In the ocean, genes can hop between bacteria with unexpected ease, thanks to strange virus-like particles that shuttle genes from one species to another. These particles, called gene-transfer agents (GTAs), insert DNA into bacterial genomes so frequently that gene transfer in the ocean may occur 1,000 to 100 million times more often than previously thought. This suggests that GTAs have had a powerful role in evolution.
A powerful role in evolution? Indeed these GTAs must have been important in evolution, but from where did they come? From evolution of course. So evolution just happened to create GTAs which then enabled more evolution to occur:
"GTAs are very peculiar," says Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. "Their only function seems to be transferring genes."
The GTAs are so efficient the evolutionists were “absolutely amazed.” And why would evolution create a molecular machine whose sole function is to transfer genes? Well no reason really. It just happened to happen, but when the new marvel worked its magic the bacteria survival rate improved. And so then those GTAs harbored by those bacteria survived longer. And then, well you know, somehow it all just worked.
If this just-so story sounds unlikely, keep in mind this was all predicted by evolutionists:
Last year, Koonin and his colleagues examined genomic analyses of marine viruses and predicted GTAs to be major contributors to gene transfer in the ocean. He says that the current paper confirms his prediction by finding frequent GTA-mediated gene-transfer events in a marine microbial community.
The only catch is the prediction had nothing to do with evolution. Nonetheless evolutionists tout findings such as GTAs as powerful confirmations of evolution. Is this not, after all, an observation of evolution in action?
As usual, what evolutionists claim as “direct observation” is in reality a complex adaptation mechanism that calls for yet more evolutionary heroics. GTAs are the latest in the long list of complex structures and mechanisms that evolutionists reinvent as powerful evidences for their theory. Yet these biological wonders do not produce the type of change evolution requires, nor can evolutionists explain how or why Darwin's imaginative process produced them in the first place. Once again the absurdity of evolutionary doctrine is exceeded only by the fervor of its believers.
Religion drives science and it matters.
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete" . . . nor can evolutionists explain how or why Darwin's imaginative process produced them in the first place."
======
Most philosopher's of evolutionism waste time observing such amazingly complex systems and reporting it as one of their own by licking evolutionary lables and attaching these to the incredible mechanisms you describe, only to announce to a gullible lazy public (who won't think for themselves) that they have discovered yet another religious truth to prop up their otherwise blind faith.
The atheistic virgin birth story of "Abiogenesis" is a taboo off limits subject that is never going to give any satisfying scientific answers, EVER. The only credible and foundational discussion should be , where do all those informational codes come from ??? How does nothing more than physics and chemicals produce just one code ???
At that point, when it has been established just how those brilliant informational encoding/messaging/decoding systems and nano-machinery they drive originated from specific chemicals and the identified specified physical forces that drove and arranged them, then we can go from there. If such a foundation of this religion can be laid, then at that point, all these articles being referenced will make perfect sense. There would be no arguement, evolution would indeed be a fact.
Although you choose to distance yourself from any Biblical quoting (since your purpose here is a neutral one), then allow me. Jesus gave an illustration of building a house on either of two foundations. SAND or a ROCK MASS. Of course it dealt with the spiritual side, yet it can be used and applied to discribe any endeavor, such as science.
Matthew 7:24-27 explains what happens to a house built on sand when literal storms and floods lashes against the house. It won't stand. The same is true if such a theory has no foundational strength to hold it secularly when the storms of controversey lash against it. Instead of building on a more secure firm rock solid foundation, it's rescuers insist the location is still desirable and use the same old sand bags, rotten timbers, etc, etc, etc to give it nothing more than a spit and bubblegum patchwork to hold what's left together.
The day they can actually lay a proper rock solid foundation, without lying to the inspectors about where they fudged and cut corners, is the very day we can move on and consider these amazing mechanisms as proof of evolution in action.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteThis is all about equivocation.
"Evolution" hs severl meanings.
Evos love to take evidence for one meaning- say for a change in allele frequency within a population and use it for neo-darwinism/ modern synthesis.
And that is the problem.
They think that people like you, Eocene, Neal and myself are anti-evolution whe in fact we are just anti- the blind watchmaker evolution.
Joe, in almost every instance in which someone is asked "Do you accept evolution?" it's a shorter way of asking: "Do you accept the currently accepted consensus about the theory of evolution?" When Wolf Blitzer asks Christine O'Donnell if she "believes evolution is a myth," He's not asking her if she thinks change in allele frequency over time is a myth. When someone says "I don't think evolution should be taught in our classrooms," they don't mean "I don't think change over time should be taught in our classrooms." When a scientist says "This latest discovery confirms a prediction of evolution," regardless of whether or not he's right, what he means is, "This latest discovery confirms a prediction of the theory of evolution."
ReplyDeleteThis should not be so hard to understand.
When you ask someone if they accept evolution, and they answer with an unqualified 'yes', it is then redundant to ask if they accept common ancestry. If you ask someone if they accept evolution, and they answer with an unqualified "no," it is almost always redundant to ask them if the accept common ancestry. Common ancestry is an inseparable component of the theory of evolution.
As far as I can tell, yourself, Neil, and Eocene reject common ancestry, and therefore reject the theory of evolution.
It is not playing word games to say that someone who is anti-common ancestry is anti-evolution. It's just using the overwhelmingly most common meaning of the term.
As far as I can tell, Eocene and Neal are anti-every kind of evolution.
For example, take the modern understanding of how the solar system works. For simplicity, we'll call it 'modern heliocentricity'. There are two major parts to it: 1. The earth, and other planets in our solar system, revolve around the sun. 2. Because of gravity.
If someone rejects either of those two premises, it is accurate to say that they reject modern heliocentricity. They can't get away with saying: "Sure, I don't deny that the earth revolves around the sun, I just don't think a fully materialistic, blind force like gravity can account for it," and also claim to not be anti-heliocentricity.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteJoe, in almost every instance in which someone is asked "Do you accept evolution?" it's a shorter way of asking: "Do you accept the currently accepted consensus about the theory of evolution?"
It is dishonest as "evolution" has several diferent meanings.
Ya see if I say "no" then people like you run with that as if I do not accept any change at all.
It is dishonest at best.
This is what happened in Dover- people there thought taht ID was against any and all kinds of change.
I saw it on MSNBC- Olberman was talking to someone about evolution and the guy brought up anti-biotics.
That is lame.
You can read about the equivocation:
Equivocation and Evolution
It is all bait-n-switch.
You get someone to say they don't accept evolution, maning they do not accept blind watchmaker evolution or UCD and the other person twists that to mean they do not accept any change at all.
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?
Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.
In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.
I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.
The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.
IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).
So why do people need to misrepresent ID?
That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteI just don't think a fully materialistic, blind force like gravity can account for it,"
LoL!!
Who sez that gravity is a totally materialistic blind force?
Do yo know the materialistic "explantion" for the laws of nature?-> "They just are (the way they are)" Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time"
That's a joke and very unscientific- yet that is all materiaists have.
See also:
ReplyDeleteBiological Evolution: What is being debated
Ahhh, the old tried and true Cornelius formula
ReplyDelete1. Find an article about a new scientific discovery involving evolution. In this case
a) biologists observe HGT
b) biologists make prediction about mechanism for HGT
c) prediction is proven true
2. Whine because science learned something new instead of being unchanging like the "scientific" Bible
3. Act all indignant and yell "that's not evolution!!
4. Add the stupid "evolution is a religion" tag line
5. Let the IDC supporters rant their ignorance based support.
Joe said "LoL!!
ReplyDeleteWho sez that gravity is a totally materialistic blind force?"
Joe, I just wanted to quote you on that before you realize what you said and delete the post.
Derick Childress said...
ReplyDeleteJoe said "LoL!!
Who sez that gravity is a totally materialistic blind force?"
Joe, I just wanted to quote you on that before you realize what you said and delete the post.
C'mon, do you think a man with a 150 IQ could possibly be wrong? If he thinks there are tiny invisible pixies purposely pushing things around to direct gravity, who are we to disagree?
