In my previous post I discussed the brain and an evolutionist wrote to me about this paper. Does it not reveal solid hypotheses for the evolution of the brain’s circuitry? Before we answer this question we need briefly to review the biology involved.
Our nervous systems contains a great many nerve cells, or neurons. Like wires in a machine, neurons carry electrical signals. And just as wires pass electricity to other wires, so too neurons pass their electrical signals to other neurons. Also, just as wires ultimately connect to a motor, or a sensor, or some other device, neurons ultimately connect not to another neuron, but to tissue. But this is where the similarity ends. The closer we look at neurons and their connections, the more profound are the discoveries we make. So first let’s review how the signal travels down the neuron and how it is transmitted.
Nerve cells have a long tail which carries an electronic impulse, called an action potential. The tail can be several feet long and its signal might be passed to another neuron, stimulate a muscle to action, control a gland, or report a sensation to the brain.
After years of research it was discovered that the signal is boosted by membrane proteins. First, there is a membrane protein that simultaneously pumps potassium ions into the cell and sodium ions out of the cell. This sets up a chemical gradient across the membrane. There is more potassium inside the cell than outside, and there is more sodium outside than inside. Also, there are more negatively charged ions inside the cell so there is a voltage drop (50-100 millivolt) across the membrane.
In addition to the sodium-potassium pump, there are also sodium channels and potassium channels. These membrane proteins allow sodium and potassium, respectively, to pass through the membrane. They are normally closed, but when the action potential travels along the nerve cell tail, it causes the voltage-controlled sodium channels to open quickly. Sodium ions outside the cell then come streaming into the cell down the electro-chemical gradient. As a result the voltage drop is reversed and the decaying electronic impulse, which caused the sodium channels to open, is boosted as it continues on its way along the nerve cell tail.
When the voltage goes from negative to positive inside the cell, the sodium channels slowly close and the potassium channels open. Hence the sodium channels are open only momentarily, and now with the potassium channels open, the potassium ions concentrated inside the cell come streaming out down their electro-chemical gradient. As a result the original voltage drop is reestablished.
This process repeats itself until the impulse finally reaches the end of the nerve cell tail. Although we’ve left out many details, it should be obvious that the process depends on the intricate workings of the three membrane proteins. The sodium-potassium pump helps set up the electro-chemical gradient, the electronic impulse is strong enough to activate the sodium channel, and then the sodium and potassium channels open and close with precise timing.
How, for example, are the channels designed to be ion-selective? Sodium is about 40% smaller than potassium so the sodium channel can exclude potassium if it is just big enough for sodium. Random mutations must have struck on an amino acid sequence that would fold up just right to provide the right channel size. That is an astronomical long shot.
The potassium channel, on the other hand is large enough for both potassium, and sodium, yet it is highly efficient. It somehow excludes sodium almost perfectly (the potassium to sodium ratio is about 10000), yet allows potassium to pass through almost as if there were nothing in the way. The solution seems to be in the particular amino acids that line the channel and their precise orientation. For potassium, moving through the channel is as easy as moving through water, but sodium rattles around—it fits in the channel but it makes less favorable interactions with the amino acids. Again, the amino acid sequence of the potassium channel is fine-tuned for the job.
Next, when the action potential reaches the end of the neuron it is passed on. First, the action potential causes voltage-controlled calcium channels, located at the end of the tail, to open. Positive calcium ions on the outside stream into the neuron through the open channels. The calcium ions influence special proteins just inside the neuron, which in turn cause small bubbles to dock with the cell membrane. The bubbles contain a neurotransmitter chemical which is released to the outside of the cell.
Very close to this end of the neuron is the other cell with which the neuron communicates. The tight junction between the two is called the synapse. In this case, the neurotransmitter chemical floats across the gap between the cells, and attaches to the other cell, setting off the desired action, which is another story. Again, we’ve left out many details. There are literally thousands of proteins working behind the scenes. As one writer explained:
The human brain is truly awesome. A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
Needless to say, this whole process occurs with great reliability and speed. Nerve cells are constantly firing off in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies. And new research continues to peel back the layers of this profound design. As one scientist recently explained:
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor—with both memory-storage and information-processing elements—than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
Uncertainties
Now, having reviewed the biology, let us consider the evolutionist’s paper. It is a review of the origin and evolution of synapses. Given the molecular biology of synapses, the neuron, action potentials, and associated machinery, you might think random mutations and the like creating all this would be unlikely. And indeed the paper has its share of caveats and uncertainties. Here are some examples:
It is conceivable that the first protein–protein interaction that led to synaptogenesis would be homophilic.
we postulate that these molecules originated before the evolution of synapses …
Cadherins may therefore be important for cytoskeletal rearrangement in choanoflagellates and may represent a precursor to synapse formation.
heterophilic transynaptic protein interactions probably evolved later.
… implying that they may form a protosynaptic complex involved in sensing environmental stimuli and that they could represent an evolutionary precursor to synaptic sites.
But this is only the beginning. In fact nowhere does the paper explain in scientific detail how the synapse and associated machinery could have arisen on its own. How did the massive protein machines, with their intricate and fine-tuned functions arise? How did evolution establish the right ionic concentrations inside and outside of the cell? How did the finely-tuned action potential initiation and transmission mechanisms evolve? How did the neurotransmitter chemical concentrations, complete with bubbles and associated proteins arise? And none of this would function without the finely-tuned receptors on the receiving cell. It also would not function without the right mechanisms for replenishing the neurotransmitter chemical, as well as the calcium, potassium and sodium concentrations. And how did evolution bundle the neurons, and connect them to the right receptors, implementing trillions of synapses. How did evolution provide both memory-storage and information-processing elements to the synapse?
Aside from vague speculation the paper provides no such details. Instead, such problems are, in typical fashion, pushed back. The protein machines, for instance, are said to have “originated before the emergence of classical morphological synapses and have been co-opted for synaptic roles.”
Indeed synapse designs are so widespread amongst the species that the paper must conclude that “Many mammalian synaptic components existed before the appearance of synapses.”
High detail
It is not surprising that evolutionists would be unable to provide scientific details for the evolution of the synaptic components. But when not failing to provide such foundational data, the paper is decidedly confident and certain. It states in no uncertain terms that evolutionary studies “point to an ancestral molecular machinery in unicellular organisms — the protosynapse — that existed before the evolution of metazoans and neurons”
Similarly, the reader learns that this protosynapse consists of “synaptic components that were present before the emergence of synapses.” Were present? It is remarkable that evolutionists can know such details.
Here is another example of how the paper confidently presents detailed evolutionary histories as fact:
In general terms, the evolution of synaptic genes at the eukaryote–metazoan and metazoan–chordate boundaries preceded their expression in different populations of neurons and synapses and thereby allowed diversity of function in nervous systems that have emerged later, in evolutionary terms, and that are generally larger.
Again, these evolutionary conclusions are amazing. What powerful scientific methods do evolutionists possess that can yield such detail and certainty?
A breach of ethics
The answer, it seems, is none. Reading further we see only weak justifications for these sweeping conclusions. In fact the paper’s conclusions are largely based on various genetic comparisons. Here is an example:
If we can deduce the composition of the last common ancestor of all synapses, the ursynapse, then we should be in a position to address the question of how and why the first synapse originated. We approach the question of the composition of the ursynapse by taking synaptic proteins identified in vertebrate model organisms and searching for orthologues in the genomes of two categories of organism.
Searching for orthologues? That may sound sophisticated, but it amounts to nothing more than searching for similar genes in different species. That’s it. Evolutionists search for these and other genetic similarities, and from those make sweeping conclusions and present them as new truths.
One of the ever-present themes in the evolution genre is that similarity mandates evolutionary relationship. If two species share a common design, such as similar genes, it must have arisen from a common ancestor. This is not a scientific premise, and it is an example of how metaphysics makes its way into science under the guise of the scientific method. Searching for orthologues certainly sounds scientific. But in the hands of evolutionists it is religiously-driven science.
Evolutionists insist that evolution is a scientific fact every bit as much as is gravity or the roundness of the earth. That is a misrepresentation of science that goes far beyond a simple mistake. For centuries evolutionary thinkers have issued unlikely speculation as undeniable truth, and the gap is only becoming wider. Today, the certainty they insist upon is prima facie absurd. Evolution has degraded to a religiously-driven junk science making, what are frankly, silly claims. But the manipulation of science is no joke. Misleading the public with inexcusable misrepresentations is a serious breach of ethics. Religion drives science, and it matters.
Speaking about an egregious breach of ethics, did you hear about how the Discovery Institute was caught lying in the sham lawsuit they filed against the California Science Center and California Science Center Foundation?
ReplyDeleteReleased emails show Discovery Institute lied in lawsuit against CSC
This has the potential to be an even bigger PR disaster for them than the face plant they did in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Oh well, what do you expect from an organization of professional liars. Wait CH, aren't you a Fellow of the Discovery Institute too? Oh my...
"Again, these evolutionary conclusions are amazing. What powerful scientific methods do evolutionists possess that can yield such detail and certainty?"
ReplyDeleteHomology search. It's a rigorous method used for practical everyday research across every scientific field using bioinformatics. Why should the evolutionists not be allowed to use it? You are basically arguing that an utterly standard and incredibly useful method (and experimentally and statistically verified umpteen times over) amounts to *lying* when evolutionists use it. This is crazy, unfair, hackery.
The protein structures that you creationists ignorantly, naively *assume* had to be "designed" specifically for synapse function, are in fact widespread and have functions even in critters that don't even have multicellularity, much less neurons. Thus, it is *proven* that everything didn't have to evolve at once (which would indeed be improbable).
NickM:
ReplyDelete===
"Again, these evolutionary conclusions are amazing. What powerful scientific methods do evolutionists possess that can yield such detail and certainty?"
Homology search. It's a rigorous method used for practical everyday research across every scientific field using bioinformatics.
