Monday, December 19, 2011

New Book (Doesn’t) Explain How Eyes Evolved; The Bible Versus Evolution; Evolutionists Say “We See”

Ivan Schwab’s new book on the evolution of vision systems is a vivid reminder of our blindness. Recently we reviewed how minor changes such as viruses mutating and allele frequency dynamics are, according to evolutionists, proof texts of evolution. Now in Schwab’s new book we have an example of how comparisons of various designs, again according to evolutionists, show how evolution occurred. Like the ancient myths, it is difficult to believe that anyone actually believes these things.

Vision Systems and Evolution

As we have discussed here many times vision systems are astonishingly complex and evolutionists have failed to explain how such intricacies could have arisen spontaneously (yes, evolution claims that vision systems, and the entire biological world for that matter, arose spontaneously and when evolutionists protest that they would never say anything so ridiculous they are merely judging themselves).

You can read here, for example, about the photocell’s cellular signal transduction cascade which is initiated by a photon interacting with a light-sensitive chromophore molecule known as retinal. The interaction alters the electron distribution of the retinal molecule, thus making intricate changes to its force field which influences several amino acids of the large, trans-membrane opsin protein to which the chromophore is attached.

Next the opsin causes the activation of hundreds of transducin molecules. These, in turn, cause the activation of cGMP phosphodiesterase (by removing its inhibitory subunit), an enzyme that degrades the cyclic nucleotide, cGMP.

A single photon can result in the activation of hundreds of transducins, leading to the degradation of hundreds of thousands of cGMP molecules. cGMP molecules serve to open non selective ion channels in the membrane, so reduction in cGMP concentration serves to close these channels. This means that millions of sodium ions per second are shut out of the cell, causing a voltage change across the membrane. This hyperpolarization of the cell membrane causes a reduction in the release of neurotransmitter, the chemical that interacts with the nearby nerve cell, in the synaptic region of the cell. This reduction in neurotransmitter release ultimately causes an action potential to arise in the nerve cell (of course we’ve skipped a library of detail).

Needless to say evolutionists have no explanation for how this could have arisen from random mutations and the like. Yet they insist that it did. Evolutionists sometimes point to simpler vision systems, such as the so-called third eye (parietal eye) which is not an image forming eye but rather provides for light sensitivity. Was not such a primitive eye an evolutionary precursor, laying a simpler groundwork for the awesome complexities to follow?

No, as you can read here the third eye’s cellular signal transduction cascade is even more complex. For this system includes two antagonistic light signaling pathways in the same cell. Blue light causes the hyperpolarizing response as described above, but green light causes a depolarizing response.

How is this done? By the inhibition of the cGMP phosphodiesterase enzyme. Specifically, there are two opsins, one that is sensitive to blue light which activates the cGMP phosphodiesterase enzyme, and another that is sensitive to green light which inhibits the cGMP phosphodiesterase enzyme. Darwin’s prediction that primitive systems laid a simpler groundwork failed badly.

Or you can read here about the remarkable hammerhead shark’s binocular vision, here about the bug with bifocals, or here about incredible photocell optical filters that focus the incoming light which one writer called “a masterpiece of biological design.”

You can read hints about the massive signal processing that occurs downstream of the photocell here, or here about some of the various and diverse visions systems that contradict evolution’s common descent expectations.

In fact evolutionists have been forced to say that entire vision systems must have evolved more than once because they are found repeated in distant species. The human and squid, for example, share similar intricate vision system designs even though they come from different initial conditions and different environments. These findings make no sense on evolution.

There is Anableps anableps, a fish with eyes half in and half out of the water. Its eyes are divided into two parts giving it the remarkable ability to look simultaneously above and below the water line. Or again, there is the ancient trilobite. It had eyes that were incredibly complex. One expert called them “an all-time feat of function optimization.”

In fact biology’s vision systems display all manner of high-tech gadgetry and creativity. There are telephoto optics, scanning optics, and mirrors. Not surprisingly, evolution over and over fails to explain how these wonders arose spontaneously. This, it would seem, would be rather uncontroversial. After all, evolutionists have presented no scientific explanations for how their theory could have, against all odds, stumbled upon these incredible designs.

But this is where the story takes a turn for the strange. For evolutionists do claim they have provided such explanations. This may be hard to believe since evolutionists, in fact, don’t have any such explanations. But nonetheless they do make such claims. You can read about one pathetic example here.

Now we have another example in Schwab’s new book which bears the rather heroic title: Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved. How eyes evolved? Is Schwab really going to explain to us how eyes evolved? Of course he can do no such thing. That would be quite an accomplishment.

What evolutionists do tell us is which design came when, which subsystems and molecules where used and reused where, how the fossils and extant designs are all related, what the evolutionary tree looks like, and so forth. In other words, evolutionists tell us just-so stories about their mythical big-picture evolutionary moves.

And of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that evolution did, in fact, occur. Meanwhile evolution’s massive scientific contradictions and problems remain. The heavy lifting—explaining scientifically just how such marvels actually arose spontaneously as evolution claims they did—is not surprisingly nowhere to be found. It is like a five-year-old “explaining” how Santa comes down the chimney.

