classic metaphysical religious chant phraze of, "given enough time, evolution can create amazing things", and it hit me where this indoctrination really gets most of it's traffic. Hollywood and Evolutionary Theorists have provided each other with some of their most valuable fable invention for parishoner solicitation more than any so-called peer-reviewed journal abstract could ever hope to accomplish."
===
WTF?
Labels: Eocenes' Struggles to Rise above Mental Vegetablism, Epic Failures
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"While many journals keep their articles behind paywalls, there are also many places that allow free access to the entire text. Sites like PubMed or Google Scholar can be used to search the primary scientific literature, and more often than not you'll find links to full papers on your subject of interest."
=====
As I've stated to RobertC, I get a message saying the country I reside in , in Scandinavia has no permission.
-----
Thorton:
"But first you have to want to read and learn."
=====
Well this EQUALLY applies to all the links I've given, but as I've stated before, not one individual has ever commented on them. Not even the Creationist gang whose position I don't always agree with.
I did click on all the abstracts and also Full Texts and PDF links, but no dice as the message says forbidden.
My but i hit the nail on the head dealing with this one.
ReplyDeleteKeelyn:
"WTF?
Labels: Eocenes' Struggles to Rise above Mental Vegetablism, Epic Failures."
====
And basically this is what we'd expect from derogatory foul minded pretender of a University Student in it's usage of a 3 letter code such as "WTF" to freely express with vulgarites what would otherwise would get them a ban or at least censored by Cornelius.
Nice.
Here's an illustrative example of what happens when real world scientific observation is tranlated into various forms of metaphysical Evo-Speak. Turn your speakers on. Ready ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNKn5ykP9PU&feature=related
Another post of mine just vanished.
ReplyDeleteIf someone doesn't fix the disappearing post problem this whole blog can kiss off.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteAnother post of mine just vanished.
"If someone doesn't fix the disappearing post problem this whole blog can kiss off."
=====
It's not like it's predjudiced of who is doing the posting. I've had several the past week and got accused of not answering the question, so I completely gave up.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"I find that claim extremely hard to believe, that Scandinavia would block access to all open source scientific literature. Perhaps it's a local block at the public library or school machine you're using. Still stinks though. So how do you get any primary scientific information? From what journals?"
======
Here's the actual message in it's entirety:
"SBU-Swedish Council on Technology does not have a subscription to this Journal or Article. Please contact your librarian for details."
------
Thorton boldly stated As FACT:
"You haven't linked to any primary scientific literature, only brain-dead Fundy sites like AIG and CreationSafaris, or the occasional IDiot YouTube video Those propaganda places aren't science, and they aren't worth the electrons they waste.
Try discussing the actual scientific work some time, not the dishonest spin you pull off some Creto site. "
=======
Interesting, so the Northern Arizona University and University of Cincinati are creationist (CRETO) sites ???????
Wow, then may I yield to your incredible genius ???????????????????????????????????????????
Every day on this blog, it's the same: Cornelius Hunter spins another wild, speculative, just-so story based on his wild imagination, backed up by no data.
ReplyDeleteCornelius: Here's structure X in an animal. It's so complex, it could never have evolved. I'm too lazy to construct a phylogenetic tree for X's from many species. I'm too lazy to look in the literature, and see if some scientist somewhere constructed a phylogenetic tree for X's. Instead, I'll just lie about scientists, and say that scientists made up a wild speculative story about the evolution of X, and they never tested it. This is a lie, but hey, it's a living.
Scientist: Here's a paper showing scientists' construction of a phylogenetic tree and implications for the evolutionary pathway for X based on data and math.
IDiot: Sorry Madam, but I've read the idealogy/philosophy all before.
Scientists: Just read the abstracts pleez. They're short.
IDiot: No, I've read about as much Kool-Aid as I care to.
The only person on this blog spinning "wild speculative just-so stories" is... Cornelius Hunter.
Here again, are the scientific refs disproving Cornelius' wild, speculative, creationist just-so story about no evolution in the CO2-sensing proteins:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v103/n3/full/hdy200955a.html
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1673/031.009.1901
Diogenes blew his own trumpet:
ReplyDelete"Every day on this blog, it's the same: Cornelius Hunter spins another wild, speculative, just-so story based on his wild imagination, backed up by no data."