===
Sequence search and alignment establishes the degree of similarity between different sequences. And of course it can be expressed with various statistical scores. You use the term "homology search" and the distinction is important. For the benefit of readers, the term "homology" these days is used to indicate an evolutionary relationship. Two structures, in different species, are "homologous" if they arose from a common ancestor. So when you and evolutionists use the term "homology search," you are implicitly relying on the premise that similarities (sequence similarity in this case) imply common descent and therefore homology. So your claim that homology search is the powerful method evolutionists use to arrive at their fantastic conclusions, while true, simply reinforces the point made in the OP. The premise that similarities imply common descent is an evolutionary (and metaphysical) premise.
===
Why should the evolutionists not be allowed to use it?
===
They should be allowed to use it. But they should not misrepresent the results as a scientific finding of evolutionary relationship. Given the premise then, yes, the evolutionary claims are perfectly valid. But the premises need to be aired out for all to see.
===
You are basically arguing that an utterly standard and incredibly useful method (and experimentally and statistically verified umpteen times over) amounts to *lying* when evolutionists use it. This is crazy, unfair, hackery.
===
No, I'm arguing the *interpretation* of the results of this method as unequivocal findings of evolutionary relationships, without exposing the underlying metaphysical premises, is a misrepresentation.
===
The protein structures that you creationists ignorantly, naively *assume* had to be "designed" specifically for synapse function, ...
===
But I don't assume that.
It's pretty amusing that Cornelius here gets so confused about what a paper with the title "On the origin and evolution of the synapse" is actually about. Indeed, he spends multiple paragraphs describing how an impulse is transmitted down a nerve cell, but then glosses over what actually happens at the synapse. He then demands that the authors provide a complete account of the evolution of a nerve. Of course, what good is a synapse without a nerve? That is exactly the question the authors address. But Cornelius is too wrapped up in his pet idea (accepted by precisely no one, except perhaps his mom, and for good reason) that basic evolutionary logic is metaphysical to get this. Here is the logic: There are two explanations for why two separate species share a similar gene: 1) Common ancestry (they inherited it from a common ancestor) 2) Separate ancestry (they obtained it separately through e.g. convergence or lateral gene transfer). Contrary to what Cornelius says, there are multiple methods of distinguishing 1) from 2) when looking for orthologues. So what's the problem? Cornelius thinks this logic is metaphysical because included in 2) are various religious notions about separate creation. But the fact is that these notions are not even considered by modern working scientists.
ReplyDeletep.s. there may be more than 2 explanations, but if so no one has articulated them thus far.
ReplyDeleteSeeing that the complexity of one human Brain easily exceeds that of all the computers put together on earth, and seeing that evolution strains mightily to demonstrate the generation of ANY functional complexity above that which was already present, The conclusion for design is absurdly overwhelming!,,,
ReplyDeleteHuman Brain Has More Switches Than All Computers on Earth
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5516446/
,,, exactly why are evolutionists so enamored to deny the glory that belongs to God alone for such a obscene level of craftsmanship that is sitting within their very own brains???
MercyMe- "You Reign" Music Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-bxXEqGFqg
NickM said…
ReplyDelete===
The protein structures that you creationists ignorantly, naively *assume* had to be "designed" specifically for synapse function, ...
===
Cornelius Hunter replied,
But I don't assume that.
What then did you mean when you invoked design four times in the original post?
1. How, for example, are the channels designed to be ion-selective?
2. And new research continues to peel back the layers of this profound design.
3. Indeed synapse designs are so widespread amongst the species that the paper must conclude that “Many mammalian synaptic components existed before the appearance of synapses.”
4. One of the ever-present themes in the evolution genre is that similarity mandates evolutionary relationship. If two species share a common design, such as similar genes, it must have arisen from a common ancestor.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThe premise that similarities imply common descent is an evolutionary (and metaphysical) premise.
No, it’s an empirical premise. Common descent is an empirical proposition about geneology, subject to confirmation or disconfirmation by evidence. Metaphysical propositions are not empirical and are therefore not at risk to evidence.
Cornelius: "The premise that similarities imply common descent is an evolutionary (and metaphysical) premise."
ReplyDeletePedant: "No, it’s an empirical premise. Common descent is an empirical proposition about geneology, subject to confirmation or disconfirmation by evidence. Metaphysical propositions are not empirical and are therefore not at risk to evidence."
Very well said, Pedant.
BA77:
ReplyDelete"Seeing that the complexity of one human Brain easily exceeds that of all the computers put together on earth, and seeing that evolution strains mightily to demonstrate the generation of ANY functional complexity above that which was already present, The conclusion for design is absurdly overwhelming!"
If it is so absurdly overwhelming, how come the vast majority of scientists - the people who study actual evidence in a professional capacity in a very competitive environment - are not overwhelmed at all? Given that information, a reasonable person would ask herself if perhaps her feeling of being absurdly overwhelmed might be a little misplaced. Do you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI’m somewhat disappointed our ‘discussion’ of the paper lacks substantial reference to the methodology therein (or really the synapse itself, as nanobot points out). Rather, I see snippets mixed with personal incredulity, mixed with demands to prove matters well beyond the scope of what the authors actually try to tackle (which is the study of synaptic proteins through a proteomic/phylogenomic approach).
ReplyDeleteLet me divide my reply into three parts, addressing complexity, uncertainty in science, and the actual data in the paper.
Complexity
ReplyDeleteArguments such as:
“Random mutations must have struck on an amino acid sequence that would fold up just right to provide the right channel size. That is an astronomical long shot.” don’t even amount to Behe’s irreducible complexity, or calculations as to the edge of evolution! Hunter merely snipes: What are the odds!?!
So, what are the odds? Although not the subject of the referenced paper, it is known experimentally, that changing only one to several key amino acids lining the pore can alter ion channel specificity. Transmembrane domains require simple patterns of hydrophobic and hydrophilic residues to insert into membranes. Pathways Hunter would like to select a review on this for us to debate. I doubt he will find the proposals satisfactory.
Moreover, the ID field keeps conceding complexity can increase in evolution!
Dembski and Marks:
“"Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper."
http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf
So if mutation, and differential survival are active information that produce complexity in a simulation, what are they in nature.
Even Hunter concedes: “Clearly Darwin’s idea is mathematically tractable. That is, if fitness landscapes are relatively smooth and reasonably shaped, and if an initial population just happens to appear, and if biological variation just happens to arise and accumulate, and if populations do not resist such change, then of course species can evolve to new designs.”
This applies to molecular evolution as well as populations. So, are fitness landscapes all too rugged (no), is there no population (life) observed, is there no source of biological variation (mutation, recombination…), do all populations fail to adapt (no), or is evolution tractable (not to mention directly observed).
So what is the argument here-It cannot be? Because.
Uncertainty
ReplyDeleteHunter quotes lines from the review as some sign of weakness:
“It is conceivable” “we postulate” “may represent” are followed by Hunter requesting every molecular detail of neuron evolution be laid clear with certainty
Aren’t these concessions exactly right? In science, we propose hypotheses, provisionally, and seek data to refine or falsify the hypothesis. Isn’t this the exact opposite of the certain dogma Hunter sees in science?
Hunter seems to want to turn science on its head. How does one come closer to understanding the truth in science, without proposing hypotheses, and testing them?
He then goes into a typical creationist gallop, desiring to be shown every detail of every system, going back to the beginning.
Is science about evidence coming together, or what a single paper presents?
I suppose the logic here is that if we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything?
The review proposes hypotheses, and presents supporting data for the synapse. That is all any science publication can and will do. Does this paper strongly support the evolution of the synapse? Yes. Does it provide an account of the detailed origin and molecular evolution of every component of the synapse? Of course not. Hunter seems to discount the content of a paper for what lies outside of the scope of the 11-page review! Are other people tackling ion channel evolution? Of course-Google.
A few other points:
ReplyDelete“Similarly, the reader learns that this protosynapse consists of “synaptic components that were present before the emergence of synapses.” Were present? It is remarkable that evolutionists can know such details.“
Answered in the paper:
“The first category includes unicellular eukaryotes and multicellular metazoans that lack a nervous system, and provides a means of identifying synaptic components that were present before the evolution of the nervous system.”
The protein complexes are present in modern organisms without synapses (without nervous systems, nerves, etc). I suppose if you totally dismiss common ancestry, and phylogenetics (which I guess you must) than the explanation makes less sense. Nevertheless, the data in the paper is compelling.
The authors go on to describe: “The second category is composed of non-bilaterian multicellular metazoans that have a nervous system, which allows the identification of synaptic components present in primitive synapses, giving us insight into the composition of the synapse at a relatively short time after it originated.”
Now again, the origin of these proto-complexes, the nerve beyond the synapes, etc. are beyond the scope of the review. We can argue them elsewhere, but don’t select a paper, yell about what it doesn’t even try to address, and deem it falsified!
Like here:
“How, for example, are the channels designed to be ion-selective?”
Designed? Interesting presumption. But, not even part of this paper.
Gish Gallop much?
Pedant:
ReplyDelete===
The premise that similarities imply common descent is an evolutionary (and metaphysical) premise.
No, it’s an empirical premise.
===
No, you cannot know that similarity is caused by common descent merely from science.
===
Common descent is an empirical proposition about geneology,
===
No, common descent's predictions are routinely false. It, and always has been, motivated by philosophical and theological premises.
===
subject to confirmation or disconfirmation by evidence.
===
No, common descent is not subject to empirical falsification. If it were it would have long since been rejected.
===
Metaphysical propositions are not empirical and are therefore not at risk to evidence.
===
Exactly.
"No, you cannot know that similarity is caused by common descent merely from science."
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because one must put aside the non-scientific, non-disprovable hypothesis that a supernatural being might have designed everything with the exact appearance of common descent?
We cannot know we are not in the matrix. But we can proceed with a hypothesis that is useful, predictive, and well supported.
"No, you cannot know that similarity is caused by common descent merely from science."
ReplyDeleteAs I outlined above, there are two hypotheses for why a similar gene would be shared by different species: 1) common ancestry, 2) separate ancestry. Can you think of any others? THere are numerous ways to distinguish which of these hypotheses (and any others you can think of) is more likely to be correct. See the paper you totally and embarrassingly mangled earlier as an example.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/
"No, common descent is not subject to empirical falsification. If it were it would have long since been rejected."
