Saturday, December 8, 2012

Transcription Factors Controlling Transcription Factors

Circular

Researchers at the University of Warwick have found another round of “conserved” non coding sequences, this time in the four plant species: the papaya, poplar, Arabidopsis and grape. And if the these similar DNA sequences are found in such disparate species, then the sequences must have been present in a very distant, and much simpler, common ancestor. The problem is these CNS’s are apparently rather clever. Not only do they appear to be regulating gene expression by influencing transcription factor binding, but many of the genes regulated by these sequences are themselves transcription factors. As one researcher explains:

So it’s the transcription factors that are regulating other transcription factors—which forms this idea of there being a core common network that is shared across different plant species.

So a long time ago random mutations just happened to construct a “core common network” where promoter regions controlled how transcription factors, also designed by random mutations, would regulate the expression of genes, which again were constructed by random mutations, of other transcription factors. And this “network” would then turn out to be a crucial component in all kinds of plants yet to be designed by evolution and its random mutations. It all makes perfect evolutionary sense.

220 comments:

  1. Yes, well, if benevolent/competent design can't be true (since we're told that theodicy can't be teleological in nature), then all that's left is UCA. Except that there is no grounds for the belief that the correspondence theory of truth-approximating reason is even true if benevolent/competent teleology is non-existent.

    As one atheist UCA'ist finally admitted to me, atheists can not non-arbitrarily rule out last-Thursdayism. It's all sheer nonsense once we reject benevolent/competent design as the explanation for at LEAST the correspondence theory of apprehension. No design, no foundationalism. No foundationalism, no non-arbitrary hypothesis-rejection criteria.

    But the minute you bring back in benevolent/competent design to account for the correspondence theory of truth-approximating inductive reasoning, etc, SA beats UCA hands down, just in terms of the number of required ad-hoc hypotheses, never mind the related analogies.

    Naturalistic UCA is a bald claim in need of explanation. Nothing that has yet been offered as evidence for it is not more plausibly applicable to SA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree. Contingent probabilsm has been rendered completely impotent of explanatory power. Only existential rationality can hope to sum the differences of an asymptotic fourier series to a null point.

      Delete
    2. "asymptotic fourier series"

      Wow....that is some grade A+ B.S. right there,

      As is the logic. You cannot rule out an arbitrary, undisprovable hypothesis, therefore.....underpants Gnomes? No? Why not?

      Why not just posit undisprovable hypotheses aren't useful?

      Delete
    3. I'm glad you enjoyed the humour. And thanks for the grade. You are much more intelligent than most of my profs.

      Delete
  2. 'It's becoming extremely problematic to explain how the genome could arise and how these multiple levels of overlapping information could arise, since our best computer programmers can't even conceive of overlapping codes. The genome dwarfs all of the computer information technology that man has developed. So I think that it is very problematic to imagine how you can achieve that through random changes in a code.,,, More and more it looks like top down design and not just bottom up chance discovery of making complex systems.' - Dr. John Sanford
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YemLbrCdM_s

    Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xkW4C7uOE8s98tNx2mzMKmALeV8-348FZNnZmSWY5H8/edit

    ReplyDelete
  3. So a long time ago random mutations just happened to construct a “core common network” where promoter regions controlled how transcription factors, also designed by random mutations, would regulate the expression of genes, which again were constructed by random mutations, of other transcription factors.

    Don't forget natural selection.

    So what's your theory? Jesus thought it was about time to poof some transcription factors into existence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! Natural selection doesn't do anything, troy. So there isn't anything to forget.

      Delete
    2. Yes it does. It winnows out disadvantageous mutations.

      It is a necessary part of that 'microevolution' that ID-ers will begrudgingly admit to happening when pushed. We can demonstrate it at work.

      Of course it is a part of 'macroevolution' too, but for some reason ID-ers think it suddely stops when we talk about large time-frames, for some reason...

      Delete
    3. Ritchie:
      It winnows out disadvantageous mutations.

      Except when it doesn't. It winnows out fatal mutations.

      It's supposed to be a designer mimic and winnowing out fatal mutations doesn't do it.

      And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts.

      Heck you can't even get past prokaryotes without resorting to some magical endosymbiotic event



      Delete
    4. Except when it doesn't. It winnows out fatal mutations.

      All indiviuals are locked in a competative struggle to survive. How is it not logical that those who are most suited to survival and reproduction will be most likely to survive and reproduce?

      It's supposed to be a designer mimic and winnowing out fatal mutations doesn't do it.

      Designer mimic? What?

      And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts.

      What exactly is it you deny? That random genetic mutations occur? That these mutatuions can have an effect on the morphology of their host? That a slightly altered morphology will affect the organism's ability to survive and reproduce?

      Each step here is perfectly logic, and amply well documented, but taken as a whole, you seem to deny it happens at all. Which is totally asinine.

      We have observed exactly as much evolutionary change as we can expect to see within the timeframe that we have been looking.

      The peppered moth study is a neat little demonstration of the power of natural selection at work. Given that animals are morphologically different. And that these differences are caused by their genes. And that there is variation in the gene pool because occassionally mutations occurr during reproduction. So where exactly is the problem?

      Or are you still clinging to "It's all nonsense until someone actually SHOWS me an elephant turning into a bird!" You do know why that's a total fallacy, right?

      Heck you can't even get past prokaryotes without resorting to some magical endosymbiotic event

      No idea what you're talking about here. Care to enlighten us?

      Delete
    5. All indiviuals are locked in a competative struggle to survive.

      No, they are not. Cooperation seems to be the rule, not competition.

      How is it not logical that those who are most suited to survival and reproduction will be most likely to survive and reproduce?

      Look, whatever is good enough survives to reproduce.

      Designer mimic? What?

      Darwin, the inventor of natural selection, said it was a designer mimic. Are you daft?

      And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts.

      What exactly is it you deny?

      I cannot deny what there isn't any evidence for.

      We have observed exactly as much evolutionary change as we can expect to see within the timeframe that we have been looking.

      And everything we have observed supports baraminology.

      The peppered moth study demonstrates that natural selection doesn't do anything.

      As for prokaryotes- do you know the propaganda on how they became eukaryotes? Or are you totally clueless abiut that too?


      Delete
    6. No, they are not. Cooperation seems to be the rule, not competition.

      Wow. Didn't realise your ignorance of the natural world ran so deep.

      Yes, every living thing IS locked in constant struggle for survival. Predators and prey, herbivores and plants, immune systems and viruses... Every living thing consumes other living things (except right at the bottom of the food chain where organisms draw energy from the Sun - or het from thermal vents). That means that right the way up the food chain something is trying to eat and not be eaten.

      Cooperation certainly is a viable and popular strategy for survival. But even here there are drawbacks - all social animals stamp a hierarchy on their social interactions. They might live together for mutual protection, but they don't democratically share breeding rights.

      It's as if you genuinely think lions and zebras are the best of pals, occassionally enjoying a harmless game of chase. That viruses pop into your body periodically for a cup of coffee and a chat before harmlessly leaving again. And all animals exist in a lovely, huggy world where they are all friends and never harm or hurt each other.

      What planet are you living on? Nature is red in tooth and claw.

      Look, whatever is good enough survives to reproduce.

      'Good enough?' What is 'good enough'? In every generation, only a fraction of those that are born will survive to reproduce. Between disease, predators, competition with fellows and just plain accident, death takes its toll.

      Darwin, the inventor of natural selection, said it was a designer mimic. Are you daft?

      I don't claim to be an expert on Darwin. It really isn't necessary to know the first thing about him to fully understand ToE. I've just never encountered the phrase 'design mimic before'. In what way is natural selection supposed to be a 'design mimic'?

      And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts.

      Yes there is. There's Lenski's E.Coli's bacteria study off the top of my head.

      I cannot deny what there isn't any evidence for.

      There is evidence that random genetic mutations occur. There is evidence that these mutatuions can have an effect on the morphology of their host. There is evidence that a slightly altered morphology will affect the organism's ability to survive and reproduce. And yet you deny this.

      And everything we have observed supports baraminology.

      Present a single piece of evidence, just one, and explain clearly how it supports baraminology over it's null hypothesis.

      The peppered moth study demonstrates that natural selection doesn't do anything

      No it doesn't. It demonstrates that gnetic variation fluctuates according to the environment. It demonstrates selection pressures. It demonstrates natural selection.

      As for prokaryotes- do you know the propaganda on how they became eukaryotes? Or are you totally clueless abiut that too?

      By 'propaganda' you obviously mean 'established scientific explanation which I hate because it doesn't support my Magic Man In The Sky story', right?

      Delete
    7. LoL! There isn't anythiung scientific about endosymbiosis leading to mitochondria.

      And yes natural selection exists, it just doesn't do anything.

      Also Ernst Mayr said "whatever is good enough"- read "What Evolution Is"

      In what way is natural selection supposed to be a 'design mimic'?

      In every way- look it is obvious that you are ignorant of the ToE. Perhaps you should read about what you are trying to defend.

      Evidence for baraminology? Peppered moths, Lenski's experiments- every experiment ever conducted.

      There is evidence that random genetic mutations occur. There is evidence that these mutatuions can have an effect on the morphology of their host. There is evidence that a slightly altered morphology will affect the organism's ability to survive and reproduce. And yet you deny this.

      Nope, you are a liar

      Delete
    8. There isn't anythiung scientific about endosymbiosis leading to mitochondria.

      Where sis I say anything about endosymbiosis leading to mitochondria? Please try to engage with the discussion we are actually having.

      And yes natural selection exists, it just doesn't do anything.

      If it didn't do anything, then it wouldn't exist.

      In every way

      That is not an answer.

      look it is obvious that you are ignorant of the ToE. Perhaps you should read about what you are trying to defend.

      How ironic, seeing as I have a diploma in Evolutionary Biology and another in Zoology. But yes, please continue to educate me on something which I apparently 'know nothing about'.

      What exactly are you qualifications in the field of biology, by the way?

      Evidence for baraminology? Peppered moths, Lenski's experiments- every experiment ever conducted.

      How do the Peppered Moths study or Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study support baraminology?

      The Peppered Moth study demonstrates the power of selection pressures and natural selection.

      Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study demonstrates how random mutations can lead to speciation and accumulate in new morphological features and abilities.

      Baraminology denies these things. So no, they do not support baraminology in the slightest.

      Nope, you are a liar

      And what lie have I told, exactly?

      Do you believe random genetic mutations occur at all? Yes or no.

      If yes, do you believe these mutations can have an effect on the morphology of their host? Yes or no.

      If yes, do you believe a slightly altered morphology will affect the organism's ability to survive and reproduce? Yes or no.

      Delete
    9. Where sis I say anything about endosymbiosis leading to mitochondria?

      That is what evos say- evos that actually know something, unlike you.

      If it didn't do anything, then it wouldn't exist.

      That's very stupid.

      And darwin's whole point about natural selection is that it is a designer mimic- we can get design without a designer. Geez read the book already.

      How do the Peppered Moths study or Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study support baraminology?

      Go read about baraminology as opposed to remaining ignorant of that too.

      Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study demonstrates how random mutations can lead to speciation and accumulate in new morphological features and abilities.



      1- Don't know if they were random, ie chance events

      2- the change is well within baraminology

      Baraminology denies these things.

      No, it doesn't. You are just ignorant.

      Do you believe random genetic mutations occur at all?

      Yes, they can.

      If yes, do you believe these mutations can have an effect on the morphology of their host?

      They can but don't have to.

      If yes, do you believe a slightly altered morphology will affect the organism's ability to survive and reproduce?

      It can but doesn't have to. Human babies are slightly different from their parents but they are still human.


      Delete
    10. Joe G -

      That is what evos say- evos that actually know something, unlike you.

      But it is not something I said. Nor is it relevant to any point I have made. So you are just talking at a complete tangent.

      That's very stupid.

      Yet true. A force which did nothing would not exist, would it?

      Or if it did, it would at least be completely undetectable, which for all practical purposes amounts to the same thing.

