Another problem is when no matter what is discovered, even if contradictory to expectations, the theory is just reengineered once again to fit the data. Is the theory really anything more than a tautology?
Evolution has been down these paths over and over. And now we have yet another set of epicycles tacked onto evolutionary theory. Like the dormitory’s bulletin board at the end of the semester, the theory is looking pretty tattered, with old, long-forgotten epicycles barely hanging on and new ones tacked on wherever they fit. Our latest complexity is this “resolution” of the mysteries of plant evolution, all due to the rather unexpected, but now easily imbibed, finding of LIMEs throughout the plants and animals. As usual, the evidence was not only a complete contradiction from what evolution predicted, but accounting for these little surprises has evolutionists doing even more of their mental gymnastics. So we now present, without further ado, evolutionary epicycles 11,764-11,771:
That really clears it up.
Evolution is the Truth into which all observed phenomena must be made to fit. You sir, are a heretic! How dare you even think of questions?!
ReplyDeleteNow waiting for the Grand Inquisitors to try and hurt your feelings with non-sequiters, straw men, and ad hominems.
lol!
From the discussion section:
ReplyDelete"Why would animal LIMES primarily be syntenic and plant LIMEs be all nonsyntenic? In many cases, the lack of synteny is attributable to the elements having been “created in place” rather than inherited from a common ancestor. Thus, the nonsyntenic nature of some LIMEs could be explained by their origin through the transfer of the genetic material from an organelle to the nuclear genome, or by the fact that these elements
may be the parts of as yet unannotated mobile elements. Because plant mitochondrial genomes are large and evolve slowly (34), LIMEs can be created by the occasional insertion of copies of these genomes into the nuclear DNA. Although these insertions will eventually degrade through genetic drift, their relatively large size will give rise to LIMEs of reasonable size and longevity in the
meantime."
If LIMES are due to hard purifying selection once they enter the nuclear genome, how does that keep the sequence the same before that point when it is still in mitochondria? In other words, why are the sequences MORE LIKELY to "degrade through genetic drift" once they enter the nuclear genome when they begin to characterize the entire cell, than when they are still in organelles and selection is softer? And given that they found thousands of them, wouldn't some of the complex type in plants end up on the same chromosomes just by chance?
Would it kill you to put an actual citation of the actual citation and link to the paper in your post? Ugh. It's basic courtesy, especially if you're going to reproduce their graphic, or whatever you did.
ReplyDeletePS Even without the caption, it's clear the chart is just a categorization of different types of LINES. Your argument seems to be "the graphic is complicated, therefore it's like epicycles, therefore my boneheaded creationist opinion is correct."
That level of silliness doesn't really deserve comment.
Would it kill you to put an actual citation of the actual citation and link to the paper in your post? Ugh. It's basic courtesy, especially if you're going to reproduce their graphic, or whatever you did.
Delete3rd para., last sentence. Click the link.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/09/1121356109.abstract
ReplyDeleteLong identical multispecies elements in plant and animal genomes
Jeff Renekera,
Eric Lyonsb,1,
Gavin C. Conantc,d,
J. Chris Piresd,e,
Michael Freelingb,
Chi-Ren Shyua,d, and
Dmitry Korkina,d,2
Abstract
Ultraconserved elements (UCEs) are DNA sequences that are 100% identical (no base substitutions, insertions, or deletions) and located in syntenic positions in at least two genomes. Although hundreds of UCEs have been found in animal genomes, little is known about the incidence of ultraconservation in plant genomes. Using an alignment-free information-retrieval approach, we have comprehensively identified all long identical multispecies elements (LIMEs), which include both syntenic and nonsyntenic regions, of at least 100 identical base pairs shared by at least two genomes. Among six animal genomes, we found the previously known syntenic UCEs as well as previously undescribed nonsyntenic elements. In contrast, among six plant genomes, we only found nonsyntenic LIMEs. LIMEs can also be classified as either simple (repetitive) or complex (nonrepetitive), they may occur in multiple copies in a genome, and they are often spread across multiple chromosomes. Although complex LIMEs were found in both animal and plant genomes, they differed significantly in their composition and copy number. Further analyses of plant LIMEs revealed their functional diversity, encompassing elements found near rRNA and enzyme-coding genes, as well as those found in transposons and noncoding DNA. We conclude that despite the common presence of LIMEs in both animal and plant lineages, the evolutionary processes involved in the creation and maintenance of these elements differ in the two groups and are likely attributable to several mechanisms, including transfer of genetic material from organellar to nuclear genomes, de novo sequence manufacturing, and purifying selection.
Their definition of "long" for LIMEs was arbitrarily set to 100 bases long???? Sheesh. If a conserved sequence has experienced on average 5% divergence and thus is on average 95% identical, the chance of a randomly-chosen stretch of 100 bases being identical between two species is .95^100 = 0.5%, i.e, 1 in 200. Survey millions of regions and it will not be hard to find lots of these. How is this news, let alone a problem for evolution?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about calculation. Suppose the conserved sequences were 99.99% identical. Using this same formula, .9999^100 = 99.00%, or 99/100 would be identical. This is the reverse of what you would expect. The more identical they are, the rarer they should be.
DeleteAlso, shouldn't you take into account that there are four possible values for each nucleotide?
If you have time, could you correct your calculation and see what the odds are?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlso, the abstract you pasted above states they are 100% identical. Can you help me understand why you're using 95%?
Delete(previous comment deleted to correct spelling)
I'm not sure about calculation. Suppose the conserved sequences were 99.99% identical. Using this same formula, .9999^100 = 99.00%, or 99/100 would be identical. This is the reverse of what you would expect. The more identical they are, the rarer they should be.
DeleteAlso, shouldn't you take into account that there are four possible values for each nucleotide?
If you have time, could you correct your calculation and see what the odds are?
I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying (perhaps I wasn't clear). A little more background:
The genome is full of sequence -- 3 billion + nucleotides for the haploid genome of humans, similar for other large mammals at least.
If you look at homologous regions, some will retain high similarity over a large evolutionary timescale -- those under purifying selection, for instance. Others won't -- e.g. those undergoing drift. So if you start to sample, say, a block of 1000 nucleotides (a typical length of exons), some of those blocks will be (say) 95% conserved, some only 50% conserved, etc.
So the question is, if you look at a bunch of highly conserved regions (of say 1000 nucleotides) that are 95% conserved, how many of them will contain chunks 100 base pairs (bp) long that are identical. My calculation says that 1/200 of randomly chosen 100-bp-long chunks in such regions will be identical (and thus identified by their algorithm). You would get more chunks if you said they had to be only 50 bp long. You would get fewer if you said they had to be 150 bp long.
The point is that there is not necessarily anything special about those 100-bp chunks, they are just the automatic statistical product of sitting in a highly-conserved region.
That's just a rough way to do the calculation. A slightly more complex way would be to look at the frequency of getting strings 100+ bp long, rather like the probability of getting strings of heads in a biased coin that returns head 95% of the time. As we know, even with a 50-50 coin, strings of heads (or tails) are more common than we intuitively think. This would be even more true for a 95-5 biased coin.
Your calculation is also correct:
Using this same formula, .9999^100 = 99.00%, or 99/100 would be identical.
It's just your interpretation is wrong:
This is the reverse of what you would expect. The more identical they are, the rarer they should be.
The calculation means that when the overall similarity of regions is 99.99%, the chance of a randomly-chosen 100 base pairs being identical is 99/100. Which seems correct. Higher average identity = higher probability of drawing a string of 100 bp that is identical.
ACGT frequencies aren't relevant here since we are just scoring same vs. different. It would only be moderately complicated to do a whole substitution model with base frequencies and work out more sophisticated odds of identical 100-bp strings that way, however.
LOL, victory is mine. Cornelius, you are an incredibly silly person.
DeleteOf the complex LIMES shared by at least two animal genomes (Fig. 1), there were 1,120 (average length=136.55 bp, SD=41.60 bp) shared by all six genomes, with 76 LIMEs of length greater than 200 bp. Of those 76 LIMEs, 33 were nongenic in human, 43 were genic, and none shared more than 50% sequence identity with chicken when considering the surrounding genomic regions (±40,000 bp). In fact, 3 of the 76 LIMEs had only 2–3% sequence identity to chicken (an example is provided in SI Appendix, Fig. S7). This contrasts sharply with the results reported previously in animals, where UCEs were all from highly similar genomic regions. In fact, the term “ultraconserved,” arguably, does not apply in these cases.
LOL, victory is mine. Cornelius, you are an incredibly silly person.
DeleteOf the complex LIMES shared by at least two animal genomes (Fig. 1), there were 1,120 (average length=136.55 bp, SD=41.60 bp) shared by all six genomes, with 76 LIMEs of length greater than 200 bp. Of those 76 LIMEs, 33 were nongenic in human, 43 were genic, and none shared more than 50% sequence identity with chicken when considering the surrounding genomic regions (±40,000 bp). In fact, 3 of the 76 LIMEs had only 2–3% sequence identity to chicken (an example is provided in SI Appendix, Fig. S7). This contrasts sharply with the results reported previously in animals, where UCEs were all from highly similar genomic regions. In fact, the term “ultraconserved,” arguably, does not apply in these cases.
Which goes to show, once again, that being an evolutionist means not having to say you’re sorry (or even know what you’re talking about). Just copy and paste a paragraph and throw out some caustic remarks.
Of course it is a mystery what there could be in said paragraph that would give an evolutionist more confidence. The paragraph discusses a small fraction of the LIMEs that (i) are found in all 6 of the animal genomes they analyzed and (ii) are longer than 200 residues. The point the authors make in this paragraph is that for those LIMEs, the flanking DNA regions are not particularly conserved between the different species. They use the human and chicken as an example. This is unlike the UCEs where the flanking regions are more conserved.
Does this help the evolutionary tale any? No. And that’s why the evolutionist had nothing to say beyond name calling. What evolutionists must believe is that thousands and thousands of DNA sequences must have evolved to be identical and have been perfectly preserved over tens or hundreds of millions of years.
Impossible? No, not if you’re in the right multiverse and you allow yourself free reign over the usual evolutionary just-so stories where every conceivable mechanism works in concert.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Nick: That makes sense. I had somehow missed the word "conserved" in your original post and thought you were calculating the odds of them forming on their own. Which didn't make sense using that formula (especially since selective pressure also wasn't a factor).
DeleteBut there and in your response to Cornelius, you're only talking about the syntenic animal elements, while the point of his post was the non-syntenic plant ones. However, the paper states, "The only complex plant LIMEs were in rRNA or the products of organellar insertion", but this seems to contradict figure 1 (the "epicycle" diagram), since it shows complex, non-syntenic plant LIMEs that are not explained by transposons, mitochondria (assumign this is the same as organellar insertions) or ribosomes. 1100*23%=253 LIMEs end up in the "other" category without any explanation (that I could determine from the article).
CH:
Delete1. There's nothing in the quote about flanking regions.
2. It's not "thousands and thousands", it's just 1100 that are actually identical across all 6 species, which is a tiny subset of the millions that are shared between only 2 species (and almost certainly those pairs are mostly between close relatives).
3. Only a tiny number of even these 1100 are longer than 200 base pairs.
All of this means:
(a) the millions of elements you thought were identical, weren't, as I predicted from evolutionary theory
(b) My explanation, which is that identical elements are just lucky draws from a background of regions with high-but-not-absolute sequence conservation, is confirmed. The explanation predicts that the number of "identical" sequences goes down as you move from pairs of species to 6 species. It predicts that the number of "identical" sequences goes down as you move from 100 base pairs to 200 base pairs. I bet if we had the data, you would pretty much even see the exact statistical distribution you would expect for the frequency of 100-bp elements, 101, 102...etc. if this was just a probablistic phenomenon.
But no, you couldn't be bothered to even lift a finger to do even the bare minimum amount of scientific due diligence to read the article, give readers these highly relevant details, or consider in a calm, rational, propaganda-free way, the OBVIOUS alternative explanations of the data.
No, you just put up a complicated-looking figure and yelled "epicycles" a lot. That behavior was lazy, prideful, intellectually irresponsible, and scientifically embarassing. For someone who calls themselves a Christian, it's pretty surprising. Unfortunately this sort of crap characterizes most of your posts. I hope you're happy with how you're wasting your life -- even from a creationist perspective, you're wasting your life with this kind of worthless and mindless promotion of antievolutionism.
@Nick:
DeleteWhat explanation can be offered for the around 250 sequences that are:
1. longer than 100bp
2. complex (not repetitive sequences)
3. non-syntenic
4. Their placement can't be accounted for by transposons, organellar insertions, or ribosomes (assuming I've understood the article correctl).
Also from the paper:
> we also found more overlapping than non-
overlapping complex LIMEs in four of the six plant genomes
I'm only an enthusiast here, but if I understand correctly, overlapping means that many of the nucleotides are polyfunctional, which leads to them being poly-constrained; making the duplicate random assembly (assuming there are no other explanations) even more difficult.
@Cornelius or Nick
The paper lists organellar insertions or ribosomes as a possible explanation for other LIMEs. Is this a reasonable assumption? How often do we observe the order being shuffled by these causes?
NickM
DeleteNo, you just put up a complicated-looking figure and yelled "epicycles" a lot. That behavior was lazy, prideful, intellectually irresponsible, and scientifically embarassing. For someone who calls themselves a Christian, it's pretty surprising. Unfortunately this sort of crap characterizes most of your posts. I hope you're happy with how you're wasting your life -- even from a creationist perspective, you're wasting your life with this kind of worthless and mindless promotion of antievolutionism.
It's not totally worthless. Cornelius Hunter is a Fellow at the Discovery Institute. According to this site a Fellow at the DI gets $36K-$39K a year for pushing this kind of anti-science propaganda.
Most people would never consider selling their scientific integrity at any price, much less for such a pittance.
Nick:
Delete1. There's nothing in the quote about flanking regions.
Well sorry, that’s my attempt to summarize their discussion which I thought you felt so triumphant about [ ie, “none shared more than 50% sequence identity with chicken when considering the surrounding genomic regions (±40,000 bp). ]
2. It's not "thousands and thousands", it's just 1100 that are actually identical across all 6 species, which is a tiny subset of the millions that are shared between only 2 species (and almost certainly those pairs are mostly between close relatives).
Agreed.
3. Only a tiny number of even these 1100 are longer than 200 base pairs.
But they are all at least 100 base pairs.
(a) the millions of elements you thought were identical, weren't, as I predicted from evolutionary theory.
No, they found 1.8 million LIMEs -- identical elements.
(b) My explanation, which is that identical elements are just lucky draws from a background of regions with high-but-not-absolute sequence conservation, is confirmed. The explanation predicts that the number of "identical" sequences goes down as you move from pairs of species to 6 species. It predicts that the number of "identical" sequences goes down as you move from 100 base pairs to 200 base pairs. I bet if we had the data, you would pretty much even see the exact statistical distribution you would expect for the frequency of 100-bp elements, 101, 102...etc. if this was just a probablistic phenomenon.
I certainly have no problem with that hypothesis in principle. But no, your hypothesis is definitely not “confirmed,” that is, if you have any trust at all in the authors of the paper and the peer review process. Granted they could have all screwed up. But barring any such conspiracy, your hypothesis is not only not confirmed, but it is clearly false as the authors show in Figure 1 (reproduced in the OP above).
But no, you couldn't be bothered to even lift a finger to do even the bare minimum amount of scientific due diligence to read the article, give readers these highly relevant details, or consider in a calm, rational, propaganda-free way, the OBVIOUS alternative explanations of the data.
No, you just put up a complicated-looking figure and yelled "epicycles" a lot. That behavior was lazy, prideful, intellectually irresponsible, and scientifically embarassing. For someone who calls themselves a Christian, it's pretty surprising. Unfortunately this sort of crap characterizes most of your posts. I hope you're happy with how you're wasting your life -- even from a creationist perspective, you're wasting your life with this kind of worthless and mindless promotion of antievolutionism.
Nick it’s always the same thing. You have plenty of criticism but your evolutionary apologetics always seem to get the science wrong. The problem is you believe the species, and everything else, arose spontaneously via natural law. And worse, you believe this is a fact, as much as heliocentrism. That is an undefendable position. From a scientific perspective, it isn’t controversial that your position is false. But when push comes to shove, it is always your religion that settles the score.
"'m only an enthusiast here, but if I understand correctly, overlapping means that many of the nucleotides are polyfunctional, which leads to them being poly-constrained; making the duplicate random assembly (assuming there are no other explanations) even more difficult."
DeleteThese LIME "elements" aren't "real" elements like some other ones in biology which are defined by function. The the LIMEs here are just defined arbitrarily to be 100-bp that are identical between at least 2 species in their sample. Thus if you had a 150-bp region, the computer program would call that 50 LIMEs, because the computer can find 50 100-bp elements. I believe that's all that is meant by overlapping in this context.
(a) the millions of elements you thought were identical, weren't, as I predicted from evolutionary theory.
DeleteNo, they found 1.8 million LIMEs -- identical elements.
But roughly 1.799 million of those 1.8 million LIMEs actually weren't identical across all six species. Everyone was proclaiming the downfall of evolution based on the premise, which you promoted, that huge amounts of sequence had been perfectly conserved. But in fact it looks like these sequences change just like other genome sequences, they've just got an unusually slow rate.
an actual citation of the actual citation and link --> an actual citation and link
ReplyDeletePDF download of this article from PNAS isn't working for me for whatever reason, so I will wait until commenting further.
ReplyDeleteNickM, should you not also wait until you actually demonstrate a viable mechanism for materialistic mechanism you propose for the origination of genetic sequences (functional information), and for the fixation of beneficial mutations, before you have the audacity to 'comment further' on something that you dogmatically assume to be true but clearly have not shown to be true?:
DeleteMutations: when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations)
Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011
Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010
Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012
Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/
Cornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteAnother problem is when no matter what is discovered, even if contradictory to expectations, the theory is just reengineered once again to fit the data. Is the theory really anything more than a tautology?
(facepalm)
CH, can you name any scientific theory in any scientific discipline that doesn't adjust its understanding as more data becomes available?
That's how science works.
Sheeze. Some of the propaganda you write is just too stupid for description.
Bonobo face, Newtonian physics has not changed in centuries.
DeleteOh. I almost forgot. What does Dawkins' posterior smell like today?
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
as to:
Delete'can you name any scientific theory in any scientific discipline that doesn't adjust its understanding as more data becomes available?'
In fact the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf
Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science!
Moreover, from the founders of quantum mechanics:
Quantum mind–body problem
Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck Planck was a devoted Christian from early life to death, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God.
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
(Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).
Moreover, the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteT: "CH, can you name any scientific theory in any scientific discipline that doesn't adjust its understanding as more data becomes available?
That's how science works."
Bonobo face, Newtonian physics has not changed in centuries.
Yes fruit loop, it has. Understanding of the boundary conditions where Newtonian laws break down and relativistic effects begin is much greater now than in the early 1900's.
Science progresses by modifying its understanding as more data comes in. Creationism is static, unchanging, unaffected by any evidence. That's why it stays wrong.
Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel - November 2012 (projected publication date)
DeleteExcerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do
Cornelius Hunter: So we now present, without further ado, evolutionary epicycles
ReplyDeleteWell, no. Planetary epicycles involved no mechanism other than the preference of people for circular orbits. LIMEs, on the other hand, are proposed to be due to various mechanisms, such as transfer of genetic material from an organelle or strand slippage during replication.
Zachriel
Delete"such as transfer of genetic material from an organelle or strand slippage during replication."
That are no more that the preference of biologist for evolutionist explanations.
Actually, they are known mechanisms.
Delete'An alternative and more plausible possibility is that the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.'
Deletehttp://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolutionists-celebrated-this.html
The problem with this argument, as usual, is that it's parochial. Specifically, Cornelius doesn't define what he means by "more complex" Nor does he actually present other explanations for us to compare it to.
ReplyDeleteThe only way this is more complex is if he holds very specific assumptions about the designer that he has yet to argue for or disclose.
For example, it's unclear how "a designer did it" is simpler since, given ID's own definition, said designer would represent an entity that is well adapted at designing things. Therefore, it would need a designer, as well, which would also need a designer, etc. Not to mention the question of how the knowledge to build the adaptations we observe, as found in the genome, was created.
Apparently, he presupposes this designer, "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, or he presupposes the process by which this knowledge was created wasn't complex.
Cornelius hasn't explained either of these observations. Nor has he disclosed why this is less complex or presented a details argument in favor of such an assumption.
Again, The central flaw of creationism is also the same flaw of pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge. In both cases, the account of how this knowledge could be created is either supernatural, illogical or completely absent. In fact, in the case of some types of knowledge, such as cosmology, morality or other rules of human behavior, is the same as they are both spoken to early human beings by supernatural beings. In other cases, such as the rule of monarchies or the existence of God, they are protected by taboos or taken for granted to the degree that they go uncriticized, and therefore go unrecognized as being ideas.
Cornelius is simply applying this same flawed assumption to knowledge in the biosphere, by which he assumes it's less complex, without presenting any evidence for it. This is what makes it parochial.
Furthermore, if "a designer did it" is more simpler in the case of the biosphere, then why isn't it also simpler in other fields?
For example, it could be that the earth is actually surround by a giant planetarium that merely presents a highly elaborate simulation a heliocentric solar system. This could include reflecting photons, radio waves and even returning space craft with just the right about of missing fuel, fake telemetry and even astronauts with implanted memories of collecting fake moon rocks.
However, one would rightly point out that such a simulator would need to be very complex to perform such a simulation, in realtime and at the detail we observe. However, according to ID proponents, an abstract designer isn't complex entity that itself needs to be explained. So why can't we replace this simulator with with an abstract intelligent designer?
In fact, since it has no defined limitations, why couldn't this designer not only simply simulate our solar system, but simply simulate an entire universe?
In other words, if "a designer did it" is less complex, then, why do we even need planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc.? Why does the Earth even need to move, or does anything need to actually exist beyond it's atmosphere?
Apparently, Cornelius is making some sort of distinction here he has yet to disclose.
Scott, though your arguments of how a designer should, or shouldn't, create a universe is interesting for it presupposes that you, a mere human who can't even create a single photon of energy, have the capacity to understand the mind of God who instantaneously spoke the entire universe of photons into being, and that you have the expert ability to critique His work therein in further creating the universe from those photons, I would like to take a more humble approach and point out that Christianity was the necessary catalyst to bring modern science to a sustainable level of maturity.
DeleteThe Christian Founders Of Science - Henry F. Schaefer III - video
http://vimeo.com/16523153
"However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on, science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did." - Robert Clark
Moreover Scott, you, or some version of the 10^500 yous that you believe live in some parallel universe, has a very naive view of how knowledge is attained. Yet the truth is that science is grounded in thoroughly Theistic presupposition, particularly grounded in a Christian Theistic presuppostion:
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
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/32145998
Born: Scott, though your arguments of how a designer should, or shouldn't, create a universe is interesting...
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be addressing some comment other than the one I just made.
Care to actually address the actually argument?
$10 on no.
DeleteAhh but Scott you stated:
Delete'why couldn't this designer not only simply simulate our solar system, but simply simulate an entire universe?'
And this;
'Why does the Earth even need to move, or does anything need to actually exist beyond it's atmosphere?'
Sure sounds like you are critiquing how God created the universe to me!
When are you going to send me my $10 Vel? or did you just agree because you are a atheist who could care less about truth??
Moreover Scott, it seems you are more than willing the critique how God has made this universe but you are very resistant to look in the mirror and honestly address the absurdities that arise from presupposing a 'natural' origin of the universe:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010
Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
http://vimeo.com/34468027
If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. - Michael Behe
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/#comment-362912
Born: Sure sounds like you are critiquing how God created the universe to me!
DeleteFirst, so you're conceding that the designer in ID is actually God? Thanks.
Second, Cornelius argument is parochial in that he's only applying this criteria to the biosphere, rather than the night sky, or any other phenomena.
If the explanation that "a designer did it" is simpler in the case of the biosphere, then why does our explanation for the night sky need to contain a moving Earth or anything beyond it's atmosphere? Why does our explanation need to contain all the "complexity" of planets, solar systems, stars or galaxies when, according to ID, an abstract designer is a being that is so simple it needs no explanation and didn't itself need to be designed?
So, I'm criticizing Cornelius' criteria for what makes a theory "too complex", not any actions said deigned may or may not have taken.
He's not taking his own argument seriously, as if it's true in reality and that all theories should conform to them (not just the biosphere), and/or his argument is based on presuppositions he has yet to disclose or argue for, such as why an abstract designer is not complex, why the knowledge itself wouldn't be complex, etc.
Presuppositions that would just so happen to match theological beliefs - which just must be a coincidence, right?
Scott,
Delete'First, so you're conceding that the designer in ID is actually God?'
Personally, It is not a point that I have ever contended otherwise! Moreover God is a point of contention that if you deny the reality of (whether in the cosmos or in biology), you then undercut any epistemical claim you have for rationality (all 10^500 versions of you!!!)
Moreover, you are full bore into a theological argument, and have left empirical reasoning far behind. I suggest if you want to argue theology you go to one of the many Bible study groups on the web! But if you want to argue science then present you evidence!
As to why God created the universe the size it is, without getting into Theology, one empirical reason is this:
DeleteEvidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem
Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
Where Is the Cosmic Density Fine-Tuning? - Hugh Ross
http://www.reasons.org/where-cosmic-density-fine-tuning
Here is another video of Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explaining the anthropic cosmological principle behind the immense size of the universe as well as behind the ancient age of the universe:
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video
http://vimeo.com/31940671
Whereas this recently updated website is interesting;
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle of all possible sizes;
As well, I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Psalm 33:13-15
The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
Born: Moreover, you are full bore into a theological argument, and have left empirical reasoning far behind.
DeleteAgain, you seem to be responding to some other comment, which I did not write, as nowhere did I make a theological argument.
Rather, I criticized Cornelius's parochial criteria regarding complexity in scientific theories.
Furthermore, I was being quite charitable as, without any alternative explanation, there can be nothing else to compare it to in the first place. As such, is merely more of the same handwaving we see here on a regular basis.
You can't say something is more complex than an un-concieved explanation. (Well, you can "say" it, but doing so is irrational)
Let' Scott decide,I think his argument was a taking Dr Hunter's argument and extending it to other sciences. He was critiquing the argument. Not what God would do,but what you say God has done and the logical consequences . And you say he is making a pseudo religious argument of bad design proving no design? So is it a bet?
DeleteScott, you deny that you are making a theological argument?
ReplyDelete'If the explanation that "a designer did it" is simpler in the case of the biosphere, then why does our explanation for the night sky need to contain a moving Earth or anything beyond it's atmosphere? Why does our explanation need to contain all the "complexity" of planets, solar systems, stars or galaxies when, according to ID, an abstract designer is a being that is so simple it needs no explanation and didn't itself need to be designed?'
The whole paragraph is nothing but theological posturing for crying out loud Scott! You think you can design a better earth than God? Then have at it. Apparently your presupposition that you are more knowledgeable and powerful than God takes precedence over the fine-tuning considerations already listed for the size of the universe, plus takes precedence these following fine-tuning considerations for the earth (atmosphere and rotation periodicity of the earth among them):
Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is';
Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1333
dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^324
longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^45
Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1054
Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ≈ 10^22
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf
Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
Isaiah 40:28
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
Hugh Ross - Four Main Research Papers
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Sl5SCBtcO6xMjwgrkKysBYIOJzjZEcXX68qZ9rwh85s
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect."
Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book "Principia"
Born,
ReplyDeleteAre you denying that you're making a grammatical argument?
You clearly used the words "posturing" and "paragraph", for crying out loud, Born!
Do you think you can write better than me? Then have at it!
I suggest if you want to argue grammar, you go to one of the many grammatical study groups on the web!
There are grammatical study groups on the web? And they argue grammar? Yikes
ReplyDelete