Example 1: Evolving a virus
In this study evolutionists investigated how proteins might have evolved. They attempted to demonstrate the evolution of a virus—a molecular machine consisting of several proteins—in the laboratory. To simplify the problem they started with all but a small part of the virus intact. They randomized the amino acid sequence of one part of one of the viral proteins, and they repeatedly evolved that randomized segment in hopes of reconstructing the entire virus.
What they discovered was that the evolutionary process could produce only tiny improvements to the virus’ ability to infect a host. Their evolved sequences showed no similarity to the native sequence which is supposed to have evolved. And the best virus they could produce, even with the vast majority of the virus already intact, was several orders of magnitude weaker than nature’s virus.
The reason their evolutionary process failed was that the search for better amino acid sequences, that would improve the virus’ ability to infect the host, became too difficult. A possible evolutionary explanation for these disappointing results is that in such a limited laboratory study, the evolutionists were simply unable to reproduce what the vast resources of nature could produce. Perhaps in the course of time evolution could evolve what the evolutionists could not do in the laboratory.
But the results refuted even this fall back explanation. In fact, the evolutionists would not merely need an expanded study with more time in the laboratory, they would need more time than evolution ever had—many times over. The number of experiments they would need to conduct in order to have any hope of evolving a virus that rivals nature’s version is difficult to compute. But it is at least 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros).
And yet, there it is. This relatively short sequence of amino acids exists as part of of the virus, with its fantastically high infection capabilities. And of course this is not merely a problem for a part of one protein, in one virus. It is a problem for all life, for proteins are crucial molecular machines throughout biology.
Did the evolutionists conclude that proteins did not evolve? Did they suggest their findings are a problem for evolution? Did they even do so little as discuss the possibility that this one particular protein they studied may not have evolved?
No. There is not even a hint from the evolutionists there is a problem. In fact, the results are, in typical fashion, interpreted according to evolution. As usual, the evolutionists simply explained that evolution must have, somehow, solved the problem:
Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination.
But other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination, do not help. Homologous recombination, or any other mechanism that evolutionists can imagine, does not provide some ingenious end around the problem. Evolution cannot somehow brilliantly find the one in 10^70 long shot. The evolutionists rosy report is not data-driven, but theory-driven.
Example 2: Evolving a simple function
In this study evolutionists attempted to evolve a protein that binds to a simple, common chemical group. This function is so simple even random polypeptides sometimes have slight binding affinities. Using their laboratory process the evolutionists were able to evolve minor improvements to a random polypeptide’s binding affinity. But these small binding levels are hardly detectable. So not only is the function trivial (in order to improve fitness a protein needs to do more than merely bind to a chemical), but the levels observed are likely too small to make a difference anyway.
As with Example 1 the evolved amino acid sequences showed no similarity to nature’s sequences and when the evolutionists tried using a larger number of trials there was no sign of improved results.
Despite these feeble results the evolutionists made remarkable conclusions:
The ease of the functional development within a small sequence variety implies that enzyme evolution is prompted even within a small population of random polypeptides. … These results mark the implementation of Darwinian evolution in the system.
There is no comparison between the evolution of an enzyme and their polypeptides with minor binding affinities. And there certainly was no Darwinian evolution demonstrated in their results, for such evolution requires tangible fitness improvements which can be selected. It was good research work, but the interpretation was according to evolution.
Example 3: New genes
This example deals with new genes. When a gene is found in a large number of species, evolutionists assume it came from the common ancestor of those species, which would date far back into evolutionary history. But when a gene is found in only one or a few species, evolutionists must conclude it arose in the common ancestor of only those few species, and therefore more recently.
But how can a new gene arise so quickly? Genes that code for proteins are difficult to evolve in any case (see here and here), but the problem is accentuated when the time frame is shortened.
How a gene could have evolved is not the only problem with new genes. Such new genes, however they were supposed to have evolved, were expected to be less important. But in this study evolutionists noticed this wasn’t so.
The evolutionists compared what they assume to be new and old genes, and found no statistical difference in the importance of their functions. Knockout a new gene, and you are just as likely to kill the organism as when you knockout an old gene. In fact, the proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every assumed evolutionary age group they examined.
But once again, evolutionists do not hesitate in fitting awkward results into their framework. “These data,” the evolutionists deftly concluded, “suggest that new genes frequently and rapidly evolve essential functions and participate in development.”
In fact, outside of evolutionary theory, there is no reason to think these genes are any newer than other genes. And inside of evolutionary theory there is no scientific explanation of how proteins arise in the first place. Evolutionists are hardly in a position to assert that these data, or any other data for that matter, suggest new genes frequently and rapidly evolve, period. With little more than a bare assertion the evolutionists convert yet another unexpected finding into an evolutionary proclamation.
Evolutionists are bound to the preconceived notion that evolution must be a fact. It drives their thinking in spite of the scientific evidence, and they interpret any and all evidence in this light. It may sound crazy, but it is the theory that informs the evidence, rather than the evidence that informs the theory.
Thanks one again for the work you do Dr. Hunter:
ReplyDeleteI find the last study particularly revealing.
ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent - Paul Nelson - video
http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
A recent review in Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, by Romero and Arnold:
ReplyDeleteExploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997618/
wipes the floor with this post.
Enjoy!
Institutional conformity can be seen in other endeavors as well. The military is one glaring example. People will literally line up and risk getting shot following authority. Evolutionists must make the sort of decision, are the consequences of conformity more beneficial than not? Those in authority control the consequences. We need to understand how the scientific elite functions to alter their behavior if the truth of evolution will ever be taught. The question of evolution after all is not scientific, but religious as your detractors prove everyday. Blogs are important, but real political pressure needs to be used.
ReplyDelete.
Cornelius Hunter: Example 1: Evolving a virus
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: What they discovered was that the evolutionary process could produce only tiny improvements to the virus’ ability to infect a host.
The function increased by orders of magnitude.
Cornelius Hunter: Their evolved sequences showed no similarity to the native sequence which is supposed to have evolved.
Well, no. Previous work has already shown that the fitness landscape can be quite rugged, and that there may be multiple paths to a given function. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the fitness landscape.
Cornelius Hunter: But other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination, do not help.
Of course they do. It's easy to show that evolutionary algorithms that include recombination are much more powerful than evolutionary algorithms using point-mutation alone.
Cornelius Hunter: Example 2: Evolving a simple function
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: In this study evolutionists attempted to evolve a protein that binds to a simple, common chemical group.
It was also a hydrolase, one of the primary enzymatic functions.
Cornelius Hunter: This function is so simple even random polypeptides sometimes have slight binding affinities.
Nearly all enzymatic activity is comprised of 'simple' binding, splitting or joining.
Cornelius Hunter: Example 3: New genes
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: When a gene is found in a large number of species, evolutionists assume it came from the common ancestor of those species, which would date far back into evolutionary history.