      And darwin's whole point about natural selection is that it is a designer mimic- we can get design without a designer. Geez read the book already.

      Natural selection is the force which changes the alleles in a gene pool. Selection pressures with favour some genes and weed out others.

      Whether the end product appears to be 'designed' is completely irrelevant.

      Go read about baraminology as opposed to remaining ignorant of that too.

      Mindless chest-thumping. If you think these studies support baraminology, then explain how.

      1- Don't know if they were random, ie chance events

      How might they not have been. What alternative force might have produced them?

      2- the change is well within baraminology

      What would falsify baraminology?

      "Yes, they can."

      Correct.

      "They can but don't have to."

      Correct again.

      "It can but doesn't have to. Human babies are slightly different from their parents but they are still human."

      Three for three. Correct again.

      And now let us remind ourselves of a comment you made a few posts ago:

      "And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts."

      Do you still stand by the sentence? If so, how have you not just contradicted yourself?

      Delete
    11. LoL! I stand by that statement and no I did NOT contradict myself. Your false accusation is meaningless.

      Natural selection is NOT a force. All natural selection is is differential reproduction DUE TO heritable, random (chance) variation.

      And gene frequencies can change via drift.

      But anyway your ignorance wrt natural selection is noted.

      The studies support baraminology because baraminology is OK with natural selection and it is OK with bacteria evolving to be bacteria.

      With Lenski there wasn't any new proteins- citrate utilization in the presence of oxygen was achieved by taking the gene that allowed for citrate transport in anerobic environments and put it under control of a promoter taht was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

      No new proteins and no new functions.

      And the alternative force is genetic programming and universal common descent would falsify baraminology.

      Delete
    12. Your false accusation is meaningless.

      I made no accusation.

      We are now at a point where you agree that random mutations can occur, and may indeed affect the morphology, and thus the fitness, of the host creature.

      Now, from here, you really are only a hop away from evolution. This is all that evolution is - random mutations being filtered through natural selection. The good mutations are kept, while the bad ones are eliminated. Thus the good mutations accumulate. And that is evolution.

      Natural selection is NOT a force.

      Yes it is. Just as the force of gravity is a force.

      All natural selection is is differential reproduction DUE TO heritable, random (chance) variation.

      If a farmer keeps cows and breeds them for certain characteristics (size, milk yield, whatever), he is applying artificial selection. The average size, milk yield, etc., of his herd will fluctuate because of his actions. Artificial selection is thus a tangible force.

      Natural selection is exactly the same thing, but without an agent doing the 'selecting'. Creatures live and die by trial of fire. The fittest thrive and the less fit die - by running the hazardous existence of life in the wild. That is natural selection.

      But anyway your ignorance wrt natural selection is noted.

      It is simply you who is ignorant here.

      With Lenski there wasn't any new proteins- citrate utilization in the presence of oxygen was achieved by taking the gene that allowed for citrate transport in anerobic environments and put it under control of a promoter taht was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

      No new proteins and no new functions.


      Are you insane? The ability to digest citrate is a new function! They evolved the ability to do something they could not do when the experiment began.

      And the alternative force is genetic programming and universal common descent would falsify baraminology.

      And how are 'baraminologists' testing for this?

      Delete
    13. Ritchie- ID is NOT anti-evolution. Again your ignorance means nothing

      Natural selection is NOT a force.

      Yes it is.

      Nope:

      The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:




      Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)



      All natural selection is is differential reproduction DUE TO heritable, random (chance) variation.

      If a farmer keeps cows and breeds them for certain characteristics (size, milk yield, whatever), he is applying artificial selection.

      Yes I know. And natural selection isn't like that- it is just a result:

      “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

      and

      “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

      But anyway your ignorance wrt natural selection is noted.

      It is simply you who is ignorant here.

      I just supported my claims with references. OTOH you can't support yours.

      With Lenski there wasn't any new proteins- citrate utilization in the presence of oxygen was achieved by taking the gene that allowed for citrate transport in anerobic environments and put it under control of a promoter taht was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

      No new proteins and no new functions.


      Are you insane? The ability to digest citrate is a new function!

      LoL! It already had the ability to digest citrate. All it couldn't do was transport the citrate through the membrane in the presence of oxygen. Take away the oxygen and it could utilize teh citrate just fine without any mutations.

      Are you really this ignorant, mr zoology?

      Go buy a vowel and then get back to us...





      Delete
    14. I see you've been rotting around in your bargain bucket of Creationist quote-mines. That one from William Provine has been doing the rounds for years.

      Natural selection is not an active agent. It is a process. A selection process. A mechanism which filters good genes from bad. This is what is does.

      Natural Selection as a Creative Force by Stephen Jay Gould

      Natural selection, by superintending the differential preservation of a biassed region from this sphere in each generation, and by summing up (over countless repetitions) the tiny changes thus produced in each episode, can manufacture substantial, directional change. What else but natural selection could be called "creative," or direction-giving, in such a process? As long as variation only supplies raw material; as long as change accretes in an insensibly gradual manner; and as long as the reproductive advantages of certain individuals provide the statistical source of change; then natural selection must be construed as the directional cause of evolutionary modification.



      "Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution."

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

      So no, I'm afraid it is not true that natural selection 'does nothing'.

      natural selection isn't like that- it is just a result

      It is a process. A selection process. Really, the clue is in the title.

      "Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population..."



      It already had the ability to digest citrate. All it couldn't do was transport the citrate through the membrane in the presence of oxygen. Take away the oxygen and it could utilize teh citrate just fine without any mutations.

      Errr, what?

      Part of the genome was copied and two sequences of DNA were linked together in an entriely original way! This protein pathway has never occurred before in any known species of E.Coli and may never exist again outside of this experiment. This is a complex, multi-part protein pathway arising from natural selection acting on random mutation to produce new, creative functions.

      Are you really this ignorant, mr zoology?

      I'm curious - you never stated your qualifications exactly, did you? Why would that be, exactly?

      Delete
    15. I see you've been rotting around in your bargain bucket of Creationist quote-mines. That one from William Provine has been doing the rounds for years

      I did NOT quote-mine. And natural selection does NOT select.

      So no, I'm afraid it is not true that natural selection 'does nothing'.


      Strange that you can't provide any evidence of it doing something.

      It already had the ability to digest citrate. All it couldn't do was transport the citrate through the membrane in the presence of oxygen. Take away the oxygen and it could utilize teh citrate just fine without any mutations.

      Errr, what?

      Again with your ignorance.

      Part of the genome was copied and two sequences of DNA were linked together in an entriely original way!

      So what? What does that have to do with what I said- which happens to be true?

      Again all that happened was there were two potentiang mutations for by a tandem duplicate.

      No new proteins and no new functions arose.

      It used an EXISTIING protein that preformed the SAME function under anaerobic conditions and now it does it with the presence of oxygen. There isn't any new "multi-protein pathway".

      ONE protein- not new- used under different circumstances.

      As I said you are obvioulsy ignorant.

      Delete
  4. Years ago a guy on talkorigins claimed that the ID'ists had a valid point IF it were not for junk DNA. That was before the ubiquitous articles demonstrating how wrong he was about putatively "junk" DNA. He was plausibly correct about the argument and wrong about the facts. I guess he intuitively understood that non-competent/benevolent design is the only design that can account for the correspondent view of truth-approximating reason without seeing the implications it had for his own denial of design.

    Even Steve Fuller is now arguing that ID needs something like a theodicy (http://www.uncommondescent.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/) to be taken seriously. Without it, ID'ists are have the same epistemological problem as atheism. Deism is just as much arbitrary/blind belief as is atheism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The phrase "non-competent/benevolent design is the only design" above should have been "competent/benevolent design is the only design."

      Delete
    2. Jeff

      The phrase "non-competent/benevolent design is the only design" above should have been "competent/benevolent design is the only design."


      Actually your Freudian slip was the closest you IDiots have come yet to getting it right.

      Delete
  5. Cornelius,
    Don't get all huffed up about this? Settle down, take an aspirin, and you'll feel OK by morning I'm sure.

    Remember, "Natural selection can do all things through chance, time, and mutation which enables it."

    That's the first and most important article of faith in the Darwinian Confession, so come on, keep the faith!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Troy,

    all natural selection implies is that adaptive mutations are more likely to be fixed into a population than neutral or non-adaptive ones. It doesn't even guarantee that adaptive mutations will be fixed into a population, much less what phenotypes will result or the time-frame in which they will blindly arise--nor whether environmental conditions will cause all or some lineages to just go extinct.

    IOW, naturalistic-UCA'ists have never had a causal theory, nor have they proven it's logically possible. So ID'ists aren't obligated to do anything but decrease the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required to attempt an explanation. And that, Troy, isn't even hard to do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Awwww, you Fundy philosophy student Godbotherers are soooooo cute when you try to use philosophy to disprove a well established scientific theory! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! the "theory" of evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory and it doesn't have any science to support it.

      Delete
    2. Oh the irony...

      Yes, The THEORY of Evolution IS a scientific theory. That's why we call it the theory of evolution. It has fully earned the name. Along with all it's vast cache of evidence.

      It is Creationism and ID which do not count as theories. And your saying otherwise does not make it so.

      Delete
    3. Ritchie- Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

      In what way is it a theory when it can't even provide a testable hypothesis?

      And it cannot be quantified- no one knows how many mutations it takes to get a human from a knuckle-walker.

      Delete
  8. Hmmm. Let me try to explain it on your level, then, Thorton. How' this? --

    Awwww, you fideists are soooo cute when you unsuccessfully attempt to articulate a rational argument to prove you can demarcate naturalistic UCA belief from fideism.

    -- Is that clearer for you, Thorton, you little cutie pie?

    ReplyDelete
  9. LOL! @ Jeff with the 3rd grade maturity level!

    Keep going Jeff! You'll have overthrown ToE and established Creationism in no time!

    Now please Jeff, copy my post and change the name, show everyone how IDiot philosophy students do science!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Still not to your level, yet, cutie pie? What about this? --

    Keep going Thorton! You'll have overthrown ToE and established Creationism in no time!

    -- Is that clearer for you, Thorton, you little cutie pie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jeff! You're the classic example of the Creationist IDiot with no original thoughts of your own!

      With childish fools like you pushing Creationism science has nothing to fear.

      Delete
    2. I'm nothing if not determined to descend to your level of intelligence, Thorton. So what about this --

      Thanks Thorton! You're the classic example of the naturalistic UCA'ist who knows nothing true and relevant to post, but constantly appeals to the beliefs of others!

      With childish fools like you pushing naturalistic UCA, ID'ists have nothing to fear.

      -- Did that help, you little cutie pie, you?

      Delete
    3. Teenager Jeff looks so cute in his TeamJesus cheerleading outfit, doesn't he?

      Chubby Joe Gallien desperately wants one too, but they don't come in size 106 XXXXXXXL.

      Delete
    4. thong-boy is just upset because his body's design came with a little pee-pee and no bowel control.

      Delete
    5. Tell us more about pyramid antenna woo, reincarnation, and AIG's evidence for Noah's Ark Chubs. I just love when you offer that kind of ID evidence.

      Do you think you'll be cross-examined on those "scientific" things at the next ID trial? I bet you will!

      Delete
    6. Thorton, never fear, cutie pie. I'll try yet again to communicate on your intellectual level. What about this --

      Teenager Cutie Pie looks so cute in his Fideism Club uniform, doesn't he?

      -- does that help, cutie pie?

      Delete
    7. Cool! I've never had an IDiot creationist yap dog follow me around while he pees on the rug!

      I get to poke fun at the IDiots and I get to see one act like a baby with a wet diaper at the same time! Sweet!

      Delete
    8. spew boy:
      Do you think you'll be cross-examined on those "scientific" things at the next ID trial?

      They have nothing to do with ID. However they each have more scientific support than evolutionism. And I will testify to that in any Court.