ReplyDeletePre-cambrian rabbits. Failure of molecular phylogeny to recapitulate evolution. Lack of genetic material to transmit in common descent, and the coupling of genotype and phenotype. etc....
Add to this the fact that Cornelius earlier stated that he found common descent of diatoms convincing. However, even though the same type of data have been used to establish common descent of chordates, he does not accept it. Now he says common descent itself is falsified. Fascinating.
ReplyDeleteCornelius:
ReplyDelete"No, common descent's predictions are routinely false."
Really? I take it that "routinely" means far above the standard 5% error rate. Did you do a meta-analysis to reach this conclusion?
Derick,
ReplyDeleteYour diagrams of the ipods are just as arbitrary as whether to group men with red hair with women with red hair or men with black hair.
The "best fit" hierachy for IPODS would be:
IPODS(Shuffle, Nano, Classic, Touch)
Remember the nested hierachies I'm referring to, whether IPODS or living organisms are derived from shared traits and have nothing to do with descent with modification.
What is your definition of a nested hierachy?
troy ask:
ReplyDeleteIf it is so absurdly overwhelming, how come the vast majority of scientists - the people who study actual evidence in a professional capacity in a very competitive environment - are not overwhelmed at all?
So finding far more integrated complexity in the Brain than all the world's computers put together is not absurdly overwhelming to you in particular because you believe people who 'know better' are not impressed???
You then ask:
Given that information, a reasonable person would ask herself if perhaps her feeling of being absurdly overwhelmed might be a little misplaced. Do you?
No my 'feelings' of awe towards what God has wrought are not 'misplaced' in the least, and exactly why are you so enamored to deny the glory that belongs to God alone? Do you somehow think you are smarter than the one who gave you such an obscenely complex computer for a brain in the first place?
Neal Your diagrams of the ipods are just as arbitrary as whether to group men with red hair with women with red hair or men with black hair.
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY! That's what we've been trying to explain to you. Do you live in bizarro world or something? That iPods can be arranged into a 'best fit' nested hierarchy is YOUR claim, not mine:
Neal The APPLE IPOD product line easily fits into a "singular", "best", nested hierachy. It is a very successful product line.
Neal The Apple IPOD product line is a good example of products that can be arranged in a best fit hierarchy. Let's use the current product line of one company (Apple)to keep things simple.
Neal You illustrated a grouping of IPOD Nano's and so proved that designed objects can be arranged nicely into a group. {referring to my two groupings of iPod nanos, which were subsequently illustrated here, 'proving' if anything, that iPod nanos can't be grouped in a single, 'best fit' hierarchy.}
Neal, YOU are the one claiming that iPods can be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy, yet you still continue to avoid my two simple questions about that assertion:
ReplyDelete1. Which two of these three should be grouped closest together in your best fit nested hierarchy, and why?
(a) 1 and 2
(b) 2 and 3
(c) 1 and 3
(d) None of the above, because you can't arrange iPods into best fit nested hierarchies because the designers are free to mix and match components and features, and in this case they did, making the creation a single objective best fit nested hierarchy impossible.
2. With iPod nanos, which come in 7 colors and 2 capacities, do we group them by color, or capacity, and why?
(a) We should group by color, that is the most important trait.
(b) We should group by capacity, that is the most important trait.
(c) Grouping by either color or capacity is completely arbitrary; You can't group based on a panoply of features when there are so few distinguishing features.
2. alt: n other words, which one of these two is the correct, best fit grouping?
Neal, if there is any way I can make these questions simpler, let me know. I can use less words and draw more pictures, if you like. Remember, the idea of grouping iPods is YOUR EXAMPLE, that YOU keep defending.
Derick,
ReplyDeleteMy point was that you are weighing 8/16gb differences and color too much. You do not do this with species, right? The Shuffles are all the same, except for color and you treat the product line as though they were as different as Venus and Mars.
In your multiple choice question, the Nano's use the same technology as the IPOD Touch for the touch screens. All the IPODS share technology across the entire product line. The Nano was designed to be a smaller and simpler version of the Touch.
Some of your fellow evolutionists do not even agree with your
Neal,
ReplyDeleteYou're making a compelling argument for why designs fail to fit nested hierarchies. Thank-you.
"You do not do this with species, right?"
We can form nested hierarchies based on phenotype (including fossil), rRNA, selected protein sequences, whole genomes, or even protein expression profiles and protein families. The resulting phylogenies are remarkable consistent. Horizontal gene transfer can be taken into account.
The hypothesis that there are multiple, independent origins of taxa can also be tested, and fails.
BA77:
ReplyDelete"So finding far more integrated complexity in the Brain than all the world's computers put together is not absurdly overwhelming to you in particular because you believe people who 'know better' are not impressed???"
I'm saying that what you consider as absurdly overwhelming evidence of design is not seen as such by people who know what they are talking about, unlike you. Your uneducated opinion means nothing.
Are you familiar with geometric growth? It takes k rounds of cell division to get 2^k cells from a single initial cell. How complex is it to change k to k+1 or k+n?
"No my 'feelings' of awe towards what God has wrought are not 'misplaced' in the least, and exactly why are you so enamored to deny the glory that belongs to God alone?"
Why do you feel that your god needs an idiot like you to make her case?
well troy thanks so much for calling me an idiot,,, perhaps you could have a little mercy on my feeble mindedness with your vastly more evolved brain and show me the violation of the fitness test:
ReplyDeleteIs Antibiotic Resistance Evidence For Evolution? - The Fitness Test
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248/
BA77-
ReplyDeleteLet me guess-antibiotic resistant bacteria are less fit than wild-type in the absence of antibiotic?
LOL! Are you unevolved because in the absence of
air (underwater) you show less fitness than fish.
Adaptation only makes sense in the presence of the environment adapted to. Silly creationist "survival of the fittest" strawman.
Not to mention the loss of fitness is not always observed, and often compensated.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624092
bornagain77 said...
ReplyDeletewell troy thanks so much for calling me an idiot,,, perhaps you could have a little mercy on my feeble mindedness with your vastly more evolved brain and show me the violation of the fitness test:
Is Antibiotic Resistance Evidence For Evolution? - The Fitness Test
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248/
Whoever made that video certainly was a feeble minded idiot. Evolutionary fitness isn't an absolute measurement. The measure of evolutionary fitness only has meaning relative to the local environment. A great white shark has amazingly high evolutionary fitness in its ocean environment, but drop it into the middle of the Sahara desert and see how long it lasts.
Bacteria that evolved resistance to a certain drug are more fit that those who don't in the presence of that drug. If you change the environment and take the drug away, it's not surprising at all that the relative fitness of the two organisms will change.
posts are disappearing again.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal: My point was that you are weighing 8/16gb differences and color too much. You do not do this with species, right? The Shuffles are all the same, except for color and you treat the product line as though they were as different as Venus and Mars.
ReplyDeleteThen I take that as your concession that iPod nanos can't be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy and that your answer to question # 2 is c. Is that correct? And yes, for the most part, we can group species into best fit nested hierarchies, but not individuals within species. Zachriel already explained to you that organisms within interbreeding populations don't form a hierarchy based on traits.
Neal: In your multiple choice question, [by which I presume you mean number 1; I numbered them for a reason as they were both multiple choice.] the Nano's use the same technology as the IPOD Touch for the touch screens. All the IPODS share technology across the entire product line. The Nano was designed to be a smaller and simpler version of the Touch.
So what is your point? It is just extraordinary how much effort you're putting into not answering this simple question:
1. Which two of those three (derickchildress.com/ipodexample2) should be grouped closest together in your best fit nested hierarchy, and why? (and remember, it's your nested hierarchy, so you can assign color and capacity however much weight you deem appropriate)
(a) 1 and 2
(b) 2 and 3
(c) 1 and 3
(d) None of the above, because you can't arrange iPods into best fit nested hierarchies because the designers are free to mix and match components and features, and in this case they did, making the creation a single objective best fit nested hierarchy impossible.
It's not even like I'm asking you to do a lot of work. I put it into a multiple choice format so that you'd only have to type one letter. And if you can think of another option besides these 4, be my guest to elaborate. Or you can continue flailing about.
Neal: Some of your fellow evolutionists do not even agree with your
Like who? Please provide quotes to back up this statement.
Wet electricity.
ReplyDeleteWhereas the electricity that powers our computers comes from the flow of electrons through a conductor and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to help convey differing messages to our command center.
In this environment mere electrons are of little use because they would be easily dispersed. What is needed is something bigger. And as I eluded to in my opening an ion or ions will fit the bill. Well there just happen to be two atoms well suited for ionization- two atoms with 1 outer valence electron.
If we take a look at the Periodic Table, and also a look at the electron shell arrangement (note the sodium diagram on the right and also thepotassium arrangement, we see these atoms are perfect fits for the job of positive ions (as both have only one outer valence electron).
Now we have the ions but we need a way for them to get into and out of the cell-> Ion Channels
Ion channels are proteins that line holes in the plasma membrane. They can open on demand to let ions in and out of the cell. They allow nerve impulses to travel, cause your heart to beat, and allow your muscles to contract. In many cells, channels and another kind of protein called a pump together maintain a relatively constant negative charge within your cells. This net negative charge, or membrane potential, affects the entry and exit of a variety of materials. page 15 of Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture
10 million to 100 million per second!
The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- Ibid page 19
However even these, in comparison to electrons, huge ions also get lost in the wet environment. So what is needed are pumps along the way to pump ions in and also out. In the case of our nerve cells, ions go in to start the signal and are pumped out to reset that part of the system so it is ready for the next (or continuing) sensation. See nerve cell.
(Some venoms and poisons effect these pumps (stop them from working) thereby shutting down the nervous system of the inflicted- ie paralysis sets in.)
cont.
cont.-
ReplyDeleteHowever our nerves to not touch each other as wires do in an electrical system to make a circuit. Neurons have functional connections called synapses. These can connect neuron to neuron or other types of cells (for example muscle). Between the synapse and the next cell is a gap- the synaptic cleft.