I won't delete it Derick.
ReplyDeleteBe sure to include thewhole thing though:
Do yo know the materialistic "explantion" for the laws of nature?-> "They just are (the way they are)" Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time"
That's a joke and very unscientific- yet that is all materiaists have.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWas gravity 'front-loaded' by your Magic Sky Pixie too, just to produce our solar system JoeTard?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't you be out looking for a job Joe? Instead of venting your anger towards science and technology here?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf I hear of any openings for 150 IQ research scientist toaster repairmen I'll pass them your way Joe, honest.
ReplyDeleteThorton, please show a little respect for a war hero.
ReplyDeleteJoe has won the Silver Tard* more often than any other soldier in the War Against Science.
*for relentless creationist stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to his idiotic dogma
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDo yo know the materialistic "explantion" for the laws of nature?-> "They just are (the way they are)" Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time"
ReplyDeleteThat's a joke and very unscientific- yet that is all materiaists have.
Of course JoeG has an explanation, it's his big bunny in the sky driving gravity.
Cornelius isn't it funny that a paper that describes a mechanism several years ago now finds an agent to execute that? So research that uncovers a real tangible object is a just so story? But then what is an evolutionist to do? Try as he might to insist that evolutionary biology is mere ideology, scientists keep doing the hard work and filling up a new library of research every year.
Take fossils. When evolutionary biologists predict the presence of a fossil, creationists cry "udder failure" (that was the famous jibe an obscure creationist Hugh Morris I think) at the sequence of whale evolution. Once the fossil is found the objection vanishes! So now a discredited bio PhD like Sternberg is found to pen some screed about probabilities etc! Which is why we science advocates these days jump the gun. we don't announce the discovery of transitional fossils anymore, we announce the discovery of new missing links. because every fossil is a transitional, so every time we find a fossil, we create two new missing links! We are delighted how easy it is to rile up creationists! It's fun.
GTAs may have originated from bacteriophages:
ReplyDeleteWhen Rhodobacter capsulatus cultures enter the stationary phase of growth, particles of the gene transfer agent (RcGTA) are released from cells. The morphology of RcGTA resembles that of a small, tailed bacteriophage, with a protein capsid surrounding a ~4 kb linear, double-stranded fragment of DNA. However, the DNA present consists of random segments of the R. capsulatus genome, which may be transferred to another strain of R. capsulatus.
That's from this abstract
And from here:
Is GTA derived from phage? Almost certainly. My colleague's lab's recent work has shown that some of the genes needed for GTA production are homologs of known phage genes. Old work from Barry Mrrs' group also showed that supernatants of GTA-producing cultures contain particles that look like tiny tailed phages.
jbeck:
ReplyDelete===
discredited bio PhD like Sternberg ...
===
How so?
===
Which is why we science advocates ...
===
What qualifies you as a "science advocate"?
Norm Olsen:
ReplyDelete===
GTAs may have originated from bacteriophages:
===
Sure, they may have.
===
When Rhodobacter capsulatus cultures enter the stationary phase of growth, particles of the gene transfer agent (RcGTA) are released from cells.
===
Does that "just happen"?
===
The morphology of RcGTA resembles that of a small, tailed bacteriophage, with a protein capsid surrounding a ~4 kb linear, double-stranded fragment of DNA. However, the DNA present consists of random segments of the R. capsulatus genome, which may be transferred to another strain of R. capsulatus.
===
Yes, it is a mechanism for adaptation.
===
Is GTA derived from phage? Almost certainly.
===
This was written by an evolutionist, that is, a person who believes not only that all of biology is a fluke, but that this conclusion is an undeniable fact. Their conclusion that GTA is "almost certainly" derived from phage is based on their conviction that evolution must be true. From a scientific perspective there is no jusitification for such a conclusion.
Now that doesn't mean there is *no* evidence for this, or that this conclusion is false. There is *some* evidence, and it could well be true. GTA could be derived from phage. That, of course, would raise profound questions about how and why such an adaptation occurred.
===
My colleague's lab's recent work has shown that some of the genes needed for GTA production are homologs of known phage genes. Old work from Barry Mrrs' group also showed that supernatants of GTA-producing cultures contain particles that look like tiny tailed phages.
===
So for an evolutionist, the presence of such homologs make the case "almost certain." Such reasoning, yet another example of evolution's metaphysics.
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteSo for an evolutionist, the presence of such homologs make the case "almost certain." Such reasoning, yet another example of evolution's metaphysics.
Ha, ha, I knew you'd be all over that remark!
Anyways, I posted those pieces in response to your question "where did GTAs come from?". Whether or not they actually originated from phages, the evidence is suggestive of such an origin.
Also you ask "why would evolution create a molecular machine whose sole function is to transfer genes?". Well if they did arise from phages, that would answer that question as well, because if it's true that they originated from phages, then originally they would have been transferring their own genetic material rather than the host's (as I understand it anyway).
And it's worth noting that apparently GTAs transfer random bits of DNA, not necessarily entire genes to say their "sole function is to transfer genes" is a bit misleading.
In any case, it's certainly some interesting science with lot's of puzzles yet to explore.
jbeck:
ReplyDelete===
discredited bio PhD like Sternberg ...
===
How so?
===
Which is why we science advocates ...
===
What qualifies you as a "science advocate"?
Cornelius,
Discredited? Let's see, a bio PhD who propounds baraminology, flouts publishing procedures and does an end run around the review committee and slips in a bogus assertion cooked up by his friend, then cries "harassment!" alleging non-existent facilities have been taken away, we will forget that minor matter of being shown up for ignorance on the blog of a scientist. Top it off with joining ranks with a pseudoscience paper mill in Seattle. Maybe that is not "discredited". How about a stronger word. OK I am trying to be kind.
And science advocate? That should be pretty clear.
Well, jbeck, what we want to see is your Science Advocate membership card. With an up-to-date dues paid receipt, mind you.
ReplyDeletejbeck said...
ReplyDeletejbeck:
===
discredited bio PhD like Sternberg ...
===
How so?
===
Which is why we science advocates ...
===
What qualifies you as a "science advocate"?
Cornelius,
Discredited? Let's see, a bio PhD who propounds baraminology, flouts publishing procedures and does an end run around the review committee and slips in a bogus assertion cooked up by his friend, then cries "harassment!" alleging non-existent facilities have been taken away, we will forget that minor matter of being shown up for ignorance on the blog of a scientist. Top it off with joining ranks with a pseudoscience paper mill in Seattle. Maybe that is not "discredited". How about a stronger word. OK I am trying to be kind.
===========================
Boy you're getting desperate.
jbeck spews:
ReplyDeleteLet's see, a bio PhD who propounds baraminology, flouts publishing procedures and does an end run around the review committee and slips in a bogus assertion cooked up by his friend, then cries "harassment!" alleging non-existent facilities have been taken away, we will forget that minor matter of being shown up for ignorance on the blog of a scientist.
What a load of nonsense.
1- No evidence for any end-around- that is just a made up story.
2- Baraminology- well just look at the genetic data- evo-devo has been a bust for you guys- so where is your science?
3- What bogus assertion? It appears that bogus assertions are your speciality.
4- Science advocate? You don't know what science is.
Thorton said..
ReplyDelete.
Was gravity 'front-loaded' by your Magic Sky Pixie too, just to produce our solar system JoeTard?
============================
Did it front load itself?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletejbeck:
ReplyDelete===
Cornelius,
Discredited? Let's see, a bio PhD who propounds baraminology, flouts publishing procedures and does an end run around the review committee and slips in a bogus assertion cooked up by his friend, then cries "harassment!" alleging non-existent facilities have been taken away, we will forget that minor matter of being shown up for ignorance on the blog of a scientist. Top it off with joining ranks with a pseudoscience paper mill in Seattle. Maybe that is not "discredited". How about a stronger word. OK I am trying to be kind.
===
So you read a website somewhere and now you have all the facts.
===
And science advocate? That should be pretty clear.
