Tuesday, December 6, 2011

More Evidence of Adaptive Mutations: Adaptation by Directed Modification Rather Than Selection, Lamarck N, Darwin 0

One of the major pillars of evidence claimed for the fact of evolution is the adaptation in populations that we observe. As Ernst Mayr—one of the leading evolutionists in the twentieth century—wrote in his Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, “evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.” This equating of minor change—even a mere change in gene frequencies within a population—with all of evolution is rampant within evolutionary apologetics. For example in the first 20 seconds of the recent Let’s Talk About Evolution video Professor Marta Wayne tells viewers that “Evolution is change in gene frequency” and science writer Emily Willingham defines evolution as “a change in population over time.” Similarly in this video Professor Pamela Bjorkman states that a mutating virus is “evolution at work” and that “In the same way, people have evolved, but over a much slower time scale.”

But are allele frequency changes and virus mutations tantamount to evolution?

The answer is “no” for several reasons. First, there is no proof that such small-scale change can add up to the massive changes—including everything from molecular machines to body plans—that evolution requires. Evolutionists are fully aware of this and in their “honest moments” (as Stephen Jay Gould once put it) admit this to each other. As we understand them small-scale mechanisms of change, such as random mutations, simply do not provide the degree or type of change needed by evolution.

Furthermore, in the past century another category of evidence has arisen that highlights the failure of this pillar of evolution: The small-scale change mechanisms themselves are highly complex. In other words, if evolution is true then it created incredibly complex cellular and molecular mechanisms so that, yes, evolution could occur.

One example of this are the so-called adaptive mutations. These mutations are not random with respect to need, as evolutionists have insisted, but rather are often the right one for the need at hand. In other words, when faced with a challenging environment populations respond with changes that meet the new challenges.

Whereas evolution requires random changes that ever so slowly are produced by undirected mutations, science reveals just the opposite: rapid change brought about by non random adaptive mutations which meet the current environmental challenge, as one recent paper from Israel demonstrated. The paper first explained that in neo-Darwinism heritable diversity comes from:

neutral and advantageous mutations that occur rarely, spontaneously at random locations, and independently of any selection processes imposed by the environmental conditions.

But biological designs comprise a vast combinatorial space and so:

it is reasonable to hypothesize that existing and rare genetic variation cannot provide an immediate advantageous solution

Indeed. But there is dearth of knowledge of how adaptation occurs, for:

Little information exists on the dynamics of processes that lead to functional biological novelties and the intermediate states of evolving forms.

Their results provide hints, however, for contra evolutionary theory they found heritable adaptation which “must have been induced in individual cells by this environment.” They conclude:

This study, therefore, details a process that is different from the fundamental common view of adaptation. Here adaptation seems not to rely on random and rare genetic variability that accumulated independently from the selection agent. …

Thus, adaptation in our experiments was a property of individual cells rather than a property of the population and the process that led each cell to the adapted state was induced by the challenging environment. In fact, further findings corroborated this striking result. …

Notably, the decline in the adaptive potential over time argues against the existence of an advantageous subpopulation during phase I and supports the notion that adaptation was achieved by cells only after the transition into the challenging environment. …

These adjustments, as we have shown, can be rapidly gained by individual cells and stably propagated for many generations and, thus, should be considered an adaptation that might have a significant role in evolution of regulatory systems. …

cells acquired adaptive mutations (mutations directed at advantageous positions) at a very high rate after the exposure to glucose. …

adaptive mutations might arise as a response to stressful environments and allow such a widespread adaptation of individuals and the rapid adaptation of the whole population. …

Thus, our experiments prove the existence of a cellular mechanism enabling an inherited cellular adaptation that was induced by an unforeseen challenge in many cells simultaneously. …

The implications of such a mechanism are far reaching in diverse areas of biology; …

In other words, these results indicate a built-in response mechanism. The population of cells rapidly and efficiently adjusts to the environmental challenge and these changes are passed on to later generations.

These types of results contradict evolutionary theory and evolutionists have resisted them all along. I once debated an evolution professor who dismissed such evidence and assured the audience it was all false. This is how science works for evolutionists. Theory first, evidence second.

The claim that adaptive change is a proof text for all of evolution is an incredible misrepresentation of the scientific evidence. It is an equivocation on evolution so over the top it is difficult to believe. Indeed, it is astonishing to see evolutionists such as Mayr, Bjorkman, Wayne and the rest make such statements with a straight face.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

164 comments:

  1. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism – Arthur Jones – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4187488

    What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011
    Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements … take unique meaning from their context.[3]“,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean

    The face of a frog: Time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen bioelectric pattern – July 2011
    Excerpt: For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, “When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,”,,, “We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It’s a jaw dropper.”,,,
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-before-seen.html

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ – Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

    A few comments on ‘non-local’ epigenetic information implicated in 3-D spatial organization of Body Plans:
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iNy78O6ZpU8wpFIgkILi85TvhC9mSqzUSE_jzbksoHY

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "But are allele frequency changes and virus mutations tantamount to evolution? The answer is “no”"

    Proof, if any were needed, that Cornelius honestly does not understand the theory of evolution at all.

    "First, there is no proof that such small-scale change can add up to the massive changes—including everything from molecular machines to body plans—that evolution requires."

    This is a thoroughly dishonest claim. Evolution deniers continually cry that there is 'no evidence for evolution', and yet when evidence is presented, it gets shuffled off as 'merely microevolution'. We human beings live short lives and we simply don't live long enough to witness evolutionary changes add up to 'macroevolution'. We can perform all the case studies and lab and field experiments in the world, beautifully demonstrating the wonders of evolution in action, but they will always be brushed aside as evidence of 'merely microevolution'.

    Which is especially moronic when we consider MICROEVOLUTION IS MACROEVOLUTION just on a smaller scale. Evidence of one is evidence of the other. To accept microevolution and yet deny macroevolution is like accepting there are tectonic plates and that they move, but insisting they aren't capable of producing mountains (that'd be a RELIGIOUS argument. Everyone knows God made mountains. That's just sensible science). Or to accept that someone can be my brother or sister, but to deny they could be my cousin.

    "As we understand them small-scale mechanisms of change, such as random mutations, simply do not provide the degree or type of change needed by evolution."

    Back that statement up, please.

    "Furthermore, in the past century another category of evidence has arisen that highlights the failure of this pillar of evolution: The small-scale change mechanisms themselves are highly complex."

    No, they have BECOME highly complex. Doesn't mean they always were.

    And just to rub salt into the wound, you quote-mine and misrepresent yet more people who absolutely disagree with your evolution-scepticism. To quote from their abstract, all they are studying is "the adaptation dynamics of genomically rewired cells in evolution."

    "These types of results contradict evolutionary theory..."

    No they don't.

    "...and evolutionists have resisted them all along."

    No they haven't. The people doing this very study were 'evolutionists'.

    "The claim that adaptive change is a proof text for all of evolution is an incredible misrepresentation of the scientific evidence."

    Pot, kettle, I believe you're both well acquainted with Mr Hunter...?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh look, BA77 the crack smoking deranged tool of the scroll-wheel industrial complex is spamming off-topic rubbish again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Which is especially moronic when we consider MICROEVOLUTION IS MACROEVOLUTION"

    Which is why getting a needle is murder. It's being knifed, only on a smaller scale.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great news Cornelius, thanks!

    Will you embrace this new evolutionary theory?

    The claim that adaptive change is a proof text for all of evolution is an incredible misrepresentation of the scientific evidence.

    Yes. It also seems to be your misrepresentation of the statement of a real scientist.

    It is an equivocation on evolution so over the top it is difficult to believe.

    Hardly unbelievable. We all have faith in your equivocations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius said:

    "In other words, when faced with a challenging environment populations respond with changes that meet the new challenges."

    Apparently, all of the extinct organisms throughout the history of life on Earth didn't get the memo.

    "Whereas evolution requires random changes that ever so slowly are produced by undirected mutations, science reveals just the opposite: rapid change brought about by non random adaptive mutations which meet the current environmental challenge..."

    See above about extinct organisms.

    Also, please tell me your specific definition of "ever so slowly" and "rapid".

    "In other words, these results indicate a built-in response mechanism. The population of cells rapidly and efficiently adjusts to the environmental challenge and these changes are passed on to later generations."

    See above about extinct organisms.

    If an omnipotent, omniscient designer god designed and created everything, why don't ALL organisms have a "built-in mechanism" (i.e. front loading) that enables them to rapidly and efficiently adjust to ALL environmental challenges?

    If or when a "built-in response mechanism" is passed on, it's only if or when an organism lives long enough to produce viable offspring. And if 'built-in response mechanisms' can be passed on, that also means that they can be inherited. Sounds to me a lot like evolution, with an emphasis on natural selection.

    "These types of results contradict evolutionary theory and evolutionists have resisted them all along."

    Really?

    Therefor jesus?

    "This is how science works for evolutionists. Theory first, evidence second."

    I'd love to see your theory and evidence for the history and diversity of life on Earth. Evidence first please, and then your detailed scientific theory that explains it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. the whole truth:

    "In other words, when faced with a challenging environment populations respond with changes that meet the new challenges."

    Have you ever heard of global catastrophes, like the Permian-Triassic meteor impact scenario?

    But, of course, the premise of Darwinism comes from the University of Edinborough, home of Prof Dutton, whose premise was that the earth was eternally old, and that all major geological structures (=macro-evolution) comes about through gradual minute processes(=microevolution) taking place over eons of time (=gradualism). Charles Lyell would popularize this theory; and Darwin--who also attended Edinborough as did Lyell--was eternally grateful for Lyell's geology.

    But, of course, we now know that gradualism cannot explain many geological events. We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation; but, of course, this doesn't matter at all: does it?

    Please explain to me how a cache of dinosaur EMBRYOS were fossilized? Do you have some gradulistic---versus catastrophic---explanation?

    So, if we start talking about extinctions, let's include the high likelihood that many, if not most, fossilization events were due to catastrophes. But, of course, what concern do you have with the "whole truth" about these matters?


    "I'd love to see your theory and evidence for the history and diversity of life on Earth. Evidence first please, and then your detailed scientific theory that explains it."

    I'd like to see yours. Could you please give all of us here at this blogsite your "detailed scientific theory" that explains the origin of life? And how about the Cambrian Explosion? Or the Mammalian Explosion? Or the emergence of the bird feather without any evidence whatsoever of any primitive forms? We await.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lino D'Ischia said...

    But, of course, we now know that gradualism cannot explain many geological events. We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation; but, of course, this doesn't matter at all: does it?


    What 'Flood' would that be? Where did it occur, and when, and how long did it last? Where did all the water come from, and where did it all go?

    Of course all answers you give should be backed up with scientific evidence. Do you have any such evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thorton:

    "What 'Flood' would that be? Where did it occur, and when, and how long did it last? Where did all the water come from, and where did it all go?"

    Did I say that a Flood occurred? No, I said that the Flood of the Bible was a catastrophic event, which, it turns out, ended up being swept away by the triumph of gradualism. But, catastrophes are making a big-time comeback. And that fact should have the effect of undermining Darwinian certainty. But you know how true believers are, don't you?

    As to the Biblical Flood, I rather suspect that it had to do with a post-Ice-Age world in which rising ocean levels (brought about by true cataclysmic global warming) gouged out the Straits of Gibraltar, and with sea levels (in the Mediterranean area) rising 3 to 400 feet in perhaps days. Of course, there would be an oral tradition of such an event.

    You see----a plain and easy scientific explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lino D'Ischia said...

    Did I say that a Flood occurred? No, I said that the Flood of the Bible was a catastrophic event, which, it turns out, ended up being swept away by the triumph of gradualism. But, catastrophes are making a big-time comeback. And that fact should have the effect of undermining Darwinian certainty. But you know how true believers are, don't you?


    Modern science has no problems with the fact that some catastrophic geological events have occurred. Why do you think that is a problem for evolution? Are you really going to claim that because *some* geological features were formed catastrophically that they *all* were?

    You are not articulating your position here well at all. Please try again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lino -

    As to the Biblical Flood, I rather suspect that it had to do with a post-Ice-Age world in which rising ocean levels (brought about by true cataclysmic global warming) gouged out the Straits of Gibraltar, and with sea levels (in the Mediterranean area) rising 3 to 400 feet in perhaps days. Of course, there would be an oral tradition of such an event.

    You see----a plain and easy scientific explanation.


    You can suspect whatever you like. But if you want others to take your hypotheses seriously then you need evidence. What is the evidence of a great global flood, as described in the Bible?

    And as far as your hypothesis goes, global warming won't do as an explanation. The reason why global warming causes sea levels to rise today is that it mealts the ice locked up at the poles. But if all the ice melted, that still wouldn't be enough water to cover all the world's land.

    I'd like to see yours.

    You are dodging. Don't critically analyse evolution and assume that if you don't find it convincing the default answer is God. Lay out your theory too so we can compare their merits in parallel.

    Could you please give all of us here at this blogsite your "detailed scientific theory" that explains the origin of life?

    That simple self-replicating molecules developed from non-living self-replicating chemical compounds.

    And how about the Cambrian Explosion?

    What about it? It marks the emergence of armour, teeth and other 'hard parts' (parts which, crucially, fossilise). This is no great mystery.

    Or the Mammalian Explosion?

    Again, what about it? Mammals lived for millions of years in the shadow of the dinosaurs. Once they were all gone, the stage was cleared for the survivors of the KT extinction which killed them to flourish and thrive, which is just what mammals did. It is a clear and well-documented pattern following extinction events.

    Or the emergence of the bird feather without any evidence whatsoever of any primitive forms?

    If you think so then you have not kept up with recent discoveries. Digs in China over the last decade have revealed a trove of fossils detailing the transition of a small family of dinosaurs from reptile to bird. Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong, for example, had long, hollow quills, presumably used for insulation or display, which may well be early 'protofeathers'.

    We await.

    As do we. Do not forget we want YOUR answers too...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lino asked:

    "Have you ever heard of global catastrophes, like the Permian-Triassic meteor impact scenario?"

    Yep, and other extinctions, including all the known "mass" ones, which goes to my point. Obviously, many organisms/populations have not responded with changes (whether cellular or otherwise) that met the new challenges rapidly and efficiently, or at all. That's why they're extinct.

    Some things go extinct because of sudden "catastrophes" and some things go extinct because of drawn out "challenges" or "catastrophes" that they are unable to adapt to.

    "But, of course, the premise of Darwinism...."

    There you go with that "Darwinism" thing again. Do you also say Duttonism, Lyellism, Einsteinism, jesusism, and YHWHism?

    "But, of course, we now know that gradualism cannot explain many geological events. We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation; but, of course, this doesn't matter at all: does it?"

    Who's "we"? And what do "geological events" have to do with what I've said? If by "geological events" you mean large scale, catastrophic, geological events, see above about extinctions and lack of ability by some organisms/populations to adapt to "challenges".

    And like Thorton asked, What flood are you referring to? Floods are a common occurrence, so you'll have to be more specific. By the way, I wouldn't necessarily refer to a flood as a geological event. The source of a flood is often meteorological (rain/snow) although a flood does usually affect geological structures (land), though not necessarily negatively.

    "Please explain to me how a cache of dinosaur EMBRYOS were fossilized?"

    Google is your friend.

    "Do you have some gradulistic---versus catastrophic---explanation?"

    Well, fossilization itself may take quite a long time, depending on the conditions. The initial burial of the embryo containing eggs would have been sudden or at least fairly quick.

    "So, if we start talking about extinctions, let's include the high likelihood that many, if not most, fossilization events were due to catastrophes. But, of course, what concern do you have with the "whole truth" about these matters?"

    "Catastrophies" can be small or large scale. Many things have been killed by "catastrophes" but few to no fossils were formed, while at other times many fossils were formed. It depends on what was killed, whether they were buried, the conditions in which they were buried, and whether they stayed buried long enough to become fossilized.

    What any of that has to with what I've said is a mystery to me unless you're agreeing with me that many organisms/populations have not been able to adapt to challenges, and especially sudden or drawn out, large scale catastrophes.

    "I'd like to see yours."

    I asked first and I asked Cornelius. He has been asked that many times but I have yet to see him answer. If you'd like to provide your answer, feel free to do so, although it seems obvious that you'll say god-did-it.

    "Could you please give all of us here at this blogsite your "detailed scientific theory" that explains the origin of life?"

    I don't have a theory or explanation of the "origin" of life. Some scientists are working on it and I'll wait and see what they figure out. By history and diversity of life I didn't mean "origin of life". I meant the history and diversity of "life" once "life" was established. In other words, the evolution of living things.

    See part two.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Part two.

    "And how about the Cambrian Explosion? Or the Mammalian Explosion? Or the emergence of the bird feather without any evidence whatsoever of any primitive forms? We await."

    Again, Google is your friend. I don't have time to do research for you. I will say though that I accept what science has figured out or will figure out as long as it's supported by evidence and reasonable explanations. I have no problem with changing my mind if necessary or not making up my mind until enough evidence is discovered. In the meantime, I don't want or need ridiculous, gap filling, religious fairy tales.

    You godbots are the ones who think you know everything and have your minds made up. If you want to overturn any scientific inferences, hypotheses, or theories, and/or replace them with your god-did-it fairy tales, you're going to have to come up with something a LOT better than your bald assertions.

    By the way, the 'explosions' you mention encompassed millions of years. How is that a problem for evolution, or the ToE, especially if some organisms/populations may sometimes be able to "rapidly and efficiently" respond and adjust to challenges?

    Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find the evidence that you godbots expect from science? Have you ever looked for fossils, and especially fossils of the earliest feathered animals, or the earliest mammals, or Cambrian, or Pre-Cambrian fossils?

    If I were to challenge you to find a fossilized part (any part) of a Coryphodon, a very common animal during the lower Eocene, how long do you think it would take you to find one? You could even take advantage of the fact that there are lots of scientific papers that will get you started on where to look (generally) but you'd still have to find one yourself. Do you think it would be easy?

    Now, try to imagine how much harder it is to find extremely rare fossils, if they exist at all. You IDiots must think that fossils of every animal that ever lived are just lying around by the thousands on the surface waiting to be easily found in perfect condition.

    I would love to get all you thumpers out into the badlands of Wyoming or Mongolia in mid summer to look for fossils and see how long you last before you start crying for your mommies. You have NO IDEA how hard it is and what people have to go through to find some fossils, even if those fossils are considered to be relatively 'common'.

    Some fossils are fairly easy to find and may be at places that are easily accessible, but many are not. You arm chair science bashers don't have a clue, and if you're so sure that it's easy to find the fossils or other evidence that would answer all the questions about the history and diversity of life, why don't you get out there and find it? What's stopping you?

