Thursday, June 21, 2012

Evolutionists Lose Again: “There's Not Even a Consensus on How to Approach the Problem”

Remember when evolution was a fact? Remember when your high school biology teacher explained the origin of life from a muddy pond (or maybe ocean vent) was beyond any doubt? Remember when the National Academy of Science declared that “For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells”? [1] Remember when Carl Zimmer wrote that scientists “have found compelling evidence that life could have evolved into a DNA-based microbe in a series of steps.”

Well, err, that was all wrong. Truth be told, there never was any such compelling evidence. There never was any proof that life arose spontaneously—from a warm little pond, ocean vent, or anywhere else for that matter.

In fact, as one evolutionist admitted, “there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem.” That doesn’t exactly qualify as a fact.


1. National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999) 6.

121 comments:

  1. It's all evolution propaganda. Facts don't matter, getting people to believe the evolution myth (by any means necessary) does.

    Smoke and mirrors.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems that Lonsdale and most evolutionary biologists are now convinced that life started with self-replicating RNA and so they are concentrating their efforts in that direction. But it really does not matter. The problem with any hypothesis that posits some kind of code sequence (DNA, RNA, or X) is that (I'm being gentle) it is pure unmitigated hogwash.

    In order to duplicate itself, a strand of X must first create a protective cell membrane around itself, otherwise it cannot possibly survive long enough to evolve to the point of being able to reproduce. Question is, how can it create a membrane if it is unable to reproduce and thus unable to evolve a protective membrane?

    This is the kind of questions that should keep anti-design fanatics awake at night, No? Aw, Never mind. It won't be long before one of them comes up with a non-solution and declares victory. Paul Feyrabend must have had Darwinists/materialists in mind when he wrote in Against Method:

    The most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society.

    It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you remember our creationist blog host's recent rants against cell membranes? Amphiphilic lipid bilayers form spontaneously. You don't have to code for them if Nature gives them to you for free.
      Check out David Deamer's book, First Life, for a very thorough explanation of why, yes, membranes are a prerequisite for life.

      Delete
    2. If for you an anphiphilic lipid bilayer is a cell membrane...

      Delete
    3. Yes, that is pretty much the point. We have more complicated membranes today, but you don't need complicated membranes to trap molecules in a small space. Small molecules filter inwards much better than big molecules filter outwards, so any chain lengthening reaction (amino acid, nucleotide, sugar) leaves the chain growing inside as monomes filter inwards.
      Bounding a set of related chemical reactions is at the dividing line between pre-life and proto-life, IMHO. Pre-life is building amino acids and nucleotides out of abundant simple feedstocks and energy. Proto-life is trapping those monomers in simple abiotic cells to create trillions of nano-experiments in metabolism.

      Delete
    4. David vun Kannon said
      "We have more complicated membranes today"

      By today you mean since the LUCA. don´t you?
      "Small molecules filter inwards much better"

      Well, sugars, mononucleotides pass trough an anphiphilic lipid bilayer? Which concentration you need in the outside?

      , so any chain lengthening reaction (amino acid, nucleotide, sugar) leaves the chain growing inside as monomes filter inwards.

      And the chain lengthenin reactioon tha remained outside the "membrane"?

      "Bounding a set of related chemical reactions is at the dividing line between pre-life and proto-life, IMHO. Pre-life is building amino acids and nucleotides out of abundant simple feedstocks and energy. Proto-life is trapping those monomers in simple abiotic cells to create trillions of nano-experiments in metabolism."

      You desserve the Nobel prize!

      Delete
    5. David vun Kannon:

      Amphiphilic lipid bilayers form spontaneously. You don't have to code for them if Nature gives them to you for free.

      Grasping at straws, I see. First of all, lipid bilayers form only if the lipids are already present. Do you know that lipids arise all by themselves? Second, a cell membrane is much more complex than a lipid bilayer. Look it up.

      Delete
    6. And look up the research that shows how more complex lipid layers could have evolved from simpler ones.

      As for lipids arising "all by themselves" - a lipid isn't that complex a molecule. Do you have any reason to think that lipids couldn't "arise all by themselves"?

      That seems like grasping at straws to me!

      Delete
  3. CH:Remember when evolution was a fact? Remember when your high school biology teacher explained the origin of life from a muddy pond (or maybe ocean vent) was beyond any doubt?

    No, I don't remember, Cornelius. I don't remember at all.

    I do remember when evolution was a conjecture that made a lot of sense, but which was assumed to be a very slow process that we would never be able to observe in real time, which turned out to be wrong - in fact we can, both in lab and field.

    I also remember a time when, although the double helix was discovered (when I was 1), and assumed to be the vector for heredity we didn't understand its role in phenotypic variation (the genetic code was being decoded when I was nine or ten).

    I also remember at time before statistical techniques had not been developed for testing phylogenetic hypotheses, and before genetic phylogenies could be established.

    I remember a time when the Miller-Urey experiment was much discussed (again, it was conducted around the time of my birth, and a hot topic in my early childhood), and many subsequent times when alternative scenarios (panspermia; clay surfaces; hot vents) were proposed.

    But I do not remember at time when "evolution" was a fact (except in the sense that it has actually been observed), nor "muddy ponds".

    Either your education was faulty, Cornelius, or you weren't paying attention.

    Either way, it would be useful if you would stop propagating the idea now. Evolutionary theory is not, and cannot be, a fact. Theories aren't facts. Data are facts. Theories are models that fit data.

    This is very basic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, evolution theory is not a FACT, it´s only a falsified theory with many (if not all) data, facts that don´t support it, but living a zombie sad existence, enforced to our children at school.
      Then, let children learn a little of intelligence or ID in science class, or move evolutionists tales to the subjet : history of religions

      Delete
    2. Obviously a theory is not a fact, so evolution qua theory is not, and can never be, a fact.

      Neither is it a single hypothesis but a body of theory from which testable hypotheses can be, and are, derived, many of which have been supported by evidence, and some of which have not, and as a result, the theory has been modified. Like all bodies of theory, it is subject to constant modification, because science is a process of fitting models to data, not data to models.

      If ID proponents can provide a theory with comparable explanatory and predictive power, by all means, teach it as an alternative model in schools.

      Delete
    3. "If ID proponents can provide a theory with comparable explanatory and predictive power, by all means, teach it as an alternative model in schools."

      Well actually if ID were comparable, i.e. on equal footing, to the explanatory and predictive pseudo-science of Darwinism, I certainly would not want it to be taught to children either.

      Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

      ,,,for a far more detailed list of failed predictions of neo-Darwinism see Dr. Hunter’s site here:

      Darwin’s Predictions
      http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

      In fact,,,,

      Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

      Whereas, future discoveries predicted by ID:

      A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010
      Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions:
      (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
      (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
      (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
      (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html

      A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html

      Of related note:

      Stephen Meyer looks at Pantheism and Deism, as well as Materialism, compared to Theism, in this following video:

      How The Different Worldviews Compare to The Scientific Evidence We Now Have In Hand - Stephen Meyer on John Ankerberg - video - November 4, 2011
      http://www.lightsource.com/ministry/ankerberg-show/player/discovery-four-the-complexity-and-design-of-the-human-cell-222384.html

      Delete
    4. Elizabeth Liddle said:
      "Obviously a theory is not a fact, so evolution qua theory is not, and can never be, a fact."

