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.
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...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "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?
Yes.
Killer whale evolution leads to two orca species
Orcas, commonly known as killer whales, are still evolving, and quickly.
Researchers have discovered that two distinct types of orca, a large and a pygmy form, are rapidly diverging, evolving away from each other.
The scientists' study reveals each type of orca carries a unique gene mutation that benefits its particular lifestyle.
The genetic change has occurred in the past 150,000 years, adding to evidence that the orcas are quickly evolving into two distinct species.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8959000/8959574.stm
The paper:
Foote, A.D. et al. (2010) Positive selection on the killer whale mitogenome. Biology Letters, advance online.
Abstract: Mitochondria produce up to 95 per cent of the eukaryotic cell's energy. The coding genes of the mitochondrial DNA may therefore evolve under selection owing to metabolic requirements. The killer whale, Orcinus orca, is polymorphic, has a global distribution and occupies a range of ecological niches. It is therefore a suitable organism for testing this hypothesis. We compared a global dataset of the complete mitochondrial genomes of 139 individuals for amino acid changes that were associated with radical physico-chemical property changes and were influenced by positive selection. Two such selected non-synonymous amino acid changes were found; one in each of two ecotypes that inhabit the Antarctic pack ice. Both substitutions were associated with changes in local polarity, increased steric constraints and α-helical tendencies that could influence overall metabolic performance, suggesting a functional change.
And before some Cretotard chimes in with "but they're still orcas!!", the point remains they're diverging into two distinct species of orcas.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"And before some Cretotard chimes in with "but they're still orcas!!", the point remains they're diverging into two distinct species of orcas."
======
LOL, variation of the same animal within it's kind/species is not the same definition as the Evo religious visionary assumption of a Macroevolutionary change of a fin evolving into a foot, a scale into a feather, a gill to a lung, etc, etc, etc. Tho you won't like this, the hijacking of an engineered adaptive change within a kind/species and attaching micro-evo to it is not proof of evolution, at least the evolution that the Reverend Dawkins says can never be observed for.
There is not even one research paper, science text book or experiment to be found anywhere in the whole history evolutionary biology that empirically proves and demonstrates that this mysticism of random mutation of DNA made any of the major changes to (once again) invention of a fin, eye, wing, foot, etc, etc, etc. When they do identify what genes control growth of those mechanical parts, they can't even prove that they were in actual fact a random mutation in the first place.
It's humorous to watch Evolutionists post and report this stuff, because their style has the obvious uncanny ability not only looking deceitful all the way through and through, but doing so without them looking like they're outright lyng. You're definitely a well versed disciple of the great Apostle Charles, who in his book "Origin of the Species", wrote about every imaginable thing under the sun, ACCEPT, origin of the species.
I'm surprised you didn't try the "Wholphin" example. Oh that's right, it's still a variation of the same kind/species/family. Wow, the religio-metaphysics is just oozing all over the place with your Faith-Based statement example.
LOL
Ok, I'll read about orcas online.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking more of a crazy looking animal like platypus.
Bat-cat would be cool. Actually, I wouldn't mind having wings either(especially during rush hour).
Eocene said...
ReplyDelete(blah blah blah I don't understand the science it scares me so it must be false WAAAAAHHH!! blah blah blah)
See, I told you some Creotard would pipe up with the "but they're still orcas, that's not evolution" stupidity.
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteBat-cat would be cool. Actually, I wouldn't mind having wings either(especially during rush hour).
Got 'em. They're called flying squirrels and sugar gliders.
Tedford:
ReplyDelete"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."
First, you are wrong that the article is merely about variations in fruit flies: four very different genera are analyzed-- Drosophila, Apis (honeybees), Anopheles (mosquitoes) and Tribolium (flour beetles.)
A phylogenetic tree that links specific genes between Drosophila, Apis, Anopheles and Tribolium is not "small-scale stuff." Particularly see Fig.4, the spiral view of the tree of odorant-binding proteins (OBP's). Tracing OBP's back to the common ancestor of D., Apis, Anopheles and Tribolium is "big-scale" stuff.
Next you say of the article "evolution is assumed." In order to test/prove/disprove a theory, you must assume it, do an analysis using its analytical tools, and then see if the output of the analysis matches the theory simply or with all kinds of errors.
If you want to test/prove/disprove Newton's theory by looking at an asteroid, you must assume Newton's theory, compute an orbit, and see if its observed trajectory matches its theoretical orbit.
Cornelius and other creationists are hypocrites, because you treat evolution differently from other theories. If you want to test/prove/disprove evolution, first you have to DO THE ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCT THE PHYLOGENETIC TREE. What does the tree look like? Neat or a mess?
If you don't construct the phylogenetic tree, or at least search the literature to see if someone did it already-- this is the same as pointing to an asteroid and saying "These 'gravity-ists' and their wild, speculative just-so stories about elliptical orbits! We All Know it could never have arrived there by Newton's theory!"
If you do that, as Cornelius does EVERY DAY, you're just a Peckerhead. Lazy.
The outcome of the phylogenetic analysis is that (surprise!) the Gustatory Receptor proteins all differ from each other by just a few functional mutations. A couple of mutations can turn a sugar receptor or an amino acid receptor into a CO2-receptor. Surprise! Again, I remind you that Dembski (who knows no molecular biology) lied about Doug Axe's work, alleging that it showed protein sequences are supposedly isolated in distant "islands of functionality." In chemosensory proteins we see exactly the kind of co-option that molecular biologists talk about, and that Dembski et al. keep saying doesn't exist (unless Intelligent Designers do it.)
Tedford (cont'd):
ReplyDeleteLastly, you correctly state that the articles do not address the origin of the first chemosensory protein. True, but that's not the point of Hunter's OP, which was about CO2-sensing proteins, not the first chemosensory protein.
The point of Hunter's OP was his accusation that scientists are lazy and stupidly believe wild, speculative stories; in this case, he specifically accuses of them of engaging in mere wild speculation about CO2-sensing proteins.
But Cornelius Hunter lied-- or else he's too lazy to search the literature. Either way, it's not a wild, speculative just-so story, it's a detailed mathematical analysis, that Peckerheads like Hunter are too lazy to do, or to look up in the literature.
Even if the very first chemosensory protein appeared in a "puff of smoke" (Behe's actual stated mechanism), this thread shows that Cornelius lied about the millions of years of evolution thereafter.
Dr. Cornelius has falsely accused scientists of credulity and "wild speculation" AGAIN. Every day, day after day, Hunter creates another creationist wild, speculative, just-so story and falsely attributes it to scientists. The just-so stories were invented by the creationists.
Eocene (regarding orca evolution):
ReplyDelete"LOL, variation of the same animal within it's kind/species is not the same definition as the Evo religious visionary assumption of a Macroevolutionary change of a fin evolving into a foot, a scale into a feather, a gill to a lung, etc, etc, etc. Tho you won't like this, the hijacking of an engineered adaptive change within a kind/species and attaching micro-evo to it is not proof of evolution, at least the evolution that the Reverend Dawkins says can never be observed for."
This is just another creationist bait-and-switch. Thorton did not claim macroevolution among Orcas proved the tree of life. Thorton answered Eugen, who asked:
"Is there an example of one animal in transition from one species to another in our era?"
So Thorton accurately answers Eugen's question by citing a paper showing an animal in transition from one species to another. It shows that, contra creationist lies, there are observed examples of macroevolution and speciation (and many others besides Orcas-- among insects, plants, fungi, birds, salamanders, arguably sheep.)
Eocene then pulls the usual creationist dishonest bait-and-switch: "it is not proof of evolution, at least the evolution that the Reverend Dawkins says can never be observed for."
