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.
Derick Childish:
ReplyDelete"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."
=====
Interesting. So now you're abandoning your phony Theistic Evolutionary stance and coming out of the closet to admit that you are a full blown atheist ??? You told me that you believe Jesus Christ is God. I always wondered why you never attempted to educate and save your fellow atheists by explaining how YOUR GOD Jesus Christ got the evolutionary ball rolling. Now I guess we know.
------
Derick Childish:
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."
======
Maybe you should address someone who actually cares whether or not ID, Creationisn or Evolutionism is taught in any type of Public Schools. I DON'T vote or participate in any political pressure group garbage, and therefore it's none of my business what happens either way, yay or nay.
These researcher's are presently bastardizing our global environment. The mistakes they are making are believing that improvement has only a purely materialistic answer like "Eco-Solutions" or "Green Inovations", when it's actually the moral and spiritual deficiencies which are ruining life on this planet. But you worldn't know anything about spirituality, since after all you've just admitted your fulfilled life as an atheist.
eocene said...
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should address someone who actually cares whether or not ID, Creationisn or Evolutionism is taught in any type of Public Schools. I DON'T vote or participate in any political pressure group garbage, and therefore it's none of my business what happens either way, yay or nay.
For a guy who doesn't care what happens you sure spend a lot of time blithering about the subject.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"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."
=====
You didn't even attempt to answer the question. That actually speaks volumes, especially since there were clearly ONLY TWO choices that even a child would have understood.
-----
Thorton:
"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."
=====
Oh I have far more understanding than you could ever hope to realize or want to admit. Once again, when answers are wanting, use the same old fall back of insults when a clear simple answer could have been given by a child.
Tell us how a code/s morph from nothing more than physics and chemicals Don ???
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteDarwin predicted "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, MUST have been inconceivably great."
The 'inconceivably great' number has not panned out in over 150 of looking for fossils. The fossil record is something that needs to be defended by evolutionists. It only passes the fossil test because it was not allowed to fail. Is the Cambrian Explosion a confirmation of evolution or something that has to be defended? Where are the innumerable intermediate and transitional links to all the phyla? Get real and take an honest look again. You can make excuse for why the fossils haven't been found, but not finding them is not the same thing as confirmation. Finding a few so-called indirect transitionals is not the confirmation of an "inconceivably great" number. Darwin's prediction was another failure. That failure needs more than just one nail in the evolutionary coffin.
---
Go ahead and google 'the fact of evolution', and you will see many evolutionists say it is.
Ah, the shell game again.
-----
You seem to be saying that other than assumption you have the "historical happenstance". You say assumption is not enough. Yet, the "historical happenstance" failed to confirm Darwin's "inconceivably great". You are left with an assumption and a failed Darwinian prediction.
Great theories need extraordinary evidence. You have a multitude of evidence for small change that no one debates. You have the huge assumption of uniformity at all levels of change. And you have Darwins failed "conceivably great" prediction.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteYou didn't even attempt to answer the question.
There's no point in addressing meaningless loaded questions.
That actually speaks volumes, especially since there were clearly ONLY TWO choices that even a child would have understood.
Answer this question Eocene. What do you do in church each Sunday? Make out with the priest behind the altar? Or steal from the collection plate? There are clearly ONLY TWO choices that even a child can understand.
Tell us how a code/s morph from nothing more than physics and chemicals Don ???
Show us a code found in nature that uses abstract symbols and is not just molecules following the laws of chemistry and physics to propagate.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteDarwin predicted "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, MUST have been inconceivably great."
The 'inconceivably great' number has not panned out in over 150 of looking for fossils.
Considering there are between 2- 20 million living species today, and that over 99% of all species that existed have gone extinct, that sure seems like an 'inconceivably great' number of intermediates and transitional lineages to me.
Where in evolutionary theory does it state all the intermediates and transitional lineages must have their fossils be found?
Can you show evidence of every last one of your relatives back to Adam and Eve? If not, can we assume you weren't related to them by common descent but were hatched out of a test tube labeled 'FAILURE'?
Eocene: "I think you just touched on a big part of the problem. Nothing has to be proven."
ReplyDeleteMe: "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."
Eocene: Interesting. So now you're abandoning your phony Theistic Evolutionary stance and coming out of the closet to admit that you are a full blown atheist ???
Eocene, the deficiency of your reading comprehension is simply staggering. I was not saying that my position includes an unknown designer, I was saying that yours does. My working assumption is that english is not your native language, but even still, I can't imagine how you can get "I'm an atheist," from "This coming from someone..." I put 'unknown' in quotes regarding the identity of the agent, because as I hear the IDers say over and over again: "ID has nothing to say about the identity of the designer," while at the same time making no effort to hide the fact that they all know the designer is God.
Eocene: Maybe you should address someone who actually cares whether or not ID, Creationisn or Evolutionism is taught in any type of Public Schools. I DON'T vote or participate in any political pressure group garbage, and therefore it's none of my business what happens either way, yay or nay.
For someone who doesn't care, you sure seem to spend a lot of time on here blabbing. I care greatly about the subject, that's why I'm here. I care because science matters. I have about the same view of IDers as I do the anti-vaccers or modern 'Biblical Geocentrists.' I also care because theology matters. Theology attempts to explain why reality is the way it is. If a particular theology can't get the reality part right, then not only is it useless, it's probably destructive as well. ID is set to leave as severe a blight on the reputation of the Church as geocentricity did centuries ago.
Eocene:But you worldn't know anything about spirituality, since after all you've just admitted your fulfilled life as an atheist.
Again, your lack of reading comprehension is just staggering.
Why bother to read, if one knows everything already?
ReplyDeleteWhy bother to learn, when ignorance is so much easier?
Neal Tedford: Darwin predicted "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, MUST have been inconceivably great." The 'inconceivably great' number has not panned out in over 150 of looking for fossils.
ReplyDeleteYou just conflated two things, the number of transitional links, and fossils.
Neal Tedford: The fossil record is something that needs to be defended by evolutionists.
Yes, fossils fit the nested hierarchy, and rates of historical evolution are within measured rates of observed evolution.
Neal Tedford: Is the Cambrian Explosion a confirmation of evolution or something that has to be defended? Where are the innumerable intermediate and transitional links to all the phyla?
Again, you are confused. We don't have to have every fossil for every transition to determine a pattern. Rates of evolution during the Cambrian Explosion may have been higher than during other epochs, but not as fast as measured rates of evolution.
Neal Tedford: Go ahead and google 'the fact of evolution', and you will see many evolutionists say it is.
Evolution can be directly observed, so yes, it's a fact.
Neal Tedford: Evolutionists exploit the small stuff that no one debates and assume uniformity (in the sense I mean here).
In any case, you ignored the bulk of our comment. We have to look at the historical evidence. And that means Common Descent, the nested hierarchy, and the succession of fossils. It means looking at the actual evidence for phylogeny.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteI don't see how nested hierarchy addresses the problem I was talking about. The problem is how do complex structures arise from scratch. The answer is that the proteins involved evolved not from scratcg, but from homologous proteins. But if you have to change 20 amino acids at once in order to get a new functional protein, I don't think that makes it much easier.
natschuster: But if you have to change 20 amino acids at once in order to get a new functional protein, I don't think that makes it much easier.
ReplyDeleteNo one suggests 20 simultaneous, independent events.
natschuster: The problem is how do complex structures arise from scratch.
And we can do that by placing the events in their historical context.