      Delete
    9. I'm not giving up on you, Thorton, ya cutie pie, you! Let me descend a little lower for your sake. How's this --

      Cool! I've never had a UCA-fideist yap dog follow me around while he soils his pants.

      I get to poke fun at the UCA-fideists and I get to see one act like a baby with soiled britches at the same time! Sweet!

      -- does that help, cutie pie?

      Delete
    10. BIG LOL!

      Jeff the idiot just doesn't know the score. I guess he's just jealous because science has all the evidence.

      Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right yap dog?

      Delete
    11. One more attempt, then I've got to hit the sack, cutie pie Thorton. I'll be back to help you more tomorrow, though. So don't fear. How about this --

      Cutie pie Thorton the fideist just doesn't know the UCA'ists have not yet scored. I guess he's just terrified since his fideism is the logical equivalent of idiocy.

      Cognitive mooning is the sincerest form of candor for fideists, right cutie pie?

      -- Did that help?

      Delete
    12. LOL!

      I've got my own idiot Creationst yap dog for a pet!

      Here Jeff! Here Jeff! That's a good doggie!

      Amazing that the idiot is dumb enough to this will help the Creationist cause. I suppose that's why he's a Creationist.

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

      Delete
    14. I'm up, bright-eyed, and bushy-tailed, cutie pie. Here goes one more attempt to communicate on your level so can understand. How's this --

      Amazing that the cutie pie is clueless enough to think his slavish adherence to the consensus priesthood will help their fideistic cause. I suppose that's why he's a UCA'ist.

      -- did that help, cutie pie?

      Delete
    15. Oh boy, a bright-eyed, and bushy-tailed scientifically illiterate Godbotherer!

      Jeff, where's your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    16. define evidence, then show me the evidence (by that definition) for naturalistic UCA. Can you do that, cutie pie? Of course not! LOL!

      Delete
    17. Jeff

      define evidence, then show me the evidence (by that definition) for naturalistic UCA. Can you do that, cutie pie? Of course not! LOL!


      Yes ignorant philosophy yap dog, I can.

      ev·i·dence
      /ˈevədəns/
      Noun: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

      Cenancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor
      Delaye,Becerra
      Evolution: Education and Outreach
      September 2012, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 382-38

      "Abstract: Darwin suggested that all life on Earth could be phylogenetically related. Modern biology has confirmed Darwin’s extraordinary insight; the existence of a universal genetic code is just one of many evidences of our common ancestry. Based on the three domain phylogeny proposed by Woese and Fox in the early 1970s that all living beings can be classified on one of three main cellular lineages (Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya), it is possible to reconstruct some of the characteristics of the Last Universal Common Ancestor or cenancestor. Comparative genomics of organisms from the three domains has shown that the cenancestor was not a direct descendant of the prebiotic soup nor a primitive cellular entity where the genotype and the phenotype had an imprecise relationship (i.e., a progenote), rather it was an organism similar in complexity to extant cells. Due to the process of horizontal gene transfer and secondary gene losses, several questions regarding the nature of the cenancestor remain unsolved. However, attempts to infer its nature have led to the identification of a set of universally conserved genes. The research on the nature of the last universal common ancestor promises to shed light on fundamental aspects of living beings."

      Now where's your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    18. ev·i·dence
      /ˈevədəns/
      Noun: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

      So how does a fact like, say, "the existence of a universal code," indicate the belief that UCA is true? Does it talk to you and tell you what it indicates? What, cutie pie?

      Delete
    19. We measure our hypothesis (UCA) against our null hypothesis (not-UCA) and see which one is statistically more likely. This is standard procedure in science.

      Observation: All terrestrial life has a universal genetic code.

      Hypothesis: All terrestrial life shares a common ancestor.

      Null hypothesis: All terrestrial life does not share a common ancestor, and the fact that it shares the same genetic code is complete coincidence.

      Now we weight the two to see which is more likely. And given that the genetic code being exactly what it is is, in fact, improbable (that is, if life were to appear spontaneously twice, the odds that it would have the same genetic code by random chance alone is extremely small), we can safely conclude that our hypothesis is probably correct.

      Thus, the observation of life's universal code is now supporting evidence for UCA. Because it supports that hypothesis over it's null hypothesis.

      Now let's try to do the same procedure with SA:

      Observation: All terrestrial life has a universal genetic code.

      Hypothesis: Terrestrial life appeared many times, and from seperate origins.

      ... and already we have a problem. Because our hypothesis does not actually account for our observation.

      If life arose several times from non-related sources, why would it share a universal genetic code? Surely, if life was not all related, there is no reason why it would share the same code?

      So the observation does not support this hypothesis, because the hypothesis does not account for the observation.

      In short, a universal genetic code supports UCA and not SA.

      Delete
  11. Jeff

    would you please avoid jargon. I would guess others have problem understanding it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen,

      Use of Jargon is almost universally a bluff to make the reader think they know less than you.

      Enter UCA into wikipedia. Lots of definitions. None that mean what Jeff does. Lots of folks around here fake it. Some of us like others to understand what we mean. I try to teach, not obfuscate. So if someone is confusing you, keep pushing.

      Delete
    2. Eugen, jargon is used as bluff when those who use it won't even attempt to clarify when asked. You hadn't asked me. UCA is "universal common ancestry." So I use SA for "separate ancestry." Some evolutionists used to argue for SA, but for only about 3 ancestral trees. But with lateral gene transfer having become vogue, I doubt those folks aren't full-blown UCA'ists now. So you have several options:

      1) naturalistic UCA (which is what the so-called "consensus" view is),

      2) UCA with some libertarian (i.e., free-will) causality

      and

      3) bond-fide SA with multiple intelligently-designed ancestors.

      Now, since there is no evidence for 1) that isn't more plausibly explained in terms of 3), 2) is just a worthless position. At least if a theory for 1) can be conceived of that accounts for most of the phenotypical trends close to the posited time-frames, 1) has a chance, at least of becoming more plausible. But for now, SA is hands-down the only view of the 3 that has anything logically-inductive going on. The other 2 views are purely metaphysical in nature at this point.

      Delete
    3. In fact, Eugen, you'll never get a UCA'ist to even define evidence. Because they can't use the definitions of it that are in logic books, etc. Because they know by those definitions there is no evidence for UCA. They only know that UCA seems less arbitrary than any other a-teleological scenario they can conceive of.

      But inductive logic is applied in court rooms to infer the lack of intelligently-intentioned behavior all the time. There is no constraint on logical induction that the "intender" must be an empirically observable being.

      Indeed, most of those in the consensus herd don't even think there is a "being/self" that experiences mental states. Thus, they don't even mean the same thing by intelligent design as most people. Most people are like dualists of some sort precisely because they believe there is a SINGLE non-empirically-observable self/being experiencing the mental and sentient states.

      Delete
    4. Gene content of LUCA, the last universal common ancestor
      Mushegian
      Frontiers In Bioscience. 2008 May 1;13:4657-66.

      Abstract: Comparative genomics and modern phylogenetic approaches allow us to infer the gene content of LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all known currently living cellular organisms. Most of the estimates produce a putative LUCA with 500-1000 protein-coding genes and biochemically coherent metabolism, if the average rates of gene gains (gene emergence plus horizontal gene transfer) and gene losses per family are allowed to be close to each other. This estimate is not strongly sensitive to the topology of the Tree of Life, but the identity of the genes that are placed in LUCA may depend on the position of the deep branches and the root of the tree.

      Jeff, where's your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    5. from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709000846:

      "Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates."

      and,

      "Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."

      (Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, "Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87:991-1024 (2012).)

      IOW, cutie pie, the data itself is incongruent. The study you quote from assumes UCA and then makes ridiculously over-simplified high-level assumptions which, when analyzed, amount to kazillions of specific ad-hoc hypotheses. Then assuming all that, it comes up with a tree they prefer.

      But there is no reason to believe that those tree-generating rules correspond to what mutations+environment actually cause in the real world. That's why it's just a fideistic religion run by priests who now have control of who can join the club. Then they define science as that which is believed by the priesthood. In other words, it has nothing to do with realistic and rational interpretations of the data. It's a metaphysical research program that is still so utterly detached from knowledge of the workings of the real-world that it is still in its fetus stage.

      Delete
    6. You're polyanna fideism is rubbing off on me. I should have said the UCA metaphysical research program "is still in its fertilized-egg stage." We've learned orders of magnitude more, in the last 5 years, of what needs to be explained than UCA'ists have actually explained in the last 150 years. Hmmm, now that I think about it, I guess really you're moving backwards from the fertilized-egg stage of the research program to the abiological stage.

      Delete
    7. Why did you quote mine the abstract? The paper was specifically about resolving incongruities, in this case in a particular bat lineage.

      Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats

      "Abstract: All characters and trait systems in an organism share a common evolutionary history that can be estimated using phylogenetic methods. However, differential rates of change and the evolutionary mechanisms driving those rates result in pervasive phylogenetic conflict. These drivers need to be uncovered because mismatches between evolutionary processes and phylogenetic models can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses. Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species. For more than a decade, evolutionary relationships among members of the New World bat family Phyllostomidae inferred from morphological and molecular data have been in conflict. Here, we develop and apply methods to minimize systematic biases, uncover the biological mechanisms underlying phylogenetic conflict, and outline data requirements for future phylogenomic and morphological data collection. We introduce new morphological data for phyllostomids and outgroups and expand previous molecular analyses to eliminate methodological sources of phylogenetic conflict such as taxonomic sampling, sparse character sampling, or use of different algorithms to estimate the phylogeny. We also evaluate the impact of biological sources of conflict: saturation in morphological changes and molecular substitutions, and other processes that result in incongruent trees, including convergent morphological and molecular evolution. Methodological sources of incongruence play some role in generating phylogenetic conflict, and are relatively easy to eliminate by matching taxa, collecting more characters, and applying the same algorithms to optimize phylogeny. The evolutionary patterns uncovered are consistent with multiple biological sources of conflict, including saturation in morphological and molecular changes, adaptive morphological convergence among nectar-feeding lineages, and incongruent gene trees. Applying methods to account for nucleotide sequence saturation reduces, but does not completely eliminate, phylogenetic conflict. We ruled out paralogy, lateral gene transfer, and poor taxon sampling and outgroup choices among the processes leading to incongruent gene trees in phyllostomid bats. Uncovering and countering the possible effects of introgression and lineage sorting of ancestral polymorphism on gene trees will require great leaps in genomic and allelic sequencing in this species-rich mammalian family. We also found evidence for adaptive molecular evolution leading to convergence in mitochondrial proteins among nectar-feeding lineages. In conclusion, the biological processes that generate phylogenetic conflict are ubiquitous, and overcoming incongruence requires better models and more data than have been collected even in well-studied organisms such as phyllostomid bats."

      Like a typical dishonest Creationist you didn't bother to read or understand the paper, just quote-mined out of context snippets.

      There's nothing even remotely connected to "separately created kinds" in that paper. Where is your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    8. Abstract: All characters and trait systems in an organism share a common evolutionary history that can be estimated using phylogenetic methods.

      Phyologenetic "methods" are not known to correspond to what mutations+envirnoment actually cause in the real world, cutie pie. Nice try. One can always devise a method to force a single tree. All that means is that the "methods" of modelling change. It doesn't mean they're known to better correspond to what actual mutations+environment causes in the real world.

      There's a reason why UCA'ists admit that phenotypes are unpredictable. It's because they ARE unpredictable. Phylogenetic methods are beside the point to people who care about models OF THE REAL WORLD AND ITS ACTUAL EVENT REGULARITIES. Live in your fideistic polyanna world, cutie pie. I'm sure it's the only way you can sleep sound.

      Delete
    9. You asked for evidence for a UCA, I provided some scientific evidence for a UCA. Is hand-waving denial the only tool in your Creationist utility belt?

      Where is your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      I can provide evidence for my position, you seem to have none. Why is that?

      Delete
    10. When you can demonstrate above that you actually know what evidence is, we can proceed here. Until then, there is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't even know what evidence IS.