This gap is too large for even ions to traverse. So to make the connection- to send the signal from one cell to the next, neurotransmitters is sent. These flow in one direction. And once the neurotransmitters reach their destination, that cell responds accordingly, and all the neurotransmitters are dismantled and shuttled back to the transmitting site to be refabbed and ready for the next signal. (some do linger a bit longer and then disperse)
This is key because if the neurotransmitters stay docked the receiving cell would remain locked in that sensation. And if any unused neurotransmitters- the synaptic cleft is basically flooded to ensure signal transmission- remain they will just fill in the docking site when the first arrivals are gone. IOW the receiving cell will be locked in that past sensation.
And there are different types of neurotransmitters for different sensations and purposes.
How is this evidence for ID?
The nervous system exhibits planning- it takes planning to get the right ions, ion channels, pumps and neurotransmitters.
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?:
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.
troy:
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that what you consider as absurdly overwhelming evidence of design is not seen as such by people who know what they are talking about, unlike you.
Actually it is seen by such people. They just call that design illusory and say without jusitification that evolutiondidit.
IOW the same people that say the design is illusory cannot produce any evidence to supprt that claim.
and with the appearance of Joe G go any chances of this being a productive or interesting thread.
ReplyDeletenanobot74 said...
ReplyDeleteand with the appearance of Joe G go any chances of this being a productive or interesting thread.
Joe G got tired of posting on Telic Thoughts as his sock 'ID guy' and decided to bless us with his 150 IQ here. He's an equal opportunity tard.
Umm those chances were shot with the arrival of you intellectual cowards- ie evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteYa see nanobot you STILL don't have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems.
So all you have is to atack ID and IDists.
It must suck to be you...
And thorton is STILL upset that I have exposed her ignoarnce on several occasions.
ReplyDeleteYa see Joe G you STILL don't have any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes can construct functional multi-part Grand Canyons.
ReplyDeleteSo all you have is to attack Intelligent Geology and IGist.
And Derick has to chime in with his usual ignorance.
ReplyDeleteYa see Derick you still don't have any positive evidence that the Grand Canyon was designed.
Also I have never attacked Intelligent Geology nor an IGist. You are a liar.
How very unchristian of you...
JoeG-
ReplyDeleteThe antibiotic resistance argument is not only wholly off topic, but has been demolished at timestamps 12:06 and 12:08 above.
As for "The nervous system exhibits planning- it takes planning to get the right ions, ion channels, pumps and neurotransmitters," how do you detect and quantify planning? How do you distinguish it from the non-random, information increasing products of variation + natural selection? Are the proto-synapses described in this paper less planned or some kind of a plan gone wrong? Why do plans require intermediates that follow phylogeny?
I will say that troy, thorton, Derick, Zachriel, Robert C, Nick M, et al., are very powerful evidence that humans did indeed evolve from lower animals.
ReplyDeleteHow about we all agree not to respond to anything psychopath Joe G says? He'll get bored sooner or later and torture some animals in his basement.
ReplyDeleteHelp me JoeG, if these guys are claiming to have vastly more evolved brains than us feeble-minded idiots, and yet all "evolution" is shown to be the result of a loss of functional complexity on the molecular level,,,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
,,,then does it not follow that if one claims to have a more evolved brain, then in reality that person is claiming to have more brain damage than feeble minded non-evolved brains?
Joe G: Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer.
ReplyDeleteSure they can, but the classic experiments work with clones.
RobertC:
ReplyDeleteThe antibiotic resistance argument is not only wholly off topic, but has been demolished at timestamps 12:06 and 12:08 above.
How can you demolish scientific fact?
RobertC:
As for "The nervous system exhibits planning- it takes planning to get the right ions, ion channels, pumps and neurotransmitters," how do you detect and quantify planning?
Pretty much the same way archaeologists and forensic scientists do- but figuring out what is required to bring about the observed result.
RobertC:
How do you distinguish it from the non-random, information increasing products of variation + natural selection?
If the variation is via genetic accidents and the "selection" is natural selection then there isn't anything non-random about it.
Ya see RobertC you don't have any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functional multi-part system.
RobertC:
Are the proto-synapses described in this paper less planned or some kind of a plan gone wrong?
Dude your position can't explain cellular differentiation without resorting to magic.
Ya see Joe, the fact that materialistic atheists like you can't produce a single fact that the Grand Canyon wasn't designed is positive evidence. All you have is the fairytale mechanism of 'macroerosion.' The lack of any plausible naturalistic mechanism is positive evidence for design.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: Also I have never attacked Intelligent Geology nor an IGist. You are a liar.
Oh have you changed your mind? Last I heard you didn't think the Grand Canyon was directly carved out of the ground by God, and that you thought "natural" processes were "sufficient" to account for it. (even though these supposed 'natural processes' have never been demonstrated in the lab.
troy- all you can do is respond with asnine snide remarks and your usual evotardgasms.
ReplyDeleteSo please don't respond to me.
However I will keep exposing your lies, ignorance and intellectual cowardice.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteYa see Joe, the fact that materialistic atheists like you can't produce a single fact that the Grand Canyon wasn't designed is positive evidence.
Spoken like a real atheistic liar.
What happened Derick- did priests molest you as a child and you liked it?
"Yet all "evolution" is shown to be the result of a loss of functional complexity on the molecular level"
ReplyDeleteWhaa? That's a howler. Even within antibiotic resistance (subject of the link), there are many gain of function mutations-expanded spectrum beta-lactamases, thickened cell walls, evolved multi-subunit drug efflux pumps.
And again, there are broad compensatory changes in bacteria, that are observed to compensate for loss of fitness:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624092
JoeG- two questions:
ReplyDelete1) A quote from Dembski and Marks: "Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper."
http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf
So if mutation, and differential survival are active information that produce increased complexity and information in a simulation, what are they in nature?
2) Hunter: “Clearly Darwin’s idea is mathematically tractable. That is, if fitness landscapes are relatively smooth and reasonably shaped, and if an initial population just happens to appear, and if biological variation just happens to arise and accumulate, and if populations do not resist such change, then of course species can evolve to new designs.”
This applies to molecular evolution as well as populations. So, are fitness landscapes all too rugged, is there no population (life) observed, is there no source of biological variation (mutation, recombination…), do all populations fail to adapt or is evolution tractable (not to mention directly observed)?
Joe G: "What happened Derick- did priests molest you as a child and you liked it?"
ReplyDeleteJoe, didn't your psychologists warn you about projecting?
And is that all you can do? Using personal attacks to try to distract everyone from the fact that your position of materialist geology is scientifically vacuous?
Ya see Joe G you STILL don't have any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes can construct functional multi-part Grand Canyons.
Robert C compensatory mutations have been know about for a long time, and are known not to recover full fitness. I suggest you increase the sensitivity of your tests in the paper you cited:
ReplyDeleteTesting the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008
Excerpt: Initially, it was difficult to demonstrate differences between wild-type and clinical strains in a rich media (Nutrient or Typticase-soy agar). There were no differences in growth rate or colony size. However, after switching to minimal media and observing hourly, the differences were readily observed. In order to confirm and extend the differences in growth rates between the sensitive BS303S strain (isolated from pond water) and the resistant WFR strain, a fitness/competition assay was performed. This assay sought to simulate famine conditions in the natural environment by utilizing minimal media and to evaluate the wild-type against ampicillin resistant, clinical strains exhibiting loss of prodigiosin production. Once subjected to conditions that were “harsh,” differences were seen in their performance (growth rate and robustness of colonies).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore
------------
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives - November 2010
Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
RobertC:
ReplyDeleteSo if mutation, and differential survival are active information that produce increased complexity and information in a simulation, what are they in nature?
The simulation is a targeted search. In nature there isn't any such thing- well according to the ToE there isn't any such thing.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteYa see Joe G you STILL don't have any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes can construct functional multi-part Grand Canyons.
Yes we do and I have presented it to you.
OTOH you don't have any positive evidence for the design of the Grand Canyon.
And your continued lying and whining are duly noted...
And actually we have more evidence that blind, undirected geological processes can produce the Grand Canyon than we do for the theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteGo figure...
Though it is impossible to reconstruct the DNA of these earliest bacteria fossils, scientists find in the fossil record, and compare them to their descendants of today, there are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and 'revived' from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.
ReplyDeleteThe Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes:
“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637
Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of change that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination in Vreeland's experiment. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by verifying that Dr. Vreeland's methodology for extracting ancient DNA was solid and was not introducing contamination because the DNA sequences this time around were completely unique:
World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered (419 million years old) - Dec. 2009
Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. “We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had,” Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. “These six pieces were unique",,,
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-dna-bacteria-discovered.html
BA77, how do you explain this?
ReplyDelete"The fitness landscape in sequence space determines the process of biomolecular evolution. To plot the fitness landscape of protein function, we carried out in vitro molecular evolution beginning with a defective fd phage carrying a random polypeptide of 139 amino acids in place of the g3p minor coat protein D2 domain, which is essential for phage infection. After 20 cycles of random substitution at sites 12–130 of the initial random polypeptide and selection for infectivity, the selected phage showed a 1.7×104-fold increase in infectivity"
According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there 'HAS' to be 'major genetic drift' to the DNA of bacteria within 250 million years, even though the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain exactly the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. In fact recent research, with bacteria which are alive right now, has also severely weakened the 'genetic drift' argument of evolutionists:
ReplyDeleteThe consequences of genetic drift for bacterial genome complexity - Howard Ochman - 2009
Excerpt: The increased availability of sequenced bacterial genomes allows application of an alternative estimator of drift, the genome-wide ratio of replacement to silent substitutions in protein-coding sequences. This ratio, which reflects the action of purifying selection across the entire genome, shows a strong inverse relationship with genome size, indicating that drift promotes genome reduction in bacteria.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/06/05/gr.091785.109
troy and yet the evolved protein did not achieve the level of functionality of the 'coating' protein that was removed.
ReplyDeleteSo if mutation, and differential survival are active information that produce increased complexity and information in a simulation, what are they in nature?
ReplyDeleteJoeG-"The simulation is a targeted search. In nature there isn't any such thing- well according to the ToE there isn't any such thing."