Eocene dishonestly misrepresents Thorton's argument. Thorton did not claim macroevolution among Orcas (which this is) proves macroevolution everywhere. Thorton accurately answered Eugen's question regarding speciation, which has been observed several times.
This is why creationists never learn anything. As I've pointed out before, every argument with creationists involves the same dishonest bait-and-switch.
Your logic is like this.
IDiot: Evolution is impossible because 4 > 6!
Scientist: Here's proof that 4 <= 6.
IDiot: Oh, you think just because 4 <= 6 therefore that proves goo evolved into a beautiful baby! THAT'S YOUR RELIGION!
No, you write something very stupid and we correct you, day after day. Indeed, 4 <= 6 does not prove macroevolution from goo to you. But even if all species were created by invisible leprechauns, 4 <= 6 does still prove you're an IDiot.
It would help if you would be man enough to just say, "Ooh sorry, I was wrong. 4 <= 6 indeed." You'll be an IDiot until you at least stop writing 4 > 6 and admit 4 <= 6. But you never correct any trivial errors, hence we cannot even begin to address which theory fits the data best.
It is not necessary for the Orca paper to prove macro-evolution
Disingenuous:
ReplyDelete"It is not necessary for the Orca paper to prove macro-evolution"
======
LOL
That's why your team have faith based metaphysical religious statements to fill in those evil gaps.
ROFL
Eocene,
ReplyDeletein post after post, I show that every single "fact" that you creationists claim is a lie. When will you stop trusting Answers in Genesis as a scientific authority?
Eocene: "That's why your team have faith based metaphysical religious statements to fill in those evil gaps."
Above I cited specific transitional fossils, and genetic and morphological analyses. When you write "your team have faith based metaphysical religious statements to fill in those evil gaps", you're lying.
Even if scientists tomorrow look through a microscope and see invisible leprechauns creating a species, the fact will still remain, you'll still be a liar.
You said we don't have the data. I just cited the data. You just lie about it, and no future experiments can change the fact that you lied.
My comments keep vanishing, I keep re-commenting, hence comments are in the wrong order.
ReplyDeleteAbove I posted a long piece on bat evolution, transitional fossils, genetic studies.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if the comment AGAIN vanishes.
Trying again...
ReplyDeleteAnd Eocene again telling us "4 > 6, therefore evolution is impossible!":
"There is not even one research paper, science text book or experiment to be found anywhere in the whole history evolutionary biology that empirically proves and demonstrates that this mysticism of random mutation of DNA made any of the major changes to (once again) invention of a fin, eye, wing, foot, etc,"
False. 4 <= 6, you IDiot. One example: the bat-wing. We have both transitional fossils for the bat, and we know which genetic sequences changed to make the bat wing, and it was tested in the lab. This has been extensively experimented on by Karen Sears, Chris Cretekos and others, who have produced bat-like fingers in embryonic mice by adding in either bat proteins (Sears) or genetically modifying the mice, adding a bat gene (Cretekos).
Transitional fossils: Onychonycteris- 52.5 my ago. Finger length intermediate between insectivores and modern bats. Claws on all five fingers like insectivores, unlike two or three clawed fingers on modern bats. No echolocation like insectivores, unlike modern bats. Also see fossils Icaronycteris and Palaeochiropteryx.
References for Cretekos and Sears:
Regulatory divergence modifies limb length between mammals. Cretekos, C.J., Wang, Y., Green, E.D., NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, Martin, J.F., Rasweiler, J.J., IV, Behringer, R.R. (2008) Genes & Dev. January 15, 2008 22: 141-151; doi:10.1101/gad.1620408.
The Development Of Powered Flight In Chiroptera: The Morphologic And Genetic Evolution Of Bat Wing Digits. (2006) Sears, K., Behringer, R. and Niswander, L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103:6581–6586.
Diogenes,
ReplyDeleteLooks like Onychonycteris and your other examples were just bats. There are lots and lots of different bats today with various features, so calling these primitive is arbituary in order to fit the evolutionary assumption. Modern fruit bats don't have echolocation abilities either.
So intelligent manipulation of mice yields bat-like fingers? 1. There is a big difference between fingers and wings. Creatures with fingers should not try to jump off a cliff to test that. 2. Intelligent intervention is not natural selection. If wings are so easy via random mutation and natural selection why couldn't intelligent lab techs suit up a mouse with them?
Wings and echolocation requires saltation events.
Tedford:
ReplyDelete>> Onychonycteris and your other examples were just bats. <<
There's total dishonesty behind all creationist arguments, but the transitional fossil argument is especially dishonest, because they're tricking their audience about their definition of "transitional fossil." Whenever one is dug up, they redefine their terms. Their real definition of transitional fossil is, "Whatever hasn't been found yet." According to the creationist definition, anything actually found is not transitional, by definition.
So when creationists say, "No transitional fossils have been found," that really means, "No thing not yet found has been found." It's a trivial tautology, but they deceive the audience by pretending their definition of "transitional" is the scientific definition.
Creationists redefine words on the fly whenever transitional fossils are found (which is often). I'm supposed to argue with you about your definition of "just bat." I don't care about how you define and redefine "bat."
What matters is the objective properties of the fossil, not the fact that creationists redefine words.
Objectively, the finger length of Onychonycteris is halfway between insectivore and bat. This is exactly the property that many, many creationists insisted was IMPOSSIBLE because, said they, half-length fingers would be non-functional and kill the creature.
Onychonycteris also has five claws, unlike bats, with two or three. Again, intermediate property.
Lack of echolocation also is part of the definition of transitional fossil, if you're evolving from a shrew-like insectivore lacking echolocation. Again, I know creationists can redefine "transitional fossil"; I care about the scientific, objective analysis of properties, not creationists' dishonest redefinitions.
There are tons of quotes from all major creationists saying that a creature halfway between shrew and bat is IMPOSSIBLE. Then they dig it up, and creationists say it's TRIVIAL. I'm not arguing with creationists over the definitions of words like IMPOSSIBLE or TRIVIAL. I don't care how you define "bat." The objective properties are intermediate.
Cladistic analysis predicted a creature with half-length fingers and combined properties of shrews and bats. Creationists predicted no such creature could ever live-- it would be non-functional. You lost that one. Admit it.
Even if invisible leprechauns designed Onychonycteris, the creationists you trust as authorities have been proven to be unable to identify IMPOSSIBLE, non-functional forms. Their theories led them to conclude intermediate properties were IMPOSSIBLE. Creationists are still idiots, even if leprechauns designed Onychonycteris.
You lost that one. Admit it. Or go ahead redefining, why not also redefine "got you ass kicked" as "triumph."
Sorry to disrup this, but I can't watch this any more without saying something. Back to mosquitos.
ReplyDeleteChoosing a pest such as the mosquito to make the point that Evolution is humbuck is about the most stupid thing one can do. Why? Because pests are the organisms people looked at most carefully to find mechanisms that are unique in the animal kingdom. There are thousands of researchers working their asses off to find, what creationists then could call, evidence against evolution. Why?
Because if such unique mechanism does exist then the pest problem would be solved due to that this mechanism could be targeted without harming anything else. For all those researchers who work on finding such thing, evolution is a bitch because it is evolution that makes their life hard. What did they find so fare? Only evidence for evolution and no unique enough target. And this, they really do not want to find. Why?
Because the reason why we have trouble with all those pests is that all organisms are so closely related to one another so that we can't find anything that only would kill the pest, but would harm nothing else. Again, what is responsible for this? Evolution.