======
Yet you seem so threatened. I'm surprised that someone of your selfpromoting genius even bothers to grace this forum with your Royal presence. Having seen your blog, there is nothing with regards science with the exception of blasting the internet airwaves with outrageous boldened idealogical and philosophical fist pounding like some ranting Televangelist. Your style is of equal value as Pastor, with both being useless to humanity in general.
The problem with your links is that while they speak technical terms and loaded with tons of intellect speak describing the mechanisms involved, nowhere do they show any observation of actual evolution having been observed other than speculative arguements and evolutionary lables being attached to bits/pieces and certainly no explantion of where or how the information which created these genes came from in the first place. Generally that is the problem with most of these supposedly scientific stories.
It is not evolution if the genetic information making up those genes was already present. What Darwinian evolution needs to explain is the origin of genetic information for those genes. Mutations certainly do not provide it; so where is the example? Mutations are hardly beneficial, infact they're a lousey term anyway. If they are responsible, then how does one go about proving that nothing more than randomly spat out copying error mistakes just happen to get it by nothing more than luck. The fact that DNA devotes so many resources to destroying mistakes weeds this out from the start.
From everything we know about the micro-world and it's sophisticated nano-machines and other intelligently goal driven informational guidence systems for keeping an organism healthy for survival, the dogma of undirectedness, pointlessness and randomness just doesn't fit in describing brilliantly put together structures. Your random without purpose or intent chaos theory is once again like saying random acts of terrorism are the only way to bring about an orderly civilized society. We NEED real world explanations, your religious views just don't match reality, that's what makes it metaphysical and you are one of the dogma's most devout adherents.
Actually, I have found that a Church goer is more apt to view an observation from a material standpoint, than a self proclaimed Evolutionist who goes above and beyond the observation and attaches all sorts of metaphysics to something not actually observed. How ironic is that. A person believe in creation sees a Finch, while the evolutionist sees "Mud to Man". A person believing in creation sees a stickleback, while an evolutionist sees "Goo to You". And it just goes on & on & on & on.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your links is that while they speak technical terms and loaded with tons of intellect speak describing the mechanisms involved, nowhere do they show any observation of actual evolution having been observed other than speculative arguements and evolutionary lables being attached to bits/pieces and certainly no explantion of where or how the information which created these genes came from in the first place. Generally that is the problem with most of these supposedly scientific stories.
LOL! You can’t or won’t read actual scientific papers, you whine when the scientific information you do see is too technical for you to understand, yet you’re sure the scientists have it all wrong. Too funny!
It is not evolution if the genetic information making up those genes was already present. What Darwinian evolution needs to explain is the origin of genetic information for those genes.
Easy. New genetic information comes from a combination of the random genetic changes AND the organism’s interaction with its environment in the form of differential selection. Simple example: say a certain environment gets lots colder. Animals with the genetic mutations for longer, thicker coats will have an advantage. They will breed more. Eventually the whole population ends up with longer thicker coats than the ancestral population. That’s evolution. The information for the new longer-coat morphology came from genetic variations AND the environment.
Mutations certainly do not provide it; so where is the example? Mutations are hardly beneficial, infact they're a lousey term anyway.
Most mutations are neutral, some are deleterious and hurt their possessors, but some are beneficial and tend to give their possessors a better chance at reproducing. Those beneficial genes tend to get passed on. Go read up on the ApoA-1 Milano mutation (that gives improved tolerance to high cholesterol) as an example of a beneficial mutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano
If they are responsible, then how does one go about proving that nothing more than randomly spat out copying error mistakes just happen to get it by nothing more than luck. The fact that DNA devotes so many resources to destroying mistakes weeds this out from the start.
As with all evolutionary processes, there is an optimum level of genetic error correction. Too little means not enough flexibility in responding to environmental changes. Too much means reduced evolutionary fitness across the whole population. The natural feedback process of evolution has settled on a local optimum.
(snip the rest of Eocene’s idiotic blithering)
You don’t have any formal scientific training at all, do you? You certainly have no scientific understanding.
Errata:
ReplyDeletethe above should read
"As with all evolutionary processes, there is an optimum level of genetic error correction. Too much means not enough flexibility in responding to environmental changes. Too little means reduced evolutionary fitness across the whole population. The natural feedback process of evolution has settled on a local optimum.
