Friday, March 16, 2012

Evolutionists Are Now Going Wild With “Lateral” Evolution And One Evolutionist Said “There is Nothing to Criticize”

Do you remember when evolution was supposed to follow a common descent pattern, with genes passed down (“vertically” in evolution lingo) from progenitor to progeny? Then the evidence got in the way as similar genes were found in more distant species, violating the expect evolutionary pattern. So evolutionists took their first drink of lateral evolution. And of course the drinking continued. And continued. Soon the origin of life riddle, for instance, was transformed into one massive lateral evolution event, with genetic material readily being exchanged between cells in the same population via an incredibly complex, never observed, process that cannot be repeated or tested. Similarly lateral, or horizontal, evolution is being called upon to explain all kinds of findings that violate common descent’s expected pattern, as in the following example of evolutionists gone wild.

Many bacteria and single-cell eukaryotes live in zero or low oxygen environments and this means they can’t perform certain operations. For instance the eukaryotes cannot create sterols, small chemicals that are an important ingredient, for example, in the cell’s membrane, influencing its fluidity. Eukaryotes solve this problem, according to new research, by switching to the sterol-like molecule, tetrahymanol, for which oxygen is not required to synthesize. The research shows that the key gene in constructing tetrahymanol, squalene-tetrahymanol cyclase or STC, is distributed in many of these eukaryotes living in zero or low oxygen environments. But this means the STC gene is widely distributed, not following the expected common descent pattern. Not surprisingly, the evolutionists took another drink. They casually explain that the gene was “laterally transferred” among the eukaryotes:

The monophyly of eukaryote STC homologues could be explained by vertical inheritance from a common tetrahymanol-synthesizing eukaryotic ancestor. However, if this were the case, dozens of parallel losses of the STC genes in many eukaryotic lineages that currently lack this gene would be required, so this evolutionary scenario seems unlikely. An alternative and more plausible possibility is that the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.

An unknown mechanism? That’s right, evolutionists must appeal to unknown mechanisms to explain their “fact.” We don’t know how evolution happened, but we’re certain that it’s true. Take another drink. As one evolutionist who reviewed the paper wrote, “There is nothing to criticize.”

Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

36 comments:

  1. Some are still claiming that nested hierarchies are the sine qua non of evolution, one of the more solid predictions of Darwinian evolution that makes it a falsifiable theory. Now that this nonsense has been falsified, what else qualifies evolution as a valid science in the Popperian sense? Answer: nothing. Evolution is a joke.

    The lying jackasses in the evolutionist camp really have no shame. This hogwash would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Chicken feather voodoo science is what they practice. They give science a bad name. How did those morons manage to take over the schools, mass media and education?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except, in the Popperian sense, you're assuming that the predictions of evolutionary theory are prophecy. As such, it seems you have a very weak understanding of Popper.

      Specifically, see here and here.

      Delete
    2. Scott,
      I am still concerned about that missing cupcake, care to elaborate?

      Delete
    3. Ok, to summarize....

      I wrote: You have a box that contains two items. You add two more items, close the box, then open it again and find three items. Since you assumed you would find four, one of your assumptions are wrong.

      Which assumption would you question first? Why would you start with this particular assumption, rather than some other assumption?


      Specifically, what you just observed represents a falsification of one of your assumptions. The question is, which assumption? How do you decide?

      So, first, ask yourself which assumption you would question first.

      Second, the question becomes, why did you pick that assumption, rather than some other assumption that this observation could also represent a falsification of?

      Was it random? What was your underlying criteria? Can you even put your finger on what that criteria is?

      Delete
    4. Scott: Except, in the Popperian sense, you're assuming that the predictions of evolutionary theory are prophecy. As such, it seems you have a very weak understanding of Popper.

      The whole point of having a prediction is to provide a falsifiable test. Evolution fails falsifiability 101. It fails every single one of its predictions. It's a religion of cretins, i.e., created by cretins for cretins.

      But I perfectly understand the chicken sh!t games you morons play: demand falsifiability from your opponent's theory but cleverly decline to do the same from your own brain-dead cretinous theory.

      The nice thing is though, nothing last forever, especially crappy theories. When you people finally fall, you will fall hard. And I'll be eating popcorn and nachos in a front row seat. LOL.

      Delete
    5. Scott,
      While I appreciate the shorter version ,a question? If I looked into the box and found five vanilla cupcakes would it be comparable in your example?

      Delete
    6. Louis,
      Popcorn and nachos? And who is a cretin?

      Delete
    7. Louis: The whole point of having a prediction is to provide a falsifiable test. Evolution fails falsifiability 101. It fails every single one of its predictions. It's a religion of cretins, i.e., created by cretins for cretins.

      Are you suggesting there is no difference between prophecy and a scientific prediction?

      Perhaps you can explain how it would be possible for a scientific theory to account for an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel events that could change what we'll experience in the future?

      Delete
    8. Velikovskys: While I appreciate the shorter version ,a question? If I looked into the box and found five vanilla cupcakes would it be comparable in your example?

      I specifically choose simplified this to avoid this sort of problem.


      The question is, which assumption did the observation falsify?

      Was the assumption addition? Or would you think that the assumption that the box represented an accurate model of addition?

      Which would you question first, and why?

      Delete
  2. Wonder how they explain how this feature developed that when you cut yourself the wound heals again as if nothing has happened? How can this develop by random mutation and doesnt change anymore? Do they not say, evolution is constantly changing without intelligent supervision?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Louis Savain Mar 17, 2012 12:20 AM

    [...]

    Evolution is a joke.


    No, what is a joke is the creationist caricature of evolution. A very bad joke.

    Kilo papa pointed out how the CMV virus is just one of the many delightful ways human beings can fall ill and die. There's no doubt about the suffering. It's happening every day.

    So there's two basic choices when it comes to explaining it. Either there was this supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing God who was so incompetent or so vindictive (or maybe even both) that it designed us that way or this curate's egg of a situation is just what you'd expect from some messy, haphazard, erratic, undirected process like evolution.

    You've made your choice. So have I. I choose evolution and you know what you can do with your alternative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian:

      Kilo papa pointed out how the CMV virus is just one of the many delightful ways human beings can fall ill and die. There's no doubt about the suffering. It's happening every day.

      So there's two basic choices when it comes to explaining it. Either there was this supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing God who was so incompetent or so vindictive (or maybe even both) that it designed us that way or this curate's egg of a situation is just what you'd expect from some messy, haphazard, erratic, undirected process like evolution.

      You've made your choice. So have I. I choose evolution and you know what you can do with your alternative.


      Good points again.

      Delete
    2. LOL. They never see it even though they are up to their necks in it.

      Delete
  4. Ian H Spedding

    Kilo papa pointed out how the CMV virus is just one of the many delightful ways human beings can fall ill and die. There's no doubt about the suffering. It's happening every day.

    So there's two basic choices when it comes to explaining it. Either there was this supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing God who was so incompetent or so vindictive (or maybe even both) that it designed us that way or this curate's egg of a situation is just what you'd expect from some messy, haphazard, erratic, undirected process like evolution.


    This sort of thing happens all the time in the IDiot camp.

    Over at UncommonlyDense, PaV (who posts here as Lino D'Ischia) put up an article claiming that genetic changes in non-coding ("junk") DNA was evidence of his Designer.

    Junk DNA Strikes Again

    What PaV ignores either through ignorance or stupidity is that he's arguing his Designer deliberately created a mutation that causes Ravine encephalopathy. Ravine encephalopathy is a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills babies by destroying their brain matter.

    This is just as bad as Behe, who argued that the Designer deliberately causes mutations in the Malaria parasite which gave it resistance to anti-malarial drugs. The Designer was thus responsible for untold millions of deaths caused by the disease.

    Let's hear it for PaV's and Behe's kind, benevolent Designer!

    PaV claims to know the identity of this sadistic monster of a Designer but he won't tell us. PaV, please let us know who this evil Designer is so we can take steps to avoid Him!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton:

      What PaV ignores either through ignorance or stupidity is that he's arguing his Designer deliberately created a mutation that causes Ravine encephalopathy. Ravine encephalopathy is a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills babies by destroying their brain matter.

      This is just as bad as Behe, who argued that the Designer deliberately causes mutations in the Malaria parasite which gave it resistance to anti-malarial drugs. The Designer was thus responsible for untold millions of deaths caused by the disease.

      Let's hear it for PaV's and Behe's kind, benevolent Designer!

      PaV claims to know the identity of this sadistic monster of a Designer but he won't tell us. PaV, please let us know who this evil Designer is so we can take steps to avoid Him!


      Good points also.

      Delete
    2. Thorton:

      What PaV ignores either through ignorance or stupidity is that he's arguing his Designer deliberately created a mutation that causes Ravine encephalopathy. Ravine encephalopathy is a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills babies by destroying their brain matter.

      This is just as bad as Behe, who argued that the Designer deliberately causes mutations in the Malaria parasite which gave it resistance to anti-malarial drugs. The Designer was thus responsible for untold millions of deaths caused by the disease.


      These are the ravings of mad man.

      (I didn't know you were so interested in theology. But, then again, so was your Papa, Darwin.)

      Delete
    3. PaV Lino

      Thorton: "What PaV ignores either through ignorance or stupidity is that he's arguing his Designer deliberately created a mutation that causes Ravine encephalopathy. Ravine encephalopathy is a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills babies by destroying their brain matter.

      This is just as bad as Behe, who argued that the Designer deliberately causes mutations in the Malaria parasite which gave it resistance to anti-malarial drugs. The Designer was thus responsible for untold millions of deaths caused by the disease."

      These are the ravings of mad man.


      You made the claim that the mutation was designed PaV, not me.

      Please tell us: who was the Designer that deliberately designed this mutation which kills babies? You said you know, so speak up.

      Delete
  5. "Either there was this supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing God who was so incompetent or so vindictive (or maybe even both)"

    How is that possible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Karl Popper put it, "The objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested".

      So, what we do is take conjectured theories seriously for the purpose of criticizing them. This also includes testing them for errors of self-inconsistency.

      As such, it would seem a theory of an all-knowing, all powerful being which is also incompetent is found in error as it's self-contradictory. While this doesn't rule out that biosphere wasn't designed, we certainly should conclude it *was* designed based on this theory, as it's been found in error. As such, we discard it.

      In the same sense, we can also take the theory of an all-powerful, all-knowing being that is vindictive seriously for criticism as well.

      However, if we objectively attempt to assume such a being exists, in reality, and that all of our observations should conform to it, it becomes unclear what anyone could possibility do to a non-material, all-powerful, all-knowing being that would merit vengeance in the first place.

      Rather, you'd need to include additional assumptions about this designer, which will likely be of the shallow and easily varied type. Furthermore, it will be an assumption which is get's built into the theory itself, rather than based on an independent conclusion, which is part of some other independent theory.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps the Problem of Evil is irreconcilable with the existence of an perfect all-knowing, all-powerful Christian God.

      Delete
    3. Ian H Spedding: Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps the Problem of Evil is irreconcilable with the existence of an perfect all-knowing, all-powerful Christian God.

      This is all nonsense, of course. But then again, only nonsense comes out the mouths of evolutionists.

      First of all, the Christian God never claimed that what he (Elohim or the Lords) created was perfect. After they finished their creation work, the Elohim looked at all that they made and said "it is very good". They did not say it was perfect. The omnipotent, omniscient God that evolutionists love to attack is a cheesy metaphysical strawman of their own making. Perfectionism is an evil concept and it does not surprise me that it's the backbone of the evolutionist's non-argument against creation.

      Second, the Christian God cannot create either evil or good beings in the moral sense of the words good and evil. Good and evil are spiritual concepts that have nothing to do with physical matter. Only spirits can be good or evil. The Christian God never claimed to have created spirits. Spirits are neither created nor destroyed. They just are. God only coded and built the body's DNA. Your spirit is your own. So, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

      Delete
  6. I believe the key phrase is " supposedly all-powerful,all-knowing God",

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm. Should we apply supposedly to the other option as well?

      ..."'supposedly' some messy, haphazard, erratic, undirected process like evolution."

      Delete
    2. Sure you wouldn't be the first. In fact that is one of the main proofs of ID.

      Delete
    3. Neither is very tenable.

      Delete
    4. Valid or not, they will continue to be used. OT, do you understand the point of Scott's cupcake illustration?

      Delete
  7. God already said you would all die. Therefore he must not exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the Bible we're made in God's image. We all die, so he must have

      Delete
  8. They really don't know how HGT happens in eukaryotes. They also talk about deep homology and incomplete lineage sorting. They just keep on adding epicycles on epicycles. It looks like evolution isn't falsifiable if they are allowed to call in unknwn mechanisms to explain away a problem. Isn't unknown mechanism another name for miracle? Oh well, I really envy evolutionists their faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wrote: Rather, you'd need to include additional assumptions about this designer, which will likely be of the shallow and easily varied type. Furthermore, it will be an assumption which is get's built into the theory itself, rather than based on an independent conclusion, which is part of some other independent theory.

    Louis Savain: Second, the Christian God cannot create either evil or good beings in the moral sense of the words good and evil. Good and evil are spiritual concepts that have nothing to do with physical matter. Only spirits can be good or evil. The Christian God never claimed to have created spirits. Spirits are neither created nor destroyed. They just are. God only coded and built the body's DNA. Your spirit is your own. So, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

    Here, Louis just provided just such an example.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Specially, that God cannot create evil or good beings in the moral sense is simply built into the theory, rather than representing an independent conclusion argued for elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My comment was not to support a theory. It was to show the moronic nature of the argument against creation that is continually being promoted by brain-dead evolutionists like you. It's like, "hey guys, let's build an all-powerful, all-knowing god and show that such a god cannot exist and could not have created life on earth; so therefore, creation did not happen." Lame.

      It's one of those arguments that are so stupid, it boggles the mind that you people think you are clever and want to be seen by others as superior intellectuals. You are not. You are stupid as sh!t.

      Delete
    2. Louis,
      You seem to be sort of an unpleasant fellow, quick to denigrate others to cover up a sense of inferiority. Just sayin

      Delete
    3. I must have struck a sensitive nerve. Cool.

      Delete
    4. Louis: It's like, "hey guys, let's build an all-powerful, all-knowing god and show that such a god cannot exist and could not have created life on earth; so therefore, creation did not happen." Lame.

      Which is a blatant misrepresentation of my position.

      It's logically possible that creation might be true. However we certainty shouldn't conclude it actually *is* true based on a theory that has been shown to be in error by observations.

      Delete