OK, OK, I back off the other possibility would be a creator who created all organisms so similar that we could, so fare, not find anything that makes a mosquito so distinct from anything else that we can find something that only kills them but doesn't do any harm to anything else including humans and with this you know who is responsible for that millions of people die each year from Malaria, Nile Fiever, and such.
OK, OK, research do not find anything because they do not want to find something because this would kill the evolution hypothesis and would make them loose their job?
ReplyDeleteNo worries, first, there are so many open questions that no reseacher needs to worry about loosing their job due to running out of questions any time soon. Second, at least nobody I know cares that much about evolution that they would hide such results instead of putting a patent on it, becomming famous, and taking the millions of dollars that come with it.
Disingenuous:
ReplyDelete"in post after post, I show that every single "fact" that you creationists claim is a lie. When will you stop trusting Answers in Genesis as a scientific authority?"
======
No on the contary, in post after post, you have done nothing but show the same smoke screen biligerence found not ONLY at Infidels.org, Atheistforums.com, etc, but also your own BLOG where rather than pose questions of inquiry and common ground understanding for an interesting educational dialog, you opt for more of dodge the bullit spin of "Hahahahahaha, gotcha" snarks.
When you (grand standing on your soap box) phonied that righteous indignation blip of "you didn't read Thorton's answer to Eugen" and fist pounded of how I didn't read what he was actually saying, well Mr "I read everything", you didn't read his last bark where he invited the EXACT response I gave. Here it is again scholar:
"And before some Cretotard chimes in with "but they're still orcas!!", the point remains they're diverging into two distinct species of orcas."
Once again, I answered precisely what the subject was intented for. The fact that you didn't/don't like the answer is *Tough*. The fact is, those are NOT different species, at best they are variations of the same Kind/Species/Family of animal, which is something even a child gets. Mr Thorton's assertion from that abstract is nothing more than philosophical and religious faith based statements. So let's consider Thorton's fictional mysticism of the spurious Ocra speciation.
----------
Thorton:
"Researchers have discovered that two distinct types of orca, a large and a pygmy form, are rapidly diverging, evolving away from each other.
The scientists' study reveals each type of orca carries a unique gene mutation that benefits its particular lifestyle.
The killer whale, Orcinus orca, is polymorphic, has a global distribution and occupies a range of ecological niches."
======
Incredible !!! This is like saying Matt Roloff and his Midgit Family Farm are a distinct and separate species from other human beings. This the same STUPID reasonng used in the Hobbit fairytale on Flores island, where geographic restriction supposedly causes evolutionary miniaturization of species, such as Homo floresiensis (midgit human), Summatra Rhino, etc. So because of the restrictiveness of the habitat which creates those wonderful ecological nitches, the only evolutionary wonders such as the tiniest of creatures will make it and prove successful on an island. At first glance, that could sound plausible to an ignorant tribesman (after all, the largest Rhinos live in the vastness of the African bush), but it doesn't explain why on that same small island habitat, it contains some of the largest lizards known to mankind, the Komoto Dragon. It doesn't explain why tiny islands far smaller than Flores, like Samoa and Figi have some of the largest human beings known to us.
So instead of using real world rational thought and logic from this world to explain things, we get definitions shell games of what is rational and logical from some parallel universe and a story about a Fantasy Island. Unfortunately in the interests of real world truth for beneficial research, we live in this world and we need Reality Island explanations.
Eocene wrote:
ReplyDeleteSo instead of using real world rational thought and logic from this world to explain things, we get definitions shell games of what is rational and logical from some parallel universe and a story about a Fantasy Island.
Eocene,
How do you determine what is and what is not "real world rational thought and logic from this world"? Furthermore, given the problem of human congestion, etc. why should we expect this process to actually provide accurate explanations regarding the cause of specific phenomena?
For example, atoms are made up of mostly empty space. This includes solid rock, steel, etc. However, this is highly counter intuitive to our day to day, real world experiences. And this is just one example.
Why does this sort of disconnect occur? Because our intuitions break down at the very large, small and complex. We know this because history has clearly demonstrated this time and time again.
So, again, it's unclear what you mean by "real world rational thought and logic from this world" and why you expect it to provide good explanations.
Just because your intuition has served you well in domain doesn't mean it actually provides value in every domain. Yet, your posts here seem to indicate you actually think this is true.
I should have wrote:
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, given the problems of human cognition, etc. why should we expect this process to actually provide accurate explanations regarding the cause of specific phenomena?
Neal Tedford: There are lots and lots of different bats today with various features, so calling these primitive is arbituary in order to fit the evolutionary assumption. Modern fruit bats don't have echolocation abilities either.
ReplyDeleteLack of echolocation is primitive for bats, as it is not present in shrews nor Laurasiatherians generally. Genetic evidence is squarely on the side of macrochiropterans losing the ability as a result of diurnal habit. So this is a reversal rather than a primitive retention. But we see primitive traits in living organisms all the time. Humans have five fingers and toes, a pattern established in the early Carboniferous in the ancestry of all living tetrapods.
Scott:
ReplyDelete"How do you determine what is and what is not "real world rational thought and logic from this world"?"
=======
This is so simple that if it were a T-Rex, you'd be a snack before dinner. The above is the only cititation from your post that needs addressing. The other content goes off into parallel world definition shell games and I won't attempt "What Is Truth? statements.
So what is meant by real world ??? Real world is the world of mankind we all live, work and play in. It's the most basic and simple things that are universally accepted by the common man, woman and child. Elitist on both sides excluded.
I'll illustrate it this way. Back in the 1500s, a man named William Tyndale dealt with a harsh ruling with an iron fist Eccesiastical Hierarchy. The attitude back then with these Elitists was that the Bible was to be in the sole posession of Clergy ONLY and not Layman. Tyndale knew that was not the intent and purpose for it's writing, hence he said this:
"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"
Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake for going ahead with his simpler translation which even the "boy behind the plow" could understand. Modern day Atheistic Elistists who run today's modern Academic schools of higher learning are every much the mirror image of those who ruled with an iron fist in the Dark Ages.
The question above is almost a scripted default-like response to a subject where no truthful answer can be found. It's an attempt to deflect and side track the issue and never meant to come to a common ground understanding of anything. It could be said that "What Is Truth?" arguements have worked for centuries so why bother fix what isn't considered broken.
Thanks for playing Scott. At least your consistent and never disappoint. *wink*
Some shrews have echolocation abilities, along with many cetaceans.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of transitional animals goes back to the most fundamental flaw in evolutionary thinking... this idea that complex organs and functions can incrementally develop in a stepwise fashion. Somethings either exist or they don't. Like a wing. Like echolocation. Weak echolocation ability is still echolocation. A small wing is still a wing. By definition you must have saltations, and lots of them.... and this is exactly what we see in the fossil record, thereby demonstrating that evolution at is core is a flawed concept.
Common design from a common designer can explain the mixing and matching of functions and organs among the great mosiac of life.
The Chrysler PT Cruiser is a retro styled compact automobile launched by Chrysler .... with Dodge Neon components.
Common design, common designer
Neal said: "Somethings either exist or they don't. Like a wing. Like echolocation. Weak echolocation ability is still echolocation. A small wing is still a wing."
ReplyDeleteNeal, I've got one question for you:
Do humans have echolocation ability? Yes or no.
Derick,
ReplyDeleteA common and basic genetic "platform" is expected with common design from a common designer.
Neal Tedford: Somethings either exist or they don't. Like a wing.
ReplyDeleteThere are ample examples of intermediate gliding structures in extant nature. You've been pointed to the these before.
Neal Tedford: A common and basic genetic "platform" is expected with common design from a common designer.
