Thursday, March 22, 2012

Your Tax Dollars At Work: This Evolution Professor Just Made An Anti-Science, Religious Statement at the NIH


Lynn Jorde, award-winning evolution professor and Chair of the Department of Human Genetics at the tax-payer supported University of Utah, just gave a talk at the tax-payer supported National Institutes of Health where he approvingly quoted Lewis Thomas, former Dean of Yale Medical School that without random mutations we would be bacteria:

The capacity to blunder slightly is the real marvel of DNA. Without this special attribute, we would still be anaerobic bacteria and there would be no music. [at 4:55 minutes]

And so we should, Jorde reminded his evolutionary audience, appreciate our mutations, though he did concede that those mutations “occasionally cause disease.”

There are different ways of describing evolution’s religiously-driven manipulation of science. Evolutionists often attempt to mask it with technical-sounding jargon. Other times they seek to impose, more forcefully, their religious views. Either way one is left rather astonished at the lack of self-awareness evolutionists display. One is reminded of Hans Christian Andersen’s seemingly unlikely tale, The Emperor's New Clothes. In the case of evolution, however, it is unfortunately all too real. Evolutionists are without shame in their absurdity.

46 comments:

  1. Glad to see you've given up any pretense of being a science discussion board are are just going for the "Jerry Springer clown circus" approach these days.

    Definitely a wise move on your part CH. That 'science' thing just wasn't working out for you anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just going for the "Jerry Springer clown circus" approach these days.

      Says the guy who, if it weren't for random mutations, would be a bacteria. Got it ...

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter

      just going for the "Jerry Springer clown circus" approach these days.

      Says the guy who, if it weren't for random mutations, would be a bacteria. Got it ...


      We'd all be CH. But feel free to explain to the lurkers how mutations aren't part of the empirically observed continuing biological process of mutation filtered by selection in every generation.

      Delete
  2. It's the darwinian fairytale...frogs can become princes if you have enough faith and give them enough time and enough "wonderful" genetic mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HMMM Thorton, perhaps instead of belittling Dr. Hunter for being 'unscientific', (which is a bully tactic), you could instead lead by example and present us with the overwhelming scientific evidence of beneficial mutations producing functional complexity that only neo-Darwinists seem to be privy to:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
    http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

    Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    Moreover, there is now shown to be a 'non-local', beyond space and time, component to humans that is not reducible to material particles (as is required by neo-Darwinism):

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.

      Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
      Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."

      I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found this stated in 2009:

      HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!

      I really question their use of the word 'celebrating'. (Of note, apparently someone with a sense of decency has now removed the word 'celebrating')

      "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker
      Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. (of note: this 3500 figure is cited from the late 1980's)
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/mutations

      Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality
      http://vimeo.com/35088933

      Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations:
      why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov A.S.
      http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/jt/1995/00000175/00000004/art00167

      This following study confirmed the detrimental mutation rate for humans, of 100 to 300 per generation, estimated by John Sanford in his book 'Genetic Entropy' in 2005:

      Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009
      Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations")
      http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html

      This more recent study found a slightly lower figure:

      We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us - June 2011
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm

      This 'slightly detrimental' mutation rate of 100 to 200, or even 60, per generation is far greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism:

      Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
      Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm

      Delete
  4. Thorton is a consistent idiot. that Hunter allows this jackass to continue to post his/her inane comments on his blog is an enduring mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Louis the fruit loop! Still the same charming guy I see.

      Any chance you could stop picking your nose long enough to tell us specifically why Thomas' statement was "anti-science and religious"?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

      Delete
  5. While Louis is busy with his rhinotillexomania, anyone else want to take a crack at explaining specifically why Thomas' statement was "anti-science and religious"?

    Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should anybody throw their pearls at a bunch of swines?

      Delete
    2. anyone else want to take a crack at explaining specifically why Thomas' statement was "anti-science and religious"?

      Well let's see, religious claims ... check, and manipulation of science to support said religious claims ... check. I think that qualifies as "anti-science and religious." Or is this time different?

      Delete
    3. Cornelius Hunter

      T: anyone else want to take a crack at explaining specifically why Thomas' statement was "anti-science and religious"?