      Delete
    11. Jeff

      When you can demonstrate above that you actually know what evidence is, we can proceed here. Until then, there is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't even know what evidence IS.


      I provided my definition, as well as scientific findings that fit the description and which support the idea of a UCA. I can provide a lot such evidence more too.

      Where is your definition of 'evidence' Jeff?

      Where is your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    12. Here's your definition of evidence:

      ev·i·dence
      /ˈevədəns/
      Noun: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

      So how does a fact like, say, "the existence of a universal code," indicate that the belief that UCA is more plausible than SA "is true or valid" but NOT indicate that the belief that SA is more plausible than UCA "is true or valid?" Does the "fact" talk to you and tell you what it indicates? Hmmm, cutie pie?

      Let me give you a hint--look in a logic book in the section on inductive logic. Until you can tell what relationships indicate what, you have no idea what evidence is. But, then, fideists don't need evidence. Right, cutie pie?

      Delete
    13. More Creationist hand-waving, but I don't see your definition of evidence.

      Where is your definition of 'evidence' Jeff?

      Where is your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    14. This is classic:

      "However, differential rates of change and the evolutionary mechanisms driving those rates result in pervasive phylogenetic conflict."

      Cutie pie, if you can't see what this is saying, you're even more clueless than I already know you to be. You see, cutie pie, in the real world, it's IMPOSSIBLE for their to be a "phylogenetic conflict." Thus, the article is admitting that phylogenetic methods do NOT correspond to real world causality. Your metaphysical research program is still in the abiotic stage, cutie pie.

      Delete
    15. Jeff

      So how does a fact like, say, "the existence of a universal code," indicate that the belief that UCA is more plausible than SA "is true or valid" but NOT indicate that the belief that SA is more plausible than UCA "is true or valid?" Does the "fact" talk to you and tell you what it indicates?


      It's ALL the facts taken IN TOTAL that paint the single coherent picture of a UCA.

      That idiot Creationists insist every fact be examined in a vacuum where it's easier to hand-wave away isn't relevant to a scientific discussion.

      Where is your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    16. Pick up a logic book, cutie pie. You don't have to remain moronic and fideistic, you know. Inductive criteria are such things as:

      1) Analogical degree and aspect,
      2) Parsimony (for bona-fide explanatory theories, which are few since most theories are known to be contradicted by anomalous data),
      3) Breadth of explanation,
      4) number of ad-hoc hypotheses required to render an explanation coherent,

      and etc. Which of these do you claim "indicates" UCA, naturalistic or non-naturalistic, is more plausible, inductively, than SA?

      Alternatively, what other kind of relationships are you assuming indicates which, of multiple competing hypotheses, is the most plausible, cutie pie?

      Delete
    17. OK, how do ALL the facts INDICATE UCA is more plausible than SA? Explain yourself instead of pontificating like the full-blown fideist you are.

      Delete
    18. Jeff

      You see, cutie pie, in the real world, it's IMPOSSIBLE for their to be a "phylogenetic conflict." Thus, the article is admitting that phylogenetic methods do NOT correspond to real world causality.


      That's not what the article says IDiot. Maybe you should try reading the real thing instead of just the quote-mined snippets you got from the DI. The article says it's the lack of a complete data set that cause the apparent incongruities, and that more and better data collection can resolve the conflicts.

      Now

      Where is your definition of 'evidence'?

      Where is your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?


      Delete
    19. Jeff

      Pick up a logic book


      This is a scientific discussion IDiot, not a philosophical one.

      If you wish to challenge a well supported scientific idea, you need to come up with positive scientific evidence that better supports your position over the established one.

      Where is your scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    20. "Abstract: Darwin suggested that all life on Earth could be phylogenetically related. Modern biology has confirmed Darwin’s extraordinary insight; the existence of a universal genetic code is just one of many evidences of our common ancestry."

      Jeff: The universality of the code is explicable by common design without positing kazillions of ad-hoc hypotheses to render naturalistic UCA logically possible. And even with kazillions of ad-hoc hypotheses, it is still not known to be logically possible in terms of any set of event regularities applied to any initial conditions that would be acceptable to any UCA'ist.

      "Based on the three domain phylogeny proposed by Woese and Fox in the early 1970s that all living beings can be classified on one of three main cellular lineages (Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya), it is possible to reconstruct some of the characteristics of the Last Universal Common Ancestor or cenancestor. Comparative genomics of organisms from the three domains has shown that the cenancestor was not a direct descendant of the prebiotic soup nor a primitive cellular entity where the genotype and the phenotype had an imprecise relationship (i.e., a progenote), rather it was an organism similar in complexity to extant cells. Comparative genomics of organisms from the three domains has shown that the cenancestor was not a direct descendant of the prebiotic soup nor a primitive cellular entity where the genotype and the phenotype had an imprecise relationship (i.e., a progenote), rather it was an organism similar in complexity to extant cells."

      Jeff: This is true IFF you assume baldly that cladistic tree-generating rules have any correspondence to what mutations+environment will actually produce in the real world. And we have absolutely no reason to assume any such thing since, to this day, phenotypes are UNPREDICTABLE in any degree contradictory to SA.

      "Due to the process of horizontal gene transfer and secondary gene losses, several questions regarding the nature of the cenancestor remain unsolved."

      Jeff: In other words, even using human-generated rules (instead of actual natural causal rules) to generate trees, it still doesn't work totally.

      Cutie pie, your fideism is of a truly devout nature!

      Delete
    21. "Jeff

      Pick up a logic book

      This is a scientific discussion IDiot, not a philosophical one.

      If you wish to challenge a well supported scientific idea, you need to come up with positive scientific evidence that better supports your position over the established one."

      Jeff: Well, that's the point, is it not? You call logic/reason philosophy, by which you mean non-scientific thought. And this is precisely why there is no longer any conceivable demarcation criteria for science. And this is precisely why you UCA'ists are fideists, cutie pie.

      Delete
    22. Jeff

      number of ad-hoc hypotheses required to render an explanation coherent


      OK them, please list the ad-hoc hypotheses required to render the UCA explanation coherent. Be specific.

      Please list the ad-hoc hypotheses required to render the SA explanation coherent. Be specific.

      Let's compare them. Don't forget the Magic Designer's "POOF!" required for the SA claims.

      Delete
    23. Jeff

      T: "This is a scientific discussion IDiot, not a philosophical one.

      If you wish to challenge a well supported scientific idea, you need to come up with positive scientific evidence that better supports your position over the established one."

      Jeff: Well, that's the point, is it not?


      Yes IDiot, it IS the whole point. You can blither about philosophy and logic to make yourself feel better all you want, but until you come up with some positive scientific evidence for your Creationist separate "kinds" you've got a bag full of nothing.

      Delete
    24. Thorton: OK them, please list the ad-hoc hypotheses required to render the UCA explanation coherent. Be specific.

      Jeff: The first thing you have to do is get realistic and throw out cladistic programs. No one has any clue if they correspond to what effects are caused by the interaction of natural mutations+environment. That means literally EVERY thing you posit that occurred in the past that does not follow deductively from a theory (that explains current observations) applied to the relevant initial conditions is just a PURE ad-hoc hypothesis. And, cutie pie, that's virtually all of it.

      Now, SA'ists have to do the same thing, but they don't have to posit anywhere near as many since they terminate the lineages at ancestors that seem to be reasonably like their descendants.

      Positing a designer is not even ad-hoc since even atheists admit that critters have the "appearance of design" and are yet inexplicable by any natural theory (because we can't predict phenotypes, cutie pie). Moreover, apart from benevolent/competent design of the human intellect and its natural modes of inference, we can't even account for the correspondence theory of thought to extra-ego beings and relations.

      Atheism is intellectually bankrupt. It is fideism taken to the absurd extreme. It is the equivalent of believing MERELY for immediate gratification without any other reason whatsoever.

      Delete
    25. Jeff

      The first thing you have to do is get realistic and throw out cladistic programs. No one has any clue if they correspond to what effects are caused by the interaction of natural mutations+environment.


      Sorry IDiot, you FAIL already. Cladistic relationships aren't based on predicting specific outcomes by following some pre-specified algorithm. They're determined by statistical examination of existing data sets and determining the most parsimonious relationships.

      Feel free to show your examination of the existing genetic and morphological data sets and show the statistical likelihood of SA over UCA.

      It's impossible to have a scientific discussion with a Creationist who doesn't even understand the basic concepts.

      Delete
    26. Jeff

      Now, SA'ists have to do the same thing, but they don't have to posit anywhere near as many since they terminate the lineages at ancestors that seem to be reasonably like their descendants.


      Go ahead Jeff. Give us the objective scientific criteria for determining if a species is "reasonably like" its descendants. Give us some specific examples of 'terminated' lineages. The "cat" kind? The "horse" kind?

      Back up those Creationist claims with some empirical evidence.

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

      Delete
    28. Thorton: Sorry IDiot, you FAIL already. Cladistic relationships aren't based on predicting specific outcomes by following some pre-specified algorithm. They're determined by statistical examination of existing data sets and determining the most parsimonious relationships.

      Jeff: Exactly. They have nothing to do with what mutations+environment affects with respect to either extinction or phenotypical variation. And this is because we can't predict phenotypical variation from what we know about mutations (never mind past environmental effects) beyond what is consistent with SA.

      Thus, the statistics and parsimony relationships have nothing to do with real world causality as far as any one knows. They have to do with classification criteria. But you buy into that non-sense you devout fideist you!! I admire the zealousness of your blind fideism! Your priesthood is counting on fideists like you, cutie pie.

      Delete
    29. Jeff

      They have nothing to do with what mutations+environment affects with respect to either extinction or phenotypical variation.


      We've been over this before IDiot, remember? ToE doesn't have to predict specific morphologies in advance. It can't, because of the random nature of genetic variation. But it does predict branching descent with modification over deep time which is exactly what we see in the existing data.

      Thus, the statistics and parsimony relationships have nothing to do with real world causality as far as any one knows.

      LOL! FAIL again IDiot. The observed relationships in the data sets are real, they're there, they need an explanation. UCA provides a parsimonious one. Whatta you got?

      Where's your statistical analysis of the data that shows SA more likely than UCA?

      Where's your objective scientific criteria for "reasonably like"?

      Where's your examples of 'terminated' lineages?

      I know this science stuff scares and confuses Creationists like you. Maybe if you tried reading and learning about the actual evidence you wouldn't be so afraid.

      Delete
    30. Jeff, here is another recent study (2011) showing the genetic relationship between the Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya domains of life.

      The proteomic complexity and rise of the primordial ancestor of diversified life
      Kim, Caetano-Anollés
      BMC Evolutionary Biology 2011, 11:140

      It's open access so you should have no problems accessing it.

      Please identify in this data set the evidence for specific separately created lineages. What are the common English names for the animals in those lineages? What are the 'termination points' of the lineages?

      C'mon Jeff, don't be afraid! Show us your Creationist science!

      Delete
    31. Classification studies have no known relevance to the effects of natural mutations and environmental conditions, cutie pie. But all these analyses you revere as sacred writ make that very high-level assumption. But since there is no known logical relationship between the two that indicates the posited relationship, all details of the historical "story" have to be posited independently as distinct ad-hoc hypotheses.

      Only really zealot fideists can be THAT void of healthy skepticism. You're a doozy, cutie pie.

      Delete
    32. Jeff, you keep waving those hands and flapping those gums, but you won't explain the empirical evidence.

      What are the lurkers supposed to think when you run away screaming from every scientific paper I post?

      Delete
    33. Thorton, Cutie Pie, you've already admitted the data is INEXPLICABLE by a naturalistic theory "because of the random nature of genetic variation." Thus, all we can do is minimize ad-hoc hypotheses and multiply analogies. SA creams UCA by these inductive criteria.

      But, as you admit, inductive criteria have no relevance to fideists like yourself. And, quite frankly, I have as little regard for the fideism of your lurking peers as I do for yours. I oppose fideism in case you haven't figured that out yet.