But if there the 20 amino acids are critical to the function of the new protein, then they have to show up either simultaniously, or they have to show up one at a time, and the protein is useless until all the amino acids show up.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, there are unkown, hypothetical functional intermediates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteI don't see how nested hierarchy addresses the problem I was talking about. The problem is how do complex structures arise from scratch. The answer is that the proteins involved evolved not from scratch, but from homologous proteins.
Proteins don't arise from homologous proteins. If two proteins are homologous it means they shared a common ancestor, not that one arose from the other. Just like humans didn't arise from chimps, but humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
But if you have to change 20 amino acids at once in order to get a new functional protein, I don't think that makes it much easier.
All 20 amino acids don't have to change at once. The process is small gradual changes where each step is still fully functional but with a slightly different and/or less efficient function.
natschuster: But if there the 20 amino acids are critical to the function of the new protein, then they have to show up either simultaniously, or they have to show up one at a time, and the protein is useless until all the amino acids show up.
ReplyDeleteNo, there may be weak activity in a primitive ancestor. Indeed, we know that completely random sequences can be functional.
natschuster: Unless, of course, there are unkown, hypothetical functional intermediates.
Now you have it. But in order to make that more than just a supposition, you have to use the hypothesis to make empirical predictions. It comes back to the nested hierarchy.
Thorton quoting me:
ReplyDelete"Eocene said...
You didn't even attempt to answer the question.
Thorton's lame excuse:
There's no point in addressing meaningless loaded questions.
=====
A loaded question ??? There were ONLY two possible answers to the question anyway. The question regarding any evolutionary experiment is most certainly a legitimate one and don't forget, you're the one who smirked about proof of guided purposed directedness, not me. Certainly this question is one that your religious leaders never choose to consider when engaed in their Buddhist empy headed meditation for their opinions (non-facts). Admittedly, either one makes you out the fool. Hence the silence is most indeed deafening.
-----
Thorton:
"Answer this question Eocene. What do you do in church each Sunday? Make out with the priest behind the altar? Or steal from the collection plate? There are clearly ONLY TWO choices that even a child can understand."
=====
LOL, well at least you're predictable. When no answer is capable (or refused most likely) of being presented, use the ol'atheistic fallback of filth and vulgarities. It's almost like a vicious wounded animal backed into an alley with nowhere to turn, run or hide.
We don't have an ecclesiastical hierarchy with all of it's flatering titles, so you're out of luck. We also don't have a collection plate either, because a minister taking payment for any perceived religious services rendered is absolutely unscriptural.
Matthew 10:8 (Amplified Bible)
8 " . . . Freely (without pay) you have received, freely (without charge) give."
We all have secular jobs to support ourselves. Nice attempt at deflection and not actually answering the questions. Triple LOL back at you Slick.
------
Thorton:
"Show us a code found in nature that uses abstract symbols and is not just molecules following the laws of chemistry and physics to propagate."
======
Seriously, YOU still haven't answered the original question. Here, let me simplify it for your grade level.
How did Bill Gates use nothing more than physics and chemicals to evolve Microsoft Windows from nothing more than physics and chemicals and turn it into the brilliant communication operating system will all use today ???
Here's a couple grade level step ups. In the ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) system inside your computer, what do the variously arranged digital ones ( 1 ) and zeros ( 0 ) represent inside your computer ??? Here's a list of possible choices.
1) Voltage
2) plastics
3) magnetism
4) copper wiring
5) glass
6) various metals
7) rubber
8) aluminium
9) styrofoam
10) information
Now there is only one possible answer. This stuff is understood at a Kindergarten level. Having spent these last few wonderful moments with you, I perceive that you were the child who was always sent to the Headmaster's office for disciplinary purposes, so perhaps you've missed that part in school.
Eocene: How did Bill Gates use nothing more than physics and chemicals to evolve Microsoft Windows from nothing more than physics and chemicals and turn it into the brilliant communication operating system will all use today ???
ReplyDeleteChange brilliant to complicated, and we will attempt an answer. Though physics were involved, much of the design work was due to human engineers. This seems to be the original question:
Eocene: 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 ???
Ah, so you are posing a false dichotomy. They are certainly intelligent designers, but whether or not intelligence itself is the result of 'blind undirected forces' (whatever that might mean) is not clear.
Zachriel said, " We don't have to have every fossil for every transition to determine a pattern. Rates of evolution during the Cambrian Explosion may have been higher than during other epochs, but not as fast as measured rates of evolution."
ReplyDeleteNo one said you had to have "every" fossil transition, so your first point is meaningless to the discussion. The reality of what evolutionists say are "transitional" fossils does not support the "inconceivably great" prediction by Darwin. You can always say that the inconceivably great number of transitional fossils haven't been found or that rates of evolution were higher in the past but that is all speculation. You can defend the fossil record with this kind of talk, but it is still just a defense and not the same thing as a confirmation. The communists once called East Germany a "Democratic republic", but just saying so does it make it reality.
So you are still left with only evidence for small changes that no one debates, a huge assumption of uniformity of change at all levels, and a historical record that is in need of defense by speculation. A great theory needs extraordinary evidence.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
"Show us a code found in nature that uses abstract symbols and is not just molecules following the laws of chemistry and physics to propagate."
======
Seriously, YOU still haven't answered the original question. Here, let me simplify it for your grade level.
How did Bill Gates use nothing more than physics and chemicals to evolve Microsoft Windows from nothing more than physics and chemicals and turn it into the brilliant communication operating system will all use today ???
Microsoft code uses human conceived abstract symbols. DNA doesn't. You lose again.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteNo one said you had to have "every" fossil transition, so your first point is meaningless to the discussion. The reality of what evolutionists say are "transitional" fossils does not support the "inconceivably great" prediction by Darwin.
Darwin never predicted that "inconceivably great" numbers of transitionals and intermediates would be found. He only observed (not predicted) that they must have existed, and indeed the consilient evidence from the fossil and genetic records has shown him to be correct.
Why do you keep pushing the same stupid and false canard? That's right, you're an idiot.
Neal Tedford: You can always say that the inconceivably great number of transitional fossils haven't been found or that rates of evolution were higher in the past but that is all speculation.
ReplyDeleteYou are still conflating the vast numbers of transitional organisms with fossils. There are very good reasons to believe that fossilization is a very contingent process.
Do you have the physical remains of the last hundred generations of your own family? No? Well, then.
Neal Tedford: You can defend the fossil record with this kind of talk, but it is still just a defense and not the same thing as a confirmation.
The way we would approach the problem is to first determine the nested hierarchy, something you refuse to confront, and then test whether the distribution is consistent with what is known of fossilization and rates of evolution. But you can't do that when all you do is wave your hands. Watch this!
Neal Tedford: The communists once called East Germany a "Democratic republic", but just saying so does it make it reality.
Ah, the truthiness outs.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteSo you are still left with only evidence for small changes that no one debates, a huge assumption of uniformity of change at all levels, and a historical record that is in need of defense by speculation.
And you still have no mechanism that would stop the small changes from accumulating over time into larger ones, and no explanation for the huge amount of consilient evidence that indicates accumulation of small changes over time is exactly what did happen.
A great theory needs extraordinary evidence.
ToE has such extraordinary evidence, in spades. Pity that you're such a lazy idiot who can't be bothered to learn even the basics of the actual theory and evidence before spouting off.
Thorton's self-imagined genius deflated:
ReplyDelete"Microsoft code uses human conceived abstract symbols. DNA doesn't. You lose again."
=====
That's right Poindexter, it would have been impossible for Bill Gates and Paul Allen and staff to use "Evolutionary Applications"(blind pointless undirected indifference without purpose, goals or intent) to create a code. The code comes from a mind and DNA is a billion times more complex than anything humans could ever hope to accomplish or replicate. We have 100% inference that the genetic code came from an intelligent designer and 0% inference for it being anything to do with evolution.
