Sunday, December 16, 2012

New Research Shows Retina Complexities

Not Just a Sheet of Light Sensors

New research out of Germany is helping to pinpoint details of how the mammalian retina converts incoming light into digital signals which ultimately make their way to the brain. Before the information is shipped off to the brain, however, it undergoes massive processing which, among other things, helps to extract features present in the incoming image. It is so complex that we are still a long way from understanding how it all works. The new research, as one report explains, “show that the retina is by no means as well understood as is commonly believed.” We have discussed some of the complexities of converting the incoming light into digital signals to be sent to the brain here, here and here. There is no doubt much yet to learn about this incredible image processing capability, but what we do know indicates it is profoundly sophisticated. As the report explains:

The retina in our eyes is not just a sheet of light sensors that – like a camera chip – faithfully transmits patterns of light to the brain. Rather, it performs complex computations, extracting several features from the visual stimuli, e.g., whether the light intensity at a certain place increases or decreases, in which direction a light source moves or whether there is an edge in the image. To transmit this information reliably across the optic nerve - acting as a kind of a cable - to the brain, the retina reformats it into a succession of stereotypic action potentials – it “digitizes” it.

Feature extraction is an important technology these days, with all kinds of applications. Engineers have been working hard at developing such techniques for years. As usual, nature provides examples of astonishing precision and efficiency.

142 comments:

  1. As usual, nature provides examples of astonishing precision and efficiency.

    Nature? You mean Jesus in Heaven. What a great job the Lord did. Too bad he was so busy he didn't prevent the mass murder of kids. Or were the parents of those kids Evolutionists? In that case, their children deserved His Holy Wrath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. troy, you, apparently on purpose, state:

      "Too bad he was so busy he didn't prevent the mass murder of kids. Or were the parents of those kids Evolutionists? In that case, their children deserved His Holy Wrath."

      Thus since evil exists in the world then evolution must be true??? Is this really how your 'science' works? You are kidding right and are just showing how irrational Darwinists are with the evidence?

      As to any influence 'Jesus' has in public schools anymore, wasn't he kicked out of school in 1963 in America?

      The following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:

      The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930

      United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy)
      http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

      AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth
      http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

      What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig - May 2012 - podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960's)
      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism

      Delete
    2. You are a tool of Satan, BA77. Your crazy posts have turned many Christians into atheists that will burn in hell.

      Thank you on behalf of Beelzebub.

      Delete
    3. Okay Okay, where's the camera?,,, how much are you getting paid by Dr. Hunter to be a stooge?

      Delete
    4. By recognizing the presence of evil and that human life may actually have value, you demonstrate it is possible for atheists to ignore their atheism (albeit for very short periods of time). So what's your secret? Meditation? Holding yor breath? So when does human life start having value? Only when the umbilical cord is cut?

      Delete
    5. OK Troy, so what are you saying? Are you saying that Jesus should stop all evil in the world? How would you suggest He deal with the evil in your heart? When you lust after women, gossip about others, blaspheme His name, look down your nose on others, cheat on tests, steal from othes by lying about your children's ages to get cheaper ticket prices, etc.

      If you want God to stop all evil in the world, you and I would both be dead long ago. One day, this will become a reality - heaven and hell, but until then, God has sovereignly chosen to allow people to live as they please(all within His all encompassing will and plan for the world), but He will rightly hold us accountable for our wrong thoughts, actions, inactions, words, selfish motives, etc. This effectively guarantees that none of us can escape His judgment and be forgiven. However, He wants to forgive us. He wants to give us life and to shower His love on us. He wants us to be with Him in heaven for all of eternity so that is why He sent Jesus into the world to die on the cross. His death in our place makes it possible for His justice against sin to be fully carried out while at the same time forgiving and saving those who trust in Jesus as their Savior. However, if we reject this great sacrifice of love that God made for us, we must understand that we deserve God's wrath - not only for our sin, but because we have rejected His love and salvation. No one will be able to blame God if He punishes them for their sin, because He made it possible to be forgiven if we so desire.

      Delete
    6. TokyoJim,

      OK Troy, so what are you saying? Are you saying that Jesus should stop all evil in the world? How would you suggest He deal with the evil in your heart? When you lust after women, gossip about others, blaspheme His name, look down your nose on others, cheat on tests, steal from othes by lying about your children's ages to get cheaper ticket prices, etc.

      While I agree that Troy' argument ,whether serious or not, is weak,he is not alone in its use. God certainly was proactive in the OT. And more recently God's punishment can take the form of hurricanes or earthquakes or tsunamis as part of His Judgement The question is if you believe that God chooses to exercise His wrath on humans in this life then why is he unwilling to protect the most innocent as well.Violation of free will? Can you really freely chose if you know God might cause you house to be hit by a tornado ? God comes out better with the belief that all rewards and punishments are postmortem
      FYI, probably not wise to ask a rhetorical question which in any way compares evil of Newtown to sneaking your kid into a theater at a discount. I realize that you aren't exactly doing that but including both on a list of evils which God allows to happen, does

      Delete
  2. *sigh*

    Just another "Complex therefore design" post from Cornelius. Nothing new to see here.

    Also interesting to note how quickly he put it up on the heels of the last post. One might almost think he was half embarrassed about flat-out claiming each and every person who accepts ToE is a murderer, and wanted to knock it off the top spot of posts. But then, that would be to credit CH far too far...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh- still no evidence from Ritchie that unguided evolution can produce a vision system, so he has ro whine about ID.

      Delete
    2. Ah yes Ritchie, lets ingrain on our youths mind that life is nothing but the end result of a 4.5 billion years of death and survival. How does Richard Dawkins put it? The Magic of Reality?

      Delete
    3. Joe G

      still no evidence from Ritchie that unguided evolution can produce a vision system,

      As I have explain for what seems like a billion times, if you are asking for evidence that evolution is unguided by some (possible supernatural) designer - that is an absolutely impossible request. Science can say nothing about the supernatural.

      Seriously, what are you finding so difficult to grasp about this?

      so he has ro whine about ID.

      This coming from the person who keeps claiming over and over that there is a mountain of evidence for Creationism but whenever he is asked to PRODUCE some, simply throws the burden of proof back to evolution? Ha, ha, and again, ha.

      Delete
    4. Steve -

      Ah yes Ritchie, lets ingrain on our youths mind that life is nothing but the end result of a 4.5 billion years of death and survival.

      And why not? It is true.

      You might be able to invent more pleasant-sounding stories, but so what? Reality does not run according to what you WANT to be true.

      Delete
    5. Steve HansonDecember 16, 2012 7:02 AM
      Ah yes Ritchie, lets ingrain on our youths mind that life is nothing but the end result of a 4.5 billion years of death and survival. How does Richard Dawkins put it? The Magic of Reality?



      To some that makes life even more valuable and wondrous,perhaps it is a lesson that it is the journey not the destination which is important.

      Delete
    6. As I have explain for what seems like a billion times, if you are asking for evidence that evolution is unguided by some (possible supernatural) designer - that is an absolutely impossible request. Science can say nothing about the supernatural.

      And as I have explained to YOU just as many times YOU need POSITIVE evidence for your position and you have nothing. IOW you are demented as what you think is my request actually has nothing to do with what i am asking.

      This coming from the person who keeps claiming over and over that there is a mountain of evidence for Creationism but whenever he is asked to PRODUCE some, simply throws the burden of proof back to evolution?

      Yet I have presented plenty of evidence for ID and all you can do is choke on it.

      Heck you are so freaking ignorant that you don't even know what the debate is all about.

      Delete
    7. -

      Why ATP synthase is evidence for Intelligent Design.



      ATP synthase is evidence for Intelligent Design because it matches the scientific criteria for a designed object/ structure/ event. Namely that necessity and chance cannot account for it- or perhaps evolutionary scientists are just incompetent because they have no idea how to test the claim that necessity an chance can construct ATP synthase- and it contains an ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components-> See How to Test and falsify Intelligent Design.



      IOW the design inference is reached by following Newton’s Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning. That must be what has evos so confused- they know nothing of science nor reasoning.



      More Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks- the (proton translocating) ATP Synthase



      ATP synthase all experiments point to Intelligent Design



      So only via ignorance, equivocation and promissory notes can evos say the ATP synthase is not evidence for ID

      Delete
    8. Joe G -

      And as I have explained to YOU just as many times YOU need POSITIVE evidence for your position and you have nothing.

      No, Joe, there is seriously a TONNE of evidence for ToE. I have been mentioning it regularly - Linnean taxonomy, the gentic record, the fossil record, the specific fact that the genetic and fossil record MATCH so closely...

      But none of these things, of course, disprove a supernatural agent. Because in science the supernatural is ruled out as an explanation right from the word go. It is absolutely fundamentally essential for doing science. So if you are asking for evidence that these process are not the tools of some magic being's guiding hands, then that just isn't going to happen. It's just not science.

      IOW you are demented as what you think is my request actually has nothing to do with what i am asking.

      Then explain more clearly what you are asking for.

      Yet I have presented plenty of evidence for ID and all you can do is choke on it.

      No you haven't Joe. You have produced nothing except a link to a post on your own blog, which turned out to be a futile exercise in rhetoric. Besides that, all you do is evade...

      ...until now. Can it be that you've actually broken the habit of a lifetime and actually produced some evidence (and after only 153 requests. Impressive)?

      Let's see:

      ATP synthase is evidence for Intelligent Design because it matches the scientific criteria for a designed object/ structure/ event. Namely that necessity and chance cannot account for it

      *sigh* SCIENCE FAIL!

      That is not supporting evidence, Joe. That is God of the Gaps reasoning.