Having already established the nested hierarchy, we can then make predictions concerning relationships about particular genes. These predictions can then be tested against other evidence.
Cornelius Hunter: But when a gene is found in only one or a few species, evolutionists must conclude it arose in the common ancestor of only those few species, and therefore more recently.
If it evolved more recently, then those "few species" will be likely be closely related.
Cornelius Hunter: The evolutionists compared what they assume to be new and old genes, and found no statistical difference in the importance of their functions.
That's not correct. They found that new genes caused problems *later* in development than old genes. This is consistent with diversification from a common ancestor with newer genes responsible for the differences among more closely related taxa.
excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal stage and also found in the larval stages.
ReplyDeleteAge doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThey have constructed a theory of your motivations and actions, and as they gather the evidence they interpret it according to their theory.
I'm eagerly awaiting the day when a lawyer can use the "an unidentified designer did it" argument when defending his/her client. The judge presiding over the case would immediately proclaim: "well, yes. This alternative hypothesis is possible. Any claim otherwise is pure metaphysics. Case dismissed".
bornagain77: Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
ReplyDeleteFrom the same cite: Intriguingly, in the new study, deleting many of the new genes causes flies to die during middle or late stages of development, while older genes were lethal during early development. So while ancient genes essential for the early steps of development are shared, newer genes unique to each species may take over the later developmental stages that make each species unique. For example, many new genes in the study were found to be involved with metamorphosis, the mid-life stage that drastically transforms the body plan in animals.
In other words, the results are consistent with diversification from common ancestors.
It is much more likely that a gene has been eliminated than a gene has been formed. Why don't they simply take the 'missing gene' and add it to the one missing it. Wouldn't it be interesting if the addition caused the species with the one gene to now act like one of the species with both?
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: Example 1: Evolving a virus
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: What they discovered was that the evolutionary process could produce only tiny improvements to the virus’ ability to infect a host.
Zachriel:The function increased by orders of magnitude.
So, let's see: The function starts out at zero. I.e., 0. Then it becomes 0.000001 of the native function. Then it becomes 0.00001. Then it becomes 0.0001. What do you know: an increase in function of two orders of magnitude!!
Zachriel, you're being simplistic here.
Cornelius Hunter: Their evolved sequences showed no similarity to the native sequence which is supposed to have evolved.
ReplyDeleteZachrielWell, no. Previous work has already shown that the fitness landscape can be quite rugged, and that there may be multiple paths to a given function. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the fitness landscape.
And, of course, the most that happened was substitution of 3 a.a.s.
We've been down this road before. What "evolution" did is basically trivial. What it needs to do is insurmountable---your vaunted "evolution" needs to be assisted by a library of size 10^70; that is, 10^70 different sequences derived through an error-prone PCR process (basically a random sequence generator). Tell me, Zachriel, how do you propose to "build" this size library? What resources would you use exactly? Remember that in the experiment the most they could generate was a library of 10^13. So, now, if only you could do that 10^57 times, "evolution" will be at your fingertips.
Cornelius Hunter: But other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination, do not help.
ZachrielOf course they do. It's easy to show that evolutionary algorithms that include recombination are much more powerful than evolutionary algorithms using point-mutation alone.
You've used this line before. In silica experiments may or may not be realistic, by definition. And "much more powerful" is a relative term, as in: "a water pistol is a much more powerful ejector of water than a mouth-blown straw." But you're not going to kill a grizzly bear with it, are you?
January 10, 2011 6:18 AM
I like the police analogy given that, unfortunately, they often do things in that exact way no matter how foolish and a lot of innocent persons end up in jail while the true culprit laughs it all off; And of course Darwinian dupes always do this!
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary theory is truly the modern Alchemy.
Circular reasoning is their most visible fallacy but seeing they accept circular reasoning as "correct reasoning" they eventually equivocate the fallacy with the correct reason process!
Once that occurs they are almost beyond hope of remedy since acute cognitive dissonance short circuits their brains ability to distinguish circular reasoning from correct reasoning. The 2 are henceforth conflated.
Thereafter, as we witness here with every new post, they chase their tails and go round and around the mulberry bush; interpreting the data by the theory instead of the judging the theory by the data. They go on endlessly begging the question, and never awaken to the flaws involved. Flaws that are glaring to any unprejudiced party.
Darwinian "thought" creates a cognitive illness, as Hoyle astutely stated.
And sadly, as Zachriel, and so many other Darwinian fundamentalist dupes show us here every day, as above.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteImagine that you have been falsely accused of a crime.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
It's likely your analogy sums up your position on evolution quite nicely.
For example, it starts out supposing to know the accusation was false. And it does so by appealing to a source (the accused) which bypasses need to interpret evidence. It also points to the emotional outrage of those who supposedly know the accused is innocent. (Of course it would seem "crazy" from their perspective due to the knowledge they possess.)
Furthermore, it suggests we should make an exception to how we interpret evidence due to knowledge obtained without the need to do just that: interpret evidence.
Last, it assumes bias against this source (the accused) which is the means by which the bypass occurred.
However, when we attempt to apply this analogy to evolutionary theory there is one significant problem. We need a way to bypass the need to interpret evidence. But this doesn't exist as science is limited by the problem of induction. Right?
Or, in presenting this particular analogy, does this mean you do think there is a solution to the problem of induction? If so, what is it?
lino235: The function starts out at zero.
ReplyDeleteThe initial defective phage showed limited infectivity, then increased in function by 17000-fold.
lino235: you're being simplistic here.
Rather, you have an erroneous view of how evolution works, and the meaning of fitness.
In regione caecorum rex est luscus. — Erasmus
lino235: What "evolution" did is basically trivial.
ReplyDeleteInfectivity is not trivial to the virus — or to the host.
lino235: Remember that in the experiment the most they could generate was a library of 10^13. So, now, if only you could do that 10^57 times, "evolution" will be at your fingertips.
There was evolution using the 10^13 library.
Zachriel: It's easy to show that evolutionary algorithms that include recombination are much more powerful than evolutionary algorithms using point-mutation alone.
lino235: In silica experiments may or may not be realistic, by definition.
The claim concerns the general evolutionary process, and is true whether or not it applies specifically to biological evolution. That would depend on whether recombination occurs in nature. It does.
lino235: And "much more powerful" is a relative term, as in: "a water pistol is a much more powerful ejector of water than a mouth-blown straw." But you're not going to kill a grizzly bear with it, are you?
The problem with evolution by point-mutation alone is that it tends to become stuck on a local fitness peak. If we start the process from a different point on the landscape, it may find a different local peak. If we have many trials, starting at different points, we can explore more of then landscape, but many peaks may still remain outside a reasonable search. Recombination avoids this problem and can harness intrinsic structure in landscapes to find global or near global fitness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNew genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164016
This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show 'exceedingly rare' beneficial morphological changes from mutations to the DNA code.
ReplyDeleteThe Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer
"Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
This following video and article are much more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned:
Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4798685
Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion
Meyer: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text."