Diogenes said, "Here again, are the scientific refs disproving Cornelius' wild, speculative, creationist just-so story about no evolution in the CO2-sensing proteins:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v103/n3/full/hdy200955a.html"
Okay, so let's take a close look at Diogenes link and see what it says. Let's break it down because this article is "disproving Cornelius' wild, speculative, creationist just-so story about no evolution in the CO2-sensing proteins"
Here's the breakdown of the above link:
Intro - high level summary of the chemoreception steps. They say they will "address fundamental questions concerning the evolutionary dynamics of these gene families, such as the origin and fate of the gene repertoire".
Insect chemosensory gene families - Their surprised that insect and vertebrate OBP's are different (another case of supposed independent evolution). They go into depth explaining the sensor genes and mention Convergent evolution (another case of that too).
Genomic organisation and phylogenetic analysis-
I think this is the high point of the article, "Hence, the origin and the evolutionary fate of newly duplicated genes might be conditioned by the different regulatory architecture of OBPs and OR/GRs."
Birth-and-death evolution -
highlights some points of variation between fruit flies. Nothing big happening there. I thought after the last section, they would finally get to discussing the actual origin of chemosensory, but they don't.
Functional diversification and natural selection-Summarizes some variations between fruit flies. Still waiting on origins.
Conclusion- This whole article was really just about variations in fruit flies. So again, it's the small scale stuff that is observed. This article does not address the actual origin of the chemosenory function. Evolution is assumed in the article and it summarizes fruit fly gene variation, but no much else.
There it is folks... This is as good as it gets for an evolutionary explanation. There are no scientists secretly hiding golden tablets with deep evolutionary secrets that common mortals can not understand.
LOL!
ReplyDeleteTedford the heretic skims the article, doesn't understand the terminology used, doesn't understand the data presented, doesn't understand the conclusion, doesn't understand the relevance to CH's "ZOMG IT'S SOOOOO COMPLEX!!" OP pointless bluster.
You're a hoot Tedford, a real 100% solid gold hoot!
Hey Tedford, you still claim God designed the universe with death and suffering, predation/prey killings built in from the start? When did you break with Christian doctrine to come up with that?
Does the regional archdiocese know you're preaching such blasphemy?
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteThe article did not address the actual origin of the chemosenory function. It was given out to disprove CH, but concluded with a half a bag of analysis of small changes among fruit flies.
Physical death came to Adam and the human race because they no longer had access to the tree of life. They did not have immortal bodies, nor did the animals.
Neal Tedford:
ReplyDelete"Conclusion- This whole article was really just about variations in fruit flies. So again, it's the small scale stuff that is observed. This article does not address the actual origin of the chemosenory function. Evolution is assumed in the article and it summarizes fruit fly gene variation, but no much else."
Yeah, who cares the paper explains the "irreducibly complex" double-receptor CO2 chemosensory function. You'll just come up with a different example of irreducible complexity, and wait for that to get refuted and move on to the next phony example.
Please keep on lying about science. Every time you do that you lose.
Neal said: "Physical death came to Adam and the human race because they no longer had access to the tree of life. They did not have immortal bodies, nor did the animals."
ReplyDeleteNeal, a simple a/b question:
A. The earth's true age is closer to 4.5 billion than 6,000 years.
B. The earth's true age is closer to 6,000 than 4.5 billion years.
Tedford"
ReplyDeletePhysical death came to Adam and the human race because they no longer had access to the tree of life.
Tell answersingenesis.org that you disagree with their position:
Did Adam and Eve Have to Eat from the Tree of Life to Keep from Dying?
This question assumes that the Man and Woman were already dying and required the Tree of Life to live. But there is no reason to assume they were, as death was the punishment for sin (Genesis 2:17) and they hadn’t sinned yet.
Can't you people keep your stories straight?
Neal, what about great white sharks? Were they created before death entered the world? If so, why were they designed with sensory apparatuses for detecting blood and muscle movement of prey, and razor sharp teeth? Or, were they originally designed to only eat seaweed or other aquatic plants? If so, did God recreate them after the fall to have all these nifty predation features, or have evolved these features in the time since man has been around?
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThorton,
The article did not address the actual origin of the chemosenory function.
Yes it did you idiot. You're just to ignorant to understand what the paper was about. Apparently when you were skimming the paper looking for parts to quote mine you skipped the conclusion:
"Concluding remarks: Altogether, the recent genomic data support the BD model for chemosensory family evolution, with progressive divergence and functional diversification among their members.
Physical death came to Adam and the human race because they no longer had access to the tree of life. They did not have immortal bodies, nor did the animals.