      Do you agree that ToE fit the following definition as stated by Gould?:

      "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.·

      Delete
    5. No, I don't, because the ToE is a body of theory, not a single theory. Some aspects of that body are indeed "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent", others are much more speculative and open to testing and modification.

      Delete
    6. May you specify when I became perverse? I mean which aspects of the theory are so well confirmed?

      Delete
    7. May you specify when I became perverse? I mean which aspects of the theory are so well confirmed?

      Well, Darwin's proposed mechanism of adaptation of a population to its environment, namely replication with heritable variation in reproductive success has been confirmed, in the field, lab and in computer models.

      Linnaeus' delineation of nested hierarchies has also been confirmed in new species, in genetics, and in palaentology.

      The inference that these nested hierarchy represent a vast family tree extending over billions of years is also supported by palaeontology with reference to independent dating of the geological column.

      Mechanisms of heritable variation have been delineated.

      Mechanisms of horizontal genetic transfer have also been delineated.

      The role of genetic sequences in regulating the development of multicellular organism, has led to greater understanding of how small differences in genetic sequences can lead to a range of viable phenotypes with potential differences in reproductive success in different environments, i.e. a mechanism by which genetic variants can be subject to "natural selection".

      So I'd say that we can be pretty confident that life started on earth around 3 and a half billion years ago, that both horizontal and longitudinal(but mainly longitudinal) transfer of genetic sequences, with variation, led to variation in reproductive success of the phenotype and thus in both adaptation down lineages and divergence between lineages, reflected in the nested hierarchy of features first noted by Linnaeus.

      In other words we have a good theory to account for the adaptation and diversification of living organisms since their early appearance on earth.

      Delete
  4. In fact, as one evolutionist admitted, “there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem.”

    The "evolutionist" quoted is NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, who served as a referee to help sort through the proposals, pointed out that the submitted proposals spanned a wide variety of potential research.

    (The linked article reports the award of three research grants to explore the origins of life.)

    For the importance of not knowing answers in advance of research, see:

    Ignorance: How It Drives Science by Stuart Firestein, which was published in April.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But this is a lie. Materialists are not claiming ignorance. They're claiming that they do know that life arose by itself without any need for design. In fact, the article points out that both McKay and Lonsdale assume that a fortunate combination of matter and random processes gave rise to living organisms.

      It's all crap, of course, seeing that these "intelligent" folks assume what they're trying to prove.

      Delete
  5. Is it even worth pointing out that evolutionary theory is not, and never has been, a theory about OOL?

    Or will you just ignore that little detail as usual, Cornelius?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's not worth pointing out. It is also not worth pointing out that ID does not claim the existence a particular designer, only that the designer was intelligent.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Which means it is devoid of explanatory power.

      Evolutionary process are also "intelligent" in the sense required.

      Delete
  6. Remember when the National Academy of Science declared that “For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components.

    Dr Hunter's use of this quote is rather amusing, in light of the FACT that life as we know it consists entirely of nonbiological components, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, etc.

    See the Wikipedia article, Composition of the human body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and chemical processes involving them.

      Delete
    2. What about the massive amounts of integrated functional information in life (that vastly exceeds anything man has ever programmed)? If you just ignore the information elephant does it just magically go away?

      Programming of Life - video with references
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

      Delete
    3. Leave it to a Darwinist and/or materialist to misrepresent what others are saying. Hunter is not arguing that life consists of anything other than matter. He's arguing against the brain-dead and superstitious notion that random chemical processes somehow assembled matter into living organisms.

      Delete
    4. Chemical processes aren't random.

      Delete
  7. "Dr Hunter's use of this quote is rather amusing, in light of the FACT that life as we know it consists entirely of nonbiological components, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, etc."

    Hmm, but what about the functional information that we have found in life? Where did it come from?

    Moreover, what about the little FACT that some life, at least the part of life that includes me, has the 'nonbiological component' of consciousness? Please tell me exactly where this consciousness resides in any of the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, etc, molecules?,,,

    Even these atheists/agnostics agree that consciousness presents a fairly nasty barrier to materialistic explanations;

    Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem"
    Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.'
    David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html

    Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel - November 2012 (projected publication date)
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do

    In FACT, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
    Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See the following:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

      Delete
    2. See the following:

      The Mind and Materialist Superstition - Six "conditions of mind" that are irreconcilable with materialism:
      Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html

      Materialism and Human Dignity - Casey Luskin interviews Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook, on the relationship between the mind and the brain. - podcast
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-10-14T15_14_37-07_00

      In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether.
      http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28

      “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Sir John Eccles - Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963

      Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010
      Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.
      http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf

      Moreover,,,

      The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffery Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627

      Facts about NDEs - video clip on the site
      Excerpt: In 1982 a Gallup poll estimated that 8 million Americans have had a near-death experience and a more resent study, a US News & World Report in March of 1997, found that 15 million have had the experience.
      http://www.ndelight.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117&Itemid=63

      Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/

      Near death, explained - By Dr. Mario Beauregard research professor Neuroscience Research Center at the University of Montreal. - April 2012
      Excerpt: These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies.
      NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality.
      http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/singleton/

      Delete
    3. As to your little 'information problem' for the origin of life:

      Perhaps you atheists could start by falsifying this null hypothesis:

      The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010
      Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
      http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

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

      Delete
  8. Remember when evolution was a fact? Remember when your high school biology teacher explained the origin of life from a muddy pond (or maybe ocean vent) was beyond any doubt?

    No, I don't remember my biology teacher telling us that it was an established fact that life originated in a muddy pond. Does anyone else? Or is this a fiction run up out of whole straw?

    What I do remember learning in Sunday school as a certainty was how God created the heavens and the Earth in six days.

    I also remember being somewhat disappointed when I found that there was not the slightest shred of evidence to support that claim.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Remember when we thought all knowledge came to us though the senses, otherwise known as empiricism? Remember when we thought anything not capable of being verified by experience was nonsense, otherwise known as Logical Positivism? Remember when we though that science was nothing more than a useful instrument in understanding the world, but couldn't actually tell us anything about reality, otherwise known as instrumentalism?

    It ends up we found errors in these ideas in these conceptions of human knowledge. This is not to say that evidence doesn't play a role in science, but that we had it backwards.