At issue is your claim that echolocation, such as found in bats, had to be saltational. In fact, the ability can be found in primitive form in other organisms.
Zach,
ReplyDeleteGliding structures? What creature did you have in mind?
You said, "At issue is your claim that echolocation, such as found in bats, had to be saltational. In fact, the ability can be found in primitive form in other organisms. "
Can you go into more detail on that statement. What organism do you have in mind?
I need more information to speak that directly.
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThe idea of transitional animals goes back to the most fundamental flaw in evolutionary thinking... this idea that complex organs and functions can incrementally develop in a stepwise fashion. Somethings either exist or they don't. Like a wing. Like echolocation. Weak echolocation ability is still echolocation. A small wing is still a wing.
And a Liar For Jesus idiot pastor is still a Liar For Jesus idiot pastor.
Saltation seems to be your latest favorite buzzword. Did you stumble across it while desperately searching ICR or AIG for any empty rhetoric to C&P here? It's on par with the rest of the ignorant drivel you usually post.
By definition you must have saltations, and lots of them....
Only by your Liar For Jesus idiot pastor definition which has no meaning in the real scientific world. Too bad.
and this is exactly what we see in the fossil record, thereby demonstrating that evolution at is core is a flawed concept.
How would you know? You've never studied the fossil record and have no idea of the evidence it contains.
BTW, now that you've rejected a basic tenet of Christianity, I guess you're no longer a TRUE Christian, right?
Neal said: "Derick, A common and basic genetic "platform" is expected with common design from a common designer."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply Neal, but that didn't answer my question at all.
Do humans have echolocation ability? I'll give three options to be thorough: 'Yes', 'no', or 'a little bit'?
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteGliding structures? What creature did you have in mind?
So you've never heard of flying squirrels or sugar gliders. Great knowledge there Mr. Science.
I need more information to speak that directly.
Why change now? You've never needed more information to bluster your ignorant layman's opinions before.
Why don't you answer Derick's question?
"Do humans have echolocation ability? Yes or no."
@Eocene
ReplyDeleteCommon sense? This coming from the guy that thinks the message:
"SBU-Swedish Council on Technology does not have a subscription to this Journal or Article. Please contact your librarian for details"
means:
"I'm not allowed to read [the article] because the country I reside in has no permission to do so."
How’s this for common sense? We see on the earth various strata of rock and have deduced that they have been created by sedimentation of debris over time. The stratified rock is broken and lifted in places, and so we have deduced that has been moved over time. This led to the theory of plate tectonics and is corroborated by earthquakes, volcanoes, and mid-Atlantic ridge. The movement of the continents and layering of rock indicate that when we find shells in the Himalayas that they were probably formed in the sea by living organisms a very long time ago.
Collecting more and more fossils we began to pick out animals that are similar to one another and postulate that they are somehow related. The oldest fossils are the simplest organisms and the youngest are the most complex. Moreover the most similar animals existing at any one time will have a similar predecessor at an earlier time. From this, rational people—not you--deduce that these animals are decedents of the earlier ones.
We have precedence for inferring that these similar organisms existing through time are decedents of one another--reproduction. We do not see organisms arising without parents. That is common sense.
None of what I’ve said so far refutes intelligent design so far. It does indicate that if it happens then it happens with the context of reproduction. However, the only evidence we see of a designer is a supposed design. This is the same kind of circular logic that fundamentalists use for the authenticity of the bible; a story about God which we know is true because it says it was written by God. I shouldn’t be surprised if this is what you think though, after all, you think a lack of a journal subscription is part of an atheist plot to keep Scandinavia in the dark.
The only evidence we see of a designer is a supposed design, and the only evidence we see of a design is a supposed designer.
ReplyDeleteT_Cook
ReplyDelete"Common sense? This coming from the guy that thinks the message:
"SBU-Swedish Council on Technology does not have a subscription to this Journal or Article. Please contact your librarian for details"
means:
"I'm not allowed to read [the article] because the country I reside in has no permission to do so."
=====
No, what that means Mr Cook is that I'm not forking over the $$$£££ or whatever to read something and comment on it only to be spat on. But if you'd like to print it here for free, than I'll be happy to read it.
-----
T-Cook:
"This is the same kind of circular logic that fundamentalists use for the authenticity of the bible; a story about God which we know is true because it says it was written by God."
=====
Funny thing here is an Atheist/Agnostic will believe an Evo story like the stupid ignorant asinine story of the Kit Fox who jumped into the ocean and eventually became a pygmy killer orca. Why ??? , because National Geographic said so. Because Darwin said so. Because the Reverend Dawkins says so. Because I'm to lazy to do the homework myself and Talkrational.org said so and the list is endless.
Take heart tho, because you're not alone. Most people claiming to be Christian won't do their own personal homework either. They simply let their clergy do their religious thinking and study for them and take it on blind faith that they actually know what they're talking about. This makes the both of you and your positions the EXACT mirror image of each other. Isn't this fun.
Eocene ranted: "Funny thing here is an Atheist/Agnostic will believe an Evo story like the stupid ignorant asinine story of the Kit Fox who jumped into the ocean and eventually became a pygmy killer orca. Why ??? , because National Geographic said so."
ReplyDelete...or because of the preponderance of evidence that a land mammal like a fox or a wolf is the ancestor of all cetaceans, Evidence like transitional fossils bridging the gap, that just happened to be found in strata that was pretty much exactly the age predicted by evolutionary theory, structural and genetic homology between cetaceans and other land mammals that falls in to the predicted nested hierarchy, and about a dozen other lines of evidence.
Eocene, I know you're pretty egotistical to begin with, but even so, doesn't it strike you as even a little odd that you know more about biology than essentially every single "stupid, ignorant," highly trained and educated biologist in the world? Surely that's got to cause at least some cognitive dissonance?
Eocene, I myself don't always read old threads frequently, so perhaps you missed my question in "Why Some People Favor Common Descent". I'll repost:
ReplyDeleteYou ask me all the time what I believe. That's all I'm asking of you. What does 'perfect' mean, and why do you think the world was that way before humans? You can provide Either a solid biblical reference or a scientific one. Either one. Take your pick. (although a scientific reference may be more convincing to this particular audience)
Derick:
ReplyDeleteDo humans have echolocation ability? I'll give three options to be thorough: 'Yes', 'no', or 'a little bit'?
My initial answer was "a little bit" based on remembering a story about a blind person who could echo locate. But after refreshing my memory by watching this video, I have to change my answer to yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_k8Wgor1FE
Maybe this young man's ability is not as good as a bat's, but his abilitiy is certainly remarkable almost beyond belief.
But I suppose the question is: is his ability an evolved trait or is his ability "merely" a remarkable talent, that he just happens to have, much like a child progidy who can play classical music on the piano. Can this ability be taught to and learned by others?
Typing dyslexia strikes again: progidy should be "prodigy". That is a "talent" I was apparently born with.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I have noticed many repeated words and phrases in various posts. Are these typos, or is the server playing tricks again?
Doublee: Can this ability be taught to and learned by others?
ReplyDeleteYes. Indeed, all humans have the ability to some degree, and can tell if they are in a small room, a large room or a cathedral from the way sound echos.
Ugh, every day the creationist logic is the same.
ReplyDeleteIDiot: evolution is IMPOSSIBLE because 4 < 6!
Scientist: Here is proof that 4 >= 6.
IDiot: Oh, You atheist/elitist think that just because 4 >=6, that means GOO turned into a beautiful baby!
No, you IDiot. Stop misrepresenting our position. We do not think that because 4 >= 6, GOO turned into YOU. We think because you said 4 <6, but in fact 4 >= 6, that proves you're an idiot.