Now you're changing your story. You told us above God originally designed predators to kill prey. Now you're saying physical death only happened later, due to sin.
How many more times will you flip flop?
You IDiots can't keep your fantasies straight to save your life. You're a classic example of why liars need to have good memories.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"You don’t have any formal scientific training at all, do you? You certainly have no scientific understanding."
=====
Why is it when reading your blurbs, do I always get a vision of a fat biligerent foul big mouthed Penn Jillette type geek with no other life than Cornelius Hunter's blog ???
Hmmmmmmm!!!
Eocene,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
'So mutant flies lose this amazing ability ??? I thought copying error mutations were beneficial ???'
Although I haven't been able to access the whole aricle I would imagine the authors have used gene knock-down to completely remove the protein in order to see the effects of its loss on the organism. This is not 'copying error mutation', it is a directed process that is meant to knock-out that whole gene. You need to be more critical (in the actual sense of the word) of what you are reading before assuming what it actually means. Some understanding of scientific method in the area of molecular biology would be a good start.
To restate it again... This is not a 'natural' process, the gene was targeted to be removed. It is not mutation in the sense you are thinking. Have a nice day all...
continued . . .
ReplyDeleteHere, if DNA is really a sophisticated encoded language like the geneticist all say it is, if RNA is the digital messenger being sent to the Ribosome which decodes that message, obeys and constructs amazing nano-machines that the DNA commands it, if a Nucleotide is a Character, if a Codon is a Letter, if a Gene is a Word, if a Operon is a Sentence and a Regulon is a Paragraph, then why don't we describe an adaptation they create from an already fully stocked Library not called a New Program or a New File ???
When you think copying errors, think of a broken down copying machine that is useless until someone fixes it. If it remains defective and damaged permanently beyond repair, then yes, you'll continue to get copying errors. But in biological life as we know it, that only brings about sickness, tumors, cancers, death and extinction. There's no improvements.
Do you see my point or what I'm getting at ??? It's not up to me to change the term for a better one, but I guess we all understand why it will never be changed don't we ??? The High Priests (Panel of Peers) would not approve such heresey and blasphemy against their god Darwin.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
"You don’t have any formal scientific training at all, do you? You certainly have no scientific understanding."
=====
Why is it when reading your blurbs, do I always get a vision of a fat biligerent foul big mouthed Penn Jillette type geek with no other life than Cornelius Hunter's blog ???
It's because you're a scientifically illiterate nitwit who has the scientific concepts being discussed here go so far over your head you need binoculars to see them.
Eocene said:
ReplyDelete"When you think copying errors, think of a broken down copying machine that is useless until someone fixes it."
From my understanding,that is a very poor analogy of what is going on. If there is a copying machine in the cell, it is either one of the molecules that copies DNA to mRNA, the ribosome that copies mRNA into protein, or the molecules that copy one strand of DNA to another.
None of these molecules lasts forever. They are constantly replaced, and there are many, mnay of them.
No one thinks all mutations (of any type, including copying errors) are always beneficial. Everyone knows the vast majority are neutral or harmful. Think of a classic bell curve.
David vun Kannon:
ReplyDelete"From my understanding,that is a very poor analogy of what is going on. If there is a copying machine in the cell, it is either one of the molecules that copies DNA to mRNA, the ribosome that copies mRNA into protein, or the molecules that copy one strand of DNA to another."
=======
You've simply partially quoted what i was explaining, but to be fair, that post was only half of what I originally posted anyway as I've had several deleted for the usual DARWIN GOD BLOG reasons that seem to plague everyone else.
My point was that a cells DNA doesn't blindly spit out neutral, harmful or beneficial or otherwise for no ryheme or reason. The posted part that got deleted explained my dislike for the term "Mutation" period as I find it antiquated and outdated, but I do most certainly understand it's idealogical importance to the faithful.
Again I apologize for the half posts, but there is nothing i can do about it. Apparently everyone else has the same problems.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"It's because you're a scientifically illiterate nitwit who has the scientific concepts being discussed here go so far over your head you need binoculars to see them."
========
Nah, I just realize I'm dealing with an extremely devout religious individual whose version of how science works is anchored in faith based statements and Street Gang mentality chest beating consensus cover.
"Altogether, the recent genomic data support the BD model for chemosensory family evolution, with progressive divergence and functional diversification among their members."