Dodging the point. Dembski accidently concedes mutation +selection increases information. The context is irrelevant.
troy if you want to impress me with a phage experiment please show where the phage came from in the first place:
ReplyDeleteThe Virus - Assembly Of A Molecular "Lunar Landing" Machine - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023122
Clockwork That Drives Powerful Virus Nanomotor Discovered
Excerpt: Because of the motor's strength--to scale, twice that of an automobile--the new findings could inspire engineers designing sophisticated nanomachines.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229200748.htm
The Virus - A Molecular Lunar Landing Machine - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4205494
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
or how about 'evolving' a ATP synthase enzyme
The ATP Synthase Enzyme - exquisite motor necessary for first life - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4
ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind - November 2010
http://creation.com/atp-synthase
Hey Joe and BA77-
ReplyDeleteWant to maybe pick a single topic, preferably with a paper you've actually read to debate?
The typical creationist Gish gallop of topic switching and one-liners really isn't worth anyone's time.
even granting a very rare beneficial mutation rate that may perhaps build functional complexity every once in a while does nothing to overcome the overwhelming rate of slightly detrimental mutations:
ReplyDeleteEvolution vs. Genetic Entropy - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
"One of the ever-present themes in the evolution genre is that similarity mandates evolutionary relationship."
ReplyDeleteSo you don't accept the utility of paternity testing? Or is this one of those micro-/macro distinctions?
RobertC you have not dealt effectively with the fitness test. That compensatory mutations would arise from the preexisting programming within the genome, and that the fitness is still not as 'fit' as it was prior to the original mutation, when the test is increased for 'sensitivity', shows that you have not seriously considered the matter.
ReplyDeleteBA77-
ReplyDeleteThe 'fitness' test is that a antibiotic resistant bacteria in a non-antibiotic containing environment sometimes shows decreased fitness.
1) Adaptation is for the environment of selection. You are evolved, but not adapted to life in water. Clear enough? By the way, decreased fitness does not disprove evolution.
2) Not all antibiotic resistance comes with a fitness cost.
(penicillin resistance in S. pneumonia, constitutive drug efflux pumps)
3) Many antibiotic resistance bacteria EVOLVE mechanisms to cope with the fitness cost (above link and ww.im.microbios.org/04december98/06%20Lenski.pdf )
"would arise from the preexisting programming within the genome"
Could you describe the nature of this programming? Could you find pre-programmed adaptive mechanisms before adaptation and describe them to me? This would be of enormous use in predicting pathogen behavior. By the way, did the 'designer' load in these antibiotic resistances and compensatory mechanisms?
"when the test is increased for 'sensitivity'
What are you talking about? The unpublished Liberty U. data? There is no control showing their isolate form pond water is in all other ways related to the other bacteria. The study needs to be done with the resistant strain, and its progenitor, not some other isolate that may have enhanced fitness for other reasons, and may be wholly unmatched in starting genotype!
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of comments to add to the excellent responses by RobertC, nanobot74, and troy to the following claims by Hunter:
No, you cannot know that similarity is caused by common descent merely from science.
Here is an empirical proposition: “The similarity of John’s genetic profile to the genetic profile of this woman who claims to be his birth mother is scientific evidence that this woman is actually his birth mother.” What non-scientific evidence or premise needs to be considered in this case?
No, common descent is not subject to empirical falsification. If it were it would have long since been rejected.
That error in elementary logic earns Hunter an F for this study unit. Being subject to falsification does not equal being falsified.
No, common descent's predictions are routinely false.
That’s an empirical proposition that awaits disambiguation. Does “routinely” mean most of the time, more often than not, sometimes, what? It seems to me that we need a comprehensive listing of all predictions based on common descent as the denominator, so we can fill in all the false predictions as the numerator before we can calculate the value of the sought after fraction.
Derick,
ReplyDeleteShuffles are grouped under IPODS in a high level hierarchical view. All Shuffles are IPODS. The containment within the higher level is complete and meets the requirement of a best fit.
Perhaps it may help you to understand by roughly equating the terms Shuffle, Nano, etc with "species" names. Maybe this will help you not to be inconsistent in looking at minor characteristics like color or memory. If #2 in your picture link is a Nano, then my choice would be "B". The term IPOD would be given a higher rank. It would be reasonable to add another category below this rank to group the touch screen IPODS.
Any issues you see with doing that are certainly less complex than issues that exist with ranking many living organisms. I'm not arguing that living organisms don't show a pattern of being able to be grouped into a hierarchy, but making it as evidence for evolution is silly. Some evolutionists want to insist on this, but this is not accepted by all...
"Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically." Evolutionist Mark Ridley
What evolution really predicts is a blurred relationship among organisms, not the sharp distinctions found in the fossil record and extant species.
Even you mention, quote, "for the most part" species can be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy. If common descent yields both nested and non nested, then showing a nested hiearchy can't be evidence for descent. If it can also yield an non-nested structure, then it is another evolutionary pleading to have the evidence both ways. Guess who subjectively and arbitrarily determines what "generally" means?
The the point I'm making is that a nested hierarchy neither falsifies or confirms evolution.
Neal-
ReplyDeleteYou love your out of context quotes.
"Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically." Evolutionist Mark Ridley
The very next line: "The argument for evolution comes from a particular property of the classificatory hierarchy, the kind of traits that define it."
And then describes the unique traits of genealogically generated nested hierarchies, of how life's nested hierarchy is not "forced."
Retract this lie?
RobertC, yours is not the context from my quote. The next line is "Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on. The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution. (Ridley 1985, 8.)
ReplyDeleteYour quote is apparently from another source. Perhaps his first quote was talking about all the instances when grouping is not a particular property and "forced".
So the nested hierachy is evidence for evolution except when it isn't. Evolutionists like to have the evidence both ways.
Sorry....I had a source with ellipses. Please tell me what the line is following: "The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution. "
ReplyDeleteI believe it is: "The argument for evolution comes from a particular property of the classificatory hierarchy, the kind of traits that define it." followed by the discussion of the unique traits of genealogically generated nested hierarchies, of how life's nested hierarchy is not "forced."
Correct me if I'm wrong.
"So the nested hierachy is evidence for evolution except when it isn't"
ReplyDeleteExcept no one argues it isn't, especially in that the key defining trait of the nested hierarchy of life is descent with modification!
And Neil, I'm betting your source was Ashby L. Camp, considering the "(Ridley 1985, 8.)"
ReplyDeleteHere's what Camp says:
"I omitted Ridley’s statement that life exhibits a genuine hierarchy because it was irrelevant to my point."
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp#b3
That isn't very honest, now is it. Even worse, it gets picked up by creationists like you who use it to imply the opposite of what Ridley was arguing. Interestingly, it fits the discussion here perfectly. Designed objects like IPODs and furniture can be forced into a some piecemeal hierarchy, with confusion due to swaps in design, while evolution's nested hierarchy is genealogically generated, a genuine hierarchy in ALL the useful ways we could make it!
RobertC,
ReplyDeleteSure they do... when they say "for the most part", or "generally" because classification is not merely slam-dunk easy and singular.
If A is evidence of B, and Not A is also evidence for B, then it is impossible to falsify.
Descent with modification really expected an innumerable blurring relationship among organisms. Evolutionists merely accommodated the nested hierarchy because they could not deny it. Darwin would have preferred to have seen a blurring of relationships not a typology.
Ok Neal, I'll humor you. What is the "Not A" evidence against nested hierarchies?
ReplyDelete"Darwin would have preferred to have seen a blurring of relationships not a typology."
Really? Reference? Then why did he draw this, at an early stage, to frame his thoughts:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/idea/treelg.php
Robert, you may be evolved, but I was created by God,,, since the topic is about the human brain, lets look at the rate of detrimental mutations to humans:
ReplyDeletethe evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
http://www.biobase-international.com/pages/index.php?id=hgmddatabase
I really question their use of the word 'celebrating'.
This following study confirmed the detrimental mutation rate for humans, of 100 to 300 per generation, estimated by John Sanford in his book 'Genetic Entropy' in 2005:
Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009
Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations")
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html
This 'slightly detrimental' mutation rate of 100 to 200 per generation is far greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism:
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm
Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a 'truly' beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Moreover it clearly appears to be a 'designed mutation' that has 'serendipitously' originated independently three different times:
ReplyDeleteConvergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe
Excerpt: We conducted a genotype-phenotype association study in 470 Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese and identified three SNPs (G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907) that are associated with lactase persistence and that have derived alleles that significantly enhance transcription from the LCT promoter in vitro. These SNPs originated on different haplotype backgrounds from the European C/T-13910 SNP and from each other.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/full/ng1946.html
Mutation Studies, Videos, And Quotes
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjZjZnM5M21mZg
Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ
DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4614519
Article on the non-falsifiability of common descent:
ReplyDeleteA Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009
Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
http://www.discovery.org/a/10651
Before you bring up the Tibetan mutation:
ReplyDeleteRecently new 'beneficial mutations' were found in Tibetans that have allowed them to survive in extremely high altitudes, with less oxygen. Yet once again the new 'beneficial mutations' are actually found to be 'slightly detrimnetal' because they in fact result in a limit on the red cell blood count for Tibetans:
Tibetans Developed Genes to Help Them Adapt to Life at High Elevations - May 2010
Excerpt: "What's unique about Tibetans is they don't develop high red blood cells counts,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143453.htm
Yet high red blood cell counts are found to be good,,
Extremely fit individuals may have higher values—significantly more red cells in their bodies and significantly more oxygen-carrying capacity—but still maintain normal hematocrit values.
http://wiki.medpedia.com/Red_Blood_Cells
,,,Thus they were actually incorrect to imply that all high red blood cell counts found in humans are detrimental,,, Thus this is clearly another example of a loss of overall functional information, and fitness, for the human genome.