Now show us the naturalistic explanation for the genetic code which had no purpose or direction from any intelligence other than pure raw physics and chemicals ??? Thus far from your belief, rocks should be capable of developing codes and being able to replicate themselves.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteWhere we do have good fossilization, such as the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, we do not see the 'inconceivably great' number of transitionals that Darwin predicted must have existed. Like I said, you can defend the fossil record as to why it doesn't come close to confirming Darwin's prediction, but lack of evidence is not the same as confirmation.
As far as the nested hierarchy, we've discussed that at length previously. It was shown that the nested hierarchy is not unique to life, but can be found among designed objects as well. Biological classification was pre-Darwin and was first done by creationists.
Furthermore, "homologous structures need not be controlled by the same genes, and homology of phenotypes does not employ similarity of genotypes" (Gavin De Beer).
Where is your nested hierarchy for the ancestors of the three cellular kingdoms? Hello? Here you are claiming this big tree of life and you don't even have evidence of the roots! You can speculate all day, but that is not the same as confirmation. As with the rest of evolutionary evidence, in regards to a nested hierarchy you are only seeing what you want to see.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"And you still have no mechanism that would stop the small changes from accumulating over time into larger ones,"
======
See Monsanto GMO research (species boundaries). They bulldoze this natural law all the time. Proof is the decrepted condition all of our planet's various ecosysems.
-------
Thorton:
" . . . and no explanation for the huge amount of consilient evidence that indicates accumulation of small changes over time is exactly what did happen."
======
Wow, faith-based statement making all over the map on this one. This fraud has NEVER been proven (even the good Reverend Richard Dawkins says it's impossible to observe) with the exception of inventive fable fabrication for well over a century. Maybe you should try a New Age or Pagan Church which at least admits delving into the unknown.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Microsoft code uses human conceived abstract symbols. DNA doesn't. You lose again."
=====
That's right Poindexter, it would have been impossible for Bill Gates and Paul Allen and staff to use "Evolutionary Applications"(blind pointless undirected indifference without purpose, goals or intent) to create a code.
It would have been impossible for the LawnBird Sprinkler Company to use "Evolutionary Applications"(blind pointless undirected indifference without purpose, goals or intent) to create a lawn sprinkler. That proves rain clouds which also water your lawn must be designed.
Eocene, your posts get dumber with every passing day.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "And you still have no mechanism that would stop the small changes from accumulating over time into larger ones,"
======
See Monsanto GMO research (species boundaries). They bulldoze this natural law all the time. Proof is the decrepted condition all of our planet's various ecosysems.
We've been over this before, remember? The Monsanto 'species barrier' has nothing to do with anything that would prevents small genetic changes from accumulating. It has to do with the transplanting of a gene from one species to another genetically distant species.
Even if it did apply (which it doesn't), if Montsano can get around it then it isn't an absolute barrier.
Just how clueless are you anyway?
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Eocene, your posts get dumber with every passing day."
=====
Your continued stalling and refusing to answer the questions other than the usual crud speaks volumes for the lack of any information available to you on
GOOGLE, since you don't actually know much personally on the subject.
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteWhere we do have good fossilization, such as the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, we do not see the 'inconceivably great' number of transitionals that Darwin predicted must have existed.
Tedford, why do you keep repeating this same lie?
Darwin didn't predict 'inconceivably great' number of transitionals be found. He observed they must exist, and evidence like the phylogenetic tree formed by the genetic record shows he was correct.
Quit being such a lazy sot and do some research for once.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Eocene, your posts get dumber with every passing day."
=====
Your continued stalling and refusing to answer the questions other than the usual crud speaks volumes for the lack of any information available to you on GOOGLE, since you don't actually know much personally on the subject.
Another even dumber post by Eocene.
Q.E.D.
Neal Tedford: Where we do have good fossilization, such as the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, we do not see the 'inconceivably great' number of transitionals that Darwin predicted must have existed.
ReplyDeleteYou mean the fossils they have found represent every dinosaur that ever lived in died in that locale! That's an amazing discovery.
Neal Tedford: Like I said, you can defend the fossil record as to why it doesn't come close to confirming Darwin's prediction, but lack of evidence is not the same as confirmation.
You don't seem to have a good grasp of the scienetific method. Because most of the universe can never be directly observed, exhaustive searches are rarely possible. Instead, we have a system of hypothesis-testing that allows us to peer into the dark. In this case, we don't have, or expect, to find every fossil. However, we can test the hypothesis of common descent, like any hypothesis, by proposing specific and distinguishing entailments of the hypothesis.
Neal Tedford: As far as the nested hierarchy, we've discussed that at length previously.
Not really. You usually leave with unanswered questions.
Neal Tedford: It was shown that the nested hierarchy is not unique to life, but can be found among designed objects as well.
Collections of artifacts do not typically classify in to a singular nested hierarchy.
Neal Tedford: Where is your nested hierarchy for the ancestors of the three cellular kingdoms?
The farther back in time we peer, the more tenuous the evidence. So let's establish what we can with some certainty, before attempting to unravel the most difficult cases.
Do you understand that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierearchy when grouped by branch and limb?
Neal Tedford: Here you are claiming this big tree of life and you don't even have evidence of the roots!
If you understood the basic geometry, you would understand that the leaves on an arbitrary limb on a tree forms its own nested hierarchy.
Zachriel said, "The farther back in time we peer, the more tenuous the evidence."
ReplyDelete"Tenuous the evidence"?
Non-existent would be the accurate description for the non-existent record of ancestry of the three cellular kingdoms.
When you can't call the record accurately something is wrong. A great theory needs extraordinary evidence.
----
Your using the word "every" again and so you are arguing against something I didn't say. Why? Something is wrong with your evidence.
The fossil record at Bighorn Basin does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Instead of excusing the record because of the so called 'very contingent process' of fossilization, they should accept the evidence at face value. Evolutionists will doubtless try to put a happy face on it and try to shoehorn in something or other. It amazes me how this kind of lucy goosey dance with the evidence is tolerated.
Eocene said: "The code comes from a mind and DNA is a billion times more complex than anything humans could ever hope to accomplish or replicate. "
ReplyDeleteReally now. Billions of times more complex you say? Disregarding the fact that you apparently have a time machine in order to know what future humans will be able to accomplish or not, which do you think has more 'bits' of information, the entire genome of a human, or the Windows 7 install DVD? And by what degree?
Derick said, "which do you think has more 'bits' of information, the entire genome of a human, or the Windows 7 install DVD? And by what degree?"
ReplyDeleteThis is worthy of another nail that needs to be put into the "God wouldn't have done it that way" evolutionist coffin.
Windows 7 has more 'bits'. Question though, how can something with less 'bits' do more than Windows 7? Someone say efficency! There is more going on inside the cell than simply counting and comparing 'bits'. Historically evolutionists have had this kind of a bias towards dumbing down life, but the headlines come out later about being 'surprised'.
A lot more surprises are awaiting them.
Neal Tedford: Non-existent would be the accurate description for the non-existent record of ancestry of the three cellular kingdoms.
ReplyDeleteThat's not correct. A great deal of research has been published on the phylogeny of the original organic domains.
Neal Tedford: When you can't call the record accurately something is wrong.
No. It may simply mean that we don't have enough information to reach any strong conclusions. However, the evidence still leans towards a single ancestral population.