      Well let's see, religious claims ... check, and manipulation of science to support said religious claims ... check. I think that qualifies as "anti-science and religious." Or is this time different?


      Well let's see, repeated assertion with no explanation....check. Evasion of questions...check. Lack of scruples in baseless attack on science...check.

      Pocketing the DI's money for another week's dishonest propaganda...check.

      Delete
    4. Once a jackass, always a jackass.

      Delete
    5. Well let's see, repeated assertion with no explanation

      Oh, I forgot, those posts are in another multiverse where there's no Thorton.

      Delete
    6. Cornelius Hunter

      Well let's see, repeated assertion with no explanation

      Oh, I forgot, those posts are in another multiverse where there's no Thorton


      Maybe there's one with an honest and scrupulous Cornelius Hunter too. We'll keep looking.

      Delete
  6. as to:

    'anyone else want to take a crack at explaining specifically why Thomas' statement was "anti-science and religious"?'

    it is 'anti-science' because neo-Darwinism is epistemologically self-defeating:

    Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
    Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

    Philosopher Sticks Up for God
    Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    Alvin Plantinga - Science and Faith Conference - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlMK9Ejhb0

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/32145998

    Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

    It is religious because the argument is undergirded by a framework of Theodicy:

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

    Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign - Cornelius Hunter - August 2011
    Excerpt: Evolution cannot even explain how a single protein first evolved, let alone the massive biological world that ensued. From biosonar to redwood trees, evolution is left with only just-so stories motivated by the dogma that evolution must be true. That dogma comes from metaphysics,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/08/peacefulness-in-grown-man-that-is-not.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you batspit77 for another half dozen posts of inane C&Ped blithering.

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thornton, in the "blithering" you'll find information which contradict the idea that beneficial mutations was the main driving force which drove biological development from molecule to man. If said idea is challenged by scientific evidence why does it cause so much anguish?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Moosejaw

    Thornton, in the "blithering" you'll find information which contradict the idea that beneficial mutations was the main driving force which drove biological development from molecule to man. If said idea is challenged by scientific evidence why does it cause so much anguish?


    Because it's not challenged by any scientific evidence, unless you have some sooper-dooper secret Creationist lab and can produce some new evidence now.

    Show it if ya got it.

    There are many recognized sources of genetic variation for selection to act on. Sexual recombination is a biggie, as are new mutations possessed by neither parent. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and the introduction of endogenous retrovirus (ERV) strains also play a part.

    No genetic change by itself is beneficial or deleterious. They only can be judged so by the effect on reproducibility they confer to their recipients in the local environment.

    But I'll be proud to say I was there when Moosejaw disproved the world's most well supported scientific theory. Now all you have to do is deliver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thornton

      Here's a fact. You definitely don't know me, nor what I believe!

      Why would evidence which MIGHT challenge the evolutionary paradigm have to come from a ‘creationist lab’? And by creationist I take it you mean someone who holds to a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation? How did we get there from that question?

      Delete
    2. Moosejaw

      Here's a fact. You definitely don't know me, nor what I believe!


      You told me there was scientific evidence that challenged the idea of genetic changes being responsible for evolution. I asked you to supply such evidence. You didn't.

      Why would evidence which MIGHT challenge the evolutionary paradigm have to come from a ‘creationist lab’?

      Because there is no such evidence from any normal non-religious science labs. Also, earlier you implied such evidence definitely exists. Now you say it MIGHT exist. Why the backpedal?

      If you have evidence which disproves the idea of genetic changes being responsible for evolution then please present it.

      Am I expecting too much of you by asking you to back up your fantastic assertions?

      Delete
    3. Thornton

      "You told me there was scientific evidence that challenged the idea of genetic changes being responsible for evolution"

      No, I said "you'll find information which contradict the idea that beneficial mutations was the main driving force which drove biological development from molecule to man".

      Evolution can mean a lot of things. I was refering to it from the viewpoint of natural selection acting on random mutation. I think the article by CH was trying to say that natural selection acting on random mutation alone, as a mechanism for Darwinian synthesis, is insufficient to account for the development of all life on earth. With this I agree!

      You ask me to give you evidence of this so I think you can perhaps have a look at James Shapiro’s new book, Evolution; A view from the 21st Century, in which these very sentiments are reflected.

      Notice that I’m not trying to say there was no evolution (defined), but I am saying natural selection acting on random mutation is insufficient as the sole driving force in the story of the development of life on earth.

      Delete
    4. Moosejaw

      I think the article by CH was trying to say that natural selection acting on random mutation alone, as a mechanism for Darwinian synthesis, is insufficient to account for the development of all life on earth.


      Where in the world did you get that from? The video in the OP is a lecture in human population genetics. It covers how human genetic diversity evolved in different geographic areas over time, and explores ramifications for medicines and future research due to those differences.

      You ask me to give you evidence of this so I think you can perhaps have a look at James Shapiro’s new book, Evolution; A view from the 21st Century, in which these very sentiments are reflected.

      Notice that I’m not trying to say there was no evolution (defined), but I am saying natural selection acting on random mutation is insufficient as the sole driving force in the story of the development of life on earth.


      Why don't you summarize in your own words the key points you're trying to argue. From what I've read Shapiro is just another in a long list of supposedly "revolutionary" thinkers trying to claim natural processes are somehow "intelligent" themselves. The scientific community so far has been quite underwhelmed by his assertions.

      Delete
    5. Thornton

      "Where in the world did you get that from?"

      From;
      "Lynn Jorde, award-winning evolution professor and Chair of the Department of Human Genetics at the tax-payer supported University of Utah, just gave a talk at the tax-payer supported National Institutes of Health where he approvingly quoted Lewis Thomas, former Dean of Yale Medical School that without random mutations we would be bacteria:"

      ^^^


      "Why don't you summarize in your own words the key points you're trying to argue."

      In broad terms, that natural selection acting on random mutation alone, is insufficient in accouning for the diversity of life forms on earth because the amount of random mutations required to confer a fitness advantage to an organism, would require a period of time unavailable to the organism.

      Delete
    6. Moosejaw, are you being serious?

      Thomas said that without DNA's ability to produce imperfect copies of itself (which provides a source of new genetic raw materials) we wouldn't have evolution, and from that you got

      "natural selection acting on random mutation alone, as a mechanism for Darwinian synthesis, is insufficient to account for the development of all life on earth."

      Is English not your first language?

      In broad terms, that natural selection acting on random mutation alone, is insufficient in accouning for the diversity of life forms on earth because the amount of random mutations required to confer a fitness advantage to an organism, would require a period of time unavailable to the organism.

      Oh dear, not another inane "it's TOO IMPROBABLE!!" claim.

      Please show your calculations that the naturally observed mechanisms of genetic variation filtered by selection and retained as heritable traits aren't sufficient to account for the current diversity of life in the 3.5+ billion years life has been on the planet. Most importantly, don't forget to list the assumptions you make, along with justification for those assumptions.

      Delete
    7. Thornton

      Is English not your first language?

      No, it's not. But by the looks of it neither yours? Didn't you read the article bornagain77 points you to in his first post up top here? If not why??

      Delete
    8. Thornton

      Oh dear, not another inane "it's TOO IMPROBABLE!!" claim

      It's not just that it's improbable. It's improbable on so many levels. See for instance Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe's work The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway

      This is only a new enzyme function

      Please show your calculations....
      don't forget to list the assumptions you make, along with justification for those assumptions.


      I suspect your reasonong will go that if I don't list the evidence ('my calculations') and only point you to such evidence, then the argument (my argument here), an argument supported by peer reviewed evidence, evidence both myself and bornagain77 have pointed you to, is somehow magically invalidated...

      Delete
    9. Moosejaw

      T: Is English not your first language?

      No, it's not.


      Then do you realize that you completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented what was said in the Thomas quote?

      It's not just that it's improbable. It's improbable on so many levels. See for instance Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe's work The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway

      LOL! You mean where Axe "disproved" evolution by showing it's too difficult to get one extant protein to evolve into a different extant protein? Problem is no one in science says or thinks the second protein evolved from the first. It would be like "disproving" common descent by showing it would take too long for a cat to evolve directly into a dog.

      T: Please show your calculations....
      don't forget to list the assumptions you make, along with justification for those assumptions.

      I suspect your reasonong will go that if I don't list the evidence ('my calculations') and only point you to such evidence, then the argument (my argument here), an argument supported by peer reviewed evidence, evidence both myself and bornagain77 have pointed you to, is somehow magically invalidated...


      I expect that if you claim something is too improbable to happen you'll be able to provide the supporting calculations. But you obviously can't produce the calculations nor the evidence to support them.

      The world is full of IDCers making blustering assertions they can't support MJ. Either be the first to actually back up your claims or go stand at the end of the line.

      Delete
    10. LOL! You mean where Axe "disproved" evolution by showing it's too difficult to get one extant protein to evolve into a different extant protein? Problem is no one in science says or thinks the second protein evolved from the first

      It would be like "disproving" common descent by showing it would take too long for a cat to evolve directly into a dog

      If there’s a reason why Kbl cannot acquire BioF function why don’t you show me the reason besides using the analogy?

      I expect that if you claim something is too improbable to happen you'll be able to provide the supporting calculations. But you obviously can't produce the calculations nor the evidence to support them.

      Oh but that’s just very rich coming from you Thornton wouldn’t you say? In all this time you haven’t produced a single reference to a paper which may shed new light on all these criticisms. And the one thing it definitely demonstrates to me here is that maybe Cornelius Hunter is correct when he says religion drives science
      And where’s your calculations? What about the paper(s) ba77 pointed you to? Why don’t you give us a critique of them? Where is the peer reviewed work which disprove Gauger and Axe’s work, and not just 'just so' assertions, but actual peer reviewed work?

      Delete
    11. Moosejaw

      If there’s a reason why Kbl cannot acquire BioF function why don’t you show me the reason besides using the analogy?


      I already explained to you why the work is meaningless. There's a reason ID clowns like Axe and Gauger aren't taken seriously in the scientific world.

      If you're really interested, here is a good smackdown of Axe and Gauger's moronic claims.

      And where’s your calculations?

      I'm not the one making the stupid probability arguments MJ, you are. Either provide the calculations with the supporting evidence or keep wearing the big red nose. Choice is yours.

      Where is the peer reviewed work which disprove Gauger and Axe’s work, and not just 'just so' assertions, but actual peer reviewed work?

      Beg pardon, but what peer reviewed professional science journal did the original paper appear in? BIO-complexity is an ID run incestuous vanity journal with an impact factor of 0.0. It has published a grand total of 7, count 'em, 7 papers in its entire existence, all by the members of the editorial board. No one in the scientific community pays the slightest attention to it or cites it. AFAIK no one said the work is wrong per se. It's just irrelevant. Axe 'disproved' something no one thinks happened anyway. The paper doesn't cast the least bit of doubt on evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    12. Thornton at the link you so kindly provided PZ Meyers says that: If I played bridge very, very fast, dealing out one hand every minute, that means I'd still have to wait 1.1 million years to get any particular hand you might specify ahead of time...and my life expectancy is only on the order of 102 years. Therefore, bridge is impossible.

      If I understand this correctly there’s a basic error in his reasoning here because it’s not Bridge that’s impossible, but the specific outcome of the game. Sorry, but the analogy fails at what it attempts to demonstrate. Is this the evidence against Gauger and Axe? Isn’t there a paper?

      And further, Similarly, if you add up all the nucleotide differences between me and my cousin, the likelihoods of these particular individuals is infinitesimally small…but so what? We're here.

      And evolution did it! C’mon! How can we assert evolution must be responsible for me and my cousin when how it happened is what we’re trying to establish in the first place?

      If you say that improbable events happen then at what point (10^30? or perhaps 10^50?) do they become so improbable that we can say they couldn’t have happened? Because surely there must be such a point?

      I'm not the one making the stupid probability arguments MJ, you are

      When you say an improbable event can happen you’re not making a probability argument?

      I already explained to you why the work is meaningless.

      You mean the cat to dog analogy? No

      Delete
    13. Moosejaw

      Sorry, but the analogy fails at what it attempts to demonstrate.


      Actually the analogy works quite well, but apparently you simply don't want to get it. Just because one specific outcome is improbable doesn't mean getting any outcome is improbable.

      And evolution did it! C’mon! How can we assert evolution must be responsible for me and my cousin when how it happened is what we’re trying to establish in the first place?

      No, that's already been well established by over a century's worth of previous scientific work. What we're discussing is Axe and Gauger's paper where they claims to disprove all that amassed evidence with this one experiment. They failed, and made themselves look pretty clueless in doing it.

      If you say that improbable events happen then at what point (10^30? or perhaps 10^50?) do they become so improbable that we can say they couldn’t have happened? Because surely there must be such a point?

      The point is not about setting some arbitrary threshold of improbability. The point is in biological evolution you don't have near enough info do make an accurate probability calculation.

      When you say an improbable event can happen you’re not making a probability argument?

      No, I'm merely pointing out an empirically observed fact. I'm not trying to use any bogus values to make a positive case.

      T: I already explained to you why the work is meaningless.

      You mean the cat to dog analogy? No


      I mean the fact no one in science thinks that Kbl2 evolved into BioF2, which is what Axe and Gauger tested. It was a stupid and irrelevant thing to test.

      Delete
    14. Thornton

      What we're discussing is Axe and Gauger's paper where they claims to disprove all that amassed evidence with this one experiment.

      No Thornton now you’re misrepresenting what they set out to show. Gauger and Axe’s work did not seek to disprove for instance common ancestry. It set out to show whether a novel function could evolve from within a family of enzymes by means of random mutation, to demonstrate that a hypothesized mechanism actually works in living cells. By rejecting Gauger and Axe’s choice of KbL to BioF are you now saying that the acquisition of novel function through random mutation within closely related enzymes is not a Darwinian expectation? Exactly how would a novel selectable function evolve within a family of enzymes? Or is novel function at the enzyme level not an issue? And I seriously doubt that there’s over a century of evidence at the molecular level, supporting NDE

      Delete
    15. Moosjaw

      No Thornton now you’re misrepresenting what they set out to show.


      No I'm not. They said it in their own words:

      "A&G: this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution."

      ...which of course is complete nonsense and is not supported by their experiment.

      By rejecting Gauger and Axe’s choice of KbL to BioF are you now saying that the acquisition of novel function through random mutation within closely related enzymes is not a Darwinian expectation?

      That one extant protein will suddenly evolve into another extant protein is not an expectation of evolutionary theory. Like I've already pointed out several times and you keep ignoring - A&G 'disproved' something that no one in science says or thinks happened.

      Exactly how would a novel selectable function evolve within a family of enzymes?

      By the same method all of evolution works - genetic variation filtered by selection and accumulated over generations. Evolution doesn't mean any biological entity can evolve into any other biological entity, contrary to dumb Creationist claims.

      I see you've given up trying to support your 'it's too improbable" claims. At least we're making some progress.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. Thornton

      No I'm not. They said it in their own words:

      They also explain in their own words that they did not use ancestral forms and that they weren’t trying to reconstruct evolutionary history. Their research tried to demonstrate a concept, a concept prevalent in evolutionary biology; that of the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution

      There’s a difference between that goal and disproving the tree of life!

      Like I've already pointed out several times and you keep ignoring - A&G 'disproved' something that no one in science says or thinks happened.

      But neither do they Thornton!!! As reflected in Ann Gauger’s own words here

      Delete
  11. Is there music today?
    He makes the creationist case.
    If we are fairly alike to mice in Dna this should make ireelevant how alike we are to chimps.
    We simply have like Dna because we have like bodies from a design of a creator.
    Yet this is not evidence of biological relationship but only evidence of what we see with our eyes.
    Dna is not a trail of heritage .
    That is a presumption.
    God simply has one blueprint and picked for us the best body type within that blueprint.
    It could only be that we , made in Gods image, have our bodies made in the image of nature.
    The chimp body is the best one for doing gymnastics and maybe music.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lynn Jorde, award-winning evolution professor and Chair of the Department of Human Genetics at the tax-payer supported University of Utah, just gave a talk at the tax-payer supported National Institutes of Health where he approvingly quoted Lewis Thomas, former Dean of Yale Medical School that without random mutations we would be bacteria:


    What's all this about "tax payer supported"? Have you been taking advice from Denyse O'Leary?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Moosejaw

    Their research tried to demonstrate a concept, a concept prevalent in evolutionary biology; that of the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution


    In that case they failed miserably. What they tested did not demonstrate that concept.

    T: Like I've already pointed out several times and you keep ignoring - A&G 'disproved' something that no one in science says or thinks happened.

    But neither do they Thornton!!! As reflected in Ann Gauger’s own words here


    Gauger's words

    "And since they are supposedly evolutionary "cousins," Darwinian theory claims that their genetic distance shouldn't lie beyond the reach of blind and unguided evolutionary mechanisms."

    That's flat out wrong, and pretty damn stupid to boot. Evolutionary theory doesn't say any extant biological entity can directly evolve into any other extant biological entity. Another reason why these IDiots are viewed as such clowns by actual scientists.

    Bottom line is - they published some crap science in an ID vanity journal, work that is so obviously flawed no one in the real scientific community takes it seriously.

    Since science thinks their test was irrelevant and doesn't support their claims, and by Gauger's own words their test doesn't support their claims, what's the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thornton

    Evolutionary theory doesn't say any extant biological entity can directly evolve into any other extant biological entity.

    And this is neither what Gauger & Axe claim! These two enzymes don’t fit your description of just “any biological entity”. If you have more substantive objections besides no one in science says or thinks this happened then please feel free to discuss them here

    Another reason why these IDiots are viewed as such clowns by actual scientists.

    I think these sorts of discussions can be held without insulting anyone. Besides, we’re all just trying to make sense of the world and its complexities

    Since science thinks their test was irrelevant and doesn't support their claims,…

    I seriously doubt that you’re in some sort of position to be able to speak on behalf of what science thinks. And PZ Meyers may be a provocative writer, albeit a little immature, but he is not science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moosejaw

      And this is neither what Gauger & Axe claim! These two enzymes don’t fit your description of just “any biological entity”.


      OK then, I'll rephrase. Evolution theory doesn't say any protein can directly evolve into any other protein even if they're in the same family. Their test still doesn't support their claims.

      If you have more substantive objections besides no one in science says or thinks this happened then please feel free to discuss them here

      That's plenty substantive. If you think there are people in mainstream science who support and accept A&G's conclusion, feel free to reference them here.

      I think these sorts of discussions can be held without insulting anyone.

      Sorry, but the IDiots like A&G (and Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc) insult every hard working honest scientist everywhere by producing this sort of disingenuous crap. Those IDiots *are* clowns. Every day they get up and put on the clown makeup and clown suit. They do clown science and self-publish it in clown vanity journals. They shuffle and tap dance and pat themselves on their clown backs for being so clever with their clown propaganda. They spit right in the face of honest science professionals.

      Besides, we’re all just trying to make sense of the world and its complexities

      A&G and the rest of the IDiot leaders aren't. They're trying to find scientific justification for their pre-existing religious beliefs, and have no hesitation in being quite dishonest in doing so.

      I seriously doubt that you’re in some sort of position to be able to speak on behalf of what science thinks.

      True, I can only speak for the mainstream science journals and papers I read on a regular basis, none of which give A&G the time of day. I may have missed something. Please provide references from mainstream sources (not other professional ID pushers) that support A&G's work.

      Delete
  15. Thornton:

    OK then, I'll rephrase. Evolution theory doesn't say any protein can directly evolve into any other protein even if they're in the same family

    Give me a solid scientifically tested paramater that determine this, and I'll buy it. BUT Just stating it = unsubstantiated assertion vacuous of any scientific fact

    ReplyDelete
  16. Moosejaw

    T: OK then, I'll rephrase. Evolution theory doesn't say any protein can directly evolve into any other protein even if they're in the same family

    Give me a solid scientifically tested paramater that determine this, and I'll buy it. BUT Just stating it = unsubstantiated assertion vacuous of any scientific fact


    I can't prove a negative MJ. No one can. Burden of proof is on A&G to show what they claimed represents actual evolutionary theory. They can't because it doesn't. They set up and knocked down their own silly strawman. One of the many reasons the scientific community considers them to be such clowns.

    I see you weren't able to provide a single reference from any mainstream scientific journal that supports and accepts A&G's work. That should tell you something, but it probably won't.

    ReplyDelete