ReplyDeleteNot true. Selection acts on expressed characteristics (phenotypes), that give some individuals advantages that others don't have. The difference might be due, ultimately, to a genetic difference, but evolution is blind to such.
Meyer: "Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine."
Of course. The phenotype is a combination of several factors, including genes and environment. Are you sure that "neo-Darwinists" did not know that?
Meyer: "Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan."
Wrong, that DNA might not be "wholly" responsible for morphogenesis does not mean that mutations cannot result in a new body plan. It only means that it is very hard to predict which mutations, and how, will result in new body plans.
Meyer: "Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
Sure, start with straw-men, follow up with non-sequiturs, and conclude whatever you want Meyer. Add "Cambrian Explosion" for dramatic effect, please.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletebornagain77: "Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism"
ReplyDeleteReductionism is an approach of work. The idea is that you might be able to understand a whole by studying the parts. This is not always true because of the possibility for emerging properties, which are frequent in biological systems. Epigenetics does not falsify anything. It just adds insight as to why reductionism alone might not help us completely understand how life and evolution work.
The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.”
http://www.scitopics.com/The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle.html
Dr. Don Johnson explains the difference between Shannon Information and Prescriptive Information, as well as explaining 'the cybernetic cut', in this following Podcast:
Programming of Life - Dr. Donald Johnson interviewed by Casey Luskin - audio podcast
http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/11/programming_of_life.html
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video
ReplyDeletehttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00
This is the falsification of ‘reductive materialism”:
ReplyDeleteThe Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html
Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
This is the falsification of non-reductive materialism:
ReplyDeleteDr. Bruce Gordon – The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking irrational arguments – October 2010
Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
This is the falsification of non-reductive materialism:
ReplyDeleteDr. Bruce Gordon – The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking irrational arguments – October 2010
Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Proof That God Exists – easy to use interactive website
ReplyDeletehttp://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html
bornagain77,
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight. I show you that citations to cdesign proponentsists are useless except to show that they misrepresent science, and your answer is more of those citations?
If you paid attention, the answers I gave you should give you a clue. It is up to you to detect the problems with the rest. A few very short points: I don't have any reason to define information to a creationist liking, nor do I have any reason to trust their biased, quote-mined, cherry-picked "data." I know little about cosmology and quantum mechanics. But given how easily I spot misrepresentations in the things I do know, I see no reason to trust a creationists/cdesign proponentsists on things I don't know. I am pretty sure that those who do know about cosmology and quantum mechanics can spot the misrepresentations there.
Have a good week.
Believe what lie you want you will anyway
ReplyDeleteSo Cornelius, I assume you must be busy preparing three comments for peer-review at the moment - or is a blog a sufficiently rigorous forum, do you think?
ReplyDeleteHi guys.
ReplyDeleteIt is sort of really fascinating that this sort of discussions is going on and going on and going on while going nowhere.
I just explained my own kids a couple of days ago why religion, evolution, creationism, and real science go very well with one another. There is not contradition and there is no having to choose one and reecting the other. It was so easy for them to understand that they looked at me like I must be stupid that this needs to be explained since it is a no-brainer. So, what I wonder is if kids can understand this as somethng naturally, why do adults have trouble with it?
Sorry, this might sound sort of provocing for some I imagine. However, I think the world would be a much friendlier and better place if those people who make a big fuzz out of it would manage to realize that Religion and Science are two completely different things and that each of them has a different very valuable function, that they can exist next to one another without the the other one suffers any losses and that by realizing this, people will gain a tremendeous amount of freedom of thought, freedom of curiosity, freedom ot be open for new things, an unquestioned solid ground to stand on, and many other great things that will greatly increase the quality of live.
Well, the backdraw is unfortunately that then relition can no longer be misused as a tool of power nor can science - instead, both become ultimate source of pleasure and serve the natural needs of our minds and much more.
Everybody who thinks now: "What is she talking about?": stop stinking complicated. It is so easy that no complicated words are needed for that one - other than: think about it, open your eyes, and you will see.
Zach:"The problem with evolution by point-mutation alone is that it tends to become stuck on a local fitness peak. If we start the process from a different point on the landscape, it may find a different local peak. If we have many trials, starting at different points, we can explore more of then landscape, but many peaks may still remain outside a reasonable search. Recombination avoids this problem and can harness intrinsic structure in landscapes to find global or near global fitness"
ReplyDeleteOk. but recombination is a complez mechanism, not just an alleatory one. How do you reach recombination without recombination?
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteInfectivity is not trivial to the virus — or to the host.
This forms the basis of our disagreement.
From what I can see of the experiment, they took random sequences and looked to see what the phage could do with these sequences. From what the authors report, it appears that with all of these sequences, they ended up with new sequences differing mostly at one a.a., with some differing at up to 3 a.a. When they compared one sequence that reached, per their logarithmic scale, 52% infectivity and then compared the sequences, there was no similarity whatsoever.
These are meager, almost inconsequential developments, comparable to the 2 to 3 a.a. ability of putative natural selection to change an organism's genome as Behe determines in his Edge of Evolution, and as becomes apparent in his latest article in QRB.
If you take two data points: (1) a man jumps over a two-foot tall bench, (2) a man jumps over a bar six feet in the air, and then extrapolate, you'll have him "able to leap tall buildings in single bound" before you know it.
The results are unimpressive. They confirm what we already know: organisms have the ability to adapt to environments.
If someone is not wedded to Darwinian orthodoxy, I think the unimpressive nature of these results is obvious. Again, this is Dr. Hunter's main point in all of this.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteNot true. Selection acts on expressed characteristics (phenotypes), that give some individuals advantages that others don't have. The difference might be due, ultimately, to a genetic difference, but evolution is blind to such.
Speaking of phenotypes, within animals the same DNA results in very different types of cells; that is, they have different, let us say, 'phenotypes'. Is recombination and mutations the cause of these? Of course not. So how did this come about? Can we say, as in standard Darwinian thought, that this variety of 'phenotypes' is the result of competition? Where was selection in all of this?
Wrong, that DNA might not be "wholly" responsible for morphogenesis does not mean that mutations cannot result in a new body plan. It only means that it is very hard to predict which mutations, and how, will result in new body plans.
There hasn't been the emergence of a new body plan since the Cambrian Period over 550 mya. Isn't that long enough for mutations/recombination/natural selection to come up with something new?
Interesting. When evolutionists do more than shoehorn a mountain of data into their theory using all manner of subjective interpretation, they run to the edge of evolution.
ReplyDeleteIf new genes are said to evolve rapidly, and independent evolution is frequent, what basis do evolutionists have in saying that common genes are due to descent? Why not believe the shared genes evolved independently over and over again? Their criteria for building a phylogenetic tree based on parsimony and shared traits is suspect. Again, they are trying to have it both ways.
For example, their theorized phylogenetic tree (based on the above criteria) for the sea squirt was a complete failure.