    ReplyDelete
  17. lino said:

    "We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred."

    And then lied:

    "Did I say that a Flood occurred? No, I said that the Flood of the Bible was a catastrophic event..."

    And you god zombies claim to have all the 'morals'. Pfft.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Question that's bugging me :

    Enzyme (say ribosome) is made of subunits which are in turn made of proteins and RNA.

    These proteins and RNA are stored as sequences of nucleotides someplace along DNA. The way I understand it, ribosome building protein should not be allowed to mutate (or else). Ribosome needs to perform its function the same way for billions of years.

    What mechanism is conserving nucleotide sequences for all the core systems of the cell yet allowing some other sequences to mutate? Cell's core (immutable) systems being organelles, support structures, enzymes, transducers, codon mapping etc

    Mechanism that allows mutation on some but conserves other DNA is probably shared among cell types and species. The mechanism itself should be conserved i.e. not allowed to mutate otherwise we have a disaster at hand.

    Just a question, I have no point to make.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Eugen,

    Enzyme (say ribosome) is made of subunits which are in turn made of proteins and RNA.

    As far as I know, it's either RNA or protein. Ribosomes have both, but they're called "macromolecular complexes". And not all enzymes have subunits (separate chains), but they do have different domains (discrete folding regions of the same polypeptide).

    The way I understand it, ribosome building protein should not be allowed to mutate (or else). Ribosome needs to perform its function the same way for billions of years.

    It's actually a matter of degree. Some regions are more critical than others, and some substitutions may be inconsequential or have a tolerable effect even in important positions, e.g. if the new amino acid has similar physical-chemical properties. Carl Woese used ribosomal sequences for his famous "three-domain" phylogenies. There are even some "hypervariable" regions in ribosomal subunits.

    What mechanism is conserving nucleotide sequences for all the core systems of the cell yet allowing some other sequences to mutate?

    The simplest explanation would be NS (OK, it doesn't protect against *mutation*, although it can stop mutations from spreading in the population). But, again, everything mutates. It's a matter of degree.

    Mechanism that allows mutation on some but conserves other DNA is probably shared among cell types and species. The mechanism itself should be conserved i.e. not allowed to mutate otherwise we have a disaster at hand.

    As mutation is a chemical process, there are differences in the probability of mutation along the genome ("random mutation" is random with respect to its effects on fitness, it doesn't mean any kind of change is equally probable at the molecular level). The nucleotide sequence by itself influences the probability of mutation, but I'm more familiar with cases in which mutability is enhanced rather than depressed (e.g. sequences that allow the formation of "hairpins", google "DNA polymerase slippage"). You're probably more interested in epigenetic mechanisms, but I'm very ignorant in that respect. All I can remember is some paper on the epigenetic protection of telomeres in Drosophila. Search that, perhaps you'll find some relevant refs to reviews.

    But remember, everything fails at some point in biology. Expect mutations everywhere. It's just a matter of degree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. D'Ischia,

    Or the emergence of the bird feather without any evidence whatsoever of any primitive forms?

    Major LOL. Ignorance is such a bliss!

    Sinosauropteryx

    Prediction: You shall align with Alan Feduccia's collagen fibre hypothesis. I'll not be here to laugh at that, but good luck refuting the ultra-structure analyses that allowed researchers even to reconstruct integument colour.

    Ritchie,

    Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong, for example, had long, hollow quills, presumably used for insulation or display, which may well be early 'protofeathers'

    That would be very surprising, as it would imply a very basal origin of the proto-feather filaments, before the ornithischian-saurichian split. But then, those wacky dinos from China are always surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Geoxus, thanks for the answer and suggestions for further search.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Geoxus:

    "Prediction: You shall align with Alan Feduccia's collagen fibre hypothesis. I'll not be here to laugh at that, but good luck refuting the ultra-structure analyses that allowed researchers even to reconstruct integument colour."

    I'm afraid your prediction is wrong. I align myself with Prum and Brush.

    And as to your howl of laughter: is that how you react to those who disagree with you? You act as if there isn't one bit of controversy over the origin of the feather. But, of course, that's how Darwninists are; they've got all the answers. No problem, just ask them.

    Here's this huge problem for Darwninian theory, and you just brush it aside (no pun intended)

    ReplyDelete
  23. CH said, "Whereas evolution requires random changes that ever so slowly are produced by undirected mutations, science reveals just the opposite: rapid change brought about by non random adaptive mutations which meet the current environmental challenge..."

    --
    If evolutionists had integrity, they would subtract all adaptive change due to cellular mechanisms from their "mountain of evidence" for evolution. I suggest that all skeptics of evolution refuse to join in their word games anymore and dump the ambiguous term "evolution" (and micro-evolution) when more accurate and precise terms would represent a biological process better.

    Divide and conquer.

    Loud and clear, adaptive change due to cellular mechanisms IS NOT EVOLUTION.

    Bird beak variation due to protein regulation IS NOT EVOLUTION.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thorton:

    "Modern science has no problems with the fact that some catastrophic geological events have occurred. Why do you think that is a problem for evolution? Are you really going to claim that because *some* geological features were formed catastrophically that they *all* were?"

    As I've already mentioned, very likely, because of catastrophic events, the fossil record exhibits "explosions" of new body types; not just in the Cambrian, but at later epochs. This is completely non-gradualistic, and, therefore, completely non-Darwinian. It should be a "difficulty on the theory"; but, of course, not for true believers.

    Do I think most, if not all, "fossilization events" are catastrophic in nature? Yes. Could I be wrong? Yes. Do I have reason to believe I'm right? Yes. You've heard, of course, of the completely entire tree that is found in the fossilized forest in Arizona. How else do you explain this.

    "You are not articulating your position here well at all. Please try again."

    Well, when people don't want to be disabused of their preconceptions, then, quite naturally, they find every fault in the world in that which confronts them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. the whole truth:

    ""Catastrophies" can be small or large scale. Many things have been killed by "catastrophes" but few to no fossils were formed, while at other times many fossils were formed. It depends on what was killed, whether they were buried, the conditions in which they were buried, and whether they stayed buried long enough to become fossilized. "

    You're simply equivocating terms here. We're talking about cataclysmic events here.

    "I don't have a theory or explanation of the "origin" of life. Some scientists are working on it and I'll wait and see what they figure out. By history and diversity of life I didn't mean "origin of life". I meant the history and diversity of "life" once "life" was established. In other words, the evolution of living things. "

    More equivocation and evasion, I'm afraid. Try to be honest with yourself. Does it make any sense at all that physico-chemical events spontaneously formed life? No.

    Sir Fred Hoyle, life-long agnostic, became a believer in a superior intellect simply by reflecting that cytochrome c, without which life cannot replicate (hence, Darwinism is rendered impossible--as all of life), did the calculation for its arising from purely random events. It's really quite simple. What are you waiting for? New laws of nature and chemistry?

    ReplyDelete
  26. the whole truth:

    "Again, Google is your friend. I don't have time to do research for you. I will say though that I accept what science has figured out or will figure out as long as it's supported by evidence and reasonable explanations. I have no problem with changing my mind if necessary or not making up my mind until enough evidence is discovered. In the meantime, I don't want or need ridiculous, gap filling, religious fairy tales."

    This is what you've said: "I accept what science has figured out or will figure out as long as it's supported by evidence and reasonable explanations."

    But you've just finished saying that you "don't have time to do research for [me]". So, when I pose questions to you, you don't want to make the effort to CONFIRM that what 'science' is saying is, in fact, "supported by evidence and reasonable explanations". I will now call you the "partial truth", since that seems adequate enough for you.

    And, BTW, if you don't want religious "gap filling" explanations---which, of course, does not apply to ID---then fill in the gaps yourself. Go find the fossils. And give us the molecular explanations for how so much information arose in so short a time period. We await.

    "Have you ever looked for fossils, and especially fossils of the earliest feathered animals, or the earliest mammals, or Cambrian, or Pre-Cambrian fossils? "

    Yes. When I was working on my degree in biology.

    "By the way, the 'explosions' you mention encompassed millions of years. How is that a problem for evolution, or the ToE, especially if some organisms/populations may sometimes be able to "rapidly and efficiently" respond and adjust to challenges?"

    I can only conclude that you are not familiar with population genetics. Motoo Kimura did a calculation for a mammalian species and concluded that for a single SNP to occur at some specific locus in the genome, that it would take, on average 5 or 6 million years (IIRC). Do you now see the problem? Do you now see why Kimura proposed his "Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution"?

    ReplyDelete
  27. the whole truth:
    ""We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred."

    And then lied:"

    Did I lie? How do you know that? Is it because you just know? Is that it?

    The context of that comment was Lyellian gradualism. Part of the gradualistic mentality was a reaction to the "catastrophism" of the Bible; hence, the implication was that gradualism arose partly because it was seen to be discrediting the Bible.

    Would you like to take back your accusation, or do you lack "morals"?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lino D'Ischia said...

    As I've already mentioned, very likely, because of catastrophic events, the fossil record exhibits "explosions" of new body types; not just in the Cambrian, but at later epochs. This is completely non-gradualistic, and, therefore, completely non-Darwinian.


    Is is also completely non-true. Events like the Cambrian 'explosion' took tens of millions of years. We also have ample evidence of precursors to the Cambrian life forms. Go look up the Ediacaran fauna

    It should be a "difficulty on the theory"; but, of course, not for true believers.

    Why do you think evolutionary changes that the evidence shows took millions of years to occur should be a difficulty? Your 'population genetics' hand wave makes zero sense and does not answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ritchie:

    "You can suspect whatever you like. But if you want others to take your hypotheses seriously then you need evidence. What is the evidence of a great global flood, as described in the Bible? "

    They've found scarring on the submerged sides of the rock of Gibraltar that suggests that the Mediterranean Sea was cut off from the Atlantic and that a great rush of water traversed its sides.

    In the Black Sea area, they've found evidence of a coastal village 300meters deep, under water's edge.

    You see: evidence.

    "Don't critically analyse evolution and assume that if you don't find it convincing the default answer is God. Lay out your theory too so we can compare their merits in parallel."

    My theory is that God created life, and that that life evolved, with God infusing the evolving life with information at certain critical moments.

    That's my theory.

    Your theory is Darwinism-did-it. But Darwinism has problems coming up with one SNP. And to think that it could possibly explain the origin of information is, well,..... amusing.

    LDI: Could you please give all of us here at this blogsite your "detailed scientific theory" that explains the origin of life?

    Ritchie: "That simple self-replicating molecules developed from non-living self-replicating chemical compounds."

    Is this detailed? You don't even tell us which molecules are supposed to be replicating.

    Is this scientific? Well, I don't know. It sure looks like "life by definition". I.e., there's these "non-living self-replicating chemical compounds", and from these, "living self-replicating molecules" developed.

    Were these compounds made out of molecules, or were they simply 'atoms'? Well, if we rightly assume the compounds are molecules, then your reformulated statement is this: "Simple self replicating molecules developed from non-living self-replicating molecules."

    Absurdity. It's a patent "just-so" story. But what else should we expect from Darwinists?

    " Digs in China over the last decade have revealed a trove of fossils detailing the transition of a small family of dinosaurs from reptile to bird. Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong, for example, had long, hollow quills, presumably used for insulation or display, which may well be early 'protofeathers'."

    A "hollow quill" is a far cry from a bird feather. They "may well be" early 'protofeathers'; but they might not be either. Do you want to present controversy as fact?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lino D'Ischia said...

    Sir Fred Hoyle, life-long agnostic, became a believer in a superior intellect simply by reflecting that cytochrome c, without which life cannot replicate (hence, Darwinism is rendered impossible--as all of life), did the calculation for its arising from purely random events.


    It's also a fact that Hoyle, a non biologist, badly bollixed up his calculations. Here is a better estimate

    Coin tossing for beginners and macromolecular assembly

    "Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort)."

    It's really quite simple. What are you waiting for? New laws of nature and chemistry?

    We're waiting for you to explain why all these pointless whines about ToE you keep making are actual problems.

    BTW, you have quite a few unanswered questions waiting for you on the other thread. Please stop ignoring them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lino D'Ischia said...

    In the Black Sea area, they've found evidence of a coastal village 300meters deep, under water's edge.

    You see: evidence.


    How is that evidence of a Biblical global Flood that covered the entire planet and killed every living thing save a handful of creatures on a wooden boat only 2500 years ago?

    My theory is that God created life, and that that life evolved, with God infusing the evolving life with information at certain critical moments.

    That's my theory.


    No, it's your unsupported hypothesis. Until you come up with a way to test it (including describing potential results that will falsify the idea), do the test, and come up with some positive evidence it will remain at best an insignificant pipe dream.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thorton:

    "Is is also completely non-true. Events like the Cambrian 'explosion' took tens of millions of years. We also have ample evidence of precursors to the Cambrian life forms. Go look up the Ediacaran fauna"

    You're completely unfamiliar with ID. You don't seem to understand the severe limits of Darwinian mechanisms. So you blithely think that tens of millions of years is a sufficient amount of time for everything that the fossil record contains. This is just choosing to live in La-la-land, I'm afraid.

    Papers, written by Darwinian sympathizers, tell us that for 2-3 amino acids to change in an organism, 32 million years is needed. Why don't you think about things? Why do you just sweep these huge problems for Darwinism/population genetics/Modern Synthesis under the rug?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lino D'Ischia said...

    You're completely unfamiliar with ID.


    No, actually I can summarize every last detail that is known about ID in one sentence:

    "An unknown designer or designers at an unknown place and unknown time using unknown mechanisms and for unknown reasons designed some biological things"

    Please feel fee to fill in the details Lino.

    Papers, written by Darwinian sympathizers, tell us that for 2-3 amino acids to change in an organism, 32 million years is needed.

    References please. I'd hate to think you're just another Creationist making empty claims and misrepresenting scientific research.

    Why don't you think about things?

    I do. I study and work with them on a daily basis. You haven't identified anything that's even remotely a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  34. lino, there are so many things wrong with what you've said that it's hard to know where to start.

    Let's see, you said:

    "As I've already mentioned, very likely, because of catastrophic events, the fossil record exhibits "explosions" of new body types; not just in the Cambrian, but at later epochs. This is completely non-gradualistic, and, therefore, completely non-Darwinian. It should be a "difficulty on the theory"; but, of course, not for true believers."

    First, define/describe what a "new body type" is. In other words, what exactly woulf fit the definition of a "new body type"?

    Then name a particular critter from the Cambrian or other period with a "new body type". Then state what length of time would fit the minimum time length of "gradualistic"?

    "Do I think most, if not all, "fossilization events" are catastrophic in nature? Yes. Could I be wrong? Yes. Do I have reason to believe I'm right? Yes. You've heard, of course, of the completely entire tree that is found in the fossilized forest in Arizona. How else do you explain this."

    If you're referring to fossilized trees in Petrified Forest National Park, this basically explains them:

    Over time, trees died or perhaps were knocked over by floodwaters or wind. Rivers carried the trees into the lowlands, breaking off branches, bark, and small roots along the way. Some trees were deposited on the flood plain adjacent to the rivers and others were buried in the stream channels. Most of the trees decomposed and disappeared. But a few trees were petrified, becoming the beautiful fossilized logs we see today. Most of the fossilized logs are from a tree called Araucarioxylon arizonicum. Two others, Woodworthia and Schilderia, occur in small quantities in the northern part of the park. All 3 species are now extinct.

    Some logs were buried by sediment before they could decompose while volcanoes to the west spewed tons of ash into the atmosphere. Winds carried ash into the area where it was incorporated into the deepening layers of sediment. Ground water dissolved silica from the volcanic ash and carried it through the logs. This solution filled, or replaced cell walls, crystallizing as the mineral quartz. The process was often so exact that replacement left a fossil that shows every detail of the logs’ original surfaces and, occasionally, the internal cell structures. Iron rich minerals combined with quartz during the petrification process, creating the brilliant rainbow of colors.

    http://www.petrified.forest.national-park.com/info.htm#tree

    There is much more detailed information available.

    Notice that there's no mention of a "completely entire tree". Some of the tree fossils there are more complete than others but to be "completely entire" they would have to have all of their branches, roots, and leaves. Floods and other causes are posited for the burial of the original trees or their parts. Floods may or may not be "catastrophic" and they vary widely in their extent. There's no evidence of a world wide flood in Arizona or any at other location on this planet.

    See part two.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Part two.

    Thorton said: "You are not articulating your position here well at all. Please try again."

    To which you (lino) replied:

    "Well, when people don't want to be disabused of their preconceptions, then, quite naturally, they find every fault in the world in that which confronts them."

    If only you and the rest of the godbots could see how thoroughly that applies to you and your attacks on evolution, evolutionary theory, Darwin, "Darwinists", "Darwinism", "DarwinDefenders", atheists, materialists, evolutionists, naturalists, agnostics, scientists, science, science supporters, etc., and even theistic evolutionists.

    One of the biggest problems is that you religious zealots just can't stand the thought that your ancestors were apes, amphibians, fish, etc., and that you weren't specially created in some alleged god's image.

    By the way, you said "catastrophic events". Plural "events". Was there more than one "the Flood"?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thornton:

    "It's also a fact that Hoyle, a non biologist, badly bollixed up his calculations. Here is a better estimate"

    Sir Fred Hoyle was a world-class scientist and highly regarded astrophysicist who should have won the Nobel Prize. He was exceptionally strong at mathematics. He wrote a book, "The Mathematics of Evolution."

    But I guess the geniuses over at Talk.Origin are much brighter and more informed than he was.

    If you think his calculation was wrong, then you point that out to me right here. I await. . . .(your obfuscation)

    "We're waiting for you to explain why all these pointless whines about ToE you keep making are actual problems."

    By almost every metric imaginable, Darwinism is a complete disaster, wrong about everything. But to a great genius such as yourself, none of this bothers you.

    Let's hear it for group-think.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thorton:

    ""An unknown designer or designers at an unknown place and unknown time using unknown mechanisms and for unknown reasons designed some biological things""

    This is not only plausible, it makes the most sense out of what we see.

    What doesn't make any sense at all is this: "species leading to new genera; new genera leading to new families; new families leading to new orders," for if you continue, then orders lead to new classes, and new classes to new phyla, and new phyla to new kingdoms. Hogwash.

    Read "The Edge of Evolution". You might learn something. Oh, excuse me. You're a liberal. You prefer myth.

    As to a reference, kindly look for it yourself. I've read portions of the paper, and their concluding section. And with a straight face they say they've refuted Behe's claims; it only will take 31.6 million years for the two amino acids to change.