      Delete
    34. Jeff

      Classification studies have no known relevance to the effects of natural mutations and environmental conditions


      You keep repeating that idiotic claim while the whole scientific community thinks differently.

      What are you doing to convince them everything they know about genetics and cladistic analysis is wrong? Because you're not making even a tiny dent here.

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

      Delete
    36. Jeff

      Thorton, Cutie Pie, you've already admitted the data is INEXPLICABLE by a naturalistic theory "because of the random nature of genetic variation."


      No I didn't. I said the specifics are unpredictable, not inexplicable. The results are certainly parsimoniously explainable by a UCA.

      Does lying for Jesus help get you into heaven? Or are you really too stupid to parse simple English sentences?

      Where in the data is your evidence of separate created kinds?

      Delete
    37. Thorton: You keep repeating that idiotic claim while the whole scientific community thinks differently.

      Jeff: They can only disagree if they are violating the law of non-contradiction. And if the LNC is not valid, there is no way to argue anything. More simply, the following two propositions can NOT both be knowably true:

      1) phenotypes are not predictable.
      2) Conceivable naturalistic rules can determine what phenotype is ancestral to other phenotypes.

      But heck, fideists need not commit to the validity of deductive logic. Heck, that's philosophy, not science! Preach on cutie pie!!!

      Thorton: I said specific are unpredictable, not inexplicable The results are certainly parsimoniously explainable by a UCA.

      Jeff: A prediction of a theory is an IMPLICATION of the theory when applied to some inital conditions. To explain an event or state of affairs by a naturalistic theory is to show that the event or state of affairs was predicted by that theory when applied to some initial conditions. If phenotypes are unpredictable, they are, by definition, inexplicable by a naturalistic theory. But I realize logic and definitions have nothing to do with your fideistic religion. Preach on, cutie pie!

      Delete
    38. Jeff

      If phenotypes are unpredictable, they are, by definition, inexplicable by a naturalistic theory.


      LOL! So because the numbers that come up on a roulette wheel are unpredictable, that means the process of how yesterday's numbers were generated is inexplicable by a naturalistic theory. Must be GAWD picking the numbers!

      Really Jeff, you couldn't make yourself look more stupid if you tried.

      Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to address the data in the Kim Caetano-Anollés paper and show me the evidence for separately created kinds.

      Preach on, cutie pie!

      Sorry. I'm straight. If you want a new boyfriend try Fat Joe. He's easy I'm told.

      Delete
    39. Amazing that there's someone on the planet too stupid to understand the difference between unpredictable and inexplicable.

      Dimbulb Creationists - gotta love 'em!

      Delete
    40. Thorton: So because the numbers that come up on a roulette wheel are unpredictable, that means the process of how yesterday's numbers were generated is inexplicable by a naturalistic theory. Must be GAWD picking the numbers!

      Jeff: You're confused, cutie pie. Believing that observations are explicable by natural causes is not the same thing as showing there is a naturalistic theory that EXPLAINS those observations. But at least with the roulette wheel we see the events that need to be explained and the antecedent conditions. And we see the probabilistic nature of the results.

      With UCA, we don't even see the vast majority of the events or antecedent conditions. Hence the speculation involved about what happened is much, MUCH greater. But of course you devout fideists were never deterred by the number of ad-hoc hypotheses you need to posit to render your view coherent. Preach on cutie pie!!

      Delete
    41. Jeff:

      Believing that observations are explicable by natural causes is not the same thing as showing there is a naturalistic theory that EXPLAINS those observations.


      Science has already done so. Not science's problem you're too stupid to understand the data.

      But at least with the roulette wheel we see the events that need to be explained and the antecedent conditions. And we see the probabilistic nature of the results.

      Science sees the same thing with the random (WRT fitness) nature of genetic variations. There's only 70+ years of empirical observations and data on the subject for you Creationist IDiots to avoid.

      When will you be showing us the evidence for separately created kinds in the genetic data of the Kim - Caetano-Anollés paper?

      We're waiting.

      Delete
    42. We understand the data. And "random wrt fitness" is total cowardly BS and meaningless.

      AGAIN evolutionism says they are random, ie CHANCE/ HAPPENSTANCE, events (Mayr, "What Evolution Is") period. Meaniong the "wrt fitness" is just added nonsense.

      There's only 70+ years of empirical observations and data on the subject for you Creationist IDiots to avoid.

      There isn't any evidence that all mutations are random/ chance events. None at all.

      As a matter of fact there isn't any way to determine that all mutations are random/ chance events.

      Ooops, there is one. Demonstrate that random/ chance events can produce a living organism from non-living matter and we don't need a designer.

      Delete
    43. Thorton: Science has already done so.

      Jeff: No, cutie pie. You were right the first time. They can't predict/explain particular phenotypical trajectories by applying any extant naturalistic causal theory to any set of initial conditions. That's why they don't know any such naturalistic scenario is logically possible in terms of any set of event regularities whatsoever.

      But you preach on, cutie pie. I know how you fideists just LOVE to preach!! Pass the plate to your peer lurkers. You might can raise a buck or two from 'em!!!!

      Delete
    44. Jeff

      They can't predict/explain particular phenotypical trajectories by applying any extant naturalistic causal theory to any set of initial conditions.


      The validity of the theory doesn't require that specific phenotypical trajectories be predicted.

      I don't suppose you'll ever get it, given your combined scientific ignorance and basic stupidity. But that's OK. You're still fun to laugh at.


      Delete
    45. Thorton: The validity of the theory doesn't require that specific phenotypical trajectories be predicted.

      Jeff: Like I said, cutie pie, this is why there is no conceivable way to demarcate science from pseudo-science anymore once you accept the fideistic priesthood's definition of "valid." It basically means, if they believe it, it's valid. If they don't, it's not.

      With inductive reasoning, on the other hand, there are objective standards for warrant, etc. But you preach on, you cute little fideist you!! I know it inspires you so!!!

      Delete
    46. this is why there is no conceivable way to demarcate science from pseudo-science anymore once you accept the fideistic priesthood's definition of "valid." It basically means, if they believe it, it's valid. If they don't, it's not.

      This is a non sequitur. Belief does not come into it. The strength of ToE is that it explains so much of the evidence we have. Not that it predicts specific mutations. It never claimed to - that would be incredibly foolish since the whole point is that they are random.

      Also, is there a reason you have avoided Thorton's repeated requests for evidence for SA? Because it really sounds like you are simply ignoring the question because you have nothing. You do not support one theory by attacking another - because they might both be wrong. So if (by some vast stretch of the imagination) you were to prove ToE wrong, that still wouldn't go one shred towards supporting Creationism, ID, or any other alternative theory. They must stand on the merits of their own explanatory power. That being so, it is reasonable to ask what the evidence actively supporting SA is...

      Delete
    47. Ritchie, I'm not gonna waste 5 minutes with you until you define evidence (Thorton would not, because he can't, because he's a fideist) and the show my BY THAT DEFINITION of evidence what the evidence for naturalistic UCA is. When you attempt that, you will realize that you, too, are a fideist. The ToE explains nothing that isn't consistent with SA, dude.

      Delete
    48. Well, evidence is data, I suppose concisely sums it up. Supporting evidence is evidence (data) which supports a particular hypothesis. It isn't the same as proof, because it doesn't prove the hypothesis 100%, but it does support the hypothesis.

      UCA, for example, is supported by the evidence that all life is built using the same genetic code. This piece of evidence supports UCA because the code itself is improbable, and if life sprouted multiple times, it is extremely unlikely they would just happen to have identical genetic codes just by mere coincidence. So by this simple train of logic, the universal genetic code supports UCA.

      How exactly would SA explain a universal genetic code? My guess is you will start talking about designers using the same 'palette' or something similar, but if so then you have taken a huge leap out of the scientific sphere. Postulating magical beings which could be summoned to explain absolutely anything - and therefore actually explain nothing - is just the sort of whimsical nonesense Occam's Razor was built to do away with.

      Delete
    49. And what is a 'fideist', btw?

      Delete
    50. Ritchie:
      UCA, for example, is supported by the evidence that all life is built using the same genetic code.

      Common design, for example, is supported by the evidence that all life is built using the same genetic code.

      And a common design is seen throughout our designs- IOW it is based on observations and experiences.

      OTOH UCA is based solely on imagination

      Delete
    51. Jeff

      Like I said, cutie pie, this is why there is no conceivable way to demarcate science from pseudo-science anymore once you accept the fideistic priesthood's definition of "valid." It basically means, if they believe it, it's valid. If they don't, it's not.


      Let's try some Jeff the brain dead Creationist's "logic":

      "Meteorologists can't predict/explain particular hurricane parameters (size, wind speed, path of travel, date of occurrence) by applying any extant naturalistic causal theory to any set of initial conditions.

      Therefore we can know of no scientific facts about hurricanes and the most logical conclusion with the fewest ad-hoc assumptions is that hurricanes are produced by Chalchihuitlicue the Aztec Goddess of Storms.

      Yes Jeff you moron, that's exactly how stupid your argument is.

      Delete
    52. Jeff

      Ritchie, I'm not gonna waste 5 minutes with you until you define evidence (Thorton would not, because he can't, because he's a fideist)


      Jeff doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's a blatant liar for Jesus. I provided my definition of evidence directly above, here.

      Jeff must think that since he's as stupid as mud that everyone else must be stupid too.

      Delete
    53. Ah, cutie pie, but you didn't know what kind of relations between data and the hypothesis cause the data to "indicate" the plausibility of the hypothesis. Indeed, cutie pie, you reject logic by your own admission. Thus, your definition of evidence amounts to fideism--i.e., "my priests say it, so I believe it." Preach on cutie pie!!!!

      Delete
    54. Common design, for example, is supported by the evidence that all life is built using the same genetic code.

      The thing is, if all species were designed from scratch and created out of thin magic by a supernatural being, then there is no reason why they should share the same genetic code, is there? Why should 'design' be 'common'?

      And a common design is seen throughout our designs- IOW it is based on observations and experiences.

      Such as? Give me an example.

      OTOH UCA is based solely on imagination

      No, it is the most parsimonious explanation of all the evidence to hand. It makes sense. It is scientific. And it does not rely upon the existence of supernatural beings. Unlike Common Deisgn.

      Delete
    55. Jeff - Again, I really would appreciate hearing you present the supporting evidence of SA.

      Also to explain how SA is supported by a universal genetic code.

      Delete
    56. The thing is, if all species were designed from scratch and created out of thin magic by a supernatural being, then there is no reason why they should share the same genetic code, is there?

      Nice strawman. But yes, given our obsrvations and experiences there is plenty of reasons for a designer or designers to use a common design, ie the same genetic code. No need to reinvent the wheel for every car, duh.

      And a common design is seen throughout our designs- IOW it is based on observations and experiences.

      Such as? Give me an example.

      Cars, houses and PCs, to name 3..
      OTOH UCA is based solely on imagination

      No, it is the most parsimonious explanation of all the evidence to hand.

      LoL! There isn't any evidence that supports the transformations required- You can't even get beyond prokaryotes.

      Delete
    57. "This piece of evidence supports UCA because the code itself is improbable, and if life sprouted multiple times, it is extremely unlikely they would just happen to have identical genetic codes just by mere coincidence."

      First you have to postulate how a genetic code could sprout once, then you will have evidence for UCA.

      How exactly would SA explain a universal genetic code?

      There is the alternative that one genetic code sprouted once and produced billions of genomas each of one produced the actual life forms that are the survivors


      "Postulating magical beings which could be summoned to explain absolutely anything - and therefore actually explain nothing - is just the sort of whimsical nonesense Occam's Razor was built to do away with."

      Well, richard Dawkins accepts the possibility of life been seeded on earth. If that is true nobody seeds an UCLA waiting for evolve in the actual life. The most logic is to seed all the archeobiotic you can, all the procariotic you can and all the eucariotic you can, all full of machanism to allow the evolution of what you seed. And the evidence agrees with this explanation more than with UCLA:

      Delete
    58. Joe G -

      Nice strawman. But yes, given our obsrvations and experiences there is plenty of reasons for a designer or designers to use a common design, ie the same genetic code. No need to reinvent the wheel for every car, duh.