Like the man who spent 30 years in prison because of evidence that shoehorned him into the crime scene, but was later vindicated by DNA evidence. This man even had witnesses that said he did it! These witnesses were just as certain as evolutionists are today of their interpretation!
DNA will prove to be the demise of evolutionists. The theory of common descent will be relegated to the section of textbooks dealing with predicting the future based on interpreting bird poop.
Blas: Ok. but recombination is a complez mechanism, not just an alleatory one. How do you reach recombination without recombination?
ReplyDeleteRecombination is the primitive condition. A complex mechanism is required to minimize errors during replication and to limit horizontal transfer.
Hahaha, another blow for Cornelius and his creationist fans:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106145311.htm
Neal Tedford: If new genes are said to evolve rapidly, and independent evolution is frequent, what basis do evolutionists have in saying that common genes are due to descent?
ReplyDeleteRemember! Nested hierarchy.
Neal Tedford: Why not believe the shared genes evolved independently over and over again?
Convergence can occur, but there is usually evidence of the history supporting the nested hierarchy. Genetics are particulate, so you have to account for that, as well, but it doesn't preclude best fit phylogeny in most cases.
Neal Tedford: Like the man who spent 30 years in prison because of evidence that shoehorned him into the crime scene, but was later vindicated by DNA evidence. This man even had witnesses that said he did it! These witnesses were just as certain as evolutionists are today of their interpretation!
Irony of ironies. You appeal to DNA evidence to vindicate the man, the same DNA evidence that reveals the relationships between organisms.
Neal Tedford: DNA will prove to be the demise of evolutionists. The theory of common descent will be relegated to the section of textbooks dealing with predicting the future based on interpreting bird poop.
Which brings to mind, did you ever support your posited objective, best fit iPod taxonomy?
Hello lino235,
ReplyDeleteI hope you are not missing the point of my answers: Meyer misrepresented what evolution is and does. That is plainly clear, and your points don't change that, not even one little bit.
As for your points:
Speaking of phenotypes, within animals the same DNA results in very different types of cells; that is, they have different, let us say, 'phenotypes'. Is recombination and mutations the cause of these? Of course not. So how did this come about? Can we say, as in standard Darwinian thought, that this variety of 'phenotypes' is the result of competition? Where was selection in all of this?
I don't see the relevance of mistaking the process of development with evolution.
There hasn't been the emergence of a new body plan since the Cambrian Period over 550 mya. Isn't that long enough for mutations/recombination/natural selection to come up with something new?
I guess you have a problem defining "body plan." However, if what you said were true (again, it might be, depending on your definition of "body plan"), then what was S. Meyer complaining about?
(On the other hand, you might have the wrong idea about what evolved during the Cambrian.)
Have a good week.
Zachriel: Infectivity is not trivial to the virus — or to the host.
ReplyDeletelino235: This forms the basis of our disagreement.
Rather odd to disagree on that point. From a biological standpoint, if you produce 17000 more children than your competitors, then your descendents will overwhelm the population.
lino235: From what the authors report, it appears that with all of these sequences, they ended up with new sequences differing mostly at one a.a., with some differing at up to 3 a.a.
Hayashi et al., Time Series of Fitness and Amino Acid Sequence
http://tinyurl.com/6kz7acn
lino235: When they compared one sequence that reached, per their logarithmic scale, 52% infectivity and then compared the sequences, there was no similarity whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean no similarity to the native strain? That is correct. So? There are apparently many possible sequences that are functional.
lino235: The results are unimpressive. They confirm what we already know: organisms have the ability to adapt to environments.
The experiment didn't mean to demonstrate the ability for phage to jump over the moon. And yes, it showed that viruses can *evolve* to adapt to their environments. The experiment was designed to explore the foot of the fitness slope.
lino235: So how did this come about? Can we say, as in standard Darwinian thought, that this variety of 'phenotypes' is the result of competition? Where was selection in all of this?
ReplyDeleteThere are still open questions about the origin of metazoa, but cooperation is a powerful adaptation which is found even in bacteria.
lino235: There hasn't been the emergence of a new body plan since the Cambrian Period over 550 mya.
Because humans are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end. You know, microevolution.
In regard to phenotype and genotype. Different cells within a body might have different functions and morphologies. However, they do not have different phenotypes. This is calles specification. this is due to that different genes are turned on/off. The mechanisms behind this is highly comples and it would take a whole book to cover it all that we know about this.
ReplyDeleteWe speak of different phenotypes if a whole organism is morphological or functional different from another one that has the same genomic setup (same genes). This as well is highly complex and it would take another book to cover everything that we know about that. Many species have mechanism that lead to different phenotypes and it is in many cases possible to "controle" a specific phenotypic change/development within a lab. That can be nutritional, temperature, and many other things.
Then, in regard to macro/microevolution. Current investigations show that a advanterous change of the genome is not (always) dependent on a accumulation of many small changes. There are examples where small changes lead to great changes. Also, there are parts of the genome that are more prone to mutations than others. With this, changes of the genome (mutations) happen more likely in some parts than in others. With this, the whole math behind calculating the likelyhood of changes within the genome due to mutations/recombinations and others is simple false.
There are so many fascinating things that are currently under investigation and most of them actually point toward finding an explanation why and how the "seemingly impossible" is actually pretty reasonable and not a surprise. I am sorry...:)
Neal Tedford: DNA will prove to be the demise of evolutionists. The theory of common descent will be relegated to the section of textbooks dealing with predicting the future based on interpreting bird poop.
ReplyDelete1860: The
1880: theory
1900: of
1920: evolution
1940: will
1960: fall
1980: any
2000: day
2020: now...
Zachriel, DNA is forcing evolutionists to make up more stories to give it cover for its failed predictions.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the little sea squirt? What happened to your phylogenetic tree? A theory that fails to make accurate predictions is worthless. Your nested hierarchy criteria failed to accurately define the sea squirt. What happens to your "objective" nested hierarchy for the sea squirt?
Neal Tedford: A theory that fails to make accurate predictions is worthless.
ReplyDeleteNeal, what about theories that fail to make any predictions?
Neal Tedford: For example, their theorized phylogenetic tree (based on the above criteria) for the sea squirt was a complete failure.
ReplyDeleteCan you provide a reference for this?
Oh come one. The phylogenetic tree changes faster than any printer can print out the current one. Is this alone evidence that evolutions is false? I don't think so. It is evidence for that scientist are doing their job. They change their minds if new evidence is found that shows that whatever they thought was currect is no longer valid. And there are things that we don't know (yet). Well, this exactly is the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists change their mind according to knew findings and they admit if there is something that they don't know, chreationists don't. This is why chreationism is a Religion in contrast to Science which is NOT.
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford: What about the little sea squirt?
ReplyDeleteThere is tentative evidence of a hybridization event during its evolution.
Neal Tedford: What happened to your phylogenetic tree?