    Look at Kimura's calculations in his book on the Neutral Theory. Read a paper by Douglas Axe. Again, you might learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  38. the whole (partial) truth:

    "First, define/describe what a "new body type" is."

    Substitute "body plan" for the Cambrian and look it up in Wikipedia.

    This is a great liberal trick. Left with no arguments, they then require their opponents to begin defining terms, questioning, quibbling and rejecting common sense meanings for these terms at every step. Liberals prefer myth and obfuscation. It's called: rationalization.

    You know full well what a body-plan is. In the case of the Mammalian Explosion we're talking about different body types, as, e.g., a horse and a whale, a mouse and an elephant. Quite different sizes, shapes, environments. And all of these changes took place in but millions of years. And it took the malarial parasite a million, billion replications to come up with a two amino acid change to overcome the effects of chloroquine. Now just think if one replication took one year instead of hours.


    "If you're referring to fossilized trees in Petrified Forest National Park, this basically explains them:"

    There, and in Yellowstone. They are "upright" trees. Gradualistic geology cannot explain this phenomena. If an upright tree, 20, 30, or 40 feet is fossilized, then the sedimentary layers didn't accrete at the rate of one inch per thousands of years.

    Petrified Trees: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism.html

    "One of the biggest problems is that you religious zealots just can't stand the thought that your ancestors were apes, amphibians, fish, etc., and that you weren't specially created in some alleged god's image."

    God created life as we find it around us. When he first made man, he made him in conformity with his plan for the rest of creation, in continuity with other living life forms. But there are two accounts of creation in the book of Genesis. The second account tells us how we are unique. God created a soul within us.

    What separates us from "apes, amphibians, fish, etc." is our consciousness, which makes present to us the intelligence we enjoy and the free will we can express. This is because we each have a soul.

    Now I have to say all of this simply to try and disabuse you of the notion that I'm troubled about where my physical body came from, as if this would define me.

    Maybe what's really at play here is that you atheists are afraid of death, and especially of what might lie beyond. So you try and find ways of keeping God out of the social sphere. Perhaps it eases your conscience.

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Geoxus:

    LDI:Or the emergence of the bird feather without any evidence whatsoever of any primitive forms?

    "Major LOL. Ignorance is such a bliss!"

    There is a paper by C. Foth, "On the identification of feather structures in stem-line representatives of birds" (May 2011), challenging the speculations of Xu and Zheng's 2010 paper. It would appear that the earliest known feathers already resembled recent bird feathers.

    Geoxus, have you even read a paper on any of this? Prum (2010) also challenges Xu and Zheng's findings.

    Ah, but, as you say, "Ignorance is bliss."

    Here's a quote from Foth's paper (discussion section):

    "Several problems and challenges face researchers trying to interpret feather structures foudn in the fossil record. As just shown, examples of simple and aberrant feather morphologies can be taphonomic in origin, and thus not represent INTERMEDIATE STEPS of feather evolution." (my emphasis)

    ReplyDelete
  40. lino said:

    "And, BTW, if you don't want religious "gap filling" explanations---which, of course, does not apply to ID---then fill in the gaps yourself. Go find the fossils."

    ID is nothing but a dishonest, religious and political agenda, promoted by uneducated, ignorant, arrogant, delusional IDiots.

    I have found thousands of fossils and have contributed to science in other fields too (and will continue to do so). You IDiots are the ones who try to fill gaps (whether real or imagined) with your insane god garbage, instead of getting out there and helping to understand nature. You're a burden.

    Why did you even bother getting a degree in biology (if you actually did)? You obviously didn't learn anything and are just another brainwashed, indoctrinated, group-thinking god zombie. It's obvious that you won't listen to anything but 'god-did-it', so there's no point in trying to educate you. I might as well just make fun of whatever you say, or ignore you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Lino D'Ischia said...

    By almost every metric imaginable, Darwinism is a complete disaster, wrong about everything. But to a great genius such as yourself, none of this bothers you.


    So you keep saying, yet you can't actually demonstrate anything wrong. Empty bluster isn't going to make your case Lino. Of course, if empty bluster is all you've got...

    Thorton: "An unknown designer or designers at an unknown place and unknown time using unknown mechanisms and for unknown reasons designed some biological things"

    This is not only plausible, it makes the most sense out of what we see.


    Wow. If that's your idea of a productive scientific explanation then just...wow.

    As to a reference, kindly look for it yourself. I've read portions of the paper, and their concluding section.

    Sure you have Bunky. That's why you can't give me the title of the paper, or the authors. But I'm sure it supports ID (snicker) just like you say.

    BTW I see you abandoned your 'front-loading' brain fart as soon as the questions you couldn't answer piled up. What's your next paradigm-changing ID 'theory'?

    Are you ever going to get to the point with all this blither about geologic catastrophes? I'll ask again - do you think because *some* geologic features were caused catastrophically that they *all* were?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thorton said, in regard to ID:

    "An unknown designer or designers at an unknown place and unknown time using unknown mechanisms and for unknown reasons designed some biological things"

    To which lino responded:

    "This is not only plausible, it makes the most sense out of what we see."

    Dang, that's what I've been saying for decades! I don't see how anyone can deny that the designer (which of course is the Flying Spaghetti Monster) designed everything with its noodly appendages!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lino D'Ischia said...

    As to a reference, kindly look for it yourself.


    LOL! Just for a lark I did look it up Lino. But first I'd like to remind everyone what you claimed the paper showed:

    Lino: "Papers, written by Darwinian sympathizers, tell us that for 2-3 amino acids to change in an organism, 32 million years is needed."

    Here is the full paper by Durrett and Schmidt

    Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution

    The paper concerns the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. If you are looking for a prespecified pair of mutations then in humans the wait time is over 100 million years. This would be analogous to picking one specific lottery number out of billions. But as they point out, in reality there are many sets of mutations that can do the same job, just as there are many tickets sold that can potentially win the lottery. That of course makes the makes the time someone will win considerably less.

    "Fortunately, in biological reality, the match of a regulatory protein to the target sequence does not have to be exact for binding to occur. Biological reality is complicated, with the acceptable sequences for binding described by position weight matrices that indicate the flexibility at different points in the sequence. To simplify, we assume that binding will occur to any eight-letter word that has seven letters in common with the target word. If we do this, then the mean waiting time reduces to ∼60,000 years. "

    The second half of the paper is devoted to exposing Behe's boneheaded errors in both biology and math in getting his "Edge of Evolution" bogus numbers. The 31.6 million generations (not years Lino) is not their claim: it's what you get if you plug Behe's made up BS numbers into the proper formula:

    "Indeed Behe's error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N = 10^6 and μ1 = μ2 = 10^−9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with Formula having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600."

    So you didn't read the paper. You only regurgitated parts you saw at UncommonlyDense, and even then you didn't understand what was being discussed.

    You're a LOLZ riot Lino! Few things are funnier that an ignorant Creationist on the web trying to bluff his way through scientific topics.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thorton:

    "So you keep saying, yet you can't actually demonstrate anything wrong. Empty bluster isn't going to make your case Lino. Of course, if empty bluster is all you've got..."

    You've drunk the Kool-Aid, Thorton. There's no reasoning with you.


    "LDI:'This is not only plausible, it makes the most sense out of what we see.'

    Thorton: Wow. If that's your idea of a productive scientific explanation then just...wow."

    The scenario you mockingly laid out is plausible. That's why Fred Hoyle believed in Panspermia. That's why noted physicist Paul Davies thinks much along the same lines. Why? Because they KNOW that Darwinism is IMPLAUSIBLE, and that the ONLY way to make sense of the complexity of the cell is to invoke a designer, even it that designer is somewhere off in the unobservable universe.

    As to the mockingly laid out scenario "making sense out of what we see", this is the argument that Stephen Meyers makes in "The Signature in the Cell." He makes it quite convincingly.

    "Sure you have Bunky. That's why you can't give me the title of the paper, or the authors. But I'm sure it supports ID (snicker) just like you say."

    This last remark reveals you for the creep you are.

    Here's the title and citation: "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution" http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full.pdf

    And, gee, here's what they say in the abstract:

    'In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an
    existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with
    recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for
    humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take 100 million years.
    In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe’s arguments concerning
    mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.'

    I guess I did misspeak. It wasn't 31.6 million years, it was 100 million years. Sorry I got that wrong.

    Just think, 100 million years for two amino acids to change. And how long would it take to come up with a protein from scratch, one that is 100 amino acids in length? Well, simple projection tells us it would take 10 billion years. Last I looked, the earth is only 5+ billion years old.

    Is this, too, empty bluster, dear Thorton?

    ReplyDelete
  45. the whole (partial) truth:

    "Dang, that's what I've been saying for decades! I don't see how anyone can deny that the designer (which of course is the Flying Spaghetti Monster) designed everything with its noodly appendages!"

    Heap scorn all you want. But the scenario is plausible. Darwinism is not. You can consult my response to Thorton.

    Asa Gray, an American botanist, a contemporary of Darwin, and a supporter of Darwin here in America, fell away from Darwinian theory when Darwin began suggesting that NS wasn't something that God used to bring about the evolution of diverse forms, but rather that it was a force, independent of God, capable of bringing about this same complexity and diversity all on its own.

    A way of putting this is that Gray thought Darwin had lost his mind in making this suggestion. Should I also point out that Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of putative NS, also disagreed with Darwin, and, along the same lines as Asa Gray. He could see no way that NS could work without the directing hand of God.

    IOW, no respectable thinking person would make such claims. But, alas, there are people who do make such claims, such as yourself TWT: but, of course, we have to ask the question: Are they respectable, thinking persons? You know, there are such things as theistic evolutionists. You should consider it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thorton:

    Here's where I got the 32 million years figure. From the paper I cited:

    "Indeed his error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that ‘There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an
    average of a million members, and if a new generation
    appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred
    million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing
    in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be
    about 1 in 100’’ (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N ¼ 10
    6 and m1 ¼ m2 ¼ 10 9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of
    mutations in one species, with u2p having reduced the
    answer by a factor of 31,600."

    Do you see the inanity here? "Oh Behe was wrong. It wouldn't take 200 million years, it would only take 31.6 million years." How blind can people be? Humans haven't even exited for 31.6 million years. Pure inanity.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thorton:

    Notice how the paper I cited was receive in September of 2007, but not published until August of 2008. Did they hesitate to publish it because of the problems in represents for Darwinism?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lino D'Ischia said...

    T: "Sure you have Bunky. That's why you can't give me the title of the paper, or the authors. But I'm sure it supports ID (snicker) just like you say."

    This last remark reveals you for the creep you are.


    Biggest LOL to date!

    You now decide to 'provide' the paper AFTER I linked to it, and you copy from the conclusion AFTER I posted it!

    Even with that you still don't understand the paper, and you still misrepresent the conclusion and what the 31.6 million number means!

    Do you see the inanity here? "Oh Behe was wrong. It wouldn't take 200 million years, it would only take 31.6 million years."

    That's not what that calculation demonstrates. That result shows how Behe stupidly used the wrong formula with his BS scenario, and that if you use the right formula with his BS scenario he was still off by a factor of over 30,000. Of course neither the 200 million or the 31.6 million is the correct number for having any two-mutation binding site change.

    Just think, 100 million years for two amino acids to change.

    That's for two prespecified changes. But the paper points out life doesn't need those prespecified changes, that there are many more that work just as well

    Sorry Lino, but you've exposed yourself as a scientifically ignorant poseur. You don't understand the topic or the paper you quote-mined. It was also particularly slimy and dishonest of you to post the same paper and excerpts only AFTER I showed them to you and explained what they were, then act like you found it on your own.

    Again, I'll never understand the willful dishonesty of Creationists. I guess if they didn't lie to others as well as themselves they wouldn't be Creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Lino D'Ischia said...

    IOW, no respectable thinking person would make such claims.


    Since you've demonstrated conclusively that you're an ignorant poseur who is neither respectable nor thinking, you're in no position to judge.

    ReplyDelete
  51. CH: Furthermore, in the past century another category of evidence has arisen that highlights the failure of this pillar of evolution: The small-scale change mechanisms themselves are highly complex. In other words, if evolution is true then it created incredibly complex cellular and molecular mechanisms so that, yes, evolution could occur.

    Complex cellular and molecular mechanisms represent adaptations. The question is, what is the origin of the knowledge used to build these adaptations? How does it conflict with neo-darwinism's explanation for how knowledge is created?. Please be specific.

    CH: In other words, these results indicate a built-in response mechanism. The population of cells rapidly and efficiently adjusts to the environmental challenge and these changes are passed on to later generations.

    First, programs are a form of knowledge. If some designer pre-programmed a built-in response mechanism, then how was this knowledge created? How do you explain it?

    A designer that was "just there" complete with the knowledge of how to pre-program a built-in response mechanism, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more simply state that organisms "just appeared" with the knowledge of how to build these built-in response mechanisms, already present.

    How was the knowledge found in the yeast cell regularity system created?

    Second, you seem to be confused as to what Lamarck actually proposed. For example, Lamarck though that an iron worker who developed strong arms though exercise would have children who also had strong arms. But this is far from what we observe. Specifically, the ability for muscles to be strengthened or weakened from exercise or disuse is an adaptation controlled from the knowledge in our genes. Our earliest ancestors lacked these genes. Lamarckism does not provide an explanation for how this knowledge was created. Neo-Darwinism does.

    If you were isolated in an environment that lacks vitamin C, your nonfunctional pseudogene for vitamin-c synthesis would not be caused to improve. If it were, it would be cause you were a genetic engineer. Furthermore, your ability to make this improvement would be due to the creation of knowledge of how to repair your vitamin-c synthesis gene. We explain this knowledge through the process of creating theories of how to repair genes by conjecture, testing those theories by observations and discarding those with errors.

    In addition, Lamarck thought that improvements were driven by a tendency towards ever greater complexity which was built into the laws of nature. So why would we still see still see simpler creatures today, despite this tendency? Lamarck thought a continuous stream of simpler organism was being spontaneously generated out of nothing, as spontaneously generation was commonly accepted in Lamarck's time.

    As such, it's unclear why you think Lamrack was somehow "right". Nor is neo-Darwinism limited to what Darwin thought at the time.

    This is more of the same handwaving we see here on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Lino the poseur said...

    Notice how the paper I cited was receive in September of 2007, but not published until August of 2008. Did they hesitate to publish it because of the problems in represents for Darwinism?


    Apparently you're woefully ignorant of the peer review process in scientific journals too.

    Received date is when the original manuscript was presented to the publishers. After the appropriately qualified referee are identified the work is scrutinized. Referee recommended changes or areas that need improving are presented back to the author, who then makes the required modifications. This cycle can happen multiple times until the editors and referees decide the paper is of acceptable quality for publication, and can take months to years.

    The accepted date is the date the paper is deemed ready to publish. The paper or article then must wait until the journal has space for the work. That may be a few more months.

    The published date is when the article actually comes out in print, either hard copy of electronically.

    So no poseur, the time lag does not indicate any nefarious desire to hide 'problems'.

    BTW, why didn't Behe submit his work to a main line scientific journal for review instead of publishing in the popular press? It can't be because he feared being EXPELLED because he has tenure. The reason is because he knew his shoddy work and stupidity would get him laughed out of the building, which indeed it did. Behe is a laughingstock in the scientific community, and for good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thorton:
    "You now decide to 'provide' the paper AFTER I linked to it, and you copy from the conclusion AFTER I posted it!

    Even with that you still don't understand the paper, and you still misrepresent the conclusion and what the 31.6 million number means!"

    I didn't see your citation. Your vulgar response was inspiration enough for me to find it.

    And where is your apology? You accused me of "empty bluster". So, where is your apology?

    But, you're a creep; and an idiot besides, so this is all beyond you.

    "The paper concerns the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. If you are looking for a prespecified pair of mutations then in humans the wait time is over 100 million years. This would be analogous to picking one specific lottery number out of billions. But as they point out, in reality there are many sets of mutations that can do the same job, just as there are many tickets sold that can potentially win the lottery. That of course makes the makes the time someone will win considerably less."

    Imbecile that you are, you somehow failed to notice this part of the paper:

    "Multiplying by 0.75 reduces the mean waiting time to 162 million years, still a very long time.
    Our previous work has shown that, in humans, a new transcription factor binding site can be created by a single mutation in an average of
    60,000 years, but, as our new results show, a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a rea- sonable timescale. To be precise, the last argument shows that it takes a long time to wait for two prespecified mutations with the
    indicated probabilities."

    Thorton:

    "The second half of the paper is devoted to exposing Behe's boneheaded errors in both biology and math in getting his "Edge of Evolution" bogus numbers. The 31.6 million generations (not years Lino) is not their claim: it's what you get if you plug Behe's made up BS numbers into the proper formula:"

    Not only are you uncritical in your thinking, you're dishonest. They devote less than one-half of a page in an eight page paper discussing Behe's calculation. And this is where they say Behe is wrong. No, for two mutations to occur giving rise to a new binding site, won't take millions of billions of years; it will only take 31.6 million years.

    Do you understand this at all, Thorton? They're assuming TWO mutations are needed---the rest is conveniently assumed to already be at hand---and they say a human population would take 31.6 million years to develop this new binding site. What is the split between chimpanzees and humans? Is it 7 million years? Let's say it's 15 million years? Well what is true for human populations is just as true for chimpanzees, adjustments being made for generation sizes in years, and effective population sizes. So, by the time that humans appeared, there wasn't enough time for ONE BINDING SITE to evolve per DARWINIAN MECHANISMS. Did I shout that out to you loud enough?

    IOW, DARWINIAN EXPLANATIONS FOR EVOLUTION ARE COMPLETELY IMPLAUSIBLE.

    Do you get it yet?

    Thorton:

    "So you didn't read the paper. You only regurgitated parts you saw at UncommonlyDense, and even then you didn't understand what was being discussed."

    Who, exactly, didn't read the paper? And, who, exactly, doesn't understand what they're reading?

    Thorton, go into the kitchen get a towel, and wipe the egg off your face.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thorton:

    "Apparently you're woefully ignorant of the peer review process in scientific journals too."

    Apparently you're a buffoon. Most peer-review processes take less than six months. Just pay attention, you'll learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lino D'Ischia:

    "Apparently you're a buffoon. Most peer-review processes take less than six months. Just pay attention, you'll learn something."

    It often takes longer than six months, even at weekly journals like Nature and Science, and 11 months is not extraordinary at all. Your conspiracy theory is not supported by the facts at all, but the theory that you are a buffoon is gaining momentum.


    "So, by the time that humans appeared, there wasn't enough time for ONE BINDING SITE to evolve per DARWINIAN MECHANISMS. Did I shout that out to you loud enough?"