Neal Tedford: Where we do have good fossilization, such as the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, we do not see the 'inconceivably great' number of transitionals that Darwin predicted must have existed.
Zachriel: You mean the fossils they have found represent every dinosaur that ever lived in died in that locale! That's an amazing discovery.
Neal Tedford: Your using the word "every" again and so you are arguing against something I didn't say.
We don't expect to see every transition in unlimited detail because not every organism leaves fossils. Yet you point to a the fossil record and exclaim that unlimited detail can't be found.
Neal Tedford: The fossil record at Bighorn Basin does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
Did you ever find the remains of your most recent hundred ancestors? If not, what are we to suppose? That such remains are not always preserved? Or that, like Caesar, you were descended from Venus.
In any case, there are some excellent transtional fossils of Pelycodus, including at Bighorn Basin.
Neal Tedford: Instead of excusing the record because of the so called 'very contingent process' of fossilization, they should accept the evidence at face value.
Well, that's one hypothesis. Sit on your thumbs, and assume that there is nothing else to discover. Another hypothesis, is that there are intermediate fossils, and their characteristics and stratum can be predicted from the Theory of Commmon Descent. The latter process has been scientifically fertile, and has led to a greater understanding of the history of biological evolution.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteYes a lot of time and money have been spent on researching the origin of the 3 cellular kingdoms, but research does not equal evidence. In fact, given the amount of resources thrown at the problem makes for an even stronger case that the non-existence of an ancestor isn't for lack of trying.
---
The evidence still leads towards a single ancestral population? Are you kidding?
---
Somehow the word "every" keeps popping up. No one expected "every" transitional to be found, but with an inconceivably great number of intermediates and transitionals predicted, even evolutionists were expecting to find more.
Who said that we should sit on our thumbs and assume there is nothing else to discover? Your trying to argue against a strawman again. Darwinism is not allowed to fail.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteThe fossil record at Bighorn Basin does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
Once again Tedford could have saved himself some embarrassment with a 30 sec. Google Scholar search. There have been entire books written about the evolution of early mammal lineages based on fossils from Bighorn, especially reconstruction of horse lineages from eohippus --> orohippus --> epihippus all the way up to modern horses.
SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION OF EARLY EOCENE PERISSODACTYLA
(MAMMALIA) IN THE CLARKS FORK BASIN, WYOMING
Clark's Fork basin is a smaller basin contained within the larger Bighorn basin region.
There's plenty of evidence to convince the scientific community, but of course Tedford will claim that *he* is not convinced. That's because to convince Tedford would require nothing short of building a time machine and letting him see the events first-hand.
Drick:
ReplyDeleteJoe it seems like you know as much about computers as you do biology.
(which is to say, staggeringly little)
It is a given that I know more about both- computers and biology- than you ever will.
thortard:
ReplyDeleteThere's plenty of evidence to convince the scientific community,...
And yet they cannot produce any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct a functional multi-part system.
IOW it appears your "scientific community" isn't interested in science.
erick:
ReplyDeleteJoe, if you don't like the design inference regarding the Grand Canyon,
Actually you have failed to provide an positive evidence for the design inferece for the Grand Canyon.
Until you do that I don't have anything to refute.
thortard the liar:
ReplyDeleteToE has such extraordinary evidence, in spades.
Not even any evidence that blind, undiected chemical pocesses can construct a functional multi-part system.
So what extraordinary evidence do you have?
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteIt is a given that I know more about both- computers and biology- than you ever will.
Says the 150 IQ genius who didn't know that word processor programs have built in electronic dictionaries.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteDerick: "Joe, if you don't like the design inference regarding the Grand Canyon"
Actually you have failed to provide an positive evidence for the design inferece for the Grand Canyon.
Not so- we say it looks designed because it was designed and all data points to it being designed.
Ya see the design inference CAN be tested.
And all YOU have to do to refute it is by doing real science and finding positive evidence that demonstrates geologic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to functioning multi-part canyon systems.
There STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the canyon formation- can construct a LARGE canyon like the Grand Canyon.
Derick:
ReplyDelete"Really now. Billions of times more complex you say? Disregarding the fact that you apparently have a time machine in order to know what future humans will be able to accomplish or not, which do you think has more 'bits' of information, the entire genome of a human, or the Windows 7 install DVD? And by what degree?"
=====
Derick, tell all these atheist buddies of yours just how your god Jesus got the ball rolling, then let the chips fall as they may ??? Inform your atheistic buddies that you've found the answer to their atheist virgin birth story called "Abiogenesis" (life from non-life fable). At least it would be entertaining.
Thorton continued to stall:
ReplyDelete"Another even dumber post by Eocene.
Q.E.D."
======
Wow, give the man another "Brownie Button", he actually knows what a three letter code means. Or wait a minute, perhaps that was simply a fractal or a pattern ??? Hmmmm! "MAYA" ???
Well then by all means, please show us through your scientific experiment (which of course strictly followed the "scientific method") which clearly and precisely demonstrates just exactly how your atheistic virgin birth fable called "ABIOGENESIS" is a proven FACT. If your stumped, perhaps Derick will help you by showing you how his version of "Yeshua" got the ball rolling, then abruptly without rhyme or reason left town. Or you could use Scott's fallback of "MAYA" (truth is only an illusion) ploy.
Thorton deflected again:
ReplyDelete"The Monsanto 'species barrier' has nothing to do with anything that would prevents small genetic changes from accumulating."
====
Sure it does. Species Boundaries are there for a reason. If evolution (undirectedness, blind indifference, no goals, no purpose or intent) were indeed to be an actual FACT, then no species boundaries would exist. This would make "diogenes" transplant genes proof that spiders evolved from Tomatoes and Cod Fish from Corn. LOL
----
Thorton illusioned:
"It has to do with the transplanting of a gene from one species to another genetically distant species."
====
If evolution were indeed true, you'd be able to mate that tomato with a spider. Gene transfer would not be necessary since CHAOS would have never purposed any barriers since it's impossible for CHAOS (evolution) to purpose anything.
The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1:1-31. Living things reproduce only "according to their kinds." The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same "kind."
Hence, irresponsible companies like Monsanto, pursue a course of obscene wealth creation at the expense of our planet's environment without consideration for the REASONS behind the Natural LAWS of Species Boundaries being incorporated into the genetic system in the first place.
*wink*
------
Thorton smirked:
Even if it did apply (which it doesn't), if Montsano can get around it then it isn't an absolute barrier.
======
Well can these species barriers/boundaries be broken ??? Absolutely. Can Moral Laws be broken ??? Absolutely. However, in both instances, there are huge consequences to pay. Unfortunately primitive materialistic thinking will always think that the fix for all these consequences is nothing more than a further materialist fix-it-pill. One thing we can count on is that the planet's ecosystems will continue to go further down hill with your priesthood in charge. Fortunately that won't continue for long since this court trial of self-determination is presently wrapping up with closing arguements.
*wink*
Eocene:
ReplyDelete"The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1:1-31. Living things reproduce only "according to their kinds." The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average."
Bwahaha! Let me guess - no more than 666 standard deviations from the average.
Stop insulting the readers' intelligence with your absurd Bible "formulas".
Neal Tedford: The evidence still leads towards a single ancestral population?
ReplyDeleteYes, though not yet conclusive.
Theobald, A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry, Nature 2010.
But you ignored the key point.
Neal Tedford: Who said that we should sit on our thumbs and assume there is nothing else to discover?
Neal Tedford: Instead of excusing the record because of the so called 'very contingent process' of fossilization, they should accept the evidence at face value.