The phylogenetic tree has always had exceptions. Darwin devoted an entire chapter of Origin of Species to hybridization.
Neal Tedford: A theory that fails to make accurate predictions is worthless.
There is a strong correlation to the nested hierarchy. Do you understand what is meant by a correlation? Does the Earth follow an elliptic orbit about the Sun?
Neal Tedford: For example, their theorized phylogenetic tree (based on the above criteria) for the sea squirt was a complete failure.
ReplyDeleteDerick Childress: Can you provide a reference for this?
Syvanen & Ducore, Whole genome comparisons reveals a possible chimeric origin for a major metazoan assemblage. J. Biol. Systems 2010.
emil, sure scientists change their mind, but this kind of a reply is typically used by evolutionists when they don't have a good story as to why their prediction failed.
ReplyDeleteSomehow evolutionists are never able to link the failed predictions to actually questioning whether evolution itself is a failed hypothesis.
Zachriel, the placement of the sea squirt originally and the genetic sequencing did not fit. Criteria for building phylogenetic trees and cladograms failed.
Neal Tedford: Criteria for building phylogenetic trees and cladograms failed.
ReplyDeleteTry responding to the points raised. The nested hierarchy has never been predicted to be perfect. Darwin devoted an entire chapter of Origin of Species to hybridization.
Hi Neal,
ReplyDeleteWhat about the little sea squirt? What happened to your phylogenetic tree?
So, failing to notice, when data was not available to notice, that some organisms are the result of associations and/or hybridizations makes evolution false? That not every organism will trace back thus to a single lineage (but two instead) makes evolution false?
A theory that fails to make accurate predictions is worthless.
Do you mean to say that if I can't predict 100% of species to be traceable to single ancestries then the theory is worthless? I guess then that the theories that help make your computer work are worthless despite they, well, help design computers that work. After all, they don't predict which, nor how many circuits will make a mistake with 100% accuracy.
Your nested hierarchy criteria failed to accurately define the sea squirt. What happens to your "objective" nested hierarchy for the sea squirt?
I don't see how if we have a proper explanation of how this happened then evolution is false. Can you find the logical path from evolutionary theory to "no organisms are allowed to be the result of hybridizations." Just remember that creationist propaganda and straw-men are not evolutionary theory.
Somehow evolutionists are never able to link the failed predictions to actually questioning whether evolution itself is a failed hypothesis.
Those are not predictions from evolutionary theory, but hypotheses made by people working, often not even in evolution, to know whether a process runs one way or another. When those particular scientists thought it would go one way, Cornelius pretends that such was a prediction of evolution (but somehow he fails to show how exactly those are predictions of evolution, rather than hypotheses of particular scientists about something somewhat related to evolution), then, if the scientists found the opposite, Cornelius triumphantly claims that thus evolution is false.
Bravo Dr Hunter!!! You are a beacon of light among the smoke and mirrors of evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless
hardy said: "Bravo Dr Hunter!!! You are a beacon of light among the smoke and mirrors of evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless"
One thing that I love about this blog is that I have no idea whether that comment was meant sarcastically or not.
Derick Childress said...
ReplyDeletehardy said: "Bravo Dr Hunter!!! You are a beacon of light among the smoke and mirrors of evolutionists.
God Bless"
One thing that I love about this blog is that I have no idea whether that comment was meant sarcastically or not.
Poe's Law:
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
Zachriel said, "The nested hierarchy has never been predicted to be perfect."
ReplyDeleteThe sea squirt fit nicely into your "objective" nested hierarchy, until it didn't. Your selection criteria for putting the sea squirt into it's "objective" classification was flawed and it failed. Your "objective" organizational structure is a human construct built in the imaginations of evolutionists based on selection criteria that has proved to be suspect.
So much for the "objective" Nested Hierarchy.
Next question to Derick: Is the Sea Squirt classified as a Chordate. Why?
Neal Tedford: So much for the "objective" Nested Hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteSo Neal, sea squirts don't fit into an objective nested hierarchy, but iPods do? Is that correct?
Neal Tedford: Next question to Derick: Is the Sea Squirt classified as a Chordate. Why?
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is that I'm not an expert on sea squirts, so I'm still researching this. As a general principle, I refrain from commenting on things I know little about. It's a good policy; I recommend you try it out some time.
Neal Tedford: Criteria for building phylogenetic trees and cladograms failed.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: Try responding to the points raised. The nested hierarchy has never been predicted to be perfect. Darwin devoted an entire chapter of Origin of Species to hybridization.
Neal Tedford: Your selection criteria for putting the sea squirt into it's "objective" classification was flawed and it failed.
Are you refusing to address the point, or don't you understand the point raised?
Did you know that the human genome includes what are apparently fragments of viruses?
Does the planet Uranus follow an elliptical orbit about the Sun?
Neal,
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, sea squirts are in the phylum Chordata because their larval form, a swimming thing with bilateral symmetry, has a notochord.
But somehow I doubt you really care about sea squirts. So, how do problems for a universal tree, such as horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, and hybridization, change the fact that life forms evolve from previous life forms, and that, thus, we share ancestry with chimps and bonobos, among many other organisms? How do any horizontal heritage acquired at different stages in our evolution, like the inserted viruses mentioned by Zachriel, help you in whatever you do care about? (I don't know what you think, so I rather not venture a bad guess--What do you think? God-did-it? Flat Earth? 6000 year old Earth? Billions-of-years-old-Earth? Evolution-guided-by-some-god? Some combination of the above? Is it OK for you to tell?).
(There were other characteristics besides the notochord, but I have forgotten. I learned these things too long ago.)
ReplyDeleteAll the following per Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteZachriel: Infectivity is not trivial to the virus — or to the host.
lino235: This forms the basis of our disagreement.
Zachriel: Rather odd to disagree on that point. From a biological standpoint, if you produce 17000 more children than your competitors, then your descendents will overwhelm the population.
But not if it has to compete with someone who can produce a million. (I.e., the native strain) And 1.7 x 10^4 x 0.00000001 isn't much.
I'm having to post this response piece-by-piece. I've been trying to post it for three days now. What fun!
ReplyDeleteHere goes:
lino235: From what the authors report, it appears that with all of these sequences, they ended up with new sequences differing mostly at one a.a., with some differing at up to 3 a.a.
Zachriel: Hayashi et al., Time Series of Fitness and Amino Acid Sequence
http://tinyurl.com/6kz7acn
You understand, of course, that this experiment is an experiment of basically artificial selection, and only minimally is it of natural selection. It was the experimenters who decided what would be cloned in each subsequent generation. They were breeders, basically. NS only notched up the intervening generations. And, of course, each of these "generations", IIRC, had "libraries" of PCR induced sequences added to them. We're dealing with huge numbers of replications, and a relatively small string of a.a.s.
lino235: When they compared one sequence that reached, per their logarithmic scale, 52% infectivity and then compared the sequences, there was no similarity whatsoever.