    The buffoon-and-idiot theory is also getting stronger. Any specific pair of mutations has a very low a priori probability, but the probability that some beneficial pair of mutations will end up in some individual members of a species is of course very high. You seem to misunderstand the simplest and most basic statistical concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Even nylon degrading ability by bacteria can be newly obtained in laboratory cultures of pseudomonas aeruginosa which had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon. This was done in a only 9 days. The speed of this adaptation shows a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as simple random mutations and selection.

    The nylon example is one of the "poster boys" of evolutionists. If evolutionists gave out medals for their best evidence, P aeruginosa would get the Gold metal. Yet, this is not the blind watchmaker at work here. Plasmids are adaptive elements that make bacteria capable of adapting to many new things while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome. This bacteria is famous for being able to adapt to new food sources. So, this really isn't an example of "blind watchmaker" evolution in action, but a designed potential (but bounded) within the design of the bacteria.

    Many examples of bacterial antibiotic resistance reside on plasmids.

    Evolutionary evidence is looking worse than even many skeptics suspected.

    The sad consequence of dumbing down adaptions to evolutionary processes could mean that disease fighting research is not focused enough on researching the designed adaption mechanisms in the cell.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Lino D'Ischia,

    IOW, DARWINIAN EXPLANATIONS FOR EVOLUTION ARE COMPLETELY IMPLAUSIBLE.

    From the paper:

    ...Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species...

    You are in good company, Lino. Cornelius doesn't understand likelihoods (which the quote from the paper talks about) either. If either of you did, you wouldn't keep claiming that just because some evolutionary scenario is unlikely, it automatically follows that evolution is improbable.

    For example, take you own genetic composition. The odds of you getting the combination of genes you did from your parents was something like 1 in 10^10 (btw, I can't remember the exact numbers here, but it doesn't really matter all that much). Go back 10 generations and the odds would be 1 in 10^100. The likelihood that genes would be inherited the way they were was ridiculously small. Does that mean that you didn't get your genes through recombination of your ancestors' gametes (+plus some other more stuff that makes above likelihood WAAYYY smaller)? No, the probability of this is quite large. But it does mean that you and Cornelius don't know what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Lino the poseur said...

    I didn't see your citation. Your vulgar response was inspiration enough for me to find it.


    You're lying. Of course you saw it. You couldn't even name the paper or author until I provided them.

    How's lying like that work for you in real life? Do you watch Jeopardy with your friends and try to impress them by yelling "I KNOW THE ANSWER!!" five seconds after Alex Trebek gives it to the audience?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Neal: This was done in a only 9 days. The speed of this adaptation shows a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as simple random mutations and selection.

    Neal, as I've pointed out above, the origin of mechanisms such as this would be the origin of the knowledge of how build that mechanism. The question is, how was that knowledge created?

    Again, A designer that was "just there" complete with the knowledge of how to pre-program a built-in response mechanism, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more simply state that organisms "just appeared" with the knowledge of how to build these built-in response mechanisms, already present.

    Saying "God did it" might help you reconcile a belief in your favorite supernatural being with what we observe, but this isn't the question that evolutionary theory is addressing. As such, all you've done is push the problem into some unexplainable "mind" that exists in some unexplainable "realm."

    While you might be willing to accept theistic understandings, science is not. The explanation for our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge is that our criteria in science has focused on deep and hard to vary explanations. Mere possibilities are discarded, even before we bother testing them.

    And how do we explain why this process is successful? We explain it in that the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality. If the truth consist of easy to vary assertions about reality, then how do you explain our ability to make progress? Let me guess, you put divine revelation above deduction, induction and philosophy?

    We discard a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field of science. If this isn't a form of critical rationalism, then what is it?

    Without a theory (explanation) there is nothing to criticize. As such we discard mere possibilities without even testing them. This is because, in science, observations are meaningless without an explanatory framework to extrapolate them in.

    Of course, feel free to enlighten us as to how is it possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  60. tedford said:

    "The sad consequence of dumbing down adaptions to evolutionary processes could mean that disease fighting research is not focused enough on researching the designed adaption mechanisms in the cell."

    Do you really think that scientists aren't looking for ANY and ALL mechanisms they can possibly find?

    EXACTLY how would research on mechanisms in cells change by assuming ID?

    And, what would you do if it were ever found that "the designer" is a big blob of goo that designed and created everything for reasons, and using methods, that are completely contrary to your religious beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Lino the poseur said...

    Do you understand this at all, Thorton? They're assuming TWO mutations are needed---the rest is conveniently assumed to already be at hand---and they say a human population would take 31.6 million years to develop this new binding site.


    No Lino, the paper didn't say that at all. The 31.6 million was from Behe's hypothetical '5000 species with 1 generation per year' mammal example. It shows Behe screwed up his calculations. That's another reason I know you didn't read the paper.

    So, by the time that humans appeared, there wasn't enough time for ONE BINDING SITE to evolve per DARWINIAN MECHANISMS. Did I shout that out to you loud enough?

    If you were waiting for one *specific* binding site to appear then yes. If you're waiting for *any* ones to appear then no. The only thing you're shouting is "LINO IS AN IGNORANT CREATIONIST POSEUR!" We've all figured that out by now.

    Thorton:"So you didn't read the paper. You only regurgitated parts you saw at UncommonlyDense, and even then you didn't understand what was being discussed."

    Who, exactly, didn't read the paper?


    You didn't read the paper.

    And, who, exactly, doesn't understand what they're reading?

    You don't understand what you're reading. But that never stopped any other Liar For Jesus from spewing empty rhetoric, so I doubt it will stop you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Scott said, First, programs are a form of knowledge. If some designer pre-programmed a built-in response mechanism, then how was this knowledge created? How do you explain it?

    A designer that was "just there" complete with the knowledge of how to pre-program a built-in response mechanism, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more simply state that organisms "just appeared" with the knowledge of how to build these built-in response mechanisms, already present. "

    --

    Evolutionists make up stuff to excuse the fact that the fossil record shows that organisms "just appeared"! Developing superstitious just so stories is preferable to evolutionists than saying organisms "just appeared"

    The design inference definitely is not equal to saying something "just appeared". Its predictions have been more successful than the failed Darwinian model. Perhaps someday we will have a better idea of how living cells could be made. It will not be a shake and bake process, but a precise and complex procedure with much intelligent intervention and guidance. It would make constructing the Intel core i7 processor look like building a Lincoln log cabin. Making a cell now from scratch with the tools and knowledge we have is about as close as we are to breaking the light speed barrier with a space ship.

    If you had one group of scientists researching the intelligent manufacturing process to create a cell from stratch

    vs.

    another group of scientists researching how purely natural processes could make a cell, which would make more progress?

    So far, the first group is way ahead. Note the work of the Ventner Institute. Was their work of the "shake and bake and hit with a bolt of lightning" style or a patented and complex intelligently designed procedure? Maybe all their work is equal to saying it "just appeared" according to your line of rationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thorton:

    "You're lying. Of course you saw it. You couldn't even name the paper or author until I provided them."

    What need is there for me to be lying about this? The paper is your undoing--despite your inability to fully understand its consequences.

    But I still await your apology. You intimated that I was making the paper up. But I wasn't. So any time you're man enough to apologize, I'll accept it.

    "How's lying like that work for you in real life? Do you watch Jeopardy with your friends and try to impress them by yelling "I KNOW THE ANSWER!!" five seconds after Alex Trebek gives it to the audience?"

    I'm impressed Thorton that you can spell "Jeopardy"; I didn't think you had it in you.

    Th:"If you were waiting for one *specific* binding site to appear then yes. If you're waiting for *any* ones to appear then no. The only thing you're shouting is "LINO IS AN IGNORANT CREATIONIST POSEUR!" We've all figured that out by now."

    Your ignorance, Thorton, overflows.

    First, my reference to a binding site was in reference to Behe's "Edge of Evolution", not the binding site that the paper's authors were after.

    Second, if you had read the paper---which either you haven't, or you haven't fully understood---then you would have realized that the author's Theorem #1 involves but two mutations, one that breaks up a binding site (which is needed to make room for a "new" binding site), and one that will properly configure the "new" binding site.

    Third, the binding site they were considering in their mathematical model had a binding site 10 nucleotides (3+ amino acids) long. In the case of the "new" binding site, they "presumed" the presence of the other NINE. Do you understand this? The other nine are already there. So, any one of 10 nucleotides can undo the original binding site---fairly easy to do given that most mutations are harmful. But one, specific nucleotide---both specific type of nucleotide and a specific location---was needed for the new binding site. Therefore the needed mutation had to be very specific. In the case of a human population, they said it was UNLIKELY that this would occur.

    So, I guess this means that you, along with "troy", and along with "Hawks", brilliant minds all, would tell these authors that they are wrong. That their understanding of statistics is flawed. That they don't know what they're talking about. Why, any old mutation will do, gosh darn it!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thorton:


    Now let's examine the paper:

    Quote (1): "For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral"

    Notice: switching off one transcription factor binding site and activating another, for Drosophila takes several million years.

    Quote(2): "We see that in the simulation, the observed
    mean is 25% higher than the theoretical mean, so adding 25% to the prediction gives a mean waiting time of 4325 years.
    A second and more important correction to our prediction is that Theorem 1 assumes that the A mutation is neutral and the B mutation is strongly advantageous. If we make the conservative assumption that the B mutation is neutral, then the fixation probability Beta = 1/2N = 2 x 10 ^-7, and by Theorem 1 the waiting time increases by a factor of 1/(Beta)^1/2 = approx. 2,200 to 9 million years."

    Oh, you see, it wasn't several million years. It was 9 million years. I guess "several" sounds a lot better than 9 million years, doesn't it?

    Quote(3): "Ignoring this for a moment, Theorem 1 predicts a mean waiting time of 1 2Nu1 = u2........ = 34,600 generations; which translates into 3460 years if we assume 10 generations per year."

    So the figure for Drosophila, that is, 9 million years, assumes the flies reproduce 10 times a year.

    Quote (4): "We now show that two coordinated changes
    that turn off one regulatory sequence and turn on another without either mutant becoming fixed are unlikely to occur in the human population."

    There's that word again: UNLIKELY.

    From a little farther down in the same section:

    Quote (5): "Ignoring for the moment that one of the assumptions is not satisfied, Theorem 1 predicts a mean waiting time of 1/2Nu_1(u_2)^2 = 1.73/2 x 10^7 = 8.66 x 10^6 generations.

    Multiplying by 25 years per generation gives 216 million
    years."

    Now, adjusting the 9 million years of Drosophila, that has a generation time of a little over a month, to that for humans, with a generation time of 25 years, means that we have to mulitply the 9 million years by a factor of 250. So, for TWO new nucleotides, to be in the right place at the right time so as to inactivate a binding site and bring about a NEW binding site, assuming "conservative" assumptions, i.e., that the second mutation, B, is "neutral" instead of "highly advantageous", would require over 2 billion years.

    Do you idiots get this or not?

    Now, in good Darwinist fashion, having been completely defeated by the statistical model they've developed and want to present to the world, they obfuscate, and change the subject.

    Here's how they do it.

    "To be precise, the last argument shows that it takes a
    long time to wait for two prespecified mutations with the
    indicated probabilities. . . .

    If one can search for the new target
    sequence in 10^4 – 10^6 bp, then there are many more
    chances. Indeed since (1/4)^1/8 = approx. 1.6 x 10^ 5, then in 10^6 bp we expect to find 16 copies of the eight-letter word."

    DO YOU GET THIS???

    They've utterly failed to show any way of getting TWO mutations to bring about a new binding site, so they've switched to a "search" mechanism. Oh, you know, somewhere in the genome you'll find an 8 nucleotide sequence where 7 of the nucleotides are what you're looking for. This is called "bait and switch."

    This is how your side is "smart", "scientific", and "honest". How about "brainwashed"?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thorton:

    LDI: Who, exactly, didn't read the paper?

    Thort: You didn't read the paper.

    LDI:And, who, exactly, doesn't understand what they're reading?

    Th: You don't understand what you're reading. But that never stopped any other Liar For Jesus from spewing empty rhetoric, so I doubt it will stop you.

    Why don't you just finish with: "Nana nana nana!" and then stick out your tongue?

    You're not a poseur. You're a palooka. Go look it up. Or maybe it will show up as a word on your favorite TV show: Jeopardy.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Lino the poseur said...

    DO YOU GET THIS???


    Amazing that you're still too stupid to understand the difference between the probability of a specific event, and the probability of any of the same type of event.

    Lino the poseur said...

    I'm a poseur. I'm a palooka. My favorite favorite TV show is Jeopardy, because I can pretend to know the answers after someone else tells me


    We know Lino. You've convinced us you're just another ignorant joke of a Creationist. No need to keep selling.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hawks:

    "You are in good company, Lino. Cornelius doesn't understand likelihoods (which the quote from the paper talks about) either. If either of you did, you wouldn't keep claiming that just because some evolutionary scenario is unlikely, it automatically follows that evolution is improbable."

    You're out of your depth, Hawks.

    Behe's "Edge of Evolution" doesn't involve statistical models. It involves empirical facts. It involves the real world, not the world of mathematical models.

    What do we find? It takes P. falciparum 10^20 replications to come up with a two amino acid switch that protects it from chloroquine. Real world, Hawks.

    What would 10^20 replications be in human terms, given a generation time, per the paper under discussion (Darwinist scientists), of 25 years?

    2.5 x 10^21 years = a billion, trillion years.

    Now, "Hold on," you say. "Behe is wrong. He's got the wrong numbers."

    Okay. Let's say he's way off. Per the WHO, the number of people who died from malaria in 2009 was 781,000. Let's say a third of them were from P. falciparum. So, let's say roughly 250,000. An individual infected with P. falciparum can have up to 100,000 gametocytes/micro liter. The low end is 2,000/ micro liter. So for one milliliter of residue, this would be 2,000,000 gametocytes per person infected.

    So, in any given year, a very, very conservative estimate is that 250,000 people produce 100,000 gametocytes each. (Actually, they can produce upwards of 10^12 gametocytes per infection) = 2.5 x 10^10 replications. It took 20 years for Chloroquine resistance to come about. Let's say it comes about in one year.

    Then, the two amino acid substitutions needed for CR requires 2.5 x 10^10 replications. On the human scale, assuming 4 humans reaching reproductive age per generation (25 years), this means that 2.5 x 10^10 x 4/25 = 4 x 10^11 years for humans to come up with something comparable.

    These are extremely conservative numbers taken from the real, living world out there. And yet it would take, very conservatively, 400 billion years for humans to do the same thing.

    Will you guys ever come to your senses.

    Do you see, and now admit, how implausible, Darwinian scenarios turn out to be in the real world, let alone in mathematical models?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thorton:

    "Amazing that you're still too stupid to understand the difference between the probability of a specific event, and the probability of any of the same type of event."

    Explain yourself. What do you mean by this. Give us details, please, oh brilliant one.

    Perhaps you can quote some books on probability and statistics. Perhaps you can point to published papers that make the same point you're trying to make.

    Or, perhaps, you could just point out exactly where I'm going wrong when I analyze the paper for you, point-by-point.

    We await of wizard of the internet airwaves.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lino the poseur said...

    Will you guys ever come to your senses.


    LOL! Lino is still still too stupid to understand the difference between the probability of a specific event, and the probability of any of the same type of event.

    In actuality there are a huge number of ways for P. falciparum to develop resistance to chloroquine. It's happened at least ten times in the last fifty years, in some cases with up to five mutations being required. There are strains resistant to individual drugs, and strains resistant to combinations of drugs. Behe's idiocy is so far removed from reality as to be funny.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the ramifications of what you're arguing Lino? You want us to believe that your omnipotent loving God first designed malaria to painfully kill people, then deliberately stepped in later (multiple times actually) and designed a way for it to be drug-resistant so it could keep on painfully killing people.

    Yet you think that's the God we all should worship.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Lino the poseur said...

    Thorton:"Amazing that you're still too stupid to understand the difference between the probability of a specific event, and the probability of any of the same type of event."

    Explain yourself. What do you mean by this. Give us details, please, oh brilliant one.


    Not sure I can dumb it down enough for you to understand it, but try this.

    Go buy a Powerball lottery ticket.

    What is the probability you will win this week's drawing?

    What is the probability *someone* will win this week's drawing?

    Let us know when you've worked out the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Neal: The design inference definitely is not equal to saying something "just appeared".

    Then, by all means, enlighten us with your explanation of how the knowledge this designer used to create these built-in response mechanisms was created.

    In the absence of said explanation, adding a designer to the mix serves no explanatory purpose. You might as well have said these organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build these response mechanisms, already present.

    Saying "God did it" might serve a purpose in reconciling the existence of your favorite variation of the Christian God with observations of adaptations of the biosphere, but this isn't an explanation. It's a theistic understanding. Science is not longer based on natural theology. Nor have you explained how "theistic understandings" result in our recent and and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge. That's just what God must have wanted.

    Is the claim that "theistic understandings" lead to progress is yet another "theistic understanding" we're all supposed to accept?

    Neal: Its predictions have been more successful than the failed Darwinian model.

    You haven't demonstrated that you have a firm grasp of the Darwinian model, let alone that it has failed.

    Neal: Perhaps someday we will have a better idea of how living cells could be made.

    And here my point has gone over your head.

    The origin of adaptations in species is the origin of knowledge used to build them. If you fail to do this , then you fail to explain the origin of the adaptations we observe.

    We already have an explanation for how the knowledge adaptations we observe in the biosphere is created. And it's one of the most successful in science as it explains multiple lines of observations across multiple fields.

    What's your explanation again? Oh, that's right, you don't have one. More specifically, you claim knowledge isn't created, but "just was".

    Neal: It will not be a shake and bake process ...

    At which point, you're repeating the same "mistake" yet again, despite being corrected over and over. How do you explain this behavior?

    - You know God exists.
    - You know God revealed he "did it".
    - You know we know God did it, but "Evolutionists" refuse to accept what they already know.
    - You know God want's us to know the truth.

    Therefore, God must want you to misrepresent evolutionary theory, so people won't believe it's true.

    Does that about cover it? If not, then what's with the continued misrepresentation?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Neal: Note the work of the Ventner Institute. Was their work of the "shake and bake and hit with a bolt of lightning" style or a patented and complex intelligently designed procedure?

    Following that line of reasoning…

    Note the scientists at the Ventner Institute. Each and every scientist has a complex material brain. In fact, every time we observed intelligent intention and guidance, we've also observed complex material nervous systems. So, intelligence and intent requires complex material nervous systems. Right Neal?

    Oh wait. That conflicts with your religious views, so you make an exception. Except it's not really an exception, as we do not actually use inductivism to justify conclusions. You just *think* you do.

    Neal: Maybe all their work is equal to saying it "just appeared" according to your line of rationalism.

    No Neal. It's not. Are you even reading my comments? Hear, see and speak no evil?

    We explain "all their work" in that we form theories via conjecture, which are tested by observations - those with error are discarded. And, unlike undirected processes, people can create explanations. This allows them to discard explanation-less possibilities, before they even bother testing them. Further more, they have specific goals. As such, it would come to no surprise that people would make rapid, specific progress towards a specific goal.

    Again, none of this contradicts the underlying explanation of knowledge generation behind evolutionary theory.

    Your point is?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thorton:

    "Not sure I can dumb it down enough for you to understand it, but try this.

    Go buy a Powerball lottery ticket.

    What is the probability you will win this week's drawing?

    What is the probability *someone* will win this week's drawing?

    Let us know when you've worked out the answers."

    I fully expected you would come up with this nonsense.
    This is pathetically inadequate.

    Think about this:

    The Power Ball lottery requires you to select six different numbers in the range of 1 to 60. You buy a lottery ticket.

    What are your chances of winning?

    No one else buys a lottery ticket that week.

    What are the chances that someone will that week's Power Ball Lottery?
    ____________________

    As in true liberal fashion, you've projected onto me that which actually typifies you. I think you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Lino the poseur said...

    This is pathetically inadequate


    LOL! I *knew* I wouldn't be able to dumb it down enough for you.

    When will you tell us why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people? Sick sadistic bastard, ain't He?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hey Lino, I'm curious:

    Just two days ago you gave us this explanation of ID:

    Lino: "IDers would posit---you see, we make actual predictions, contra Darwinism, and predictions that can be falsified, contra Darwinism---that some kind of pre-conditioned regulatory mechanism is "triggered" under the right, and sustained, environmental conditions."

    But today you're arguing that to change amino acids, direct intervention by the Designer is required.

    Why the flip flop? Any idea what your tomorrow's position will change to?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Thorton:

    I'm awaiting your answer to my question about the lottery. If, indeed, you've dumbed this all down for me, then it should be very easy to answer. You're not dodging me, are you?

    "Lino: "IDers would posit---you see, we make actual predictions, contra Darwinism, and predictions that can be falsified, contra Darwinism---that some kind of pre-conditioned regulatory mechanism is "triggered" under the right, and sustained, environmental conditions."

    Thorton: But today you're arguing that to change amino acids, direct intervention by the Designer is required.

    Why the flip flop? Any idea what your tomorrow's position will change to?"

    Do you think the replicational powers of a lizard are the same as that of a malarial parasite, or of the fruit fly? Different animals, different needs, different mechanisms.

    Answer my question.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Lino the poseur said...

    T: "Why the flip flop? Any idea what your tomorrow's position will change to?"

    Do you think the replicational powers of a lizard are the same as that of a malarial parasite, or of the fruit fly? Different animals, different needs, different mechanisms.


    LOL! So lizards are pre-programmed to evolve, but fruit flies, bacteria, and humans need direct Big Guy intervention. Right.

    I see you're from the "make up the most ridiculous BS as you go" school of Creationism. Most people learn that doesn't work by the time they reach their teens, but I'm sure you think it's valid Creation science.

    Answer my question.

    Sure thing Lino. Right after you answer the dozen or so questions you've cowardly avoided in the last few days. I asked mine first.

    Now please tell us why why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people. That's an important point, wouldn't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  78. I just have to say something about this:

    lino said:

    "But, of course, we now know that gradualism cannot explain many geological events. We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation; but, of course, this doesn't matter at all: does it?"

    Then Thorton asked:

    "What 'Flood' would that be? Where did it occur, and when, and how long did it last? Where did all the water come from, and where did it all go?"

    To which lino responded:

    "Did I say that a Flood occurred? No, I said that the Flood of the Bible was a catastrophic event, which, it turns out, ended up being swept away by the triumph of gradualism."

    To which I said:

    "lino said:

    "We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred."

    And then lied:

    "Did I say that a Flood occurred? No, I said that the Flood of the Bible was a catastrophic event..."

    And you god zombies claim to have all the 'morals'. Pfft."

    To which lino responded:

    "the whole truth:
    ""We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred."

    And then lied:"

    Did I lie? How do you know that? Is it because you just know? Is that it?

    The context of that comment was Lyellian gradualism. Part of the gradualistic mentality was a reaction to the "catastrophism" of the Bible; hence, the implication was that gradualism arose partly because it was seen to be discrediting the Bible.

    Would you like to take back your accusation, or do you lack "morals"?

    -------------------

    lino, the "context" was you stating that "the Flood" occurred, then Thorton asking you for details about said flood, and then you denying that you said that a "Flood" occurred, and then you playing dishonest games when I pointed out your lie and also questioning my morals and expecting an apology from me.

    Seems to me that you're the one with a "morals" problem.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This is the fun part folks! First get an ignorant poseur Creationist like Lino here yakking, and watch the most amazing steaming piles of organic fertilizer come spilling out of his mouth!

    ReplyDelete
  80. The whole truth said...

    lino, the "context" was you stating that "the Flood" occurred, then Thorton asking you for details about said flood, and then you denying that you said that a "Flood" occurred, and then you playing dishonest games when I pointed out your lie and also questioning my morals and expecting an apology from me.

    Seems to me that you're the one with a "morals" problem.


    Lino seems to have a bad case of AADD. He's bounced around and forgotten half the things he's claimed (like the bit on catastrophism), and directly contradicted himself to boot.

    I was hoping he'd provide more of an intellectual challenge, but he doesn't seem too bright to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Lino,

    You're out of your depth, Hawks.

    Cute. From a paper, you take a quote about the likelihood of an event and then try to argue something about the probability that event, clearly not knowing that there is a difference. Lino, it's not very deep here, but you're still drowning.

    Behe's "Edge of Evolution" doesn't involve statistical models. It involves empirical facts. It involves the real world, not the world of mathematical models.

    That's a keeper. I was talking about probabilities just like the paper and Behe. On top of that, don't you think that there might be some statistics involved when arriving at such numbers?

    Now, "Hold on," you say. "Behe is wrong. He's got the wrong numbers."

    I supposed now would be a good time for you to show when I argued anything like that.

    That their understanding of statistics is flawed. That they don't know what they're talking about. Why, any old mutation will do, gosh darn it!

    No, YOUR understanding about what they write is flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Thorton:

    Answer the question. Stop being silly and inane. And evasive.

    ReplyDelete
  83. the whole (partial) truth:

    "lino, the "context" was you stating that "the Flood" occurred, then Thorton asking you for details about said flood, and then you denying that you said that a "Flood" occurred, and then you playing dishonest games when I pointed out your lie and also questioning my morals and expecting an apology from me.

    Seems to me that you're the one with a "morals" problem."

    Why don't you read over the entire exchange. You will note that I explained what likely was understood as "The Flood", and explained it in a way that was rational, plausible, and had nothing to do with the Bible save the fact that I said what I was describing was "likely kept as an oral tradition", if I remember my wording correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Thorton:


    "This is the fun part folks! First get an ignorant poseur Creationist like Lino here yakking, and watch the most amazing steaming piles of organic fertilizer come spilling out of his mouth!"

    I've already told you: you're a creep. Why do you keep proving it over and over? We all understand by now. Grow up. Get a life.

    And answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Ya know, if you think about it, bible thumpers often behave very much like the god they worship, as he is portrayed in the bible. Thumpers portray themselves as moral, good, loving people but when they do bad things they often ignore them or make excuses, just like they ignore or make excuses for all the bad things their god has done, as reported in the bible, the alleged word of that god.

    When their god orders or commits genocide, they ignore it or make excuses for him. When their god floods the entire world and kills massive amounts of people, animals, and plants, they ignore it or make excuses for him. When their god causes earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, volcanic eruptions, and other 'catastrophies', they ignore it or make excuses and thank him for not causing even more death and destruction. When he contradicts himself and breaks his own divine moral code that allegedly cannot be broken even by him, they ignore it or make excuses for him.

    When their god does something nice, and good, they say 'See what a perfect, loving, giving, moral, tender, forgiving, merciful, caring, unselfish, personally involved, wonderful god he is! Praise the lord!'.

    Mankind wasn't created by god, god was created by mankind, in mankind's image, or at least the portion of mankind that has questionable, variable, or no morals.

    Just think of how convenient it is to be able to say that you have a wealth of excuses for your bad (sinful) behavior, and you're not really responsible for your bad behavior because the first people your god created did something bad and brought sin to all of mankind, and that your god will forgive all your sins if you ask.

    One of the reasons many people believe in and promote "God" is because it gives then a convenient way to put the blame for their sinful behavior (or thoughts) on someone else (the original sinners), and of course they're going to find a way to ignore or make excuses for their own bad behavior as they do with the bad behavior of their god.

    I think I'll start blaming hydrogen atoms for all of my bad behavior. After all, if it weren't for hydrogen atoms I wouldn't be here and I couldn't do anything bad. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  86. Hawks:

    "Cute. From a paper, you take a quote about the likelihood of an event and then try to argue something about the probability that event, clearly not knowing that there is a difference."

    I give you the floor: dazzle us with your brilliance. Tell us what the difference is between the "likelihood of an event" and the "probability [of] that event". Please, enlighten us all.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Hawks:

    "That's a keeper. I was talking about probabilities just like the paper and Behe. On top of that, don't you think that there might be some statistics involved when arriving at such numbers?"

    "Don't you think that there might be statistics involved when arriving at such numbers?"

    You're not familiar in the least with Behe's book, are you?

    "I supposed now would be a good time for you to show when I argued anything like that. "

    I was simply anticipating your nonsense.

    "No, YOUR understanding about what they write is flawed."

    Then demonstrate it, you fool! Otherwise, I'll simply have to assume---as is already fairly apparent---that you can't wrap your mind around it; or, in an intellectually dishonest way, you don't want to wrap your mind around it.

    Put up, or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Lino D'Ischia said...

    Answer the question. Stop being silly and inane. And evasive.


    I told you princess, as soon as you answer the dozen or so you cowardly avoided.

    You really are not too bright.

    ReplyDelete
  89. the whole (partial) truth:

    "Ya know, if you think about it, bible thumpers often behave very much like the god they worship, as he is portrayed in the bible. Thumpers portray themselves as moral, good, loving people but when they do bad things they often ignore them or make excuses, just like they ignore or make excuses for all the bad things their god has done, as reported in the bible, the alleged word of that god. ......."

    You go on and on like this for what? 5 or 6 paragraphs.

    You speak like a true scientist, don't you?

    Dr. Hunter tells you over and over again: "Religion drive science; and it matters." But you're too blind to see.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Lino, I give you the floor: dazzle us with your brilliance and tell us how you determined that lizards are pre-programmed to evolve, but fruit flies, bacteria, and humans need direct GAWD intervention to evolve.

    Tell us why geologic catastrophes are a problem for ToE.

    Tell us why Behe was too cowardly to submit his ideas to a main stream scientific journal instead of pandering to ignorant IDiots like you in the popular press.

    Tell us why us why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people.

    Put up or shut up Lino.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Lino,

    I give you the floor: dazzle us with your brilliance. Tell us what the difference is between the "likelihood of an event" and the "probability [of] that event". Please, enlighten us all.

    I already did. You know, when I talked about the likelihood of you getting the genetic makeup you did. Perhaps you should try to read it. Then, perhaps, you should try to understand it. And trust me, you don't have to be brilliant to do so...

    You're not familiar in the least with Behe's book, are you?

    You're not familiar with actually producing any arguments, are you?

    I was simply anticipating your nonsense.

    And you failed miserably. What a surprise.

    Then demonstrate it, you fool!

    I already did. You'd have to be a fool, an illiterate or both not to realize.

    Otherwise, I'll simply have to assume---as is already fairly apparent---that you can't wrap your mind around it; or, in an intellectually dishonest way, you don't want to wrap your mind around it.

    Given that you seem unable to conclude anything of worth, assuming random stuff is probably the best you can do. But thanks for claiming that I can't do something I've already done.

    Put up, or shut up.

    I already did. Learn to read. Get back to me when you have.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Thornton,

    I was hoping he'd provide more of an intellectual challenge, but he doesn't seem too bright to be honest.

    I wish I could say that this is unusual in an evolution-denier.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The Whole Truth,

    Have you read the Bible through completely for yourself?

    Atheists are not consist in the arguments. They say a good God would not allow evil in the world, yet when the Bible speaks of God judging evil, they call God evil. Their argument not only lacks understanding of the Bible, but is internally contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Lino,

    At Hawks; "You're not familiar in the least with Behe's book, are you?"

    None of these guys have read anything they claim. At best they may have read an evolutionists review of Behe's material. Most of these guys sit in their basements at their computers all day and night because they have no life.

    Some of them also like to claim they have done serious research into biology, genetics, etc. However, the quality of their arguments and their constant use of personal attacks belies any real education.

    They seem to think no one who disagrees with them ever reads TalkOrigins, etc., the source of all their arguments. They seem to think everyone who supports ID is as lazy and narrow minded as they are and, as they do, refuses to read material contrary to their position. The best way to defend your position is to know your oppositions position.

    They demonstrate on a constant basis they have no clue as to the claims of ID. Anyone who supports ID is just an IDiot. They never seem to realize how immature that is. I guess it's to be expected though, as their heroes Coyne and Myers are fond of using the term. Pretty pathetic for people who are well educated and should know better. Just more proof of the weakness of their position.

    You're definitely getting to them as they are now starting to retreat by claiming you're too stupid to understand their arguments. A regular ploy for these guys when they know they're outgunned. Run away while calling you stupid over their shoulders.

    Good job Lino.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Have you read the Bible through completely for yourself?


    I have Tedford - all of it. I know it better than most Creationists I meet.

    Atheists are not consist in the arguments. They say a good God would not allow evil in the world, yet when the Bible speaks of God judging evil, they call God evil. Their argument not only lacks understanding of the Bible, but is internally contradictory.

    Lino just spent the last day telling us how your God deliberately gave the malaria causing bacteria resistance to drugs, the net effect of which is to allow the horrible disease to kill lots more people. Was that the act of a kind, loving God?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Gerry said...

    None of these guys have read anything they claim. At best they may have read an evolutionists review of Behe's material. Most of these guys sit in their basements at their computers all day and night because they have no life.


    How about you Gerry? You willing to tell us why Behe was too cowardly to submit his ideas to a main stream scientific journal instead of pandering to ignorant IDiots like you in the popular press?

    You willing to tell us why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people?

    Or are you just here to bellyache and moan like the other Creationist dimbulbs?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Neal,

    The bible is contradictory (to put it mildly). The god depicted in the bible (the alleged word of that god) does horrible things and so do his agents and followers, yet that god and his agents and followers are allegedly good, moral, and special.

    "...yet when the Bible speaks of God judging evil, they call God evil."

    That's not an accurate statement. It's not that evil shouldn't be judged. Courts and other 'authorities' do it all the time. But if the court or other authority does something evil, people would (and should) expect (or demand) the court to be judged too.

    Your imaginary god gets a free ride from you thumpers but people with real morals and clear heads don't like the idea that a so-called god, who is alleged to be perfect, loving, merciful, forgiving, the source of morals, etc., but does absolutely awful things to its own creations, and demands total obedience, worship, love, and devotion, and threatens (or actually carries out) numerous forms of unconscionable punishment, including genocide and eternal damnation, should get that free ride by not being judged.

    People with real morals and clear heads also don't like the idea that the agents/followers/worshipers/promoters of that so-called god believe that they are special, and should not be judged by other people, and are above anyone who isn't a member of their cult, and can shove their crazy cult beliefs into everyone's life whether they like it or not and can use violence, slavery, and/or any threats or other forms of manipulation and control to do so (especially with children), and can be despicable, hypocritical, dishonest monsters and get away with it, and can wage war on science, and can rightfully expect and demand respect of their insane beliefs and practices, just because they say so, because after all, according to them their beliefs and actions are god approved and commanded. What a sick way to think.

    The people who promote the bible are the ones who really need to read it and stop being selective about which parts they're going to believe and push, while ignoring or making excuses for the parts that show their god to be an amoral, incompetent, jealous, petty, violent, murderous, merciless, inconsistent, contradictory monster.

    ReplyDelete
  98. The whole truth, so have you actually read the Bible through completely for yourself?

    Because you think the Bible has contradictions doesn't mean that it actually does. Your getting all worked up about something the atheists union or whatever has sold as an accurate description of the God of the Bible... but it's not.

    You said, "That's not an accurate statement. It's not that evil shouldn't be judged. Courts and other 'authorities' do it all the time."

    --

    So what happens when the Canaanite authorities and the whole society are so corrupt that sacrificing children on an altar is not only accepted but an expected duty? What should happen when there are no police or courts to defend the brutal treatment of children and women in Canaan? What should be done when the warnings to repent are unwelcome for generations? The Amalekites brutally murdered the weak and sick Israels when they were in the desert. You sit comfortably 3,000 years removed from the circumstances and exaggerate your adjectives and think that the Canaanites were innocent victims.

    So what should God do when generations of brutality are not brought to justice because there are no police and no one in that society to put a stop to it? Is God evil to stop it or is He evil to allow it to continue? You can't have it both ways for your argument to be consistent, so which do you pick?

    ReplyDelete
  99. I wrote: Note the scientists at the Ventner Institute. Each and every scientist has a complex material brain. In fact, every time we observed intelligent intention and guidance, we've also observed complex material nervous systems. So, intelligence and intent requires complex material nervous systems. Right Neal?

    Still waiting, Neal.

    This is concrete example of how you do not justify conclusions based on inductivism, despite what are essentially claims that you do.

    How do you explain this discrepancy? Are you going to completely ignore the question yet again?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hawks:

    "I already did. You know, when I talked about the likelihood of you getting the genetic makeup you did. Perhaps you should try to read it. "

    That was utter, blithering nonsense, that I chose not to embarass you with.

    What a bunch of blithering boobs you guys are. Uneducated, unread, and at the lower end of the IQ scale. I've wasted enough time with you already.

    You know, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

    I leave you to your arrogance and ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Gerry:

    "None of these guys have read anything they claim. At best they may have read an evolutionists review of Behe's material. Most of these guys sit in their basements at their computers all day and night because they have no life."

    I couldn't agree with you more. It reminds me of Panda's Thumb.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Lino,

    That was utter, blithering nonsense, that I chose not to embarass you with.