    So, there is compelling evidence that collaborates evolutionary theory. It's just that you do not recognize *your* conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object, which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself' - Scott - Many Worlds proponent
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html?showComment=1334583967799#c7217305678409346277

      What makes the preceding comment from 'Scott' particularly absurd is that 'Scott', who believes in 10^500 versions of himself, denies the reality of his own consciousness, something he experiences firsthand, in order to believe in 10^500 versions of himself. Thus, it can be literally said that 'Scott' has lost his 'mind' in order to believe in 10^500 versions of himself. Yet when pressed 'Scott' denied that he held his mind was a epiphenomena (a illusion) of his 10^500 brain:

      'No. I do not think my own consciousness is an illusion.' - Scott - many worlds proponent who believes in 10^500 versions of himself
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/nas-authority-it-makes-no-theological.html?showComment=1339707034302#c8475342352229004151

      God Versus Science: A Futile Struggle By J Roy Singham - May 2012
      Excerpt: Materialists believe that matter is unconscious, a tenable opinion. But they also believe that consciousness is an illusion. That belief is absurd, almost madness.
      http://ezinearticles.com/?God-Versus-Science:-A-Futile-Struggle&id=6940055

      i.e. Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

      i.e. Scott has chosen to believe in imagination. no matter how absurd, rather than reality.

      Delete
    2. OF course, that assumes that you actually have a firm grasp of the MWT. And comments like these illustrate that you do not.

      Furthermore, keep quote mining me in a way which ignores where I've corrected your misrepresentations over and over again.

      Are you really that desperate that you'll resort to a transparent and disingenuous attempt at ridicule - like this.

      Let me let you in on a little secret. No one is fooled.

      Delete
    3. But did you really choose to respond with indignation or are you merely a puppet to the random fluctuations of your 10^500 multiversal brain.??? :)

      Delete
    4. Scott dixit :"So, there is compelling evidence that collaborates evolutionary theory".
      Only years of brainwashing from childhood can render such weird claims.
      So that is the "proof" that OOL must be true , without any facts (don´t worry that experts are saying "there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem") like a pre requisite for darwinian evolution.
      That is a so big FAITH that should be convicted darwinism to a religion subjet. And I say more: darwinism should be convicted to a mental hospital. You know, pre-mouse to bat at random, pre-bear or X to a blue whale, pre-frog to prince, etc, etc, etc....

      Delete
  10. Hey, I've got a question:

    According to the article there were 76 proposals submitted to this Origin of Life Challenge, and not a single one came from an ID proponent or suggested ways to test any ID related hypotheses.

    Why is that?

    If you guys have all this positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism, why could no one come up with even a single testable hypothesis to investigate ID further?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "why could no one come up with even a single testable hypothesis to investigate ID further?"

      Richard Dawkins came up with one to see if intelligence could have possibly been involved!

      Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

      "It is possible that you might find evidence for that when you look at the details of molecular biology and biochemistry you might find a signature of some sort of designer" - Richard Dawkins - quote at 3:50 mark of video

      Moreover ID is, using Darwin's own criteria for establishing the plausibility of his theory of evolution, the most causally adequate explanation for the information we find in life:

      Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video
      https://vimeo.com/32148403

      Delete
    2. Thorton:

      If you guys have all this positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism, why could no one come up with even a single testable hypothesis to investigate ID further?

      Wow. Talk about hypocrisy. Lonsdale obviously made up his mind that he's looking for OOL hypotheses that assume that life arose on its own. Why lie?

      I have said it many times. ID does make a simple and falsifiable prediction which is that life on earth is organised hierarchically so as to form a non-nested tree of life. This is what is observed at the genetic level.

      Delete
    3. The thing is, any crackpot can make a testable prediction.

      For example, imagine I claimed we can know we live in a virtual realty simulation because the sky is blue. This is what we observe when looking at the sky at the ground level, right?

      So, it would seem that not all testable predictions are equal.

      Specifically, I haven't explained how the sky being blue plays a hard to vary explanatory role in why we supposedly live in a virtual reality simulation. As such, it's a bad explanation, which we discard.

      Right? Or do you accept the above conclusion merely because it's testable?

      In the same sense, why don't you enlighten us as to how your supposed designer plays a hard to vary functional role in all life on earth being organized hierarchically so as to form a non-nested tree of life? Please be specific.

      Delete
    4. BA, I think Dawkins is referring to a watermark, such as what Craig Venter used in M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0.

      http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/24/venters-newest-synthetic-bacteria-has-secret-messages-coded-in-its-dna/

      To verify that they had synthesized a new organism and not assembled the DNA from another natural bacteria, scientists encoded a series of ‘watermarks’ into the genes of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. There are four of these hidden messages: an explanation of the coding system used, a URL address for those who crack the code to go visit, a list of 46 authors and contributors, and a series of famous quotes. The presence of these watermarks verifies that M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 truly is synthetic and demonstrates the precision and power of JCVI’s new techniques in synthetic biology.

      Are you suggesting we've found something like this in other forms of life?

      Delete
    5. Thorton said
      "Hey, I've got a question:

      According to the article there were 76 proposals submitted to this Origin of Life Challenge, and not a single one came from an ID proponent or suggested ways to test any ID related hypotheses.

      Why is that?

      If you guys have all this positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism, why could no one come up with even a single testable hypothesis to investigate ID further?"

      Since more than one hundred years an ID friendly scientist, Louis Pasteur, showed experimentally that life comes from life. There is no proof it could be in other way. Or do you have one?

      Delete
    6. I have said it many times. ID does make a simple and falsifiable prediction which is that life on earth is organised hierarchically so as to form a non-nested tree of life. This is what is observed at the genetic level.

      Two questions, Louis:

      1. Why is this a prediction of ID?

      2. Why is it not consistent with standard evolutionary theory?

      Delete
    7. Blas

      Since more than one hundred years an ID friendly scientist, Louis Pasteur, showed experimentally that life comes from life. There is no proof it could be in other way. Or do you have one?


      So what is the testable hypothesis for ID you're proposing, and the method to actually test it?

      Delete
    8. Thorton said

      "So what is the testable hypothesis for ID you're proposing,"

      Live come from life. Already tested long time ago. Not yet falsified.

      "and the method to actually test it?"

      Obtain a life form from chemicals not obtained from life forms.

      Delete
    9. Blas

      Thorton said

      "So what is the testable hypothesis for ID you're proposing,"

      Live come from life. Already tested long time ago. Not yet falsified.


      That's still not a testable hypothesis. That was a general observation, not tested in any rigorous form.

      I'm asking for a testable ID hypothesis. If you can't think of one, just say so.

      "and the method to actually test it?"

      Obtain a life form from chemicals not obtained from life forms.


      That's not a method, that's a result. What is the testing method and protocols?

      You seem to be avoiding answers to the actual questions being asked.

      Delete
    10. Thorton said

      "That's still not a testable hypothesis. That was a general observation, not tested in any rigorous form."

      Read history of science, Louis Pasteur experiments. As I said the hypothesis was tested. Not yet falsified, may be you have a way to falsify it.

      "That's not a method, that's a result. What is the testing method and protocols?

      You seem to be avoiding answers to the actual questions being asked."

      Well, you have said there are more than seventy hypotesis for the abiogenesis is on your side test them. I stay with Pasteur.

      Delete
    11. Blas, while it's fun to watch your cute tap-dancing, you still haven't provided a testable hypothesis for ID.

      "life comes from life" isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's an observation, like saying "the sky is blue". Do you even understand what a hypothesis is?

      What is the actual hypothesis you are proposing, and the actual tests science can perform? What is its methodology, and how would it be positive evidence for ID?

      Delete
    12. Me:

      I have said it many times. ID does make a simple and falsifiable prediction which is that life on earth is organised hierarchically so as to form a non-nested tree of life. This is what is observed at the genetic level.

      Liddle:

      Two questions, Louis:

      1. Why is this a prediction of ID?


      Because intelligent design, especially one that uses elementary building blocks like DNA, necessarily uses inheritance as a way to reuse existing, tried and tested designs. This is called object-oriented design, a mainstay of software engineering. Moreover, intelligent designers are not restricted to a nested hierarchy. They are free to mix and match as they please at every level of the hierarchy, not just the bottom or primitive levels. Call it multiple inheritance or horizontal gene transfer, the genetic evidence for it will be found at various places of the global genomic map.

      Liddle:

      2. Why is it not consistent with standard evolutionary theory?

      As far as I know, the theory of evolution provides no natural mechanism for widespread horizontal gene transfers within the higher branches of the tree of life.

      Delete
    13. Louis Savain

      As far as I know, the theory of evolution provides no natural mechanism for widespread horizontal gene transfers within the higher branches of the tree of life.


      Since no one has discovered widespread horizontal gene transfers within the higher branches of the tree of life, why is that a problem?

      Delete
    14. Thorton:

      Since no one has discovered widespread horizontal gene transfers within the higher branches of the tree of life, why is that a problem?

      Count your blessings while you can. Only a minuscule part of the genomic space has been searched. By the way, Thorton, do you enjoy putting your foot in your mouth or were you born that way?

      Delete
    15. Louis Savain

      Thorton: "Since no one has discovered widespread horizontal gene transfers within the higher branches of the tree of life, why is that a problem?"

      Count your blessings while you can.


      LOL! Find them first Louis, then crow. Science is equally worried about when you Creationists will find your first crockoduck.

      Delete
    16. The reason they have not been found is that a bunch of brain-dead evolutionists currently dominate the biological research community and they're not interested in falsifying evolution. They're only interested in promoting it. The longer they postpone the inevitable, the harder they will fall.

      I'll be watching from the bleachers with a bag of Cheetos and a smile on my face. LOL.

      Delete
  11. Regardless of where you stand on the dawrin issue... Complexity, conciousness and order will ALWAYS support Theism more than Naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Again, see Artificial cells evolve proteins to structure semiconductors."

    Any attempt to even suggest that the above referenced article has even the vaguest relation to the proposition of darwinian evolution is laughable. I have to quote half the article to get all the good parts:

    "The scientists attached a piece of DNA to each of the beads, encoding a unique silica-forming protein, or silicatein. This DNA is a random combination of genes from two related silicateins, interspersed with random mutations.

    How would the DNA get attached to each bead without the scientists? If the DNA is from two related silacateins, is it really random? Did they "randomly" combine themselves, or did someone randomly combine them?

    Then the scientists soaked the beads in watery mixture of the bacterial proteins necessary to turn the DNA into silicateins and covered each bead with a thin layer of oil, trapping water and the enzymes inside. With the artificial cell complete, the interior enzymes made the silicateins, which stuck to antibodies covering the bead’s surface.

    If that's random, then what isn't random? If that's not planned and executed with an intended result, what is?

    Next the scientists triggered a mineral-forming reaction. They broke open the “cells,” soaked them in a solution containing the silicon or titanium molecule used by these proteins, and captured them with a new oil layer.

    Is that the evolution part? Or just more of the careful sequence of events that makes the evolutionary event possible?

    The silicatein proteins gathered either silicon dioxide or titanium dioxide inside the oil bubble, depending on which mineral precursor they were fed. Then the cells were subjected to two “selection pressures” to weed out non-functional genes and identified those that coded for proteins which made extra strong minerals.

    Identified? What part of evolution is the deliberate search for a subset that matches specified criteria.

    The scientists sorted the beads by size, collecting the largest beads with the thickest mineral layers. Then they shook the beads to break up the mineral coating. Beads that survived this process contained genes for proteins that made minerals of intermediate strength.

    I'm still not getting it. Couldn't they wait for the beads to sift and sort themselves?

    But there it is. The word "survival." That's it. The result of their carefully planned experiment is described in a term also used to describe differential reproduction, even though it has nothing to do with that at all.

    If they were looking for fragments of broken mineral coating they could just as easily say the opposite, that the broken ones "survived" and the other ones didn't. It's meaningless.

    There's no end to this sort of "evidence." Throw it on the ever-growing "mountain of evidence." But dig as deep as you like and the likes of this is all you'll find.

    Of course some will say, 'But this paper isn't claiming to prove evolution, so mocking it doesn't refute evolution.' You're right - it's just fun. And it's all I can get since no one ever wants to cough up the research that provides any meaningful, specific support for theory that no one seems able to agree on a meaningful, specific definition of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your appraisal of the paper badwiring. And agree especially with this:

      "no one ever wants to cough up the research that provides any meaningful, specific support for theory"

      Delete
    2. Bad Wiring: Any attempt to even suggest that the above referenced article has even the vaguest relation to the proposition of darwinian evolution is laughable.

      For you to realize how this is related, you'd have to have more than a vague understanding of the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory. Apparently, you do not.

      The goal of the research was to allow marine sponges to build new proteins for the purpose of creating semiconductors. However, these researchers did not have an explanatory theory as to exactly which way to mutate the genome of a marine sponge to get the proteins they wanted. In fact, they didn't know exactly which kinds of proteins a marine sponge could build. All they knew is that they wanted proteins related to creating semiconductors and thought that a marine sponge could build them based on the background knowledge that they currently build other minerals.

      So, in the absence of an explanatory theory, they employed a useful rule of thumb: randomly mutating a strand of DNA could result in a sequence that builds some form of new protein that, when synthesized, could be useful in building semiconductors. Since the researchers wouldn't have know exactly why mutating those particular aspects of the DNA strand in that particular way ended up with that particular protein, this would represent non-explanatory knowledge.

      If we do X, we get Y. But we lack an explanatory theory as to why specifically doing X results specifically in Y. It's simply a useful rule of thumb, since we can plug this sequence into a marine sponge and get semiconductor related proteins.

      Again, this is in contrast to conjecturing exactly which aspects of a strand of DNA to mutate to build a preselected, specific protein for use in a specific aspect of building semiconductors. If these researchers had an explanatory theory of how to build the particular protein that they wanted, they wouldn't have used a rule of thumb based on background knowledge. Rather, they would have tested that particular theory because it would have represented an explanatory theory about how specific genes results in specific proteins. Had they ended up with the exact protein they wanted, the results would have been much more significant than merely employing a rule of thumb.

      So, not only can we create non-explanatory knowledge, but we can create explanatory knowledge. On the other hand, evolutionary processes are not people. They can only create non-explanatory knowledge.

      Specifically, what makes people unique is that we're universal explainers, which is how we explain our relatedly recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge.

      So, the experiment represents an example of creating a protein as a form of non-explantory knowledge, rather than explanatory knowledge.

      From the cells that survived the selection process, the scientists randomly picked 30 genes from either the silicon or titanium dioxide-forming proteins and sequenced them. Not surprisingly, the researchers found sequences common to the two original silicateins. But in each group, they also found a gene completely different from the starting proteins.

      The scientists synthesized the proteins coded for by these new genes and studied the minerals produced by each one. The standard protein, silicatein α, makes clumps of silica particles. Both new proteins, however, produced dispersed nanoparticles containing the metal oxides. And the new silica-forming protein, named silicatein X1, could even make folded sheets of silica-protein fibers.

      Delete
    3. So, while it's not starting complexly from scratch, new proteins were found that were completely different from either of the two starting proteins. Nor does evolutionary theory suggest any modern day protein was formed from scratch.

      To use another example, imagine I had a genetic disease. One option would be to develop a treatment based on the non-explanatory knowledge that randomly mutating some sequence of my DNA might end up having a positive effect on my symptoms. Again, this would represent a treatment based merely on a useful rule of thumb.

      Another option would be to develop a treatment based on a conjectured explanatory theory of exactly which genes to mutate, exactly how to mutate them resulting in a specific physiological change in my symptoms. This would represent explanatory knowledge.

      Assuming both your doctor had both forms of knowledge available to him, which form of treatment do you think he would use? Which form of treatment would you prefer?

      Delete
    4. "So, the experiment represents an example of creating a protein as a form of non-explantory knowledge, rather than explanatory knowledge."

      Hmmm, well that certainly rules out your ability to explain whether it was Darwinian or not doesn't it!

      Warning stay away from Medical Doctors who believe the following:

      'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object, which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself' - Scott - Many Worlds proponent

      Delete
    5. BA: Hmmm, well that certainly rules out your ability to explain whether it was Darwinian or not doesn't it!

      No, it doesn't. Evolutionary processes create non-explanatory knowledge. It's the same underlying principle. That's why it's related.

      Again, for you to realize how this is related, you'd have to have more than a vague understanding of the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory. Apparently, you do not.

      Delete
    6. Scott self deluded word salad does not represent solid empirical evidence period!

      Delete
    7. batspit77

      "self deluded word salad does not represent solid empirical evidence period!"


      Batspit77, in a perfect world a reverse image of that would be tattooed across your forehead so you could be reminded of it every time you looked in the mirror.

      Delete
    8. Thorton I would be more than willing to listen to any specific evidence you ever cited for the origination of a molecular machine or for a functional protein by purely neo-Darwinian processes, but alas you always only hurl ad hominem and never present any specific evidence. The vague references you rarely do cite never provide the promised overwhelming evidence you adamantly claim exists for Darwinism. Apparently the evidence for Darwinism is so rare and precious that they won't even allow you access to it! :)

      Delete
    9. batspit77

      The vague references you rarely do cite never provide the promised overwhelming evidence you adamantly claim exists for Darwinism.


      Actually they do, but apparently you couldn't find anyone to read them to you and explain the sciency words.

      Delete
    10. So that's what they did with those thousands of unemployed comedians, they gave them jobs as darwinian trolls,,,

      Ba Dum Tss!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

      Delete
    11. batspit77

      So that's what they did with those thousands of unemployed comedians, they gave them jobs as darwinian trolls,,,


      And the ones too stupid to employ anywhere all became Intelligent Design Creationists. :D

      Delete
    12. BA: Scott self deluded word salad does not represent solid empirical evidence period!

      Except, I didn't post "word salad". I posted a coherent argument that referenced empirical observations from an article that references a research paper.

      Delete
    13. To bad the research paper did not prove Darwinian evolution with empirical observation Scott. As Badwiring put it:

      "But there it is. The word "survival." That's it. The result of their carefully planned experiment is described in a term also used to describe differential reproduction, even though it has nothing to do with that at all.

      If they were looking for fragments of broken mineral coating they could just as easily say the opposite, that the broken ones "survived" and the other ones didn't. It's meaningless.

      There's no end to this sort of "evidence." Throw it on the ever-growing "mountain of evidence." But dig as deep as you like and the likes of this is all you'll find. "

      ,,,, Scott think about this for a second, if you are reduced to having to use such a pathetic example as this, which has intelligent design written all over it, to try to show that purely Darwinian processes can produce JUST ONE functional protein, what does this really say about the 'fact' of evolution. It clearly tells me that you guys live in a dream world,,, Frankly, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

      note:

      Scant search for the Maker
      Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
      http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

      A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
      The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
      http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution

      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
    14. In a nutshell, they wanted dogs with shorter hair, so they bred a bunch of dogs and kept the ones with shorter hair. Except in this case it was a different organism and a different attribute. They also observed the responses to environmental changes admittedly without understanding the cause and effect relationship.

      I'm impressed that a biological organism can respond to environmental changes so effectively. I'm even a little surprised, but not much.

      But we're still looking at the same degree of variation observed by anyone breeding anything for thousands of years.

      I'm with you 75% of the way. Biological organisms have ways of getting things done that are both marvelous and unexplained. They just do it, and, as you say, we don't need to know why or how to put it to work.

      And that's not the "evolution" I debate against. That's the evolution I'm certain of. But this research does not promote or further the idea that entire types of organisms are produced from such gradual changes to existing organisms. More importantly, it doesn't depend on it.

      When I refer to darwinian evolution, I refer to the origin of species. This demonstrates first that biology doesn't need the premise of a darwinian origin of species to be fruitful. As a side point, it shows the eagerness of true believers in such origins to grasp at anything whether or not it supports such belief.

      The rhetoric is a mountain of evidence, but the behavior looks more like the scene from Titanic right after the ship disappears.

      Delete
    15. badwiring

      When I refer to darwinian evolution, I refer to the origin of species. This demonstrates first that biology doesn't need the premise of a darwinian origin of species to be fruitful. As a side point, it shows the eagerness of true believers in such origins to grasp at anything whether or not it supports such belief.


      I'd love to hear you explanation for the fossil record. It's estimated that over 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. We have between 2-10 million species alive today, and the total number of different species that have existed on the planet over the last 600 million years is estimated to be over 750 million.

      Did your magic designer swing by every couple centuries for the last 600 million years and *POOF* a few new species into existence? What about the mass extinctions at the end of the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous periods?

      Go ahead and give us your alternate explanation for the empirical data. Don't for get to provide some supporting evidence.

      Delete
    16. thorton claims (again without citation):

      "We have between 2-10 million species alive today, and the total number of different species that have existed on the planet over the last 600 million years is estimated to be over 750 million."

      and yet the fine print that Thorton omitted states:

      One persistent misrepresentation, that evolutionists continually portray of the fossil record, is that +99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct because of 'necessary evolutionary transitions'. Yet the fact is that 40 to 80% of all current living species found on the earth are represented fairly deeply in the fossil record (and overarching phyla are represented far deeper than that).

      Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en

      The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011
      Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar

      Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
      "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology

      Moreover, Darwin predicts we should have millions of 'bottom up' transitional fossil forms. Yet those hypothetical transitional fossils simply are not there:

      "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
      David Kitts - Paleontologist

      The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028115

      "Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented in the fossil record, despite being told in many text books that only about 0.1% are in this category. The rocks testify that no macro-evolutionary change has ever occurred. With the Cambrian Explosion complex fish, trilobites and other creatures appear suddenly without any precursors. Evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record is highly contentious."
      Paul James-Griffiths via Dr. Arthur Jones

      Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010
      Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,,
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100618a



      Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes
      http://vimeo.com/30932397

      The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM

      Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes
      http://vimeo.com/30926629

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

      Delete
    17. Sorry batspit77. but self deluded word salad does not represent solid empirical evidence.

      Delete
    18. Well Thorton, seeing as I have peer reviewed references and commentary from evolutionists themselves it would seem that if you were honest with the evidence then you would admit that the evidence and Darwin's theory are severely in conflict. But this is not the case. Why do you ignore clear evidence Throton? Badwiring certainly did not ignore Scott's reference but addressed it honestly and found it wanting, and I agree with his very honest, restrained, assessment. I see nothing in Scott's reference that is compelling, and even complained to the 'word salad' he used to try to make it comport in any way, shape, or form to Darwinism. Yet you found nothing 'weird' in his severe word play. Why is this Thorton? Why such blatant hypocricy of standard? Do you even care for truth at all?

      Delete
    19. bornagain77: Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph

      Sorry, but the "Darwinian Prediction" in your link is incorrect. The designation of phyla refers to early branches, especially those that have diverged significantly. It's somewhat arbitrary whether a particular branching is called a phylum or some other level of classification. What the Theory of Evolution claims, and the evidence supports, is a continuous branching process.

      bornagain77: I have peer reviewed references and commentary from evolutionists themselves it would seem that if you were honest with the evidence then you would admit that the evidence and Darwin's theory are severely in conflict.

      Don't see the peer-review, and quote-mines hardly count. You're still left with the evidence of vast numbers of extinctions, which supports a trial-and-error process.

      Delete
    20. badwiring: But this research does not promote or further the idea that entire types of organisms are produced from such gradual changes to existing organisms.

      It shows the sufficiency of stochastic variation and selection to originate complex structures.

      badwiring: When I refer to darwinian evolution, I refer to the origin of species.

      You probably don't mean species either. Mice can speciate in a few generations, for instance. Perhaps you mean the common ancestry of organisms as diverse as dinosaurs and ducks, bats and bears, humans and hummingbirds.

      Delete
    21. Zach, sorry you are wrong. Darwinism predict diversity to precede disparity, and as leading paleontologists I cited conceded in their peer reviewed study disparity precedes diversity, not only for phyla but for lower classifications as well. Word salad does not negate this fact. i.e. You Fail!

      Delete
    22. BadWiring: In a nutshell, they wanted dogs with shorter hair, so they bred a bunch of dogs and kept the ones with shorter hair. Except in this case it was a different organism and a different attribute. They also observed the responses to environmental changes admittedly without understanding the cause and effect relationship.

      If dog breeders had an explanatory theory that modifying specific genes in a specific way would result in the features they wanted in a cost effective way, they wouldn't bother with breading generation after generation. They would just change modify those genes and test to see if they got the results they wanted. Right?

      But we lack such an explanatory theory. Nor do we know exactly all the different options which are available. As such, we use a rule of thumb over multiple generations. This is a form of conjecture and refutation which creates non-explanatory knowledge.

      BadWiring: I'm impressed that a biological organism can respond to environmental changes so effectively. I'm even a little surprised, but not much.

      Are you sure we read the same paper? If so, are you saying that synthetic cells are organisms?

      Otherwise, there was no organism to respond to environmental changes. Nor did they use the entire DNA of a marine sponge. Rather, it appears that they only inserted the selected sequences into an actual marine sponge after the sequence was selected. So, this experiment factored out any sort of vague "intelligence" in the cell, which one might appeal to in the case of breading dogs.

      BadWiring: But we're still looking at the same degree of variation observed by anyone breeding anything for thousands of years.

      Thousands of years ago, we had yet to discover DNA. So we didn't have the background knowledge that mutating DNA represented a form of conjecture. However, researches did have this background knowledge, and applied it in the experiment. This is how they managed to get results in a single generation. However, like breeders thousands of years ago, it's still limited to a useful rule of thumb since we lack a specific explanation as to why changing those genes resulted in the proteins created.

      Delete
    23. BadWiring: I'm with you 75% of the way. Biological organisms have ways of getting things done that are both marvelous and unexplained. They just do it, and, as you say, we don't need to know why or how to put it to work.

      Again, are synthetic cells organisms?

      BadWiring: And that's not the "evolution" I debate against. That's the evolution I'm certain of. But this research does not promote or further the idea that entire types of organisms are produced from such gradual changes to existing organisms. More importantly, it doesn't depend on it.

      It's an example of creating knowledge in the absence of an explanatory theory. it's an example of creating non-explanatory knowledge. And it's an example of both of these things occurring in a synthetic cell containing only enzymes and DNA wrapped in oil.

      BadWiring: When I refer to darwinian evolution, I refer to the origin of species. This demonstrates first that biology doesn't need the premise of a darwinian origin of species to be fruitful. As a side point, it shows the eagerness of true believers in such origins to grasp at anything whether or not it supports such belief.

      The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, as found in the genome, was created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. It was actually created over time, rather than simply being located somewhere else previously and having with some unexplainable origin.

      This shows this same rule of thumb at work. It also shows that when we, as designers, lack an explanatory theory, we punt and use a rule of thumb. But when we have an explanatory theory we use it because we make more progress. In other words, we can explain our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge in that we prefer explanatory theories. This reflects progress in our ability to, well, make progress.

      On the other hand, you seem to think a designer that is supposedly more advanced designed the biosphere. However, if this is the case, then why did this designer use a rule of thumb? Do we know more about how to make progress that your designer? Did the designer have to punt and use a rule of thumb?

      How do you explain this discrepancy?

      Delete
    24. So its not that you don't have any evidence to support Darwinism that is important, it is that you don't know how God did it that is important? i.e. The alternative is unthinkable!

      All science so far! :)

      Delete
    25. First, I've already referenced evidence that strongly collaborates evolutionary theory. And there is plenty more where that came from.

      Second, we discard a infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field of science. Why should your preferred designer be any different?

      Without a functional reason to prefer one of countless variants, advocating one of them, in preference to the others, is irrational.

      Delete
    26. "I've already referenced evidence that strongly collaborates evolutionary theory. And there is plenty more where that came from."

      No it doesn't and no there isn't!

      "Second, we discard a infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field of science. Why should your preferred designer be any different?"

      You 'theory of knowledge' is lacking to put it kindly 10^500 versions of Scott

      Delete
    27. Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en

      bornagain77: Darwinism predict diversity to precede disparity,

      The chart doesn't show diversity vs. disparity, but number of phyla across time. As phyla are an arbitrary division of clades, the chart doesn't represent what you claim it does.

      Delete
    28. Scott: "I've already referenced evidence that strongly collaborates evolutionary theory. And there is plenty more where that came from."

      BA: No it doesn't and no there isn't!

      Yes I have. Science doesn't prove anything is positively true. This is because no one has yet to formulate a "principle of induction" that actually works in practice. (And we can say the same about the current crop of ID, in that no ID proponent has actually formulated a "principle of design detection" that works in practice either.)

      So, scientific theories are tested by observations, not derived from them.

      But, by all means, feel free to enlighten us as to how you've solved this problem. Please be specific.

      Scott: "Second, we discard a infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field of science. Why should your preferred designer be any different?"

      BA: You 'theory of knowledge' is lacking to put it kindly 10^500 versions of Scott

      And it's lacking because? Or have you yet again resorted to a failed attempt at ridiculing a theory you're clueless about?

      Delete
    29. Zach the only thing that is 'arbitrary' in the whole thing is your rampant excuse making for uncle Charley.

      Delete
    30. Scott:

      "Yes I have."

      Phil:

      "No you haven't"

      Delete
    31. bornagain77: he only thing that is 'arbitrary' in the whole thing is your rampant excuse making

      Still, the chart you provided doesn't show diversity vs. disparity, but number of phyla across time. As phyla are an arbitrary division of clades, the chart doesn't represent what you claim it does.

      Delete
    32. The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011
      Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar

      Delete
    33. batspit77

      The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011


      Just so we're clear - that would be this David Tyler, a YEC and member of the Biblical Creation Society. A guy with zero training in biology or paleontology and who works for the Department of Clothing Design and Technology, Hollings Faculty of Food, Clothing & Hospitality Management, Manchester Metropolitan University.

      All science so far!

      Delete
    34. Thorton, I know you are all about showing how atheism is so superior to Theism by ridiculing and mocking anyone who has the audacity to believe that the unfathomable levels of complexity found in life are not the result of time and chance (though you have ZERO empirical evidence for the creative power of time and chance) but perhaps instead of your usual knee jerk ad hominem attack, demonstrating how much more reasonable atheists are than Theists, you could actually look at the referenced article Dr. Tyler was commenting on?

      Evolutionary uniformitarianism - Douglas H. Erwin - Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC
      Excerpt: Fig. 1. First occurrences of phyla, classes and equivalent ranked stem-clades during the Ediacaran, Cambrian and Ordovician periods.,,,
      Fig. 2. Cumulative diversity of phyla, classes and equivalent ranked stem-clades during the Ediacaran, Cambrian and Ordovician periods.,,
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160611000443

      Thorton,,, Disparity preceding diversity is simply not what Darwinism predicted for the fossil record!

      Of related note to Thorton's ad hominem, here is,,

      The Flowchart of Objections to Intelligent Design
      http://sententias.org/2012/06/22/id-flowchart/

      Please note where Thorton ranks in the flowchart! :)

      Delete
  13. Louis Savain,

    "Wow. Talk about hypocrisy. Lonsdale obviously made up his mind that he's looking for OOL hypotheses that assume that life arose on its own. Why lie?"

    That's a dumb thing to say. You're suggesting that any capable ID proponents "knew" they'd be blackballed and so wouldn't bother to test that knowledge. Your hero Cornelius, did this when he didn't submit his abstract, to hapsat explaining how darwin was a fool. Or am I wrong cornelius?

    Is this how you see the world working, Savan? If you have a hunch about something, such as being blackballed or evolution, then there is no need to test it. It looks to me like that's what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. T. Cook,

      Creationists don't have to test anything. They already know everything they need to know. That's convenient, because it saves the energy that would have to be expended in trying to learn.

      Look at the Creationists who post here. They are intellectually lazy.

      Delete
    2. "Creationists don't have to test anything. They already know everything they need to know.,,, Look at the Creationists who post here. They are intellectually lazy."

      1 Thessalonians 5:21
      but test everything; hold fast what is good.

      Let There Be Light
      http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2012/02/let-there-be-light.html

      What evidence is found for the first life on earth?
      http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html

      Cambrian Explosion - Refutation Of Human Evolution
      http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2010/08/corrected-link.html

      Christian Apologetics
      http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2011/10/christian-apologetics.html

      Newsboys - God's Not Dead - music
      http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FMF12FNU

      Delete
    3. Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins - Casey Luskin June 22, 2012
      Excerpt: The take-home message here is that the ID movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the "waiting time" for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth. There are good reasons to expect that random mutations cannot build many complex features we see in biology. Some non-random process that can "look ahead" and find complex advantageous features is necessary.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can_random_muta061221.html

      Delete
    4. BA: Some non-random process that can "look ahead" and find complex advantageous features is necessary.

      Then, by all means, explain why over 98% of all species that ever existed has gone extinct.

      Evolutionary theory explains this percentage in that the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations was created using a useful rule of thumb, and represents non-explantory knowledge.

      Let me guess, "that's just what God must have wanted."?

      Delete
    5. "Then, by all means, explain why over 98% of all species that ever existed has gone extinct."

      I guess if Darwinists keep repeating the same lie (in the same thread no less) then it magically turns into truth for them:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post.html?showComment=1340455809726#c7564415835521040064

      Delete
  14. Cornelius, how did you get picture of Pedant and me just before hot dog eating contest? I’m the guy on the right.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BA77 (aka "batspit"), Your interchanges with the evolutionist proponents on this site provokes within me thoughts of a rather humorous allegorical type of comparison coming from the film industry. It is a scene from the Monty Python film, In Search of the Holy Grail. It is a scene where King Arthur is confronted by the Black Knight. You can see it at:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

    No doubt your arguments are perceived by the evolutionists as: "tis but a scratch" "only a flesh wound", "I have had worse" and the response is "I am invincible", "the black knight always triumphs", "come back here, I'll bite your legs off".

    Watch it through a couple of times. It gets funnier each time.

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

    ReplyDelete
  17. Remember when evolution was a fact? Remember when your high school biology teacher explained the origin of life from a muddy pond (or maybe ocean vent) was beyond any doubt?

    No, I don't remember my biology teacher telling us that it was an established fact that life originated in a muddy pond. Does anyone else? Or is this a fiction run up out of whole straw?

    What I do remember learning in Sunday school as a certainty was how God created the heavens and the Earth in six days.

    I also remember being somewhat disappointed when I found that there was not the slightest shred of evidence to support that claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also remember being somewhat disappointed when I found that there was not the slightest shred of evidence to support that claim.

      be disappointed no more Ian!

      The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
      Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

      “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
      Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation
      http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594

      “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
      George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

      “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.”
      Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

      ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events'
      Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere;

      "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude."
      Prof. Henry F. Schaefe

      Delete
  18. bornagain77 June 23, 2012 7:31 PM

    [...]

    be disappointed no more Ian!

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978...


    Hallelujah, brother!

    Slight problem.

    While the best evidence points towards something going 'Bang!' around 13.75bn years ago it doesn't tell us what it was exactly and we have no idea why it went 'Bang! when it did.

    No evidence of a god in there, either, unfortunately

    What we do know, of course, is that the evidence sank Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory, which raises the question: if he could be wrong about something in his own field, what price his being wrong about something outside his own field, say, like his tornado-in-a-junkyard version of the theory of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "While the best evidence points towards something going 'Bang!' around 13.75bn years ago it doesn't tell us what it was exactly and we have no idea why it went 'Bang! when it did."

      Well Ian, since time, as we understand it, did not exist before the Big Bang it makes no sense to ask why it went 'Bang' when it did. But we can ask, from what we know from empirical evidence, what are the necessary characteristics of the 'Banger' of the Big Bang:

      The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914

      What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

      Hope this helps you get over your 'somewhat disappointed' attitude towards Genesis.

      Delete
    2. bornagain77 June 24, 2012 3:25 AM

      [...]

      Well Ian, since time, as we understand it, did not exist before the Big Bang it makes no sense to ask why it went 'Bang' when it did. But we can ask, from what we know from empirical evidence, what are the necessary characteristics of the 'Banger' of the Big Bang:


      The point is we have no idea what existed at or before the Big Bang. Perhaps there was some from of 'meta-time". We simply don't know but that ignorance does not necessarily make the question absurd.

      The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914


      I am familiar with Craig's arguments. Are you also familiar with their refutation?

      As I said at the end of the last section, due to Craig's many factual and logical errors it is incumbent upon any rational person to embrace the conclusion that if these arguments are seen to be faulty then it stands to reason that there is no evidence of god's existence. Given this fact, it shouldn't take much for a rational individual to further conclude that god is most likely non-existent.

      Delete
    3. The point is we have no idea what existed at or before the Big Bang.

      As Tonto would say, "Who is we pale face???"

      Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

      John 1:1-5
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

      Delete
    4. IHS:

      We have to go outside the laws of nature as we know them to explain the Big Bang. In that sense, it is supernatural.

      Delete
  19. Liz, can you learn to love the "truth of the tv set"? After all, the media has been the biggest support system of the so called "theory of evolution" to the general public. You know how the general public watches the boob tube,in general, without any kind of critical thought towards the messages being put forth. Unfortunately that is the way the
    TEO has any kind of traction whatsoever in the modern societies. But of course your own dedication to the philosophy blinds you to that reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I don't understand your question, bpragmatic.

      And what do you mean by my "own dedication to the philosophy" - what philosophy?

      Delete
    3. But let me ask you a question while I am waiting for clarification:

      What part/aspect of the Theory of Evolution do you think is incorrect?

      Delete
    4. Elizabeth

      while bp is chasing rabbits may I ask for your thoughts on the “selfish” gene idea.

      Lets think "chemically" like chemical do.

      1. Gene is a string of nucleotides, which is nothing more than bunch of molecules made of carbon, hydrogen,oxygen and nitrogen. Molecules or atoms don’t care if they are in this or that configuration. It is more likely molecules making gene would exist dissolved, freely floating around instead of chemically formal setup of a gene.

      2. Wouldn’t evolution somehow favor gene’s continuation as a gene itself not as a copy? Nature should evolve mechanisms that eventually manage to lock in one set of genes and keep guarding and perpetuating them forever.

      What I mean is once it gets to me, I wish by then evolution developed mechanisms that can keep me alive and unchanged forever instead of copying me. Copy of me is not me. That would be ultimate, pure, simple unlimited selfishness. Nature should drive for that and for simplicity, elegance and survival only. Why then complications?

      Delete
    5. Eugen,
      I do not chase rabbits in my way of thinking. What do you mean by that? So that I can respond to what you, in your mind are saying.

      Delete
    6. To Elizabeth,
      Philosophy, to me, can be or is an insufficient rattling about to try and explain phenomena that is vastly unobserved and undesribed from an observatioal perspective. LOTS OF SPECULATION BASED ON UNCONFIRMABLE ASSERTIONS. Now tell me how the TEO is different from that. Your answer is something I may or may not look at based on my level of interest and time.

      Delete
    7. Pragmatic

      "What do you mean by that?"

      I just meant “ while you were busy doing something else”.
      Not everything translates well into English. Goes the other way around,too. Example would be when people say “love you to pieces” it freaks me out. It translates horrendously into my first language.

      Nothing new here, I had lots of misunderstandings with people over the years.

      Delete
    8. bpragmatic: Philosophy, to me, can be or is an insufficient rattling about to try and explain phenomena that is vastly unobserved and undesribed from an observatioal perspective. LOTS OF SPECULATION BASED ON UNCONFIRMABLE ASSERTIONS. Now tell me how the TEO is different from that. Your answer is something I may or may not look at based on my level of interest and time.

      I still don't really understand what you are asking. I'm aware that English may not be your first language, but as you don't seem highly motivated to read my response, I'll leave it there, unless you want to clarify.

      Delete
  20. So the strength of a theory is measured by whether it has "traction" in society at large?

    So when most people believed the Sun went around the Earth - because that's how it looked - that meant that the Sun was actually going around the Earth then because that's what most people believed?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zachriel said

    "What the Theory of Evolution claims, and the evidence supports, is a continuous branching process."

    Agree this is what a RM process will do. But when you look at the tree of life :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

    You do not see that. There is no that contonuous branching process but instead a wierd arrange of branches. I know that is because it is not only RM but these tree was pruned by NS. Nut if you add all the fossil record that image will not change really. Ok, it is because all the failed branches do not live fossils. But again, all the branches are very old. Why we do not have recent branches?

    Too many questions and many missed evidence. May I be perverse?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Blas: There is no that contonuous branching process but instead a wierd arrange of branches.

    That's a cladogram. It's all branchings. Not sure what you are saying.

    Blas: Why we do not have recent branches?

    There are recent branchings. The cladogram only provides a coarse view. For instance, mammals are represented by just four species; Homo sapiens, Pan troglodyte, Mus musculous and Rattus norvegicus. A more detailed cladogram would show many more branchings.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think attention has move on to the next article that Cornelius has posted. Does anybody want to hear requested reponses from me to the above questions? If so, I might consider responding. Otherwise, why? And, now that I think about it, why should one respond anyway? It is obvious that, at this point in time, each side has a staunch preference to a certain position. Regardless of the amount of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks Ian for linking to my refutation of William Lane Craig's arguments. I thought I'd chime in here and offer my view. I think everyone is missing the point. The OP is based on a strawman. This isn't about evolution. Evolution cannot start until life comes into existence. This is about origin of life studies and has nothing to do with evolution. The fact of evolution is incontrovertible. The issue scientists are having is figuring out the mechanisms by which the first life came about. There have been some good ideas but clearly there is no consensus yet as to which method might have been more likely.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete