Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Bats and Whales Share the Same Bio-Sonar Technology

Once again science contradicts evolution. This time it is the now common-place finding that incredible similarities show up in otherwise distant species. Specifically, whales and bats share some uncanny similarities in how they track prey using, believe it or not, super-sophisticated sonar technology. But if evolution is true, we would have to believe that their common ancestor had none of these capabilities. So in completely different parts of the world, in completely different environments, random mutations in these different species must have independently constructed the same ultra complex designs. As a report this week explains:

Though they evolved separately over millions of years in different worlds of darkness, bats and toothed whales use surprisingly similar acoustic behavior to locate, track, and capture prey using echolocation, the biological equivalent of sonar. Now a team of Danish researchers has shown that the acoustic behavior of these two types of animals while hunting is eerily similar.

If evolution is true then bats and whales would have been evolving independently for millions of years. And yet they both constructed a sonar capability which involves transmitting loud signals while receiving incredibly weak signals, adjusting the signal parameters in real time, processing the received signals, and so forth. They even share the same range of ultrasonic frequencies:

Bats and toothed whales (which include dolphins and porpoises) had many opportunities to evolve echolocation techniques that differ from each other, since their nearest common ancestor was incapable of echolocation. Nevertheless – as scientists have known for years – bats and toothed whales rely on the same range of ultrasonic frequencies, between 15 to 200 kilohertz, to hunt their prey.

And that similarity is in spite of the different environments:

This overlap in frequencies is surprising because sound travels about five times faster in water than in air, giving toothed whales an order of magnitude more time than bats to make a choice about whether to intercept a potential meal.

But that is not all. The bat and whale also use similar strategies for adjusting their signals while homing in on prey:

Bats increase the number of calls per second (what researchers call a “buzz rate”) while in pursuit of prey. Whales were thought to maintain a steady rate of calls or clicks no matter how far they were from a target. But the new research shows that wild whales also increase their rate of calls or clicks during a kill – and that whales’ buzz rates are nearly identical to that of bats, at about 500 calls or clicks per second.

It is another example of a complex design evolution can only speculate about, and once again the evolutionary tree fails to predict its pattern.

164 comments:

  1. I predict that huge complex sequences of DNA responsible for echolocation will be found to be identical in both bats and echolocating whales. This will bring an end to the theory of evolution because common descent, the main prediction of the TOE, will have been falsified.

    When that happens, and it will, ID will be triumphant. Darwin will spin like a top in his grave and evolutionists everywhere will cower in shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louis Savain

      I predict that huge complex sequences of DNA responsible for echolocation will be found to be identical in both bats and echolocating whales.


      That's already been falsified, as the means for generating the transmitted signals are completely different in bats and whales.

      We covered this exact topic a few months ago, remember?

      Delete
    2. Thorton:

      That's already been falsified, as the means for generating the transmitted signals are completely different in bats and whales.

      So what? That's still a tiny fraction of echolocation. There is a hugely sophisticated program used to precisely time the outgoing signals and interpret the bounced signals so as to create a 3-D representation of the detected objects. Get a clue.

      Delete
    3. Louis Savain

      Thorton: That's already been falsified, as the means for generating the transmitted signals are completely different in bats and whales.

      So what? That's still a tiny fraction of echolocation.


      Having ay least 50% of the process be entirely different isn't a "tiny fraction". What happened to "Designers don't reinvent the wheel"?

      There is a hugely sophisticated program used to precisely time the outgoing signals and interpret the bounced signals so as to create a 3-D representation of the detected objects. Get a clue.

      So? All mammalian brains have the capability to locate objects from echoes to a degree, even humans. Ever walk across a darkened gymnasium with a hardwood floor while wearing hard soled shoes? You can tell when you're getting near the wall by the relative strength and timing of the echoes. Since you have two ears you can also determine the direction of objects by sounds, just like binocular vision gives you depth perception. Bats and whales have just highly refined the inherent signal processing available to all mammals.

      Delete
    4. Thorton:

      So? All mammalian brains have the capability to locate objects from echoes to a degree, even humans. Ever walk across a darkened gymnasium with a hardwood floor while wearing hard soled shoes?

      I'm afraid you're not helping your case very well. What you are describing here is an astonishingly complex autonomous capability. It is not as though a few mutations could have happened on this ability. Bats and whales have biosonar capabilities our military designers would like to understand. The fact that other species also can echolocate doesn't make evolution's claim any more probable.

      Bats and whales have just highly refined the inherent signal processing available to all mammals.

      Sure, that is the evolutionary interpretation. Evolution will always provide these types of interpretations. What it doesn't do is provide a plausible scientific explanation of how such designs spontaneously arose (multiple times independently, at that). Instead, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact, so any such questions are mere research questions. They cannot question the fact of evolution in any way.

      Delete
    5. Cornelius Hunter

      Thorton: "So? All mammalian brains have the capability to locate objects from echoes to a degree, even humans. Ever walk across a darkened gymnasium with a hardwood floor while wearing hard soled shoes?"

      I'm afraid you're not helping your case very well. What you are describing here is an astonishingly complex autonomous capability. It is not as though a few mutations could have happened on this ability. Bats and whales have biosonar capabilities our military designers would like to understand.


      So? There are any number of morphological features that multi-celled animals have evolved which humans would love to duplicate. Of course the multi-celled animals have had over 600 million years to work on the problems.

      The fact that other species also can echolocate doesn't make evolution's claim any more probable.

      Really? The only use of echolocation by non-mammals I know of is in two species of cave dwelling birds, who use a very rudimentary echo system only for navigating through dark cave passages. Do you know more? Maybe some of those "scientific facts" you say evolutionists are hiding from the public?

      T: Bats and whales have just highly refined the inherent signal processing available to all mammals.

      Sure, that is the evolutionary interpretation.


      Go ahead and give us your alternative explanation, the one that explains all the empirical data in a better, more consilient manner. ALL the data.

      You won't, because all you know how to do is blindly attack the things you fear. You'll never try to understand or explain.

      Evolution will always provide these types of interpretations. What it doesn't do is provide a plausible scientific explanation of how such designs spontaneously arose (multiple times independently, at that).

      Yes CH, it does. Echolocation is one of a finite number of strategies for surviving in a low light environment. You can be an ambush predator and capture prey who bring themselves to you. You can evolve extremely large, sensitive eyes to use the little light energy available. Or you can find prey by echolocation. Multiple animals in different niches have evolved all three of the ways. The thing is, to be an effective echolocator you have to have a fairly well developed brain like a mammal.

      Instead, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact, so any such questions are mere research questions. They cannot question the fact of evolution in any way.

      Question all you want, but base the questions on legitimate reasons and not just religiously based incredulity. Understand that "we don't know yet" is a perfectly legitimate scientific answer.

      Delete
    6. Thorton:

      CH: Evolution will always provide these types of interpretations. What it doesn't do is provide a plausible scientific explanation of how such designs spontaneously arose (multiple times independently, at that).

      Thorton: Yes CH, it does. Echolocation is one of a finite number of strategies for surviving in a low light environment. You can be an ambush predator and capture prey who bring themselves to you. You can evolve extremely large, sensitive eyes to use the little light energy available. Or you can find prey by echolocation. Multiple animals in different niches have evolved all three of the ways. The thing is, to be an effective echolocator you have to have a fairly well developed brain like a mammal.


      I explained that evolution does not “provide a plausible scientific explanation of how such designs spontaneously arose.”

      You disagreed, and said “Yes CH, it does. Echolocation is one of a finite number of strategies for surviving …” In other words, you disagreed that evolution doesn’t provide a plausible scientific explanation of how such designs spontaneously arose, but then your reasoning was merely that such designs are useful strategies. You disagreed, but then completely failed in your disagreement.


      Go ahead and give us your alternative explanation, the one that explains all the empirical data in a better, more consilient manner. ALL the data.

      I did not claim to know for a fact how the world arose. Remember, that was you. This is the way evolutionists argue. They make the claim that it is an undeniable fact that the world arose spontaneously, in clear contradiction to the scientific evidence, and when questioned about their nonsensical claim they try to shift the attention away from their claim. When it suits them they’ll announce the claim loud and clear for everyone to abide by. They insist that their bizarre idea is a fact, beyond all rational doubt. It is a fact just as gravity is a fact. But then, suddenly, when questioned, they cut and run. All of a sudden their bold claim vanishes.

      Where was the confidence? Where was the absolute assurance that the science makes this bizarre notion such a no-brainer? Suddenly, the defense is: “Give us your alternative.” Give us your alternative? What? I never made ludicrous claims like they do. I never claimed to have the answer which was a scientific fact, undeniable and beyond all rational doubt. They make ludicrous claims and then try to shift the attention away from their claim by criticizing you for not also making foolish claims.

      If you want to theorize about how the world arose, then great. No problem. You can do that all day long, even if your theories don’t make scientific sense. And if you have religious mandates that need to be met such that your bizarre idea must be a fact, again, no problem. All’s fair. But don’t fool yourself that this is science.

      Delete
    7. Cornelius Hunter

      I explained that evolution does not “provide a plausible scientific explanation of how such designs spontaneously arose.”


      You didn't explain it, you asserted it. You also were given examples that show you wrong.

      Don't feel alone though. Most Creationists I know confuse their unsupported assertions with evidence.

      T: Go ahead and give us your alternative explanation, the one that explains all the empirical data in a better, more consilient manner. ALL the data.

      You won't, because all you know how to do is blindly attack the things you fear. You'll never try to understand or explain.

      CH: I did not claim to know for a fact how the world arose.


      Q.E.D.

      For the record, you weren't asked to provide your explanation for how the world arose. You were asked to provide your alternate explanation specifically for how some bats and whales got the processing power to do accurate echolocation.

      I gave you science's explanation - it's an inherent property of the mammalian brain that is more highly developed in bats and whales. Where is your better explanation? Or any one at all for that matter?

      But then, suddenly, when questioned, they cut and run.

      You're the only one who is cutting and running when questioned CH. It's what you do every time the questions get too tough. But not before squirting your usual cloud of anti-science squid ink.

      Delete
    8. Thorton:

      Having ay least 50% of the process be entirely different isn't a "tiny fraction". What happened to "Designers don't reinvent the wheel"?

      First of all, it isn't 50% of the process. It's not even 10%. The main complexity of echolocation is not in sound generation but in interpreting the bounced signals. Also, the designers had to reinvent the sound generation design with whales because generating sound underwater is not the same thing as generating sound in the air. Do you even think before posting your inane comments?

      Me:

      There is a hugely sophisticated program used to precisely time the outgoing signals and interpret the bounced signals so as to create a 3-D representation of the detected objects. Get a clue.

      Thorton:

      So? All mammalian brains have the capability to locate objects from echoes to a degree, even humans. Ever walk across a darkened gymnasium with a hardwood floor while wearing hard soled shoes? You can tell when you're getting near the wall by the relative strength and timing of the echoes. Since you have two ears you can also determine the direction of objects by sounds, just like binocular vision gives you depth perception. Bats and whales have just highly refined the inherent signal processing available to all mammals.

      Are you for real? The precise echolocation capabilities of bats and whales are orders of magnitude more complex than the ability to judge distances from large objects. Bats can pinpoint not just the location of tiny insects but also their size, their shapes and their relative direction of travel. And they do it while moving through the air. Echolocation is so complex that it should be compared to visual processing rather than to audio processing. It probably requires a big chunk of the sensory cortex just to make sense of the incoming signals and classify them in a way that can be used for purposeful behavior.

      Delete
  2. Isn't it funny that Cornelius always "forgets" to include the part of the article that offers a quite logical and testable hypothesis for the similarities?

    "On a purely physical basis, you would predict that whales and bats would operate at different [echolocation] rates and frequencies,” Madsen says. “But instead, they operate at the same rates and frequencies.” The similarities support the idea that the acoustic behavior of bats and whales may be defined by the auditory processing limitations of the mammalian brain.

    Why tell the truth when a distorted half-truth will do, eh CH?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The similarities support the idea that the acoustic behavior of bats and whales may be defined by the auditory processing limitations of the mammalian brain.

      The only problem with this idea is that the auditory capabilities of the mammalian brain vary enormously from one species to the next. IOW, dumb idea. Grasping for straws, if you ask me.

      Delete
    2. Louis Savain

      The similarities support the idea that the acoustic behavior of bats and whales may be defined by the auditory processing limitations of the mammalian brain.

      The only problem with this idea is that the auditory capabilities of the mammalian brain vary enormously from one species to the next.


      Evidence please. We're not just talking about the hearing range Louis. We're talking about the internal way the hearing data is processed.

      Delete
    3. Thorton:

      We're not just talking about the hearing range Louis.

      Unfortunately, that's exactly what the authors of the report are taking about.

      We're talking about the internal way the hearing data is processed.

      There are excellent reasons to suppose that the processing of echolocation data is completely separate from and totally unlike the processing of normal sound data. Normal sound processing neurons are not fast enough to handle the bandwidth of echolocation signals. Special super fast, electrically-driven neurons are needed to handle the real-time differentiation of echo signal arrival times.

      The sophistication of the echolocation program is what is important to consider here. Even if the capabilities of mammalian auditory systems were identical across the range of all mammals (they are not, of course), the neural program that handles the precise timing of generated signals for echolocation and the interpretation of bounced signals into a coherent internal 3-D representation of an object is extremely sophisticated. The Prestin gene alone does not account for this sophistication. Not even close. There can be no doubt that a whole set of special genes are needed to code this complex program. I predict they will be found to be identical in both bats and echolocating whales.

      Much more work remains to be done before we can account for the full genetic coding behind echolocation. What will you do when my prediction is found to be correct? Will you cower in shame? Or will you continue to foolishly appeal to convergence?

      Delete
    4. Louis Savain

      The Prestin gene alone does not account for this sophistication. Not even close.


      No one ever said it did Louis. Prestin is only responsible for detection of high frequency sounds.

      There can be no doubt that a whole set of special genes are needed to code this complex program. I predict they will be found to be identical in both bats and echolocating whales.

      They (or slight variations) are also found in the brains of all mammals. The mammalian brain developed processing capability *first*, then applied it for echolocation. The brain wasn't specifically designed for echolocation. That's what the evidence we have now shows.

      What will you do when my prediction is found to be correct? Will you cower in shame? Or will you continue to foolishly appeal to convergence?

      Verify it first then crow about it Louis.

      I won't hold my breath.

      Delete
  3. Louis, evolutionists have no objective means in which to say something was too improbable for convergence to take place. They can always hold out and say that something is improbable but still possible and it must have happened because evolution is a fact. While they are bold in proclaiming what a creator would or would not do, any finding that contradicts their position is put in the exception column. They have no objective means to say when their exception column is too large or not. Their theory is just a pile of mush.

    How evolution will survive given the increasing amount of data that invalidates their objective nested hierarchy model will be interesting to see play out. Most evolutionists are stuck in the arguments of the 20th century and don't realize how serious a problem the invalidation of the nested hierarchy is to their position.

    Look what these fanatics are doing to Dr. Ben Carson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. evolutionists have no objective means in which to say something was too improbable for convergence to take place.

      Neither do Creationists, which is why science doesn't rely on bogus and not calculable arguments from improbability.

      Science relies on ALL the data, not just the prestin convergence. You still need to explain the other huge number of morphological and genetic similarities between chiroptera and cetaceans.

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

      Delete
    3. Tedfrod:

      How evolution will survive given the increasing amount of data that invalidates their objective nested hierarchy model will be interesting to see play out. Most evolutionists are stuck in the arguments of the 20th century and don't realize how serious a problem the invalidation of the nested hierarchy is to their position.

      You're right, of course. They will never concede failure. Common descent is not falsifiable because it can be explained away with convergence no matter how absurd convergence is.

      Delete
  4. One might be less surprised by these findings if one realizes that what counts in location is not the frequency but rather the wavelength. An object smaller than the wavelength will not be seen by the locator because waves will pass through it without much scattering.

    For bats in air, the emitted wavelengths are between (330 m/s)/(200 kHz) = 1.7 mm and (330 m/s)/(15 kHz) = 2.2 cm. That's the typical size of pray for bats. For whales in water, the range of wavelengths is between (1500 m/s)/(200 kHz) = 7.5 mm and (1500 m/s)/(15 kHz) = 10 cm. They hunt larger prey, of course!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting case of convergence. The gene associated with echolocation, prestin, is conserved in mammals, but has evolved in similar ways in bats and whales. The result is that the DNA sequence of prestin shows bats and whales as distant mammalian relatives, but the amino acid sequence shows them as closely related.

    Liu et al., Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins. Current Biology 2010.

    Neal Tedford: How evolution will survive given the increasing amount of data that invalidates their objective nested hierarchy model will be interesting to see play out.

    Evolutionary convergence has been a part of the Theory of Evolution since Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel, right. You prove my point exactly. Evolutionists have no objective means to apply convergence no matter how incredible or fantasic. It is simply carte blanche. Jokers are wild and the deck has an unlimited supply of jokers.

      Even here ... http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/you-wont-believe-this-one-even.html

      "Cascades of convergence"... you see it never stops. Falsifications are noted as exceptions and there is no objective measure of the number of exceptions which would invalidate your claims. You have no objective criteria to say to yourself that if I see such and such, evolution is falsified. Evolutionists are blind to their complex rationalizations. It is very frustrating to someone who thinks the scientific method ought to follow objective measures.

      Delete
    2. Neal Tedford: Evolutionists have no objective means to apply convergence no matter how incredible or fantasic.

      They start in the same place, and have similar selective pressures, so they climb the same nearby fitness slope.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel, you don't know that. You're just pulling this stuff out willy nilly. The mitochondra started in the same place? No. Then why the intricate and complex similarities between "distant" species while "close" ones don't? Where are the intermediates? It smashes your objective nested hierarchy to pieces. It renders your prediction of an objective nested hiearchy unfalsifable... remember you have no objective criteria for invalidating it. You prove my point. Nothing can falsify the empty claim of convergence to satisfy evolutionists.

      Delete
    4. Neal Tedford: You're just pulling this stuff out willy nilly.

      Um, no. The prestin gene sequence has been largely conserved during the adaptive radiation of mammals.

      Li et al., The hearing gene Prestin reunites echolocating bats, PNAS 2008.

      Neal Tedford: Then why the intricate and complex similarities between "distant" species while "close" ones don't? Where are the intermediates?

      Because the protein was under similar adaptive pressures. Prestin is a motor protein in the outer hair cells of the mammalian inner ear, and knock-out experiments show that it is important for high-frequency hearing.

      Neal Tedford: It smashes your objective nested hierarchy to pieces.

      Fish are slippery in water. Whales are slippery in water. Why didn't Darwin think of that!

      But, of course, he did. It has to do with something he called "natural selection".

      Delete
    5. Zachriel:

      That wouldn't explain why synonymous substitutions fit the standard phylogeny

      This is too vague. Can you explain this statement in more detail?

      Delete
  6. Could someone please provide an alternative theory to account for these data?

    And also, could you say exactly what you think has been falsified here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liddle:

      Could someone please provide an alternative theory to account for these data?

      Isn't it obvious? The designers decided to reuse the same genetic code in distantly related species. Why? It's less work, of course. Why reinvent the wheel?

      And also, could you say exactly what you think has been falsified here?

      That, too, is obvious. Common descent, the main prediction of evolution, is in serious trouble. If falsifying common descent does not falsify the theory of evolution, nothing can.

      Delete
    2. Louis Savain: The designers decided to reuse the same genetic code in distantly related species.

      Except they didn't. If they simply cut and pasted the DNA sequence, then the DNA sequences would match. Instead, the DNA sequences are different, even though the amino acid sequences are the same.

      This brings up an important point that Darwin made. Non-adaptive features are better than adaptive features for reconstructing phylogenies. That's because convergence leads to similarities due to similar environments rather than to common heritage.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel said:

      "That's because convergence leads to similarities due to similar environments rather than to common heritage."


      May you explain the similarities between the enviroments of bats and whales?

      Delete
    4. Zachriel:

      Except they didn't.

      You won't know that until and unless the actual computational analysis of the genes of both species has been carried out, at which time we may get a respite from your boring platitudes. The rest of your comment is just speculative fiction, not science.

      PS. Who are you, anyway?

      Delete
    5. Zachriel said, "Except they didn't. If they simply cut and pasted the DNA sequence, then the DNA sequences would match. Instead, the DNA sequences are different, even though the amino acid sequences are the same"

      --

      But if we found an example where they did, would that make a difference for you? Of course not, you would go away for a few weeks, walk the halls and rationalize it all... so why even say stuff like this when you don't mean it?

      Delete
    6. Blas: May you explain the similarities between the enviroments of bats and whales?

      Both are predators in environments where sight is less acute and where echolocation can be a useful adaptation.

      Louis Savain: You won't know that until and unless the actual computational analysis of the genes of both species has been carried out, at which time we may get a respite from your boring platitudes.

      Li et al., The hearing gene Prestin reunites echolocating bats, PNAS 2008.

      Liu et al., Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins. Current Biology 2010.

      Delete
    7. Zachriel,

      The Prestin gene is just a tiny fraction of the genetic program that is required for echolocation. Echolocation is orders of magnitude more complex than Prestin.

      In my opinion, convergent evolution is pure unmitigated superstition and wishful thinking. There is not an ounce of science in it. The Prestin gene already falsifies common descent, in my view, although I realize it's not enough to silence the true believers.

      Delete
    8. Zachriel said:

      "Both are predators in environments where sight is less acute and where echolocation can be a useful adaptation."

      That describes the enviroments of all the aquatic and nocturnal animals. How many of them have echolocation?

      Delete
    9. Some aquatic animals are not mammals, dolphins use some form of echolocation.

      Many nocturnal animal have highly developed eyesight and hearing, hunting more stealthily,another strategy for survival.

      Delete
    10. velikovskys:
      "Some aquatic animals are not mammals, dolphins use some form of echolocation.

      Many nocturnal animal have highly developed eyesight and hearing, hunting more stealthily,another strategy for survival."
      Zachriel said:

      "That's because convergence leads to similarities due to similar environments rather than to common heritage."

      Well, then enviroments has something to do with echolocation or not? Or it depends on the question as always with ToE?

      Delete
    11. Zachriel:

      Instead, the DNA sequences are different, even though the amino acid sequences are the same.

      The fact that the amino acid sequences are the same is highly significant. The fact that the DNA sequences differ is also significant, but in another way.

      A recent paper has demonstrated that what had previously been thought to be "silent" DNA substitutions is no longer the case. Information about protein production, and other such information, is actually found to be stored in this, if you will, sub-code.

      Now that the two prestin DNA sequences are different simply means, assuming this sub-code interpretation, that the prestin protein is fine-tuned to the organism and its environment.

      However, the fact that their amino acid composition is the same still means that two rather distinct lineages developed the same protein to solve the same biophysical challenge.

      I agree with Louis Savain: this severely compromises the notion of common descent. Why? Because the common ancestor of this lineage did not contain the ability for echolocation.

      And to make matters even worse:
      The existence of what I'm calling a genetic "sub-code" only makes the impotence of Darwinian theory more apparent. And a whole new layer of complexity is arising; and whole new layer of complex interplay between protein 3-D structure and simultaneous protein production instructions arises with it.

      Delete
    12. Blas: Well, then enviroments has something to do with echolocation or not? Or it depends on the question as always with ToE?

      Of course it depends. Organisms tend to diverge into new niches. Hence, some carnivores will specialize in stealth or scent, scavenge or kill, and so on.

      Lino D'Ischia: Now that the two prestin DNA sequences are different simply means, assuming this sub-code interpretation, that the prestin protein is fine-tuned to the organism and its environment.

      That wouldn't explain why synonymous substitutions fit the standard phylogeny.

      Delete
    13. Zachriel said:

      "Of course it depends. Organisms tend to diverge into new niches. Hence, some carnivores will specialize in stealth or scent, scavenge or kill, and so on."

      But bats and whales didn´t diverge, they converged.

      Delete
    14. Blas: But bats and whales didn´t diverge, they converged.

      It's not that difficult, Blas. On land, there was an open niche for a flying warm-blooded predator that could use echolocation to find prey. In the sea, there was an open niche for a swimming warm-blooded predator that could use echolocation to find prey. They only converged on the solution to one particular problem, echolocation, otherwise they are very distinct organisms; just as whales and fish converged on the same basic hydrodynamic design, but remain very distinct organisms. It's called natural selection.

      Delete
    15. Nice story Zach, to bad its contradicted by empirical evidence for what truly happened:

      Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
      http://vimeo.com/30921402

      Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/

      Australonycteris clarkae
      Excerpt: Australonycteris clarkae, from the Eocene of Queensland, is the oldest bat from the Southern Hemisphere and one of the oldest in the world. It is similar to other archaic Eocene bats from the Northern Hemisphere, and could probably navigate using echolocation, like most bats do today. (of note: some "modern" bats do not use echolocation today):
      http://australianmuseum.net.au/Australonycteris-clarkae

      Of note; The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers. The echometer cannot be installed into the bat in the afterward as a simple plug-in, rather echometer and brain had to be designed as a whole system from the beginning.
      http://focus.ti.com/docs/solution/folders/print/119.html

      Prestin-driven cochlear amplification is not limited by the outer hair cell membrane time constant. - June 2011
      Excerpt: Outer hair cells (OHCs) provide amplification in the mammalian cochlea using somatic force generation underpinned by voltage-dependent conformational changes of the motor protein prestin.,,, These data suggest that minimal τ(m) filtering in vivo ensures optimal activation of prestin.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21689600

      Further note:

      Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203

      Delete
    16. Zachriel, you insult other people's intelligence with your nonsense. Evolution depends on random mutations. There is absolutely no way that complex sequences of DNA would be identical in distantly related species if those sequences were not directly inherited from a common ancestor. Even a thousand node "converged" sequence stretches credulity to the point of absurdity.

      But who am I kidding? Absurdity is the middle name of the theory of evolution. Stupidity is its first.

      Delete
    17. Except from the study the DNA isn't identical . Glad to see you back to form

      Delete
    18. bornagain77: Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
      http://vimeo.com/30921402


      The argument presented in your video is lacking any sort of detail, and they don't present a coherent argument. Can you point to a scientific paper?

      Louis Savain: Even a thousand node "converged" sequence stretches credulity to the point of absurdity.

      Incredulity is not a valid scientific argument.

      Delete
    19. "Except from the study the DNA isn't identical".,,, I saw no mention of DNA sequences in the link to this study. ,,, whereas from the following we find:

      Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010
      Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator.
      http://www.reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty

      Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011
      Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html

      Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins - Liu et al (2010)
      Excerpt: 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,
      http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2902073-9

      Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design - February 2011 - Podcast
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-21T10_59_16-08_00

      Here's a figure showing bats and dolphins group together on the same tree based on Prestin sequence comparisons.
      http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580955_215152708593734_182588468516825_355811_30197372_n.jpg

      Delete
    20. Zach you state:

      'The argument presented in your video is lacking any sort of detail, and they don't present a coherent argument. Can you point to a scientific paper?'

      Interesting that the leading researcher admits on a video, for the world to see, that his fossils as portrayed in museums as to supporting whale evolution are fraudulent, and you rather than being offended that you were severely misled for years claim that his admission is not good enough for you. And my confidence in your honesty on this matter is to be retained how?

      further notes:

      Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned:
      Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive."
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have

      Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011
      Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/

      A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011
      Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,,
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/

      Delete
    21. Zachriel:

      Incredulity is not a valid scientific argument.

      Neither is credulity. To show the validity of the convergence hypothesis as an explanation for the appearance of identical code in unrelated species, one must show either an observable mechanism or a falsifiable prediction. You have neither.

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

      Delete
    23. BornAgain77 to Zachriel:

      And my confidence in your honesty on this matter is to be retained how?

      Zachriel is obviously a paid troll or a truth-challenged believer. He/she should be ignored. I think the proper criterion for posting here should be honesty, not a lack of foul language.

      Delete
    24. Blas:

      Well, then enviroments has something to do with echolocation or not? Or it depends on the question as always with ToE?

      I'm just finishing up with Fodor and Massimo Palmieri's "What Darwin Got Wrong," both atheists.

      They decimate the logic involved in invoking "natural selection" as the guiding force of "adaptation." And along the way demonstrate that either (1) an intelligence of some sort must "select-for", or (2) some law must exist, which can distinguish between correlated traits. The environment alone simply cannot do this. Their logic is rather unassailable---to freethinkers, that is.

      You might enjoy the read.

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

      Delete
    26. bornagain77: I saw no mention of DNA sequences in the link to this study.

      Liu et al., Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins. Current Biology 2010: "Trees based on nucleotide alignments from this larger dataset strongly supported the accepted species tree topology, albeit with the clustering of echolocating bats reported earlier. However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats"

      bornagain77 (quoting): Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find.

      Um, no. What is expected depends on the fitness landscape. In this case, both evolved towards the same local fitness peak.

      bornagain77 (quoting): Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins - Liu et al (2010)

      Heh. That's funny. Do you actually read your citations, or do you just cut and paste them. Liu et al. continues by saying "Furthermore, we find evidence that
      these changes were driven by natural
      selection."

      Delete
    27. So Zach you have no fossil evidence and extreme convergence of protein AND gene sequences, and rather that honestly admitting you have no empirical legs to stand on, you pretend as if you are even in the ballpark of scientific integrity?

      As to your claim that natural selection explains sequence similarity. Once again you are making a completely unsubstantiated claim!:

      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

      further notes:

      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/

      Delete
    28. bornagain77: you have no fossil evidence and extreme convergence of protein AND gene sequences

      There's plenty of fossil evidence, but this thread is more particularly about convergence between bat and whale echolocation systems. We cited two relevant papers. Did you get a chance to read them?

      Delete
    29. Louis Savain

      Liddle:Could someone please provide an alternative theory to account for these data?

      Isn't it obvious? The designers decided to reuse the same genetic code in distantly related species. Why? It's less work, of course. Why reinvent the wheel?


      You mean like how the designer reused the same design for the wing in insects, bats, and birds. Only an incompetent fool of a Designer would reinvent the wheel, right Louis?

      If falsifying common descent does not falsify the theory of evolution, nothing can.

      Falsifying common descent would indeed falsify the current ToE. But merely screaming your personal incredulity over a case of convergence while ignoring the other 99.99% of the evidence won't do it.

      Delete
    30. And did you get a chance to provide an actual demonstration that purely material neo-Darwinian processes could account for the origination of just one functional protein, much less the exact same protein in completely different species? Or is the little fact of empirically demonstrating that your proposed mechanism is actually even feasible, in the first place, as to account for the unfathomed integrated functionality of proteins to be taken on your word alone?

      Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012
      Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assume the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/here-are-those-two-protein-evolution.html

      First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009
      Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
      "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,"
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm

      Delete
    31. 'Falsifying common descent would indeed falsify the current ToE.'

      The 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced:

      Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
      http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

      Genomes of similar species - Cornelius Hunter PhD.
      Excerpt: Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins. [8]
      Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. [11,12] ,,, etc.. etc…
      http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of

      As alluded to above, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life:

      Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
      Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm

      New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010
      Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract

      I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome:

      Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
      "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

      Delete
    32. Thorton:

      You mean like how the designer reused the same design for the wing in insects, bats, and birds. Only an incompetent fool of a Designer would reinvent the wheel, right Louis?

      Wow. Why are you so purposely obtuse? Why would the designers use the same wing design for insects, bats and birds? Isn't it obvious that those situations call for different designs? Besides, many bird species do indeed share the same wing and flight design. It's called 'direct design inheritance'. And I would not be surprised if hummingbirds and certain insects shared identical flight control mechanisms and the corresponding genes.

      Falsifying common descent would indeed falsify the current ToE. But merely screaming your personal incredulity over a case of convergence while ignoring the other 99.99% of the evidence won't do it.

      You're the one screaming incredulity here. Aren't you the one denying the possibility of design? I disagree that 99.9% of the evidence supports evolution. 1% maybe and I'm being generous. However, there is no doubt that 100% of the evidence supports intelligent design. I am just making a prediction about the imminent finding of identical echolocation genes in distantly related genes.

      But I am glad you believe that such a finding would falsify common descent and evolution. I can already hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth. I, for one, will be dancing in the streets, drinking champagne and smashing pinatas in the likeness of Darwin.

      Delete
    33. bornagain77: And did you get a chance to provide an actual demonstration that purely material neo-Darwinian processes could account for the origination of just one functional protein, much less the exact same protein in completely different species?

      Again, that's not the topic. The topic is the claim that the similarity in echolocation systems in distantly related mammals represents a problem for the Theory of Evolution. It does not. Convergence has been a part of the Theory of Evolution since its inception in the mid-nineteenth century. The fact that the DNA sequence fits the standard phylogeny, while the amino acid sequence does not is strong evidence supporting common descent and natural selection.

      We cited two relevant papers. Did you get a chance to read them?

      Delete
    34. Zach, If the sheer failure of neo-Darwinists to demonstrate that even a single functional protein can be had by purely material processes, and the sheer failure of neo-Darwinists to demonstrate that a single unambiguously beneficial mutation can be fixated within fruit flies over 35 years of trying also does not present 'a problem for the Theory of Evolution', what in blue blazes does present a 'problem'. You simply are not even in the realm of empirical science with all your pseudo-scientific posturing. I consider the dishonesty on your part to face the facts squarely in this matter to be scientifically criminal!!!

      Delete
    35. bornagain77: If the sheer failure of neo-Darwinists to demonstrate that even a single functional protein can be had by purely material processes, and the sheer failure of neo-Darwinists to demonstrate that a single unambiguously beneficial mutation can be fixated within fruit flies over 35 years of trying also does not present 'a problem for the Theory of Evolution', what in blue blazes does present a 'problem'.

      According to the original post, the similarity of echolocation in distantly related mammals presents a problem with the Theory of Evolution.

      (As for Burket et al. concerning fruit flies, they propose an explanation consistent with the evidence that selection coefficients decrease with time or because traits are linked.)

      Delete
    36. Zach, regardless of the just so stories you put so much unfounded faith in, the plain fact of the matter is that you have ZERO evidence of purely neo-Darwinian processes generating even a single functional protein domain and ZERO empirical evidence of neo-Darwinian processes leading to fixation of a unconditionally beneficial mutation. Thus, neo-Darwinian evolution has ZERO empirical evidence that it can accomplish all that neo-Darwinists dogmatically claim that it does. This is simply materialistic/atheistic dogmatism for you to ignore this stunning failure to establish a firm basis in empirical science. Like I said before, I consider it scientifically criminal for you to do as such!

      Delete
    37. bornagain77: Like I said before, I consider it scientifically criminal for you to do as such!

      In other words, you have nothing to add concerning the original post.

      By the way, do you have a workable scientific theory as to why the DNA sequence of prestin shows bats and whales as distant mammalian relatives, but the amino acid sequence shows them as closely related?

      Delete
    38. In other words you don't care you have no basis in empirical science!

      Delete
    39. Zachriel:

      Incredulity is not a valid scientific argument.

      From the OoS:

      It would be difficult to give any rational explanation of the affinities of the blind cave-animals to the other inhabitants of the two continents on the ordinary view of their independent creation.

      Or, IOW, I don't "believe" special creation took place for a moment.

      Delete
    40. Zachriel:

      That wouldn't explain why synonymous substitutions fit the standard phylogeny.

      This is too vague. Can you explain your statement in more detail?

      Delete
    41. Lino D'Ischia: Or, IOW, I don't "believe" special creation took place for a moment.

      That's not quite what he said. Darwin is saying that *given* ordinary views of creation, there doesn't seem to be a rational reason for the affinities.

      Zachriel: That wouldn't explain why synonymous substitutions fit the standard phylogeny.

      Lino D'Ischia: This is too vague. Can you explain your statement in more detail?

      You do understand that most organisms naturally group into a nested hierarchy, whether grouped by morphological or genetic traits?

      In the case of prestin, if we sequence a variety of mammals, the genetic base sequences fit the standard nested hierarchy, but the amino acid sequences do not. Can you provide an explanation that explains both these facts?

      Delete
    42. Zachriel said:

      "In the case of prestin, if we sequence a variety of mammals, the genetic base sequences fit the standard nested hierarchy, but the amino acid sequences do not. Can you provide an explanation that explains both these facts?"

      That also can be explained in the other way than convergent evolution to rebuild the prestin when needed.All the animals could start with a perfect prestin and by ramdom mutation they lost function, changes in aminoacid sequences led to extintion, silent mutation in DNA alow to diverge the sequences more.

      Delete
    43. Blas: All the animals could start with a perfect prestin and by ramdom mutation they lost function, changes in aminoacid sequences led to extintion, silent mutation in DNA alow to diverge the sequences more.

      That doesn't explain why the genetic sequence fits the conventional nested hierarchy.

      Delete
    44. How well "fits" the conventional nested hierarchy? What assumptions makes that "fit" is "fit?

      Delete
    45. Blas: How well "fits" the conventional nested hierarchy?

      A full nucleotide sequence analysis provides strong support for conventional species phylogeny, except for within the bat clade, which groups echolocating bats together. If you consider only those nucleotides not associated with variable amino acids, then the entire tree is reconstructed, including within the bat clade, consistent with other studies of molecular phylogeny.

      Li et al., The hearing gene Prestin reunites echolocating bats, PNAS 2008.

      Delete
    46. Starting from a unique sequence by ramdom mutation you can reach similar percentages of similarities and arrange the tree in many ways, the autors show the best arrangement that fits the "conventional nested hierarchy" because they assume common descent.

      Delete
    47. Blas: Starting from a unique sequence by ramdom mutation you can reach similar percentages of similarities and arrange the tree in many ways

      If you mean random sequences, not with any statistical significance. If you mean through bifurcating descent, then yes. That's the very point.

      Delete
  7. CH: Once again science contradicts evolution.

    This simply doesn't make sense. Science is discipline. As such, it's unclear how it can contradict evolution.

    What you'd need are not only observations, but an expiatory framework in which to extrapolate them with. And expiatory frameworks are not "neutral", in the sense you're implying. In other words, this isn't even wrong.

    We're not off to a very good start.

    CH: This time it is the now common-place finding that incredible similarities show up in otherwise distant species.

    Except, we've known that cephalopods and mammals had eyes for quite some time. This isn't any thing new.

    CH: But if evolution is true, we would have to believe that their common ancestor had none of these capabilities. So in completely different parts of the world, in completely different environments, random mutations in these different species must have independently constructed the same ultra complex designs.

    First, "none of these capabilities" would be an inaccurate statement, as evolution suggests that existing features or structures are improved or even repurposed rather than built completely from scratch. Eyes started out as light sensitive patches of skin, etc. How do you explain this glaring omission?

    Are we supposed to conclude that you just forgot this aspect of evolutionary theory, despite the fact that you teach college level biology? By any reasonable meaning of the term, wouldn't this indicate gross incompetent on your part?

    If not, exactly what to you expect us to conclude, given this omission?

    Second, given that the underlying explanation for evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere is created over time using a form of conjecture and refutation - resulting in non-explanatory knowledge - then "Yes." The latter represents what would have happened in reality, should all observations should conform to it. This is in contrast to the knowledge having been created as a form of explanatory knowledge, which is what that people create, or that the knowledge "just was", in that it always existed.

    Can you point out exactly where the problem is with this? Do you have any criticism of this explanation?

    For example, are you suggesting the knowledge of how to build the biosphere wasn't created? Or perhaps you think there is some other explanation for how knowledge is created, and that evolutionary processes do not fit this explanation?

    In other words, without some form of criticism in regarding how the knowledge found in the genome was created, it's unclear how this isn't merely an argument from incredulity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CH: It is another example of a complex design evolution can only speculate about, and once again the evolutionary tree fails to predict its pattern.

    Actually, we're not only limited to speculation, as that would be merely conjecture. Rather, we're limited to creating theories via conjecture, then testing them via observations. Nor is this limitation somehow specific to evolutionary theory.

    But, by all means, feel free to demonstrate how it's possible to convert a number of singular statements based on observations alone into a universal statement. Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, "Eyes started out as light sensitive patches of skin, etc. How do you explain this glaring omission? "

      --

      Please document where and when and by whom this observation was made.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Nice quote mine, Neal.

      First, "none of these capabilities" would be an inaccurate statement, as evolution suggests that existing features or structures are improved or even repurposed rather than built completely from scratch. Eyes started out as light sensitive patches of skin, etc. How do you explain this glaring omission?

      That's part of the theory itself. Omitting it because you do not believe it or think it's absurd isn't optional. That would be a straw man.

      When we point out an argument has omitted some key aspect of evolutionary theory, some other argument comes up that focuses on that aspect, but omits something else.

      We then point out that argument is parochial, since it omits some other aspect of evolutionary theory, and other argument pops up focusing on some other aspect, but omitting something else.

      It's like a game of creationist wack-a-mole.

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. Saw this on uncommon descent but would repeat here that this and many and more cases of CONVERGENT EVOLUTION claims demonstrate a great weakness in evolutionism.
    To find complicated but like systems in unrelated creatures and say its about selection on mutations is to say the absurd.
    Mutations should of created fantastic differences in these systems up and down.

    Its better to see like need equals like response.
    This UEC person sees whales and bats as only post flood adaptations and so triggers in their bodies allowed like systems to be revealed/created by like mechanisms in a general program of biology from a creator.

    Not the creator made these creatures as is but made a mechanism to allow biological adaptation and so have like results from limited parts in the common biological model we all live in.

    They can't get away explaining away the unlikely with convergence stuff.
    Its a cheat when diversity must be explained by mutations.
    lack of diversity suggests randomness of mutations is not involved.

    ReplyDelete
  11. just for fun, here are two videos.

    The first shows a robotic computer integrated manufacturing system:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6llyQwEESBo


    Now, look at the video of basic cell biology from Drew Berry:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU

    Keep in mind that the living cell is a "lights out factory" that reproduces itself.

    Meanwhile, evolutionists are clueless as to how the first cell originated, but they are sure it wasn't designed. Nothing in nature suggests that unguided chemical processes can spontaneously come together to form a lights out factory cell possessing a precise instruction code and efficiently performing processes of transcription, translation, messaging, feedback, communication, editing, proofreading, and integrated manufacturing all at extreme nano scales.

    Evolutionists want us to believe it all spontaneously arose without intelligent design because they have evidence that bird beaks change sizes, guppies change colors, and an e-coli mutation caused its membrane to lose the ability to stop citrates from entering its cell. Such hogwash might have passed for a poor hypothesis in the era of the steam locomotive, but now it is just a serious disconnect from the reality of what we know about cell function.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zachriel, how about dealing with the sea squirt?

    Or, something even better from a previous post by Cornelius:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/getting-crushed-evolutionists-are-now.html


    We have seen that the mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution, and more over that these incredible mitochondria designs reappear in distant species on the evolutionary tree. For instance, the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates share these bizarre mitochondria similarities. Evolutionists are calling it “Corresponding evolutionary histories” or “Cascades of convergent evolution,” and it is far beyond the explanatory power of the usual just-so stories, such as gene transfer, gene duplication or gene loss. Furthermore, we saw that these incredible similarities go beyond the mitochondria. The Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, also share very odd peculiarities at the molecular level in general, such as polycistronic transcription, trans-splicing and intron poverty. And there is more to the molecular similarities. For instance, both these groups have secondary plastids with unique characteristics. But for now, let’s step back even further, and look at the higher level cell morphology.

    In addition to their mitochondria, plastids and protein synthesis details, these distant groups in the evolutionary tree of life share “stunningly similar” cell morphology “although completely different from what is the rule of the eukaryotic cell.” These similarities include:


    Dorsoventral flattening
    Ventral groove/sulcus
    Recurrent flagellum
    Subapical flagellar insertion
    Paraxonemal rods
    Gliding motility
    Thickened cell surface
    Extrusomes
    Photoreceptive eyespots"

    Would you are to offer you opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal Tedford: how about dealing with the sea squirt?

      In what way? Do you mean how it appears to stand out from the pervasive nested hierarchy?

      Neal Tedford (quoting): We have seen that the mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution, and more over that these incredible mitochondria designs reappear in distant species on the evolutionary tree.

      Did you read the cited papers? The authors certainly think it makes sense in terms of evolution. It's no different in kind than how different vertebrates, such as fish and dolphins, have evolved similar hydrodynamic shapes and surfaces, or how different mammals, such as bats and whales, have evolved similar systems for echolocation. Again, it's not clear why you would think convergence would present a problem for the Theory of Evolution.

      Delete
    2. Argument from authority? Perhaps you care to demonstrate the fixation of a unconditionally advantageous mutation for those of us who find your integrity lacking?

      Delete
    3. bornagain77: Argument from authority?

      No. There's relevant evidence in the cited papers.

      Delete
    4. Zach relevant evidence would be a actual empirical demonstration of what is seen, not a stated opinion of 'expert' for how it got there. i.e. argument from authority! ,,,

      Delete
    5. bornagain77: relevant evidence would be a actual empirical demonstration of what is seen

      Yes, that's what we're referring to, the observations in the paper; in particular, that the DNA sequence of prestin fits the conventional phylogeny, while the amino acids group bats and whales. What is your explanation that explains both facts?

      Delete
    6. Zach, it is insane for you to claim that identical proteins in different species originated by neo-Darwinian processes when neo-Darwinists have not demonstrated the origination of ANY functional protein by purely neo-Darwinian processes, much less the protein in question. i.e. You are running around the bases of science as if you got a home run in empirical confirmation, and in reality you ain't even got anywhere near hitting the ball in the first place.

      Delete
    7. bornagain77: it is insane for you to claim that identical proteins in different species originated by neo-Darwinian processes

      Um, they're not identical proteins.

      bornagain77: when neo-Darwinists have not demonstrated the origination of ANY functional protein by purely neo-Darwinian processes, much less the protein in question.

      Proteins evolve. Organisms evolve. Are you asking about the origin of life? That's not the topic of this thread.

      Delete
    8. Proteins evolve. That statement is a lie!
      Organisms evolve. Besides variation with 'kind' (variation that stays within the overriding principle of genetic entropy) that statement is also a lie.

      Notes:

      When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
      Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
      http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide

      Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
      Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975

      A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011
      Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html

      Delete
    9. Zachriel, how about dealing with the sea squirt?

      What exactly do you think needs dealing with? Your entire knowledge of Ciona intestinalis seems to come from Casey Luskin's quote-mining butcher job of a NewScientist article on horizontal gene transfer.

      Sea squirts belong to the tunicates (Urochordata) are phylogenetically positioned at the very base of the vertebrate tree. Evidence shows they split from the vertebrates over 540 million years ago. After the split they underwent either HGT or partial fusion (creating a chimera) with an early ancestor of the sea urchin. As a result they have some genes in common with both both phyla.

      Why you think this is a problem for either evolutionary theory in general or common descent in particular is a testament to your colossal willful ignorance.

      Delete
    10. BA,

      When will you deal with the sea squirt?

      As I pointed out in an earlier thread, the first thing a maturing sea squirt does when it permanently attaches itself to a rock or other resting place is to digest it's own nervous system as food.

      Since the sea squirt no longer needs to move, it no longer needs a nervous system.

      This strongly correlates the theory that brains initially evolved, not to think or feel, but to control movement.

      See the following TED talk by Daniel Wolpert for details.

      So, we explain complex neurological systems, like the human brain, in that the circuitry necessary to perform complex motions resulted in significant advantages. And, as they became more and more complex, they eventually formed the circuitry we now use for thought, feeling, etc., which also had advantages, etc.

      Yet, I do not recall you dealing with this in the previous thread.

      Delete
    11. bornagain77: Proteins evolve. That statement is a lie!

      Oddly enough, there's seems to be a lot of research in major journals on protein evolution. Why, you can even find weakly acting proteins in random sequences of amino acids.

      bornagain77: Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009

      Okay, let's look at your one citation to the primary literature. Hmm, from the abstract: "We describe ways of predicting and analyzing stability effects of mutations, and mechanisms that buffer or compensate for these destabilizing effects and thereby promote protein evolvabilty, in nature and in the laboratory." That says exactly the opposite of your contention.

      Have you considered trying to read and understand the papers you cite before posting them?

      Delete
    12. Well Zach, it is funny that you always refer to a citation that 'hypothesizes' that such and such protein evolved without a direct demonstration that ANY protein did so. Moreover your allusion to 'weakly acting proteins in random sequences of amino acids', without direct citation, is a case in point. I believe you are referring to Szostak's work, yet if we scrutinize Szostak's work we find once again that you are shamelessly bluffing as to having direct empirical evidence for protein evolution;

      This following paper was the paper that put the final nail in the coffin for Szostak's work:

      A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells
      Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division."
      http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385

      Here is a very interesting comment by Jack Szostak himself on the unfathomed complexity being dealt with in living systems:

      The Origin of Life on Earth
      Excerpt: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.
      It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.
      Dr. Jack Szostak - Nobel Laureate and leading Origin of Life researcher who, despite the evidence he sees first hand, still believes 'life' simply 'emerged' from molecules
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth

      Delete
    13. Further comment on the severe constraint found to be on functional proteins evolving to other functional proteins:

      On top of the fact that Origin of Life researcher Jack Szostak, and others, failed to generate any biologically relevant proteins, from a library of trillions of randomly generated proteins, proteins have now been shown to have a ‘Cruise Control’ mechanism, which works to ‘self-correct’ the integrity of the protein structure from any random mutations imposed on them.

      Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
      "A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order."
      http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/

      Cruise Control permeating the whole of the protein structure??? This is an absolutely fascinating discovery. The equations of calculus involved in achieving even a simple process control loop, such as a dynamic cruise control loop, are very complex. In fact it seems readily apparent to me that highly advanced mathematical information must reside 'transcendentally' along the entirety of the protein structure, in order to achieve such control of the overall protein structure. This fact gives us clear evidence that there is far more functional information residing in proteins than meets the eye. Moreover this ‘oneness’ of cruise control, within the protein structure, can only be achieved through quantum computation/entanglement principles, and is inexplicable to the reductive materialistic approach of neo-Darwinism! For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to 'engineer' even a simple process control loop like cruise control for a single protein, please see this following site:

      PID controller
      A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

      It is in realizing the staggering level of engineering that must be dealt with to achieve ‘cruise control’ for each individual protein, along the entirety of the protein structure, that it becomes apparent even Axe’s 1 in 10^77 estimate for rarity of finding specific functional proteins within sequence space is far, far too generous. In fact probabilities over various ‘specific’ configurations of material particles simply do not even apply, at all, since the ’cause’ of the non-local quantum information does not even reside within the material particles in the first place (i.e. falsification of local realism; Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger). Here is corroborating evidence that ‘protein specific’ quantum information/entanglement resides in functional proteins and DNA:

      Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini & Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
      Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.
      http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/

      Delete
    14. bornagain77: it is funny that you always refer to a citation that 'hypothesizes' that such and such protein evolved ...

      It's called the scientific method. Scientists propose hypotheses, deduce their entailments, then test for those entailments. How did you think science was done?

      bornagain77: it without a direct demonstration that ANY protein did so.

      Of course proteins have been observed to evolve. A simple example is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Evolution is a slow process, though, so most of what we know comes from phylogenetic relationships.

      bornagain77: This following paper was the paper that put the final nail in the coffin for Szostak's work:

      The function of DX was ATP binding, not whether it would be beneficial to an organism in a particular environment. The question raised by Stomel et al. is whether the artificial protein would still fold and bind to ATP inside an organism. It did. "We found that a synthetic ATP-binding protein from non-natural origins functions inside living cell by disrupting the normal energetic balance within the cell."

      Delete
    15. Zach, without a demonstration you are in a land of fantasy! Antibiotic resistance? You kidding right? You are clearly dishonest.

      Delete
    16. bornagain77: without a demonstration you are in a land of fantasy!

      Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants: Isolation of Preadaptive Mutants in Bacteria by Sib Selection, Journal of Bacteriology 1952.

      Delete
    17. SO WHAT??? (but thanks for the opportunity to expose how deceptive you are with the evidence once again)

      List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
      http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

      A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution - September 2011
      Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.”
      http://crev.info/content/110904-a_tale_of_two_falsifications_of_evolution

      (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012
      Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
      http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183#

      Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

      Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
      Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html

      Delete
    18. bornagain77: SO WHAT???

      Because it's an instance of protein evolution, which you indicated never occurs.

      Delete
    19. Blas: Why evolution will not try every possible structur?

      Because evolution can only move along closely connected regions of the fitness landscape, which is only the tiniest portion of the total fitness landscape.

      Delete
    20. Zach a 1952 paper??? OH goody, shall you forward it to Szostak or shall I so he can reference this in the future whenever anyone points out that he failed to generate biologically relevant proteins? Since it is clear that you don't care how much you have to distort evidence this is my last response to you on this post. Thanks again for providing a stellar example of darwinian 'science' at its finest! :)

      Delete
    21. bornagain: Thanks again for providing a stellar example of darwinian 'science' at its finest!

      Lederberg won the Nobel Prize for his work on bacterial genetics. Did you have a substantive reply?

      Delete
    22. bornagain77: Since it is clear that you don't care how much you have to distort evidence

      We've ignored your repeated ad hominem, but we'll respond to this. The Lederbergs showed that heritable changes occurred in bacteria. You had said that proteins don't evolve, but that is clearly what happened when these bacteria developed antibiotic resistance. If you think that we have distorted the results of this experiment, then it is incumbent on you to explain why.

      Delete
    23. Since it is true that you are being deceptive with the evidence it is not ad hominem attack, but a statement of fact as to your practice of science. Whether you do this willingly or by delusion does not detract one iota that your claims of evidence are blatantly deceptive!,, Once again the evidence clearly and unequivocally states that antibiotic resistance is accomplished by the loss of genetic information:

      List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
      http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

      Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

      Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
      Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html

      Moreover, your claim that antibiotic resistance is proof of neo-Darwinian evolution is refuted by the fact that antibiotic resistance was present before modern antibiotics were even developed:

      A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution - September 2011
      Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.”
      http://crev.info/content/110904-a_tale_of_two_falsifications_of_evolution

      (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012
      Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
      http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183#

      Delete
    24. bornagain77: Moreover, your claim that antibiotic resistance is proof of neo-Darwinian evolution is refuted by the fact that antibiotic resistance was present before modern antibiotics were even developed:

      We're just dealing with your specific claim that proteins have never been observed to evolve. They have. In the Lederbergs' experiment, the bacteria were clones of non-resistant strains.

      Delete
    25. You deceptively claim that proteins evolved by neo-Darwinian processes and I showed that antibiotic resistance was present before antibiotics! i.e. No new functional information was generated in the adaptation and in fact functional information was lost in the antibiotic bacteria. Yet you cling to this as proof? Perhaps a course in logic would help you.

      Delete
    26. bornagain77: You deceptively claim that proteins evolved by neo-Darwinian processes and I showed that antibiotic resistance was present before antibiotics!

      Not in the bacteria used by Lederberg & Lederberg. They were clones of non-resistant bacteria.

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

      Delete
    28. Antibiotic resistance, as far as it is achieved by changes in specific proteins, is achieved by the proteins losing binding affinity (losing functionality) or by the blocking of the binding of proteins necessary for the processing of a antibiotics and/or by the blocking of the antibiotics themselves.

      List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
      http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

      and Besides such simple methods of losing functionality to achieve antibiotic resistance, methods which have been known for quite a while, now there are also highly sophisticated methods being found for antibiotic resistance:

      Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave (4 million year old) Microbiome - April 2012
      Excerpt: 'Antibiotic resistance is manifested through a number of different mechanisms including target alteration, control of drug influx and efflux, and through highly efficient enzyme-mediated inactivation. Resistance can emerge relatively quickly in the case of some mutations in target genes and there is evidence that antibiotics themselves can promote such mutations [43], [44], [45], [46]; however, resistance to most antibiotics occurs through the aegis of extremely efficient enzymes, efflux proteins and other transport systems that often are highly specialized towards specific antibiotic molecules.'
      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953

      (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012
      Excerpt: “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old,
      http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183#

      i.e. Zach, Antibiotic resistance, as far it is achieved by changes in specific protein functionality is achieved by A LOSS of protein functionality. This loss of overall protein functionality is revealed by 'the fitness test' that was previously cited.

      Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

      Antibiotic resistance is not achieved by any given protein gaining a new functional sequence, i.e. by any given protein sequence, of any one specific function, changing into any other protein sequence of another completely different function.,,

      Zach, if you trying to claim that blocking of protein binding, or blocking of antibiotic intake, is proof of protein evolution, ask yourself, 'why exactly are you reduced to trying to defend such a pathetic example of 'downhill' evolution?' If neo-Darwinism were actually true, and the plasticity of protein sequences was practically limitless, as Darwinism maintains, then you should have literally thousands upon thousands of examples of proteins of one functional sequence evolving into completely different proteins of another functional sequence. But this is not what we get. We get extreme dogmatism on your part insisting that which involves loss of protein functionality is somehow proof that bacteria can turn into humans.

      Delete
    29. bornagain77: If you trying to claim that blocking of protein binding, or blocking of antibiotic intake, is proof of protein evolution, ask yourself, 'why exactly are you reduced to trying to defend such a pathetic example of 'downhill' evolution?'

      One step at a time. You had said proteins don't evolve. But because proteins evolve in bacteria, even a single mutation may mean they have the capability of infecting and killing humans despite the best efforts of human technology. That's hardly an insignificant adaptation. These mutations may work by changing the permeability of the cell membrane or through up-expression of an efflux pump. You can think of it as tuning an existing mechanism rather than the development of a novel complex. But whether you like it or not, this is evolution.

      bornagain77: If neo-Darwinism were actually true, and the plasticity of protein sequences was practically limitless, as Darwinism maintains, then you should have literally thousands upon thousands of examples of proteins of one functional sequence evolving into completely different proteins of another functional sequence.

      Well, no, you wouldn't. Again, evolution typically works incrementally, meaning that over short time spans, we would *not* expect to see such drastic changes. What would be consistent with evolution is that proteins would form families and superfamilies. And that is what we see.

      bornagain77: loss of protein functionality is somehow proof that bacteria can turn into humans.

      Again, no. Bacteria are highly derived organisms. And it takes far more than that to show that humans share ancestry with the rest of the biological world.

      Delete
    30. Zach, you are clearly not being honest with yourself, me, or the evidence. Making excuses over and over again and not being honest with yourself, or others, is a character trait most notable in addicts, alcoholics, and people who are in jail. Now I may add neo-Darwinists to the list!

      further notes:

      The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes:
      “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
      http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637

      AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
      Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
      http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html

      Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
      Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
      http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330

      Delete
    31. bornagain77: Making excuses over and over again and not being honest with yourself, or others, is a character trait most notable in addicts, alcoholics, and people who are in jail.

      You forgot to make a substantive reply. You had said proteins don't evolve, but they do. You can think of the example of antibiotic resitance as tuning an existing mechanism rather than the development of a novel complex. But whether you like it or not, this is evolution.

      In particular, please respond to your mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, that you claim predicts that proteins would evolve into entirely new forms within short time periods.

      Delete
    32. 'You forgot to make a substantive reply.'

      You forgot to make sense. I have shown extreme stability for proteins and bacteria over deep time and you have merely alluded to loss of functionality as proof that proteins 'evolve'. Since it is clear you have no intention of being reasonable and honest, I'll leave what I've cited stand on its own merits since you clearly have not made a 'substantive reply' on anything, nor does it appear that you will ever do anything other than try to mislead.

      Delete
    33. bornagain77: I have shown extreme stability for proteins and bacteria over deep time and you have merely alluded to loss of functionality as proof that proteins 'evolve'.

      The ability to overcome antibiotics is a very important and beneficial adaptation for bacteria. Do you disagree?

      Delete
  13. Thornton: Yes CH, it does. Echolocation is one of a finite number of strategies for surviving in a low light environment. You can be an ambush predator and capture prey who bring themselves to you. You can evolve extremely large, sensitive eyes to use the little light energy available. Or you can find prey by echolocation. Multiple animals in different niches have evolved all three of the ways. The thing is, to be an effective echolocator you have to have a fairly well developed brain like a mammal.

    Ok so the assumption is always going to be the Darwinian one, the "have evolved" phrase meaning RMNS generated. Now in 1948 L.A. Jeffress at my Alma Mater proposed cross-correlation as a mathematical model for azimuth mapping from binaural cues in humans. Research since that time has actually validated analog cross-correlation to be implemented neurologically. How did "evolution" actually presage a mathematical technique, and do you know how the dummy variable in cross-correlation is implemented neurologically?

    ReplyDelete
  14. MSEE

    Ok so the assumption is always going to be the Darwinian one, the "have evolved" phrase meaning RMNS generated.


    Since that's an assumption supported by 150 years of positive data, why not use it as the framework for further research?

    If you have a alternate explanation that better explains the empirical data, please present it along with your positive evidence.

    I've only been asking you guys for about a decade now but no one will provide an alternative beyond the hopeless vague and intellectually worthless "My GOD, er, the Intelligent Designer did it!!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK so you seem to believe a stochastic source of organization can generate an operation which is a well known analytic process. Then surely you must know that sometime during the long march toward the successful cross-correlation implementation, there were some types of other analytic functions implemented, then deselected. Since "evolutionary" biologists know exactly how everything arose, from 150 years of positive data, how did the binaural azimuth function look, before the epoch of cross-correlation implementation? You guys are always talking "gradual" so give me a good picture of this gradualism and how did it look. What types of mathematical functions were built by stochastic means, before cross-correlation was selected? In other words which mathematical operations were deselected? Please be specific, I'm accustomed to studying mathematical analysis.

      Delete
    2. MSEE: Since "evolutionary" biologists know exactly how everything arose, from 150 years of positive data, how did the binaural azimuth function look, before the epoch of cross-correlation implementation?

      Untuned.

      Delete
    3. MSEE

      buzz buzz buzz



      You're hilarious when you toss around off-topic engineering buzzwords to try and sound "sciency". I bet you didn't have much luck impressing your dates in college with that technique either, right? :D

      Come back when you have your alternate explanation that better explains the empirical data, along with your positive evidence, K?

      Delete
    4. Thank you thank you thank you. You can toss out the "sciency" all you want, it makes you seem science-avoiding if not science hostile. Go ahead and google "cross-correlation" in conjunction with relevant keywords like "hearing" and learn a little about the subject if you dare. You label it off-topic "engineering buzzwords" when in fact this topic is all over the place in the study of human hearing and perception. If not mistaken I thought this thread involved hearing. You're avoiding my challenge because it is beyond you to propose a logical answer. You guys come on to here and try to blow us away with your logic and brilliance and here you are helpless obviously. Thanks again for your response, flailing though it seems. A response like I aim to elicit from you more often.

      Delete
    5. MSEE: Ok so the assumption is always going to be the Darwinian one, the "have evolved" phrase meaning RMNS generated.

      Explanations are always going to be, well, explanations. This is in contrast to pushing the problem into some inexplicable realm.

      A designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because, one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build themselves, already present in their DNA.

      Furthermore, conjecture and refutation is our explanation for how knowledge is created. In the case of evolutionary theory, it consists of conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation in form of natural selection. The result is that the genome contains non-explanatory knowledge.

      This is not science-avoiding or science hostile. Nor are we ignoring how people create knowledge. It's quite the opposite. We explain our relatively recent, rapid increate in the creation of knowledge in that progress comes to us in the form of explanatory knowledge, rather than merely useful rules of thumb.

      On the other hand, creationism is based on the same flawed, pre-enlightenment conception of human knowledge, in that it's either irrational, supernatural or completely absent. The problem is, you cannot recognize this as a conjectured idea that would be subject to criticism. This is science avoiding and science hostile.

      Delete
    6. MSEE: OK so you seem to believe a stochastic source of organization can generate an operation which is a well known analytic process.

      Next thing you know, planets will be integrating their orbits. When did planets learn calculus!

      MSEE: Then surely you must know that sometime during the long march toward the successful cross-correlation implementation, there were some types of other analytic functions implemented, then deselected.

      Built upon, not deselected. For instance, the simplest mechanism is that the ear hearing the loudest sound is closer to the direction of the sound. It's not a perfect system, but better than nothing.

      MSEE: Since "evolutionary" biologists know exactly how everything arose, from 150 years of positive data,

      Well, that's certainly not true. If they did, they could all retire. Yet, biologists keep filling journals with wonderful new discoveries!

      MSEE: how did the binaural azimuth function look, before the epoch of cross-correlation implementation?

      Not sure why you consider cross-correlation a problem for evolution. It doesn't have to find the perfect solution. Any slight improvement in discernment of direction to pick out the origin of a sound can be useful. The simple case is if the organisms hears it first in the left ear, then the object is towards the left. This basic mechanisms can then be refined. A secondary mechanism is to turn the head towards the noise thereby bringing the two ears closer to synchronization.

      Delete
  15. MSEE

    Look at me!! I is an injuneer!! I is smart in everything!!


    You forgot to provide your alternate explanation that better explains the empirical data, along with your positive evidence.

    It sure seems like you don't have one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thornton: "Look at me!! I is an injuneer!! I is smart in everything!!"

      OK students take a look at this type of response, imagine this mental state. Here we have a guy not only thinking that getting personal is his only way out of the dilemma. But also his inability to address my very specific and pointed question about gradualism, and instead thinks that mangling English words combining them with "engineer" will be oh so cute and derogatory. This is what happens to materialists coming on to the board; their last resort is to make it personal. So my advice to you young professionals is to watch carefully and remember what it was like seeing the "big" personalities and their paradigms getting dismantled back in the day. Remember too that there is nothing scientific about what is going on here with this type of response; what we have is an angry comeback. You can find many such angry postings by this person, going back over the years on this blog.

      Delete
    2. MSEE

      "Look at me!! I is STILL an injuneer!! I is STILL smart in everything!!"


      You STILL forgot to provide your alternate explanation that better explains the empirical data, along with your positive evidence.

      Probability you don't have one 99% and rising. Although you do have the usual Creationist combination of smarmy arrogance and scientific ignorance down pat.

      Delete
    3. If one says that a Boeing 747 was designed and engineered, why is that not an explanation of why the 747 is the way it is? Why should one insists that the only possible way to explain a 747 is to invoke natural processes? Of course, one can always reverse-engineer a 747 and deduce a lot of the design decisions that went into it. There is no need to identify the designer(s) to do that. Same with life.

      Intelligent design does predict that life is organized hierarchically like a tree. Heck, the book of Genesis was light years ahead of everybody since it was the first to mention the tree of life. Likewise, knowledge in the brain is organized like a tree, hence the tree of knowledge.

      So, yes, there was an evolution but it was a design evolution, not some cockamamie superstitious evolution that picked itself up by its bootstraps. The only difference between the designed TOL and the Darwinian TOL is that the latter is necessarily nested, unlike the former.

      Thorton constantly asks for an alternative theory of life. Well, there you have it: a non-nested tree of life that began with a few primitive genes. It has a specific falsifiable prediction: while the TOL consists mostly of nested hierarchies, there are a few exceptions. The theory can be falsified through the computational analysis of various genomes. Read it and weep.

      Delete
    4. Louis Savain

      If one says that a Boeing 747 was designed and engineered, why is that not an explanation of why the 747 is the way it is? Why should one insists that the only possible way to explain a 747 is to invoke natural processes?


      Sorry Louis, but for a 747 we have lots of outside information and know the design process, and the manufacturing process, and the design timeline, and the pre-design specifications, and the source for materials, and the purpose of the design, and of course the identity of the designer.

      We don't know any of that information for biological objects. HUGE difference.

      Intelligent design does predict that life is organized hierarchically like a tree.

      Really? Since when? Why is that a prediction and not an ad hoc postdiction?

      Thorton constantly asks for an alternative theory of life.

      And no one will give me one with any details. Not Cornelius, not MSEE, not you. Not anyone. All you guys have is a magic "POOF" for a mechanism.

      Sorry Louis, but "POOF" just doesn't cut it in the scientific world.

      Delete
    5. Thorton, you sound like a scared little creature.

      Sorry Louis, but for a 747 we have lots of outside information and know the design process, and the manufacturing process, and the design timeline, and the pre-design specifications, and the source for materials, and the purpose of the design, and of course the identity of the designer.

      We don't know any of that information for biological objects. HUGE difference.


      Ever heard of the concept of thought experiments in science? Einstein used one to come up with the general theory of relativity, remember? Imagine you were an alien species who suddenly discover a human probe in outer space. Would you immediately assume natural origins or would you assume that it was designed and dissect it to figure out the design and hopefully learn a little about the sophistication of the designers?

      Me:

      Intelligent design does predict that life is organized hierarchically like a tree.

      Thorton:

      Really? Since when? Why is that a prediction and not an ad hoc postdiction?

      Posdiction, my foot. As I explain below, any complex design process must use inheritance and inheritance implies a hierarchy. This is well known. The difference between a designed TOL and a Darwinian TOL is that the former is not necessarily nested. So the discovery of non-nested hierarchies would falsify the former and confirm the latter. This will be discovered sooner than you think to your eternal chagrin.

      And no one will give me one with any details.

      I just gave you a theory, one that makes a falsifiable prediction. Little details are not necessary to understand this theory. What needs to be done is exactly what biologists are now doing: dissect various organisms to find out how they were designed and use the TOL to classify them. Again, the only difference is the designed TOL is not nested in various places.

      Some intelligent beings engineered life on earth little by little over many hundreds of millions of years. The process is necessarily hierarchical since previous designs are inherited by new ones. Any time you have an inheritance system, you end up with an inheritance tree. There is no escaping this. So deny at your own detriment.

      All you guys have is a magic "POOF" for a mechanism.

      POOF, eh? What a lame little strawman, Thorton? I'm sure it gives you temporary comfort but in the end, you'll be wailing and gnashing your teeth like every other evolutionist. And you will kick yourselves in the rear end for having been so stupid for so long. Your problem is not science, Thorton. Your problem is religion. There is this God in your mind that you hate and it's killing you.

      Anyway, I don't remember saying anything about any kind of POOF. The ancient scriptures tell me that everything that was created was created with wisdom and knowledge, i.e., intelligent design. I don't remember reading anything about POOF.

      Delete
    6. Louis,

      If there is no POOF then wouldn't your designer be well adapted for the purpose of designing things, and therefore need to designed as well?

      In other words, the POOF is that some designer "just was", already well adapted at designing things. All you've done is push the POOF into some unexplainable realm.

      This serves no explanatory purpose, as on could more economically state that organisms "just appeared", and the knowledge of how to adapt themselves for a purpose just POOFED into existence along with them.

      Delete
  16. Zachriel: Untuned (???)

    Quite a convincing stance.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For those interested in the science, here is a recent overview of the evolution of hearing and how it differs significantly between species. Covers the differences in aural processing between birds and mammals, looks at various models for the evolution of each.

    On hearing with more than one ear: lessons from evolution
    Schnupp, Carr
    Nature Neuroscience 12, 692 - 697 (2009)

    Abstract: Although ears capable of detecting airborne sound have arisen repeatedly and independently in different species, most animals that are capable of hearing have a pair of ears. We review the advantages that arise from having two ears and discuss recent research on the similarities and differences in the binaural processing strategies adopted by birds and mammals. We also ask how these different adaptations for binaural and spatial hearing might inform and inspire the development of techniques for future auditory prosthetic devices

    MSEE won't read it of course. He's a newly graduated baby Engineer and knows everything already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So pair hearing is the best and evolved many times. Evolution knowed in advance that pair hearing was the best? Everytime it evolved evolution kwen that? Where are the extintec one hear animals, three, four five hear fossils? Why wvolution didn`t try those?
      Clever evolution guys.

      Delete
    2. Blas: Evolution knowed in advance that pair hearing was the best?

      In bilaterates, it would be not be that unexpected to have paired parts.

      Delete
    3. Yes, but why not try other arrangements?

      Delete
    4. Blas: Yes, but why not try other arrangements?

      Because it's not design. Evolution can be very flexible, but has to work with what it has, with intermediate steps all being viable.

      Delete
    5. "Evolution can be very flexible, but has to work with what it has"

      Also designers has that limitation.
      But what is what evolution has? Why is limited the number of ears?

      " with intermediate steps all being viable."

      Adding ears makes animals inviable? I do not mean to find the three ears animal, just the fossil "natural deselected".

      Delete
    6. Blas: Also designers has that limitation.


      Just because you can think it, doesn't mean it's evolvable. Evolution will not try every possible structure, and radical changes are rarely successful. On the other hand, a designer can consciously incorporate from other designs, and the intermediates don't have to be fully functional.

      Delete
    7. "Evolution will not try every possible structure"

      Why evolution will not try every possible structur? It is not ramdom? How he knew this will be sussesfull this not?

      "and radical changes are rarely successful."

      I´m not looking for radical changes, if there was animals that gradually developed two ears, should be animals that slowly developed one, three four ears?

      Delete
  18. Blas: Where are the extintec one hear animals, three, four five hear fossils?

    Spiders can hear through trichobothria on each of their eight legs. Many reptiles can sense vibrations through their bellies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and the three, four, five attempts?
      According to ToE should they exist?
      Why we do not see them if "detecting airborne sound have arisen repeatedly and independently in different species"?

      Delete
    2. Blas: According to ToE should they exist?

      Apparition: Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!

      MacBeth: If I had three ears, I'd still hear you.

      Delete
    3. Bad science end always in drama.

      Delete
  19. Blas has an interesting question.

    “Where are the extinct one ear animals, three, four five ear fossils? Why evolution didn`t try those?”

    Yes. Where are all the mutants or their fossils? Shouldn’t we see more failed or failing mutants who would be dying off while” fit to survive” ones continuing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen: Where are all the mutants or their fossils? Shouldn’t we see more failed or failing mutants who would be dying off while” fit to survive” ones continuing?

      Radical mutations are rarely successful, so there is very little chance of fossilization. We've already answered otherwise. The MacBeth quote had a point, if you had ears to hear.

      Delete
    2. eugen,

      remember Thorton's infamous link?

      Delete
    3. Velikovsky

      I remember the link. Okay,we don't want to go there again.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel said:

      "Radical mutations are rarely successful, so there is very little chance of fossilization."

      As the positive prove of the existance of God is elusive, so is the direct prove of evolution.

      Delete
  20. Zachriel, the matter-of-fact tone of your answers that you give about cascades of convergences and molecular convergence in general would be humorous if you weren't actually serious about what you imagine to be true.

    What we observe is highly adaptable E.Coli after tens of thousands of generations with a population of trillions enduring extreme selective pressures induced by human lab techs losing the ability to stop citrate from entering through its membrane.

    From that launching point, anything and everything is possible for evolutionary mechanisms.

    You have a tight tautology:

    Evolution is a fact...
    Cascades of convergences, though never observed to have occured in the history of science, is the best answer if evolution is a fact. IMAGINATION = EVIDENCE...
    Evolution is a fact.

    What would you consider impossible for evolution to do? Do you have any objective criteria to answer?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal Tedford: What we observe is highly adaptable E.Coli after tens of thousands of generations with a population of trillions enduring extreme selective pressures induced by human lab techs losing the ability to stop citrate from entering through its membrane.

    There were many adaptations in the Lenski experiment. The ability to ingest citrate was especially interesting because they showed it was contingent on an enabling mutation.

    Neal Tedford: From that launching point, anything and everything is possible for evolutionary mechanisms.

    Evolution is highly limited in what it can do. It only explores the tiniest fraction of what is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. When Archaeologists find pottery shards with similar decorations, or flint arrowheads with a similar shape, they theorize that there was contact between cultures and diffusion because it is very unlikely that two people would come up with the same design. So why is it perfectly acceptable for evolutionist to say that the development of very complex proteins in distantly related species is the result of convergence? Convergence starts with random mutations and lots of dumb luck. Why is it more likely than two cultures using similar decorations on pottery?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: When Archaeologists find pottery shards with similar decorations, or flint arrowheads with a similar shape, they theorize that there was contact between cultures and diffusion because it is very unlikely that two people would come up with the same design.

      Yes. The key is people. We have some knowledge of their capabilities and how they transmit cultural knowledge.

      natschuster: So why is it perfectly acceptable for evolutionist to say that the development of very complex proteins in distantly related species is the result of convergence?

      Because that's what the evidence indicates. But look at the prestin gene again. The gene associated with echolocation, prestin, is conserved in mammals, but has evolved in similar ways in bats and whales. The result is that the DNA sequence of prestin shows bats and whales as distant mammalian relatives, but the amino acid sequence shows them as closely related. The obvious explanation, given all that we know about biology, is that mammals evolved from a common ancestor, and that echolocation is convergence. However, what is your alternative explanation?

      Delete
    2. My point is that in other sciences, scientists don't feel comfortable with explanantions that are unlikely. But evolutionists are pefectly fine with evolutionary explanations for the most unlikely events. Why are they allowed to get away with it? When questioned, they wind up saying, like you just did, "do you have a better explanation?" Its not that the evidence strongly supports whether evolution happened, or is even possible, but it wins by default.

      Delete
    3. natschuster

      My point is that in other sciences, scientists don't feel comfortable with explanantions that are unlikely. But evolutionists are pefectly fine with evolutionary explanations for the most unlikely events. Why are they allowed to get away with it?


      Nice try, equivocating over unlikely explanations and explanations for unlikely events. Try again troll.

      When questioned, they wind up saying, like you just did, "do you have a better explanation?" Its not that the evidence strongly supports whether evolution happened, or is even possible, but it wins by default.

      From equivocation to flat out lie. Science says "here is our explanation based on all the empirical evidence." THEN "do you have a better explanation?".

      Science doesn't win by default. Science wins because it's the only side with positive evidence to support its position.

      Delete
    4. Thorton:

      Okay, I'll try again. The event of two cultures developing the same decoration is very unlikely, so a more likely event is considered the expanation for similar decorations. The event of the distantly related species evolving the same echo-locating protein is also very unlikely, but it is perfectly acceptable to evolutionists.

      Don't people, e.g. Zachriel on the ost above, keep on asking for alternative explanations? So its not that evolution is a good explanation, it's just better than the others.

      Delete
    5. natschuster

      Okay, I'll try again. The event of two cultures developing the same decoration is very unlikely, so a more likely event is considered the expanation for similar decorations.


      That's because there are no known reasons besides cross-pollination which would lead two independent cultures to produce the same pattern.

      The event of the distantly related species evolving the same echo-locating protein is also very unlikely, but it is perfectly acceptable to evolutionists.

      False. In the case of prestin protein there is a very strong reason, the ability to detect high frequency sounds, that selection pressures would drive two species to find the same solution.

      Don't people, e.g. Zachriel on the post above, keep on asking for alternative explanations? So its not that evolution is a good explanation, it's just better than the others.

      What other explanations? "POOF it was designed" isn't an explanation. So far ToE is the only explanation offered with any identified mechanisms, any timeline, or any predictive power.

      Delete
    6. Right. Two cultures developing the same pattern is unlikely. So they look for anothere explanation.

      And what exactly is the likelihood of echolocating prestin evolving twice? I know what the evolutionary explanation is. My question is about how likely it is that the same amino acid sequence will happen twice. It isn't all that eaiy to evolve proteins, you know. There are epistaitc effects, and instabilities that have to be countered.

      And are you agreeing with me that evolution wins by default, not because it is good?

      Delete
  23. Zachriel, as typical you give vague answers. Tell us what specifically and objectively has been shown to be possible or impossible for evolution? And, how would you know? You know for a fact that whale/bat convergence occured within this tiniest fraction. Is this information given to you by a secret handshake in a gnostic temple?

    You're doing another tautology:

    1. "Evolution is highly limited in what it can do. It only explores the tiniest fraction of what is possible"...
    2. Evolution is a fact, so everything that we see was within the tiniest fraction of what is possible.
    3. Since everything we see is within the tiniest fraction of what is possible, evolution is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except #3 is not why evolution is considered a fact

      Delete
    2. Neal Tedford: Tell us what specifically and objectively has been shown to be possible or impossible for evolution? And, how would you know?

      Impossible is too strong a word for a scientific claim. However, from all we know of biology, Centaurs, Pegusus and Griffins would be very unlikely to have existed naturally, and consequently, you won't find find their fossils. The parsimonious explanation is that they are the product of human imagination (design).

      Let's turn that around. Do you think Centaurs could have existed? If so, then why haven't we found physical evidence of their existence. If not, then why not? Evolutionary theory has a ready explanation. Can you state this reason?

      Neal Tedford: You're doing another tautology:

      Hardly.

      Neal Tedford: 1. "Evolution is highly limited in what it can do. It only explores the tiniest fraction of what is possible"...

      That can be determined from the mathematics of evolution, or can be determined empirically by observing evolutionary systems. (How much is explored depends on the fitness landscape.)

      Neal Tedford: 2. Evolution is a fact,

      That's a strongly supported scientific claim.

      Neal Tedford: so everything that we see was within the tiniest fraction of what is possible.

      Considering the wide variety of extant and extinct organisms, with new ones being frequently discovered, that would be an empirically supportable statement.

      Neal Tedford: 3. Since everything we see is within the tiniest fraction of what is possible, evolution is a fact.

      That would make it consistent with evolution, but not determinative. It's not a tautology, nor is it the argument we have made.

      This is the exchange above:

      Z: Evolution will not try every possible structure.

      B: Why evolution will not try every possible structur?

      Z: Because evolution can only move along closely connected regions of the fitness landscape, which is only the tiniest portion of the total fitness landscape.

      As you can see, we answered only the limited question.

      Blas: It is not ramdom?

      No, but it is stochastic. Evolution moves along connected regions of the fitness landscape.

      Delete
    3. Neal,

      You cannot positively prove anything is possible or impossible using empirical observations alone. This isn't limited to evolution. Nor does science go around making claims in this sense. That's where you're confused.

      Given this limitation, what we're left with are explanations, which represent formalisms, observations and interpretations as a coherent whole for the purpose of criticism.

      Of course, if you'd like to explain, in detail, how we can have something more than this, then be my guest. Until then, you're making a parochial argument which doesn't take into account our best explanations about how we make progress.

      Of course, you do not mere empiricism as an idea that would be subject to criticism. As such, you feel no need to disclose it, argue for it, or even acknowledge it as part of your argument - despite having the problem with it pointed out to you over and over again.

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

    ReplyDelete
  25. I guys,

    Check the whales and dolphins page at
    http://skaphandrus.com
    a comprehensive catalogue of marine species to sea lovers.

    ReplyDelete