Which shows you don't really understand the scientific method. In science, you don't merely accept the evidence at face value, and call it a day. You form a hypothesis, deduce specific and distinguishing entailments, then test them. That's how science makes progress even when knowledge is necessariliy incomplete. This is something that the so-called ID Hypothesis never does. It's intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.
In this case, the Theory of Common Descent leads to specific predictions. For instance, that there once existed intermediates between cetaceans and their ancestral land mammals, and that you won't find such fossils in 300 million year old strata, but closer to 40 million year old strata.
In any case, you ignored the key point. Any branch on a tree forms its own nested hierarchy. And there is strong support for the nested hierarchy (with a few known exceptions) within many taxa of interest, including vertebrates (which includes humans).
Joe G: Actually you have failed to provide an positive evidence for the design inferece for the Grand Canyon.
ReplyDeleteHumans make big ditches. We only observe micro-erosion. Therefore, the Grand Canyon was designed. No need to propose and test any specific hypothesis, though. We simply *infer* to the best explanation.
Troy actually having no comment of worth blurted out:
ReplyDelete"Bwahaha! Let me guess - no more than 666 standard deviations from the average.
Stop insulting the readers' intelligence with your absurd Bible "formulas".
=====
My, how predictable is this ??? When no intelligent adult response is forthcomming, shift into neanderthal mode and expose your lack of self confidence in the subject thru juvenile behavioral problem issues.
Nice!
Zachriel said, "Yes, though not yet conclusive."
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a lawyer defending a hopeless case. Call it whatever you think you have... "tenuous", "not yet conclusive", or "research", but the bottom line is that your evidence for a single ancestor is non-existent.
Evolutionists don't really follow the scientific method. When a prediction is falsified, evolutionists will do their dance which consists of one or a combination of the following moves:
1. Shift the meaning of the prediction by playing shell games with word definitions and adding ambiguity to the prediction to avoid direct falsification.
2. Expand the parameters of the prediction after the fact to avoid direct falsification.
3. Say something like, "the data is not yet conclusive".
4. Quietly note the falsification on page 153b Appendix D.
5. Say something like, "that's what science is all about", yet never question evolution itself.
6. Complete denial in the face of direct falsification.
Evolution is not allowed to be falsified.
Um, Eocene? You expect an intelligent adult response to insane stuff like the following?
ReplyDelete"If evolution were indeed true, you'd be able to mate that tomato with a spider."
If you really believe this, you have disqualified yourself from ever being taken serious again.
Neal Tedford: You sound like a lawyer defending a hopeless case.
ReplyDeleteHandwaving. Darwin posited one or several original life forms, so it's obviously not essential to the Theory of Evolution.
Neal Tedford: Evolutionists don't really follow the scientific method.
More handwaving.
Neal Tedford: Evolution is not allowed to be falsified.
Still more handwaving. Evolutionary hypotheses are falsified all the time. Then the hypothesis is modified or discarded. That's what's supposed to happen! You also continued to ignore the key point.
In any case, we would be happy to start with the basics. Do you understand that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem? (This is important to understanding the relationship between the Theory of Common Descent and the nested hierarchy.)
Zachriel said, "Evolutionary hypotheses are falsified all the time. Then the hypothesis is modified or discarded. That's what's supposed to happen"
ReplyDeleteYet, evolution is never questioned as a 'fact'. It is not allowed to fail, only the 'hypotheses' are.
So, we are back to having good evidence for small changes that no one debates, a huge assumption of uniformity (which I want to discuss further), and a historical record that failed Darwins prediction, but is defended by evolutionists with speculation.
You really enjoy discussing the Nested Hierarchy thing. I believe that this is what convinced Darwin of his theory dispite the strong evidence against it from the fossil record. Perhaps this is why evolutionists are convinced of the 'fact' of evolution dispite all the contrary evidence. So let's discuss the Nested Hierarchy.
You said, "Do you understand that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem? "
I think I know what you have in mind, but since you keep repeating this phrase on nearly every blog article, please expand on what you want to say and give it real life examples.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not allowed to be falsified.
Sure it is Tedford. It's just no one has done it yet in over 150 years of trying. You just can't grasp the difference between "not falsifiable" and "not falsified" no matter how many times it is explained to you.
Changing the scientific understanding of some small detail (which occasionally happens) doesn't falsify the whole overarching theory any more than finding one child molesting pastor means all Christians are perverts. Right pastor?
Troy:
ReplyDelete"If you really believe this, you have disqualified yourself from ever being taken serious again."
=====
Please, dump the phony righteous indignation here. Your favourite response in almost every thread is and I quote: "Bwhahahaha!"
Had you been following some of the faith based junk claims being spewed here such as 'Diogenes' bat genes injected into a rat scenario and causing it to growing long fingers supposedly proving that a bat's ancestor was indeed a rat, when it was nothing of the sort, then you'd understand what I was getting at. The same stupid irresponsible behavior is being accomplished by Monsanto who actually uses totally unrelated organisms Spiders/Tomatoes - Arctic Fish/Soyabean etc etc etc for nothing more than profiteering at the expense of our Earth's environment.
I pointed this flaw out, since if true, then according to the undirectedness of evolution's inability to produce anything of purpose or intent as mandated by your religious dogma, then chaos is the order of the day. Then such insane cross breeding should be possible if evolution were true. There would be no species boundaries. The problem with that idiotic bat gene proof is the hard questions were never asked because of the biased presupposition that evolution is a FACT before the experiment was undertaken.
Such hard questions as: Did they (Research Scientists) attempt at injecting those bat genes into any other kind of animal other than rats to see what would happen ??? How about a dog, cat, rabbit, horse, pig, cow, elephant, etc ??? Wouldn't they also develope longer fingers, claws, tusks, hoofs etc, etc, etc ??? From what Monsanto has been able to do, apparently anything is possible using the same common software. So get off your high horse and start asking your own hard questions to your own religious leaders before you point the accusative finger at someone else. I don't let Christendom's religious leaders get away with some of their garbage and I'm certainly not going to let your's get a free ride either.
That's the problem with ALL Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, they believe they are the only ones who have the qualified right to explain the so-called truth. It is simply your job as layman to blindly follow. Me, not a chance.
Eocene:
ReplyDelete"I pointed this flaw out, since if true, then according to the undirectedness of evolution's inability to produce anything of purpose or intent as mandated by your religious dogma, then chaos is the order of the day. Then such insane cross breeding should be possible if evolution were true. There would be no species boundaries."
This is not an argument. It's just an idiotic assertion that proves you are ignorant about the theory of evolution. There are thousands of papers, both empirical and theoretical, on pre-zygotic and post-zygotic isolation mechanisms. Plus plenty of recent books on speciation. Instead of writing ignorance-laden rants here, your time might be better spent reading the relevant literature.
"That's the problem with ALL Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, they believe they are the only ones who have the qualified right to explain the so-called truth. It is simply your job as layman to blindly follow. Me, not a chance."
Unlike you, I'm not a layman in these matters.
Neal Tedford: I believe that this is what convinced Darwin of his theory dispite the strong evidence against it from the fossil record.
ReplyDeleteFossils support the nested hierarchy. Yes, it was crucial evidence for Darwin and for all evolutionary biologists since. There are entire fields of study, harnessing the most powerful computers and mathematical methods, concerning the study of these trees. That doesn't make it necessarily correct, but it isn't something you can just hand wave away.
Neal Tedford: Yet, evolution is never questioned as a 'fact'. It is not allowed to fail, only the 'hypotheses' are.
That's because the Theory of Common Descent is strongly supported by the scientific evidence.
Neal Tedford: So, we are back to having good evidence for small changes that no one debates, ...