Zachriel: Do you mean no similarity to the native strain? That is correct. So? There are apparently many possible sequences that are functional.
There are apparently many possible sequence that are minimally functional.
This is the third of probably five posts:
ReplyDeletelino235: The results are unimpressive. They confirm what we already know: organisms have the ability to adapt to environments.
Zachriel: The experiment didn't mean to demonstrate the ability for phage to jump over the moon. And yes, it showed that viruses can *evolve* to adapt to their environments. The experiment was designed to explore the foot of the fitness slope.
That's your take on it, but this is how the authors conclude their abstract:
Based on the landscapes of these two different surfaces, it appears possible for adaptive walks with only random substitutions to climb with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape from any primordial or random sequence, whereas an enormous range of sequence diversity is required to climb further up the rugged surface above the middle region.
The last part (hopefully--the last effort got me the response that I don't own my username):
ReplyDeletelino235: So how did this come about? Can we say, as in standard Darwinian thought, that this variety of 'phenotypes' is the result of competition? Where was selection in all of this?
Zachriel: There are still open questions about the origin of metazoa, but cooperation is a powerful adaptation which is found even in bacteria.
So competition is how NS is supposed to work, but we’ll insist on cooperation if need be. Is that how it works? Notice, though, that the bacteria that ‘cooperate’ don’t have the exact same genome, whereas the genome is exactly the same for all of these different cell types.
lino235: There hasn't been the emergence of a new body plan since the Cambrian Period over 550 mya.
Zachriel: Because humans are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end. You know, microevolution.
Well, of course, a soapbox racer and a Porsche share a similar ‘body plan’. Let’s not confuse complexity with body plan. And you’re using the assumption THAT evolution, and only evolution, could produce higher organisms--which is what is at odds, to then form the basis of your attempt to prove that evolution is therefore not trivial. You can’t have it both ways.
lino235:
ReplyDeleteI'm having to post this response piece-by-piece. I've been trying to post it for three days now. What fun!
...
This is the third of probably five posts:
...
The last part (hopefully--the last effort got me the response that I don't own my username):
Why are creationists so inept?
lino235,
ReplyDeletelino235 to Zachriel: When they compared one sequence that reached, per their logarithmic scale, 52% infectivity and then compared the sequences, there was no similarity whatsoever.
Where exactly do the authors say that their sequence should become similar to the natural sequence? Where exactly does the theory of evolution say that newly evolved sequences towards some function should produce the same sequences again and again?
Lino235 to Zachriel:That's your take on it, but this is how the authors conclude their abstract:
But science is not based on abstracts, let alone abstracts from a single article. Science is based on evidence.
The authors clearly stated that their aim was to explore a fitness landscape starting with random sequences. They did so with point mutations over a randomly generated aa sequence. They got what they could get given their particular conditions. After all, it is you who said:
You understand, of course, that this experiment is an experiment of basically artificial selection, and only minimally is it of natural selection. It was the experimenters who decided what would be cloned in each subsequent generation. They were breeders, basically. NS only notched up the intervening generations.
So then, if you understand the limitations, why are you so bent over about their results?
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteI would not continue the discussion where lino235 mistakes development for evolution (which continues in lino235's January 12, 2011 2:11 PM comment). It will lead you nowhere. By the time you notice that you are talking about a very different thing than what lino235 is arguing about, the whole thing will be so confused that it will be impossible to clarify anything.
Best!
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeletelino235: Speaking of phenotypes, within animals the same DNA results in very different types of cells; that is, they have different, let us say, 'phenotypes'. Is recombination and mutations the cause of these? Of course not. So how did this come about? Can we say, as in standard Darwinian thought, that this variety of 'phenotypes' is the result of competition? Where was selection in all of this?
NE: I don't see the relevance of mistaking the process of development with evolution.
I'm not "mistaking" the one with the other, but rather comparing them. They bear this comparison: evolutionary theory posits that the differences in physical structure seen in organisms (i.e., the phenotype) can be traced to changes in the genetic make-up, changes brought about through random mutation/gene duplication/recombination (fill in the blank). Yet, we differently organized cells--which correspond to different body-plans--that have very different physical/structural appearances, and which, nevertheless, have the very same DNA; the very same!
Further, these cells are not in competition with one another, but, rather, work in harmony with one another such that if certain types fail, life ceases. That's a selection factor of 1.0, BTW. How do you explain this development using your idea of what evolution is. I await your explanation.
I'm posting one thing at a time because of all the problems I've had posting here.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteI guess you have a problem defining "body plan." However, if what you said were true (again, it might be, depending on your definition of "body plan"), then what was S. Meyer complaining about?
If more precision is required (those who are evasive by nature seek an overly precise meaning so as to find, let us say, "escape routes". I hope that doesn't apply here.), then let me phrase it this way: 40 of the 41 known phyla existed by the end of the Cambrian.
I posit the question again: Isn't this sufficient time for NS to have evolved entirely new body-plans/phyla? Would you care to comment?
As to Steven Meyer, what complaint do you speak of?
Negative Entropy:(On the other hand, you might have the wrong idea about what evolved during the Cambrian.)
I think I have a pretty good idea of what appeared during the Cambrian. Maybe you can explain to me what "evolved" during the Cambrian. I await.
Pedant:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you assert that I am a Creationist? Do you know me? Have I stated anything in these posts that betrays this? Or is it simply because I choose to question Darwinian orthodoxy?
What a great light you are for your side: no evidence for your characterization of me, yet you just jump to conclusions.
Not only do you claim that I'm a Creationist, but I'm an 'inept' Creationist. Upon what basis do you make such a claim. Do you have any idea at all of the problems I had to deal with? Again, without any basis, you jump to a conclusion.
And, of course, you're crass and rude. Wonderful. Your side must be proud.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteI would not continue the discussion where lino235 mistakes development for evolution (which continues in lino235's January 12, 2011 2:11 PM comment). It will lead you nowhere. By the time you notice that you are talking about a very different thing than what lino235 is arguing about, the whole thing will be so confused that it will be impossible to clarify anything.
You're asking Zachriel to avoid answering: is this because you have no answer? You'll notice I've asked you the same question in a more precise form.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly do the authors say that their sequence should become similar to the natural sequence? Where exactly does the theory of evolution say that newly evolved sequences towards some function should produce the same sequences again and again?
They don't say that; but nature requires it---else we would be seeing something different in the native protein.
And the authors tells us that a random sequence library of 10^70 is required to arrive at the native protein fitness.
Would you like to tell me--and those who are looking on---why this is so, and what the implications are?
NE:So then, if you understand the limitations, why are you so bent over about their results?
Because you're misrepresenting the results, that's why.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteven Meyers (quoted by bornagain77):
ReplyDeleteMeyer: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text."
Negative Entropy:
Not true. Selection acts on expressed characteristics (phenotypes), that give some individuals advantages that others don't have. The difference might be due, ultimately, to a genetic difference, but evolution is blind to such.