      When you test a hypothesis (A), your null hypothesis is 'not-A'.

      So in this case, if your hypothesis is 'design' then your null hypothesis is 'not design'. This is not the same as 'random chance'.

      If you manage to rule out 'random chance' as an explanation, then all you have actually show is that your evidence is the product of a non-random force. But there are plenty of non-random forces in the world. In fact, pretty much every force is non-random, as far as we know.

      Evolution, for example, is a non-random force. Natural selection, for example is a non-random force. And let us not forget that evolution HAS been shown to create irreducibly complex structures.

      For example, the ability of the bacteria Sphingomonas chlorophenolica to digest the manmade chemical Pentachlorophenol demonstrates this. (See Shelly Copley's article "Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach" in Trends in Biochemical Sciences. Or, for a less formal talk through it, read the "How to Eat Pentachlorophenol" chapter here http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html.)

      Then, of course, there's Lenski's lovely E.Coli bacteria who showed us irreducible complexity right in front of us.

      Delete
    9. No, Joe, there is seriously a TONNE of evidence for ToE.

      I know that you think there is but if there was tehn there couldn't be any scientific dissent and yet there is TONNES.

      For example you cannot demonstrate that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein configurations- that is a multi-protein complex.

      Also I can take your "evidence" and use it to support a Common Design- especially Linnean taxonomy, which was designed with that in mind. Evos just stole his idea and switched as if no one would notice.

      Let's see:

      ATP synthase is evidence for Intelligent Design because it matches the scientific criteria for a designed object/ structure/ event. Namely that necessity and chance cannot account for it

      *sigh* SCIENCE FAIL!

      No, coward, you do not get to say that as I have asked you time and again to present positive evidence for unguided evolution and like the coward you are, you tried to turn it back on me.

      What I said is exactly how science operates. and all you have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce it and the inference that ATP synthase was designed, dissolves.

      IOW you have nothing to support your position wrt ATP synthase.

      Evolution, for example, is a non-random force. Natural selection, for example is a non-random force.

      Natural selection is nothing but differential reproduction due to heritable chance variation. It does nothing. And it is random- it is a result, ie an output that depends on inputs that are random.

      And let us not forget that evolution HAS been shown to create irreducibly complex structures.

      Liar and equivocator-

      read these you clueless jerk:

      Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- Revisited- AGAIN!

      What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging

      And again with Lenski- you have no idea what happened. I will explain it to you, again:

      His bacteria could not get to citrate in the presence of oxygen. Take away the oxygen and they could have at the citrate all day long. Lenski's experiment was in the presence of oxygen so the citrate was shut out.

      So after thousands of generations the gene that produced the citrate transport protein was duplicated- a tandem duplication. The new copy was now under the control of a different promoter, one that wasn't turned off by the presence of oxygen. So it was transcribed and went about doing what it did in an oxygen-free environment.

      IOW the same protein was being used for the same function, just that now it was being used in an environment that used to prevent the citrate transport protein from being produced.

      No IC, just one protein and it isn't even new nor doing something new.

      Behe's edge of evolution is two new protein to protein binding sites.

      Delete
    10. Joe -

      I know that you think there is but if there was tehn there couldn't be any scientific dissent and yet there is TONNES.

      Joe, there is no scientific dissent between actual scientists. The ONLY people who object to evolution are religious people with a few scant qualifications between them who object on religious grounds. Actual real scientists are pretty unanimous on this matter, which says a lot baring in mind scientists are generally a diverse, rowdy bunch.

      Also I can take your "evidence" and use it to support a Common Design- especially Linnean taxonomy, which was designed with that in mind.

      None of it is evidence for Common Design. Because Common Design makes absolutely no predictions whatsoever. It does not necessitate any particular piece or pattern of evidence. And until it does, there can be no evidence for it.

      No, coward, you do not get to say that as I have asked you time and again to present positive evidence for unguided evolution and like the coward you are, you tried to turn it back on me.

      And I keep telling you, you fool, that evidence that evolution is specifically UNGUIDED is impossible! Whether evolution is guided or unguided is not a scientific argument. A philosophical one, or a theological one, perhaps, but not a scientific one.

      As for 'turning it back on you', you do indeed have a positive position. That gives you the burden of proof. It's not as if you are just criticising ToE because you think creation is a genuine mystery. You actually have an opinion on HOW life was created. And that opinion requires evidence.

      What I said is exactly how science operates. and all you have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce it and the inference that ATP synthase was designed, dissolves.

      Demonstrating that ANY specific force is 'undirected' is absolutely impossible.

      Consider gravity. It is a force. But now imagine some person claiming that gravity is guided - by God. "Gravity acts on objects with mass because God wills it." "God has deliberately designed gravity to act in this way." No-one would possibly be able to refute this. We can demonstrate gravity as a force - where and when it applies, but we cannot demonstrate that some supernatural being is not acting 'through' it. So proving gravity an 'undirected' force is simply impossible. Not that it matters anyway, because it is also unscientific in any case.

      Liar and equivocator-

      read these you clueless jerk:


      Pathetic. Truly.

      Evolution is a process which has been observed, and observed to create, so-called 'irreducibly complex' structures.

      I understand that ID is apparently 'not anti-evolution'. But the one and only proposition which identifies ID as ID is design. And that is the one thing there is precisely zero evidence for in the natural world.

      So after thousands of generations the gene that produced the citrate transport protein was duplicated- a tandem duplication. The new copy was now under the control of a different promoter, one that wasn't turned off by the presence of oxygen. So it was transcribed and went about doing what it did in an oxygen-free environment.

      The protein may well have been copied. But it is performing an entirely new function. It is, for all intents and purposes, a new protein.

      And is does show IC, since it required at least one 'primer' mutation. Citrate-eating developed at around generation 33,000. And samples taken from generation preceding this could indeed regularly develop the ability too. But not before generation 20,000 approx. This they took to mean the arrival, at generation 20,000 of a 'primer' mutation.

      Delete
    11. Joe -

      As for your link, I have something that counters that:

      From you link:

      ID does NOT say anything about "God".

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved.

      Okay, where are you getting that from?

      Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved".

      Damn right it does! How often ID-ers forget this...

      But anyway, be that as it may, it appears you agree that 'Irreducibly Complex' features can evolve? Great. That's that then. Now what is left for ID to actually account for then?

      Delete
    12. ID does NOT say anything about "God".

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      Yes, your ignorance is laughable.

      That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved.

      Okay, where are you getting that from?

      The pro-ID literature.

      But anyway, be that as it may, it appears you agree that 'Irreducibly Complex' features can evolve?

      Yes, IC can evolve BY DESIGN. There isn't any evidence, nor a way to test, that they can evolve via accumulations of random mutations.

      Delete
    13. Joe, there is no scientific dissent between actual scientists.

      Yes, there is. Giuseppe Sermonti is a scientist. Behe is a scientist. Minnich is a scientist.

      And the scientists who support the ToE cannot provide a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for accumulations of random mutations actually constructing stuff.

      Also I can take your "evidence" and use it to support a Common Design- especially Linnean taxonomy, which was designed with that in mind.

      None of it is evidence for Common Design.

      Yes, it is and your ignorance is not a refutation.

      Because Common Design makes absolutely no predictions whatsoever.

      Yes, it does. OTOH your position doesn't make any predictions based on the proposed mecahnsims.

      And I keep telling you, you fool, that evidence that evolution is specifically UNGUIDED is impossible!

      Tat is cowardly bullshit- and totally unsupported by anyone.

      Whether evolution is guided or unguided is not a scientific argument.

      Of course it is. It gets right to the heart of science's three basic questions.

      What I said is exactly how science operates. and all you have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce it and the inference that ATP synthase was designed, dissolves.

      Demonstrating that ANY specific force is 'undirected' is absolutely impossible.

      Nope- scientists do it all teh time. Archaeology depends on it, geology depends on it, forensics depends on it and SETI depends on it.

      Evolution is a process which has been observed, and observed to create, so-called 'irreducibly complex' structures.

      Liar and equivocator.

      And that is the one thing there is precisely zero evidence for in the natural world.

      You don't know what evidence is.

      The protein may well have been copied. But it is performing an entirely new function. It is, for all intents and purposes, a new protein.

      No assface. The protein was doing exactly the same function as before. The ONLY difference is now it is doing it in the presence of oxygen, Dude, you are one ignorant jerk.

      And is does show IC, since it required at least one 'primer' mutation.

      No IC as there is only one part to the "system"- again your ignorance is meaningless.

      Citrate-eating developed at around generation 33,000.

      LoL! The only thing that developed was that now the E. coli can get to the citrate in the presence of oxygen.





      Delete
  3. related note to "converts incoming light into digital signals". It is interesting to note that the incoming light is a digital signal to start off with:

    Zeilinger's principle
    Zeilinger's principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1]
    http://www.eoht.info/page/Zeilinger%27s+principle

    In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist
    Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
    http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.html

    "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin."
    John Archibald Wheeler

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word."
    Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
    http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf

    Thus, I find it interesting that the incoming 'digital signal' (i.e. the photon) is recieved as a 'mechanical' action into the vision cascade,,,

    The First Steps of Human Vision - Diane M. Szaflarski, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: "Research has shown that upon photo-excitation the retinal part of rhodopsin undergoes a twisting around one of its double bonds" (see Figure 4). The retinal then dissociates from the opsin. The change in geometry initiates a series of events that eventually cause electrical impulses to be sent to the brain along the optic nerve."
    http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/vision_background.php

    ,,, Where it is then reconverted, apparently with highly advanced vision processing algorithms, back into a digital signal. But this digital signal is to then be received in our brain by what exactly?,,,

    Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience - Pim van Lommel - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their 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.
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/

    ReplyDelete
  4. I always wonder why anybody can really believe that the eye is the result of dumb luck. Just talk to an engineer whose task is to design vision system or lookup the literature on the subject: simple it is not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely true. But who believes it IS the product of dumb luck? Biologists certainly don't.