===
What you are doing is taking a fairly complex topic (theories of origins) and promoting simplistic religious mandates. Then you are spreading inuendos, false information, etc about those who disagree. Unfortunately this is not uncommon, but then evolutionists claim to be the science defenders.
Hey Derick,
ReplyDeletePlease read the following here.
You will see an evolutionist making fun of someone for using the word "evolution" as you suggest and then clarifying his position.
Stuff like that is all too common and all too pathetic.
Why was my post removed by a blog administrator?
ReplyDeleteAmbiorix,
ReplyDeleteIt's our language the "e..t..." word.
Cornelius doesn't want us to stoop to their level.
My bad-
Ambiorix:
ReplyDeleteStay substantive and no foul language. Actually, I thought I was deleting one of Joe G's posts. I don't recall the reason for that particular deletion, but my patience is now used up regarding non substantive posts.
Hi Joe, I'm not sure what the relevant part of that url was, did you mean the quote attributed to Cornelius: "I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies." - or something else?
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter quoting dirt from 'jbeck':
ReplyDeletejbeck: "discredited bio PhD like Sternberg ..."
===
Cornelius: "How so?"
===
In their minds, such bolded derogatory statement making requires no explanation to someone they consider well beneath themselves. It was most likely meant to impress their fellow resident Evo-Peers here on this discussion board to prove their ability at brilliant "Yodahood-Speak" as opposed to any contribution of intelligently contributing anything of worth to the discussion.
------
jbeck: "Which is why we science advocates ..."
===
Cornelius: "What qualifies you as a "science advocate"? "
=====
Actually, absolutely nothing. However, had he added a bit of foul language or derogatory insults to his soap box grandstanding, then it probably would have qualified him to enter one of the prestigious Seminary Schools of Intellectual Thought over at the University of TalkOrigins.org, Infidels.org, TalkRational.com, RichardDawkins.net, ?????? well you get the picture.
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"This was written by an evolutionist, that is, a person who believes not only that all of biology is a fluke, but that this conclusion is an undeniable fact. Their conclusion that GTA is "almost certainly" derived from phage is based on their conviction that evolution must be true. From a scientific perspective there is no jusitification for such a conclusion."
=====
And this is where their religiosity comes in. Faith based statements (assumptions, assertions, speculations, conjecture, etc) labled as FACTS. Personally in my own research, I continually speculate, assert, assume, etc, but such is only a result of keen interest and what drives me to want to find out more. What I do however is admit that I do it, especially when giving public discourses on a particular subject.
However, in their religious intellectual mindset, such an admission is to be considered a "SIN" for them to lower themselves and admit that their personal gut feeling or opinion is not a real FACT. They will never see that those simple gut feelings and opinions are not real world FACTS and viceversa. They will never admit that a FACT is an actual truth , which in itself comes from reality, not long held soothsaying mythologies. They'll never admit that their own dogmatically defending of this very real FAITH actually makes their belief a religion.
Again, they have their own version of "SIN" whether they'll even admit that or not.
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"So you read a website somewhere and now you have all the facts."
=====
Off hand I'd say PandasThumb.org, scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, Infidels.org, RichardDawkins.net, TalkOrigins.org, or any of a dozens of other religious blogs and websites.
-----
Cornelius Hunter:
"What you are doing is taking a fairly complex topic (theories of origins) and promoting simplistic religious mandates. Then you are spreading inuendos, false information, etc about those who disagree. Unfortunately this is not uncommon, but then evolutionists claim to be the science defenders."
=====
Which only proves his presence here is to prosyletize what he has faith in being the true religion over the false religion. Otherwise, had he been a true scientist, he'd be so hard at work providing FACTS for proving the actual speculation of evolution, that he'd be totally oblivious to your blog even existing.
Norm Olsen:
ReplyDelete"My colleague's lab's recent work has shown that some of the genes needed for GTA production are homologs of known phage genes. Old work from Barry Mrrs' group also showed that supernatants of GTA-producing cultures contain particles that look like tiny tailed phages."
===
Cornelius Hunter:
"So for an evolutionist, the presence of such homologs make the case "almost certain." Such reasoning, yet another example of evolution's metaphysics."
======
The really sad part is that they get so caught up in proving the religious dogma, they quite often forget the importance of why they are researching in the first place, which is scientific discovery for the benefit of mankind and our planet's environment. They never asked the hard questions like, "What are these micro-organisms purpose and function in nature ???" or "What do they accomplish in nature and what for what purpose does that serve in the long run if anything ???" Unfortunately those are TABOO questions.
Of course the dogma itself states (in actual FACT it demands) that there is no real logical purpose, direction or intent of anything that happens in evolution. Yet there is evidence of there being a checks and balances purpose in various componants which make up many of Earth's natural systems. This however is never considered, though the evolutionary literature often cited in Evo-Land uses such personification fallicies with regards words/terms used to describe what blind, pointless, undirected, indifferent with no goal evolution & natural selection accomplish by such words/terms as practiced, chosen, selected for, invented, selfish, Mother Nature, Father Time, tinkerer, etc, etc, etc.
Unfortunately as a result of such irresponsible biggoted and a biased mandated evolutionary mindset, it's Nature that gets screwed in the end when a no consequence scientific inventiveness bulls it's way ahead motivated by selfish interests and visions of granduer in it's pursuit power, wealth and social status at any and all costs, only to admit later, "Oops" , we need to change our behavior to an Eco Green Solutions oriented lifestyle. Yet had they considered and respected those original hard questions in the first place, that of there perhaps actually being a "purpose", then we wouldn't be where we are today.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteHi Joe, I'm not sure what the relevant part of that url was, did you mean the quote attributed to Cornelius: "I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies." - or something else?
Yes Derick- as you can see- well someone with an IQ over 75 can see- they are making fun of him.
Joe G: Yes Derick- as you can see- well someone with an IQ over 75 can see- they are making fun of him.
ReplyDeleteIt's accurately quoted.
Cornelius Hunter: I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies.
Yes, it's a misstatement (we hope). As you have pointed out, the term evolution has several related meanings. It's only equivocation when the meanings are elided, but the term doesn't lose its other definitions. The statement is therefore prima facie incorrect, and can be construed as representing ignorance on the part of the speaker.
Nakashima: No worries then! I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist!
Gravity may refer to the observed phenomena or the theory. Similarly, we may draw a distinction between the observed phenomena of evolution as opposed to the Theory of Evolution as a scientific explanation. Or continental drift and plate tectonics. And so on.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteThey are making fun of Cornelius because they define evolution as do scientists- as the change in allele frequency over time.
As I said Cornelius clarified his position and those jerks are making fun of him.
And if you can't see that then you aren't ion any position to go over any evidence
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a misstatement (we hope).
Not according to Derick- geez do TRY to follow along.
Joe G: They are making fun of Cornelius because they define evolution as do scientists- as the change in allele frequency over time.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is one meaning, and often used by scientists.
Joe G: As I said Cornelius clarified his position and those jerks are making fun of him.
Cornelius Hunter's comment was imbued with unintended irony.
Joe G: Not according to Derick- geez do TRY to follow along.
Derick's comments were quite cogent. He drew a distinction between the various definitions of the term, and showed how the context makes clear the intended meaning.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter's comment was imbued with unintended irony.
Not according to Derick.
Zachriel:
Derick's comments were quite cogent.
Quite nonsensical you mean.
Zachriel:
He drew a distinction between the various definitions of the term, and showed how the context makes clear the intended meaning.
Derick seems to think that a change in allele frequency is not an appropriate definition of evolution.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: Cornelius Hunter's comment was imbued with unintended irony.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: Not according to Derick.
Derick's comments concerned context. If someone asks if you accept evolution, they are asking if you accept that humans and hummingbirds share a common ancestor, and that this is due to natural selection and other natural processes.
Joe G: Derick seems to think that a change in allele frequency is not an appropriate definition of evolution.