      No, you are now inventing unevidenced variables to prop up your hypothesis. The entire concept of a 'designer' is highly problematic, and you cannot just smuggle in the assumtpion of one.

      Cars, houses and PCs, to name 3

      I suppose I walked into that one. Now give me an example from the natural world.

      Delete
    59. Blas -

      First you have to postulate how a genetic code could sprout once, then you will have evidence for UCA.

      Not so. It is enough to observe that a universal genetic code exists.

      UCA accounts for that. SA does not.

      Therefore a universal genetic code is supporting evidence for UCA, and not for SA.

      There is the alternative that one genetic code sprouted once and produced billions of genomas each of one produced the actual life forms that are the survivors

      Are you trying to suggest that all life is derived from the same non-living UCA?

      Well, richard Dawkins accepts the possibility of life been seeded on earth.

      As do I. It is, of course, perfectly possible that aliens arrived and decided to plant the seeds of life on Earth. Or that the first living organisms came to Earth by accidnet on a meteor from another planet, etc. But this does not solve the problem of the origin of life, it merely moves it to a different theatre. If life was seeded on Earth, then were did THAT life come from? Somewhere along the line, life itself began, whether on Earth or another planet.

      If that is true nobody seeds an UCLA waiting for evolve in the actual life. The most logic is to seed all the archeobiotic you can, all the procariotic you can and all the eucariotic you can, all full of machanism to allow the evolution of what you seed. And the evidence agrees with this explanation more than with UCLA:

      I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.

      Delete
    60. Ritchie- I am talking about DESIGNERS DESIGNING THINGS- so how can I give an example from the "natural world"?

      Also there is plenty of evidence for a designer. So I am not smuggling in anything.

      Delete
    61. "Not so. It is enough to observe that a universal genetic code exists."

      No, if you cannot sustain a sprout of the code by naturl laws you cannot sustain that it happened only once.

      "Are you trying to suggest that all life is derived from the same non-living UCA?"

      Yes, but without passing trough a living UCA that change the concept of evolution.

      "As do I. It is, of course, perfectly possible that aliens arrived and decided to plant the seeds of life on Earth."

      And this alliens should seed an UCA?


      "But this does not solve the problem of the origin of life, it merely moves it to a different theatre. If life was seeded on Earth, then were did THAT life come from? Somewhere along the line, life itself began, whether on Earth or another planet."

      But infer that the aliens are the same kind of life of us is not science.

      "I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this."

      If you have to seed life in other planet, do you seed an UCA?

      Delete
    62. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Ah, cutie pie, but you didn't know what kind of relations between data and the hypothesis cause the data to "indicate" the plausibility of the hypothesis.


      OK, you admit you lied when you said I didn't provide a definition.

      I'm also smart enough to understand that a theory which explains a process involving a random component (genetic variation, roulette spins, hurricane formation) doesn't have to predict specific results for the evidence to show patterns which indicate the theory is correct.

      You're still too stupid to get it.

      Indeed, cutie pie, you reject logic by your own admission.

      I reject the twisted stupidity you offer as Creationist "logic", as does every scientifically knowledgeable person.

      Now when will you be showing us your evidence for separately created kinds in the genetic studies I provided?

      Delete
    63. LoL! The ToE doesn't predict any specific patterns- as you said it is whatever survives, even if that is the organism(s) that lost something.

      So yes, YOU are entirely too stupid to get it.

      Delete
    64. Sorry Chubs, but ToE predicts that we'll see branching nested hierarchies in both the fossil and genetic records, and that they'll exhibit a high degree of correlation. That's exactly what we see.

      What does separate created kinds predict that has been confirmed in the genetic and fossil records?

      Where are the 'termination' beginning points of your created kinds, and how did you determine them?

      We already know you're too stupid to understand nested hierarchies - Zachriel has been demonstrating your complete ignorance on them for years.

      Delete
    65. but ToE predicts that we'll see branching nested hierarchies in both the fossil and genetic records, and that they'll exhibit a high degree of correlation

      Liar- or just plain ignorant.

      If parts can be lost then we wouldn't expect a nested hierarchy. Linnean taxonomy- the observed nested hierarchy- is based on a common design.

      And Zachriel has been proven ignorant of nested hierarchies too.

      1- transitional forms, by their very definition, rule out an objective nested hierarchy but rule in a Venn diagram

      2- There isn't any nested hierarchy with single-celled organisms. So by your "logic" your position is falsified.

      3- Ancestor-descendent relationships produce a non-nested hierarchy

      Delete
    66. Like I said - you're too stupid to understand nested hierarchies in biology. No need to keep demonstrating the fact.

      What does "separate created kinds" predict that has been confirmed in the genetic and fossil records?

      Where are the 'termination' beginning points of your created kinds, and how did you determine them?

      Delete
    67. Joe G

      I am talking about DESIGNERS DESIGNING THINGS- so how can I give an example from the "natural world"?

      Precisely. :-)

      Also there is plenty of evidence for a designer. So I am not smuggling in anything.

      Such as?

      Delete
    68. Blas -

      No, if you cannot sustain a sprout of the code by naturl laws you cannot sustain that it happened only once.

      UCA does not claim it happened only once. Life could have emerged spontaneously a second time, and yet in the fullness of time went entirely extinct.

      The only claim of UCA is that all living terrestrial life descended from a common ancestor. That is all. And it is supported by the observation that all life shares a uniform genetic code.

      Delete
    69. Blas -

      Yes, but without passing trough a living UCA that change the concept of evolution.

      Not really. As long as you are talking about self-replicating molecules, living or not, then the laws of evolution apply.

      And this alliens should seed an UCA?

      I did not say I believed this scenario. I just said it was possible. And that it didn't really solve the problem, because then the question merely becomes "How did the alien life arise"?

      But infer that the aliens are the same kind of life of us is not science.

      I am not making that assumption.

      If you have to seed life in other planet, do you seed an UCA?

      You would if you only left one species. But you could leave any number of species - with different genetic make-ups.

      Does that answer your question?

      Delete
    70. “The only claim of UCA is that all living terrestrial life descended from a common ancestor. That is all. And it is supported by the observation that all life shares a uniform genetic code. “

      As I´m discussing below observation of the genetic code do not only supports UCA. But the observation that all life ahre a uniform genetic code it is not acurate. All the life share the almost the same code, but one key part of this code, the core of the code is the decoder. The decoder of the genetico code are the aminoacyl-tRNA sintases. And there are different types of this enzymes. And guess what, they do not follow the tree of life. In order to save the UCA we have to suppose different HGT before and after UCA. “Molecular evolution of aminoacyl tRNA synthetase proteins in the early
      history of life”Gregory P. Fournier1$, Cheryl P. Andam, Eric J. Alm, J. Peter Gogarten

      “ As long as you are talking about self-replicating molecules, living or not, then the laws of evolution apply.”

      No, the replication of the DNA molecules, self repicating or not, can follow chemical laws and not “evolutons laws”. Like an organism produce all the antibodies that can produce and the delete the antidoies against his own antigens, “life” could “produce” all the genomes possible and then this evolved not in everithing but in what each of the genomes could evolve. Then there is no UCA.

      “I did not say I believed this scenario. I just said it was possible. And that it didn't really solve the problem, because then the question merely becomes "How did the alien life arise"?
      I am not making that assumption.”

      Yes you are when you transfer the question of the origin of life on earth to the origin of the life of alliens. The only way that you can infer a UCA for them is assuming they are the same kind of life of us.


      “You would if you only left one species. But you could leave any number of species - with different genetic make-ups.

      Does that answer your question?”
      Yes if you do not mean that different genetic make-ups means different genetic codes. I can, and I would prefer, to feed many different species with the best genetic code then if life is seeded probably we do not have an UCA.

      Delete
    71. Blas -

      But the observation that all life ahre a uniform genetic code it is not acurate. All the life share the almost the same code, but one key part of this code, the core of the code is the decoder. The decoder of the genetico code are the aminoacyl-tRNA sintases. And there are different types of this enzymes. And guess what, they do not follow the tree of life.

      This is not the case.

      Every living being on Earth is made of the same statistically improbable genetic code - DNA.

      The paper you have cited is not challenging this in the slightest. From the extract:

      "unlike the rest of the translation machinery, aaRS have undergone numerous ancient horizontal gene transfers, with several independent events detected between domains, and some possibly involving lineages diverging before the time of LUCA. These transfers reveal the complexity of molecular evolution at this early time, and the chimeric nature of genomes within cells that gave rise to the major domains. Additionally, given the role of these protein families in defining the amino acids used for protein synthesis, sequence reconstruction of their pre-LUCA ancestors can reveal the evolutionary processes at work in the origin of the genetic code. In particular, sequence reconstructions of the paralog ancestors of isoleucyl- and valyl- RS provide strong empirical evidence that at least for this divergence, the genetic code did not co-evolve with the aaRSs; rather, both amino acids were already part of the genetic code before their cognate aaRSs diverged from their common ancestor. The implications of this observation for the early evolution of RNA-directed protein biosynthesis are discussed."

      Absolutely nothing here challenges the validity of Common Ancestry.

      "No, the replication of the DNA molecules, self repicating or not, can follow chemical laws and not “evolutons laws”."

      Chemicals can follow laws of evolution, if the chemical molecules are self replicating.

      Yes you are when you transfer the question of the origin of life on earth to the origin of the life of aliens.

      I am not the one who started talking of aliens. You did.

      I can, and I would prefer, to feed many different species with the best genetic code then if life is seeded probably we do not have an UCA.

      If we are to hypothesise aliens seeding life on Earth, then it does not make the slightest bit of difference whether life was seeded with a common ancestor for terrestrial life or not. All that would matter is the origin of the alien life.

      Delete
    72. “Absolutely nothing here challenges the validity of Common Ancestry.”

      Off course not. They are bioly researchers and need to publish ti get the grants, if they deny UCA better get another job. But you find supporting the UCA “These transfers reveal the complexity of molecular evolution at this early time, and the chimeric nature of genomes within cells that gave rise to the major domains” How happened that one code produced different sets of decoders? Do you find logic that when you have this improbably code with the set of aatRNAsintases you start to HGT this vital information? How happened that one code produced different sets of decoders?

      “Chemicals can follow laws of evolution, if the chemical molecules are self replicating.”

      What if were not self replicating.

      “I am not the one who started talking of aliens. You did.”

      Yes but you moved the UCA outside the earth after accepting the possiblity of the life beeing seeded.


      “If we are to hypothesise aliens seeding life on Earth, then it does not make the slightest bit of difference whether life was seeded with a common ancestor for terrestrial life or not. All that would matter is the origin of the alien life.”

      No, we can check with the avaiable data if life fits better in a UCA seeded model or in a multy species seeded model. The rational would be seeding multiple species.
      The origin of the alien life doesn´t matter until we know what kind of life it is, trying to understand the origin of life we do not know is pure unscientific speculation.

      Delete
    73. Blas -

      Off course not. They are bioly researchers and need to publish ti get the grants, if they deny UCA better get another job.

      That's just paranoia.

      "Experts don't agree with you? They're part of an evil conspiracy to suppress the truth!!"

      The fact is, the evidence really does support UCA, and not SA.

      How happened that one code produced different sets of decoders?

      They evolved. From a common ancestor. :-)

      "What if were not self replicating."

      In that case they wouldn't be subject to the laws of evolution. But neither would they get passed on.

      Yes but you moved the UCA outside the earth after accepting the possiblity of the life beeing seeded.

      UCA is the same topic no matter WHERE it took place. LUCA could have lived in Africa, in South America, in Antarctica, or on Mars. The location is immaterial.

      No, we can check with the avaiable data if life fits better in a UCA seeded model or in a multy species seeded model. The rational would be seeding multiple species.