    Please do embarass me. For your own sake, I hope you manage to do so without embarassing yourself even more. I suspect this will not happen because, to use your own words against you:

    ...I'll simply have to assume---as is already fairly apparent---that you can't wrap your mind around it; or, in an intellectually dishonest way, you don't want to wrap your mind around it.

    ReplyDelete
  103. troy:
    " Any specific pair of mutations has a very low a priori probability, but the probability that some beneficial pair of mutations will end up in some individual members of a species is of course very high. You seem to misunderstand the simplest and most basic statistical concepts."

    You seem not to understand the first thing about population genetics. So why don't you go and read about "fixation"? Why don't you read about the Neutral Theory? Not only do beneficial mutations have to arise, they have to arise at specific locations, and then they have to spread through the population.

    The vast majority of mutations are deleterious. The improbability of a mutation arising at a particular location of the genome is low because of the low mutation rate. The spreading of a mutation is very slow given that most mutations are harmful and that any beneficial mutations have to "swim upstream" of the deleterious ones, so to speak.

    So, go to the library, read some books, and then we can have an intelligent discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Lino:

    "What a bunch of blithering boobs you guys are. Uneducated, unread, and at the lower end of the IQ scale. I've wasted enough time with you already."

    I strongly suspect that several of those uneducated boobs have a PhD degree in a relevant biological subject. What kind of relevant education do you have?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Lino:

    "You seem not to understand the first thing about population genetics. So why don't you go and read about "fixation"? Why don't you read about the Neutral Theory?"

    I guess I was just lucky that peer-review malfunctioned when my population genetics papers were accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Hawks:

    "Please do embarass me. For your own sake, I hope you manage to do so without embarassing yourself even more."

    The comment referred to:

    "For example, take you own genetic composition. The odds of you getting the combination of genes you did from your parents was something like 1 in 10^10 (btw, I can't remember the exact numbers here, but it doesn't really matter all that much). Go back 10 generations and the odds would be 1 in 10^100. The likelihood that genes would be inherited the way they were was ridiculously small. Does that mean that you didn't get your genes through recombination of your ancestors' gametes (+plus some other more stuff that makes above likelihood WAAYYY smaller)? No, the probability of this is quite large. But it does mean that you and Cornelius don't know what you are talking about."

    It's hard to analyze this. Why? Because it is complete, utter, nonsense.

    You've managed to stand logic on its head, and you've managed to stand NS on its head likewise. Congratulations.

    Have you graduated High School yet?

    Anyone with a HS education would know enough about biology and enough about probabilities to not make these foolish comments.

    Without you're knowing it, you've made the case for ID. Why? Because there's something that cells do that's called "meiosis". And every time that a cell divides, the entire billion or so base pairs are replicated faithfully, except for 10 or 20. This is a very high level of precision.

    Now, if there were no such mechanism in place, and if random aggregation of base pairs occurred, then the ensuing pairing would take place randomly, and your silly statistics would apply. And then, in your own words: "The likelihood that genes would be inherited the way they were was ridiculously small."

    So, somehow, a machinery is in place in the cell that is able to overcome this huge, astronomically large improbability.

    ID say, plausibly, that this machinery has the hallmarks of design. OTOH, Darwinism says this all happened by chance. Please explain to us all how this process of inheritance came about. And, please note, you unless you have faithful copying of DNA, then replication is not possible, and, hence, NS is not possible.

    Absurd nonsense. All of it.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Hawks:

    "Cute. From a paper, you take a quote about the likelihood of an event and then try to argue something about the probability that event, clearly not knowing that there is a difference. Lino, it's not very deep here, but you're still drowning."

    Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

    "Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur."

    Dear, Hawks, please tell us the "difference". Please forgive me if I don't stay around for the answer. Life is too short.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Lino,

    If you knew what you were talking about, then you would know that a likelihood is not a probability. A likelihood doesn't (necessarily) integrate to 1.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Lino,

    Oh, dear. Keep digging.

    Without you're knowing it, you've made the case for ID. Why? Because there's something that cells do that's called "meiosis". And every time that a cell divides, the entire billion or so base pairs are replicated faithfully, except for 10 or 20. This is a very high level of precision.

    I was talking about meiosis (and crossing over). This is, after all, what gives you the combination of genes you have from your parents. I wasn't factoring in any mutations, so your protest is irrelevant. May I suggest that you read up on meiosis so that you can perhaps understand my point?

    Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

    "Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur."

    Dear, Hawks, please tell us the "difference". Please forgive me if I don't stay around for the answer. Life is too short.


    The paper we were discussing was talking about a likelihood in a bayesian sense. I.e. the likelihood of an observation given a hypothesis rather than the probability of a hypothesis given an observation. I doubt you'll understand the difference between the two because... well, your track record so far.

    But I'll try again with an example that does not require you to really know very much:

    Observation: there is a noise coming from your attic.
    Hypothesis: there are gremlins bowling in your attic.

    Here, the likelihood is very high since if there were gremlins up in your attic bowling, then you would most likely hear lots of noises. However, the probability is very low since noises from your attic occurring due to bowling gremlins is low (to say the least). Ergo, in a bayesian sense, there is a difference between a likelihood and a probability. The paper is question was talking about likelihoods. From this you drew a conclusion about a probability. You can't. Capisce?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Scott said, "In fact, every time we observed intelligent intention and guidance, we've also observed complex material nervous systems."

    -

    Evolution is based on false premises, so why not deal with those first?

    Secondly, our amazing universe is not eternal and the best explanation for its creation is from design. Hawkings says the the universe created itself from nothing. It just appeared. This is where materialists will eventually end up with the origin of life... it just appeared.
    Which is equal in value to origin of life explanations via purely undesigned processes.

    Creation was either caused by nothing or creation by an intelligent, eternal being. Take your pick.

    We have an extensive empirical knowledge of the limits of what chemical processes can do on earth... enough to falsify evolution on earth, if it were allowed to be falsified. If "what" has been rendered incapable of producing life, then "Who" directed the processes to form life becomes a reasonable question.

    Scientists have pondered the existence of dark energy and dark matter, yet don't know what it is and can't observe it directly. Yet, they think it is reasonable given the effects that they observe. Is dark energy "material"? Do you possess a comprehensive knowledge of what material is in every possible reality?

    The first definition of material is 1. The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made. Now for a Bible lesson.

    God is Spirit. That is the substance of God. Just because you can't directly observe Spirit doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Literally hundreds of millions of people can personally testify that the Spirit of God is real in their lives. I can observe the effects in someone's life that has prayed and surrendered their life to Jesus Christ and been filled with the Holy Spirit. I've observed the effects of spirit of God upon a large group of worshippers move as a wave across the crowd without prompting or directing from a worship leader. When people sincerely pray to be filled with the Holy Spirit, they often say afterwards that they felt something tangible that they haven't felt before.
    Atheists seem quite bold in dimissing the claims of hundreds of millions of people. Are you familar with Pascal's wager?

    ReplyDelete
  111. tedford said:

    "Because you think the Bible has contradictions doesn't mean that it actually does."

    Because you don't think that the bible has contradictions doesn't mean that it doesn't.

    For a start, see this:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

    This is revealing too:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

    "So what happens when the Canaanite authorities and the whole society are so corrupt that sacrificing children on an altar is not only accepted but an expected duty?......."

    Well golly gee whiz, I guess "God" should command the ruthless slaughter of every man, woman, CHILD, and even their livestock. Or he should drown, or otherwise destroy, unimaginable numbers of men, women, children, plants, and animals. After all, an omnipotent, omniscient, loving, merciful god surely couldn't find another way to deal with the behavior of HIS OWN CREATIONS.

    By the way, can (or do) animals and plants commit sins? How about human babies/children?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Hey Lino, you forgot to answer these questions again:

    Lino, I give you the floor: dazzle us with your brilliance and tell us how you determined that lizards are pre-programmed to evolve, but fruit flies, bacteria, and humans need direct GAWD intervention to evolve.

    Tell us why geologic catastrophes are a problem for ToE.

    Tell us why Behe was too cowardly to submit his ideas to a main stream scientific journal instead of pandering to ignorant IDiots like you in the popular press.

    Tell us why us why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people.


    Maybe we should get Gerry to give you the lecture about how cowards always run away.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Lino the poseur said...

    Dear, Hawks, please tell us the "difference". Please forgive me if I don't stay around for the answer. Life is too short.


    RED ALERT! RED ALERT!

    Creationist poseur has ignorance exposed, heads for the door!

    FLOUNCE AWAY IMMINENT!

    ReplyDelete
  114. tedford asked:

    "Are you familar with Pascal's wager?"

    Do you believe in every god that has ever been posited? What if your chosen god is the wrong one? What if they're all the wrong one? What if there isn't one?

    Many millions of people have believed in a huge variety gods or spirits or other supernatural beings/entities throughout human history. Millions also believe in astrology.

    What makes your beliefs the right ones and all others the wrong ones? Is it simply based on popularity?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Atheists seem quite bold in dimissing the claims of hundreds of millions of people. Are you familar with Pascal's wager?


    Have you heard of Homer Simpson's wager?

    "But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder!"

    ReplyDelete
  116. The whole truth,


    Tedford asked; "Are you familar with Pascal's wager?"

    The whole truth responded; "Do you believe in every god that has ever been posited? What if your chosen god is the wrong one? What if they're all the wrong one? What if there isn't one?

    Your response to Tedford's question would be no, then. If you were familiar with Pascal's Wager you would know it does not pertain directly to any particular religion, but instead is formulated as an argument for the wisdom of wagering on God's existence as opposed to wagering against it. To wager against his existence and be wrong carries with it dire consequences and no gain. To wager for his existence carries with it great gain and no loss.

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the argument before criticizing it.
    It's quite obvious that if you have read it, you do not grasp its meaning or its nature.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Thorton,


    "Tell us why geologic catastrophes are a problem for ToE."

    One of the problems relates to the formation of fossils. If, as creationists believe, there was a catastrophic world wide flood that could account for the rapid death and burial of multiple millions of creatures, it would throw your argument for the gradual evolution of all life into disarray.

    However, I'm not going to argue any and all catastrophic events are a problem for evolution.

    "Tell us why Behe was too cowardly to submit his ideas to a main stream scientific journal instead of pandering to ignorant IDiots like you in the popular press."

    First you must demonstrate he was indeed afraid to do so. Sometimes articles are requested by a particular publication and as such are written exclusively for that publication. Second, the popular press is hardly pandering to ID. I guess this would be evidence for the fact you really don't read much.

    "Tell us why us why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people."

    Explain what you mean by God 'intervening.'

    ReplyDelete
  118. The whole truth,

    "After all, an omnipotent, omniscient, loving, merciful god surely couldn't find another way to deal with the behavior of HIS OWN CREATIONS."

    The answer to your question is in your own response. You're exactly right, God could have chosen another way if he so wished. He did not, and that is his prerogative as an omniscient being dealing with his own creation. For you to question his actions, it would be necessary for you to be equal to God as that would be the only way you could understand his motives. As you are not, your criticism is moot.

    ReplyDelete
  119. The whole truth,


    "For a start, see this:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html"

    A question. Have you ever gone to the many sources available which address the supposed contradictions in the Bible? If not, maybe you should, if for no other reason than your own edification.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Gerry said...

    T: "Tell us why geologic catastrophes are a problem for ToE."

    One of the problems relates to the formation of fossils. If, as creationists believe, there was a catastrophic world wide flood that could account for the rapid death and burial of multiple millions of creatures, it would throw your argument for the gradual evolution of all life into disarray.


    But there wasn't a catastrophic world wide flood, so it's a non-issue. Lino claimed all the other geologic catastrophes are problems for ToE. I take it you disagree with him.

    T; "Tell us why Behe was too cowardly to submit his ideas to a main stream scientific journal instead of pandering to ignorant IDiots like you in the popular press."

    First you must demonstrate he was indeed afraid to do so. Sometimes articles are requested by a particular publication and as such are written exclusively for that publication. Second, the popular press is hardly pandering to ID. I guess this would be evidence for the fact you really don't read much.


    Behe claims to have evidence that would change the very foundation of modern science. But instead of submitting it to properly qualified scientific experts for review, he pitched it to scientifically ignorant laymen who were desperately seeking some scientific justification for their religious beliefs. That's either the act of a coward, or a charlatan looking to make $$$ from the gullible. In Behe's case it's probably both.

    "Tell us why us why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people."

    Explain what you mean by God 'intervening.'


    Lino told us it's impossible that the bacteria which causes malaria evolved its observed resistance to anti-malarial drugs on its own, and the his God deliberately designed the new gene to give it the drug resistance. The effect of course is the death of untold millions more people from the disease. Is Lino wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Hawks,


    "Here, the likelihood is very high since if there were gremlins up in your attic bowling, then you would most likely hear lots of noises. However, the probability is very low since noises from your attic occurring due to bowling gremlins is low (to say the least)."

    I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't think this example meets the standard.

    For instance, just exchange the words.

    Here, the probability is very high since if there were gremlins up in your attic bowling, then you would most likely hear lots of noises. However, the likelihood is very low since noises from your attic occurring due to bowling gremlins is low (to say the least).

    Reversing the terms really does nothing to change the meaning as the argument is formulated on bowling gremlins. Therefore, if there were indeed gremlins in your attic bowling, as your first sentence posits, they would probably make noise. However, as gremlins are unlikely to exist or bowl, the likelihood of that being the source of the noise is low.

    ReplyDelete
  122. FYI Gerry, that P.falciparum was given two very specific amino acid mutations by the Intelligent Designer, mutations which provide it resistance to the anti-malarial drug chloroquine, was one of the main themes in Behe's Edge Of Evolution

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with Behe's argument before trying to defend it. It's quite obvious that if you have read it, you do not grasp its meaning or its nature.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Gerry,

    For goodness' sake, likelihood is a technical term from statistics. Check this out. If you didn't know that already, then you're just bullshitting.

    ReplyDelete
  124. D'Ischia,

    I'm back!

    I'm afraid your prediction is wrong.

    This must be interesting!

    I align myself with Prum and Brush.

    So, you agree with their proposed stages of feather evolution... but this is somehow in conflict with the fossil evidence from Sinosauropteryx. Puzzling.

    There is a paper by C. Foth, "On the identification of feather structures in stem-line representatives of birds" (May 2011), challenging the speculations of Xu and Zheng's 2010 paper. It would appear that the earliest known feathers already resembled recent bird feathers.

    Xu and Zheng 2010: Exceptional dinosaur fossils show ontogenetic development of early feathers

    What the paper is about: Feathers from Similicaudipteryx.

    What the paper is not about: Protofeathers and Sinosauropteryx. There is not even a single mention of Sinosauropteryx in the paper.

    I wonder why would anyone build such a transparent straw man. I could be charitable and assume you just get confused by the complicated Latin names.

    Geoxus, have you even read a paper on any of this?

    No, I haven't read any paper about Similicaudipteryx. Good for me I didn't say anything about it :)

    Prum (2010) also challenges Xu and Zheng's findings.

    And therefore, it's completely irrelevant to Sinosauropteryx.

    Here's a quote from Foth's paper (discussion section):

    "Several problems and challenges face researchers trying to interpret feather structures foudn in the fossil record. As just shown, examples of simple and aberrant feather morphologies can be taphonomic in origin, and thus not represent INTERMEDIATE STEPS of feather evolution." (my emphasis)


    The fossil taxon analysed in that paper was Confuciusornis. And when the author mentioned Sinosauropteryx, he didn't rise any doubts about the traditional interpretation.

    Got anything relevant to say about Sinosauropteryx?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Gerry,

    Reversing the terms really does nothing to change the meaning as the argument is formulated on bowling gremlins.

    ??????Seriously?????? Are you really trying to make an argument here? But yeah, sure. If we swapped the meaning of two words then the meaning of those two words would be swapped. My point (and must REALLY have misunderstood it) was that likelihood means one thing and probability means another (in the context of the paper being discussed). Specifically, a likelihood can be expressed as Pr(O|H)=Pr(O&H)/Pr(H) and a probability as Pr(H|O)=Pr(H&O)/Pr(O) [where O=observation, H=hypothesis and Pr=probability].

    As Elliott Sober stated in his very good but sometimes hard to follow book "Evidence and evolution":

    Because Fisher's terminology has become standard in statistics, I will use it here. However, this terminology is confusing, since in ordinary English, "likely" and "probably" are synonymous. So, beware! You need to remember that "likelihood" is a technical term. The likelihood of H, Pr(O|H), and the posterior probability of H, Pr(H|O), are different quantities and they can have different values.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Hawks,


    "(in the context of the paper being discussed)."

    Then I will accept your argument as I have not read the paper and was only commenting on what you wrote. In hindsight that was not the best idea. Sorry.

    The truth is, in general parlance likelihood and probability are seen as one and the same. But I agree that is not always the case.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Thorton,


    "Behe claims to have evidence that would change the very foundation of modern science. But instead of submitting it to properly qualified scientific experts for review, he pitched it to scientifically ignorant laymen who were desperately seeking some scientific justification for their religious beliefs. That's either the act of a coward, or a charlatan looking to make $$$ from the gullible. In Behe's case it's probably both."

    This still does not demonstrate cowardice. Just admit it, you made rash statement which you can't support. Move on, no big deal.


    "But there wasn't a catastrophic world wide flood, so it's a non-issue."

    Says who, you? That's no where near good enough. No one can possibly say such a thing did not or could not happen.


    "Lino told us it's impossible that the bacteria which causes malaria evolved its observed resistance to anti-malarial drugs on its own, and the his God deliberately designed the new gene to give it the drug resistance. The effect of course is the death of untold millions more people from the disease. Is Lino wrong?"


    Can you provide me with Lino's comment so I can respond appropriately? I am honestly too tired right now to search for it and in a lot of pain from an injured leg and I'm going to bed now. So please, do the work for me this time. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Gerry said...

    This still does not demonstrate cowardice


    Like I said, it's either the act of a coward or a charlatan looking to make $$$ from the gullible.

    In either case Behe came off looking like a disingenuous buffoon to the scientific community, a position he still holds BTW.

    T: "But there wasn't a catastrophic world wide flood, so it's a non-issue."

    Says who, you? That's no where near good enough. No one can possibly say such a thing did not or could not happen.


    Yes, science can and does say it didn't happen. I can point you to any number of geologic formations that would be physically impossible to form in a Genesis described Noah's worldwide flood. I'll start laying them out if you promise to address them.

    Can you provide me with Lino's comment so I can respond appropriately?

    Some examples:

    Lino: "My theory is that God created life, and that that life evolved, with God infusing the evolving life with information at certain critical moments."