ReplyDelete=====
This is not talking about the origin of the chemosensory function, it is referring to genetic changes among members of the fruit fly family who already possess the chemosensory function.
=========
Derick said, "Neal, what about great white sharks? Were they created before death entered the world?"
===============
I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says there was not animal death before the fall of Adam. I think no animal death would be reading into the text what is not there.
After the fall, Adam and Eve were prohited from the special environment of the garden of eden and the tree of life that was within it... "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Why would they need the tree of life if they had been created with eternal bodies?
I don't see anywhere in the text where Adam or the animals were created with eternal physical bodies. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the predator/prey environment was not part of the original creation. The predator/prey relationship is not seen as evil (Psalm 104:23-24). To take Genesis 1:30 to mean that the predator/prey relationship did not exist originally is reading into the text more than what it says.
It is important to understand the context of death entering the world and not to read into the text what is not there.
Thorton said...
ReplyDeleteWhy is it when reading your blurbs, do I always get a vision of a fat biligerent foul big mouthed Penn Jillette type geek with no other life than Cornelius Hunter's blog ???
It's because you're a scientifically illiterate nitwit who has the scientific concepts being discussed here go so far over your head you need binoculars to see them.
============================
I noticed you didn't deny being, "a fat belligerent foul big mouthed Penn Jillette type geek", Thorton!
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDelete"Altogether, the recent genomic data support the BD model for chemosensory family evolution, with progressive divergence and functional diversification among their members."
=====
This is not talking about the origin of the chemosensory function, it is referring to genetic changes among members of the fruit fly family who already possess the chemosensory function.
Read the whole paper including the other provided references instead of skimming for quote-mines you idiot.
Now that you've decide to spit on the well established "no death before Da Fall" Christian doctrine, what part of Christianity will you be rejecting next?
Tedford vs AIG:
ReplyDeleteTo have been very good, God’s creation must have been without blemish, defect, disease, suffering, or death. There was no “survival of the fittest.” Animals did not prey on each other, and the first two humans, Adam and Eve, did not kill animals for food. The original creation was a beautiful place, full of life and joy in the presence of the Creator.
I think they make a logical case.
Considering that nobody was there.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" Romans 8:28
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford said...
ReplyDelete"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" Romans 8:28
LOL! The last resort of a Fundy Creationist when called out on his woeful scientific ignorance and bluster about topics he doesn't understand:
start quoting Bible verses
All we need now is Tedford telling us all we evil Evos will burn in Hell if we don't believe what he does.
Neal said: "I don't see anywhere in the text where Adam or the animals were created with eternal physical bodies. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the predator/prey environment was not part of the original creation. The predator/prey relationship is not seen as evil (Psalm 104:23-24). To take Genesis 1:30 to mean that the predator/prey relationship did not exist originally is reading into the text more than what it says."
ReplyDeleteGood answer Neal, thanks for response. I happen to agree with you there, many things are read into the text which are not there.
Guys, you can't really fault Neal for parting ways with AIG, can you? After all, the idea that there wasn't death or suffering before humans isn't a part of Christian theology in general, it's just of one doctrine of many regarding origins.
Derick, I don't fault either Tedford nor AIG, but I see such disagreements as examples of the doctrinal disputes that create finer and finer sectarian fragmentation.
ReplyDeleteAnd I fault Christian theologians for arguing that all of the bad things that have happened and continue to happen on this planet are the consequences of the disobedience of the putative first couple. As if the omnipotent and omniscient Christian god was a helpless bystander.
"You sinners brought it on yerselves!"
Pedant said: "Tedford vs AIG:
ReplyDelete"To have been very good, God’s creation must have been without blemish, defect, disease, suffering, or death. There was no “survival of the fittest.” Animals did not prey on each other, and the first two humans, Adam and Eve, did not kill animals for food. The original creation was a beautiful place, full of life and joy in the presence of the Creator."
I think they make a logical case."
I don't think that they do make a logical case, even assuming for sake of argument that that verse referring to creation being 'very good' is an authoritative quote of God. 'Very good' doesn't mean 'perfect' in any sense, and if you were trying to convey a sense of perfection, 'very good' is one of the last phrases you would use; good means 'less than perfect, better than bad' in most contexts. 'Very good' also doesn't mean 'not improving' or 'finished' at all. When my boss looks at project outlines or rough drafts, he often uses the phrase 'that's looking very good' in reference to things that aren't anywhere close to being finished yet, but are still progressing.