Change in the heritable traits of a population IS evolution. However, when someone in an everyday context asks if you accept evolution, they are referring to the basic Theory of Evolution, including common ancestry and natural mechanisms of diversification.
Cornelius Hunter's statement was maladroit.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteIf someone asks if you accept evolution, they are asking if you accept that humans and hummingbirds share a common ancestor, and that this is due to natural selection and other natural processes.
Nonsense and I have provided the reasoning why it is nonsense.
Zachriel:
Change in the heritable traits of a population IS evolution.
Yes I know.
Therefor when you say:
However, when someone in an everyday context asks if you accept evolution, they are referring to the basic Theory of Evolution, including common ancestry and natural mechanisms of diversification.
You are FoS.
Zachriel:
Cornelius Hunter's statement was maladroit.
Nope according to Derick it is spot on.
However you calling it "maladroit" proves my point.
Thanks.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"However, when someone in an everyday context asks if you accept evolution, they are referring to the basic Theory of Evolution, INCLUDING COMMON ANCESTRY AND NATURAL MECHANISMS OF DIVERSIFICATION."
=====
The first part of your statement is true, but the second part is false. If I were to do a poll out on any public street in any country around the globe and asked people if they believed in evolution, then asked what they think the definition and meaning of the term "Theory of Evolution" actually means, the vast majority (dealing specifically with those that said yes) would not include your second part of that faith-based statement. That second part of your statement is to be found debated in Forums all over the Net and other religious settings where this idealogical worldview is propagated.
For the majority of mankind, it is still a simple life magically coming to life from non-life into a single cell and changing from one animal into a different kind of animal with no help from a intelligent creator. To the majority it's a BLACK & WHITE issue, not some fuzzy, muddled and gray arguement which is always what is meant by the faith-based statement invention of common ancestry through brilliant nano-mechanisms.
There is zero foundation because the wonderful mechanisms and informational communications systems which drive them have never been proven to have evolved from non-life. Prove that and we can go on from there. Otherwise we go in circles debating nothing more than things like anti-biotic resistance, adaptations of the bacterial recycling world, etc, etc, etc as supposed mechanisms of evolution when such brilliant mechanisms have never even been observed evolving from one kind of animal into another kind of animal.
So the story of evolution is to most people is nothing more than what the animated version of what this video illustrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY
Joe read my post again. Zachriel is exactly right; it's about context. Sure, evolution can mean different things in different contexts, but so can almost every other english word. If someone says "Be careful, that dog bites," And someone else says "Man, having homework on a sunday bites." Is there any real chance that a rational, thinking person will not understand that the word 'bites' has two different meanings in those sentences.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was talking about was the most common meaning in most contexts.
Joe said: "Derick seems to think that a change in allele frequency is not an appropriate definition of evolution."
Of course it's an appropriate definition, it's a precise, scientific definition. But tell me if you honestly think that if a moderator were to ask "Do you believe in evolution" in a political debate that there's any chance that what he actually means is "Do you believe that allele frequency changes over time?"
The quote attributed to Cornelius in that forum was unintentionally ironic, but only in the same way that many jokes are based on different meanings of words. A horse walks into a bar and the bartender says "Why the long face?"
Derick:
ReplyDeleteWhat I was talking about was the most common meaning in most contexts.
And I pointed out why that is false and misleading.
Derick:
But tell me if you honestly think that if a moderator were to ask "Do you believe in evolution" in a political debate that there's any chance that what he actually means is "Do you believe that allele frequency changes over time?"
I'm not a mind reader.
I would answer the question- "Yes I accept that change occurs- that bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotics, that the beaks of finches vary and that mutations do occur. I do not accept nor can anyone support the premise that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via blind, undirected chemical processes as the theory of evolution posits."
That way the tard couldn't twist my answer as it is clear and concise.
As I said when someone asks "Do you accept evolution?"
ReplyDeleteIf I say "No" - thinking as you do- then it is a GIVEN that chump will run around saying I deny any and every type of change.
That has been a proven fact.
The point, Joe, is that you are very inconsistent in your comments. For example, when asked:
ReplyDelete"But tell me if you honestly think that if a moderator were to ask "Do you believe in evolution" in a political debate that there's any chance that what he actually means is "Do you believe that allele frequency changes over time?"
Your response is "I'm not a mind reader."
However, when presented with Derick's words you immediately jump to an improper conclusion--as if you were reading Derick's mind. Even when the author states that you are incorrect in your interpretation of his words, you say no. You are telling the author what he was thinking.
You need to worry more about forming and defending a specific viewpoint (on just about everything you post on) than on simply disagreeing with people you don't like. This latter course of action leads to you arguing several--often contradictory--points simultaneously. You could help yourself out a lot by presenting positive arguments and working from one point of view.
blipey:
ReplyDeleteThe point, Joe, is that you are very inconsistent in your comments.
Coming from a lying loser like you that accusation is meaningless.
blipey:
You need to worry more about forming and defending a specific viewpoint
said the butt-head who hs nver formed and defended a specific viewpoint.
blipey:
than on simply disagreeing with people you don't like.
And another false accusation.
blipey:
You could help yourself out a lot by presenting positive arguments and working from one point of view.
I have you are just too twisted and stupid to face the facts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoeG,
ReplyDeleteComing from a lying loser like you that accusation is meaningless...
said the butt-head who hs nver formed and defended a specific viewpoint.
Isn't this brilliant argument from the paper you presented at the annual meeting of the The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in Seattle in January this year?
Wow Joe, those are some compelling counter arguments. I bet you win all the playground skirmishes.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
ReplyDeleteI don't mind you deleting my off-topic posts.
I understand why you would do so.
However could you please apply your deleting skills evenly?
I have a feeling if you did you could wittle the blog down to a few comments per thread.
Just sayin'
Lol! Now blipey the cowardly clown has taken to quote-mining me:
ReplyDeleteblipey quote-mines in order to try to make ID look bad
No, Erik, off-topic comments are not part of any discussion- they are lame attempts to distract from the topic at hand.
How pathetic does someone have to be to take what I said and twist it into a way to stifle discussion and investigation?
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteNo, Erik, off-topic comments are not part of any discussion- they are lame attempts to distract from the topic at hand.
How pathetic does someone have to be to take what I said and twist it into a way to stifle discussion and investigation?
Tell us Joe: When you made these comments last week
Joe G said...
“So troy gets syphilis from doing it with monkeys- troy passes it on to throton- neither get treatment and now have rotted brains as a result.”
Joe G said...
“Wow thortard- when your boyfriend blows his load in your mouth and you spew it on your keyboard like that- doesn't it get the keys all sticky? “
Joe G said...
“So thorton the pediphile spews false accusations faster than he spits out his boyfriend's load- our do you swallow?”
Were they relevant to the topic at hand? Or were they just lame attempts by you to distract from the discussion?
One glaring omission from this discussion is the ID explanation for GTAs.
ReplyDeleteHow about it guys? What's the design purpose for them?
It is estimated there are between 10,000 - 100,000 different bacteria species on the planet. IDCers like Joe G says baraminology is true and that they all are their own 'kind' each with a front-loaded genome. But what about the GTAs Joe? Why doesn't having a mechanism that swaps random bits of DNA among different species totally kill your front loading hypothesis?
OK IDCers, start splain'. And please, no hand waving evasions like "the designer works in mysterious ways" or "Our IDC scientists will figure it out someday".
thortard-
ReplyDeleteMy off-topic comments were direct responses to your off-topic comments.
thortard the lying loser lies again:
ReplyDeleteIDCers like Joe G says baraminology is true and that they all are their own 'kind' each with a front-loaded genome.
Nope- never said it, never implied it.
thortrad:
Why doesn't having a mechanism that swaps random bits of DNA among different species totally kill your front loading hypothesis?
Why should it? Or how- in your little bitty mind- does it kill front loading?
That seems kind of stupid- that GTAs would kill front loding- especially seeing what front-loading proponent Mike Gene has to say:
GTAs supprt front-loading
However there is a glaring omission- what is the evolutionary explanation for GTA?