      Delete
    2. how do you figure evolution is not dumb luck? first you have dumb luck mutations, then you have natural selection, which eliminates the unlucky variants, leaving the lucky variants. Whichever variants win the competition of life, dumb luck comes out on top.

      Also, the selectors of which select certain variants change as a matter of chance; weather changes, predators coming around, temperature, diseases.....the environment is always changing and what an individual animal, or population, is exposed to is a matter of luck. So no matter how you slice it, natural selection does not turn a dumb luck process into a non-random process.

      Delete
    3. Unknown

      So no matter how you slice it, natural selection does not turn a dumb luck process into a non-random process.


      But it does turn it into a process with a non-uniform probability distribution.

      Some animals are born with genetic variations that give them a higher probability to reproduce. On average they do, and those advantages are passed on and accumulate.

      Why do you think casinos always make money on roulette in the long run even though it's a game of dumb luck?

      Delete
    4. Unknown -

      how do you figure evolution is not dumb luck? first you have dumb luck mutations, then you have natural selection, which eliminates the unlucky variants, leaving the lucky variants.

      No, the mutations ARE random. That much is true. But natural selection is not. Natural selection filters out the mutations. Only beneficial mutations will thrive and become part of the gene pool. Mutations harmful to the organism will die off.

      So the genome as a whole only accumulates beneficial mutations, and the species travels towards ever greater fitness. It does not stumble blindly around the fitness landscape.

      Also, the selectors of which select certain variants change as a matter of chance; weather changes, predators coming around, temperature, diseases.....the environment is always changing

      Also true. And that is why no animal ever reaches 'perfect fitness' no matter far they travel along the route of increased fitness.

      Natural selection is a non-random process.

      Delete
    5. LoL! Natural selection is non-random ONLY in the sense that if you have differential reproduction due to heritable chance/ happenstance variation, then you have natural selection.

      However the result is random as whatever is good enough gets through.

      Delete
    6. Ritchi e said:
      "But natural selection is not. Natural selection filters out the mutations. Only beneficial mutations will thrive and become part of the gene pool. Mutations harmful to the organism will die off."

      But natural selections accounts, according to evolutionists, only for a small part of the new genes fixations. The most of the new genes became fixed by "drift" that is chance, luck.

      Delete
    7. Thorton,

      "Some animals are born with genetic variations that give them a higher probability to reproduce. On average they do, and those advantages are passed on and accumulate."

      Could you give us some examples of this process in action? Not hypothetical examples, examples from the real world.

      "Why do you think casinos always make money on roulette in the long run even though it's a game of dumb luck?"

      Because there are many, many more ways for a gambler to lose his money than to win the casino's money. It's hardly a dumb luck game for the house.

      However, in evolutionary thinking not only is there always a winner, this winner goes on winning more and more all the time.

      The problem with this type of thinking is that it fails to consider the fact that what chance can create, it can also annihilate.

      Delete
    8. Joe -


      However the result is random as whatever is good enough gets through.


      Think that through for a moment. "Whatever is good enough gets through." Rephrased, "Only that which is good enough, gets through."

      In other words, only the mutations which are GOOD ENOUGH propagate in the gene pool.

      So the genome as a whole only ever gets fitter.

      It is not 'random' whether the genome gets more or less fit.

      Delete
    9. Blas -

      But natural selections accounts, according to evolutionists, only for a small part of the new genes fixations. The most of the new genes became fixed by "drift" that is chance, luck.

      Are you referring to beneficially neutral mutations?

      Because yes, it's true, some mutations are neutral towards the genome's fitness. But then again, by definition they do not affect the genome's fitness. So they do not affect the genome getting only ever fitter.

      Delete
    10. Think that through for a moment. "Whatever is good enough gets through." Rephrased, "Only that which is good enough, gets through."

      I will go with Ernst Mayr, thanks anyway. And Mayr says that whatever is good enough, gets through.

      In other words, only the mutations which are GOOD ENOUGH propagate in the gene pool.

      And that can be any number of things. Also behaviour can trump genetics. And it is easier to change one's behaviour in response to the environment, then to wait around for mutations to help.

      So the genome as a whole only ever gets fitter.


      Fitter is an after-the-fact assessment. We do not know which are going to out reproduce the others. And that can change with every generation.

      It is not 'random' whether the genome gets more or less fit.

      Yes it is because that, the more fit genome, can be anything that isn't fatal.

      Natural selection is as non-random as the spray pattern of bird-shot from a sawed-off shotgun.



      Delete
    11. Joe -

      I will go with Ernst Mayr, thanks anyway. And Mayr says that whatever is good enough, gets through.

      And I'm not gainsaying him.

      And that can be any number of things.

      True. Fitness is a relative term. So we can never predict the specific way in which fitness will increase. But we can predict that it will.

      Also behaviour can trump genetics.

      Possibly it can. So what?

      Fitter is an after-the-fact assessment. We do not know which are going to out reproduce the others. And that can change with every generation.

      In a population that relies on camouflage for safety, the better camouflaged are the fitter. In a population that hunt through sheer speed, the faster are the fitter. It is not blind luck who, out of a population, survives. Some are actively better suited to doing so.

      Yes it is because that, the more fit genome, can be anything that isn't fatal.

      Pardon?

      Natural selection is as non-random as the spray pattern of bird-shot from a sawed-off shotgun.

      As the shot leaves the shotgun, they are all travelling in the same direction - forwards. Though we cannot quite predict the exact trajectory.

      Delete
    12. Fitness is a relative term. So we can never predict the specific way in which fitness will increase. But we can predict that it will.

      Or it won't. So what?

      Also behaviour can trump genetics.

      Possibly it can. So what?

      Absolutely it can, and does. So what? There isn't any physical change with the behavioural change.

      In a population that relies on camouflage for safety, the better camouflaged are the fitter.

      It is never that simple.

      In a population that hunt through sheer speed, the faster are the fitter.

      It is never that simple, either. Lions adapted by having ambushes- can't catch them let's drive them towards our sisters.

      As the shot leaves the shotgun, they are all travelling in the same direction - forwards.

      Very randomly.

      Delete
    13. Ritchie said

      "Are you referring to beneficially neutral mutations?

      Because yes, it's true, some mutations are neutral towards the genome's fitness. But then again, by definition they do not affect the genome's fitness. So they do not affect the genome getting only ever fitter."

      Yes, neutral mutations that are necessary to produce fitter organisms that are fixed by "luck" (drift). So evolution is a matter of "luck" the filter (NS) works only after "luck" happened.

      Delete
    14. Joe -

      Or it won't. So what?

      No, Joe. It will. Mutations which help their host creatures survive and reproduce are more likely to thrive because their hosts are more likely to survive and reproduce. How is it possible you can operate as a human being and not grasp this absolutely obvious fact that would even insult a 10-year-old's intelligence?

      Why would fitness ever decrease? How would that even happen? What is the logic there?

      Absolutely it can, and does. So what? There isn't any physical change with the behavioural change.

      But behavioural changes don't stop physical changes from happening, or from being beneficial. If an animal relies on its speed for survival, there is no behaviour that would make a gene which aided running speed a hinderance, is there?

      It is never that simple.

      I'm not claiming it is. There are no guarantees. But a creature with better camouflage does have a survival advantage, doesn't it?

      It is never that simple, either. Lions adapted by having ambushes- can't catch them let's drive them towards our sisters.

      Indeed. But all that shows is variation in survival strategy.

      As the shot leaves the shotgun, they are all travelling in the same direction - forwards.

      Very randomly.


      Well, not THAT randomly. They won't be travelling backwards, will they? Or straight up? They will be travelling in a relatively tight cone outwards from the shotgun. And in this way, it is a rather good metaphor for evolution under natural selection - we may not be able to predict the exact trajectory, but we do know the general direction is forwards. And this alone makes it a non-random process.

      Delete
    15. Ba -

      Yes, neutral mutations that are necessary to produce fitter organisms that are fixed by "luck" (drift). So evolution is a matter of "luck" the filter (NS) works only after "luck" happened.

      You are getting confused.

      If a mutation is necessary to produce a fitter organism, then it isn't a neutral mutation. It is a beneficial one.

      No-one is denying that random mutations are random. They are. That's why it is called random mutation. But if only good ones are allowed to thrive, then the genome's fitness will only ever increase, won't it?

      Delete
    16. If I´m confused, please explain genetical drift and the importance of it in evolution, as the evolutionists papers states that is as important or more than NS.

      Delete
    17. Blas -

      Genetic drift is, as I suspect you are aware, a random mechanism of evolution. It is a broad term for the role of random chance acting on alleles.

      Some alleles may be reproduced more than others, just by chance. For example, for every child you have, you only pass on 50% of your genes. And which genes make it into your child, and ultimately get passed on, is random.

      A common analogy is a jar with 50 marbles - 25 red and 25 blue. Blindly, you draw a marble from the jar, put another marble of the same colour into a second jar, and then replace the original marble to the original jar. Do this until you have 50 marbles in the second jar. It is unlikely that, just by chance, you will have 25 of each colour in the second jar - one will probably be more numerous, if only slightly.

      However, then repeat the process for a third jar. The more prominent colour (say, red) is more likely to be drawn more often this time. So once you have filled the third jar, the ratio is likely to be even higher in favour of red. Eventually it is not long before a 'jar generation' contains no blue marbles at all.