      If aliens are supposed to have seeded life multiple times or with multiple species, then why does terrestrial life have a universal genetic code? That makes no sense.

      The origin of the alien life doesn´t matter until we know what kind of life it is

      Of course it matters. Life had to begin somewhere. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter at all whether this was on Earth or not.

      trying to understand the origin of life we do not know is pure unscientific speculation.

      But we do know it. It is here. On Earth. If the Earth was seeded with alien life, then life on Earth IS alien life. We do know it - we do understand it. We ARE it.

      Delete
    74. Joe G -

      Was the first bit supposed to be an answer to me?

      I asked for evidence of a designer, which you assured me existed.

      Anytime you like.

      Delete
    75. There is plenty of evidence for a designer and no evidence for blind and undirected processes doing it.

      Delete
    76. What IS this evidence for a designer?

      Please, no more evasions. No more "It's everywhere!" "It's everything!" "It's all around - you'd be blind not to see it!" "It's obvious!" "I can't be bothered to tell you!" "I could give you lots but you're too stupid to understand!" or any other handwave or evasive maneuver designed to obfuscate the fact that you've got nothing at all.

      Please, what IS this evidence? Something. ANYTHING. Some single, empirical fact that you can point at which specifically supports the hypothesis of a Creator of life, and not it's null hypothesis...

      Delete
    77. Thorton, you cutie pie. I love it when you moon. Meteorologists can predict with a probability within certain statistical ranges. Lots of people find this valuable, because lots of people would rather move away from a hurricane even at the risk of losing their property to theft if they are wrong.

      But the ToE doesn't predict phenotypes to any degree that isn't consistent with really staunch versions of SA. So the analogy is non-existent, cutie.

      As for the Ken Ham defense, he probably assumes you have the sense to come in the rain. Because if you did, you would know he means that we NEITHER observer the phenotypical trajectories NOR predict them with any naturalistic theory. When you have neither a theory that predicts posited events nor observations of similar event sequences, you have NOTHING.

      You're a fideist through and through, cutie. Moon away. Preach on, cutie!!!

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

      Delete
    79. Ritchie, you say the universal code "supports" UCA. But that's just another way of saying it is evidence for UCA. So define evidence and show me how the universal code "indicates" UCA. You'll never do it, Ritchie. Because as soon as you define evidence in a non-arbitrary way, you'll realize you have absolutely NOTHING. So again, define the term and show HOW it applies to your claim.

      Delete
    80. Jeff -

      You are clearly just playing word games.

      The universal code supports UCA (or 'is evidence for UCA') because UCA is a more probabilistic explanation for the universal code than it's null hypothesis is.

      Ta-dah.

      Shame the same can't be said of SA.

      Delete
    81. Richie, a positive (i.e., > 0) probability can not even be calculated for NATURALISTIC UCA. We don't even know it's logically possible if, by naturalistic UCA, you mean the evolution has to be described in terms of event regularities.

      Anyone can story-tell the past. But that's not what naturalistic explanation is. Naturalistic explanation involves event regularities that IMPLY the history happened. No one has yet conceived of any such theory. Story-telling, on the other hand, is creative construction by a teleological agent.

      In short, Ritchie, it is YOU that is playing word games.

      Delete
    82. Jeff -

      a positive (i.e., > 0) probability can not even be calculated for NATURALISTIC UCA.

      Naturalistic as opposed to SUPERNATURALISTIC? Are you asking me to remove the supernatural as a possible variable? Because that is, of course, impossible. It is also unnecessary - the supernatural has no place in science.

      Naturalistic explanation involves event regularities that IMPLY the history happened.

      A naturalistic explanation is an explanation referencing only natural (ie, not un-/sub- or super- natural) forces and phenomena.

      Which is what ToE provides.

      Story-telling, on the other hand, is creative construction by a teleological agent.

      Story telling? Stories of magical beings, perhaps? Stories of miraculous deeds and magical events? Parables? Commandments? Stories to be learned by rote, never challenged or analysed and taken entirely on faith alone?

      Your powers of projection truly are a thing to behold.

      Delete
    83. Ritchie said
      “The fact is, the evidence really does support UCA, and not SA.”
      Only if you consider that option alone.

      “They evolved. From a common ancestor. :-)”
      No, if that were the case the autors wouldn´t postulate multiple HGT. -)

      “In that case they wouldn't be subject to the laws of evolution. But neither would they get passed on.”
      Why not? Why all the actual genomes could not be evolved from different ancestral genomes originated by chemicals laws without evolution of selfreplicators?

      “UCA is the same topic no matter WHERE it took place. LUCA could have lived in Africa, in South America, in Antarctica, or on Mars. The location is immaterial.”
      For the life we know yes, but you cannot assume seeders are the same of us.

      “If aliens are supposed to have seeded life multiple times or with multiple species, then why does terrestrial life have a universal genetic code? That makes no sense.”
      Of course it make sense, if I were to seed life in other planet I would seed archea, prokariota and eucariota, not an UCA. And I will choose the life platform that better fits the conditions of the planet.

      “Of course it matters. Life had to begin somewhere. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter at all whether this was on Earth or not.”
      But until we know the seeders of life, we do not know if they have nested hierarchies or not, then we do not hav if their life started with a UCA or not.

      “But we do know it. It is here. On Earth. If the Earth was seeded with alien life, then life on Earth IS alien life. We do know it - we do understand it. We ARE it.”
      No, it s seeded life we do not know if the seeders are the same of us.

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

      Delete
    85. Ritchie: Naturalistic as opposed to SUPERNATURALISTIC?

      Jeff: Yes, by which I mean libertarianly-free causality as opposed to deterministic causality. How do you distinguish the two?

      Ritchie: Are you asking me to remove the supernatural as a possible variable?

      Jeff: I'm only asking you to define evidence and then show me, by that definition, how the universal code is evidence for naturalistic UCA. But it seems you can't define it either.

      Ritchie: Because that is, of course, impossible. It is also unnecessary - the supernatural has no place in science.

      Jeff: But surely you realize that arbitrarily ruling out libertarian causality doesn't PROVE all events are caused deterministically. Choosing a methodological approach to explanation by arbitrarily ruling out free-will just means you've introduced an arbitrary element into your thinking, which is the opposite of rational thought.

      Ritchie: A naturalistic explanation is an explanation referencing only natural (ie, not un-/sub- or super- natural) forces and phenomena.

      Jeff: You'll have to define "natural" for me, then. By my definition, "natural" refers to causal mode only, not phenomena. One can FREELY produce phenomena.

      Ritchie: Which is what ToE provides.

      Jeff: The ToE is a work in progress. But it doesn't imply that naturalistic UCA is even logically possible.

      Ritchie: Story telling? Stories of magical beings, perhaps?

      Jeff: Define magical. Free-will is magical to some. Is it to you? And if so, do you then think judges in the court system are IDiots, too, for distinguishing between the presence or absence of self-control.

      Ritchie: Stories to be learned by rote, never challenged or analysed and taken entirely on faith alone?

      Jeff: The only people I know who take things on faith only are people like Thorton who, though scientists have been wrong about virtually everything they've ever hypothesized, MUST be right in their belief that naturalistic UCA is a historical fact. People like that, whether atheists or theists, are full-blown fideists.

      Ritchie: Your powers of projection truly are a thing to behold.

      Jeff: No projection, Ritchie. You just haven't defined your terms. So you're still playing word games. And remember, when you define a term, like e.g. "supernatural," it does no good to use "nature" or "natural" in the definition unless you define THOSE terms. I've told you my definitions--natural applies ONLY to causal mode (deterministic or non-deterministic). Now define your terms.

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

      Delete
    87. Thorton: I have no doubt you get aroused by looking at guys' posteriors, but I already told you I don't swing that way. Fat Joe is your boy.

      Jeff: Oh, cutie, I was referring, as above, to your cognitive mooning.

      Thorton: Places like the CDC rely heavily on predicted evolutionary pathways of pathogens as they develop further resistance to treatments and budget their resources accordingly. Evolutionary theory can also predict changes to phenotypes based on certain conditions like like insular dwarfism.

      Jeff: WOW!!! Then naturalistic UCA just MUST be true! Dude, your cluenessness knows no bounds. I love it when you fideists actually prove by such pathetic admissions that you have NOTHING. Because, cutie, that admission is just what shows that the predictions that are doable are consistent with EXTREME SA. There could be tons of separate ancestries consistent with such a paucity of predicted phenotypical change.

      But you preach on, you little zealous & devout fideist! You're on a roll!!!

      Delete
    88. Blas -

      No, if that were the case the autors wouldn´t postulate multiple HGT.

      HGT does not invalidate UCA.

      "For the life we know yes, but you cannot assume seeders are the same of us."

      You are saying these aliens CREATED the first terrestrial organisms? Entirely different from themselves? And then put them on Earth? And left them? For 4 billion years?

      Why would they do that, exactly?

      Delete
    89. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Because, cutie, that admission is just what shows that the predictions that are doable are consistent with EXTREME SA.


      But Liar for Jesus Jeff, you still haven't presented a single factual thing to support your pet "EXTREME SA" brainfart!

      What are the separately created lineages? How did you tell?

      When were they manufactured?

      What tools or processes were used in the construction?

      Who or what did the constructing?

      What predictions does SA "theory" make?

      And the biggest question:

      Why is there not a single genetic or morphological study on the planet that supports your "separately created kinds" idea?

      Life must be tough for a simple minded YEC like yourself with all the mean nasty scientific evidence threatening your nice cozy fantasy world. With your scientific "knowledge" maybe you can get a job as a docent at Ken Ham's Creation Museum Freak Show.



      Delete
    90. Jeff -

      by which I mean libertarianly-free causality as opposed to deterministic causality. How do you distinguish the two?

      I don't. Not in relation to science or ToE, anyway. I don't believe I ever claimed to.

      The distinction is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical one.

      "I'm only asking you to define evidence and then show me, by that definition, how the universal code is evidence for naturalistic UCA. But it seems you can't define it either."

      I already defined it as 'data'. A rough definition, but serviceable enough in my head.

      If you want something more (half-bastardised from wiki): evidence is data accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions.

      As for supporting UCA, well that a universal genetic code exists is an observation of the natural world. It is a piece of data. And UCA makes sense of that data to a higher degree of probability that it's null hypothesis.

      I believe I have said this already...

      But surely you realize that arbitrarily ruling out libertarian causality doesn't PROVE all events are caused deterministically.

      I am not talking about lib v det causality. I am talking about natural v supernatural forces.

      And yes, I am dismissing the possibility of the supernatural. But this is not arbitrary. It is absolutely necessary for performing science. Perhaps this link will help:

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

      You'll have to define "natural" for me, then.

      Well, here I am using it to mean a force which has been demonstrated (either directly or indirectly) to exist.

      The ToE is a work in progress. But it doesn't imply that naturalistic UCA is even logically possible.

      Why wouldn't it be possible? I see no logical barriers to UCA.

      Define magical.

      Wow, you really do have a thing for insisting people define everything, don't you? Well it would be an entirely whimsical, hypothetical force, capable of achieving anything at all, even seemingly impossible feats, and which has absolutely no supporting evidence, direct or indirect.

      Free-will is magical to some. Is it to you?

      No. It is a philosophical concept.

      The only people I know who take things on faith only are people like Thorton who, though scientists have been wrong about virtually everything they've ever hypothesized, MUST be right in their belief that naturalistic UCA is a historical fact.

      Science builds on its mistakes. It is self-correcting. Every time science learns it has made a mistake, it adjusts and gets a little bit better. That is one of science's many strengths. Do not take it as a mark of unreliability that science has made mistakes. That is simply human. It is how we respond to them that makes all the difference.

      Moreover - and I hope Thorton will correct me if I'm wrong - from what I know of him, he does not assert that UCA MUST be correct with 100% certainty. Merely that UCA is by far and away our best and most parsinomious explanation of the available data. Which is a different thing altogether.

      Delete
    91. What are the separate evolved lineages? How did you tell?

      When were they manufactured?