This following article goes into more detail and points out many other inconsistencies with the Tibetan mutations that evaporate any claim for evidence of a 'truly' beneficial mutation:
Tibetans Evolved Altitude Tolerance in 3,000 Years? - July 2010
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100703a
As well neo-Darwinism presupposes that the 'beneficial mutations' which conferred the advantage for Tibetans to live at high altitudes was completely random, yet when looked at from the point of population genetics, the evidence gives every indication that the 'beneficial mutations' were not random at all but were in fact 'programmed' mutations:
Another Darwinian “Prediction” Bites the Dust - PaV - August 2010
Excerpt: this means the probability of all three sites changing “at once” (6.25 X 10^-9)^2 = approx. 4 X 10^-17 specific bp change/ yr. IOW (In Other Words), for that size population, and this is a very reasonable guess for size, it would take almost twice the life of the universe for them to take place “at once”. Thus, the invocation of “randomness” in this whole process is pure nonsense. We’re dealing with some kind of programmed response if, in fact, “polygenic selection” is taking place. And, that, of course, means design.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-darwinian-prediction-bites-the-dust/#more-14516
bornagain77 -
ReplyDeleteWhat is your point? Humans are subject to a terrible mutation load, yielding birth defects, leukemia and cancer, etc. Does this mean evolution is false?Does it prove design by a benevolent god?
"Robert, you may be evolved, but I was created by God"
Odd statement. I take no insult, but trust me, we're subject to the same mutation load, and the ills that come with it.
And yes, the human mutation rate might be unsustainable. Perhaps we are destined for extinction, or to evolve into a species with better mutation management. Perhaps we will have to genetically engineer ourselves.
Then again, perhaps the measured rates are high, or the bulk of fertilized eggs that fail to implant and form a human are selectively weeding out some of the bad.
I know John Sanford tries to argue that mutation rate means evolution is false. But he'd have to argue that the current carried mutation load with current natural selection acting on humans is identical to that of our entire evolutionary history-a false premise!
As for:
ReplyDeleteLactase: 3 different mutations that keep lactase turned on in different populations. Problem?
"Moreover it clearly appears to be a 'designed mutation' that has 'serendipitously' originated independently three different times."
So convergent evolution=design? Strong conclusion there.
"A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009"
No interest in arguments coming from the DI lawyer.
Tibetans- have high altitude adaptations. How do you know these weren't alleles in the pre-Tibetian population that became dominant with high-altitude living. How do you know how many loci ("all three sites") changed, and that they changed simultaneously (no neutral changes). Your math assumes this. I'd also love for you to explain the numbers.
The best estimate I know of is a intergeneration mutation rate of ~1.1 × 10−8 per position per haploid genome.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5978/636.abstract
robert, you have zero evidence for uncontroversial 'beneficial' mutations in either bacteria, or humans. Yet this moves you not from your delusions of Darwinian evolution??? So be it. I will not waste my time with you any further save to inform you that despite what you may imagine of the fossil record, the fossil record actually verifies genetic entropy:
ReplyDeleteDon Patton - Entropy, Information, and The 'Deteriorating' Fossil Record - video
http://www.vimeo.com/17050184
Fossil record:
"The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion."
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46
Further facts that conform to the principle of genetic entropy:
"According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet."(body sizes tend to get smaller over time rather than larger)
Stephen Gould, Harvard, Nature, V.385, 1/16/97
"Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times."
Von Engeln & Caster Geology, p.19
"Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern University’s Department of Physiology,,, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history."
Science Daily, 8/8/07
In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a 'scientific law':
ReplyDeleteDollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes:
Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible."
pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html
A general rule of thumb for the 'Deterioration/Genetic Entropy' of Dollo's Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes
ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints;
pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html
Dollo's Law was further verified to the molecular level here:
Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe
Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo's law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, "The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future.
evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html
One of the best examples for genetic entropy being obeyed in the fossil record is found with trilobite fossils:
ReplyDeleteTrilobites are one of the most prolific 'kinds' found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the 'simple' creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record. In fact the 270 million year span of fossil evidence points to sudden appearance, rapid diversity, long term stability and then slow deterioration of variety until extinction. Thus conforming exactly to the principle of 'top down' Genetic Entropy and directly contradicting neo-Darwinism:
The Cambrian's Many Forms
Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html
If the abrupt appearance for all the completely different and unique phyla in the Cambrian was not bad enough for materialists, the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there are today due to extinction.
ReplyDelete“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go
through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.”
Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=52
I like this following article for it highlights the principle of Genetic Entropy, i.e. loss of variety:
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
"In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
fredheeren.com/boston.htm
The evolutionary theory would have us believe that we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. These following timeline graphs highlight the loss of phyla through time:
Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph
lutheranscience.org/images/GraphC2.gif
docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video
metacafe.com/watch/4154263
Moreover fossils show a fairly extreme conservation of morphological shape throughout time:
Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video
metacafe.com/watch/4113820
THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years:
fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30
Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010
Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,,
creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100618a
Moreover, the evolutionary myth of +99.9% extinct fossils is false:
The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video
metacafe.com/watch/4028115
"Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented in the fossil record, despite being told in many text books that only about 0.1% are in this category. The rocks testify that no macro-evolutionary change has ever occurred. With the Cambrian Explosion complex fish, trilobites and other creatures appear suddenly without any precursors. Evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record is highly contentious."
Paul James-Griffiths - Dr. Arthur Jones
edinburghcreationgroup.org/studentpaper1.php
...and Batspit77 takes the lead over Eocene in the Pointless Wall Of Text match race!
ReplyDeleteAnd BA77 is back with a gallop of impenetrable ramblings and (broken) links:
ReplyDelete"Robert, you have zero evidence for uncontroversial 'beneficial' mutations in either bacteria, or humans."
Try again:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
Gould was an evolutionary biologist. Not sure what his quotes are here for.
Dollo's law, as stated by Dollo:
"An organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors."
Connection to genetic entropy? Who knows? (Behe link broken).
Interestingly, Dollo's law has found defense at the molecular level: doi:10.1038/nature08249 (but this is in no way related to genetic entropy).
Sprinkle in a few Internal contradictions:
"the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there are today due to extinction."
"The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones ....
Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented in the fossil record"
So there where 20 or so more phyla than current, but 80% of species are with us today? Trilobites, dinosaurs, seed ferns?
p.s. The majority of your links are broken. Might want to check them. Especially since you seem unable to actually internalize them and make a point.
I'm still waiting for a creationist to tell me how the ID leaders have not already conceded evolution:
ReplyDeleteDembski and Marks:
"Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper."
http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf
So if mutation, and differential survival are active information that produce complexity in a simulation, what are they in nature?
Hunter concedes: “Clearly Darwin’s idea is mathematically tractable. That is, if fitness landscapes are relatively smooth and reasonably shaped, and if an initial population just happens to appear, and if biological variation just happens to arise and accumulate, and if populations do not resist such change, then of course species can evolve to new designs.”
This applies to molecular evolution as well as populations. So, are fitness landscapes all too rugged (no), is there no population (life) observed, is there no source of biological variation (mutation, recombination…), do all populations fail to adapt (no), or is evolution tractable (not to mention directly observed).
robert, your mutation examples ALL seem to confer advantage by breaking something without even getting into the details of where the loss in functionality is paid.
ReplyDeleteAll the Links work in the description of the video here (since you will not listen to reason I will not waste my time listing them all here):
Don Patton - Entropy, Information, and The 'Deteriorating' Fossil Record - video
http://www.vimeo.com/17050184
Since pathetic excuses for the sheer poverty of evidence for neo-Darwinism do not interest me as to the honesty displayed on your part in finding truth in this matter, I bid you ado.
"Robert, your mutation examples ALL seem to confer advantage by breaking something "
ReplyDeleteLiar.
You read all 23 papers this hour and determined this? Funny, even the first paper makes it clear in the ABSTRACT (first 100 words!) the gain of fitness in one environment was not accompanied by loss of fitness in others in most lines.
Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
"Tradeoffs in relative fitness did not necessarily accompany fitness improvements, although tradeoffs were observed in a few of the lines."
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410113
Hmm. Need I go through the rest, and show how wrong you are? You see, I read and comprehend my sources before spewing them all over the internet. Isn't there something about bearing false witness in your favorite book?
"All the Links work"
Liar. Let anyone judge the truth of this by clicking on them. Few work.
"Don Patton" -a liar's liar. Claims false credentials: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
Don Patton also lies about the second law of thermodynamics (min 11:31 of your video)-he claims it always shows disorder must increase, therefore no evolution, only genetic entropy. Oops-he conveniently "forgets" about the closed system business. Middle-school physics. Guess ice can't freeze, and I can't be writing this.
This howler took me about 30 seconds of clicking through the video. Should I watch the rest, and find more lies you'd like to share?
"do not interest me as to the honesty displayed on your part in finding truth in this matter,"
Honesty. LOL. I've put your lies on display here.
Practically no one ever responds to thornton or RG.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder.
Hopefully they'll figure out that its because nothing they say is worth refuting since its all hubris and the ubiquitous evolutionary speculations, gratuitous extrapolations and conjecture.
Umm oops, sorry thornton, I forgot to mention your universal but vacuous diatribe.
Take the hint maybe?
Folks:
ReplyDeleteAnd so there you have it. When confronted with the synapse, neurons, action potentials, an army of molecular machines, and complexity that Darwin could never even have dreamt of, evolutionists remain resolute in their dogma. Their theory is a fact, no question about it.
The human brain is truly awesome. It has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. It has hundreds of trillions of synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies, and each synapse is profoundly complex, and moreso than we thought even a few years ago. All this and much more, and yet evolutionists insist it is a fact that these, and oh by the way all of biology, just happened to arise on their own.
Theories can be outlandish, even absurd sounding, but facts must be facts. The evolutionary claim that evolution is a fact is so bizarre it would be unbelievable if I didn't see it for myself. Until this I never understood the point of Hans Christian Andersen's *The Emperor's New Clothes.* It seemed completely unrealistic. But now, it is so real.
Evolutionists argue every which way to avoid the obvious absudity of their claims. And they will continue. There is no turning back for them, because this isn't about science. Evolutionists are trapped in their metaphysics which they would have to question if they acknowledged the science. It is an incredible example of the lies we tell ourselves.
Hunter-
ReplyDeleteBold! After all this, having answered nothing, you declare victory?