So, then, you're positing the possibility of a non-genetic evolutionary path. What might that look like? Or should we just believe that this can happen?
lino235: But not if it has to compete with someone who can produce a million. (I.e., the native strain)
ReplyDeleteThat's right, but the claim was that what "evolution" did was basically trivial. In fact, evolution dramatically increased infectivity starting from a randomized protein domain.
lino235: So competition is how NS is supposed to work, but we’ll insist on cooperation if need be.
Cooperation between related organisms can be a very effective evolutionary strategy.
lino235: Notice, though, that the bacteria that ‘cooperate’ don’t have the exact same genome, whereas the genome is exactly the same for all of these different cell types.
Precisely. The more closely related they are, the more likely cooperation will be an effective evolutionary strategy. This can be understood in the mathematics of game theory.
lino235: Let’s not confuse complexity with body plan.
You introduced the vague term "body plan". According to your claim of no new body plan since the Cambrian Explosion, a lamprey and a sparrow are the same body plan.
lino235: And you’re using the assumption THAT evolution, and only evolution, could produce higher organisms--
Why would you say that? Rather ,the position is that the evidence strongly supports historical evolution, not that no other mechanism, such as highly technological hominoids, couldn't produce complex organisms.
lino235: which is what is at odds, to then form the basis of your attempt to prove that evolution is therefore not trivial. You can’t have it both ways.
Not sure how to parse that. Trivial is often used qualitatively. There are profound differences between a primitive vertebrate from 525 million years ago, and a frog. Perhaps you don't consider an amnion or hands to be part of a body plan, in which case, frogs and humans are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages.
lino235: I'm not "mistaking" the one with the other, but rather comparing them.
ReplyDeleteThought you were asking how they evolved.
lino235: Yet, we differently organized cells--which correspond to different body-plans--that have very different physical/structural appearances, and which, nevertheless, have the very same DNA; the very same!
Yes, it's an effective evolutionary strategy. Remember, all that matter is the hereditary line. If a trillion cells die to ensure continuation of the line, then it will persist in nature.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteI know creationists love equivocation fallacies, but that's another story.
Well, I see the invective is coming. This is a sure sign that you have lost the argument.
As to being aggressive, I was born in New York. What do you want?
NE:an you explain how to manufacture a computer using your idea of gravitational forces?
Clever. But this won't work. Electro-magnetic forces are not the same as those of gravity. But here we're dealing with the very same elements: DNA, cells, cell factories, mutations, death (NS), etc. You might like to think that we're dealing with apples and oranges, but we're not.
All of this gets right back to what Steven Meyer wrote (quoted by BA77 up above)--something you took exception to:
"Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
You see, the answer to the question: what came first, the 'chicken' or the 'egg'? is: the 'egg'.
lino235: Isn't this sufficient time for NS to have evolved entirely new body-plans/phyla?
ReplyDeleteThere were already three billion years of evolution that preceded the Cambrian Explosion. Evidence indicates that cells were already communicating and cooperating in colonial form. The emergence of larger organisms was probably slowed by the lack of free oxygen. Once this evolution began, we see a rapid radiation, exactly what one expects when a new niche becomes available, followed by a pruning of the less successful and less lucky adaptations.
OFF-TOPIC
ReplyDeletelino235: Not only do you claim that I'm a Creationist, but I'm an 'inept' Creationist.
There's a known problem with blogspot where posts that appear will then disappear. You might want to save your posts in a notepad.
lino235: All of this gets right back to what Steven Meyer wrote (quoted by BA77 up above)
ReplyDeleteStephen Meyer's text has substantial problems. But your argument seems to be that simple changes at the lower level can't result in higher level organization. Is this correct?
Ups, sorry, I erased my answer thinking it was duplicated.
ReplyDeleteNegative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteventurous answer to the phyla thing (venturous because I son't know if you are looking for an answer or for a gap) is as follows: What today are phyla, by the Cambrian might have been orders, or families, or genera (I don't know). This would look as if the Cambrian had representatives of many more "phyla" than those existing today. However, no all of these groups left descendants all the way to the present. In other words, given the process of evolution, we can only expect current life forms to converge into a few past forms, thus few phyla. There is also the little detail about mass extinctions that erase many organisms (and their phyla with them), and let a few (representing few phyla) evolve and conquer vacated niches. So, both, because of the catastrophic history of the planet, and because of the nature of evolution itself. Let me know if the explanation is not too clear. I suspect I assumed too much knowledge of taxonomy and biology on your part.
I didn't know that Charles Darwin was still alive. This is exactly how he would talk and describe things.
There's just this one, great big problem: a phyla is not an order. Don't you know that? And a body-plan is a body-plan. Don't you know that either?
The problem with the Cambrian Explosion---which, to Darwin, would have been the Silurian Explosion---is precisely that: Darwin expected that the fossil record was incomplete and that with further investigation a whole new extended period of time would show up prior to the Silurian (Cambrian), which earlier period, per your explanation above, would contain all these "orders" on their way to becoming "phyla". (But, of course, why stop there? Why not keep going and have Phyla turn into Kingdoms? What explanation does Darwin give for everything stopping at the level of a Class? None.) Well, as I say, he stops at classes. So maybe that's why you used "Orders"---just below "Classes"---and want to stay away from "Phyla" and "Body-Plans". But here's news: there isn't any evidence that all these Phyla came about other than in a very short period of time; that is, in an explosive manner. And other than in the Phylum of Chordata and in the case of insects, nothing much has happened with those other 38 Phyla.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteI just lost a post because of size. I don't care to reconstruct it. So here it is in its nub:
About your venturesome explanation of the origin of Phyla: it's as though Darwin has risen from his grave.
But, of course, we know that he was looking for an extended period before the Silurian (Cambrian in our geology), and expected that further investigation of the fossil record would show that it existed. Of course, the "pre-Silurian", as he called it, is now completely ruled out. He was wrong.
As to the Cambrian and now: other than in the Phylum Chordata, and the insects, not a whole lot has happened. When people talk about the "tree of life", they're basically talking about Chordate evolution (evolution, as in a 'change of form', mechanism unknown).
You're peddling a 150 year-old theory. That won't fly.
Tanks lino235 for posting almost my entire answer. I thought I lost it. As you see, not only creationists can be inept. (Yes you are a creationist, why the pretence?)
ReplyDeleteThere's just this one, great big problem: a phyla is not an order. Don't you know that?
Not today. And if you prefer not to understand, well, then don't ask.
And a body-plan is a body-plan. Don't you know that either?
Again, depends on your definition. See if you find a primate body-plan in the Cambrian, then we can exchange a series of "Don't-you-know-that?" more properly.
Why not keep going and have Phyla turn into Kingdoms?
Oh! So you got it. Good. Thanks. I "stopped" at phyla because I try to keep it short. Otherwise I get into posting trouble (like you did). But keep guessing my malevolent motives (and Darwin's). I will stop at Order! Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
there isn't any evidence that all these Phyla came about other than in a very short period of time; that is, in an explosive manner.