      With this in mind, let's ask what I suspect is your alluded point - Does genetic drift undermine evolution as a non-random process?

      Actually no. Notice that the effect of genetic drift is actually to decrease genetic variation in the gene pool. It is not to decrease fitness overall. If it were the only force effecting alleles, then the end result would merely be genetic uniformity, not degredation.

      Genetic drift is the river tide against which the salmon of each new mutation must swim if it is to propagate in the genepool. It ensures the odds that each new mutation will become dominant are low. This indeed, is one of the very reasons why only the beneficial mutations make it through. Some beneficial mutations, certainly, are lost to it. Having a beneficial mutation is no guarantee of reproductive success, of course, but it does give an edge on the odds.

      One final point to note is that genetic drift is stronger on smaller populations. If we used only 5 red and 5 blue marbles, it is likely that one would have gone 'extinct' far sooner than if we used 50, for example.

      Delete
    18. Why would fitness ever decrease? How would that even happen?

      Environmental pressures, duh. Genetic entropy, duh.

      If an animal relies on its speed for survival, there is no behaviour that would make a gene which aided running speed a hinderance, is there?

      LoL! Your position can't account for animals.

      But a creature with better camouflage does have a survival advantage, doesn't it?

      Does it? It doesn't have a better advantage then one that can just hide.

      Well, not THAT randomly.

      No, it's very random. I have done the test. If you are far enough away nothing hits the target.

      And your "direction" is nothing more than one genration follows the next.

      Natural selection is a result of three inputs, each either entirely random or with a random component. And that means NS doesn't have any choice but to also be random.

      Delete
    19. Chubby Joe Gallien

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!!


      Wow Fatboy, it took you almost two days to go through that last case of Twinkies.

      Maybe you shouldn't suck 'em down so fast.

      Delete
    20. Joe -

      Environmental pressures, duh. Genetic entropy, duh.

      Nope, you're going to have to be more specific here. What environmental pressures force a genome to become LESS SUITED TO ITS ENVIRONMENT?

      LoL! Your position can't account for animals.

      Evasion.

      Does it? It doesn't have a better advantage then one that can just hide.

      Well yes it can - it doesn't have to move to be concealed.

      No, it's very random. I have done the test. If you are far enough away nothing hits the target.

      ???? There is no 'target' in evolution.

      Natural selection is a result of three inputs, each either entirely random or with a random component. And that means NS doesn't have any choice but to also be random.

      So much energy expended in desperately trying not to understand. I simply don't know why anyone would want to remain so ignorant...

      Imagine I am blind and I have a huge stack of marbles - some red and some blue. I pick these marbles up at random and hand them to you. You put the red one in a jar, and throw the blue ones away. The jar is only going to accumulate red marbles, won't it?

      Now I feel I'm going to have to literally spell out my analogy: I am random mutation. I am blindly producing either red marbles (good mutations) or blue marbles (bad mutations).

      You, however, are natural selection. You make sure that all blue marbles are discarded, and only the red ones make it into the jar (the genome).

      This, roughly, is evolution. Just because I am selecting marbles randomly, does not mean it is random whether the jar will acquire red or blue marbles, does it? Because you are there filtering out the blue ones. So no, just because the 'input' of evolution is random, that does not mean NS is random, does it?

      Delete
    21. What environmental pressures force a genome to become LESS SUITED TO ITS ENVIRONMENT?

      Any pressure that an organism cannot adapt to.

      Natural selection is a result of three inputs, each either entirely random or with a random component. And that means NS doesn't have any choice but to also be random.

      So much energy expended in desperately trying not to understand.

      I understand it better than you do, so stuff it asshole.

      There isn't any selection with natural selection- it is just a result, just as I have referenced.

      Delete
    22. Imagine I am blind and I have a huge stack of marbles - some red and some blue. I pick these marbles up at random and hand them to you. You put the red one in a jar, and throw the blue ones away. The jar is only going to accumulate red marbles, won't it?

      That's ARTIFICIAL SELECTION- natural selection is not like artificial selection.

      IOW you are just a confused and ignorant coward.

      Delete
    23. Wouldn't be a morning without Fatboy Joe Gallien waddling by to dump his same steaming load of Creationist idiocy.

      Oh well.

      Delete
    24. Joe -

      Any pressure that an organism cannot adapt to.

      If creatures fail to adapt to new pressures then they go extinct.

      I understand it better than you do, so stuff it asshole.

      I know you think you do. But you simply think far too much of yourself.

      There isn't any selection with natural selection- it is just a result, just as I have referenced.

      The result OF SELECTION, you doughnut!!

      That's ARTIFICIAL SELECTION-

      No it isn't. If I had my eyesight and could see what I was selecting and could thus CHOOSE to select either red or blue, that would be artificial selection. The fact that I am blind means that the colour of each marble drawn is random.

      Never mind. Well done for trying anyway, Joe. I know you like to chip in just to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. Maybe one day you'll get something right.

      Delete
    25. If creatures fail to adapt to new pressures then they go extinct.

      Not necessarily but that makes my point.

      There isn't any selection with natural selection- it is just a result, just as I have referenced.

      The result OF SELECTION, you doughnut!!

      It's BLIND and MINDLESS, just like you, so what kind of selection is it doing? Please be specific.

      That's ARTIFICIAL SELECTION-

      No it isn't.

      Yes, it is. Someone is selecting the red marbles, dumbass- ya know selecting them from the pile the blind guy makes.

      Again natural selection is blind and mindless. So for your scenario to work you would have a bluind man selecting the marbles and then another blind and mindless guy at the second step.

      With that scenario do you think only red marbles will make it to the jar?

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

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thorton: But it does turn it into a process with a non-uniform probability distribution.

    Jeff: But this doesn't even imply that any "species" will go extinct. Variation could occur in such a way that "species" cyclically arise and go extinct at different locations and times. It doesn't even imply that the variation that occurs won't be so limited in phenotypical extent as to be consistent with SA. And yet, this is precisely what needs to be predicted for there to be any evidence for the phenotypical trajectories you posit occurred in the past in the time-frames you posit for their occurrence. You have nothing.

    These kinds of high-level generalizations don't get you the specific implications you need to render your view rational. And the minute you get down to specifics, well, you can't predict phenotypes in such a way to distinguish your predictions from SA. You have nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      These kinds of high-level generalizations don't get you the specific implications you need to render your view rational.


      Poor Jeff. Still too stupid to understand that the random portion of evolutionary processes makes specific predictions from initial conditions both impossible and unnecessary.

      Jeff, I'm still waiting for you to explain why the unpredictability of the nuclear decay of specific atoms means everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong.

      Still waiting too for you to identify the separately created kinds, and give the beginning point (time frame and specific animal) to each SA lineage. You seem to be the one who has nothing.

      Delete
    2. Thorton,

      "Poor Jeff. Still too stupid to understand that the random portion of evolutionary processes makes specific predictions from initial conditions both impossible and unnecessary."

      Poor Thorton, still fails to understand that even if randomness makes it impossible to make specific predictions from initial conditions, it does not follow that such predictions are therefore unnecessary.

      "Jeff, I'm still waiting for you to explain why the unpredictability of the nuclear decay of specific atoms means everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong."

      How about you explain the relevance of nuclear physics vis a vis evolution.

      "Still waiting too for you to identify the separately created kinds, and give the beginning point (time frame and specific animal) to each SA lineage. You seem to be the one who has nothing."

      And we're still waiting for you, or anyone else here who supports evolution, to identify the common ancestor from which you claim we all descend. In fact, I've been waiting two full years now for an answer. It's a known fact we did descend from this CA, so identifying it should be no problem.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Poor Thorton, still fails to understand that even if randomness makes it impossible to make specific predictions from initial conditions, it does not follow that such predictions are therefore unnecessary.


      Why is it necessary that a theory make specific predictions that you admit the random factor makes impossible?

      How about you explain the relevance of nuclear physics vis a vis evolution.

      Jeff tells me if a theory can't predict specific outcomes from a set of initial conditions then the theory is wrong. Nuclear decay fits that description perfectly, so I want Jeff to explain why nuclear physics is wrong.

      And we're still waiting for you, or anyone else here who supports evolution, to identify the common ancestor from which you claim we all descend. In fact, I've been waiting two full years now for an answer. It's a known fact we did descend from this CA, so identifying it should be no problem.

      Science has identified a good portion of the genetic characteristics that the LUCA had to possess, genetic signatures that are common to all extant life.

      You guys can't provide a single detail about any claimed separately created kinds.

      Delete
    4. Thorton,

      Did not see this response, sorry.

      "Science has identified a good portion of the genetic characteristics that the LUCA had to possess, genetic signatures that are common to all extant life."

      Science has found these commonalities and assumed they must be the result of the LUCA, nothing more.

      "You guys can't provide a single detail about any claimed separately created kinds."

      Other than there are very distinct classes of creatures, such as birds, reptiles, insects, etc., All you guys do is assert they all originate from a common ancestor without be able to provide anything more than conjecture and just-so stories as evidence.

      If this common ancestor is so factual, perhaps you can identify it.

      Delete
  7. Jeff
    Variation could occur in such a way that "species" cyclically arise and go extinct at different locations and times

    Evidence in the fossil record would be helpful to prove this hypothesis, also it seems like mechanism to preserve the genotype after the species has gone extinct would be helpful.In human design rarely would the exact same design be used after it failed( gone extinct)

    ReplyDelete
  8. V, what I said is not an hypothesis. It is a reminder that natural selection by itself explains nothing of any relevance to the question of whether SA or UCA is true. The fossil record is of very little help since:

    1) temporal ordering is not the logical equivalent of a causal explanation
    2) known stratigraphic ranges are not even remotely known to be actual stratigraphic ranges
    3) actual stratigraphic ranges are not even remotely known to be existential ranges.

    SA is not remotely ruled out by the fossil record. And yet, there is no extant causal theory that predicts phenotypes in a way that rules out ubiquitous separate ancestries, on the other hand. You have nothing. If for no other reason than that UCA requires kazillions more ad-hoc hypotheses than does SA.

    Why don't you guys just admit it? You rule out teleology arbitrarily. There is no inductive basis for that arbitrary move. That's why it has nothing to do with demarcatable science/rational inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Why don't you guys just admit it? You rule out teleology arbitrarily.


      It's not ruled out Jeff. It's just that in 150+ years of looking no one has come up with a single piece of positive evidence to indicate a teleological presence. We do however have a metric boatload of positive evidence to indicate such an external guiding presence isn't necessary.

      But I guess you're too stupid to grasp that also.

      Delete
    2. Jeff -

      On the topic, I would strongly recommend you read this:

      http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/naturalism.html

      Delete
  9. Jeff,
    Why don't you guys just admit it? You rule out teleology arbitrarily. There is no inductive basis for that arbitrary move. That's why it has nothing to do with demarcatable science/rational inquiry

    Not really,but human design is teleological,how it came to exist is accessible to reason. For instance aliens created life, how,when and why are still relevant questions. Even a diety might leave a fossil trail in His creations. Or are you saying since knowledge can never be 100% certain, then we can know nothing even provisionally?

    Why would SA require less assumptions? Many Gods require more assumptions than One.UCA or SA make no difference to me,but you seemed only to be saying that since we can know for sure every idea is equal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Make Earning on your Every panels you purchase, Many types of Earning Systems
    <a href= http://bannersbroker.com/MrSanghani17 A

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thorton, it would be nice if you could define evidence. Because if you knew what evidence was, you'd realize how utterly void of anything like knowledge about the issue you actually are.

    V, per induction, provisional beliefs are beliefs that are, per extant knowledge, the seemingly most parsimonious ones, etc. But when all you have are explanations which require tons of ad-hoc hypotheses to render them coherent, those explanations which require the least are less speculative and, therefore more plausible.

    Why does UCA require more ad-hoc hypotheses than SA? Because past events posited to have occurred that are not implications of a theory applied to relevant initial conditions are quintessentially ad-hoc. UCA requires more than SA since SA doesn't need to posit near as many necessary non-observed, non-predicted events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Thorton, it would be nice if you could define evidence.


      I already provided you with a definition. You ignored it.

      Why do you keep lying about it?

      When are you going to provide some scientific positive evidence to back up your separately created kinds claims?

      Delete
    2. Ah, but you didn't know how to define the sense in which data INDICATES a hypothesis is more plausible than competing hypotheses. So your definition was of no avail to you. You're not intelligent enough to do anything with the dictionary definition you copied from. Nice try, though.

      Delete
    3. Ah, I see. The definition is good enough for everyone in the scientific community, everyone in the legal community, pretty much everyone else on the planet. But somehow it's not good enough for Liar For Jesus Jeff and his childish philosophical arguments.

      Got it.

      Now where's that scientific positive evidence to back up your separately created kinds claims?

      Delete
    4. The definition is fine if you have the sense to know HOW data INDICATES an hypothesis is more plausible than its competitors. But, alas, you don't have that sense. You're what people who aren't idiots recognize as a bona-fide idiot.

      Delete
    5. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      The definition is fine if you have the sense to know HOW data INDICATES an hypothesis is more plausible than its competitors. But, alas, you don't have that sense. You're what people who aren't idiots recognize as a bona-fide idiot.


      But you are an idiot, so you're disqualified as a judge.

      Now where's that scientific positive evidence to back up your separately created kinds claims?

      Why do you keep cowardly avoiding the very topic you raised?

      Delete
    6. Ah, but you're a moron, Thorton. I've answered your question over and over. But you're too much of an idiot to recognize inductive plausibility criteria when you're looking right at it.

      Delete
    7. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Ah, but you're a moron, Thorton. I've answered your question over and over.


      LOL! Liar for Jesus Jeff doing what he does best - lying for Jesus. Don't you know that your lying actually makes baby Jesus cry?

      Where's that scientific positive evidence to back up your separately created kinds claims? Not your childish philosophical woo. Scientific positive evidence.

      You don't have any, not a single piece.

      Delete
    8. The pieces are the data. Data is evidence for an hypothesis when it holds a particular kind of relation to the hypothesis. Data and evidence are distinct concepts. But how could an idiot like you understand something that simple? Impossible! You're entirely too stupid for that.

      Delete
    9. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      The pieces are the data. Data is evidence for an hypothesis when it holds a particular kind of relation to the hypothesis.


      So where's your scientific positive evidence for your claimed separately created kinds?

      You keep blithering but poor Liar for Jesus Jeff has no evidence.

      Delete
    10. thorton- YOU provided the evidence for separately created kinds with your "dogs can't evolve into cats". If that simple change cannot be granted by evolution then it is obvious that the greater changes cannot be granted either.

      Delete
    11. Yeah Chubs, we know your ignorant bleating by heart

      "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!"

      Have another donut.

      Delete
    12. YOU said it, moron. YOU provided the evidence for SA.

      So please, by all means, continue to choke on it

      Delete
  12. more specifically, V, SA can posit past events that are more like analogical extrapolations into the past. When you start positing events that are to add up to branching patterns and extreme phenotypical trajectories, you aren't even doing analogical extrapolation any more. In the absence of a predictive theory to account for events, analogical extrapolation is less speculative than non-analogical extrapolation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jeff,

    Why does UCA require more ad-hoc hypotheses than SA? Because past events posited to have occurred that are not implications of a theory applied to relevant initial conditions are quintessentially ad-hoc. UCA requires more than SA since SA doesn't need to posit near as many necessary non-observed, non-predicted events.

    Good one, repeat the question , define ad hoc , rephrase the question as an answer.
    Convincing argument .

    more specifically, V, SA can posit past events that are more like analogical extrapolations into the past

    For instance?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Everytime you have to posit phenotypical variational events that we don't know are logically possible, that constitutes an ad-hoc hypothesis. The UCA hypothesis requires tons of those that SA doesn't simply because UCA'ists (unless radical saltationists) posit phenotypes that are functional which even Gould admitted we can't even IMAGINE how they would be adaptive. SA doesn't need to do that to the same extrapolative degree or the quantitative extent simply because it's not trying to explain those kinds of purely hypothetical trajectories.

    A cladistic tree proves nothing about what natural event regularities would or would not have caused in the past. Thus, cladistic trees have nothing to do with whether naturalistic UCA is even logically possible in terms of event regularities (i.e., methodological naturalism).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Poor Jeff. He paid good money for that Philosophy degree and gosh darn it he just knows there has to be a way to use philosophical blithering to disprove 150+ years of consilient corroborating empirical scientific evidence.

      There just has to be!

      Delete
    2. thorton, your bluffing equivocation means nothing.

      Delete
  15. Jeff,

    Everytime you have to posit phenotypical variational events that we don't know are logically possible, that constitutes an ad-hoc hypothesis. The UCA hypothesis requires tons of those that SA doesn't simply because UCA'ists (unless radical saltationists) posit phenotypes that are functional which even Gould admitted we can't even IMAGINE how they would be adaptive. SA doesn't need to do that to the same extrapolative degree or the quantitative extent simply because it's not trying to explain those kinds of purely hypothetical trajectories.

    Are not SA lineages subject to the same mechanisms as UCA lineages? For ,instance what does analogically extrapolation indicate are the separate lineages,on a more concrete level what are the separate lineages, are humans mor than one lineage? Just curious if this is more than theoretical

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except there isn't any evidence that those mechanisms can account for any UCA. And all observations, experiences and experiments support SA.

      Delete
    2. Ok Joe let's see if you can be actually responsive , list briefly those observations and experiments that support only SA you cite if you would be so kind

      Delete
    3. The observations that humans give rise to humans; chimps give rise to chimps; fish give rise to fish; birds give rise to birds; prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes.

      The experiments- well Lederberg, Lenski, artificial selection

      Delete
    4. V, I don't know anyone who posits SA who doesn't also want to posit it in a way that allows for extrapolations that are as analogical and non-arbitrary as possible. This is why SA'ists tend to see homo erectus, Neanderthals and modern humans as related by common descent but not related to chimps, etc.

      There are lots of functional DNA sequences that have to be accounted for by chance per naturalistic UCA to show that humans are related to chimps, etc. There is no model that demonstrates that's mathematically probable. And there is no causal theory that indicates it's possible. That simply MEANS that UCA'ists posit speculative scenarios.

      That doesn't mean UCA is false or knowably impossible. It means there is nothing like what we normally call "evidence" for it--not, i.e., in the senses that we use that word for predictive theories that are actually corroborated by verifying predictions or at least by demonstrable extrapolations that are highly-analogical (in which case they have some predictive value).

      Delete
    5. Sorry comment jumped to the bottom

      Delete
    6. Jeff

      This is why SA'ists tend to see homo erectus, Neanderthals and modern humans as related by common descent but not related to chimps, etc.


      How did you determine those first three were in the same separately created kind but not the last? What specific objective criteria did you use? Which was the first of that particular lineage?

      What about Homo habilis? Homo ergaster? Homo rudolfensis? Are they in the family "kind" or out, and how did you tell?

      Show us the scientific evidence Jeff, not your ignorance based gut feelings.

      There are lots of functional DNA sequences that have to be accounted for by chance per naturalistic UCA to show that humans are related to chimps, etc. There is no model that demonstrates that's mathematically probable. And there is no causal theory that indicates it's possible. That simply MEANS that UCA'ists posit speculative scenarios.

      Damn but you're one willfully ignorant Creationist.

      Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees
      Patterson et al
      Nature, 441, 1103-1108, June 2006

      Abstract: The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.

      Never underestimate the ignorance of a Creationist.

      Delete
    7. LoL! thorton will believe anything- How many mutations, thorton? To what genes, thorton? Don't know, then it ain't science.

      Also the paper assumes a common ancestry, it does not demonstrate one.

      Delete
    8. Chubby Joe Gallien

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!


      Whatever Fatboy. Shouldn't you be at Costco picking up your next 55 gallon drum of chocolate syrup?

      Delete
    9. Whatever bathroom boy- your position has nothing and you prove tat with every post.

      Delete
  16. @troy: "Too bad he was so busy he didn't prevent the mass murder of kids. Or were the parents of those kids Evolutionists? In that case, their children deserved His Holy Wrath."

    The theological position that is the obvious driver of a "scientific" position or one that masquerades as such. Thank you troy for the illuminating slip of the keyboard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The theological position that is the obvious driver of a "scientific" position or one that masquerades as such.

      Could you be a little less obscure?

      Delete
  17. Chubby Joe G

    EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!!


    The sorrowful bleating of the obese Creationist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why does thorton, the closet YEC always have to lie?

      AGAIN I NEVER SAID EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!!

      NEVER

      Delete
    2. What is the evidence for evolution?

      Delete
    3. Allele frequencies change over time. Offspring are not exact copies of their parents. Differential survival and reproduction.

      Delete
  18. But this is not enough to create diversity, why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It can create diversity within a population. However there isn't any supporting evidence that it can do any more than that.

      Delete
    2. Jeff.

      I don't know anyone who posits SA who doesn't also want to posit it in a way that allows for extrapolations that are as analogical and non-arbitrary as possible. This is why SA'ists tend to see homo erectus, Neanderthals and modern humans as related by common descent but not related to chimps, etc.

      Thanks,that is an explanation with some meat on it. Like Joe ,SA allows evolutionary processes to go only so far. In human case about 1.8 million years and a pretty long way from erectus to modern man. Does SA say the the human lineage extends back all the way to single cell organism or that sometime in the last 2 million years a primitive alpha human appeared de novo?

      Delete
    3. SA per se doesn't imply that humans started at any particular time. It just means that extrapolations should be warranted in terms of comparing clustering of fossil phenotypes and extant variation within populations that can produce offspring, etc. If fossil sequences are relatively gradual and clearly transitional, then evolution would be a plausible explanation of that variation. But where do we have such cases that include morphological variation greater than, say, that of canines? But for significantly large gaps, there needs to be some kind of theoretical prediction or observations to say there's evidence for genealogical intermediates unless we have a significant number of relatively gradually "bridged" gaps of significant size.

      I don't know how to prove all the claims of ancient "human" bones and artifacts (and they are many) are false, so I'm not the least bit convinced the cherry-picked UCA'ist account of first fossil occurrences of human-like evidence is legitimate. We have human like tracks significantly older than 1.8 million years. And Homo Erectus seems basically human in morphology and technology.

      I mean look at the diversity of humans even now and the recent past. It's both profound and easily distinguishable from ape-like phenotypes on the other hand. Five-year-olds can do it with no problem. Similarly, canine diversity is profound and yet, for the most part, easily distinguishable from the feline class of phenotypes.

      Delete
    4. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Five-year-olds can do it with no problem. Similarly, canine diversity is profound and yet, for the most part, easily distinguishable from the feline class of phenotypes.


      How about the Miacids LFJJ? Lived between 55-45 MYA. Are they canine class or feline class?

      Even a five-year-old can tell, right?

      Delete
    5. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      I don't know how to prove all the claims of ancient "human" bones and artifacts (and they are many) are false, so I'm not the least bit convinced the cherry-picked UCA'ist account of first fossil occurrences of human-like evidence is legitimate. We have human like tracks significantly older than 1.8 million years. And Homo Erectus seems basically human in morphology and technology.


      LFJJ is pulling out all the standard Creationist hand waves:

      - no transitional fossil sequences.

      - scientists are committing deliberate fraud by cherry picking data.

      - repeated YEC lie about 2 MYO human tracks

      - "It looks like the same "kind" to my uneducated eye, so it must be the same kind!"

      Any other tired old Creationist lies and stupidity you want to entertain us with tonight? Why don't you just scream "I AIN'T RELATED TO NO DAMN MONKEY!!! and be done with it?

      Delete
    6. Thorton: How about the Miacids LFJJ? Lived between 55-45 MYA. Are they canine class or feline class?

      Even a five-year-old can tell, right?

      Jeff: First of all, I said "for the most part." Second of all, I suspect it's harder for a 5-year-old to distinguish with only bones. Third, even the link you post disinguishes miacids from felids and canids. I suspect a 5-year-old would do the same--I do. Finally, what evidence do you have that a miacid was an ancestor of canines and felines? Since you're too stupid to know what evidence even IS, let me help you--NONE WHATSOEVER!

      Delete
    7. Once again, moron-Thorton, known stratigraphic ranges have no known correspondence to actual stratigraphic ranges or existential ranges. Only idiotic positivistic-leaning scientists even think such moronic idiocy.

      Delete
    8. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Thorton: How about the Miacids LFJJ? Lived between 55-45 MYA. Are they canine class or feline class?

      Even a five-year-old can tell, right?

      Jeff: First of all, I said "for the most part." Second of all, I suspect it's harder for a 5-year-old to distinguish with only bones. Third, even the link you post disinguishes miacids from felids and canids. I suspect a 5-year-old would do the same--I do.


      Exactly as expected, you have the scientific understanding and knowledge of a 5-year-old. No wonder you continually act like one.

      Finally, what evidence do you have that a miacid was an ancestor of canines and felines? Since you're too stupid to know what evidence even IS, let me help you--NONE WHATSOEVER!

      LOL! "NONE WHATSOEVER!", except for the dozens of known fossil transitional sequences, comparative anatomy studies, genetic studies. Amazing that you're too stupid to do even the most cursory search of the scientific literature before spouting off.

      Basicranial Anatomy and Phylogeny of Primitive Canids and Closely Related Miacids (Carnivora: Mammalia)

      Abstract: Selected fossil carnivorans are studied in an attempt to bridge the gap between caniform miacids and early canids, and to identify character transformations within the clade leading to canids. Several basicranial and dental features are important in characterizing the cladogenetic events that occurred and culminated in Hesperocyon.

      Carnivora systematics: A study of hemoglobins

      Abstract: 1. Hemoglobin samples from six-hundred and ninety-six animals representing one-hundred and twelve species and seventy-three genera of fissiped and pinniped Carnivora were examined by gel electrophoresis. All members of the Canidae, Ursidae, Procyonidae, Mustelidae, Otariidae and Phocidae had a major hemoglobin component of identical mobility.
      2.Fractionation, amino acid analysis, sulfhydryl content, peptide maps and hybrids with human hemoglobin A and dog hemoglobin indicated this hemoglobin is of identical structure in these six families.
      3.Thus, the 0·85 mobility hemoglobin has not diversified during the 45 million years since the ancestry of these families separated from the Miacidae and diverged from the Felocida during the Eocene.


      Keep that ignorance train rolling LFJJ!

      Once again, moron-Thorton, known stratigraphic ranges have no known correspondence to actual stratigraphic ranges or existential ranges. Only idiotic positivistic-leaning scientists even think such moronic idiocy.

      That bit of blithering didn't even start to make sense. But keep trying to get some use out of that worthless Philosophy degree.

      Delete
    9. Jeff,

      I don't know how to prove all the claims of ancient "human" bones and artifacts (and they are many) are false, so I'm not the least bit convinced the cherry-picked UCA'ist account of first fossil occurrences of human-like evidence is legitimate

      I agree, there are always uncertainties. Though of course you must agree that SA should stand on its own positive evidence. The ToE for whatever uncertainity puts forth a coherent story,some which are accepted by you as well, common descent within a narrow range. Though the increase in the size of the brain has undergone some serious microevolution

      So perhaps you missed it, If humans do not spring from a common mammal population, how does the human population come to be? What is the mechanism for separate ancestory?

      .e have human like tracks significantly older than 1.8 million years. And Homo Erectus seems basically human in morphology and technology.

      Paluxy River? The time frame is not the question, it is how the separate populations came to be?

      Delete
    10. Jeff,


      JeffDecember 18, 2012 4:32 AM
      Once again, moron-Thorton,


      I like either Thormoron or Moronton better if I had to choose.



      known stratigraphic ranges have no known correspondence to actual stratigraphic ranges or existential ranges. Only idiotic positivistic-leaning scientists even think such moronic idiocy.

      If the actual ranges are not known ,how do you know that they are not the " known" ranges?

      Delete
    11. except for the dozens of known fossil transitional sequences,

      Transitional sequence = "it looks like a transitional sequence to me"


      comparative anatomy studies, genetic studies

      Both support a common design, not a common ancestor. What your position doesn't have is something to explain all of the observed differences.

      Not only that you don't have any way to MEASURE you claims, you know actual science.

      Delete
    12. V: If humans do not spring from a common mammal population, how does the human population come to be? What is the mechanism for separate ancestory?

      J: The nature of intelligent design is that it is directed. That is to say, specific event sequences are initiated by strategic allocations of conscious attention. This is the only sense in which we can explain intelligent design of anything.

      But this means that the self is a real being rather than an illusion. Indeed, no has yet been able to define what terms like "me," "I," "myself," "illusion," etc even mean if there is no actual self that is experiencing and directing conscious experience.

      Thus, intelligent design of ancestors just means that a designer strategically allocated conscious attention in such a way that event sequences were initiated that resulted in ancestors, just as we direct our conscious attention to, say, building a piano. But who thinks it plausible that pianos would ever originate completely a-teleologically?

      Once you posit hypothetically the relevant causal capacity to the designer, the hypothesis explains in a deductive way. In that sense, it's no different than positing inflation, dark matter, specific fundamental particles, etc. You posit entities with the requisite causal properties so effects can be deduced from antecedent conditions.

      One can always ask, "but how did dark matter originate?", etc. And that's one of the problems with a truly naturalistic approach--it requires an infinite regress of explanation, which of course is humanly impossible. In this sense, positing inexplicable finality (which is the essence of final causality) is INEVITABLE. The question is, who is being more parsimonious or positing less ad-hoc hypotheses?

      V: If the actual ranges are not known ,how do you know that they are not the " known" ranges?

      J: It's irrelevant. Science has to do with inferences that are knowably more warranted than competing ones. If it is not knowably more probable that a "known" stratigraphic range is well-correlated to the existential range, then positing such is just positing an ad-hoc hypotheses. Any time one party does it, the competitor ALSO gets to do it.

      This is what UCA'ists don't seem to realize. What's fair for the gander is fair for the goose. In the end, the party positing way more ad-hoc hypotheses than the other is the one being more speculative. Speculating greater is not remotely the equivalent of having more evidence.

      Data is evidence for an hypothesis when it is more parsimoniously or less ad-hoc-ly accounted for by said hypothesis than by competing hypotheses.


      Delete
    13. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Data is evidence for an hypothesis when it is more parsimoniously or less ad-hoc-ly accounted for by said hypothesis than by competing hypotheses.


      LOL! So positing "An unknown designer at an unknown place and unknown time using unknown processes and unknown materials for unknown reasons went POOF!" isn't ad-hoc.

      The Creationist Clown Circus has a new star in you Jeff.

      Delete
    14. Thorton,
      LOL! So positing "An unknown designer at an unknown place and unknown time using unknown processes and unknown materials for unknown reasons went POOF!" isn't ad-hoc

      I doubt Jeff believes that an omnipotent god is an ad- hoc assumption.

      Delete
    15. Jeff,

      J: The nature of intelligent design is that it is directed. That is to say, specific event sequences are initiated by strategic allocations of conscious attention. This is the only sense in which we can explain intelligent design of anything.

      In human design that seems true. But if you're assuming that everything we as humans perceive as designed is " intelligent being" designed, that would require that human perception is always accurate,a hard case to make . For instance did the nature of the rock and the wind and water consciously design the slot canyons of Escalante? Or does a seed consciously design a tree? In other words does "intelligence" have to be conscious or being?

      but this means that the self is a real being rather than an illusion. Indeed, no has yet been able to define what terms like "me," "I," "myself," "illusion," etc even mean if there is no actual self that is experiencing and directing conscious experience.

      No one is denying that water is wet

      Thus, intelligent design of ancestors just means that a designer strategically allocated conscious attention in such a way that event sequences were initiated that resulted in ancestors, just as we direct our conscious attention to, say, building a piano. But who thinks it plausible that pianos would ever originate completely a-teleologically?

      You do mean hypothetically of course? Last I checked if you leave two pianos alone overnight, 9 months later you don't have a baby grand. Yes, it is conceivable and maybe probable that life could be created by a conscious agent

      One can always ask, "but how did dark matter originate?", etc. And that's one of the problems with a truly naturalistic approach--it requires an infinite regress of explanation, which of course is humanly impossible.

      This is where the rubber meets the road. I don't think science in any practical sense seeks that ultimate answer or can.That is philosophy and religion. In my non scientist opinion, science is problem solving technique, in attempt to eliminate the known inaccuracies in human reasoning and perception. A lot of trial and error.


      In this sense, positing inexplicable finality (which is the essence of final causality) is INEVITABLE. The question is, who is being more parsimonious or positing less ad-hoc hypotheses

      Let's see, everyone agrees more or less some evolution occurs , ToE assumes that there is no barrier to extending this process, SA assumes that there is. All even. SA assumes that 1. There is designer 2. That a Designer could not make a bio system that resulted in his desired outcome without interference 3 that there is a desired outcome,the present form of man etc

      In my mind that would require more unproven and possibly unprovable mechanisms for science

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

      Delete
    17. An ad-hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis that has to be made to render the hypothesis coherent with currently accepted event regularities (e.g., gravity). E.g., non-observed dark matter.

      Now take UCA:

      1) We don't know there are DNA sequences that "produce" all the hypothetical phenotypes.

      2)We don't know morphologically-transitional phenotypes would be adapted to the environments of the posited time periods even if there are DNA sequences that can "produce" them.

      3) We don't know the mutations that would have occurred, according to whatever event regularities are involved in mutations, could have generated all the hypothetical phenotypes in the posited time-frame even if it's possible in terms of SOME time-frame.

      In short, we know NOTHING that tells us naturalistic UCA is logically possible. UCA is an HISTORICAL hypothesis that is constrained by a limited number of trajectories and limited time-frames. Story-telling is NOT applying event regularities to conditions to deduce what WOULD happen. It's just speculation.

      SA doesn't have to posit any thing LIKE the number of speculative mutational rates, possible phenotypes, conducive environments, etc that naturalistic UCA requires, given that there's no theory that predicts hardly ANY of that.

      SA doesn't need a theory for most posited lineages. Because it's basically a matter of extrapolating ANALOGICALLY into the past--something that radical branching patterns and phenotypical trajectories rules out. The number of posited ancestor-design events is trivial compared to all that has to be posited ad-hoc by UCA'ists, given the absence of a truly predictive theory.

      Moronton says phenotypes can't be predicted because of historical contingencies. He's only partly right. We can't predict hardly any of the phenotypes by ANY modeled event regularities WHATSOEVER, regardless of historical contingencies or adaptive constraints. We're THAT ignorant of what mutations will produce phenotypically in the long-term.

      If naturalistic UCA is true, it's true despite what we know, not because of it.

      Delete
    18. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      (snip the same dumb philosophical blithering)


      Poor LFJJ just can't come to grips with the fact that his Philosophy degree is only good for lining the bottom of the parakeet cage. He just keeps rewriting the same inane drivel in the forlorn hope that somebody, anybody, will be as clueless about the evolutionary sciences as he is and will think his work isn't total dreck.

      At least he didn't post a dishonestly quote-mined passage from Gould this time.

      Delete
    19. I saw where you were too cowardly to address the relevant point in the other thread, Moronton. So, again, how NON-gradual must evolution be to render Gould's criticism of gradualism irrelevant to your view of the mode and tempo of evolution? And how does this view account for what we observe?

      Delete
    20. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      I saw where you were too cowardly to address the relevant point in the other thread.


      I addressed the fact that you lied and deliberately misrepresented what Gould wrote about Punk Eek. Even Gould himself decried the fact that liars like you misrepresent his work.

      If you weren't such a disgustingly dishonest and lazy ass you could do some simple research yourself. You'd find that evolution doesn't have just one speed - sometimes it's very gradual, sometimes it's very rapid. it depends on the rate of change of the environment.

      Molecular Phylogenies Link Rates of Evolution and Speciation

      Abstract: Evolutionary biologists have sought a correlation between rates of genetic evolution and speciation ever since Mayr proposed his founder-effect model of speciation; indeed this link formed the basis of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Yet to date few correlations between net rates of speciation (speciation minus extinction) and genetic change have been demonstrated, nor has an estimate of the generality of this relationship become available. We compared the net number of speciation events to underlying genetic change using 56 published phylogenies inferred from gene-sequence data, and we estimate that the two are correlated in approximately 30 to 50% of cases.

      But you are a particularly lazy and dishonest example of the Creationist "kind", so you won't.

      Delete
    21. Jeff,

      Moronton

      Don't wear it out,

      Delete
    22. Jeff,

      1) We don't know there are DNA sequences that "produce" all the hypothetical phenotypes.

      I am getting a bit outside my comfort zone and hope those with vastly superior knowledge will pardon any gross misstep,I would welcome any help.That said, maybe I can muddle thru.

      Likewise we don't not know what the genetic makeup was of the created species, or exactly what the phenotype of that species was,or actually what the timeline was. The most convincing would be if each species was uniquely designed but alas the designer choose otherwise for,assumption, unknown reason

      We don't know morphologically-transitional phenotypes would be adapted to the environments of the posited time periods even if there are DNA sequences that can "produce" them.

      Per ToE then those species would die out, those that survive were our ancestors or cousins. ToE wasn't trying to create man, if the meteor hadn't rubbed out the Dinos or the volcanos had erupted longer 70,000 years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion. ToE doesn't assume man

      SA does,it is teleological , so in order for man to progress to modernity we have to make assumptions.Why create a primitive form at all? Why create a genome which mutates unpredictably, sometimes lethally. Why did some of his designs go extinct, were modern humans the goal? Why evolve a brain,doesn't that leave a lot to chance? How do your protect your design from ice ages,diseases ,volcanos.?

      We don't know the mutations that would have occurred, according to whatever event regularities are involved in mutations, could have generated all the hypothetical phenotypes in the posited time-frame even if it's possible in terms of SOME time-frame

      That is the beauty of a nonteleological design, if they hadn't occurred something else would have survived. It was not attempting to create man

      For SA, how did the designer know how microevolution over a couple million years would result in man? He is stuck with the same time frame.

      Now there are a million ways to explain these questions,but it is just speculation. No matter how big the holes in ToE are,SA faces many of the same problems with the addition of a unknown designer and his unknown capabilities and limitations. The designer of the ToE doesn't suffer from those problems,only whether it is powerful enough.

      As you say, you could be right,thanks for the conversation

      Delete
    23. V: Likewise we don't not know what the genetic makeup was of the created species, or exactly what the phenotype of that species was,or actually what the timeline was.

      J: It doesn't matter. SA need only be more analogical in its extrapolation than UCA in the absence of naturalistic theories that account for all the details. Because that IS an inductive criteria for plausibility. Remember, induction isn't about proving things. It's about what inferences are warranted or more warranted and how.

      V: ToE doesn't assume man

      J: But UCA does has to include man in the tree, otherwise it's SA.

      V: Why create a genome which mutates unpredictably, sometimes lethally.

      J: All natural events are, in principle, predictable by an intelligent enough being. Theodicy attempts to deal with the non-natural contingencies in a way that least speculatively accounts for the other issues you bring up.

      We can always talk about the problems of each at a high-level. But when you start to flesh out the details of those high-level "problems," UCA is not knowably less speculative than SA in any conceivable sense.

      Delete
    24. Jeff, now that you've used your amazing philosophical powers to disprove ToE, arguably the best supported scientific theory of all time, what's next for our Creationist boy genius?

      Do you think you could use your philosophy to disprove the theory of gravity? Just think of all the money the airlines would save on fuel. Or maybe philosophize away the germ theory of disease, save everybody big $$$$ on medical bills.

      An intellect as powerful as yours needs to be shared with the world!

      Delete
    25. Thorton, my dear moron, you are living proof of what I've said about your ilk. Neither CH nor I am saying that UCA is knowably impossible. Nor are we saying that we don't know things about evolutionary mechanisms. But there is no theory that is predictive in nature that has any relevance to the plausibility of UCA. And since you can't define evidence such that there is evidence for naturalistic UCA otherwise, you have nothing (but the ability to cognitively moon, of course).

      Delete
    26. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      But there is no theory that is predictive in nature that has any relevance to the plausibility of UCA.


      Sure there is. It's called the theory of evolution, and it's arguably the most well supported theory in the history of science.

      Pity that as a Creationist you choose to be willfully ignorant of what the theory actually says and how evolutionary processes actually work, but that's your problem.

      It is hilarious to hear you continue your pathetic philosophical "rebuttals" and grandiose claims that everything modern biological sciences knows is wrong. The gasbag ego of an idiot internet Creationist is truly a sight to behold!

      Delete
    27. thorton the pathological liar:
      It's called the theory of evolution, and it's arguably the most well supported theory in the history of science.

      Except it doesn't have any science to support it. Can't be measured, can't be quantified, can't be qualified, can't be science.

      Delete
    28. And it is very telling that thorton the cowardly closet YEC is too chicken to ante up a testable hypothesis along with positive evidence for unguided evolution.

      Delete
    29. Fatboy Joke Gallien today

      Joke G

      thorton: "It's called the theory of evolution, and it's arguably the most well supported theory in the history of science."

      Except it doesn't have any science to support it. Can't be measured, can't be quantified, can't be qualified, can't be science.


      Fatboy Joke Gallien yesterday

      Joke G

      AGAIN I NEVER SAID EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!! NEVER

      velikovskys: "What is the evidence for evolution?"

      Allele frequencies change over time. Offspring are not exact copies of their parents. Differential survival and reproduction.


      Fatboy Joke Gallien gets very confused when he's only had 2 dozen sugar pancakes instead of his usual 5 dozen.





      Delete
    30. Not only can he not provide a relevant prediction, but he's already admitted that the theory can't predict the posited trajectories. What's worse, he doesn't even believe the posited evolution is natural, because he thinks it could occur differently if "replayed" under the same exact conditions and with the same event regularities. IOW, Thorton is about as moronic as any human being walking the face of the earth.

      Delete
    31. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Not only can he not provide a relevant prediction, but he's already admitted that the theory can't predict the posited trajectories.


      But ToE has provided all kinds of predictions that have proven true LFJJ.

      A few evolutionary predictions that have proven true

      Why you love to keep embarrassing yourself with your pitiful ignorance and laziness is beyond me.

      What's worse, he doesn't even believe the posited evolution is natural, because he thinks it could occur differently if "replayed" under the same exact conditions and with the same event regularities.

      You pitiful ignorance is showing again LFJJ. Just because specifics can't be predicted doesn't mean statistical trends can't be predicted. I can predict right now that Las Vegas casios will make approx. 5% winnings on roulette next week even though no one on the planet can predict the specific numbers.

      You've only had that explained to you about a dozen times now but you're still too stupid to get it. Typical Creationist.

      Delete
    32. You're confused, moron. statistical trends for phenotypical trajectories can not be predicted. They are EXPECTED based on other ad-hoc assumptions. But they are NOT predicted in terms of any naturalistic theory applied to any initial conditions whatsoever. Your stupidity is utterly mind-boggling!

      Delete
    33. liar for evolution thorton:
      But ToE has provided all kinds of predictions that have proven true

      Please name ONE prediction borne from the proposed mechansim of accumulations of genetic accidents, or admit that you are nothing but a cowardly equivocator.

      Delete
    34. And not only that thorTARD the loser conflates evolution, the thing, with the theory of evolution, the theory that explains the thing.

      thorton, moron, there is a difference between evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time and the theory which attempts to tell us the HOW those allele frequencies change.

      IOW you are the most ignorant person, ever.

      Delete
    35. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      You're confused, moron. statistical trends for phenotypical trajectories can not be predicted.


      Yes LFJJ, they can.

      Insular dwarfism

      Keep that ignorance train rollin' LFJJ. You're neck and neck with Chubby Joke for the title of World's Dumbest Creationist.

      Delete
    36. Chubby Joke G

      And not only that thorTARD the loser conflates evolution, the thing, with the theory of evolution, the theory that explains the thing.


      No Chubs, that would be CH who continually equivocates between the two. Science has been quite clear on the matter for over a century and a half.

      Delete
    37. Umm YOU are conflating the two, dumbass. See your post @ 6:54 PM yesterday.

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

    ReplyDelete
  20. It comes down to a matter of worldviews doesn't it? Evolutionists have ultimate faith in evolution. They eliminate the possibility of a Creator from the start so they are forced by their starting position to find a natural explanation for whatever we see in nature.

    So, it doesn't really matter what the evidence against it is. It doesn't really matter how improbable a thing they are forced to believe. They just believe it! And their belief is genuine too. They are not lying.

    So for instance, they actually believe that the retina learned how to digitize images which allows information transmission to the brain to be reliable. Here we go again: computer cables, codes, digitized information, etc. This is the language of design, not chance, but the faith of evolutionists is not fazed.

    So we have Thorton et al singing the praises of natural selection as if that explains stuff like this. In the end, it is a faith position because he cannot show that it actually happened.

    Now, if you could actually evolve an eye in the lab, then we would have some strong evidence to deal with, but as it is, it is just one worldview against another, one interpretation of the evidence against another. One believes future discoveries will validate their faith and the other believes that the evidence we already have is sufficient to point to a Designer.

    From a crev.info summary of this article: "There are two take-home messages from this paper. One is that the closer science looks at life, the more intelligently designed it appears. The autonomous bipolar cells cannot “know” what the brain needs. They had to be pre-programmed to send the most valuable information so that the brain can respond appropriately. They have to “format” the signal, using a code the brain can understand. And they have to get it there fast; that’s why digital is the way to go. The exquisite interaction of parts here, sending digitally-encoded information down a “cable” of sorts, is really mind-boggling. It’s not just a camera chip; it’s a whole Photoshop!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They eliminate the possibility of a Creator from the start so they are forced by their starting position to find a natural explanation for whatever we see in nature.

      Yup, that's pretty much how science goes. Every scientist in every field does this. Science would be absolutely impossible if they did not.

      So, it doesn't really matter what the evidence against it is.

      By definition, there is no evidence for it. Evidence cannot support a supernatural conclusion. If there was supporting evidence, then it would no longer BE supernatural. It would be natural.

      It doesn't really matter how improbable a thing they are forced to believe.

      We are not forced to believe anything. "I don't know" is always the default position of science, and it is a perfectly valid one.

      Delete
    2. Tokyojim

      Is that a real set of armor in your picture?

      Just curious, what is your alternative explanation in general terms?

      Delete
    3. By definition, there is no evidence for it.

      Please provide that definition or admit taht you are lying.

      Evidence cannot support a supernatural conclusion.

      Sure it can.

      If there was supporting evidence, then it would no longer BE supernatural. It would be natural.

      How does that work, exactly?

      Delete
  21. Joe -

    Please provide that definition or admit taht you are lying.

    su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
    adj.
    1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
    2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
    3. Of or relating to a deity.
    4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
    5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

    So no, not lying. Sorry to disappoint.

    "If there was supporting evidence, then it would no longer BE supernatural. It would be natural."

    How does that work, exactly?


    Yes, I suppose I did speak slightly out of turn there. That isn't quite what I should have put.

    Evidence for the supernatural can EXIST. If the spirit of a loved one appeared to a person and spoke to them, then that person's testimony is a form of evidence (however reliable).

    However, if it happens only once and never again, then science cannot speak to it simply because it is not repeatable.

    But any force which was repeatable, did yield constant, positive results would be called a natural force.

    This is close to what I meant above. When forces are discovered to give repeatable, verifiable results, then we classify them as natural. There therefore cannot be a supernatural force which gives repeatable, verifiable results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! That definition doesn't support what you said. And if something matches that definition then it will be supernatural until someone changes the definition.

      Delete