And you do so merely by restating your personal incredulity! Complex=not evolved. What genius!
I'd have liked some analysis of my comments time-stamped around 8:24, but if nothing else, answer this:
"Even Hunter concedes: “Clearly Darwin’s idea is mathematically tractable. That is, if fitness landscapes are relatively smooth and reasonably shaped, and if an initial population just happens to appear, and if biological variation just happens to arise and accumulate, and if populations do not resist such change, then of course species can evolve to new designs.”
This applies to molecular evolution as well as populations. So, are fitness landscapes all too rugged (no), is there no population (life) observed, is there no source of biological variation (mutation, recombination…), do all populations fail to adapt (no), or is evolution tractable (not to mention directly observed)."
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"Evolutionists argue every which way to avoid the obvious absudity of their claims. And they will continue. There is no turning back for them, because this isn't about science."
======
All you need do is actually look at one of their main stream Spiritual Leaders (Richard Dawkins) and observe how he has actually inspired and set the standard for defending this metaphysical belief:
Evolutionary A Spiritual Leader Sets the Standard & Tone for Church of Evolution Parishioners
Hey, it's Mr. Produce to man, (except that wasn't at all what we were talking about) Eocene. Googled mushroom bodies yet? I thought we wouldn't see you soon-but I guess you have no shame in your ignorance. Faith does wonderful things, I guess
ReplyDeletehttp://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-switches-than-internet.html?showComment=1290087844551#c5778686642399102360
RobertC:
ReplyDelete$$$
Bold! After all this, having answered nothing, you declare victory?
$$$
There is no victory here to declare. How can one declare victory over foolishness?
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"Hey, it's Mr. Produce to man, (except that wasn't at all what we were talking about) Eocene. Googled mushroom bodies yet? I thought we wouldn't see you soon-but I guess you have no shame in your ignorance. Faith does wonderful things, I guess"
=====
You never read my other response did you Genius ??? It's called illustrating an absurdity with another absurdity. Leave it to a materilaist not to get that. LOL
You sound really angry with every new post ???
nonobot said :
ReplyDelete=============================================
It's pretty amusing that Cornelius here gets so confused about what a paper with the title "On the origin and evolution of the synapse" is actually about. Indeed, he spends multiple paragraphs describing how an impulse is transmitted down a nerve cell, but then glosses over what actually happens at the synapse. He then demands that the authors provide a complete account of the evolution of a nerve. Of course, what good is a synapse without a nerve? That is exactly the question the authors address. But Cornelius is too wrapped up in his pet idea (accepted by precisely no one, except perhaps his mom, and for good reason) that basic evolutionary logic is metaphysical to get this. Here is the logic: There are two explanations for why two separate species share a similar gene: 1) Common ancestry (they inherited it from a common ancestor) 2) Separate ancestry (they obtained it separately through e.g. convergence or lateral gene transfer). Contrary to what Cornelius says, there are multiple methods of distinguishing 1) from 2) when looking for orthologues. So what's the problem? Cornelius thinks this logic is metaphysical because included in 2) are various religious notions about separate creation. But the fact is that these notions are not even considered by modern working scientists.
================================
Interesting, could you explain to us what are the methods to distinguish between common ancestry and convergence ?
RobertC:
ReplyDelete1) A quote from Dembski and Marks: "Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper."
http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf
That does not say that information increases.
RobertC:
So if mutation, and differential survival are active information that produce increased complexity and information in a simulation, what are they in nature?
The simulation is a targeted search. In nature there isn't any such thing- well according to the ToE there isn't any such thing."
RobertC:
Dodging the point. Dembski accidently concedes mutation +selection increases information. The context is irrelevant.
It's not dodging the point as the point is that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot produce CSI from scratch nor increase the amount of SI.
RobertC- the following:
ReplyDeleteMutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper.
does not say what you think it says.
ACTIVE information means a designer was required. The paper is dealing with the fact that the alleged evolutionary algorithms are actually nothing of the kind.
RobertC-
ReplyDeleteThe only way descent with modification would create/ produce a nested hierarchy is if and only if traits are unique and unreversed. What is also required is that there can be no interbreeding, which is what would occur if all the transitionals were still around.
And then there is the part about there not being any evidence for the alleged tree of life.
1- Evolution does not have a direction of unique and unreversed traits
2- Evolution does not predict all the transitionals will die off
david vun Kannon:
ReplyDeleteSo you don't accept the utility of paternity testing?
It works fine for the same species.
Gary said...
ReplyDeletePractically no one ever responds to thornton or RG.
No wonder.
That's because we present actual scientific data instead of the hand-waving bluster of morons like you, and you have no answers or explanations for actual data.
But you do have your cute little lap dog bark
yip yip yip yip!
...as you peek out from your hiding place, still scared spitless to actually engage those knowledgeable on the subject.
How's that disproof of evolution by equations from statistical mechanics coming along?
thorton:
ReplyDeleteThat's because we present actual scientific data
There isn't any scientific data that supports your position.
thorton:
as you peek out from your hiding place, still scared spitless to actually engage those knowledgeable on the subject.
That wouldn't be you as you have no knowledge whatsoever.
deadlock said...
ReplyDeleteInteresting, could you explain to us what are the methods to distinguish between common ancestry and convergence ?
It's done by examining the differences between the two specimens, not just looking at the similarities.
There are many cases where nature has produced superficially similar morphologies - streamlined fish and porpoises, for example. This happens because there are only a finite way to solve physics problems: how to move efficiently through water, how to create lift with a wing, etc. Even at the molecular level we sometimes find functional convergence, because nature happens to hit on the same solution to a problem twice. But when you get down to the details, you find different internal makeup, different overall DNA makeup, etc.
It's not the devil but the deciding scientific evidence that's in the details.
thorton:
ReplyDeleteIt's done by examining the differences between the two specimens, not just looking at the similarities.
That's the point. Your position cannot explain the differences with scientific data.
thorton:
There are many cases where nature has produced superficially similar morphologies - streamlined fish and porpoises, for example.
Begs the question- how do you know nature produced it?
It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:
ReplyDelete1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.
Joe There isn't any scientific data that supports your position.
ReplyDeleteJoe, there isn't any scientific data that supports YOUR position that the Grand Canyon wasn't designed.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteJoe, there isn't any scientific data that supports YOUR position that the Grand Canyon wasn't designed.
There isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point. No sign of counterflow.
That said I am not against the possibility that it was designed.
IOW Derick once again you prove that you are about as christian as mr hankey.
So why do you have to lie and mock your position? Do you think that is a good defense?
Another Joe G / ID guy tardgasm. This time he's spurting his stupidity over multiple threads. Oh well, business as usual
ReplyDeleteAs predicted the intellectual cowards show their true colors when pressed to support their position.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately thorton the stupidity is all yours- I see you are still upset that I keep exposing your ignorance.
Deal with it or better yet get an education.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteAnd so there you have it. When confronted with the synapse, neurons, action potentials, an army of molecular machines, and complexity that Darwin could never even have dreamt of, evolutionists remain resolute in their dogma.
On the contrary, biologists are still working out the entailments of the theory of evolution because those entailments keep raising new questions for research. The'll drop it in a minute if a theory with better entailments is proposed. The door is open, come on in.
Their theory is a fact, no question about it.
You keep saying that, but it is not correct. Scientists know the difference between the fact of evolution (a historical proposition supported by weight of evidence) and the theory of evolution, which has many empirical entailments.
Pedant:
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, biologists are still working out the entailments of the theory of evolution because those entailments keep raising new questions for research.
Which is good because the more they work on those entailments the better ID looks.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteDerick: Joe, there isn't any scientific data that supports YOUR position that the Grand Canyon wasn't designed.
There isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point.
Ha! Joe is one of those religious fundy people who thinks macro-erosion is just lots of accumulated micro-erosion.
Were you there Joe?? Did you see it macro-erode??
How can we test the premise that the Grand Canyon eroded in a place that never had one via an accumulation of geologic accidents?
I asked: 1. Which two of these three should be grouped closest together in your best fit nested hierarchy, and why?
ReplyDelete(a) 1 and 2
(b) 2 and 3
(c) 1 and 3
(d) None of the above, because you can't arrange iPods into best fit nested hierarchies because the designers are free to mix and match components and features, and in this case they did, making the creation a single objective best fit nested hierarchy impossible.
Neal: If #2 in your picture link is a Nano, then my choice would be "B".
#2 is, in fact, a nano, so I see you're changing your answer from a 'straightforward "A": (http://bit.ly/eSovXu) And now for the important part: "WHY?" For all I know, you picked "B", randomly, because I seriously don't think you compared features or 'traits'. I'm extremely curious as to why you grouped 2 and 3 together instead of 1 and 2, because:
1 and 2 both have built-in clips; 3 does not
1 and 2 both have a small aluminum form factors; 3 is shaped like an iPhone.
1 and 2 both have embedded OSs, 3 runs iOS
1 and 2 both have brightly colored cases; 3 does not
1 and 2 both charge in 3 hours, 3 takes 4 hours
1 and 2 both weigh less than an 3/4 of an ounce; 3 weighs over 3.5 ounces
1 and 2 both lack wifi; 3 does not
1 and 2 both lack bluetooth; 3 does not
1 and 2 both lack cameras; 3 does not
1 and 2 can't run third party apps from the app store; 3 can
1 and 2 both lack web browsers; 3 does not
1 and 2 both lack a gyroscope; 3 does not
1 and 2 both lack a built-in Nike + iPod connection; 3 does not
1 and 2 both lack built-in microphones; 3 does not.
1 and 2 both lack GPS receiver; 3 does not
1 and 2 both lack video chat capabilities; 3 does not
1 and 2 have a matte finish; 3 is glossy
So with that many features that 1 and 2 have in common, why in the world did you group 2 and 3 together?
Neal: The the point I'm making is that a nested hierarchy neither falsifies or confirms evolution.
ReplyDeleteNeal, this is going to be the first time I've accused you of lying. You're backtracking to save face. Your 'point' was that "The Apple IPOD product line is a good example of products that can be arranged in a best fit hierarchy."