I agree that the opinion you falsely attribute to scientists, "Because a finch got a longer beak, therefore evolutionists think goo can turn into you," is absurd. But that logic IS A PRODUCT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. It is not the evidence that proves evolution.
We demonstrate speciation, genetic studies on morphological changes etc., simply to prove that either you are idiot, or else you trust creationist web sites that lie to you.
For once and for all, the best evidence for evolution is:
1. Unique nested hierarchy of all organisms, based on objective comparisons of their characteristics (phylogenetic trees, cladistics.)
2. Comparisons of DNA and protein sequences between similar and less-similar organisms, which GO BEYOND the constraints of biochemical function.
3. Transitional fossils, with "transitional" defined by mathematical, cladistic comparison of many characteristics of fossils & living species.
Yes, I know Walter ReMine says "Common designer makes common designs." Not with a unique nested hierarchy, they don't. You can't make a unique nested hierarchy out of human artifacts, e.g. Picasso's artworks.
Moreover, DNA differences that are NEUTRAL and not required by biochemical differences prove the "design" is not "common" anyway. So, Walter ReMine's theory proves only the existence of a pantheon of gods working at cross-purposes.
And "God can do it that way if he wants" accommodates all possible data sets, thereby predicting nothing.
Note the many, many false statements made by creationists on this website, in Cornelius Hunter's OP and thereafter. Cornelius Hunter lies and says scientists believe in "wild, speculative just-so stories" about CO2-sensing proteins. It's pointed out above that scientists created detailed, mathematical, phylogenetic trees for CO2-sensing proteins. Yet not one creationist on this thread will admit that Cornelius misrepresented science... again.
When Eocene says there are NO morphological studies on how insectivores can genetically change into bats, he was wrong. Hunter was wrong about CO2-sensing proteins. Admit it. Scientists did the work. You lied about their work.
Pardon my math. Please switch "4 < 6" and "4 >= 6" above.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Eocene, what is it with you and the "Kit Fox" turning into a whale? Who the hell told you that?
ReplyDeleteCladistic and genetic analysis show that whales and hippos evolved from a common artiodactyl ancestor. A hippo looks nothing like a Kit Fox.
No, we are not capable of imagining the freaky stuff you dream up.
Seriously Eocene, where DO you get this stuff? Where did you get the Kit Fox!? That's a very, very specific statement. Do you just make it up? Did you get it from Answers in Genesis or jailbird Kent Hovind? I really want to know where you get this from.
Diogenes said...
ReplyDeleteWe think because you said 4 <6, but in fact 4 >= 6, that proves you're an idiot.
============================
It takes one to know one,Diogenes.
Neal Tedford: Some shrews have echolocation abilities, along with many cetaceans.
ReplyDeleteAgain, these are independent acquisitions, and the shrew version of echolocation is nowhere near as sophisticated as that of living bats. Given that the very distantly related tenrecs (who have a similar mode of life and share with the shrews a primitive placental mode of life) also have a bit of rudimentary echolocation, it is almost certainly a case of independent development due to natural selection. The ancestral state for shrews would be highly unspecialized echolocational ability (such as that we see in humans as noted above.
Diogenes: Oh, and Eocene, what is it with you and the "Kit Fox" turning into a whale? Who the hell told you that?
ReplyDeleteI think Eocene's creationist source is using "kit fox" to describe the pakicetids. They were cursorial carnivores, who may have occasionally waded to catch fish. Of course, pakicetids are cetaceans, not kit foxes. This is part of creationist obfuscation. Pick a living distant cousin of whales (like the cow) or a living "analog" (the kit fox is a real stretch) of the ancient relative and say that scientists think whales evolved from that (cow or kit fox). Aren't scientists silly?
No, I think Eocene's "Kit Fox" might be the Mesonychids.
ReplyDeleteBut where'd he get it from? You wanna bet?
Yeah, creationists have a cow fixation. When they invent just-so stories, it's usually a COW turning into something. Like David Berlinski, in that infamous YouTube video, says a cow jumped in the ocean and "you teach it" to be a whale. By teaching!
VenomFangX (YouTube video) said it was the other way around, that a whale turned into a cow.
Let's everyone lay a bet on where Eocene got his "Kit Fox." Even the creationists can bet on this.
I'll bet Kent Hovind.
Eocene, don't tell us the answer until everyone has bet.
Russian matryoshka dolls are an excellent example of a NESTED HIERARCHY... Where the subset is fully contained within the parent.
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm for definitions. "Nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels". That's it. Simple. Easy.
An army is a nested hierarchy, while its command structure is a non-nested organizational hierarchy. What type of hierarchy is depicted often depends on how you want to view a group and its members.
Evolutionists have taken the simple meaning of a nested hierarchy and jumbled it. In biology a nested hierarchy is nicely represented by the Linneaean Taxonomy system.
A Nested Hierarchy is simply a classification of members where all (100%) of the subset members are grouped under a parent and so on.
I don't believe that you can classify life into a nested hierarchy on the basis of evolutionary genetics alone much beyond the species level. This is because all of the genes of the species would need to be contained in the supposed ancestors all the way back to the first life form. If a subset is not 100% contained within the parent you do not have a nested hierarchy. Genetic changes that are not included in the genes of the ancestor throw it out of a nested hierarchy.
Of course, Linnaeus was not classifying according to genes, but basic, visible physical characteristics. That's okay according to the defintion of nested hierarchy.
FORD F150 -> TRUCK -> AUTOMOBILE -> TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM is a Nested Hierarchy.
Not all the parts of an F150 have to be descended from some other vehicle or even share parts with other trucks in order to be classified in a nested hierarchy.
Members in a nested hierarchy can be designed and examples of designed nested hierarchies can be made of nearly any designed and manufactured product.
Therefore, being able to classify life using Linneaean Taxonomy is not in anyway contradictory to life being designed. Linnaeus believed that life could be classified because it had a common designer, God.
Neal, I'm just gonna keep asking till you answer:
ReplyDeleteDo humans have echolocation ability?
Derick,
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I'm sure that you have an answer!
But Tedford, where do you think Eocene got his "Kit Fox"?
ReplyDeleteArtificial objects do not make unique nested hierarchies. For artificial objects, the hierarchy is not unique. If you put the properties into clustering software, it won't converge to one tree. You get a huge number of trees.
Four trucks, two from Ford: no CD player, panasonic CD player. Two from Toyota: no CD player, panasonic CD player. How to group? Sure you can make a tree, but not a unique tree.
Now throw in the sunroof option, brand of sparkplugs, and on and on. Throw in cars, some with CD players, some not. Some with a plug for MP3 players, some not. The number of possible trees explodes.
And do that with Picasso's artworks? His paintings? His many styles? His ceramics? Shudder.
Cladistic analysis generally involves two or three hundred properties, and dozens of species. Do that with trucks + cars. The number of possible trees is astronomical. Phylogenetic trees for genese are constructed from hundreds of nucleotides analyzed in dozens or hundreds of genes. The possible trees should explode astronomically, but converges to one, or a few.
There's a real counter-example: Gene Ontology (GO), which is a system of classifying biological FUNCTIONS (not anatomical structures, not genetic sequences, but functions, like "metabolism" or "membrane transport" or "kinase" or "protease".) It's horribly non-nested. Technically it's called a directed acyclic graph (DAG), highly reticulated. If you know object-oriented programming, you know DAG's. They're totally non-nested.
This has been explained many, many, many, many times.
Neal, technically "I don't know," is an answer, but I'm willing to put down money that you answered that way not because you really don't know, but because you've done a little bit of googling and have figured out why I asked.