And so we have yet another example of the curious dichotomy between evolutionary claims and reality. The immense abyss between the two reminds us that evolution is more than merely a flawed scientific theory. It is a religiously-driven creation narrative and we wonder if, while evolution’s predictions regarding vision (and everything else for that matter) have consistently failed, how have the Bible’s predictions regarding vision held up?

The Bible Versus Evolution

While evolution’s vision-related predictions have fallen one after the other, the Bible also makes certain vision-related predictions. Interestingly, not only have they held up rather well, but evolutionists themselves have done much of the fulfilling. Let’s have a look.

The Bible’s vision predictions often deal with the related topics of blindness and darkness. For instance, at one point Jesus refers to certain religious leaders as blind guides who “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” This fits evolutionary thought very well. Elsewhere Paul speaks of men’s understanding being darkened because of the blindness of their heart.

But the Bible’s vision predictions don’t stop there. For while the Bible speaks of blindness and people in darkness, and of God opening the eyes of the blind and leading people out of darkness, the Bible also speaks of a willful aspect to our blindness.

Isaiah, for instance, discusses the blindness of disobedience. “Blind yourselves and be blind,” he writes. Likewise Jesus explains to Nicodemus that though the light has come into the world, “men loved darkness rather than light.”

And thus Paul explains to Timothy that the time will come when men “will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

When Jesus healed a blind man the religious leaders were upset. Jesus suggested they were blind but that the real problem was their certainty amidst their blindness. They denied their blindness and instead said “We see.”

So how do the Bible’s descriptions hold up? Blind guides and straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel? Given the evolutionists many misrepresentations of science in textbooks and popular works, and their focusing on trivial points of consistency while ignoring massive scientific problems, these biblical descriptions fit very well.

And do men love darkness rather than light? Given evolutionists unceasing, unswerving, inexplicable attachment to twisting the science, this too seems quite accurate. They won’t even consider the possibility that their bizarre ideas could be wrong. They seem to be dogmatically attached to scientific lies.

And do men heap up teachers to turn away from the truth and turn to fables instead? Again, a perfect description of evolutionary thought.

And do evolutionists say “We see”? Indeed, for evolutionists their ideas are not merely ideas. They are not merely theories or hypotheses. For evolutionists, evolution must be a fact. They are insistent that they are right. There is no awareness of the incredible scientific absurdity that attends their ideas. No sense of the uncertainty, no shadow of a doubt. The idea that the entire biological world spontaneously arose is held with a mixture of certainty and hubris. Anyone who reasonably doubts is ridiculed, dismissed and blackballed. It isn’t pretty.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

59 comments:

  1. Good article. I totally agree. It is just impossible for evolution to have formed eyes and sight. (add it to the list!).

    "Evolutionists are not on a search for truth. They think they have already found truth, and they don’t want it disturbed."

    FYI,

    Sight and Sound: A Daunting Task for Evolution
    http://evillusion.wordpress.com/sight-and-sound-a-daunting-task-for-evolution/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Once again, Hunter has discovered that science, even at this late date, doesn't know everything, and there is ample scope for further research.

    But now, for the first time in memory, he touts The Bible as a science text, even when it's speaking metaphorically.

    Glad to see you're out of the closet at last, Dr Hunter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH said:

    "And do men heap up teachers to turn away from the truth and turn to fables instead?"

    Speaking of teachers, what do you think should be taught, instead of the ToE? What do you think the "truth" is?

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...when evolutionists protest that they would never say anything so ridiculous they are merely judging themselves

    Why address what people actually say when it's so much easier to address what you want them to say?

    ReplyDelete
  5. CH,

    "Ivan Schwab’s new book on the evolution of vision systems is a vivid reminder of our blindness."

    vivid - hilarious

    Excellent points, and very atypical, but refreshing, of you to venture so far away for the empirical this time.

    I had a thought though. Could you put up some Christmas images? I have been mulling over this idea for a couple of days, but now that you mention the Bible you are almost obliged to help us celebrate the birth of Christ. Who knows, by displaying joyous Christmas images you may even dispel some of the darkness that surrounds your critics here. Please.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lekozza said...

    Sight and Sound: A Daunting Task for Evolution
    http://evillusion.wordpress.com/sight-and-sound-a-daunting-task-for-evolution/


    Thanks again Lekozza, that site is absolutely hilarious!

    According to the notes it's run by a retired dentist who decided to fill his now empty golden hours by refuting evolution. To that end he's scoured the web and collected pretty much every stupid Creationist PRATT he could find. Then he fires them out all at once, Gish Gallop style.

    Let's see - we've got 'what good is half an eye', 'eyes are too improbable', 'eyes are IC', 'evolution had to know eyes were needed', 'eyes appear fully formed in the fossil record', 'eyes are too complex', etc. The floating disembodied eyeballs with the claim "evolution requires this first!" was a hoot.

    I'll give the guy some props though. Unlike CH who just recycles the same tired Creationist nonsense ad nauseum, at least the Dentist here tries to show some originality. Did you know light didn't exist for the first 4 billion years on Earth until GAWD created eyes? Or that eyes had to evolve in a million different species simultaneously for ToE to be true? I sure didn't, and I bet science doesn't either.