Like I said, this discussion is independent of evolution. It pertains to whether or not iPods (and/or species) can be categorized into best fit nested hierarchies. Species can, iPods cannot. The reason iPods cannot is because their designers are unconstrained; they can mix and match features and components across lines, thus destroying the possibility of a single, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of features. Species can for the most part be grouped in best fit nested hierarchies, but the significance of that is apparently still up for debate.
Neal: Even you mention, quote, "for the most part" species can be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy. If common descent yields both nested and non nested, then showing a nested hiearchy can't be evidence for descent.
Common descent (To my knowledge, someone correct me if I'm wrong) does not posit non-nested hierarchies among populations that do not swap genetic material. The reason for the 'for the most part' and 'generally' qualifiers when discussing species is because species is not a well defined term to begin with. Sometimes organisms that are considered different species can interbreed. It's already been explained to you several times that interbreeding populations can't always be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy based on traits, just as you can't group iPod nano's into a SINGLE best fit nested hierarchy.
Neal, by my estimation, this is probably my 20th or so reply to you. Your original claim was that iPods can be categorized into a single, best fit nested hierarchy based on features. You have not yet even tried to substantiate that claim in any way by actually providing an example. Yet you still defend this claim. SImply provide your nested hierarchy. I'm trying to help you by providing illustrations for you to pick from. I'll try again:
Is this the correct one?
{iPod Touch {iPod shuffle {iPod nano, iPod Classic}}}
or is it this one?
{iPod shuffle {iPod nano {iPod classic, iPod Touch}}}
or this one?
{{iPod shuffle, iPod Touch}{iPod Classic, iPod nano}}
or none of the above?
Neal, please either produce an example to back your claim, or admit that iPods were an absurd example. (or alternately, just stop making a fool of yourself by continuing to make the claim without even trying to substantiate it in any way)
There isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point.
ReplyDeletethorton:
Joe is one of those religious fundy people who thinks macro-erosion is just lots of accumulated micro-erosion.
Except I am not religious and the Grand canyon could be accounted for by one event. We have evidence for such a thing.
And there still isn't any evidence that it was designed
Derick you are missing the point of nested hierarchies-
ReplyDeleteA family tree is not a nested hierarchy because there isn't any containment- different families intermingle meaning one person is a part of several different family trees.
That said universal common descent is allegedly one big family tree.
Also with organisms it all depends on what traits are picked, just as with IPODs.
Look Neal, you've got someone on your side! Oh, wait- it's Joe.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: A family tree is not a nested hierarchy because there isn't any containment- different families intermingle meaning one person is a part of several different family trees.
Exactly! Joe, It seems for once I agree with you 100%. The problem is no one here has ever said that a family tree of interbreeding individuals makes a best fit nested hierarchy based on traits. Pay attention.
Joe G: That said universal common descent is allegedly one big family tree.
With one HUGE difference: The tree of life illustration represents uncrossed lines of descent. This is an important concept, but a simple distinction. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand.
Joe G: Also with organisms it all depends on what traits are picked, just as with IPODs.
Joe, that's my point. The primary discussion that Neal and I are having is whether or not iPods can be categorized into a SINGLE, 'best fit' nested hierarchy based on a panoply of features. They can't. You can create several, completely different hierarchies depending on which traits you find more 'important'. Oddly enough though, most organisms, and vertebrates especially, are easily objectively categorized into groups like {fish {cat, dolphin}
And on an irrelevant side note, it's 'iPod', not 'IPOD'.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is no one here has ever said that a family tree of interbreeding individuals makes a best fit nested hierarchy based on traits.
The problem is evos have said it- but that isn't the point.
So the problem is you aren;'t paying attention.
UCD is a family tree.
Derick:
The tree of life illustration represents uncrossed lines of descent.
The theory doesn't predict uncrossed lines and there isn't any evidence for such a tree!
In order for descent with modification to form a nested hierarchy the defining characteristics must be unique and unreversed. We know evolution isn't like that. Also all transitionals must be eliminated so that there isn't any crossing of lines.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteOddly enough though, most organisms, and vertebrates especially, are easily objectively categorized into groups like {fish {cat, dolphin}
Right, we can do that because of a common design.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point.
thorton: Joe is one of those religious fundy people who thinks macro-erosion is just lots of accumulated micro-erosion.
Except I am not religious and the Grand canyon could be accounted for by one event. We have evidence for such a thing.
One designed event, just like we said.
And there still isn't any evidence that it was designed
All you have to do to falsify the canyon Design hypothesis is provide evidence that blind undirected geologic accidents can account for all the amazing geologic complexity we see.
There isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point. No sign of counterflow.
ReplyDeleteThat said I am not against the possibility that it was designed.
thorton:
One designed event, just like we said.
Yet there isn't any evidence for design.
thorton:
All you have to do to falsify the canyon Design hypothesis
You don't have such a hypothesis because you don't have any positive evidence for it.
But keep on being an imbecile we all understand that is your best shot.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteProv 26:11
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any evidence that it (the Grand Canyon) was designed. That's the point.
Well I keep hearing that your theory of geology is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.
IOW it appears your theory of geology cannot even muster a hypothesis that is exclusive. Not only that there still isn't any evidence that demonstrates the proposed mechanisms can construct a functional multi-part canyon system.
Are there any geotards like Joe G out there who are up to the task of producing a testable hypothesis for your position? One that excludes other alternatives?
Or is the best you can do is to attack Intelligent Canyon Design and all alternatives- IOW do you really think your negative attacks amount to positive evidence?
There isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point. No sign of counterflow.
ReplyDeleteThat said I am not against the possibility that it was designed.
thorton:
Well I keep hearing that your theory of geology...
You must be hearing things- there are doctors that can help you with that.
But nice evotardgasm- it really exposes your desperation.
It really must suck to be an evolutionist...
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any evidence that it (the Grand Canyon) was designed. That's the point.
Joe G,
Your position doesn't have any evidence.
However it appears the theory of geology is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided question:
How can we test the premise that the Grand Canyon evolved in a place that never had one via an accumulation of geologic accidents?
There isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point. No sign of counterflow.
ReplyDeleteThat said I am not against the possibility that it was designed.
But nice evotardgasm- it really exposes your desperation.
It really must suck to be an evolutionist...
thortard:
How can we test the premise that the Grand Canyon evolved in a place that never had one via an accumulation of geologic accidents?
Straw man- we don't know the initial conditions and it doesn't have to be via an accumulation of geologic accidents.
And even with that you don't have any evidence for your position.
However you are the best evidence taht humans evolved from lower animals.
Keep up the good work...
Neal, I hope you appreciate how much effort I'm putting into helping you prove your point; I've made one more chart to make things easier for your iPod classification. I've made 4 different possible iPod nested hierarchies, all I need you to do is tell me which one, if any, is the 'best fit', based on a panoply traits. (if the 'correct' one isn't listed, feel free to present it in your response. You do not have to draw a graph, a parenthetical list will suffice.) For reference, directly below it is a similar configuration of 4 different possible nested hierarchies of animals: A fish, dolphin, penguin, and cat. Perhaps you can tell me which one of those, if any, is the 'best fit' based on a panoply of traits.
ReplyDeleteAgain Neal, you claim that "the APPLE IPOD product line easily fits into a "singular", "best", nested hierachy." All I'm asking is that you simply provide that singular, best fit nested hierarchy, and explain why you grouped them that way. Since we decided to call each line a 'species' you only have to classify four things: shuffle, nano, classic, & touch. I'm even doing the grunt-work of providing options for you to pick from.
Again, I really don't think this is to much to ask, hope to hear from you soon.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any evidence that it (the Grand Canyon) was designed. That's the point.
Straw man- we don't know the initial conditions and it doesn't have to be via an accumulation of geologic accidents.
The observed levels of geologic specified complex information (GSCI), from top to bottom, scream of software control and therefore an intelligent design.
All you have to do to refute the canyon design inference is provide evidence that blind undirected geologic accidents can account for all the amazing geologic complexity we see.
Joe G, if you are so desperate to be heard, or be part of the discussion perhaps you should try forming a coherent argument for your position.
Derick:
ReplyDeleteFor reference, directly below it is a similar configuration of 4 different possible nested hierarchies of animals: A fish, dolphin, penguin, and cat. Perhaps you can tell me which one of those, if any, is the 'best fit' based on a panoply of traits.
In order for descent with modification to form a nested hierarchy the defining characteristics must be unique and unreversed. We know evolution isn't like that. Also all transitionals must be eliminated so that there isn't any crossing of lines.
There isn't any evidence that it was designed. That's the point. No sign of counterflow.
ReplyDeleteThat said I am not against the possibility that it was designed.
thorton:
The observed levels of geologic specified complex information (GSCI), from top to bottom, scream of software control and therefore an intelligent design.
Unfortunately for you there isn't any evidence for GSCI.
thorton:
All you have to do to refute the canyon design inference is provide evidence that blind undirected geologic accidents can account for all the amazing geologic complexity we see.
Can't refute what doesn't have any substance.
And that sums up your position very nicely- a total lack of substance.
But I am happy to see that you are still upset that I have exposed your ignorance.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for you there isn't any evidence for GSCI.
GCSI is geologic information of 500 bits or greater.
Why do you think your ignorance is a refutation?
Ya see Joe G you STILL don't have any evidence that blind, undirected geological processes can construct functional multi-part canyons with the observed high level of GCSI.
Joe: "In order for descent with modification to form a nested hierarchy the defining characteristics must be unique and unreversed. We know evolution isn't like that. Also all transitionals must be eliminated so that there isn't any crossing of lines."
ReplyDeleteJoe, I'm not talking about evolution. As you'll see at the bottom of the chart, no hereditary relationship is assumed. It is possible to classify animals into a nested hierarchy independent of evolution, based solely on traits, as Linnaeus, a creationist, showed. You keep throwing evolution into the mix; all I'm trying to demonstrate to Neal is that you can't group iPods into a best fit nested hierarchy, or "BFNH", based on a panoply of traits. For the purposes of this conversation, I don't really care if you can or can't group animals this way, or what implications that has regarding evolution; but you can't group iPods this way.