ReplyDeleteDo humans have echolocation ability?
In an attempt to dodge the issue, Eocone wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis is so simple that if it were a T-Rex, you'd be a snack before dinner.
But later wrote
The question above is almost a scripted default-like response to a subject where no truthful answer can be found.
So which is it?
Apparently, in your attempt to avoid the issue, it's both simple and unanswerable.
The other content goes off into parallel world definition shell games and I won't attempt "What Is Truth? statements.
So, you do not agree that atoms are mostly empty space, and that things that are composed of atoms, despite appearing to be solid objects, would also be mostly empty space?
Again, I simply cannot tell from your response.
What about our ability to split atoms, is that "real"? Do nuclear power plants exist in some kind of parallel universe? What about the atomic bomb?
Are our intuitions right wave / particle duality and quantum superposition? How about our previous intuitions that the earth was flat before we sailed around the globe or that sun orbited the earth before we had invented telescopes? I could go on, but history is full of examples where our intuitions were simply wrong.
Again, it's factual knowledge that our intuitions break down at the very large, small and complex. Why are your intuitions any different?
Perhaps you think that, unless it's covered the Bible, the subject must not be important, otherwise, God would have mentioned it? Other wise, it's unclear why your singling out evolution.
Eocone wrote:
ReplyDeleteSo what is meant by real world ??? Real world is the world of mankind we all live, work and play in. It's the most basic and simple things that are universally accepted by the common man, woman and child. Elitist on both sides excluded.
In addition being vague, what's obviously missing is why you expect anything that might meet this definition to actually provide accurate explanations. In fact, it's it's pretty much a given that this is NOT going to produce accurate explanations.
For example, most people are not science literate. Much of the technical knowledge and skill required to design and manufacture many of the things we use on a daily basis is only known to a relatively small percentage of the population. If only the "most basic and simple things that are universally accepted by the common man, woman and child." were "real", most of the drugs, medicines and technologies in use today today would simply cease to exist.
For the most part, people have little to know idea how they work or how to design them. It might as well be magic as far as the are concerned. That is - unless it conflicts with their religious views.
Furthermore, among theists, and even Christians, there is disagreement about the existence of hell, whether everyone will be saved, who is the true prophet, etc. So, it would seem that, given your definition, the only thing that could be said to be real about God is that he merely exists. Beyond that, there is no universally accepted common definition.
Modern day Atheistic Elistists who run today's modern Academic schools of higher learning are every much the mirror image of those who ruled with an iron fist in the Dark Ages.
Regardless of how many times you repeat this mantra or how vigorously you wave your hands, it won't make this true. What "rules" in science is research and providing good explanations that back up that research. Both of which ID lacks. Should this change, then science will have no choice but to listen. But I'm not holding my breath.
Doublee said...
ReplyDeleteDerick:
Do humans have echolocation ability? I'll give three options to be thorough: 'Yes', 'no', or 'a little bit'?
My initial answer was "a little bit" based on remembering a story about a blind person who could echo locate. But after refreshing my memory by watching this video, I have to change my answer to yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_k8Wgor1FE
Maybe this young man's ability is not as good as a bat's, but his abilitiy is certainly remarkable almost beyond belief.
But I suppose the question is: is his ability an evolved trait or is his ability "merely" a remarkable talent, that he just happens to have, much like a child progidy who can play classical music on the piano. Can this ability be taught to and learned by others?
Everyone has it a bit, except for maybe deaf folks.
Haven't you ever had occasion to walk across an unlit room with a hardwood floor (say a darkened dance hall, or high school gymnasium) and been able to tell how far from the wall you were by the echo of your footsteps? I sure have, and I'll wager many others here have too.
Which definitely sinks Tedford's "echolocation is all or nothing" stupidity,
Neal Tedford: I don't believe that you can classify life into a nested hierarchy on the basis of evolutionary genetics alone much beyond the species level.
ReplyDeleteOf course we can. If we examine a single trait, then there may be some ambiguity, but when analyzed over the panoply of characteristics, there is a clear nested hierarchy pattern. For instance, all biologists would classify dolphins with other mammals and not fish. In addition, we know that the classification scheme is not a mere artifact, because it leads to testable correlations.
Diogenes: No, I think Eocene's "Kit Fox" might be the Mesonychids.
ReplyDeleteLet's everyone lay a bet on where Eocene got his "Kit Fox."
http://www.city-data.com/forum/great-debates/788247-evolution-what-left-never-talks-about-36.html (Scroll down to the pictures.)
As far as I can tell, the kit fox is Eocene's own invention back when he was posting as "bluepacific". I got one thing right - his "kit fox" is indeed Pakicetus - he uses the cartoon from wikipedia. It's a pretty bad sketch, but still bears very little resemblance to a kit fox. The Ambulocetus is a pretty awful sketch too.
I see now why creationists reject evolution. Not having seen the paper, the skeletons, or the data, it's hard to imagine the beige cartoon pakicetid being related to the green cartoon ambulocetid. Did intermediate species have green and beige blotches? That would not have been in style even back in the Eocene.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScott said...
ReplyDeleteModern day Atheistic Elistists who run today's modern Academic schools of higher learning are every much the mirror image of those who ruled with an iron fist in the Dark Ages.
Regardless of how many times you repeat this mantra or how vigorously you wave your hands, it won't make this true.
==========================
And regardless how many times you say it isn't true will make it so.
What percentage of Biological scientist's are Atheists, Scot?
I forgot to mention I think that scientists cheat on a massive scale and constantly lie to the public.
ReplyDeleteAmbiorix said...
ReplyDeleteWhat percentage of Biological scientist's are Atheists, Scot?
According to various polls it's around 40%, roughly the same number as for all scientific disciplines. That's compared to around 12% for the general public. So the majority of biologists are still religious.
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
I forgot to mention I think that scientists cheat on a massive scale and constantly lie to the public
I bet you think all Blacks are thieves, all Asians can't drive, and all Hispanics are lazy too, right?
Anybody else you want to make a group stereotype judgment of while you're at it? Do you think all Catholic priests molest little boys?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThorton said...
ReplyDeleteWhat percentage of Biological scientist's are Atheists, Scot?
According to various polls it's around 40%, roughly the same number as for all scientific disciplines. That's compared to around 12% for the general public. So the majority of biologists are still religious.
--------------------------
Ok! I thought it was more like 95% Atheist but obviously I was wrong in thinking that.
"I think that scientists cheat on a massive scale and constantly lie to the public."
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the major components of the conspiracy thought process. This gives you carte blanche to ignore any and all evidence by any scientist on any subject.
I'm just curious, what would it take to convince you that most scientists are not actually lying about their findings?
Ambirox / Eocone wrote:
ReplyDeleteOk! I thought it was more like 95% Atheist but obviously I was wrong in thinking that.
It would seem there is some significant disconnect between what 55% of biologists actually believe and your perception of their beliefs.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to look for some faulty underlying belief or thought process that led you to make this wrong assumption?
WOW
ReplyDeleteAfter all that bullshitting, elephant hurling, circular reasoning, gratuitous extrapolation, completely missing the point - and God knows what other errors could be counted - the Darwieners still can't put out a single point that genuinely supports their own numskull theory.
We see once again that Darwinists ubiquitously do not understand the meaning of the term "logical implications" or the laws of evidence, logical fallacies; and certainly nothing whatsoever of statistical mechanics or biosemiotics.
Sad but true
Therefore one must admire, all the more, the efforts of those few bright chaps who attempt to enlighten their ever devolving minds.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteHere's your opportunity to shine. Why don't you - or anyone of the "bright" people you're referring to - enlighten us by answering two simple questions?