    I wouldn't get too enamored with your Dentist friend though, he definitely has his weird side. His "Evolution says we should see this" along with photoshopped pics of ostriches with human breasts is downright creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Popular evolutionists have written that the vertebrate eye was not intelligently designed because the optic nerve extends over the retina instead of going out the back of the eye. Their rationalism dictates that since an intelligent designer wouldn't have created such a flawed design evolution is a better explanation.

    There are two flaws with their rationalism:
    1. It's a metaphysical claim about what a creator should have done.
    2. The supposed inefficiency is nothing of the sort. Evolutionists are good at straining at a supposed inefficient gnat, as CH notes, and not seeing the big picture. That they miss the big picture is an epidemic in evolutionary rationalism. While pointing out a sort of minimalist and narrow focus of supposed inefficiency they ignore the eye as a whole. In other cases they miss how an organism fits into the biosphere as a whole and other bigger picture constraints upon design.

    Popular evolutionists such as Dawkins and Miller like to throw out this kind of red meat for their followers, but it's all a bunch of hogwash. It's not science at all, but flawed propaganda. Like North Korean dictators telling their people how wonderful their government is.

    But rewiring the eye according to the specs that evolutionists think would create severe problems. Evolutionists are consist in finding supposed flaws, publishing them to support their rationalism, but then later their claims are debunked. Their evolutionary presumptuousness consistently leads them to wrong conclusions.

    Will evolutionists here open their eyes and see how Dawkins and Miller and others were wrong about the inefficiencies of the eye?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Summary:

    Complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, design, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, design, design, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity.

    And look here, the Bible says some people are very wrong. Wisdom!


    Cronelius writes:

    Now we have another example in Schwab’s new book which bears the rather heroic title: Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved. How eyes evolved? Is Schwab really going to explain to us how eyes evolved? Of course he can do no such thing. That would be quite an accomplishment.

    What evolutionists do tell us is which design came when, which subsystems and molecules where used and reused where, how the fossils and extant designs are all related, what the evolutionary tree looks like, and so forth. In other words, evolutionists tell us what were the big-picture evolutionary moves.


    Presumably Cornelius expects at least an exact account of every mutation in every ancestor for all the extant and extinct species with eyes.

    It wasn't very clear for me, however, whether Cornelius read Schwab's book or not. If he did... where are the quote-mines?

    Tedford writes:

    There are two flaws with their rationalism:
    1. It's a metaphysical claim about what a creator should have done.


    Yes, that is a flaw. Dawkins and Miller are too charitable. The designer-that-dare-not-speak-its-name hypothesis can't produce predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Geoxus said, 'Presumably Cornelius expects at least an exact account of every mutation"

    --
    There you go again! When asked to give more than a just so fairy tale account of evolution, evolutionists insist that we are asking for every last exact detail. Their plea is really to abandon accountability to the scientific method and replace it with an exaggerated view of what their skeptics are asking for.

    Either accurately quote any creationist in all of history of mankind who has said that they demand an "exact account of every mutation" in the evolution of the eye or forever hold your peace.

    The question for you then is, will you continue to be charitable towards Dawkins and Miller when they made a gross error in publishing a supposed flaw in the vertebrate eye when the exact opposite is in fact true?

    Will you hold them accountable?

    ReplyDelete
  10. CH: Like the ancient myths, it is difficult to believe that anyone actually believes these things.

    Like talking snakes, a boat that held two of each species, parting seas, people being turn into pillars of salt and virgin births?

    CH: Needless to say evolutionists have no explanation for how [all this complexity] could have arisen from random mutations and the like.

    Which is a rather odd statement given that I've presented an explanation on multiple occasions. Evolution explains the knowledge of how to build this complexity though a form of conjecture and refutation.

    If you just didn't knowingly present a falsehood, it would seem you must have a rather different definition of the term "explanation".

    What exactly do you look for in an explanation? Or perhaps you're not really looking for explanation after all. Rather, your goal is the acceptance of a theistic understanding?

    After all, to quote the Wedge Document….

    Governing Goals

    - To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
    - To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.


    Here, the difference between an explanation and theistic understanding is quite clear.

    So, to reiterate, exactly what would you accept as an explanation for the knowledge of how to build additions as found in the genome?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Correction:

    So, to reiterate, exactly what would you accept as an explanation for the knowledge of how to build [adaptations] as found in the genome?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Update on AGW- evidence that the NOAA is fabricating raw temperature data.

    AGW and Darwinism are two birds of a feather. Just make up stuff out of whole cloth if you can't find any shreds of fact to manipulate!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The link for the fabricated NOAA data

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/science-by-lubchencos-noaa-fake-global-warming-by-changing-historical-temperature-data.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tedford writes:

    There you go again! When asked to give more than a just so fairy tale account of evolution, evolutionists insist that we are asking for every last exact detail.

    There you go again! You fail to tell us what kind of explanation you expect. An example would help.

    Cornelius clearly showed to be dissatisfied of being presented a "big-picture", I should think he doesn't want more detail?

    The question for you then is, will you continue to be charitable towards Dawkins and Miller when they made a gross error in publishing a supposed flaw in the vertebrate eye when the exact opposite is in fact true?

    I agreed that their argument is founded on a unjustified premise. How is that charitable?