Assuming by small changes you mean to say that humans are just derived deuterostomes, tubes with appendages for stuffing food into one end, well sure.
Zachriel: Do you understand that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem?
Neal Tedford: I think I know what you have in mind, but since you keep repeating this phrase on nearly every blog article, please expand on what you want to say and give it real life examples.
The tree is the real life example.
We are grouping leaves by branch and stem. To see what that means, cut a branch. You will see that it severs the connection of a group of leaves to the trunk. This is the group associated with that branch. (Note that there is only one such path to the trunk — unlike a web, where cutting a thread often leaves the web intact.)
If we hadn't cut the branch, but had cut a stem on that branch instead, we would sever a smaller collection of leaves. But those leaves are necessarily a subset of the leaves associated with the branch. They are nested.
Indeed, if you continue to examine the grouping by branch and stem, you will see that the leaves form sets within sets. Each leaf has one-and-only-one path to the trunk, but each branch can have more than one stem.
This is the essential topology that underlies the Theory of Common Descent; uncrossed, branching descent.
Now, let's posit that at each branching, there is a divergence of inherited traits. Leaving aside convergence or reversion for now, then the leaves will exhibit traits that form a nested hierarchy. For instance, if the trunk of the tree diverges into two great limbs, one red and one blue, then regardless of how many other branchings have occurred, grouping by red/blue will match the grouping by their corresponding limbs. The sets will match.
Let's stop there to make sure we're okay so far.
Zachriel said, "Assuming by small changes you mean to say that humans are just derived deuterostomes, tubes with appendages for stuffing food into one end, well sure."
ReplyDeleteThere are you ladies and gentlemen. The evolutionist tendency to dumb down life again. The human mind is apparently one of those appendages for stuffing food according to evolutionists.
Anyway, keep going with your nested hierarchy and name animals.
Neal Tedford: The human mind is apparently one of those appendages for stuffing food according to evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it is extraordinarily successful in that regard.
Neal Tedford: Anyway, keep going with your nested hierarchy and name animals.
We shouldn't proceed to build the argument unless we are sure of the foundation. If you are unsure of that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem, you need to ask. To remind you, a nested hierarchy is a hierarchical ordering of nested sets, that is, each subset is contained within its superset.
Meanwhile, we need to discuss categorization. Based on the panoply of traits, which two of these three should most reasonably be grouped together?
Fish
Dolphin
Cat
Zachriel said, "To remind you, a nested hierarchy is a hierarchical ordering of nested sets, that is, each subset is contained within its superset."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I finally was able to get you to accept a couple months ago. Please keep that definition close as you continue your explanation.
The Dolphin and Cat were classified as mammals by creationists long ago. Please proceed and give some animal examples of your leaves and hierarchy.
Neal Tedford: That's what I finally was able to get you to accept a couple months ago. Please keep that definition close as you continue your explanation.
ReplyDeleteThat's the same orthodox definition we've been using for years. Now, do you understand and agree that the extant leaves on a tree represent a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem?
Neal Tedford: The Dolphin and Cat were classified as mammals by creationists long ago.
You said you were willing to discuss the evidence. You didn't answer the question. Based on the panoply of traits, which two of these three should most reasonably be grouped together?
Fish
Dolphin
Cat
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteYour wasting time. I already answered the question Cat/Dolphin. Now please get on with your explanation and give example species with your explanation. When you speak of "a tree" you are speaking strictly about a phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree, yes?
Neal Tedford: Your wasting time.
ReplyDeleteWe're trying to save time by having two discussions, trees and classification. We'll draw them together momentarily.
Neal Tedford: I already answered the question Cat/Dolphin.
What you said was "The Dolphin and Cat were classified as mammals by creationists long ago." They also classified dolphins as fish for much of human history. But good.
Neal Tedford: Now please get on with your explanation and give example species with your explanation.
We have been providing example organisms. It won't matter to our classification at this point which species of dolphin or fish or variety of domestic cat you choose. The grouping will be the same.
Now, which of the three classifies most closely with a lion? (Hint: you now have a nested hierarchy.)
Neal Tedford: When you speak of "a tree" you are speaking strictly about a phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree, yes?
At this point, we're apparently still stuck on leaves. Do you understand that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem?
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteZachriel: "Based on the panoply of traits, which two of these three should most reasonably be grouped together?
Fish
Dolphin
Cat "
Tedford: "Your (sic) wasting time. I already answered the question Cat/Dolphin."
OK, now explain WHY you grouped them that way. Why should 'they are both mammals' outrank 'they both have fins and live in water'?
Troy:
ReplyDelete"This is not an argument. It's just an idiotic assertion that proves you are ignorant about the theory of evolution."
=====
Really ??? So I'm ignorant and don't have the correct understanding of what TOE really is ??? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it your side's religious belief that evolution is undirected, blind, pointless, indifferent, lacks goals, unguided without purpose or intent ???
The reality is that there is a lame cowardly taboo heretical subject which is your "Virgin Birth Story" called ABIOGENESIS. It is popular and convenient to bring evolution into the Game around the second quarter as a sort of snuck in not on the player's roster as a sort of game changer and rules violator. Suddenly evolution is said to be directed and guided by all these mystical blind intelligent forces. The sophisticated encoded informational communications systems which guide and direct all those intricately complex nano-machines are said to be what drives evolution over billions of years of time, tho you can't prove that.
So if YOU want ME to swallow that, then please explain how ALL (every single one) of those complex componants morphed in the beginning from nothing more than chemicals and physics without anyone like a designer manipulating them ??? At that point, we can then have common ground in understanding just how evolution works which would have been proven by ALL the real world impirical evidences which were the result of unbiased use of the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD".
Anything less is Faith-Based worldview.
Troy:
ReplyDelete"There are thousands of papers, both empirical and theoretical, on pre-zygotic and post-zygotic isolation mechanisms. Plus plenty of recent books on speciation. Instead of writing ignorance-laden rants here, your time might be better spent reading the relevant literature."
======
And yet you provide none. But on that subject of bat evolution from rats, why don't you provide us the huge list of ALL the other animals used in that bat gene transfer into those animals and what the changed effects if any it had on these ??? Based on all these experiments on ALL the other animals used, what reasons were not any of these other animals not chosen as an ancestor of bats ???
Because based on the Dr Josef Mengele research of companies like Monsanto, why would it be foolish to say that spiders and tomatoes are in actuality cousins ??? Why would it be impossible for an arctic fish not to be kin to a Soyabean ??? Are these not proofs of those unholy nested hierarchies and common descent ??? Did not those inserted genes have an actual "Cause and Effect" outcome for which Monsanto came up with an actual product for profit ??? If you find this to still be rediculous, then on what basis do you still insist that the bat gene inserted into the rat is an actual viable proof since you say the inserting genes of extreme oposing species in the end proves nothing ???
It's called FAITH Troy. Natural Laws can be equally broken as are Moral Laws and ultimately, isn't it the later point the reason for why we are really here debating & arguing Troy ??? Science is merely used as a flimsy crutch to justify an inept freewilled failure of degerative choices resulting in consequences and excuse making. In the end it's nothing more than that iconic 1967 "Summer of Love" free for all of "Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out".
Troy:
ReplyDelete"Unlike you, I'm not a layman in these matters."
=====
Sure you are Troy. You were laid years ago and have allowed yourself to be pimped by these Scientifism Religious Philosophers ever since. It's called FAITH Troy.
Troy, paraphrased: Eocene, there's plenty of stuff you could read and learn from. Seriously: there's, like, a lot.
ReplyDeleteEocene: "And yet you provide none."
Uh...OK. Wow. That's...
*sigh*
OK look, Eocene: he doesn't have to "provide" them. There's this thing called "Google" on the "internet" and you can use it to do something called a "search". Type in what you're interested in and it will return these things called "results". AKA "stuff you can read and learn from".
Didymos Tommy:
ReplyDelete"OK look, Eocene: he doesn't have to "provide" them. There's this thing called "Google" on the "internet" and you can use it to do something called a "search". Type in what you're interested in and it will return these things called "results". AKA "stuff you can read and learn from".
======
I absolutely agree Didy , *sigh*
Seriously Didy, you won't find info on any other animals experimented on with bat genes to see if fingers start to grow into wings. Why ??? Because of an already mandated presupposition that bats evolved from rats for no other impirical scientific reason than, "they just look like they do". Yet, based on Monsanto's ability to play Doctor Frankenstein with just any specific genes isolated from radically opposite organisms with a Grand Canyon-like species boundaries between them, how can you be so sure of anything except chaos which is what your FAITH is all about anyway ???
Information is information and the ONLY debate and discussion period should be about just how it all came about in the first place from nothing more than chemicals and physics. Thus far we have unproven fables, myths and a bizzare world of Matrix storytelling. Unfortunately for all of us, a purely materialistic explanation without injection of metaphysics offers no real concrete comfort and contentment to satisfy our hunger for the truth because thus far there is NONE!!
didymos:
ReplyDelete" . . "OK look, Eocene: he doesn't have to "provide" them."
======
Oh really ??? and oh BTW yes he does. He's promoted his own genius on these boards as a supposed scientist with boldened statement making like this:
Troy: "Unlike you, I'm not a layman in these matters."
Welllllllll, if he's not a Layman, then he must be a Scientist. Kinda like a theology debate where someone claims NOT to be a Layman in any biblical matters, therefore they must be a Seminary Schooled Minister ??? So apparently if he's the non-layman in these matters and an actual genius he's promoting himself to be, then such experimental examples should be forthcoming from the back of his mind at the snap of a finger.
I have yet to find one atheist who doesn't promote themselves as an expert in almost every conceivable branch of science known to mankind. Especially the blog atheists. Guess that's the beauty of anonymity.
OK, where'd you get this "bats evolved from rats" nonsense from, much less the notion that this supposed origin is somehow "mandated" and not subject to scientific debate?
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly the sort of thing a little judicious googling would clear up in about two seconds flat. Or are you knowingly making ridiculous statements for rhetorical purposes as part of an effort to make evolution look bad? If not that, then I'm gonna have to go with "badly misunderstood a pop-science piece on bat evolution".
Didy:
ReplyDelete"OK, where'd you get this "bats evolved from rats" nonsense from, much less the notion that this supposed origin is somehow "mandated" and not subject to scientific debate?"
======
Yawn!
See archive of Thorton, diogenes, Cornelius and others etc. Rat's, Mice, Rodents whatever. Nice non-response to the question there Didy the BookSmith.
*eyes rolling*
------
Didy:
"Or are you knowingly making ridiculous statements for rhetorical purposes as part of an effort to make evolution look bad?"
=====
Totally unneccessary since you and others are quite capable of doing that all on your own. Many of your diatribes don't even require a response on my part to make evolution look bad.
LOL
-----
Didy:
"If not that, then I'm gonna have to go with "badly misunderstood a pop-science piece on bat evolution".
=====
No not at all. This is simply one of those Booksmithed ploys to deflect attention from the subject/question and derailing it because of having No answer where a real world intellectual response is lacking. Nice non-answer to the question of other animals being tested BTW. At least you're predictable.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about a tree with branches and leaves. If you are unwilling identify what kind of tree you are talking about then why don't we just cut to the chase and say --- a phylogenetic tree is not a nested hierarchy.
You can take the "leaves" and look up their biological classifications that were assigned to these species and the biological classifications themselves form a nested hierarchy. Linneaus, a creationist, is considered the father of biological classification. Interesting that he accomplished this from a complete and total acceptance of creation before Darwin arrived.
The phylogenetic tree is largely derived from biological classifications, so it is a tautology to use it as confirmation of evolution. Evolution is considered a 'fact' because biological classification is a 'fact' adds no value. If you assume biological classifications are relationships due to common descent, then you must do more than present tautologies and word games. How is this done?
This takes us back to the fossil record and the lab. So you are still left with small changes that can be shown in the lab and observed which no one debates, a huge assumption of uniformity across all levels, and a historical record that is defensible with speculation.
I searched the blog, Eocene (see how that works? I actually did research). Got no hits on the rat-bat thing (or mouse-bat. Checked for that one too. Whatever-bat is however a little too vague). So, pony up some links and show me where you got this notion from. And no: it was not rodents either, Eocene. Rodents are not ancestral to bats.
ReplyDeleteAs for not responding to your question:
"Seriously Didy, you won't find info on any other animals experimented on with bat genes to see if fingers start to grow into wings. Why ???"
You're right: I didn't answer it. That'd be because you're actually just making a rather sweeping claim without bothering to provide any supporting evidence. You apparently just assume it's true. But even if it is true, you don't provide any evidence that this lack of research has anything to do with some sort of "mandate". If it were true, why was any such research done in the first place? Wasn't it already "mandated"? Why do you seemingly assume this is the default explanation, instead of, say, it's simply because people have happened to work on other research topics in the meantime?
But whatever.
What it comes down to is that I'm not going to answer questions which require me to assume that the utterly unsupported claims preceding them are true.
Neal Tedford: You are talking about a tree with branches and leaves.
ReplyDeleteRight! Now, you need to follow the argument through.
Neal Tedford: If you are unwilling identify what kind of tree you are talking about ...
A perennial woody plant, like an oak tree. And topologically equivalent mappings.
Please answer the question. Do you understand that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem? It's a very simple question with a very simple answer. The answer is yes. If you don't understand the answer, then you need to ask.
You should also realize that uncrossed branching descent creates the same treed pattern.
Neal Tedford: The phylogenetic tree is largely derived from biological classifications, so it is a tautology to use it as confirmation of evolution.
We will address this comment once we have established a few basics, the relationship between a tree and a nested hierarchy, and how to reasonably categorize organisms.
Which of dolphin, cat, fish, categorizes most closely with a lion? (Hint: you now have an objective nested hierarchy with the sets we know as felines nested within mammals nested within vertebrates) We can complete this step of the argument once you acknowledge that a great many taxa of interest (e.g. vertebrates, mammals, eukaryotes) form clear nested hierarchies when categorized according to traits.
Didy:
ReplyDelete"I searched the blog, Eocene (see how that works? I actually did research). Got no hits on the rat-bat thing (or mouse-bat. Checked for that one too. Whatever-bat is however a little too vague). So, pony up some links and show me where you got this notion from. And no: it was not rodents either, Eocene. Rodents are not ancestral to bats."
=========
How insane, this is totally classic "Straining the Nat" excuse making. Apparently I have to do your homework you refused to do. Next time argue this stuff with your fellow atheist from the other denomination. Your inner-circle doctrinal squabblings are your own. So leave me out of it.
EXAMPLE:
(diogenes)
"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)."
Ah, so you're taking a single person's extremely brief and in-no-way-to-be-taken-as-exhaustive-or-final summary on the general state of the evidence for bat wing evolution, which mentions experiments on mice that altered their embyronic development by way of bat genes and proteins to produce bat-like elongation of the forelimb digits and arbitrarily declaring it to be a "mandate" that must adhered to by all who accept evolutionary theory for no discernible reason whatsoever (other than having an ideological axe to grind, that is). And you also decided that somehow this equated to a claim that bats evolved from...rats. Or mice. Or whatever.
ReplyDeleteOh, and BTW: you're the one who started going off about rats and bats in your posts. I'm not interested in "squabbling" with people on "my" side. I have no stake in the "bat wing evolution community" or whatever (over)loaded mis-characterization it is that you prefer. I just wanted to know what in the hell you were talking about 'cause it sounded like, well, you had no idea what in the hell you talking about. That'll learn me to indulge my curiosity and only ask about the things I'm actually interested in.
Anyway, looks like I got the "badly misunderstood" part right, but the "pop-science piece" bit must be discarded. Ah, such is life.
So that was amusing and stuff. Kind of. I'll let you get back to ranting about Monsanto and all that jazz. Have fun!
Oh, and it's totally OK if you want to complain about me not doing whatever it is you've decided I should be doing. I don't mind. You can even do that cute little thesaurus-workout routine you do in an attempt to be all disparaging and stuff when quoting posts.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteThe "leaves on a tree" in themselves are not in a nested hierarchy structure. A branching tree structure with leaves on the ends is NOT a "nested hierarchy". Look at a diagram of a nested hierarchy- it is not a tree with branches to leaves (or objects). A nested hierarchy has "branches", but the branches come out of objects which lead to more objects and so on. Do you understand this?
So when you say this repeatedly you are not accurate or clear and this adds unnecessary confusion to the discussion. Trees and nested hierarchies are different structures. This has nothing to do with the evidence for or against evolution or design, it simply a matter of using the wrong terminology together.
You said, "We can complete this step of the argument once you acknowledge that a great many taxa of interest (e.g. vertebrates, mammals, eukaryotes) form clear nested hierarchies when categorized according to traits."
I agree with that and have said many times that biological classification is a nested hierarchy. Linneaus, a creationist, was the first to seriously classify life according to traits.
DidyMouse
ReplyDelete"Ah, so you're taking a single person's extremely brief and in-no-way-to-be-taken-as-exhaustive-or-final summary on the general state of the evidence for bat wing evolution, which mentions experiments on mice that altered their embyronic development by way of bat genes and proteins to produce bat-like elongation of the forelimb digits and arbitrarily declaring it to be a "mandate" that must adhered to by all who accept evolutionary theory for no discernible reason whatsoever (other than having an ideological axe to grind, that is). And you also decided that somehow this equated to a claim that bats evolved from...rats. Or mice. Or whatever.
Oh, and BTW: you're the one who started going off about rats and bats in your posts. I'm not interested in "squabbling" with people on "my" side. I have no stake in the "bat wing evolution community" or whatever (over)loaded mis-characterization it is that you prefer. I just wanted to know what in the hell you were talking about 'cause it sounded like, well, you had no idea what in the hell you talking about. That'll learn me to indulge my curiosity and only ask about the things I'm actually interested in.
Anyway, looks like I got the "badly misunderstood" part right, but the "pop-science piece" bit must be discarded. Ah, such is life.
So that was amusing and stuff. Kind of. I'll let you get back to ranting about Monsanto and all that jazz. Have fun!
Oh, and it's totally OK if you want to complain about me not doing whatever it is you've decided I should be doing. I don't mind. You can even do that cute little thesaurus-workout routine you do in an attempt to be all disparaging and stuff when quoting posts."
=====
Again, yet another nitpicking booksmithed diatribe that loads up the entire page and basically says nothing. Good luck luck Didy on your next crybabying episode in whatever forum. Clearly the truth is the last thing of interest here, but I guess we'd once again have to game play to actually define truth for you.
Why thank you Eocene! So kind of you to wish me luck. I'd hate to think you weren't sincere, though. Why, I do declare, I just couldn't bear the thought! *sniffle*
ReplyDeleteEocene:
ReplyDelete""Unlike you, I'm not a layman in these matters."
=====
Sure you are Troy. You were laid years ago and have allowed yourself to be pimped by these Scientifism Religious Philosophers ever since. It's called FAITH Troy."
It's called EVIDENCE Eocene. Check out the latest Nature (advance online publication) for an evolution paper I co-authored. It's the one about climate affecting evolution in lizards.
Troy:
ReplyDelete"It's called EVIDENCE Eocene. Check out the latest Nature (advance online publication) for an evolution paper I co-authored. It's the one about climate affecting evolution in lizards."
=====
Exactly Troy, it's called evidence. Not assumption, opinion, assertion, speculation, imaginative story invention guided by biased heartfelt wishful/hopeful gut feelings, but HARD EVIDENCE where the "SIENTIFIC METHOD" was actually used.
I don't know exactly which article over there you say you co-authored, since there were two Troys into reptails, but neither articles were proof of evolutionary changes and that's because the definitions of just what EVOLUTION actually is are fuzzied more and more these days.
Evolution always was and always has been about there being no intelligent source for guiding anything in nature. With that Evolution is said to have ZERO purpose, guided by nothing and without purpose, intent of ever being goal driven. As a result of nothing other than all these blind forces of physics and chemicals along with other inert material substrate we have the amazing biodiverse natural world that we all know and experience each and everyday. All living things from one common ancestor.
Now rather than give us a prime example of one kind of animal turning into another, etc, etc, etc, we are told that all these tiny incrimental changes in alelle frequencies over massive amounts of time brought about all the changes and diversities we all see. Unfortunately as Richard Dawkins admits we can never see that type of macro-evolution because we would have to observe it over thousands or as he said millions of years and that is impossible. Hence we are told to take it on faith that Scientists know what they are taking about and we should not question what science says is a fact. That's EXACTLY how most of Christendom's Clergy have ran their business for centuries and it's a total failure.
Further we are told that "We now know the mechanisms by which evolution by natural selection work incrimentally over time. That's evidently where you come in with Lizard adaptation during Climate Change. This is yet another example used as proof like Darwin's Finches, Lenski's E-coli, someone else's minnows, someone else's Nylonase bacteria, someone else's antibiotic resistance etc, etc, etc. Unfortunately none of those examples of adapting and surviving changes to an environment have anything to do with one kind of animal changing into a completely different kind of animal as mandated by the original definition of evolution.
I'm having to stop here and post in another post.
continued . .
ReplyDeleteI saw a piece once on the net dealing with the Evolution of Polical Rules. It actually beautifully illustrated the various rule changing games that go on in science.
There was a football game going on between two rival towns. One town was winning and the other losing badly. To help their strategy, the losing town brought in it's own Referees in around the game about the third quarter and changed all the rules to help them have a fair chance at winning. Of course there was an uproar from the winning team, because in all fairness, the ground rules are always established long before any game and both sides have to abide by those same rules. No matter, the losing team had big influencial names behind them and despite the majority complaining and protesting the powerful minority hijacking of rules, the changes were made final anyway.
That's what evolutionists have done to science. They've changed the rules because had they not, such metaphysical storytelling would have never been allowed as a viable explanation where no evidence was able to be presented. The Scientific Method apparently has changed also. Evolutionists can present a paper, take a few facts and build a story around the gaps and holes where no hard evidence fits the story being told.
Hence today, we have mere simple adaptational changes in behavior or slight physical characteristics which were driven by goal driven complex mechanisms further guided by an already existing sophisticated communications system inside the genetic information of encoded DNA as that driver that makes EVO-WORLD a fact. Yet, that's not really true. Why ??? Because before, evolutionhad no guidance. Everything was luck and chance. There was no ryheme or reason as to how anything happened.
Next post . .