"They just happened, and they just happened to work, so they were kept around."
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteMy off-topic comments were direct responses to your off-topic comments.
JoeTard, your comments get deleted because they're full of vile obscenities, not because they're off topic.
I guess you're too stupid to realize that
Tell us Joe, it GTAs are part of designed pants-loading:
ReplyDeleteHow did the GTAs know which DNA segments to transfer to which bacteria species?
In the huge ocean, by what mechanism did the GTAs manage to find the microscopic individual species which they were suppose to transfer their pants-loaded DNA to?
My off-topic comments were direct responses to your off-topic comments.
ReplyDeletethortard:
Joe, your comments get deleted because they're full of vile obscenities, not because they're off topic.
The observations are of vile people-like you.
thortrad:
ReplyDeleteHow did the GTAs know which DNA segments to transfer to which bacteria species?
Programming- how does spellchecker know which words are mispelled and how to correct them?
Holy crap you are ignorant as ever- I have only been over this with you how many times?
And again we are STILL waiting for the glaring omission of an evolutionary explanation- beyond "they just haapeened, and just happened to work, ie not be instantly fatal, so they were kept around."
What do you have besides that?
So thortard lies gain, gets caught in the lie, has its ignorance exposed once again, spews false accusations, and doesn't support anything it says nor anything its position claims.
ReplyDeleteLife is good...
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteT: How did the GTAs know which DNA segments to transfer to which bacteria species?
Programming- how does spellchecker know which words are mispelled and how to correct them?
Spellchecker consults a dictionary of all know good words and does a comparison JoeTard. How do the GTAs consult a known dictionary of all know good DNA combinations, and determine the correct ones for each species of bacteria? Please describe and provide evidence for the mechanism.
T:In the huge ocean, by what mechanism did the GTAs manage to find the microscopic individual species which they were suppose to transfer their pants-loaded DNA to?
You forgot to answer this question entirely JoeTard. Please describe and provide evidence for the mechanism.
thortard:
ReplyDeleteSpellchecker consults a dictionary of all know good words and does a comparison Joe.
How does spellchecker consult a dictionary?
I don't see a dictionary in my computer.
Thortard:
How do the GTAs consult a known dictionary of all know good DNA combinations, and determine the correct ones for each species of bacteria?
Nice strawman, but programming - geez I have already said that.
thortard:
You forgot to answer this question entirely Joe.
It's a strawman.
And I see you forgot to tell us how your position explains GTAs- or was my explanation on how your position explains them correct?
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteT: Spellchecker consults a dictionary of all known good words and does a comparison Joe.
How does spellchecker consult a dictionary?
I don't see a dictionary in my computer.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Are you really so stupid you don't understand the concept of an electronic dictionary being a built in part of programs like Word that use spellcheckers?
Maybe you are so stupid, since you have demonstrated virtually no understanding of every other topic you've blithered on.
Now where is the GTA's look-up dictionary Joe? How does the GTA's 'programming' know what is the correct DNA to transfer?
T:In the huge ocean, by what mechanism did the GTAs manage to find the microscopic individual species which they were suppose to transfer their pants-loaded DNA to?
You forgot to answer this question again JoeTard. It's a critical piece of your pants-loading claim. If the GTAs are pre-loaded to transfer specific info via pieces of DNA, they have to have a mechanism to pick up and deliver of that info from/to the appropriate pre-specified locations. Please describe and provide evidence for the mechanism, and quit the cowardly stalling.
thortard:
ReplyDeleteNow where is the GTA's look-up dictionary Joe?
In the organism- duh.
You know it is part of the software, the software that keeps the organism functioning.
thortard:
How does the GTA's 'programming' know what is the correct DNA to transfer?
Probably the same way spellchecker knows waht is the correct word to correct.
thortard:
In the huge ocean, by what mechanism did the GTAs manage to find the microscopic individual species which they were suppose to transfer their pants-loaded DNA to?
Quorum sensing, for one- duh. Bacteria have other methods of communicating also- including GTAs.
Now onto the questions you have failed to answer you freaking coward:
You said:
Why doesn't having a mechanism that swaps random bits of DNA among different species totally kill your front loading hypothesis??
Why should it? Or how- in your little bitty mind- does it kill front loading?
and
However there is a glaring omission- what is the evolutionary explanation for GTAs?
OK, Joe: where in the organism specifically is this "look-up table"? How is the look-up actually implemented in the alleged "software"? Can we find, like, actual "if-then" statements or while/for loops in the DNA? And what evidence do you have that this look-up table even exists at all?
ReplyDeleteJoe G said...
ReplyDeleteT:Now where is the GTA's look-up dictionary Joe?
In the organism- duh.
You know it is part of the software, the software that keeps the organism functioning.
Where in the organism Joe? Living organisms don't have software.
T:How does the GTA's 'programming' know what is the correct DNA to transfer?
Probably the same way spellchecker knows waht is the correct word to correct.
Spellcheckers use a simple lookup/compare algorithm with the words in their built in dictionary. Are you saying every GTA has a complete dictionary of every possible DNA segment it might transfer? Where is your evidence for this remarkable claim?
T: In the huge ocean, by what mechanism did the GTAs manage to find the microscopic individual species which they were suppose to transfer their pants-loaded DNA to?
Quorum sensing, for one- duh. Bacteria have other methods of communicating also- including GTAs.
Quorum sensing only works over extremely small distances and uses the secretion/reception of specific signaling molecules. Where is your evidence that GTAs use this process, and that it works over the whole ocean?
You make lots of fantastic pulled-out-of-your-butt claims Joe, but you can't substantiate a single one. Oops.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteT: Why doesn't having a mechanism that swaps random bits of DNA among different species totally kill your front loading hypothesis??
Why should it? Or how- in your little bitty mind- does it kill front loading?
You told us that each of these thousands of bacteria species was 'front-loaded' with specific DNA. Now we find a process that is swapping large chunks of DNA seemingly at random.
What do you think would happen if you took two books with coherent stories and randomly started swapping words and phrases between them? How long before the stories would be reduced to meaningless gibberish?
Unless you can show a mechanism by which the DNA transfers caused by the GTAs are somehow directed and controlled in a meaningful way, your 'pants-loading' claims go right into the crapper.
thortard:
ReplyDeleteYou told us that each of these thousands of bacteria species was 'front-loaded' with specific DNA.
Liar- I never said that.
thortard:
Now we find a process that is swapping large chunks of DNA seemingly at random.
Only ignorance makes them appear random.
thortard:
Unless you can show a mechanism by which the DNA transfers caused by the GTAs are somehow directed and controlled in a meaningful way, your 'pants-loading' claims go right into the crapper.
As I said Mike Gene states they are evidenc for front-loading and I even provided a link.
Apparently you choked on it.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteT: Now we find a process that is swapping large chunks of DNA seemingly at random.
Only ignorance makes them appear random.
Then show us the evidence that the DNA swapping is non-random.
T:Unless you can show a mechanism by which the DNA transfers caused by the GTAs are somehow directed and controlled in a meaningful way, your 'pants-loading' claims go right into the crapper.
As I said Mike Gene states they are evidenc for front-loading and I even provided a link.
"Mike Gene states" isn't evidence JoeTard. Please provide the evidence the GTA DNA transfers are directed and controlled in a meaningful way here. I'm betting you can't.
thortrad:
ReplyDeleteWhere in the organism Joe?
In a single-celled organism most likely everywhere.
thortard:
Living organisms don't have software.
Unfortunately for your position we do.
thortard:
Are you saying every GTA has a complete dictionary of every possible DNA segment it might transfer?
That is a possibility.
Shit if humans can program computers I would say the designer could easily program living organisms.
thortard:
Where is your evidence for this remarkable claim?
Observations and experiences with designed objects that do similar tasks.
thortard:
Quorum sensing only works over extremely small distances and uses the secretion/reception of specific signaling molecules.
Well if they don't get a response- duh.
Also bacteria have other methods of communicating.
thortard:
Where is your evidence that GTAs use this process, and that it works over the whole ocean?
Wh says it has to work over the whole ocean?
Again all you have is one strawman after another.
thortard:
You make lots of fantastic pulled-out-of-your-butt claims Joe, but you can't substantiate a single one. Oops.
Said the evotard whose ignoarnce has been exposed again and again.
Still waiting for your position's explanation for GTAs, living organisms, well anything.
It appears the best you can do i attack ID with your ignorance.
thortard:
ReplyDelete"Mike Gene states" isn't evidence
No the evidence was at the link I provided.
Ignoring doesn't make it go away.
thortard:
Please provide the evidence the GTA DNA transfers are directed and controlled in a meaningful way here.
You said they were random- why don't you provide evidebnce for that?
I bet you can't.
But anyway all observations and experiences with packet sending tell us it is not a random process.
didymos,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like the design inference all you have to do is actually step up and demonstrate that blind, undirectd chemical processes can account for it.
That goes for thortard also.
Just start supporting your position with real scientific data and yu won't have to worry about ID.
However it is obvious you can't so you ae forced to attak ID with your ignorance and strawmen.
Go figure...
Thorton the evotard should just shut up- but it won't.
ReplyDeleteOver on Dr Hunter's blog thorton posted the following to try to demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part system:
Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation
Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton
Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101
Obviously the tard didn't read the paper.
Had he read the paper he would have read tht all they did was take an existing protein that strongly interacted with 3 kinds of hormones (aldosterone, cortisol, and 11-deoxycorticosterone).
They then introduced simple mutations and that protein interacted weaker than it had before.
They decreased the potein's functionality.
that is it- nothing more.
Gez evotards are so freakin' desperate they will post anything hoping people cannot read the actual paper.
JoeTard said...
ReplyDeleteT:Are you saying every GTA has a complete dictionary of every possible DNA segment it might transfer?
Where is your evidence for this remarkable claim?
Observations and experiences with designed objects that do similar tasks.
LOL! So your have no actual evidence of any of this "cells have software" and 'GTAs are controlled" crap. Your whole argument is based on the IDiot logic "humans can design airplanes which fly, so therefore flying birds must be designed".
Do you really wonder why you IDiots get laughed at so hard?
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteOver on Dr Hunter's blog thorton posted the following to try to demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part system:
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Look at JoeTard try to change the subject to avoid further embarrassment on his "GTAs support pants-loading" nonsense!
Too funny!
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteT: "Mike Gene states" isn't evidence
No the evidence was at the link I provided.
Then it should be easy for you to provide the evidence here.
Why do you squirm and delay so?
thortard:
ReplyDeleteSo your have no actual evidence of any of this "cells have software" and 'GTAs are controlled" crap.
Yup J Craig Venter said:
""The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I'm still amazed by it."
see also:
Biological Information in 3 Dimensions
What do you think that once you get the "right" chemicals together all this shit just happens?
And why are you so afraid to tell us your position's explanation?
Is it because it is soo stupid everyone will laugh at you?
thortard:
ReplyDeleteLook at JoeTard try to change the subject
Nope just pointing out that you are so scientifically illiterate you don't have the IQ to assess the evidence.
Had you had any brains at all you would have never have poted that crap as evidence for your position.
You are a joke and prove it with every post.
Thortard's "argument" is "anything but design no matter what"-
ReplyDelete"It all just happened I'm telling you!"
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteT: So your have no actual evidence of any of this "cells have software" and 'GTAs are controlled" crap.
Yup J Craig Venter said:
""The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I'm still amazed by it."
LOL! JoeTard quote-mines Venter, who was talking about the software on the computer Venter used to store the pattern for his artificially synthesized genome.
Here is the whole quote:
Venter: "Venter also points to what the cells--powered by genomes made in a lab from four bottles of chemicals, based on instructions stored on a computer--reveal about what life is. "This is as much a philosophical as a technological advance," he says. "The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I'm still amazed by it."
BTW JoeTard, you still forgot to provide your evidence that GTA DNA transfers are directed and controlled in a meaningful way.
Poor poor JoeTard. He doesn't have any evidence to back up his bluster. Pity.
Joe G said: "If you don't like the design inference all you have to do is actually step up and demonstrate that blind, undirectd chemical processes can account for it. That goes for thortard also.J ust start supporting your position with real scientific data and yu won't have to worry about ID.
ReplyDeleteHowever it is obvious you can't so you ae forced to attak ID with your ignorance and strawmen.
Go figure..."
Joe, if you don't like the design inference regarding the Grand Canyon, all you have to do is actually step up and demonstrate that blind, undirected geological processes can account for it.
That goes for other geo-tards also.
Just start supporting your position with real scientific data and you won't have to worry about Intelligent Geo-engineering.
However it is obvious you can't so you ae forced to attack IG with your ignorance and strawmen.
Go figure...
Joe, in response to my specific questions about your claims you said:
ReplyDelete"If you don't like the design inference all you have to do is actually step up and demonstrate that blind, undirectd chemical processes can account for it."
So, um, what does that have to do with GTA's and these look-up tables which you've claimed exist? How do you know they are there? You can't just say these things, fail to demonstrate them, and then turn around and complain that I'm not demonstrating claims I never even made to your satisfaction. Well, actually, you can do that, if you're OK with being a hypocrite.
So, Joe, again: can you actually provide any detailed and specific evidence that these look-up tables which purportedly explain how GTA's work:
a. Actually exist
b. Are "everywhere" in single celled organisms ?
Also, can you explain, in detail, just what in the hell it means to say that a look-up table is "everywhere" in a single-celled organism? Is it in the genes? The cell wall? If the organism has a flagella, is this look-up table somehow encoded in that? If you have some sort of non-genetic storage in mind, can you explain how it works?
And I don't want to hear any more about "the design inference". I'm not interested in that. I want to know about these bacterial look-up tables you say exist.
Joe said: "How does spellchecker consult a dictionary?
ReplyDeleteI don't see a dictionary in my computer."
Joe it seems like you know as much about computers as you do biology.
(which is to say, staggeringly little)
What's the most basic definition of Evolution in common, everyday speech?
ReplyDelete'Stuff Happens'
Evolution can refer to things designed or not. Books about the 'Evolution of Computing' or the 'Evolution of the autombile' are valid titles even though these things were designed.
Stuff changes over time, stuff happens. Who can argue with that? Is that the 'fact' of evolution that neo-Darwinists mean? Yes, but they mean much more... that the origin of life and all species is the result of purely naturalistic processes without divine or intelligent cause.
Everyone agrees that small changes happen. This has never been debated. The dispute is whether these small changes tell us anything about how fish, birds, and trees got here in the first place. Evolutionists give us pictures of the peppered moth and say "see stuff happens and so this explains how all of life is here on earth.... your a big dummy if you can't connect the dots." How are moths colors proof of universal common descent?
Are small changes plus the doctrine of Uniformity all that is needed as proof? That seems to be the evolutionist argument, just show the small stuff and there is no need to ask any more questions. Uniformity, just like what erosion in the Grand Canyon. Can we assume uniformity???
Is it valid to assume that the processes at the small level apply to all other levels? The differences between Newton, General Relativity, and quantum mechanics are real and illustrate how assuming uniformity at all levels is not automatically true.
Moths changing colors is evolution and the origin of the eukaryote cell, the eye, and the human brain is also called evolution. Evolutionists see it as basically one thing and they exploit that as a substitute for scientific evidence.
In the news: Bee brains the size of a grass seed can perform calculations that takes modern computers days to compute...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/bees-route-finding-problems
Another nail in the evolutionist coffin of "God wouldn't have done it that way".
Neal said: "Are small changes plus the doctrine of Uniformity all that is needed as proof? That seems to be the evolutionist argument, just show the small stuff and there is no need to ask any more questions. Uniformity, just like what erosion in the Grand Canyon. Can we assume uniformity???
ReplyDeleteNeal, one simple thing that creationists never seem to be able to get right is:
evidence ≠ proof.
No respectable scientist claims that peppered moths are 'proof' of evolution. Please try to get that basic concept correct.
Secondly, can you demonstrate any reason at all why we should not assume uniformity? (I'm assuming that by 'uniformity' you mean the idea that the laws we observe today operated the same way in the past as well.)
Tedford:
ReplyDelete"Stuff changes over time, stuff happens. Who can argue with that? Is that the 'fact' of evolution that neo-Darwinists mean? Yes, but they mean much more... that the origin of life and all species is the result of purely naturalistic processes without divine or intelligent cause."
As usual, you are making stuff up. The branching tree of life is indeed a fact, as evidenced by the fossil record and the analysis of DNA sequences.
Evolutionary scientists use sophisticated mathematical and statistical models to infer the mechanisms of evolution. In such models there is no place for divine intervention (DI), for 2 reasons: (1) nobody has a clue how to incorporate DI, since nobody knows if, how and when DI occurred. (2) DI is not necessary to explain evolution - the models work without it.
That is not to say there was no DI. One of the founders of the so-called Modern Synthesis (MS), Sir Ronald Fisher, was a devout Christian (Anglican). He argued that the "random" mutations were caused by God, and was happy to leave it at that. In fact, many of the architects of the MS were Christians, including Dobzhansky. These eminent scientists knew so much more about biology than you, parasite on the gullibility of uneducated people, yet you have the arrogance to claim superior knowledge despite being an uneducated idiot.
Shame on you.
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteIn the news: Bee brains the size of a grass seed can perform calculations that takes modern computers days to compute...
Sorry Tedford, but that claim from the article is pure journalistic sensationalism that has nothing to do with reality. Bees can't solve 'traveling saleman' type problems faster than computers.
What bees have is an instinctual algorithm that through trial and error allows them to find a practical (not optimum) solution that minimizes the flight time and energy between a small number of points, typically less than a few dozen.
TS problems that take modern computers 'days' are ones that have 50,000 to 100,000 points. A modern computer could solve the much smaller real world 'bee' problem in nanoseconds of computing time.
Your lesson for today - don't swallow everything you read in the popular press uncritically.
I don't see how saying genes evolved from homologous genes solves the problem. Proteins can be called closely homologous even if they have an amino acid sequence tht is up to 20% different. So in a protein 100 units long, you have to change up to 20 amino acids. Proteins can be called homologous if they have a similar shape. They can be very different, and still be labeled homologous.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said: "I don't see how saying genes evolved from homologous genes solves the problem."
ReplyDeleteWhat problem are you referring to, Nat?
"So in a protein 100 units long, you have to change up to 20 amino acids."
Nat, how long does it take to change 20 amino acids? How long does it take to change 1? What causes amino acids to change? Is it hard to change 1? Is it hard to change 20? Why is this unexpected, or a problem for evolution?
The problem I'm refering to is how, if here is a minimal number of critical amino acids in a protein or in a protein complex, that menas that they all had to show up at the same time order for it to function. The usual apporach is to say that the protein evolved from an analagous protein, so the changes were minimal. For example, all the critical porteins in the bacterial flagellum are said to have evolved from analagous proteins. But that means that, for each protein, you might have had to change precisely 20 or more amino acids.
ReplyDeleteThorton smirked all over himself:
ReplyDelete"Sorry Tedford, but that claim from the article is pure journalistic sensationalism that has nothing to do with reality. Bees can't solve 'traveling saleman' type problems faster than computers."
====
Do you ever question "journalistic sensationalism" where it falls in your church's favour ??? Are you capable of dumping your muderous hatred of Neal Tedford long enough to actually read the papers published at the University of London long enough to actually THINK before you type.
Your beef isn't with Tedford. Your miffed because not one word in the article mentions your absurd asinine dogma of evolution which is equivilant to offering to burning incence on an alter before the image of Lord Darwin. I understand such lack of acknowledgement is a type of heresy in your church, but I would be equally upset if they had mentioned either Creationism or Intelligent Design, especially since science by definition is not to use any cooked up story for all three without proof handed over as a result of the scientific method being used.
----
Thorton:
"TS problems that take modern computers 'days' are ones that have 50,000 to 100,000 points. A modern computer could solve the much smaller real world 'bee' problem in nanoseconds of computing time."
====
Oh what a terrible life you must lead to be the only wise man in a land of inferiors. If you think I'm refering to myself, Tedford or even Cornelius, think again. Clearly your genius casts a huge shadow over Dr LARS CHITTKA, MSc, PhD, FLS, FRES or even Dr Mathieu Lihoreau, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences
Queen Mary, University of London. Why don't you contact them and set them straight because it's apparent they lack your intellectual insight on the subject.
-----
Thorton:
"Your lesson for today - don't swallow everything you read in the popular press uncritically."
====
Your lesson for today is: "Follow Your Own Advice" FIRST , then come back and critique others deemed inferior to you.
Natchuster:
ReplyDelete" . . The usual apporach is to say that the protein evolved from an analagous protein, so the changes were minimal. For example, all the critical porteins in the bacterial flagellum are said to have evolved from analagous proteins. . . "
=====
Well there you are. I think you just touched on a big part of the problem. Nothing has to be proven. The mere act of typing, publishing, grand stand speech making, etc of just saying something evolved is evidence enough. Especially when uttered by someone with all the Panel Approved credentials. Nothing else (actual real world evidence) is even remotely necessary.
Take Neal's interesting article citation of incredible sophistication of Bee navigation and the research being done to learn from just how it works and what possible applications would be useful and beneficial to mankind. Not one word about creationism, Intelligent Design or evolution. Just real research and amazing FACTS of learning about the intricate mechanisms involved in an almost tiny seed sized brain.
The only other important question which could be taken up later in an entirely SEPARATE debate and research work is just how all that brilliant information was invented by either a designer OR how did undirected blind forces and material substrates of which is nothing more than physics and chemicals develope such brilliantly organized informational codes ??? Creationism, IDism & Evolutionism are entirely separate issues from the way real bee navigation science is being done at the University of London.
natschuster: Proteins can be called closely homologous even if they have an amino acid sequence tht is up to 20% different.
ReplyDeleteNested hierarchy: One of these days it's going to stick.
Let's just consider neutral sequence changes, such as synonymous substitutions. (As Darwin indicated, structures not under selection will more reliably reveal phylogeny.) When we do this, we find that the sequences form a nested hierarchy that matches the nested hierarchy from morphological evidence, even though there is no causal relationship between these sequences and morphology.
Unless and until you comprehend the importance of the nested hierarchy, you will never understand why scientists consider the evidence for Common Descent to be so conclusive.
These sequences were generated by duplication, with random mutation in every other offspring, from a single strand: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
ReplyDeleteThis is after four generations:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,N,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,A,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,B,,,,A,,,
,,,,F,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,F,,,,,,,,,D,,,,,
,,,,F,Z,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,F,Z,,K,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,C,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,C,,,,,V,,,,,,
,,,,,,,C,,,,,,,T,,,,
,,,,,,,C,,,,,,,T,,,V
,,,,,J,C,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,J,C,,,,,,,,,,,Q
,,,,,J,C,,,,,,,,,,G,
,,,,,J,C,,,,,,,,,,GX
Can you group them? Consider the C in the eight position. Do you understand why this almost certainly indicates that they share a common ancestor, an inherited mutation that occurred in the first generation? Indeed, this is the first generation:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,C,,,,,,,,,,,,
Similarly, the J in the sixth position was inherited from a common ancestor with the J6 mutation in the second generation.
Eocene, have you ever been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia?
ReplyDeleteYou may want to have some tests done.
Eocene said: "your absurd asinine dogma of evolution which is equivilant to offering to burning incence on an alter before the image of Lord Darwin. I understand such lack of acknowledgement is a type of heresy in your church, "
ReplyDeletesee Psychological Projection
Eocene: "I think you just touched on a big part of the problem. Nothing has to be proven."