Pedant said: "And I fault Christian theologians for arguing that all of the bad things that have happened and continue to happen on this planet are the consequences of the disobedience of the putative first couple. As if the omnipotent and omniscient Christian god was a helpless bystander."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that many Christians think that. But not all of us do. At its core, Christianity is centered around the implications of our nature; The question of how that nature came about is side issue. In many cases, 'sin nature' is perfectly interchangeable with 'human nature'; as in: 'it is human nature to be selfish, egocentric', etc. Christianity is about how to riseabove our nature, no longer being a slave to it. (A modern phrasing would be 'rising above our genes, no longer being a slave to them, as I believe Diogenes said)
Eocene, Hi. You said:
ReplyDelete'The posted part that got deleted explained my dislike for the term "Mutation" period as I find it antiquated and outdated, but I do most certainly understand it's idealogical importance to the faithful.'
I agree. I interpret mutation as any change to the genome that occurs after birth (possibly conception) and that persists throughout subsequent cell divisions. However, I disagree that:
'a cells DNA doesn't blindly spit out neutral, harmful or beneficial or otherwise for no ryheme or reason. '
Mutation of the cells DNA may have numerous causes (UV light, DNA repair errors, carcinogens etc etc) and happens frequently. They happen for many reasons, in the sense that they have causes, but not for any 'rhyme' because they don't happen for a purpose.
Derick said, referring to the theological notion of the Fall as the source of all bad things in the world:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that many Christians think that. But not all of us do.
I'm truly glad to learn that. I am a Christian by birth, and I have great respect for that religion's aspirations to "rise above our nature," as you put it, although that's not special to Christianity.
I would ask you consider that there may be no nature to rise above. I suggest that it is as natural to love one another as to kill each other, and the tension between the two is constantly in play.
iantracy603:
ReplyDelete"Mutation of the cells DNA may have numerous causes (UV light, DNA repair errors, carcinogens etc etc) and happens frequently. They happen for many reasons, in the sense that they have causes, but not for any 'rhyme' because they don't happen for a purpose."
=====
Hi again Ian
Actually, I agree with that. I didn't mean to imply that mutations have no causes, they do. They are environmental. Here's what I mean.
A chain smoking cigaretter lover causes damage over time to his/her lungs. Mutations in lung cells develope and they eventually cease to function as origianlly programmed. Other organs are also effected as well and mutations can develope.
An Alcoholic damages their body by the abuse of Alcohol which eventually leads to mutations in the way their liver originally was programmed in the beginning.
Any reckless lifestyle choices will result in a mutation based on a cause and effect law.
Our natural world is presently subject to our misuse and abuse of it's natural resources. One big area of mutational damage is coming about by Endocrine disruption at the very earliest fetal development stages of most all organisms. Only a miniscule trace of disruptive chemicals not natural to the environment can cause these mutations from the original programming. This is caused by the abuse and mishandling of manmade chemicals being dumped into the environment, particularly water. Aquatic environments are in particular susceptible to this mutational damsge. In many areas fish and birds are not able to reproduce because of mutations which have permanently damaged the normal genetic programming for sexual functions. In some areas, there are some species going extinct as a result of these mutations. Again, mutations result by means of cause and effect.
Here's a site of informative material research done by scientists since the 1980s who warned back then of damage to ecosystems and such findings having nothing to do with any evolution vrs creation debate, since neither subject is important in the immediate necessary research of the subject.
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org
I respect Bible but I think there is no need to quote it when arguing science points.
ReplyDeleteImagine materialists quoting their bible written by Dawkins …it would look funny.
Maybe quoting Bible looks funny to them. Actually, it seems they are more irritated than amused.
Thorton:
Easy. New genetic information comes from a combination of the random genetic changes AND the organism’s interaction with its environment in the form of differential selection. Simple example: say a certain environment gets lots colder. Animals with the genetic mutations for longer, thicker coats will have an advantage. They will breed more. Eventually the whole population ends up with longer thicker coats than the ancestral population. That’s evolution.
Certanly looks very easy. Is there an example of one animal in transition from one species to another in our era?
Eugen said...
Thorton: "Easy. New genetic information comes from a combination of the random genetic changes AND the organism’s interaction with its environment in the form of differential selection. Simple example: say a certain environment gets lots colder. Animals with the genetic mutations for lo