    I don't know what you mean by "the exact opposite is in fact true" about their proposed flaw in the vertebrate eye. I don't know their claim of the vertebrate arrangement of the cells in the retina being suboptimal for the transmission of light to be factually incorrect shown. That would be interesting, and would open the possibility that the coleoid eyes are sub-optimal ;) But this wouldn't matter very much to me, because, as I've said before, there's no proper way for identifying design flaws without many ancillary assumptions about the design goals and constraints.

    Will you hold them accountable?

    Sure. I'm already a critic of Dawkins for his over-emphasis of the role of natural selection (which I should note, more than an argumentative device, is his honest opinion about how evolution works).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tedford the idiot said...

    Update on AGW- evidence that the NOAA is fabricating raw temperature data.


    Damn Tedford but you're an idiot. You swallow a BS report from an ultra-right-wing AGW denier website, a report without one shred of corroborating support.

    I bet you send away for every one of those "Miracle Weight Loss Pills, Order NOW!!" ads that appear on late night TV too

    ReplyDelete
  16. Myself:

    I don't know their claim of the vertebrate arrangement of the cells in the retina being suboptimal for the transmission of light to be factually incorrect shown.

    Ignore that "shown". It's a remnant of a previous phrasing.

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tedford the idiot said...

    The link for the fabricated NOAA data

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/science-by-lubchencos-noaa-fake-global-warming-by-changing-historical-temperature-data.html


    Tedford, if you weren't such a lazy idiot you could have checked this out for yourself.

    On your wingnut AGW denier page there's a picture of the supposedly fabricated data between 2008-2011. In tiny letters at the bottom is the NCDC source.

    NCDC.NOAA data

    On that page is a readme.txt file

    NCDC NOAA Readme.txt

    The readme file explains exactly what was done to the data and why (removing redundant records, adding additional historical data, making bias corrections), and where to find the original data sets.

    Summary of Recent Changes in the GHCN-M Temperature Dataset and Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analyses

    People who are trying to pass off fraudulent data always put up Readme.txt files explaining exactly what was done and why, right idiot?

    Just like with the IDC guff you uncritically swallow, you're so desperate to prop up your wingnut beliefs you won't lift one fat idiot finger to see if any of these asinine AGW denier claims have even a speck of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  19. tedford,

    Why is it that you religious zealots are so against any suggestion of anthropogenic global warming? What exactly do you think is the harm in reducing mankind's detrimental impact on the environment?

    What is it in your religious beliefs that makes any suggestion of anthropogenic global warming so deplorable? Is it that you believe that humans are so special that they should be free to do whatever they want to the environment because your chosen god created the environment solely for the use and abuse of mankind? Is it that you think your chosen god will miraculously repair any damage humans do? Is it that you believe that all natural resources are unlimited and/or quickly self repairing?

    Or is your problem with any suggestion of anthropogenic global warming based on the financial cost to businesses to have less impact and/or on what you perceive as restrictions (financial or otherwise) that could be placed on the materialistic desires of individuals?

    Do you also believe that the human population can keep growing 'unbounded' without any detrimental effects on mankind and the environment?

    ReplyDelete
  20. TWT, I suspect it's a business calculation on Neal's part. He's worried the government will tax him more and limit his abilities to steal cash from his "flock". There's one god that all clergymen serve and his name is $$$.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thorton,

    You're right, that dentist is a loon. I've only taken a quick look at his site so far but I can already see that he doesn't have a clue.

    For example, he says:

    "Bio-systems are designed in a far more intelligent way than any intelligent man who ever existed has the capability of designing. That fact doesn’t need testing. It is just pure fact."

    No testing is needed? Pure fact? Really? All science so far!

    He also sarcastically says (in reference to mutations and selection):

    "In this case, a natural entity created and formed, in supernatural fashion, all of life, species, bio-systems, and man. That’s right. A “natural” entity with absolutely no intelligence whatsoever creating, inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining the species and complex systems of nature is nothing but supernatural."

    And (also sarcastically):

    "On the other hand, a run of the mill natural entity, Natural Selection et al, through its supernatural talents, slowly produced all of unimaginable living nature."

    Mutation and selection is an "entity"? Natural selection et al is "supernatural"? Huh?

    He's obviously just another 'I'm specially created!' and 'I ain't no ape!' godbot (whether he will admit it or not) who believes that if 'man' can't design/create something, it must be a god that designed/created it. After all, there are only two choices and since 'man' is just so damn special, the only thing more special than man must be a god, and there just ain't no way that nature could do anything without 'man' and/or a god!

    Another thing that cracks me up is him saying "Take a look at the fish fossils at above. Do you think eyes don’t fossilize?" under the pictures of the Green River Formation fish fossils.

    I have personally found Green River Formation fish fossils (including rays) and have seen many more and I sure don't see any eyes in the fish he pictured or in the fossils I've found or viewed. All I see are empty sockets. Besides, what's his point? The fish he pictured obviously had eyes but they're not preserved, and I don't recall anyone ever claiming that Green River Formation fish didn't have eyes.

    (If anyone can find information of eyes being preserved in Green River Formation fossil fish, I'd like to see it.)

    For some good laughs, take a look at this site I came across:

    http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_03.php

    And even more laughs:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/greenriver

    And back to reality - I haven't read this yet but it looks interesting:

    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm

    ReplyDelete
  22. troy said:

    "TWT, I suspect it's a business calculation on Neal's part. He's worried the government will tax him more and limit his abilities to steal cash from his "flock". There's one god that all clergymen serve and his name is $$$."

    Yeah, there must be a financial aspect to denying anthropogenic global warming. If taxes are increased (and prices on goods and services go up accordingly), not just on tedford but on most or all individuals and/or businesses, to help decrease air pollution and other detrimental effects of human activities, there likely won't be as much money donated and dropped into collection plates in churches.

    And, if it gets to where churches have to pay taxes like most other people/businesses do, that would really put a damper on stained glass windows, oak pews, fancy steeples, silk/satin robes, Rolex watches, spendy suits and ties, etc., etc., etc.

    Doesn't the bible say something about giving away your worldly goods, and about people with money not getting into heaven?

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://creation.com/walking-trees

    has a good write up about Jesus curing a type of agnosia that would have been unknown at the time since from "the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind".

    ReplyDelete
  24. Troy and TWT,

    AGW is a scam that effects the poor the most. Billions of dollars that could be invested in helping to bring real life solutions to where it is needed most is instead spend on AGW fantasies.

    Many people die every day because of the lack of clean drinking water. If all the money that is spent on AGW would be directed to bringing new water wells and purification systems to those that don't have clean water, we would immediately see lives saved.

    Your comments regarding "clergymen" only interested in money is not only a shame but also highly inaccurate. The average membership for most churches in the USA is 75 and those pastors would be fortunate to make 50K a year. A good number of these pastors are bivocational and many actually give more in tithes and offerings to their church than they receive in salary! Others don't receive any salary at all. Your comments would be a joke to the thousands of these ministers. Do the research.

    Knocking AGW for being junk-science has nothing to do with any religious agenda on my part. The data is not there to support AGW.

    http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/EN/abstract/abstract504775.shtml

    "Abstract:

    Amplitudes, rates, periodicities, causes and future trends of temperature variations based on tree rings for the past 2485 years on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau were analyzed. The results showed that extreme climatic events on the Plateau, such as the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century Warming appeared synchronously with those in other places worldwide. The largest amplitude and rate of temperature change occurred during the Eastern Jin Event (343-425 AD), and not in the late 20th century. There were significant cycles of 1324 a, 800 a, 199 a, 110 a and 2-3 a in the 2485-year temperature series. The 1324 a, 800 a, 199 a and 110 a cycles are associated with solar activity, which greatly affects the Earth surface temperature. The long-term trends (>1000 a) of temperature were controlled by the millennium-scale cycle, and amplitudes were dominated by multi-century cycles. Moreover, cold intervals corresponded to sunspot minimums. The prediction indicated that the temperature will decrease in the future until to 2068 AD and then increase again."

    Perhaps your time would be better spent asking R Dawkins and K Miller why they made their sad claims against the vertebrate eye? How much money did Dawkins make from his book that made these sad and highly inaccurate claims?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tedford the idiot said...

    AGW is a scam that effects the poor the most. Billions of dollars that could be invested in helping to bring real life solutions to where it is needed most is instead spend on AGW fantasies.


    I see you have nothing more to say on the false and libelous report about NOAA producing fraudulent data your wingnut AGW Denier website was pushing. Why is that Tedford?

    Many people die every day because of the lack of clean drinking water. If all the money that is spent on AGW would be directed to bringing new water wells and purification systems to those that don't have clean water, we would immediately see lives saved

    If farmers ate their seed corn they'd immediately end their short-term hunger too. Most think it wise to invest resources in the long term big picture of the health and well-being of society.

    Your comments regarding "clergymen" only interested in money is not only a shame but also highly inaccurate.

    That's true. Many clergymen are also interested in easy access to young altar boys.

    Knocking AGW for being junk-science has nothing to do with any religious agenda on my part. The data is not there to support AGW.

    http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/EN/abstract/abstract504775.shtml


    Good job there idiot. That paper is making climate predictions for one specific area, the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau. As the average temperature of the planet continues to rise not all areas are affected uniformly.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So, what is the evidence that vison systems evolved by way of random mutation, ns and drift?

    Prediction- more attacks and insipidity..

    ReplyDelete
  27. Geoxus:
    Yes, that is a flaw. Dawkins and Miller are too charitable. The designer-that-dare-not-speak-its-name hypothesis can't produce predictions.

    And what predictions does the "mutations we cannot name" produce?

    ReplyDelete
  28. thumper said...

    So, what is the evidence that vison systems evolved by way of random mutation, ns and drift?


    Oh goody, another sockpuppet from UD.

    Try here for starters

    Eye evolution: common use and independent recruitment of genetic components

    Feel free to provide any corrections with your supporting evidence for things you think the authors got wrong

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Thorton,

    The authors assume evolution and they surely do not promote random mutations as the underlying mechanism for the change.

    They conclude:

    The commonalities in the use of structurally similar seven-transmembrane receptors (opsins) as animal eye photopigments stem from their shared evolutionary history.

    Yet they do not know how or even if random mutations can produce opsins.

    So the question is what did the authors get right? Feel free to provide any evidence taht they got anything correct.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. thumper said...

    The authors assume evolution


    Since evolution is a well established scientific fact of course they do.

    and they surely do not promote random mutations as the underlying mechanism for the change.

    You didn't bother to read the paper, did you?

    Yes, the authors did attribute many changes in the Pax–Six–Eya–Dach genetic networks to mutations. The 'random WRT fitness' part is understood from previous work. It is not necessary or useful to rehash Genetics 101 basics in every paper.

    Yet they do not know how or even if random mutations can produce opsins.

    You didn't ask for an evolutionary history of opsins. You asked for evidence of the evolution of vision systems, which is what you got.

    So the question is what did the authors get right? Feel free to provide any evidence that they got anything correct.

    The evidence is in the paper and the references provided, but you'll never see it if you won't bother to read it.

    Since you have no specific objections to what was presented save your personal incredulity I'll assume your question was successfully answered.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thumper, if you're really interested in the evolutionary development of opsins, this paper should help

    Evolution of opsins and phototransduction

    Abstract: Opsins are the universal photoreceptor molecules of all visual systems in the animal kingdom. They can change their conformation from a resting state to a signalling state upon light absorption, which activates the G protein, thereby resulting in a signalling cascade that produces physiological responses. This process of capturing a photon and transforming it into a physiological response is known as phototransduction. Recent cloning techniques have revealed the rich and diverse nature of these molecules, found in organisms ranging from jellyfish to humans, functioning in visual and non-visual phototransduction systems and photoisomerases. Here we describe the diversity of these proteins and their role in phototransduction. Then we explore the molecular properties of opsins, by analysing site-directed mutants, strategically designed by phylogenetic comparison. This site-directed mutant approach led us to identify many key features in the evolution of the photoreceptor molecules. In particular, we will discuss the evolution of the counterion, the reduction of agonist binding to the receptor, and the molecular properties that characterize rod opsins apart from cone opsins. We will show how the advances in molecular biology and biophysics have given us insights into how evolution works at the molecular level.

    You're welcome again.

    ReplyDelete
  32. thumper says:

    And what predictions does the "mutations we cannot name" produce?

    I'll interpret that to mean "what predictions can evolutionary theory produce without any information on the actual mutations?".

    Two examples:

    -Estimations of change in quantitative traits by the action of natural selection, using of the Lande equation or the Robertson-Price identity.

    -For a couple of modern taxa that are inferred to be closely related, but morphologically very different, future fossil findings will tend to close the morphological gap between them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Geoxus,

    Your interpretation is wrong and your alleged predictions don't have anything to do with random mutations that you cannot name.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thorton,

    Universal common descent is not a well established anything. You are sadly mistaken.

    The random wrt fitness is a nonsensical evo-term and odes not address the issue if the mutations were goal oriented or just happened.

    Also the paper you linked to was just comparative genetics, meaning there wasn't anything about how any vision could have evolved.

    The whole "how" part is missing. And given the paper on waiting for two mutations, that would put a damper on any idea that random mutations could A) put together a regulatory network to B) allow for the development multi-protein systems, like the vision system.

    So if all you have is comparative anatomy and comparative genetics, you don't have anything to support the claim evolutiondidit, never mind randommutationdidit.

    You're welcome

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thorton,

    You want us to believe that random mutations put together a light to electric signal transducer?

    You will believe anything as long as you think it refutes design.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is not necessary or useful to rehash Genetics 101 basics in every paper.

    It is if genetics 101 is based on an untestable assumption. And seeing that genetics 101 is the issue I would say it is necessary to start there.

    ReplyDelete
  37. thumper said...

    Universal common descent is not a well established anything.


    Actually it is. Sorry I can't help you with the personal incredulity thing if you refuse to read and learn.

    The random wrt fitness is a nonsensical evo-term and odes not address the issue if the mutations were goal oriented or just happened.

    Mutations being random with their effects on evolutionary fitness is an empirically observed fact. That's just the way reality is thumper.

    Also the paper you linked to was just comparative genetics, meaning there wasn't anything about how any vision could have evolved.

    LOL! I guess that's why the paper was titled Eye Evolution, because it had nothing to do with the evolution of vision systems, right?

    The whole "how" part is missing. And given the paper on waiting for two mutations, that would put a damper on any idea that random mutations could A) put together a regulatory network to B) allow for the development multi-protein systems, like the vision system.

    Another LOL! PaV/Lino just got his butt handed to him while quote-mining and misrepresenting that exact paper. His big idiotic faceplant was in claiming that low probabilities for two prespecified mutations somehow means that any two mutations must be low probability. You want make the same dumb claim too?

    So if all you have is comparative anatomy and comparative genetics, you don't have anything to support the claim evolutiondidit, never mind randommutationdidit.

    I've got all of anatomy, and biology, and botany, and genetics, and paleontology, and a hundred other sciences providing my positive evidence. What do you have?

    You want us to believe that random mutations put together a light to electric signal transducer?

    No, I don't. I agree random mutations alone won't create such a system. But an iterative process of genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable variations will do it quite nicely.

    You will believe anything as long as you think it refutes design.

    Nah, I stick to the consilient empirical evidence. You ID chaps should try it some day.

    ReplyDelete
  38. thumper said...

    T: "It is not necessary or useful to rehash Genetics 101 basics in every paper."

    It is if genetics 101 is based on an untestable assumption. And seeing that genetics 101 is the issue I would say it is necessary to start there.


    Any local college or university should be able to help you. You may even find some introductory Biology 101 or Genetics 101 night courses at a local community school. There are also numerous online tutorials that could explain the basics to you.

    I personally won't waste my time with anyone who is unwilling to learn. Go study and understand what you're criticizing first, then come back and try to make a coherent argument. Your "I personally don't believe it!!" doesn't carry any weight at all.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thumper: Yet they do not know how or even if random mutations can produce opsins.

    Thumper,

    You seem to be having difficulty seeing the forrest for the trees.

    One cannot perform a magic trick unless you have the knowledge of how to perform that trick. Otherwise, it would actually be magic or the spontaneous generation of knowledge. The origin of the magic trick is the origin of the knowledge of how to perform it. We create knowledge of how to perform magic tricks via conjecture and refutation.

    In the case of the biosphere, eyes represent adaptations. Eyes cannot be constructed in the absence of the knowledge of how to build them. Otherwise this would be spontaneous generation of knowledge, or "magic". As such, the origin of adaptations is the origin of the knowledge that was used to build them, as found in the genome.

    Evolutionary theory explains the creation of this knowledge via genetic variation and natural selection, which is a form of conjecture and refutation.

    In other words, all predictions of evolutionary theory are based on a specific, underlying explanation for how the knowledge used to build the specific adaptations we observe was created. Specifically, that it was created over time and that it was a form of conjecture in that variations were undirected in regards to function and refutation by natural selection. Unlike people, natural process cannot create explanations, which we use as a criteria for performing tests via observations.

    For example, how do you explain why life appears in the order of least complex to most complex? If the knowledge of how to build each species had always existed, there would be no need to start out with the least complex forms billions of years ago, with the more complex forms only appearing in the last 500 million years or so. In fact, all forms of life could have been created simultaneously as the knowledge of how to create them would have existed simultaneously.

    On the other hand, complex adaptations cannot be constructed until the knowledge of how to build them was created. We explain this particular order in that the knowledge of how to build more complex adaptations did not always exist and was created over time. Nor could the mechanism choose to discard specific genetic variations because, unlike people, it cannot create explanations as to how genetic variations create specific features.

    So, if you want to falsify evolutionary theory, this would entail falsifying evolution's underlying explanation for the creation of knowledge used to construct the biosphere. Better yet, provide a better explanation for how this knowledge was created.

    Note: a being that was "just there", complete with the knowledge of how to build each species already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more simply state that each organism "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to build each species, already present in their DNA. It merely pushes the problem into some unexplainable mind that exists in some unexplainable realm.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The eye ius a classic objection to evolution and perhaps why some guy did a book on this as if to deaden the simply understood concept that eyes are too complex to be from selection on mutation.

    Eyes in origin issues matter too me as I had/have serious issues with eyesight.
    The thing, as noted in the thread lead, that catches me about eyes is how they are all after the same model in sio many creatures.
    As if the eye was perfected and later evolution turned bugs into buffalos but kept the eye design intact.
    Surely unlikely.
    The few differences in eye design are for insects or sea creatures and even there there is serious overlap.

    This great sameness in eyesight design hints not only at a single creator but hints strongly that all eyesight is a single equation in biology.
    The seeming differences are just clues to a greater, still not understood, single law in how biology uses light to bring sight.

    If so then it could be creationism that could lead to healing of blindness.

    If a creature needs a certain way of seeing then it will have it.
    So squids, unlike other sea creatures, are like us simply cause they need it. Eyes are unrelated to a trail of biological heritage.

    The sameness of eyes indicates a like biological reaction for like needs.
    The differences hint at the mechanism of how eye types are picked.
    The greater law of sight from light is is still in the dark yet this law seems to be there.
    Everyone's eyes woks the same way.
    "mammal/reptile" or insects etcare not different kinds of eyes.

    A single creator likely has a single idea for eyesight.
    Fugure this out and we could help people like me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If farmers ate their seed corn they'd immediately end their short-term hunger too. Most think it wise to invest resources in the long term big picture of the health and well-being of society.

    It's like that old saying about a day versus a lifetime. How's it go again? Oh yeah: "Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." Words of wisdom, no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thorton said:

    "As the average temperature of the planet continues to rise not all areas are affected uniformly."

    AGW deniers obviously think that AGW means that every square inch of the Earth should be getting warmer every single day. They don't (or won't) understand that AGW affects the climate in different ways in different places. They also don't understand that it doesn't take a massive rise in warming to cause severe detrimental effects in many places.

    And one more thing they don't understand is that AGW and the detrimental effects cannot be reversed overnight.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kilo Papa, please tone it down. There's no reason to insult all Christians because of the actions of a few moronic IDC pushers.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thumper says:

    Your interpretation is wrong...

    I'm terribly sorry. Will you explain yourself or shall we guess ad infinitum?

    and your alleged predictions don't have anything to do with random mutations that you cannot name.

    Second guess: you want a test of the randomness of mutation.

    Example: If you grow several parallel lines of initially genetically identical bacteria, and test phage resistance in many samples of each line, you'll see great variance in the number of resistant colonies between the parallel lines. This is explained because the phage resistance mutation appeared at different moments during the growth of each line, by random mutation. If the variance is small, the alternative explanation is that the phage resistant mutations appeared after the introduction of the phage as a non-random response, yielding similar numbers of mutants between lines.

    Prediction: You'll say you didn't mean that either, and will phrase some other nonsense pretending to explain yourself, so that your question remains unanswerable.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Robert Byers,

    From your use of language I gather you come from some ancient time. I'm sad to tell you the buffaloes with compound eyes are apparently extinct today. I bet they were magnificent creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  46. geoxus:
    It's like that old saying about a day versus a lifetime. How's it go again? Oh yeah: "Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." Words of wisdom,


    I heard it as

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
    Teach him how to fish and he will sit
    in a boat and drink beer all day

    ReplyDelete
  47. Geoxus said...

    I'm sad to tell you the buffaloes with compound eyes are apparently extinct today.


    (goes to get monitor cleaner to remove sprayed coffee!)

    LOL! That made my morning.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton

    you ruining your monitor made my morning.
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eugen said...

    Thorton

    you ruining your monitor made my morning.
    :)


    Glad to return the favor and bring a smile! I for one appreciate your mild and good humored fun-poking at both sides in these discussions. You're sorta like a C/E board's Switzerland. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Cornelius,

    Anyone who reasonably doubts is ridiculed, dismissed and blackballed.

    No. But you can bet that people who think that the bible make better predictions will be ridiculed. Especially when such a religious person's sctick is that evolutionists are themselves religious when they end up comparing real science to the bible-thumpers "knowledge".

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thorton

    thanks to ID challengers this blog provides an interesting place for discussion. Of course, thanks to Cornelius for allowing opponents to freely challenge ID.

    Most of us here are looking for knowledge, explanations,clarifications.

    How will looking for and maybe gaining knowledge help us during our short pity lives on this rock flying towards Leo at 400 km/s (CMB as a reference)?

    Sometimes I think it would be easier to be bacteria in a little pond showing off my fancy flagellum at full speed.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Delighted as I am to see Cornelius finally admitting his belief that wisdom can be found in the Bible, am I the only one left gawping at his playing fast and loose with the term 'prediction'?

    Blind guides and straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel?

    Men loving darkness rather than light?

    Men heaping up teachers to turn away from the truth and turning to fables instead?

    The blind saying “We see”?


    How in the name of Satan's knickers do these qualify as 'predictions', particularly as scientists understand the term?

    They are only predictions in the sense that religious people like to understand them - ie, they are phrases which they can view purely as metaphor and then apply to whatever situation de jour they fancy, and then retroactively claim the phrase to be a 'prediction'.

    It's so weak and transparent it's embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thorton,

    We should thank Mr. Byers for his comedic input.

    velikovskys,

    I didn't say that. You're quoting Venture Free.

    ReplyDelete
  54. CH has finally come out of the closet and is now open about his "Bible is a science textbook" beliefs. I wonder if for the next chapter he'll explain Biblical genetics, where you can get sheep and goats to produce streaked and spotted offspring merely by having them mate in front of tree branches cut with stripes.

    Biblical tree branch genetics

    How about it CH? How do the Bible’s descriptions hold up on that one?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thorton,

    The tree branch story at that website is hilarious.

    Did you notice that the story goes from "speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat" to "all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs" to "stripes" on the branches to "young that were streaked or speckled or spotted" and "streaked and dark-colored animal" to "stronger females" and "strong ones"?

    What a convoluted mess.

    ReplyDelete
  56. velikovskys

    S'okay. For some reason that happens to me a lot on this blog. Dunno why.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Please, please Cornelius, weigh in -- you have let the Darwinists make fools of themselves long enough. None of your biblical-related comments related to biology whatsoever, rather, to the willing 'blindness' of learned parakeets who recite Darwinian lore. You let them degrade themselves to the point that they invent, then ridicule, their own straw-man arguments about "biblical genetics" -- finally hitting bottom with the "bible as a science textbook" canard.

    This whole string is too rich. Have respondents noted the title of your blog? The title words "religion" and "God" might have provided a clue as to the point of your post. I only hope that comments section of your blog is not under copyright, for I have seen no better illustration of the vapidness of Darwinian logic (pardon the oxymoron).

    Thank you, Cornelius Hunter, for the Christmas gift.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Irrespective of all naivety of some ID bloggers and their arguments, abusus non tollit usum, my dear colleagues. So, please show us:

    1. how semiotic state systems spontaneously organised themselves.
    2. how formalisms came into being by themselves.
    3. how nature decided to follow routes to optimise utility.
    4. how genuine cybernetic control is introduced into physicality.

    To facilitate your efforts, please show us at least one example of each of the above to prove that spontaneous bona fide self-organisation is possible (not to be confused with low-informational redundant fractal-type regularity that can occur spontaneously).

    Note that formidable efforts of really outstanding scientists have so far failed to provide adequate answers. Neither the edge of chaos by Kauffman, nor Prigogine's dissipative structures, nor Eigen's auto-catalytic and replicating hypercycles present adequate responses to the cybernetic challenge outlined above.

    ReplyDelete