01. How do you explain why over 98% of all species that were supposedly designed have gone extinct?
02. How do you explain why a designer would route the laryngeal nerve in vertebrates as seen in the following video?
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/06/richard_dawkins_21.html
Since no one has yet to take me up on this offer, here's your chance to put yourself, and Intelligent Design, on the scientific map, so to speak.
The opportunity is just there waiting for you and the entire field of ID. The ball is clearly in your court.
However, I wont be holding my breath waiting for an explanation.
Gary said...
ReplyDeleteWe see once again that Darwinists ubiquitously do not understand the meaning of the term "logical implications" or the laws of evidence, logical fallacies; and certainly nothing whatsoever of statistical mechanics or biosemiotics.
Hey! It's Gary the cowardly lump, doing his weekly fart-n-dart!
Still can't provide those calculations from statistical mechanics you claim disproves ToE yet I see. What a surprise.
Ambiorix said...
ReplyDeleteAnd no to that.There's a reason why I think scientists cheat on a massive scale and constantly lie to the public.
I'm sure you're going to to provide your definitive evidence that the entire scientific community across all scientific disciplines is engaged in cheating and lying on a massive scale, right?
That will come right after your definitive evidence for an Intelligent Designer too I bet.
Ambiorix asked: "What percentage of Biological scientist's are Atheists, Scot?
ReplyDeleteTo which Thorton Responded: "According to various polls it's around 40%, roughly the same number as for all scientific disciplines. That's compared to around 12% for the general public. So the majority of biologists are still religious."
To which Ambiorix said: "Ok! I thought it was more like 95% Atheist but obviously I was wrong in thinking that."
----------
Ambiorix, yes you *were* obviously wrong in thinking that. But instead of taking the 15 seconds to find out a more accurate percentage, you go on assuming that whatever dribble floating around in your head is correct. If you hadn't just by pure chance have happened to have been corrected on it, you probably would have never researched it, (Even thought it is a big assumption that dramatically affects your view of this whole subject) and you probably would have spent the rest of your days believing it. There is no reason (for us or for you) to think that any other thought rattling around in your noggin doesn't have that same lack of research or scrutiny. It's no different with many creationists, or many creationist's claims; many of them are just absurdly false, and just a few minutes of research would reveal what BS they are. But the same debunked arguments keep appearing over and over and over.
continued below...
...continued from above:
ReplyDeleteNow, most people who are scientifically inclined are the type of person who researches claims before passing them along as fact. It often happens that one of my friends will relay an urban legend as fact, I'll pull up snopes on my phone and correct them, and I'll often be called a killjoy. But for some people I know, it doesn't even occur to them that the chain email they've received might not be true, no matter how ridiculous it may be. It doesn't cross their minds to verify it in some way. Most of us on the 'evolution' side don't understand that mentality. (or lack thereof) When someone tells us something like 'humans only use 10% of our brains' that sets off the BS detector in most of us, so we research it, and lo and behold, find out that it *is* BS. When we come across someone like you, who don't feel a need to fact check statistics or factoids before splurting them out like they're the gospel truth, it's hard for us not to attribute deceitfulness to your motives, instead of ignorance.
Several topics responded to here.
ReplyDeleteRegarding echolocation: I hadn't really considered humans having echolocation ability, but from following the links posted here and from my experience my answer to Dericks question is 'yes', humans do possess echolocation abilities. Another gift from God. Echolocation is a process which depends on a complex integration of the ear and the brain. You either have it or you don't. The function is stronger and weaker in animals and humans, but even a weak function is still a function. So this changes nothing about a complex function either existing or not existing.
Nested Hierarchy....
See http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm for definitions.
"Nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels".
That's it.
It is important that you look at that very simple definition.
An army can be classified as a nested hierarchy.
Certainly many designed objects can be classified within a nested hierarchy. Due to competition in the marketplace and many designers and manufacturers going after your business we have lots of variety, but not always.
The point by evolutionists here appears to be that only life forms can be classified in "unique" nested hierarchy. Emphasis on unique, as if this disproves design.
That is not true. There are many products that have been designed that could be classified within a unique nested hierarchy.
Classic Coke -> Coke -> Cola -> Soda -> Beverage
Prescription drugs are usually unique when they are first marketed, with the manufacture of each being very precise. Drugs can be classified into a nested hierarchy.
Furthermore, to use the word "unique" nested hierarchy regarding life forms is not true either. Unique means alone, without equal. Even within humans there are differences in size, colors, facial features, etc. if you detail it down enough. Some fish have cusped teeth. Octopus has eyes like humans. Some insects have wings and so do birds and so do bats. A platypus lays eggs, while other mammals don't. That is a significant difference. There is a mixing and matching of functions throughout the great mosaic of life forms. Some bats have echolocation and some don't.
Yes life forms lend themselves to being classified into a nested hierarchy, but it is not truly unique. Unless you are also modifying the meaning of the word unique, in addition to contorting the meaning of a nested hierarchy.
Hey! It's Gary the cowardly lump, doing his weekly fart-n-dart!
ReplyDeleteThat was funny!
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteRegarding echolocation: I hadn't really considered humans having echolocation ability, but from following the links posted here and from my experience my answer to Dericks question is 'yes', humans do possess echolocation abilities.
Your big problem Tedford is you don't consider anything before shooting your mouth off. You're woefully ignorant in all aspects of evolutionary biology, too lazy to do the slightest bit of research, too conceited to acknowledge the scientific evidence that is shown to you day after day after day.
You're scared spitless by the implications of all those scientific findings for your narrow fundy religious beliefs. So you bluster and sputter and flail and generally make yourself look like a world class idiot, anything to avoid dealing with the scientific facts.
Face it Tedford; you suck at science and rational thought as badly as you suck at religious apologetics. All you've got to offer here is your morbid fear of reality.
Scott, you have to understand that you are not arguing with scientists here. You are arguing with mere laymen, who sometimes will argue from mere personal belief and who are probably not aquainted with many scientific facts. I dont believe all this arguing is useful at all. You are not likely to get many answers on a blog! I think the debate should be reserved to the experts who know what they are talking about. Nothing is going to come from all this bickering.I myself am a layman so I wont argue either. But I will link an article that I think answers your second question:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.icr.org/article/5512/
Hope this helps.
A.J said...
ReplyDeleteScott, you have to understand that you are not arguing with scientists here. You are arguing with mere laymen, who sometimes will argue from mere personal belief and who are probably not aquainted with many scientific facts.
Believe me A.J., we in the science community know this all too well. There's nothing wrong with being unlearned. I personally am not familiar with details in many scientific fields. The problem is the ones here arguing from their personal incredulity refuse to learn, even when the information is handed to them on a platter.
Ignorance is both forgivable and curable. Repeated demonstration of willful ignorance is not.
But I will link an article that I think answers your second question:
Nope, that ICR article doesn't address the question. They only point out that the nerve ends up in its final configuration because it started out that way in embryonic development. That's a well know scientific fact, but it doesn't explain why. Evolution - common descent - explains why we see the same routing in so many different animals even though in cases like the giraffe it makes no engineering sense. Intelligent Design Creationism doesn't. The Intelligent Designer is supposed to be omnipotent, remember? But all the evidence suggests he was an incompetent bumbler who slapped together just barely good enough features from whatever spare parts he had laying around. In other words he made everything look like it had evolved.
Neal Tedford wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe point by evolutionists here appears to be that only life forms can be classified in "unique" nested hierarchy. Emphasis on unique, as if this disproves design.