    Lino: "Read "The Edge of Evolution". You might learn something.

    And with a straight face they say they've refuted Behe's claims; it only will take 31.6 million years for the two amino acids to change."

    and this exchange

    T: "Just two days ago you gave us this explanation of ID:

    Lino: "IDers would posit---you see, we make actual predictions, contra Darwinism, and predictions that can be falsified, contra Darwinism---that some kind of pre-conditioned regulatory mechanism is "triggered" under the right, and sustained, environmental conditions."

    But today you're arguing that to change amino acids, direct intervention by the Designer is required.

    Why the flip flop?

    Lino: Do you think the replicational powers of a lizard are the same as that of a malarial parasite, or of the fruit fly? Different animals, different needs, different mechanisms.


    Lino's defense of Behe and references to his God doing the Intelligent Design intervention are scattered throughout. Besides, I thought you said your read Behe's book? The major point in his book is that the genetic mutations causing resistance to anti-malarial drugs (Behe calls them CCCs) was impossible to evolve and required the intervention of the Intelligent Designer. Just what do you think the Edge of Evolution is suppose to be anyway?

    I am honestly too tired right now to search for it and in a lot of pain from an injured leg and I'm going to bed now. So please, do the work for me this time. Thanks.

    Sorry to hear about your leg, best wishes for a speedy recovery.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Thorton:

    "Maybe we should get Gerry to give you the lecture about how cowards always run away."

    When you're dealing with imbeciles, it's a waste of time attempting to reason with them.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Geoxus:

    "What the paper is about: Feathers from Similicaudipteryx.

    What the paper is not about: Protofeathers and Sinosauropteryx. There is not even a single mention of Sinosauropteryx in the paper.

    I wonder why would anyone build such a transparent straw man. I could be charitable and assume you just get confused by the complicated Latin names."

    I don't think you've thought things through here.

    The point of the paper is that in the case of Similicaudipteryx feathers that were considerd to be "intermediate" to recent bird feathers (modern feathers) were discovered to be modern feathers that simply looked like a filamentous intermediate because of the fossilization process.

    Obviously this applies to any type of pennumecious feather that is fossilized.

    As you've mentioned, Feduccia has questioned the Sauropteryx feathers from the beginning, and in a 2007 paper with others, gave evidence that they were no more than degraded collagen fibres. This paper comes 8 years after Sauropteryx was discovered and deals with a number of specimens. So caution is needed in trumpeting Sauropteryx.

    But it seems all of this is academic. Why? Because the Sauropteryx is dated to be 130 million years old. Archeaopteryx is dated at 140 million years old, and clearly has modern feathers. How is it then that a feather (that is perhaps not even a feather at all) which is 10 million years older than the most ancient known modern feather is then called an intermediate to the modern feather. That's like saying the Corvette was an intermediate form of the 1940 Ford.

    Obviously this is a very controverted area. And, it would appear that Darwinian orthodoxy runs the risk of trumping an objective evaluation of the fossil record.

    So, maybe I should rephrase my initial statement. Where are the intermediate forms leading up to the Archeopteryx?

    To the fair-minded scientist, this is a legitimate difficulty for Darwinian theory.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Thorton:

    "Lino: Do you think the replicational powers of a lizard are the same as that of a malarial parasite, or of the fruit fly? Different animals, different needs, different mechanisms."

    Since you're a blithering idiot, let me explain this to you.

    An organism that replicates at a very high rate (The malarial parasite can replicate up to a trillion times in just one human) and is less complex (Drosophila has a very small number of chromosomes) has the ability of simply producing enough copies of itself that somewhere along the line it will find the right "adaptation". (ID acknowledges that adaptation occurs.) In the case of a lizard, that doesn't have this replicational edge, then adaptations to an environment will either (1) be simply one or two amino acid mutations away from the needed adaptation, or (2) have a built in mechanism (which very likely include varying the normal mutation rate) that allows the organism, in epigenetic fashion, to switch to, if you will, a new configuration. (There was an Adriatic lizard species whose morphology changed dramatically in but 30 or so years, as an example).

    Now, since what I say about lizards doesn't conform to Darwinian orthodoxy, I'm sure you're going to react accordingly---with nasty invective. Nevertheless, in time, either ID or Darwinism will come out the victor.

    Right now, it looks like Darwinism is on its way out---just as Dr. Hunter's original post indicates.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Hawks:

    "I was talking about meiosis (and crossing over). This is, after all, what gives you the combination of genes you have from your parents. I wasn't factoring in any mutations, so your protest is irrelevant. May I suggest that you read up on meiosis so that you can perhaps understand my point?"

    Pure ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. As I've already said, you're out of your depth.


    "My point (and must REALLY have misunderstood it) was that likelihood means one thing and probability means another (in the context of the paper being discussed). Specifically, a likelihood can be expressed as Pr(O|H)=Pr(O&H)/Pr(H) and a probability as Pr(H|O)=Pr(H&O)/Pr(O) [where O=observation, H=hypothesis and Pr=probability]."

    Hawks, you don't know a thing. You write that "likelihood" and "probability" mean different things "in the context of the paper being discussed."

    Well, in the "paper being discussed" the word "likelihood" occurs ONCE. The word "Bayesian" occurs once---in the bibliography.

    Here's the ONE use of the word "likelihood":

    "Indeed his error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (BEHE 2007, p. 61)."


    It is very clear that "likelihood" is expressed as a PROBABILITY!

    So, Hawks, what's your explanation now?

    I've already pointed out the Wikipedia definition, which is completely consonant with its usage in the paper.

    You, too, Hawks, are a complete blithering idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Gerry:

    Hope you're feeling better.

    And don't bother looking up this quote:

    "Lino told us it's impossible that the bacteria which causes malaria evolved its observed resistance to anti-malarial drugs on its own, and the his God deliberately designed the new gene to give it the drug resistance. The effect of course is the death of untold millions more people from the disease. Is Lino wrong?"

    This is just Thorton being . . . well, I'll hold my tongue in check.

    I never said such a thing. This is how Thorton's poor, demented mind interprets things.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Lino the poseur said...

    An organism that replicates at a very high rate (The malarial parasite can replicate up to a trillion times in just one human) and is less complex (Drosophila has a very small number of chromosomes) has the ability of simply producing enough copies of itself that somewhere along the line it will find the right "adaptation". (ID acknowledges that adaptation occurs.) In the case of a lizard, that doesn't have this replicational edge, then adaptations to an environment will either (1) be simply one or two amino acid mutations away from the needed adaptation, or (2) have a built in mechanism (which very likely include varying the normal mutation rate) that allows the organism, in epigenetic fashion, to switch to, if you will, a new configuration. (There was an Adriatic lizard species whose morphology changed dramatically in but 30 or so years, as an example).


    ...which directly contradicts your earlier claims, and which directly contradicts Behe's argument that you've been pushing.

    Keep blithering Lino. I'm sure you can get that other foot in your mouth too.

    and is less complex (Drosophila has a very small number of chromosomes)

    So now you claim complexity is based on the number of chromosomes? Tell us poseur, which is more complex: a human with a genome of 3 billion base pairs or the amoeba P. dubium with a genome of 670 billion base pairs?

    You're nothing but a scientifically ignorant bullshit artist Lino. Like all Creationists you're making up this crap as you go along, and now you're getting called on it. Apparently you don't mind being a clown for the board's entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Thorton:

    "Tell us why geologic catastrophes are a problem for ToE."

    It's already been explained. You're ignorant of the "Origin of Species", ignorant of the history of Darwinism after publication of the OoS. There's nothing I can do about that.

    Darwinism is built upon a "gradualistic" model. Darwin insisted on "gradualism" even when challenged to modify his insistence. Darwin was deeply indebted to the gradualism that is the hallmark of Lyellian geology. Catastrophic events obviously challenge the orthodoxy of "gradualism". And because of Darwin's insistence on gradualism, it undermines the credibility of his theory.

    Or, let's put it another way: it wasn't one form, after another, after another, in ever increasing levels of complexity and diversity. Instead, the fossil record has explosions of diversity. This is a non-Darwinian scenario. Darwin knew of the Cambrian Explosion (as we call it) and suggested that there existed forms, prior to the Cambrian, that would have been almost as complex as those seen during the Cambrian. Of course, this isn't so. The Ediacauran fossils are not ancestral to the Cambrian forms, neither are they nearly as complex.

    Now, Thorton, go and read up on some of this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Hey Lino, you forgot to answer these questions yet again:

    Lino, I give you the floor: dazzle us with your brilliance and tell us how you determined that lizards are pre-programmed to evolve, but fruit flies, bacteria, and humans need direct GAWD intervention to evolve.

    Tell us why geologic catastrophes are a problem for ToE.

    Tell us why Behe was too cowardly to submit his ideas to a main stream scientific journal instead of pandering to ignorant IDiots like you in the popular press.

    Tell us why us why your God intervened to give malaria resistance to drugs so it could keep painfully killing people.


    Cowards die a thousand deaths Lino. You've still got 990 to go.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Lino the BS artist said...

    Catastrophic events obviously challenge the orthodoxy of "gradualism".


    Small local catastrophic events don't challenge anything in the theory of evolution. Even bigger ones like the K/T impactor don't harm the theory in the least.

    Your claims are getting more stupid by the hour.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Lino the BS artist said...

    And don't bother looking up this quote:


    That wasn't a quote you liar. That was a summary of the position you've been arguing, a summary which I supported with your real quotes.

    For the record Lino, tell us how P. falciparum developed its resistance chloroquine.

    1) God intervened and created the required mutations when they were needed as Behe claims.

    2) The mutations occurred on their own because sometime earlier the genome was designed to do so as you now claim.

    You've flip-flopped between those two contradictory positions several times now. Make up your tiny Creationist mind.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Lino,

    Pure ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. As I've already said, you're out of your depth.

    And yet you can't say why I'm wrong.

    Well, in the "paper being discussed" the word "likelihood" occurs ONCE. The word "Bayesian" occurs once---in the bibliography.

    Here's the ONE use of the word "likelihood":

    "Indeed his error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (BEHE 2007, p. 61)."


    You forgot to quote what came just after that:

    Taking 2N = 10^6 and m1 = m2 = 10^-9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with Formula having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600.

    "waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species" is a likelihood whether you like it or not. Do the authors say exlicitly that this is a likelihood? No, but the fact that it was mentioned in the very next sentence where the word likelihood occurred should have been a good clue for you. And even if they hadn't mentioned the word likelihood at all, they would still be talking about them, just like someone talking about canines can be talking about dogs. Lino, sometimes you have to understand the meaning of words.

    It is very clear that "likelihood" is expressed as a PROBABILITY!

    It is very clear that it is not. But keep embarrasing yourself.

    So, Hawks, what's your explanation now?

    The same as always. Not that you'll understand it.

    I've already pointed out the Wikipedia definition, which is completely consonant with its usage in the paper.

    Keep those fingers in our ears and keep singling lalalalala.

    You, too, Hawks, are a complete blithering idiot.

    And that would make you ... holy moly ...

    Pure ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. As I've already said, you're out of your depth.

    I'm going to have to change something I said earlier. There is actually no water but you're still drowning.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Thornton about Lino:

    I was hoping he'd provide more of an intellectual challenge...

    I'd say that's an epic fail on your part. This guy is the on the intellectual level of JoeG.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Thornton:

    "Lino told us it's impossible that the bacteria which causes malaria evolved its observed resistance to anti-malarial drugs on its own, and the his God deliberately designed the new gene to give it the drug resistance. The effect of course is the death of untold millions more people from the disease. Is Lino wrong?"

    First, malaria is caused by a parasite, not a bacterium. (You must be a very knowledgeable man.)

    Second, it's abundantly clear that the parasite has the replicational prowess to eventually make the needed two amino acid change. (How this wasn't at any time apparent to you is a mystery.)

    Third, I never said that "God deliberately designed the new gene", nor did I need to, nor did I intend, since, as I just stated, it's clear the parasite can find its way to the needed two amino acid switch.

    So, not only are you dumb, you're dishonest. Congratulations.


    __________________

    LDI:'Catastrophic events obviously challenge the orthodoxy of "gradualism". '

    T: "Small local catastrophic events don't challenge anything in the theory of evolution. Even bigger ones like the K/T impactor don't harm the theory in the least."

    I was talking about "gradualism". Why, then, did you switch to the TofE. In your mind, nothing falsifies the TofE. That's the problem. You're a true believer. Reason cannot prevail.




    Thorton:

    "For the record Lino, tell us how P. falciparum developed its resistance chloroquine.

    1) God intervened and created the required mutations when they were needed as Behe claims.

    2) The mutations occurred on their own because sometime earlier the genome was designed to do so as you now claim."

    Talking to you is like talking to a deaf dog. Can you sort anything out at all? The only one setting up this false dichotomy is you.

    Pomposity and arrogance: that's all you're capable of.

    Thorton:

    "You've flip-flopped between those two contradictory positions several times now. Make up your tiny Creationist mind."

    They're not contradictory, they're complimentary. Why don't you go and look up the word 'complimentary'? The internet is good that way.

    Thorton:

    "...which directly contradicts your earlier claims, and which directly contradicts Behe's argument that you've been pushing."

    Not necessarily. I said "one or two". One mutation is obviously very reachable.

    And it's possible for a two amino acid substitution to come about with only two base pairs changing. Under the right conditions, and given enough time, two nucleotide changes could come about, though I suspect it would be somewhat rare (assuming completely random processes) However, it's entirely possible for the genome to have a built in mechanism that allows certain small portions of the genome to mutate at a much higher rate than in other parts. Recent studies indicate that mutation rates are highly variable.)

    "So now you claim complexity is based on the number of chromosomes? Tell us poseur, which is more complex: a human with a genome of 3 billion base pairs or the amoeba P. dubium with a genome of 670 billion base pairs?"

    I assume you mean a human other than yourself.

    Complexity is an information measure, and is inversely related to the length of the genome. And you know that. And if you don't, please don't admit it.

    By the way, the P. dubium genome size is of dubious accuracy. Youre wikipedia link shows as much.

    The mouse genome is larger than that for humans.

    It is tiring having to explain things to you.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Hawks:

    ""waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species" is a likelihood whether you like it or not. Do the authors say exlicitly that this is a likelihood? No, but the fact that it was mentioned in the very next sentence where the word likelihood occurred should have been a good clue for you. And even if they hadn't mentioned the word likelihood at all, they would still be talking about them, just like someone talking about canines can be talking about dogs. Lino, sometimes you have to understand the meaning of words."

    In the history of internet blogging, this has got to be the lamest excuse for a rebuttal that has ever been seen.

    Goodbye.

    ReplyDelete
  143. The point of the paper is that in the case of Similicaudipteryx feathers that were considerd to be "intermediate" to recent bird feathers (modern feathers) were discovered to be modern feathers that simply looked like a filamentous intermediate because of the fossilization process.

    Not at all. The Similicaudipteryx paper described new type of proper feathers in an ontogenetic series, not protofeathers. That is a very different kind of interpretation, and the feather morphology in Similicaudipteryx is very different from the protofeathers of Sinosauropteryx. Even if similar criticisms were applicable to Sinosaurpoteryx, something none of the authors said (Prum actually examined specimens of Sinosauropteryx and concluded them to be a close fit to his models of feather evolution), the protofeather interpretation remains still to be refuted. That is far from your "no evidence whatsoever".

    As you've mentioned, Feduccia has questioned the Sauropteryx feathers from the beginning, and in a 2007 paper with others, gave evidence that they were no more than degraded collagen fibres. This paper comes 8 years after Sauropteryx was discovered and deals with a number of specimens. So caution is needed in trumpeting Sauropteryx.

    LOL, was I wrong or not? You said you'd align yourself with Prum and Brush, but now you're back to Feduccia, as I predicted you'd be. Flip-flop much?

    The structures in Sinosauropteryx contain melanosomes, the pigment-bearing structures that determine the colour of feathers. Collagen fibres would not be pigmented. Feduccia is demonstrated wrong as usual.

    But it seems all of this is academic. Why? Because the Sauropteryx is dated to be 130 million years old. Archeaopteryx is dated at 140 million years old, and clearly has modern feathers. How is it then that a feather (that is perhaps not even a feather at all) which is 10 million years older than the most ancient known modern feather is then called an intermediate to the modern feather.

    "Intermediate form" or "transitional" does not mean direct ancestor. It means that the morphological feature of some taxon resembles the character state that would be ancestral to
    the character state of a related taxon.

    You want to see this (character states between brackets, 1 featherless, 2 "protofeather", 3 proper feather):

          200     150     100     50   0  Time [Ma]
    ===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|

    ----(1)----(2)----(3)------------------

    But evolutionary theory posits branching relationships as well as anagenetic change:

                200          150          100          50      0    Time  [Ma]
    ===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|

    ---+-----Eoraptor*(1)
         `--(2)-+-------------------Sinosauro.(2)
                      `-+-----Archie(3)
                           `---------------------------Parrot(3)

    * The integument of Eoraptor is not known, AFAIK. I'm assuming it to be featherless, replace it with Alligator if you don't accept this.

    That's like saying the Corvette was an intermediate form of the 1940 Ford.

    That's like saying "why are there still monkeys?".

    So, maybe I should rephrase my initial statement. Where are the intermediate forms leading up to the Archeopteryx?

    As you keep asking intermediate forms "leading up" to something, you further demonstrate you don't understand evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Blogger broke my diagrams. I'm too lazy to try again.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Thorton:

    I was under the impression that the theme of Behe's book was that some adaptation due to random mutations are achievable, if the number of mutations is small enough, and the organism reproduces fast enough and with sufficient numbers. So falciparium can evolve resistance to clorquinine in a short time because ti repoduces quickly and resistance doesn't require all that many mutations. But finding a way around something like sickle cell disease is much harder because it would require more mutations. That's why it didn't happen yet. And for an organism that reproduces slower it might be harder for an adaptation that requires even a small number of mutations to happen. That's what he meant by the "Edge of Evolution."

    ReplyDelete
  146. Hawks said...

    Thornton about Lino: "I was hoping he'd provide more of an intellectual challenge..."

    I'd say that's an epic fail on your part. This guy is the on the intellectual level of JoeG.


    If it's humanly possible for anyone to be more mouthy yet clueless that Joe G, it's our boy Lino here.

    So far he's been caught lying, quote-mining papers he didn't read, flip-flopping and directly contradicting himself about Behe's claims, and making a fool of himself over geological catastropism. Oh, and telling us that both amoebae and mice are more complex than humans.

    Not a bad week's work for one lame-brained Creationist!

    ReplyDelete
  147. Gerry said:

    "Your response to Tedford's question would be no, then. If you were familiar with Pascal's Wager you would know it does not pertain directly to any particular religion, but instead is formulated as an argument for the wisdom of wagering on God's existence as opposed to wagering against it. To wager against his existence and be wrong carries with it dire consequences and no gain. To wager for his existence carries with it great gain and no loss.

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the argument before criticizing it.
    It's quite obvious that if you have read it, you do not grasp its meaning or its nature."

    tedford was appealing to popularity to support the existence of his chosen god (not just any god), and by bringing up Pascal's Wager to support his argument he was therefor saying that betting on the existence of his chosen god would be a good bet.

    So, when I asked...

    "Do you believe in every god that has ever been posited? What if your chosen god is the wrong one? What if they're all the wrong one? What if there isn't one?"

    ...and said...

    "Many millions of people have believed in a huge variety gods or spirits or other supernatural beings/entities throughout human history. Millions also believe in astrology."

    ...and asked...

    "What makes your beliefs the right ones and all others the wrong ones? Is it simply based on popularity?"

    ...I think that what I asked and said applies to his arguments for his chosen god, and to Pascal's Wager (especially in the context tedford used it to support his arguments).

    If someone uses Pascal's Wager (and popularity) as an argument to support the existence of their chosen god, they also have to consider whether it applies to ALL gods. That's why I asked if he believes in every god ever posited, and it's why I asked what makes his beliefs the right ones and all others the wrong ones. Ya see, if someone thinks that betting on the existence of one particular posited god is a good bet, then they should either have convincing, evidential reasons for denying the existence of all other posited gods, or they should bet on (and believe in) any and all posited gods.

    tedford apparently thinks that the popularity of his chosen god is supporting evidence for its existence, and that it's a good bet (Pascal's Wager) to believe in that particular god.

    See part two.

    ReplyDelete
  148. tedford also said:

    "Creation was either caused by nothing or creation by an intelligent, eternal being. Take your pick."

    It's interesting that in those statements he isn't definite about which god, but in his other statements he is obviously referring to the christian god and only the christian god, and that goes to why I asked the questions that I asked.

    And one more thing he said:

    "Do you possess a comprehensive knowledge of what material is in every possible reality?"

    Which also applies to my questions and statements. For example, does tedford possess a "comprehensive knowledge" of his chosen god and all other posited gods AND whether there really are any gods AND whether his chosen god really does exist AND whether his chosen god is the right one AND all others are the wrong ones "in every possible reality"?

    In other words, my questions (and statements) were not just about Pascal's Wager being applied only to tedford's particular chosen god.

    You (Gerry) said:

    "Pascal's Wager you would know it does not pertain directly to any particular religion, but instead is formulated as an argument for the wisdom of wagering on God's existence as opposed to wagering against it."

    To me, that is contradictory. The god you're obviously referring to, and the one tedford referred to, is the christian god, which, in that sense, does make it about a particular religion.

    Anyway, I think my questions and statements are applicable and relevant to what tedford said, and to any argument about the popularity of a posited god, and to how Pascal's Wager applies, or should apply, to any and all posited gods, if or when someone uses a popularity argument or a Pascal's Wager argument in an attempt to support the existence of their chosen god or any other god.

    Take another look at what you wrote. You said "God's existence", not a "God's existence". You also said "his existence". If Pascal's Wager isn't about "any particular religion" then why were you so particular? You are being particular, aren't you? Or do you think that just any god in any religion will do? Are you betting on all the gods ever posited, or just the christian one?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Gerry said:

    "If, as creationists believe, there was a catastrophic world wide flood that could account for the rapid death and burial of multiple millions of creatures, it would throw your argument for the gradual evolution of all life into disarray."

    Well, I would say that that is about as big an if as an if can be. I would also ask creationists where the evidence is in the fossil record of rapid death and burial of multiple millions of creatures (other than itty bitty critters of course). Millions of tiny creatues can be rapidly killed and buried in a bucket load of sediment, so to keep the debate on a reasonable level let's assume you're referring to fairly large or large animals, okay?

    Now, if there were a world wide flood, as violent as depicted in the bible, how would a creationist explain the fact that all fossils are not a jumbled mess of every type of creature?

    Why aren't there rabbit fossils in Cambrian sediments, along with lots and lots of other critters that aren't found in Cambrian sediments? Why aren't there dinosaurs in Miocene sediments, or trilobites in Cretaceous sediments, or mammoths in Permian sediments (in situ)?

    The so-called biblical flood would have mixed everything together, or at least to a great degree. The fossil record doesn't show that though.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Gerry said:

    "The answer to your question is in your own response. You're exactly right, God could have chosen another way if he so wished. He did not, and that is his prerogative as an omniscient being dealing with his own creation. For you to question his actions, it would be necessary for you to be equal to God as that would be the only way you could understand his motives. As you are not, your criticism is moot."

    Of course I disagree, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to use the descriptions of "God" from his alleged very own words in the bible to make my points.

    According to the bible (and christianity promoters) "God" is perfect, flawless, all powerful, all knowing, able to create anything, and CANNOT do anything wrong, CANNOT make mistakes, and is loving, merciful, giving, caring, and every other nicey nice word imaginable.

    So, with all that in mind, how or why would "God" create anything so flawed and 'sinful' that the only way he could think to deal with their allegedly bad behavior is to wipe them out in extremely violent ways?

    And I'm still wondering what 'sins' the human babies/children, animals (and their babies), and plants committed?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Geoxus:

    Here are some quotes from a National Geographic article from last year about the Sino:

    The discovery may prove once and for all that dinosaurs' hairlike filaments—sometimes called dino fuzz—are related to bird feathers, paleontologists announced today. . . .---a hundred melanosomes can fit across a human hair--- . . .

    Some researchers argue that these controversial hairlike filaments, each about the width of a human hair, are fossilized internal collagen and not related to feathers.

    Let's try to be objective here.

    If you see something that is the width of a human hair sticking out of something, would you confuse that with a feather, a feather of any kind? Maybe a down feather. But what does this tell us about the evolution of flight feathers?

    Now, if evolutionary biologists want to call that a "protofeather", well, I guess that's their business. But it sure sounds like it's just what they describe it to be: "Dino fuzz."

    As to "intermediates", you can describe it anyway you want, but "intermediates" have to temporally precede the final form, or otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

    Here you have Archeopteryx with this fantastically complex flight feather, and there's nothing found before. Is this what Darwin would have predicted?

    Is this what Darwinian theory predicts?

    You can be as cocksure about things as you like, but any reasonable person would, if it were explained to him or her, say that the lack of fossil intermediates to the recent (modern) bird feather found in Archeaopteryx contradicts evolutionary predictions. Why deny the fact?

    For years Prum understood the difficulty of explaining the feather's evolution, precisely because of its complexity. The only reason he changed his mind was because of the rise of "evo-devo", which he thought could adapt to the feather's complex features. But this is completely a surmise. There is no evidence. It's simply switching away from neo-Darwinism to "evo-devo". So, Darwin is secretly shown the backdoor, and a new way of interpreting genetics is ushered in and hailed as the explanation for everything and anything. Yet no one wants to tell us exactly how Hox genes arose in the first place. Without neo-Darwinism, none of the cell's complexity can be explained. How is this satisfactory?

    Now you might want to merrily go along in your field. You're obviously a biologist of some sort. But why be so closed-minded to the very natural kinds of objections that thinking persons can have?

    Well, is it because you're also an atheist, or an agnostic? If this is the reason for killing off the Creationists (of which I don't count myself to belong), then your motivation is religious, not scientific. As it likely was for Darwin and his fellow travelers.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Lino the poseur said...

    Here you have Archeopteryx with this fantastically complex flight feather, and there's nothing found before. Is this what Darwin would have predicted?


    Whoops! Lino the poseur screws up again!

    A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus

    "Anchiornis huxleyi has been recently described, based on an incomplete specimen, as a basal avialan filling the morphological gap between non-avian and avian dinosaurs. A nearly complete, extensively feathered specimen (LPM-B00169, housed in Liaoning Paleontological Museum) referable to Anchiornis huxleyi has now been recovered from the Tiaojishan Formation at the Daxishan locality, Jianchang County. The Tiaojishan Formation has traditionally been regarded as Middle Jurassic but was recently dated to between 161 and 151 Myr. It is therefore older than the Archaeopteryx-bearing strata near Solnhofen, Germany, which date to less than 150 Myr"

    Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

    Yet no one wants to tell us exactly how Hox genes arose in the first place. Without neo-Darwinism, none of the cell's complexity can be explained. How is this satisfactory?

    But "GAWD poofed it into existence somehow, somewhere, sometime" is satisfactory. Right.

    Creationists (of which I don't count myself to belong)

    Lino above: "My theory is that God created life"

    There goes Mr. Flip-flop yet again! Isn't doing those 180 degree spins hard on your back Lino?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Lino the poseur said...

    Now you might want to merrily go along in your field. You're obviously a biologist of some sort. But why be so closed-minded to the very natural kinds of objections that thinking persons can have?


    It's because in your case your objections aren't based on any scientific evidence. Your objections to date have been based solely on your scientific ignorance and religiously motivated personal incredulity.

    The empty rhetoric you bring may fly with your fellow IDiots but it gets you absolutely nowhere in the scientific community.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Gerry asked:

    "Have you ever gone to the many sources available which address the supposed contradictions in the Bible? If not, maybe you should, if for no other reason than your own edification."

    Yes, I have. I stand by what I've said. The denial, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and game playing conducted by religious people to try to find ways to ignore and/or excuse the numerous massive contradictions, and the abhorrent acts by "God", in the bible, just goes to show what lengths some people will go to to justify their insanity and/or to sustain and expand their manipulation and control of others.

    ReplyDelete
  155. D'Ischia,

    Here are some quotes from a National Geographic article from last year about the Sino:

    Quotes from NatGeo are hardly impressive after your futile exercise of irrelevant quoting from the technical literature.

    Some researchers argue that these controversial hairlike filaments, each about the width of a human hair, are fossilized internal collagen and not related to feathers.

    "Some researchers" are Feduccia & friends, no one else. Collagen doesn't have melanosomes. Integument does. It doesn't matter how many times you cite the same opinion if you don't have a sound answer to that (and melanosomes are just the icing of the cake, they're not the only evidences favouring integument over collagen).

    Let's try to be objective here.

    Are you really think you're being objective here? Have you reflected on your reasons for quoting papers you didn't really understand to defend your point? Are not statements like "there is no evidence for X whatsoever", contrary to the opinion of most specialists, rather bold for a non particularly well-read armchair biologist?

    If you see something that is the width of a human hair sticking out of something, would you confuse that with a feather, a feather of any kind? Maybe a down feather. But what does this tell us about the evolution of flight feathers?

    If it had feather-like melanosomes, yes I would. Now, it's funny that when you guys are shown transitional fossils you jump back to say we don't know the origins of stuff like the first cells and hox genes. Now that you're shown something morphologically close the origins of feathers, you don't care very much about it and demand a more derived structure. It does matter to the evolution of flight feathers. For one thing, it fit's Prum and Brush's model. It is possible that there are some other known fossils with transitional flight feathers. However, the phylogeny is still unstable and there seems to be a lot of secondary flightlessness in some linages, so I'm not confident enough about character polarity to suggest candidates.

    Now, if evolutionary biologists want to call that a "protofeather", well, I guess that's their business.

    A protofeather is precisely what you asked for. If you were given a more feather-like structure you'd dismiss it and ask for the kind of evidence I've just provided.

    (continues...)

    ReplyDelete
  156. (cont'd)

    As to "intermediates", you can describe it anyway you want, but "intermediates" have to temporally precede the final form, or otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

    "Intermediates" in an ancestral succession must be temporally congruent. But it's unlikely will find actual ancestors of anything, and if we did, we couldn't recognise them as such. That's the reason we work with sister-group relationships. Ignoring the fossil record, modern wasps make morphological intermediates to ants and bees, but none of the modern wasp populations is ancestral to ants. They all branched apart and conserved many of the features of their ancestors at the splitting point.

    You can be as cocksure about things as you like, but any reasonable person would, if it were explained to him or her, say that the lack of fossil intermediates to the recent (modern) bird feather found in Archeaopteryx contradicts evolutionary predictions. Why deny the fact?

    Lack of evidence cannot contradict anything. Really, think that out.

    Here you have Archeopteryx with this fantastically complex flight feather, and there's nothing found before. Is this what Darwin would have predicted?

    Again, sister-group relationships, and see Thorton's post. And why should I or anyone else care about what Darwin would have thought? You think of Darwin a lot more than I do.

    But why be so closed-minded to the very natural kinds of objections that thinking persons can have?

    Modern physics baffles me. I can feel very comfortable with classical physics, but the conclusions of modern physics are completely counter-intuitive and wacky for me. It could be that physicists went the wrong way at some point and got it all wrong. Could be. But somehow, I think it is more likely that my "natural" impressions merely reflect my ignorance and confusion on the subject, despite the fact I consider myself to be a thinking person. Or perhaps precisely because I'm a thinking person.

    Well, is it because you're also an atheist, or an agnostic? If this is the reason for killing off the Creationists (of which I don't count myself to belong), then your motivation is religious, not scientific.

    Since neither agnosticism nor atheism are religious beliefs, that would make the motivation a philosophical, but not a religious one. And I don't know what a "scientific motivation" is. If you're trying to imply that my motivations are emotionally laden, I agree. I suspect every motivation is emotional in its origin. I get great satisfaction from trying to discover the way nature works. I think that's what I'd call a "scientific motivation". If you think I'm emotionally committed to certain conclusions, it well may be. However, it would be too easy to deceive myself while trying to figure that out by mere introspection. If I were shown consistently wrong about something, that would be a much more effective call of alert. You're not doing well with that so far.

    For years Prum understood the difficulty of explaining the feather's evolution, precisely because of its complexity. The only reason he changed his mind was because of the rise of "evo-devo", which he thought could adapt to the feather's complex features.

    I'm not familiar with all of Prum's work to know what's the change of mind you're talking about. All I've seen is you changing your mind about Feduccia's hypothesis.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  157. But this is completely a surmise. There is no evidence.

    You're confident enough to dismiss the work of experts because of a description in a NatGeo article and personal incredulity, yet you accuse biologists of not pondering the evidence rigorously. Such are your delusions of objectivity.

    Yet no one wants to tell us exactly how Hox genes arose in the first place.

    Every single evolutionary biologist would love to tell us that. The problem is that a feature of good science is that the detail and comprehensiveness of the inferences drawn from it depends on the detail and comprehensiveness of the available data. In other words, it doesn't make up stuff.

    Ritchie,

    As for the fact that Archaeopteryx predates Sinosauropteryx, so what? All that shows is that feathers probably evolved more than once.

    That's unlikely, Sinosauropteyx is a pretty basal coelurosaurian. Its protofeathers are most probably homologous to Archie's plumage, as I showed on my diagram.

    ReplyDelete
  158. I think that was my longest comment here, I hope I didn't catch the BA77 fever.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Geoxus said...

    I think that was my longest comment here, I hope I didn't catch the BA77 fever.


    If you start posting YouTube links to retch-inducing Christian music at the end of every message , then is the time to worry. :)

    ReplyDelete
  160. Hey Gerry, if you're out there - hope your leg is feeling better.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Geoxus:

    Thank you for the extended, and well-tempered response. What a breath of fresh air.

    I'm not familiar with all of Prum's work to know what's the change of mind you're talking about. All I've seen is you changing your mind about Feduccia's hypothesis.

    It's been probably six years since I've taken a long look at where things stand when it comes to the bird feather. I was reliant on Prum and Brush (2002). What stuck out in my mind was the great difficulty they were having in finding intermediates, but, more than that, the difficulty in finding ways of explaining how directional selection could explain the emergence of flight feathers, which, IIRC, need a whole host of features already present within them as they come forth. And that's where "evo-devo" came in.

    I don't remember Prum and Brush talking about Sinosauropteryx, and probably for the very same reasons I've objected to it--that temporally it comes after Archeopteryx.

    Because of the discussion here, I've had to search around more. The paper that Thorton cited is interesting in that it is prior to Archeaopteryx. But, again, all of this is very fragmentary.

    Here are my objections to Darwinism/neo-Darwinism:

    (1) Per Darwinian expectations, there should be an abundance of intermediates found. But they're not.

    (2) The absence of intermediates suggests, to me at least, that one could argue that flight feathers represent a kind of "irreducible complexity."

    (3) Should an abundance---or even a fair amount--of intermediates be found, unless they were spread out over a long period of geological time, neo-Darwinian theory is still left bereft of an explanation for how such significant, and novel, changes came about (although this would counter any argument for irreducible complexity).

    On the side of a "natural" theory of evolution, the fossil record certainly suggests to me that some kinds of natural mechanisms are present in the genome explaining the rise of diversity and adaptation. But this all strikes me as secondary to a genomic informational core which variety plus selection (neo-Darwinism) cannot explain. More likely, after some substantial infusion of information, divergence takes place by a rearrangement of this infused information, and, then again, by loss of information over time, as organisms adapt to various environments.

    I've looked far and wide, and there is nothing in the evolutionary biology literature that makes any kind of compelling case for putative Darwinian mechanisms leading to the rise of higher taxa---adapted species, yes; but not higher taxa.

    You say that everyone would like to know the way in which Hox genes arose. That's a very "objective" stance to take. I take it, too. However, I don't have very high expectations that it can ever be explained. Everything I look at these days in the literature, only provides further problems and hurdles to explaining the internal complexity of higher taxonomic genomes.

    Again, I appreciate your tone over the last several posts--although we obviously have different views.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Thorton:

    This is from the abstract of the paper you cited above:

    The early evolution of the major groups of derived non-avialan theropods is still not well understood, mainly because of their poor fossil record in the Jurassic. A well-known result of this problem is the 'temporal paradox' argument that is sometimes made against the theropod hypothesis of avian origins1

    There are two admissions:
    (1) The early evolution of bird feathers is NOT well understood.

    (2) There exists a "temporal paradox".

    In my posts, I have made these very two points. This only confirms the validity of my questions.

    This new find---I don't have access to it, so I can't tell how much older it is to the Archeaopteryx, nor the quality of its details---can obviously change all of this. But you've denied that any of this controversy---points (1) and (2) above---even existed. Why not admit where Darwinian theory is weak? Why not own up to it? Isn't that what scientifically-minded people are supposed to do?

    ReplyDelete
  163. LOL! PaVLino once again can't admit he was wrong about Archeopteryx having the oldest know feathers, tries desperately to spin his story / rewrite history.

    What a pathetic poseur you are PaV. Just pathetic.

    ReplyDelete