This coming from someone who asserts that an 'unknown' agent using an unknown mechanism at an unknown time for unknown duration for unknown purposes designed all of biology. Now, our beef of course isn't with the current status of those unknowns, but the fact that ID seems content with not ever knowing; that essentially no testable predictions have been put forth by the ID community. ID consists mostly of people sitting on the sidelines throwing pebbles at people who are doing real research.
Eocene: "Take Neal's interesting article citation of incredible sophistication of Bee navigation and the research being done to learn from just how it works and what possible applications would be useful and beneficial to mankind. Not one word about creationism, Intelligent Design or evolution. Just real research and amazing FACTS of learning about the intricate mechanisms involved in an almost tiny seed sized brain."
ReplyDeleteEocene, I'll give you four guesses as to whether those scientists who conducted the research where creationists or evolutionists.
BTW Eocene, this is not the first work ever done on insect colony intelligence and organization, nor the first on how bee colonies deal with TSP issues.
ReplyDeleteBee Colony Optimization algorithm
Once again you mistake your ignorance on the topic for a lack of scientific research.
Derick,
ReplyDeleteThe way evolutionists here are so emotionally caught up in their ideology I thought I would try using the word 'proof' and see how it floated with this group. Scientific theories are 'tentative' in nature, but who would guess that about evolution due to the way evolutionists go at it.
Evolution is much about semantics, rhetorical strategies, and just-so stories. It is a unique thing. It has a kind of wild west approach to offering up explanations and stories that is unlike any field of science.
Evolutionists exploit semantics instead of putting forth scientific evidence. It is said to be more than a theory... we can speak of the 'fact' of evolution (so the government says). Tie that into the shell game definition of the word evolution and they can perpetuate the thing without presenting serious scientific evidence about the big stuff. Evolution should be demoted to a provisonal hypothesis with the understanding that contradictory evidences have found serious flaws with it. It is past ready for the ash heap of history.
My use of 'uniformity' was not in regards to natural processes being the same today as the past, but in the context of mutation and natural selection. Is it valid to assume that the same evolutionary mechanism that causes a moth to change colors is responsible for all of life, all biological functions, and new body forms?
As I said previously in the context of uniformity...
"Is it valid to assume that the processes at the small level apply to all other levels? The differences between Newton, General Relativity, and quantum mechanics are real and illustrate how assuming uniformity at all levels is not automatically true."
Evolutionists exploit the small stuff that no one debates and assume uniformity (in the sense I mean here). The debate is really about whether you can make this assumption. A great theory needs extraordinary evidence.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Eocene, have you ever been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia?
You may want to have some tests done."
====
As usual, nice non-answer when nothing of import can be found.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteThe way evolutionists here are so emotionally caught up in their ideology I thought I would try using the word 'proof' and see how it floated with this group. Scientific theories are 'tentative' in nature, but who would guess that about evolution due to the way evolutionists go at it.
Evolution is much about semantics, rhetorical strategies, and just-so stories. It is a unique thing. It has a kind of wild west approach to offering up explanations and stories that is unlike any field of science.
(snip the rest of the stupidity)
Wow Tedford, and here we thought Eocene had a bad case of psychological projection. You make him look like a rank amateur.
Neal Tedford: Evolutionists exploit semantics instead of putting forth scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteThat is clearly incorrect as testified by the huge amount of research on evolutionary theory, including the history of evolution across geological time.
Neal Tedford: It is said to be more than a theory... we can speak of the 'fact' of evolution
A theory is not a fact, but an explanatory framework.
Neal Tedford: Evolution should be demoted to a provisonal hypothesis with the understanding that contradictory evidences have found serious flaws with it.
Um, no. We would be happy to discuss the evidence, starting with Common Descent.
Neal Tedford: My use of 'uniformity' was not in regards to natural processes being the same today as the past, but in the context of mutation and natural selection. Is it valid to assume that the same evolutionary mechanism that causes a moth to change colors is responsible for all of life, all biological functions, and new body forms?
In science, assumption is not enough. You have to show that the hypothesis leads to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. There are also other mechanisms involved, including historical happenstance.
Neal Tedford: The differences between Newton, General Relativity, and quantum mechanics are real and illustrate how assuming uniformity at all levels is not automatically true."
That's correct in principle, but it's not enough to say it's possible to conclude it applies to the particular. But the Theory of Evolution has been robust in integrating these differing scales; for instance, particulate genetics.
Neal Tedford: Evolutionists exploit the small stuff that no one debates and assume uniformity (in the sense I mean here).
To answer those questions, we have to look at the historical evidence. And that means Common Descent, the nested hierarchy, and the succession of fossils.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"LOL! JoeTard quote-mines Venter, who was talking about the software on the computer Venter used to store the pattern for his artificially synthesized genome.
Here is the whole quote:
Venter: "Venter also points to what the cells--powered by genomes made in a lab from four bottles of chemicals, based on instructions stored on a computer--reveal about what life is. "This is as much a philosophical as a technological advance," he says. "The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I'm still amazed by it."
=====
Usually I don't mix in the playground sandbox where you and Joe throw kitty poop at each other, but your comment here was just plain diliberate stupidity(I'd have said ignorance, but I highly doubt your ignorant. It's more of a religious faith thing), wreaking of delusioned metaphysical idealogy through and through.
Mr Craig "I plagiarized already existing information and called it artificial life" Venter was making the application of a cell's genetic information to a computer's own software driven mechanisms. Spin it anyway you like Reverend, but it's still the software of a real language whether scientists want to attach Roman or Cyrillic aphabet or even use Chinese/Japanese characters to translate, it's still a real language. Now once again, please explain to us how ONLY chemicals and physics made up this brilliant goal driven language of codes ???
------
Thorton:
"BTW JoeTard, you still forgot to provide your evidence that GTA DNA transfers are directed and controlled in a meaningful way."
======
Well let's go back to Venter's evolutionary experiments. What do Craig Venter and his staff represent in the experiment ??? There are ONLY two answers. They either represent blind undirected forces or intelligent design. Which is it ???
How about the Miller-Urey experiment. What do they represent ??? Just two answers. Does Miller represent blind undirected without purpose, intent or goals, or does he represent an intelligent designer ??? How about Richard Lenski ??? Did he represent blind undirected forces lacking purpose, intent or any type of goals, or did he represent an intelligent designer ??? There's only two answers, pick just one.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"BTW Eocene, this is not the first work ever done on insect colony intelligence and organization, nor the first on how bee colonies deal with TSP issues.
Bee Colony Optimization algorithm
Once again you mistake your ignorance on the topic for a lack of scientific research."
=====
Once again you make a deflection point on something not even there. Who was arguing against algorithm codes/genes ??? The article said nothing about Creationism, ID or your church Evolution. Hijacking already built goal driven with purpose and intent mechanisms and attaching Evolutionary signage to them does not make it evolution. It's faith-based metaphysical statement making and not science. Once again, go back to a solid foundation by explaining how codes originally developed from nothing more than physics and chemicals. Once you establish that where the scientific method was used for others to replicate, then we'll talk about evolutionary algorithms driven bee navigational optimizing. Until then your still blowing smoke, indicating your tired old engine (arguements) needs an overhall real bad.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteWell let's go back to Venter's evolutionary experiments. What do Craig Venter and his staff represent in the experiment ??? There are ONLY two answers. They either represent blind undirected forces or intelligent design. Which is it ???
LOL! Another Creationist chucklehead who think that if you water your lawn with a garden hose, that means rain clouds must be purposely designed.
Seriously Eocene, go get a psychological evaluation. Modern medicine can help you.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteOnce again you make a deflection point on something not even there. Who was arguing against algorithm codes/genes ??? The article said nothing about Creationism, ID or your church Evolution. Hijacking already built goal driven with purpose and intent mechanisms and attaching Evolutionary signage to them does not make it evolution.
Double LOL!
You don't have the faintest sniff of a clue what the experiment was about, or what is showed, or how the results fit in with other previous research. But keep mindlessly babbling if it's theraputic for you.