Well, if you want to ignore all evidences newer than wherever the cdesign proponentsists stopped looking, plus whatever they overlooked for some mysterious reason. Maybe. We also seem to have a different idea of what a "very short period of time" is.
And other than in the Phylum of Chordata and in the case of insects, nothing much has happened with those other 38 Phyla.
Again, we seem to have a different definition of "nothing much."
Zachriel:There were already three billion years of evolution that preceded the Cambrian Explosion. Evidence indicates that cells were already communicating and cooperating in colonial form.
ReplyDelete"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
Yes, bacterial life is believed to have been around since 3 billion years ago, or so. So, then why did it take so long to become more complex? Remember: it has a smaller genome, and it replicates faster. Why two billion years before we some some kind of colonial life form (which is: [1] controversial, and [2] right before the Ediacaran/Cambrian)? What was your vaunted NS doing all those years? Was it asleep like Rumpelstiltskin?
lino 235,
ReplyDeleteAbout your venturesome explanation of the origin of Phyla: it's as though Darwin has risen from his grave.
Thanks you! This made my day! (I wish I could add this to my C.V.)
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteStephen Meyer's text has substantial problems. But your argument seems to be that simple changes at the lower level can't result in higher level organization. Is this correct?
Yes.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDelete(Yes you are a creationist, why the pretence?)
You can't know how happy it makes me that you know exactly what I am!!
You're using a lower-cased 'c' for 'creationist'. One would suppose that this stands in contradistinction with the upper-case variety of 'Creationist', thus allowing you to lump the one with the other. This is evasion.
Not today. And if you prefer not to understand, well, then don't ask.
One isn't required to understand the incoherent. You're passing off sophistry.
See if you find a primate body-plan in the Cambrian, then we can exchange a series of "Don't-you-know-that?" more properly.
This appears to be gross ignorance on your part, either willful or otherwise.
I don't have to show you a "primate" 'body-plan' in the Cambrian; I only have to show you a "chordate" 'body-plan' in the Cambrian---which is easily done.
Well, if you want to ignore all evidences newer than wherever the cdesign proponentsists stopped looking, plus whatever they overlooked for some mysterious reason. Maybe. We also seem to have a different idea of what a "very short period of time" is.
This is all weasel-wording. Honestly, "we have a different idea of what a 'very short period of time' is." Wow.
You mean it "all depends on what your meaning of is is!"
lino 235,
ReplyDeleteThey don't say that; but nature requires it---else we would be seeing something different in the native protein.
Nature requires it? If newly evolved proteins with similar functions didn't look like existing ones then the existing ones would be different? Maybe you want to rethink this.
And the authors tells us that a random sequence library of 10^70 is required to arrive at the native protein fitness.
But you knew abut the limitations of the experiments, so this is irrelevant whether I buy it or not.
Would you like to tell me--and those who are looking on---why this is so, and what the implications are?
These were the calculations of these guys. So I don't really know if this "is so." Still, these experiments have their limitations, you said it yourself.
NE:So then, if you understand the limitations, why are you so bent over about their results?
lino: Because you're misrepresenting the results, that's why.
Am I? Is it me who is misrepresenting the aim of the study and compounding it with a series of assumptions about what should happen "if evolution were true" according to creationist cartoons and misconceptions, rather than according to evolutionary theory?
lino235: Yes, bacterial life is believed to have been around since 3 billion years ago, or so. So, then why did it take so long to become more complex?
ReplyDeleteEukaryotes are highly complex cells compared to bacteria. Precambrian organisms developed complex communication and colonial structures. A prevalent theory is that lack of oxygen prevented more concentrated structures from emerging. In any case, it's not apparent why you would think millions of years is too fast.
Zachriel: But your argument seems to be that simple changes at the lower level can't result in higher level organization. Is this correct?
ReplyDeletelino235: Yes.
The evolution of tetrapod legs is certainly a higher level organization, yet we can see how it occurred in incremental and selectable steps.
lino235,
ReplyDeletePlease forgive my ignorance of the existence of a lower case and an upper case of "creationist." I hope I will be able to make amends sometime in my low-life. (More malevolent laughter in the background, of course: "I will lump Creationists with creationists. Muahahahahahahaha!")
One isn't required to understand the incoherent. You're passing off sophistry.
Seems like I am not. After all you later showed that you got it.
I don't have to show you a "primate" 'body-plan' in the Cambrian; I only have to show you a "chordate" 'body-plan' in the Cambrian---which is easily done.
If so, then there is no reason to act surprised that there are no new "body plans." But we already went through the phyla thing. No need to extend on this side.
This is all weasel-wording. Honestly, "we have a different idea of what a 'very short period of time' is." Wow.
There is little I can do if you think that millions of years is "a very short period" of time, and if you prefer to ignore all the evidence of previous life forms. So I rather ask if we understand the same thing. Otherwise we go back and forth uselessly as with the body-plans.
lino235,
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that Charles Darwin was still alive. This is exactly how he would talk and describe things.
You sure find ways of making a commenter happy. Thanks a lot for the evening conversation. Have a great rest of the week if I have no chance of coming back sooner.
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteNature requires it? If newly evolved proteins with similar functions didn't look like existing ones then the existing ones would be different? Maybe you want to rethink this.
If I had a million dollars, I'd be rich. Sophistry. Is that all you're capable of?
We KNOW what nature has come up with; we can only conjecture as to what may have been. The task for evolutionists is to figure out how, via Darwinian mechanisms, these proteins came about. Waving away these difficulties by saying, essentially, that, well, it could of been different is just that: hand-waving.
These were the calculations of these guys. So I don't really know if this "is so." Still, these experiments have their limitations, you said it yourself.
I don't think you've fully grasped the work of these researchers. What these "guys" did was to simply extrapolate their data using the formulas they devised. Do you think they lied? Do you think it was really only 10^15 libraries they needed instead of 10^70?
I'm not going to continue this discussion unless the quality of the responses is able to improve.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteEukaryotes are highly complex cells compared to bacteria. Precambrian organisms developed complex communication and colonial structures.
Sorry. This is just pablum. Yes, eukaryotes are highly complex cells. Thank you for telling me this. I would have never known!
And the chordate body-plan is more complex than yeast. So why did it take so long to form the one, and not the other?
The evolution of tetrapod legs is certainly a higher level organization, yet we can see how it occurred in incremental and selectable steps.
I don't think that is what Meyer meant. He's talking about body-plans (higher level), not what eventually happens to a part of the body-plan (lower-level).
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDeleteSeems like I am not. After all you later showed that you got it.
It's hard to come to understand incoherence, but if one applies oneself, it is possible. That doesn't mean it is no longer incoherent; only that it is understood to be incoherent.
Here's what a contemporary said of Darwinism:
"Where it is unoriginal, it is correct; where it is original, it is wrong."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete