This week’s
Darwinian Doublespeak award goes to Missouri professor Gavin Conant who describes the latest evidential absurdity—identical DNA sequences not only in animals but in plants also—as helping to “solve some of the mysteries of plant evolution.” Recall that long stretches of nearly identical, or in some cases completely identical, DNA sequences stunned evolutionists a few years ago. Species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for 80 million years were certainly not expected to have identical DNA segments. “I about fell off my chair,” exclaimed one evolutionist. That finding was followed by frantic searches for function. Surely these absurdly conserved sequences were utterly essential. But hundreds of tests failed to reveal the utter importance of the so-called ultra conserved elements. In fact many of the sequences could be removed altogether with little effect. Evolutionists had explained that this sort of finding would completely falsify evolution. And of course, as usual, that was Darwinian Doublespeak as we were told to move along yet again. No one so much as whispered a word of doubt about evolution and the scene returned to normal, just as in the
Star Wars bar scene. Begin at the [1:30] mark and see how evolutionists respond to trouble at [2:15]:
Now we have even more absurdity: Long Identical Multispecies Elements, or LIMEs, in both plants and animals. And once again, the evolutionist demonstrates the Darwinian Doublespeak. To say that these LIMEs help solve the mysteries of evolution would be like saying a ship disappearing over the horizon helps solve the mysteries of how the Earth is flat. But when you’ve dedicated your career to understanding “the origins of novel features in evolution” then I guess doublespeak is all you have.
Move Along.
That's some pretty tall claims you're making, considering the next PNAS issue isn't even out yet, and you have no idea if the reporter is correctly describing things. Searching for identical sequence in a database is not exactly rocket science, yet it is being touted as the best thing since sliced bread in the press release, so I'm suspicious. If they're talking about histones or transposable elements or some such, well then, we knew about that already.
ReplyDelete"That finding was followed by frantic searches for function. Surely these absurdly conserved sequences were utterly essential. But hundreds of tests failed to reveal the utter importance of the so-called ultra conserved elements."
Hundreds? I recall one experimental test in lab mice. Documentation please.
Hundreds? I recall one experimental test in lab mice. Documentation please.
DeleteNo, extensive mice tests were done. Initial tests were done on reproduction, growth, morphology, longevity and physiology and homeostatis. Later tests watched mice for >6 months with all kinds of assays, including pathologies, metabolism and even gene expression.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-55303
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904151351.htm
You link doesn't work CH.
DeleteHere is the Science Daily article
Mice Thrive Missing Ancient DNA Sequences
Here is the paper referenced in the article
Deletion of Ultraconserved Elements Yields Viable Mice
Thanks again CH for providing yet another example of the huge difference between real scientists and the Creationist pseudo-scientists like yourself.
The real scientists observed an interesting phenomenon and decided to investigate further. They formed a testable hypothesis, did the experimental work, published the results even though the original hypothesis seems to be incorrect.
The Creationist pseudo-scientist sit on his duff, does no work, publishes no results. He hides on the sidelines and contents himself with throwing rocks at those actually doing the technical scientific investigation.
Tell us CH - which approach better leads to an increase in our scientific knowledge?
Meh. That's a less-than-obvious interpretation of "hundreds of tests". It's one species (probably one genetically uniform lab strain of one species), one environment, one study. Which is much different in terms of its significance than if hundreds of studies of hundreds of species had found this result.
DeleteDon't think the PNAS article is out yet, but here's a 2011 study indicating (a) other studies actually do have evidence that the conserved noncoding elements (CNC) are functional, as predicted by their evolutionary conservation, and (b) the function may have to do with chromosome positioning and structure through interaction with other CNCs. And it is a perfectly routine observation in evolution that if sequence A interacts with sequence B (in protein-protein binding sites, or in base-pair bonding in the stem structures of RNAs) the rate of substitution is much-reduced.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017634
DeleteComparative analyses of various mammalian genomes have identified numerous conserved non-coding (CNC) DNA elements that display striking conservation among species, suggesting that they have maintained specific functions throughout evolution. CNC function remains poorly understood, although recent studies have identified a role in gene regulation.
We hypothesized that the identification of genomic loci that interact physically with CNCs would provide information on their functions. We have used circular chromosome conformation capture (4C) to characterize interactions of 10 CNCs from human chromosome 21 in K562 cells. The data provide evidence that CNCs are capable of interacting with loci that are enriched for CNCs. The number of trans interactions varies among CNCs; some show interactions with many loci, while others interact with few. Some of the tested CNCs are capable of driving the expression of a reporter gene in the mouse embryo, and associate with the oligodendrocyte genes OLIG1 and OLIG2. Our results underscore the power of chromosome conformation capture for the identification of targets of functional DNA elements and raise the possibility that CNCs exert their functions by physical association with defined genomic regions enriched in CNCs. These CNC-CNC interactions may in part explain their stringent conservation as a group of regulatory sequences.
Introduction
The sequencing and current annotation of the human genome revealed that it contains about 21500 protein coding genes (Ensembl build GRCh37) [1], [2]. However, the overwhelming majority of the human genome is composed of non-coding DNA whose function has not been thoroughly investigated. Interestingly, approximately 5% of the human genome is conserved in other eutherian mammals [3], [4]. The recent analysis of DNA topography conservation, rather than nucleotide sequence, suggested that up to 12% of the human genome could be under evolutionary constraint [5]. A significant number of CNCs (conserved non-coding sequences) are found in gene-poor regions of the genome, suggesting that these large intergenic regions have maintained a function throughout evolution [6], [7]. The function of most CNCs remains elusive although recent studies have begun to assign function to a fraction of them. Some CNCs appear to be transcriptional enhancers in vivo [8], [9], [10], [11] although their deletion does not appear to be detrimental for mouse development in one study [12], despite evidence that CNCs are maintained by negative selective pressure [13], [14]. However, the importance of CNCs in disease has been documented in several disorders including preaxial polydactyly [15], [16], [17], human NSCL/P (non syndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate) [18] holoprosencephaly [19] and Pierre Robin sequences (a subgroup of cleft palate) [20]. Furthermore, CNCs might act as silencer elements [21]. It was also proposed by computational analysis that as much as 10% of CNCs correspond to matrix-attachment regions (MARs) [22]. Finally CNCs might be involved in other cellular processes that remain to be determined.
And -- what's the ID explanation of CNCs? Usually IDists assert everything is functional, even unconserved junk DNA, but here you are crowing about the (alleged) nonfunctionality of something. It's just the usual creationist silliness of desperately grasping to any random thing that seems, especially when simplified in a half-baked press release, to cause some problem for evolution, no matter what it is or whether it is in accord with everything else we know.
But Nick, the functionality of sequences is multi-layered, overlapping, and even redundant.
DeleteMinimal genome should be twice the size - 2006
Excerpt: “Previous attempts to work out the minimal genome have relied on deleting individual genes in order to infer which genes are essential for maintaining life,” said Professor Laurence Hurst from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath. “This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product. “When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene. “But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead. “Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/03/30/16976.aspx
Moreover, the multi-layered, redundant, functionality on the genetic level is far below the power of natural selection, which operates at the organism level, to see!
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/35088933
The GS (genetic selection) Principle - David L. Abel - 2009
The GS (Genetic Selection) Principle states that biological selection must occur at the nucleotide-sequencing molecular-genetic level of 3'5' phosphodiester bond formation. After-the-fact differential survival and reproduction of already-living phenotypic organisms (ordinary natural selection) does not explain polynucleotide prescription and coding.
http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm
further note:
Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected - April 2010
Excerpt: Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said,,,, Network theory is now a new paradigm that has replaced the one-way linear diagram of gene to RNA to protein. That used to be called the “Central Dogma” of genetics. Now, everything is seen to be dynamic, with promoters and blockers and interactomes, feedback loops, feed-forward processes, and “bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways.”
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100405a
Nick this obliviousness of you to the obvious implications is simply not excusable for you, especially given your knowledge. The lack of honesty on your part is stunning.
Deletefurther note:
Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA - November 2011
Excerpt: Mice without “junk” DNA. In 2004, Edward Rubin] and a team of scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California reported that they had engineered mice missing over a million base pairs of non-protein-coding (“junk”) DNA—about 1% of the mouse genome—and that they could “see no effect in them.”
But molecular biologist Barbara Knowles (who reported the same month that other regions of non-protein-coding mouse DNA were functional) cautioned that the Lawrence Berkeley study didn’t prove that non-protein-coding DNA has no function. “Those mice were alive, that’s what we know about them,” she said. “We don’t know if they have abnormalities that we don’t test for.”And University of California biomolecular engineer David Haussler said that the deleted non-protein-coding DNA could have effects that the study missed. “Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years,” he argued.
In 2010, Rubin was part of another team of scientists that engineered mice missing a 58,000-base stretch of so-called “junk” DNA. The team found that the DNA-deficient mice appeared normal until they (along with a control group of normal mice) were fed a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet for 20 weeks. By the end of the study, a substantially higher proportion of the DNA-deficient mice had died from heart disease. Clearly, removing so-called “junk” DNA can have effects that appear only later or under other circumstances.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-on-darwinism-science-and-junk-dna/
Moreover Nick you can't even account for the fixation of a single beneficial mutation in a metazoan;
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
here's a 2011 study indicating (a) other studies actually do have evidence that the conserved noncoding elements (CNC) are functional, as predicted by their evolutionary conservation,
DeleteAs predicted? What was predicted that these thousands and thousands of nucleotides could not be eliminated without significant consequence.
and (b) the function may have to do with chromosome positioning and structure through interaction with other CNCs. And it is a perfectly routine observation in evolution that if sequence A interacts with sequence B (in protein-protein binding sites, or in base-pair bonding in the stem structures of RNAs) the rate of substitution is much-reduced.
We’re nowhere even close to binding site conservation. We’re talking about thousands and thousands of residues that are identical, or extremely close to being identical.
From the linked article:
ReplyDeleteAlthough the scientists found identical sequences between plant species, just as they did between animals, they suggested the sequences evolved differently.
Amazing. What we're seeing here is a clear example of collective stupidity and dishonesty among otherwise intelligent people. Future psychologists will scratch their heads for millenia trying to understand what caused this strange syndrome. Like quantum particles, thousands of brains are entangled by the same non-local thread of cretinism: spooky stupidity at a distance. LOL.
If all of humanity suffers from this mental disorder, we are doomed.
All this is saying is that the identical sequences in plants are different from the identical sequences in animals. You apparently think the sequences are identical between plants and animals or something. Sloppy reading of a somewhat murky press release != convincing case against evolution.
DeleteOf course, the significance of the finding of complex identical sequences between species that hopped onto separate branches of the evolutionary tree of life eons ago is there for anybody with open eyes to see. It just proves beyond any doubt that common descent is pure unmitigated BS.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I, too, believe in an evolutionary tree of life (it was first mentioned in the book Genesis), not a nested tree a la Darwinian evolution, but an exquisitely designed tree, one that evolved over time in the minds of the ancient designers and made it possible for them to reuse sequences whenever possible or necessary. As any programmer or architect can tell you, design reuse is a powerful principle. After all, only stupid evolutionists believe in reinventing the wheel over and over?
If I were an evolutionist, I would be hiding under a rock right now. The shame and the humiliation would be unbearable. ahahaha...
You really think all evolutionists are stupid?
ReplyDeleteNo, much worse than that, religious.
DeleteCornelius Hunter
DeleteNo, much worse than that, religious
Not nearly as bad as being a paid professional liar pushing anti-science political propaganda.
Tell us CH, what investigative work on these conserved sequences have you Creation Scientists done?
@ Hunter
DeleteIf that's the case then what you're saying is that it's just a matter of what I want to believe. Evolution is religion?
Dr Hunter ,did you just say that it is better to be stupid than religious?
Deletevelikovskys
DeleteDr Hunter ,did you just say that it is better to be stupid than religious?
Maybe that's the draw for so many Creationists. They have the best of both worlds! :)
No, much worse than that, religious.
DeleteIf it is your opinion that proponents of evolutionary biology are religious in their approach, wouldn't ID proponents also be considered religious?
And so, using "religious" as a derogatory term is like saying "Hey look! You're just as stupid as I am because you're being religious too!"
CH: No, much worse than that, religious.
DeleteMindy: If it is your opinion that proponents of evolutionary biology are religious in their approach, wouldn't ID proponents also be considered religious?
No, that isn’t my opinion. That is what evolutionists say. They say evolution is a fact, and that conclusion is arrived at via non scientific, religious premises. Evolutionists make extremely specific claims about how God would interact with creation.
ID makes simple, broad claims like: if we find a code, or a complex machine, etc, then it can be described in terms of design. You can disagree and point out that such codes and machines can be described in terms of law. Evolutionists have largely failed in their attempts, but in principle it is possible. In other words, ID can be addressed with scientific rebuttal. No scientific rebuttal is possible with evolution, for it appeals to personal, religious belief, not open to scientific analysis or discussion. Evolutionary arguments are unfalsifiable. There is literally no come-back, no rebuttal possible.
And so, using "religious" as a derogatory term is like saying "Hey look! You're just as stupid as I am because you're being religious too!"
I have repeatedly explained that evolutionists are, generally, quite smart. The problem is not so much that evolutionists are dogmatic / religious, but that they deny any such thing. You can see an example here:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-jerry-coyne-liar-or-just-in-denial.html
As Steve says ,just basically disingenuous to put it mildly
DeleteID makes simple, broad claims...
DeleteBroad claims eventually need to be fleshed out and further explained, otherwise why should said claims be held as valuable? If I accept a broad claim as it is and do not seek further explanation, that sounds quite religious to me. Therefore ID proponents are indeed religious, and your argument could boil down to "Hey look! You're just as stupid as I am because you're being religious too!"
However, in your case it does not seem to boil down to that because you are being disingenuous by refusing to acknowledge the religiosity of ID thought (and so it's humorously ironic that you are accusing evolution proponents of refusing to acknowledge their alleged religiosity)
you are being disingenuous by refusing to acknowledge the religiosity of ID
DeleteNo I'm not refusing to acknowledge religious premises where they occur. I simply pointed out that, for example, viewing a code, which requires encoded data and an decoding device, from a design perspective doesn't seem to be religious to me. Where's the religion? It is not a dogmatic claim. It can be refuted scientifically. What is the religious premise that is so obvious to you?
If ID proponents simply stop at that very broad assertion, what happens when/if they attempt to advance?
DeleteIf ID proponents simply stop at that very broad assertion, what happens when/if they attempt to advance?
DeleteI don't know. Here's an idea:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-completely-different-way-of.html
Curing cancer would be nice but you seem to be unable to answer my question.
So in the view of ID, evolutionary biology has already been completely disproven?
DeleteSo in the view of ID, evolutionary biology has already been completely disproven?
DeleteI've never heard an IDer say that. ID focuses less on overthrowing evolution than on providing another view.
If you're looking for extreme positions that are scientifically undefendable, then check out evolution, which insists it is a fact.
No, just basically disingenuous to put it mildly.
ReplyDeleteLouis,still curious,what is your proof for Designers? How do you gauge their design philosophy?
ReplyDeleteDidn't you read Hunter's article above? The proof that life was designed is in the finding of identical sequences in distantly related species. Obviously, this is impossible with Darwinian evolution, i.e., with common descent.
DeleteThe design philosophy of the original designers (the Elohim in Genesis) is equally obvious: they are object-oriented designers. They use multiple inheritance because the reuse of functions across distant lifeforms makes sense for the simple reason that it is less work. In other words, they use a hierarchical design tree with multiple inheritance.
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteDidn't you read Hunter's article above? The proof that life was designed is in the finding of identical sequences in distantly related species. Obviously, this is impossible with Darwinian evolution, i.e., with common descent.
Please provide your evidence that conserved sequences in distantly related species are impossible, not just currently unexplained.
Bonobo face pulls another gem from his asteroid orifice:
DeletePlease provide your evidence that conserved sequences in distantly related species are impossible, not just currently unexplained.
LOL. You got it @ss backwards, bonobo face. Of course, they are possible since they are observed to be conserved. The problem is that they should not be conserved if random mutations and natural selection were the mechanism of evolution. Why? Let me spell it out for you as gently as I can. Random mutations would have changed the sequences over many millions of years. The only way for the sequences to be perfectly conserved would be if the slightest change resulted in a survival threat. This is not observed. In fact, the opposite is observed. This is the point that Hunter made above. Obviously, it went over your dishonest bonobo head. Ffft! LOL.
Having said that, the problem is much worse than identical sequences remaining conserved over eons. A bigger problem is that identical sequences have been found to suddenly appear in distant species millions of years after they were separated in the TOL. An example of this can be found in the genetic code responsible for echolocation in bats and dolphins.
I think it's now time for much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteThe problem is that they should not be conserved if random mutations and natural selection were the mechanism of evolution.
But you claimed they were impossible. Looks like you were just being a blustering fruit loop who can't back up his idiocy. Again.
An example of this can be found in the genetic code responsible for echolocation in bats and dolphins.
Oh, you mean this study
Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins
Where it was clearly determine that the very similar (not identical) genetic sequences in the Prestin gene arose as a result of convergent evolution. This was due to Prestin properties allowing for detection of high frequency vibrations.
Abstract: Cases of convergentevolution — where different lineages have evolved similar traits independently — are common and have proven central to our understanding of selection. Yet convincing examples of adaptive convergence at the sequence level are exceptionally rare [1]. The motor protein Prestin is expressed in mammalian outer hair cells (OHCs) and is thought to confer high frequency sensitivity and selectivity in the mammalian auditory system [2]. We previously reported that the Prestin gene has undergone sequence convergence among unrelated lineages of echolocating bat[3]. Here we report that this gene has also undergone convergent amino acid substitutions in echolocating dolphins, which group with echolocating bats in a phylogenetic tree of Prestin. Furthermore, we find evidence that these changes were driven by natural selection.
Maybe if you tried actually reading and understanding a paper you wouldn't be such an ignorant fruit loop.
I did read the article, why would a designer leave per Dr Hunter useless genetic sequences? This is a strange use of resources. Ether way hardly a proof of multiple designers.I agree that it is an avenue for study.
DeleteThe reuse of existing structures is surely an aspect of human design,it is economical ,human designers are also limited by the finite knowledge. Designs are built upon known structures,sometimes to the failure of the design. Occasionally complete new designs without obvious reuse occur.
Now are you saying that , these super designers have the same motives as human designers? Limits on the design options, or the need to do less work,limited knowledge of all the available options? It seems you are humanizing the designer
So this evolutionist paper says:
Delete“the cochlear OHCs in both taxa are shorter and stiffer than in other mammals “
“. Intriguingly, the addition of the sperm whale, which appears to echolocate at much lower frequencies [7], was seen to decrease support for this convergent signal, leading to the cetaceans and bats both forming monophyletic groups.”
So, we have that some bats and cetacean got by chance a shorter and stiffer cochler OHCs. And happened to be that both got the same mutation in the prestin, so they could develop the echolocation system. This is an example of convergent evolution, as the number of solution is limited all of them got the same solution. No sorry not all becaue the whale sperm got echolocation at lower frequencies.
And this article do not see any problem with evolution through RM+NS?
Why both groups of mammals developed echolocation? I understand convergent evolution when is necessary like the shape of the body in mammals living in water or the form of wings in flying animals, but echolocation?
Why a group of whales got a different solution to the others? Convergent evolution wasn`t about to unique solution?
How was the path to develope the echolocation first they got the prestin muted and then the stiffer and shorter cochlear or in other way aronud? The mutation got fixed by genetic drift I suppose. Why is NS so important if it works only when everything is already in place?
Blas, here's an intelligent design prediction for you. Prestin is just a tiny part of what is required for echolocation. I predict that the extremely complex genetic code that is required to get echolocation to work properly will be found to be found to be nearly identical in bats and whales.
DeleteHow can I be so certain? Because intelligent designers, unlike stupid evolutionists, would never reinvent the wheel.
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteBlas, here's an intelligent design prediction for you. Prestin is just a tiny part of what is required for echolocation. I predict that the extremely complex genetic code that is required to get echolocation to work properly will be found to be found to be nearly identical in bats and whales.
How can I be so certain? Because intelligent designers, unlike stupid evolutionists, would never reinvent the wheel.
Then you've failed already fruit loop. Bats and cetaceans use completely different mechanisms for generating the outgoing echolocation pulses for one thing.
Tell you what though. Many species of bats and and many of cetaceans have had their genomes already sequenced. Why don't you do a BLAST search on the data and show us the "nearly identical" sequences for echolocation you claim must exist.
Over to you fruit loop. Time to put up or shut up.
Yo, bonobo face. What does PZ Meyers' posterior smell like today?
Deleteahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteHow can I be so certain? Because intelligent designers, unlike stupid evolutionists, would never reinvent the wheel.
Oh, you mean like how the "intelligent" designers used the identical breathing mechanisms in fish and whales. And how they used the identical wing structures for birds and bats. And how they used the identical eyes in vertebrates and cephalopods.
Because those "intelligent" designers would never reinvent the wheel, right fruit loop?
Bonobo face can't help putting both feet in its mouth at every opportunity. LOL.
DeleteLouis the fruit loop
Deletederp! derp! derp!
Now that you failed miserably with your two ID claims ("bat and whale echolocation will be nearly identical", "intelligent designers never reinvent the wheel"), what's next fruit loop? What's the next stupid ID claim that you'll entertain us with?
Yo, bonobo face. What does Dawkins' posterior smell like today?
Deleteahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBonobo face, like all evolutionists, believes that the best way to win an argument is to lie:
ReplyDeleteBut you claimed they were impossible.
Care to provide proof, lying face? LOL. But it gets better:
Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins
Where it was clearly determine that the very similar (not identical) genetic sequences in the Prestin gene arose as a result of convergent evolution.
Of course, no such thing was ever determined. On the contrary, the exact opposite of convergence is the actual truth. This is just another example of the kind of BS propaganda we have come to expect from the usual cretins. Any programmer can tell you that there are a million ways to write the same complex code. The likelihood that the same sequence could be "reinvented" by evolution is 100% nil, especially since, according to evolutionists, sequences were supposedly created via random mutations.
The biggest problem with evolutionists is not their stupidity. It's their insufferable pomposity. The lying bozos automatically assume that the public is stupider than they are. They accuse others of being stupid when they should be looking in the mirror.
Bonobo face needs to stop lying and get a clue. A little bit less pomposity would work too. LOL.
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteCare to provide proof, lying face?
Sure fruit loop. It's in your post right above:
Louis the fruit loop: "Obviously, this is impossible with Darwinian evolution, i.e., with common descent"
Of course, no such thing was ever determined.
Please read the paper and point out specifically where Liu et al got the science wrong. We'll wait.
The likelihood that the same sequence could be "reinvented" by evolution is 100% nil,
There you go claiming it was impossible again. Can't you keep your lies straight for even one post?
especially since, according to evolutionists, sequences were supposedly created via random mutations.
Mutations are random fruit loop. Selection is not. It's hard to converse with a fruit loop who doesn't even understand the basics.
Bonobo face is at it again. LOL. I have concluded that more than half of all evolutionists are lying psychopaths. And a greater percentage of the rest are probably autistic or suffer from a personality disorder. Discussing anything with an evolutionist is worse than pulling teeth. Bonobo face is a case in point. The psycho never quits.
DeleteI wrote:
Please provide your evidence that conserved sequences in distantly related species are impossible, not just currently unexplained.
Bonobo face replied:
Please provide your evidence that conserved sequences in distantly related species are impossible, not just currently unexplained.
Of course, I never said that conserved sequences in distant species are impossible since this is precisely what is observed. I simply said that they are impossible if Darwinian evolution is true. And I explained why:
Random mutations would have changed the sequences over many millions of years. The only way for the sequences to be perfectly conserved would be if the slightest change resulted in a survival threat. This is not observed. In fact, the opposite is observed.
Bonobo face chose to ignore my argument. The psycho probably thinks that the argument will just go away if it is ignored. I then showed why it would be impossible for evolution to reinvent the exact same DNA sequence in distant species:
The likelihood that the same sequence could be "reinvented" by evolution is 100% nil, especially since, according to evolutionists, sequences were supposedly created via random mutations.
Bonobo face, pulling yet another psychopathic turd from his asteroid orifice replied:
Mutations are random fruit loop. Selection is not.
Lol. So what if selection is not random? Selection has no power over what a sequence looks like. It is given random sequences to choose from and tries them for fitness. Those that lead to death before the births of any offsprings are eliminated. The point, which bonobo face's psychopathic brain will not let him/her/it confront is that there is no way the two sequences would have long stretches of identical code. Why? Simply because a complex function can be written in a huge number of ways and random mutations would create different sequences that have similar functions in both species. Is that so hard to understand? No, of course. But the psycho will have none of it because that would be admitting an error and a psycho cannot do that by definition. LOL.
So, I have learned my lesson once and for all. I will stop throwing my pearls to bonobo faces and swines. From now on, you get only ridicule from me, bonobo face, in the hope that you go into a psychopathic seizure or worse.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteI simply said that they are impossible if Darwinian evolution is true. And I explained why:
Louis the fruit loop still too stupid to understand the difference between a supported explanation and his unsupported assertions. No surprises here.
Simply because a complex function can be written in a huge number of ways and random mutations would create different sequences that have similar functions in both species.
What is the "huge number" of different ways the Prestin protein can be configured to give high frequency sensitivity? Let's see your calculation here fruit loop, along with your supporting genetic evidence.
Face if fruit loop - you're just another ignorant Creationist with way more mouth than knowledge. I'll probably start feeling guilty about making fun of a retard like you - eventually.
ahahaha... Bonobo face the psychopath labored mightily and squirted out a turd.
Deleteahahaha... AHAHAHA.. ahahaha..
Anyone want to make the call, that IF the LMI sequences are *identical* as reported, THEN it falsifies the assertion evolution as currently understood has caused all attributes of life? i.e. We have an artifact for which evolution has no mechanism to produce => it was not produced by evolution!
ReplyDeleteOr will we just construct an ad hoc adjustment to explain how evolution did it?
Is there a limit to the number of times we insert a saving device before we conclude we are merely rescuing our theory from facts? Or is there no limit?
It seems to me that evolution is the Truth, and we must find an explanation for every fact in light of it.
DaleFlannery
ReplyDeleteAnyone want to make the call, that IF the LMI sequences are *identical* as reported, THEN it falsifies the assertion evolution as currently understood has caused all attributes of life?
Who in the world ever asserted current evolutionary theory has every last answer to every last biological phenomena? Certainly no one in the scientific community I've ever heard of.
i.e. We have an artifact for which evolution has no mechanism to produce => it was not produced by evolution!
Er...no. Saying "we currently don't understand this particular evolutionary mechanism" isn't the same as "it's impossible for evolution to have any mechanism". It also doesn't falsify the other millions of pieces of positive evidence for ToE.
Isn't there a single Creationist anywhere who understands how scientific knowledge actually progresses?
Thorton asks:
Delete'Isn't there a single Creationist anywhere who understands how scientific knowledge actually progresses?'
Well, I have a few thought on the subject Thorton.
Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply?
Science and engineering, as foreign as it may sound to some people, was born out of a purely Judeo-Christian worldview. To be certain, other cultures, during the history of the world, have given fits and starts to science and engineering, but never did these foreign cultures bring science and engineering to a robust maturity through a sustained systematic development. It was only in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and in that worldview alone, that modern science was brought to the sustainable level of maturity that it has now reached. Several resources are available that document this seemingly mysterious, yet undeniable, fact of history. Here are a few.
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html
The Origin of Science
Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper By Nancy Pearcey
http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php
Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov
http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/18/18
A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm
Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D
Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists."
http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video
http://vimeo.com/16523153
Several more resources are easily available on the internet, and through Amazon, for those who would like to learn more about the Judeo-Christian founding of modern science and engineering. But the main thing I want to focus on in this article is on the particular question of ‘exactly why should it be that the Judeo-Christian worldview is so fruitful to science and engineering, whereas, in the other cultures in the history of the world, science and engineering were stillborn?’ I think Dr. Koons does an excellent job of summing up exactly why the Judeo-Christian worldview is so fruitful to modern science and engineering:
DeleteScience and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
Excerpt: Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
The very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way.
~ Paul Davies
As well, Dr. Plantinga does a very good job in summing up exactly why the Judeo-Christian worldview is so fruitful to modern science and engineering here:
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
Here are some quotes reflecting that prevalent Judeo-Christian worldview present at the founding of modern science:
“Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” –
Johannes Kepler
http://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/macroevolution-good-science-and-redeeming-mathematics.html
To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.
Nicolaus Copernicus
"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"
Even Albert Einstein, although he was certainly not thought of as a particularly religious person, reflects how the Judeo-Christian worldview influenced his overall view of reality in this following quote;
Delete“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
Albert Einstein
But a more mysterious question to the issue, is the fact that this seemingly foreign, even outrageously bold, proposition of the rational intelligibility of the universe, that could even be dared to be comprehended by mere human minds, should be so successful as a proposition of thought. For why should it be that mere human minds, human minds who happened to have the audacity to believe that their minds were, of all things, created in the image of the Being Who had created the entire universe, would be so successful as to establishing a solid foundation for modern science, unless this seemingly outlandish idea of being made in God’s image were actually true? In other words, why should science be so successful unless the seemingly outrageous propositions underlying the foundation of modern science were actually true? Dr. Meyer reflects on the success of that outrageous proposition here in this video:
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video (notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/32145998
Moreover, modern science has actually revealed that this outrageous proposition, (that the universe was created by a rational Mind, and that our mind is created in the image of that rational Mind, and that therefore we can comprehend the universe to a deep level), is confirmed on many levels by science. Here Eugene Wigner reflects on the effectiveness of mathematics for understanding reality:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner
Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Granville Sewell, Professor of Mathematics at the University of El Paso, reveals that mathematics actually governs reality, not just passively describes reality, here;
DeleteFinely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation – Granville Sewell – audio
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012
At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation which governs the basic actions of the universe;
‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.
Granville Sewell PhD.
i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist ‘naturally’ presupposes such ‘transcendent’ control of our temporal, material, reality,,,
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
of note; ‘the Word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.
In this following video, Dr. Richards and Dr. Gonzalez reveal that the universe is ‘suspiciously set up’ for scientific discovery:
DeletePrivileged Planet – Observability/Measurably Correlation – Gonzalez and Richards – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431
The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
- Jay Richards
Extreme Fine Tuning of Light, and Atmosphere, for Life and Scientific Discovery - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/7715887/
This following video is in the same line of thought as the preceding videos:
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History – Hugh Ross – video
http://vimeo.com/31940671
But, as impressive, suspicious, and persuasive, as the preceding ‘hints’ are that the universe was created by the Mind of God and can be understood by the mind of man, since we are made in God’s image, the deepest correlation, of our mind to the Mind of God, finds its most concrete proof of correlation from looking at consciousness itself through the lens of quantum mechanics. There are many famous quotes that throw a little light on just how surprised people are when the first encounter quantum mechanics. Here are a few.
Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
Neils Bohr
...the "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality "ought to be."
Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III
“The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks”
Albert Einstein
Thank you Batspit77 for yet another steaming pile of C&Ped blithering that no one will read a single word of.
ReplyDeleteAnd indeed, the reason why quantum theory has looked so ‘silly’, to so many top scientists, is that consciousness is found to be integral, even central, in many of the experiments of quantum mechanics. This following quote nicely sums up exactly why consciousness would throw someone, who is used to thinking of reality in materialistic terms, for a complete loop, after looking at some of the experiments of quantum mechanics:
ReplyDeleteWhat drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601
Moreover, because of the postulated correlation of our mind to the Mind of God within Theism,,,
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
,,,we can then develop a very strong argument for God from ‘consciousness’, and even provide strong empirical proof for that argument from quantum mechanics:
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either precedes 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
More proof from geometry here:
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
Thus, as audacious as this proposition is, the proposition that God created the universe, and that we are made in the image of God, and that we therefore can rationally understand, and comprehend, the universe to a deep level, has stunning confirmation for its validity on many levels of science. Moreover, on the other hand, the counter proposition that this universe was not created by God, and that we are not made in God’s image, and that there is no particular reason why we should comprehend reality, has some very strong arguments against it. In fact these arguments are so strong that they have rendered the atheistic position completely absurd. The following references reveal the bankruptcy of the atheistic mindset as to explaining why we should comprehend reality so deeply:
Delete,,,This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
Further notes;
Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature – Presuppositional Apologetics – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
Excerpt: 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
Last power point of preceding video states:
The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon
* In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
* In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
* In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
* Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
The following video is far more direct in establishing the ‘spiritual’ link to man’s ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools, in America, have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
DeleteThe Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930
You can see that dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site;
Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report
http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html
Moreover, very contrary to atheistic thought, a significant ‘Christian Revival” accompanied America’s rise to scientific eminence in the world;
Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html
Here is a short video on the subject:
Epistemology - Why Should The Human Mind Even Comprehend Reality? - Stephen Meyer
http://vimeo.com/32145998
We already know the sequences aren't *identical* everywhere, every time, across their whole length, from hints in the article. And the evolutionary distances they are looking at are not amazingly immense. We're just dealing common ancestry of sequences (so they start out identical, in a single common ancestor) with a slow rate of sequence change. I'll even bet there's enough information to build a phylogenetic tree from these sequences, and it will be close to the standard phylogenetic tree.
ReplyDeleteNickM, perhaps you should establish that a beneficial mutation can even arrive at fixation before you start drawing up imaginary trees?
DeleteExperimental 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
NickM, it is simply completely dishonest of you to ignore this evidence!
Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website
ReplyDeletehttp://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
That's the funniest contrast between title and link that I've seen all day.
NickM, please do tell me how universal transcendent 'logic' can be grounded in a material basis? Indeed please falsify any of the following null hypothesis:
DeleteCan We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
1) Mathematical Logic
2) Algorithmic Optimization
3) Cybernetic Programming
4) Computational Halting
5) Integrated Circuits
6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
9) Language
10) Formal function of any kind
11) Utilitarian work
http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag
Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012
Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/
You're missing the joke. Please compare the following words: "presuppositional apologetics", "evidence", "proof".
DeleteNickM, instead of joking around, and being blatantly dishonest with the evidence, perhaps you should provide the falsification of the null hypothesis asked for to 'prove' that neo-Darwinism is anything other than pseudo-scientific crap that is maintained by heavy doses of deception!
DeleteScience and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Wow Batspit77, that's some massive bowel output you're producing today. Did someone give you a box of Ex-Lax and tell you it was Easter candy?
ReplyDeleteThanks for that image
Delete"Evolutionists had explained that this sort of finding would completely falsify evolution. And of course, as usual, that was Darwinian Doublespeak as we were told to move along yet again."
ReplyDeleteLife was so much easier for evolutionists in the old days when they could invent and manipulate their tree of life based on morphology and use it as the primary evidence for evolution being a fact.
At the nuts and bolts level of the genome, they are finding just what that said they should find IF THERE WAS A CREATOR. Of course, that was before they found out that there is a great deal of mixing and matching of components. So, again, there really isn't anything that can be found that would be allowed to falsify evolution in the minds of its devotees.
It seems that all the strong supporters of the "objective nested hierarchy" on this blog have been driven off by the question to explain the phylogeny of the lowly Sea Squirt. As long as the Darwinists can selectively pick their own cherries their always very bold.
In your dreams ,Neal. Perhaps they choose not to waste their time trying to get you to create the imfamous iPod nested hierarchy
ReplyDeleteJust curious, but how exactly do you know what the process of creation entails?
ReplyDeleteHow do you know the mind of God? Is there a verse which details the God's design technique of reusing parts?
Velikovskys, "How do you know the mind of God?"
ReplyDeleteCharles Darwin and evolutionists for the last 150 years boldly told us in no uncertain terms ...
...what God should have done (if He created life). However, since we don't see it done that way, then evolution is the only explanation.
You've got 150 years of backpeddling to do... having told us what a creator would and wouldn't have done as the foundation for Darwinism (as documented by the British Journal of history).
Now, even those claims are falsified. The question is will evolutionists stop turning the question around and allow their theory to be falsified based on their own religious criteria that they argued in support of for 150 years?
Regarding intelligent design, CH said it well... "ID makes simple, broad claims like: if we find a code, or a complex machine, etc, then it can be described in terms of design. You can disagree and point out that such codes and machines can be described in terms of law. Evolutionists have largely failed in their attempts, but in principle it is possible. In other words, ID can be addressed with scientific rebuttal. No scientific rebuttal is possible with evolution, for it appeals to personal, religious belief, not open to scientific analysis or discussion. Evolutionary arguments are unfalsifiable. There is literally no come-back, no rebuttal possible."
Darwinists want to have it both ways. If you're going to judge creationism or intelligent design then at least stick with your criteria. Darwinists can't even do that anymore. It looks like God has a sense of humor and the jokes on Darwin by their own devices.
Darwinists dug the hole, advertised it, and then fell into the hole of their own making.
So is the only proof of evolutionary theory that God wouldn't have done it that way?
ReplyDeleteVel,
DeleteRefuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
Evolutionary theory is based on pure ignorance (tree of life) of biology, a narrow religious definition of what God would have done, and weak fossil data. Empirical evidence of evolution being observed does not exist.
DeleteIt is rationalism alone. It's devotees are so sure of the soundness of their logic that evidence is not actually needed. That's why whatever data is found is never allowed to falsify evolution. That it could be false is unthinkable, no matter what the data says. As long as someone doesn't question the fact of evolution they can speculate as to how it happened.
Thanks for the link,but I am not arguing bad design. Rather ,apart from this argument is the any other data which supports evolutionary theory? And conversely what evidence supports ID beyond,it looks like it is designed and as far as we know nature might be incapable of producing the structure. OT ,I haven't had a chance to read one of your google docs links,I will.
DeleteVel, of first concern, besides the complete discordance of Darwinian predictions to empirical data, Darwinists have completely failed in their primary claim that material processes can generate functional information.,,, There is a null hypothesis in place that reflects this fact:
ReplyDeleteThe Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - August 2011
Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility.
http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness.html
Whereas every time you write a few sentences you demonstrate the ability of intelligence to produce functional information:
Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.
So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html
Therefore, using Charles Darwin's own criteria for reasoning from 'presently acting cause' known to produce effect in question,, intelligent design is thus found to be the most 'casually adequate' scientific explanation for life on earth:
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video
http://vimeo.com/32148403
What causal method does ID propose to create design?
ReplyDelete