Which I could just as easily rewrite as…
The point by gravitationalist here appears to be that objects are influenced by gravitational forces in a uniform way. Emphasis on uniform, as if this disproves an army of slide-rule toting demons that simply push and pull on objects in a consistent manor.
We both agree on the empirical observations. Where we disagree in the unseen explanation for these observations.
We cannot disprove the agency and intervention of slide-rule toting demons any more than we can disprove the agency and intervention of an intelligent designer. Yet I'm guessing you do not object to gravity being taught as truth in academia.
Without some reason to prefer agency in one scenario over another, preferring one over another appears irrational.
Scott, I think that the article also pointed out that the laryngeal nerve also enervates other structures such as the heart, windpipe muscles and esophagus. Whereas you are only considering its main destination, the laryngeal nerve also serves other organs along its path. As for why, I believe that they did answer that: Because of developmental constraints. It is the best that can be done considering that the growing organisms needs to function from its very early stages. For example, the embryo needs a functioning simple heart early on; this later descends to its position in the chest, dragging the nerve bundle with it.
ReplyDeleteAJ: As for why, I believe that they did answer that: Because of developmental constraints. It is the best that can be done considering that the growing organisms needs to function from its very early stages.
ReplyDeleteSome of those developmental constraints didn't have to be there. The RLN, as the fourth vagus branch, is stuck behind the 4th and 6th pharyngeal (gill) arches. It could have, and if intelligently designed, would have, been part of the first branch of the vagus nerve, indeed a branch of the superior laryngeal nerve would make for a very direct connection. The developing mammal would function fine if the RLN came off the SLN and did not get entangled behind the aorta and ductus arteriosus. The situation is not ridiculous until we get to a very long-necked mammal like the giraffe. The giraffe is a poor vocalist, and the ridiculously long RLN may be a contributing factor.
The vagus nerve heads down the body anyway, and it is sensible for its fourth branch to innervate the heart (but not the larynx or neck musculature).
Neal Tedford: The function is stronger and weaker in animals and humans, but even a weak function is still a function.
ReplyDeleteThe question was whether there were primitive forms of echolocation that could have formed the evolutionary basis of the precise echolocation found in bats. Yes, echolocation does require hearing, but that wasn't the issue. You have moved the goalposts.
Once you clearly admit that echolocation has plausible precursors, then we might discuss the evolution of the highly sensitive mammalian auditory system from the more primitive ancestral hearing.
Neal Tedford: There are many products that have been designed that could be classified within a unique nested hierarchy.
Classic Coke -> Coke -> Cola -> Soda -> Beverage
Non-soda cola beverages (a cola that is not a soda) and ice cream sodas (a soda that is not a beverage) violate your nested hierarchy. It's in the nature of design to mix-and-match.
Neal Tedford: Furthermore, to use the word "unique" nested hierarchy regarding life forms is not true either.
ReplyDeleteYour simplistic view of the nested hierarchy is not representative of even Darwin's view, much less that of modern biology. As Darwin pointed out, and crucial to his theory, violations of the nested hierarchy include hybridization between closely related species. However, when looking at the panoply of traits, there is a clear signal of a nested hierarchy across most eukaryote taxa.
It would behoove you to become familiar with the basics of the theory you seek to criticize.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDopey Derick Childress......
ReplyDeleteAmbiorix, yes you *were* obviously wrong in thinking that. But instead of taking the 15 seconds to find out a more accurate percentage, you go on assuming that whatever dribble floating around in your head is correct.
==========================
Dopey Derick Childress:
It’s quite easy isn't it to make assumptions you pompous turd (trying my best not to swear), oh yeah Thornton the so-called scientist when have I said that I even believe in a designer? Another thing we only have your word that you’re even qualified, so my conclusion, Dopey Derrick and Thorton (or Thortad) are nothing more than little con artists.
Disingenuous:
ReplyDeleteFalse. 4 <= 6, you IDiot. One example: the bat-wing. We have both transitional fossils for the bat, and we know which genetic sequences changed to make the bat wing, and it was tested in the lab. This has been extensively experimented on by Karen Sears, Chris Cretekos and others, who have produced bat-like fingers in embryonic mice by adding in either bat proteins (Sears) or genetically modifying the mice, adding a bat gene (Cretekos).
Transitional fossils: Onychonycteris- 52.5 my ago. Finger length intermediate between insectivores and modern bats. Claws on all five fingers like insectivores, unlike two or three clawed fingers on modern bats. No echolocation like insectivores, unlike modern bats. Also see fossils Icaronycteris and Palaeochiropteryx.
======
There are no transitional bat fossils. Every fossil of any flying thing ever found has full capability of winged flight. However, given enough time, we can IMAGINE gradual changes in gene expression of BMPs, then, we can IMAGINE transitional forms. Especially in the light of ZERO bat flight transitionals. There have been many papers since your Jan 2008 citation admitting their are no such fossils, and yet publishing a lie on this is no problem for you ??? They all say in the light of lack of fossil evidence, the evolution must have been quickly, therefore none exist (Nancy B. Simmons, Scientific American Dec 2008).
Your cited example of bat gene experiment on mice is a joke. Monsanto does this crap all the time. There's nothing novel there. They and other GMO research bohemoths have taken the gene from a cold water fish species and implanted it into a Tomato because they wanted to create a tomato that would be more frost resistant.
So by your scientific imaginative example, are we to now believe that Tomatoes evolved from fish, or fish evolved from tomatoes ???
Spider genes were inserted into a goat, in hopes that the goat milk would contain web protein for use in making bullet-proof vests. Are we now to believe that goats evolved from spiders ???
This list of these Dr Mengele type experimentations is endless. And I love the way you remove the requirement for hard evidence and replace it with imagination. Cornelius has an expression he often uses and it's appropriate here:
"That’s why nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEocene said...
ReplyDeleteThis list of these Dr Mengele type experimentations is endless. And I love the way you remove the requirement for hard evidence and replace it with imagination. Cornelius has an expression he often uses and it's appropriate here:
"That’s why nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution."
===========================
Well they do assume a lot even to the point where they say that no one can be or understand science because they don't swallow the nonsense presented by evolutionary biologists.
To Derick Childressand Thorton:
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should read this:
This is for the Us
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
This is from Wikipedia:
Demographics of atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe
Ambiorix, thanks for the links. The Wikipedia article shows the highest belief in God in Turkey (95%), whereas the percentage belief in Denmark is 31%.
ReplyDeleteWhere would you prefer to live?
Pedant said...
ReplyDeleteAmbiorix, thanks for the links. The Wikipedia article shows the highest belief in God in Turkey (95%), whereas the percentage belief in Denmark is 31%.
Where would you prefer to live?
================================
Hi Pendant!
I'm very happy where I live: Wales,UK.
I found this interesting from Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteA 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups.
---------
And there was I thinking that the group I belong to was the most hated by Christians.
Ambiorix, do you have trouble understanding and answering questions?
ReplyDeleteI didn't ask you where you live, I asked you whether you prefer to live in Turkey or Denmark.
Neal Tedford: "I don't believe that you can classify life into a nested hierarchy on the basis of evolutionary genetics alone much beyond the species level."
ReplyDeleteWhat's preventing you from trying it for yourself? We don't need "evolutionary genetics," genetics is sufficient. All the data and software is freely available on the web.
I think you lack sufficient faith to put your "belief" to the test.
Pedant said...
ReplyDeleteAmbiorix, do you have trouble understanding and answering questions?
I didn't ask you where you live, I asked you whether you prefer to live in Turkey or Denmark.
========================
Pendant, do you have problems understanding an answer, let me make it clear for you then I wouldn't want to live in either country.
Why is that answer so difficult for you to grasp?