      What tools or processes were used in the construction?

      Who or what did the constructing?


      And the biggest question:

      Why is there not a single genetic or morphological study on the planet that supports your "UCA" idea?

      Thorton: Life must be tough for a simple minded YEC like yourself ...

      Jeff: Cutie, I'm not a YEC.

      Thorton: What predictions does SA "theory" make?

      Jeff: There is no SA theory. There is no UCA theory. UCA is just an hypothesis, not a causal theory. There is evolutionary theory which doesn't get us beyond very limited phenotypical trajectories by your own admission.

      Preach on, cutie! Fideists need their cheer-leaders too!!!

      Delete
    92. Ritchie: UCA is by far and away our best and most parsinomious explanation of the available data.

      Jeff: UCA is not an explanation. It is a hypothesis that needs to BE explained. Thus, it is not the most parsimonious explanation. As cutie pie admitted above, knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms is so limited that we can't predict phenotypical trajectories beyond what is consistent with LOTS of separate ancestries.

      Delete
    93. Liar for Jesus Jeff:

      There is no SA theory.


      There is no SA anything. No theory, no hypothesis, no predictions, no evidence, no timeline, no manufacturing process, no list of SA lineages. NO ANYTHING.

      All you Godbotherers can do is whine because you don't like the implications of a real, well supported scientific theory like ToE.

      Too bad, sucks to be you.

      Delete
    94. Jeff: The ToE is a work in progress. But it doesn't imply that naturalistic UCA is even logically possible.

      Ritchie: Why wouldn't it be possible? I see no logical barriers to UCA.

      Jeff: Naturalistic UCA means that that at some time in the past, there were initial conditions in the Precambrian that included one or a few species and a set of event regularities (some laws of physics, chemistry, etc) that rendered all the subsequent species/phenotypes INEVITABLE at least by the times of their first known occurrences, and almost certainly sooner.

      The "inevitable" aspect is what is important about natural explanation. Natural causality is not probabilistic in nature. Humans may not be able to analyze natural (i.e., deterministic) causality sufficiently to predict anything but probabilistic trends. But that is a limitation of human knowledge, not a property of natural/deterministic causality.

      Now how could anyone prove that the posited phenotypical trajectories were inevitable given any set of event regularities whatsoever? The task is too difficult for humans at this time. We couldn't come close to proving it since we can't even predict phenotypes worth a squat in the first place.

      Thus, it is impossible at this time to prove that naturalistic UCA is logically possible. There may be, for all we know, absolutely ZERO intial conditions plus a set of event regularities that would produce a single UCA tree of the biota. And that would mean that naturalistic UCA of the kind that involves event regularities is logically impossible.

      What is the case is this: We can't prove it's logically possible or logically impossible. But we're not only far from proving the former. But we're still learning more and more of what needs to BE explained thus. We're not even done with that phase of the research program.

      AT this time, for all practical purpose, UCA'ists have NOTHING. On the other hand, the universal code is exactly what an ID'ist would expect (if it it's logically possible--and it seems to be for extant creatures at least) if the same designer that designed life designed our minds to infer inductively. Because inductive inference is always to the greatest analogical nature of reality as is consistent with observations.

      On the other hand, since a-teleological UCA is not knowably inconsistent with a state of affairs where mental states don't even correspond to states of an "external" world, then, per that hypothesis, nothing about mental states need have anything to do with what an "external" world is like, much less that there is a universal code.

      In short, the universal code is only known to be evidence for common design. It is not conceivably evidence for a-teleological UCA. We don't even know the latter is logically possible, yet.

      Delete
    95. Liar for Jesus Jeff:

      Naturalistic UCA means that that at some time in the past, there were initial conditions in the Precambrian that included one or a few species and a set of event regularities (some laws of physics, chemistry, etc) that rendered all the subsequent species/phenotypes INEVITABLE at least by the times of their first known occurrences, and almost certainly sooner.


      No idiot, UCA doesn't mean that the exact subsequent species/phenotypes were INEVITABLE. It could be that given the initial conditions some form of life was inevitable, but the specific forms that evolved WERE NOT PREDICTABLE or INEVITABLE due to the RANDOM COMPONENT in the evolutionary process.

      This was conclusively demonstrated in the Lenski Long Term E coli Experiment. The experimenters kept samples from every one of over 30,000 generations and could actually "replay the tape" of evolution from the identical starting position. When they did they got different results every time, NOT your claimed same INEVITABLE pathways.

      You keep making the same stupid claim over and over and over, and you keep getting corrected over and over and over. Your Clueless Creationist Clown act has already gotten old.

      The "inevitable" aspect is what is important about natural explanation. Natural causality is not probabilistic in nature.

      Wrong again idiot. Evolution has a probabilistic, random component that makes specific predictions impossible.

      Your whole stupid argument for all this time is based on your ignorance and misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.

      You choose to be such a willfully ignorant jerk who is too lazy and conceited to bother learning the first thing about the science you criticize. Don't be surprised when you get the ridicule and scorn you deserve.

      Delete
    96. Alas, it is you that is dead wrong, cutie pie. Methodological naturalism deals with causality that is repeatable under the same conditions. If causal sequences do not repeat under the exact same conditions, the events are either uncaused or they are caused by libertarianly-free causality or by a mode of causality not not subject to scientific inquiry.

      To say some event sequence occurred tells us nothing of value if we can't know that event sequence will reoccur under the same conditions. No causal theory would be falsifiable if that were true for event sequences in general. Methodological naturalism would be impotent.

      And if you believe the Lenski long term experiment was known to start with the exact same initial conditions and was known to have continued under EXACTLY identical conditions, it's no wonder you're a full-blown fideist, cutie!

      PREACH ON, cutie!!! Your fellow fideists need some inspiration!!!!

      Delete
  12. UCA research is ridden with jargon. too. Use Google or ask me about specific terms. I'm not a mind-reader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Translated: I don't understand it, so I make things up, because I assume others cannot understand it, therefore B.S.

      Delete
    2. We understand it. And we understand that it is untestable BS.

      Delete
  13. as has been said earlier, there is a fundamental relationship, out of necessity, between moleclular scale realities, ie. chemical, biophysical correlations, propensities and the biophysical structures that are obviously components of the reasoning entities that constitute our physical individuality and conciousness composing our sense of reality. having said that, there is no scientific rigorous deductive established position that compels any consensus or even esoteric conclusion that neodarwinion speculation is anyhthing other that conjecture that is non scientific is its tenants and conclusions. Please demonstrate that i am incorrect in what has ben said.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thorton: We've been over this before IDiot, remember? ToE doesn't have to predict specific morphologies in advance. It can't, because of the random nature of genetic variation. But it does predict branching descent with modification over deep time which is exactly what we see in the existing data.

    Jeff: Ah, but cutie pie, we do NOT see/observe the branching descent inferred by UCA'ists. And since we have no naturalistic theory (one that involves event regularities) that implies the relevant phenotypes at the posited times when applied to relevant initial conditions, the inference is not based on a most parsimonious explanation at all.

    Because there is NO naturalistic explanation at all. Cutie pie, that's what it means to say phenotypes are unpredictable you little devout fideist, you!

    Classification is one thing. Natural explanation of events and states of affairs is another, cutie pie. But you get those tithes and offerings to your priesthood, now!! They're counting on fideists like you!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jeff: Ah, but cutie pie, we do NOT see/observe the branching descent inferred by UCA'ists.

    Above I just posted a recent paper that shows exactly that.

    I'm still waiting for you to show me the evidence for separate created kinds in the data.

    Why do you Creationist IDiots think if you ignore the empirical evidence, the evidence will mysteriously go away?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What empirical evidence do you think Creationists are ignoring? Please ne specific

      Ya see it is a given that evolutionism doesn't have any empirical support...

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

      Delete
    3. Thorton: Above I just posted a recent paper that shows exactly that.

      Jeff: You're so cute when you moon, thus, cutie pie. The evolutionary trajectories you fideists posit are not observed in the laboratory, and there is certainly no human alive today that was alive as they supposedly occurred in history. But you preach on, cutie. It'll make you sleep really good tonight.

      Delete
    4. This is one strange conversation.

      Delete
    5. Jeff

      The evolutionary trajectories you fideists posit are not observed in the laboratory, and there is certainly no human alive today that was alive as they supposedly occurred in history.


      LOL! With lying Creationists like Jeff it always comes down to the "Ken Ham defense":

      "Were you there???? Did you see it????"

      You couldn't invent people as clueless about science as Creationists Jeff and Chubs here.

      Delete
    6. velik

      "This is one strange conversation."

      It's a version of Hello Kitty with Cutie, Moon, Pie, Thongy and Chubb
      :)

      Delete
  16. Evolutionism can't accout for transcription, let alone transcription factors...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Evolutionists possess no OBJECTIVE methodology for evaluating what evolution is capable of or not. All they have is an assumption and a blank check that whatever is found had to due to evolution.

    On the other hand, they have no problem in presenting detailed arguments about what a creator should or shouldn't have done. But, these arguments are absurd, since over time what is being discovered is exactly what they used to say we would find IF there was a creator. Not only is their theory like trying to jail JELLO to the wall, but the JELLO target is moving. The last one out of Darwin's nap room, turn off the lights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?

      'Evolutionists' make absolutely no claims whatsoever about what a Creator should or should not have done. Obviously.

      Because if one is talking of an omnipotent Creator, then they could have done literally anything. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that would verify or falsify their existence or their intervention.

      That's why it isn't science. And 'Goddidit' is not a scientific hypothesis.

      Much to the chagrin of the 'CID proponentsists', of course...

      Delete
    2. Neal and Ritchie, I have heard many evolutionists, such as Jerry Coyne, argue against ID by using the "a designer wouldn't have done this" argument, although they always seem to be reaching to me, using poor examples or extremely rare occurences.

      On the other hand, Neal, I find your statement to be a broad brush against all who believe in evolution. Some of us evolutionists do accept teleology, and reject Darwinistic luck and death.

      Ritchie plays the same bifurcation error, claming that any rejection of Luck Theory is talking of an Omnipotent Creator.

      The arguments refering to supposed "bad design" fail because, even if it is bad design, and it is far from it, that still is not the same as NO design.

      The O-Rings on the Challenger were bad design, but they clearly were design. "Bad design" arguments do not falsify intelligence. We expect limits, flaws and an endpoint in every design, but we detect a norm (a pattern) of purposefulness.

      Delete
    3. Ritchie,

      See http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227159863_Charles_Darwin's_use_of_theology_in_the_Origin_of_Species

      Delete
    4. IA -

      ID has to show design in nature. It must give us reason to believe biological features were designed. And, having absolutely no evidence for this, the common fall-back is "It just LOOKS designed!"

      And, this being the argument, pointing out apparently badly-designed features is perfectly logical and legitimate.

      No-one can be sure of what an omnipotent Creator would or would not create. Because they could create literally ANYTHING and for any reason. So we cannot look at any single feature and say 'This clearly wasn't designed'. But it is for this exact same feature that we cannot say 'This clearly WAS designed' either. 'It just LOOKS designed' simply does not cut it. Because we have no idea what an unknowable creator would or would not create. Which leaves us with absolutely no way of detecting design in nature, and no reason to suppose the natural world was designed.

      Delete
    5. Neal -

      The Origin of Species is not a holy text. It is simply the book wherein ToE was first put forward. But so what? I myself have not even read it - and nor do I really have much intention of doing so. And why should I? ToE has moved on in the last 150 years. There are a couple of points Darwin got flatly wrong.

      You seem to be confusing it with a holy book which must be worshipped and revered in it's original state and never subjected to scrutiny.

      Delete
    6. If you don't read that book then you will remain ignorant wrt natural selection, and what it was invented for.

      BTW ID HAS shown design in nature. What YOU can't do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can do anything but break and degenerate.

      Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

      Delete
    7. Joe -

      If you don't read that book then you will remain ignorant wrt natural selection, and what it was invented for.

      It wasn't 'invented'. It is a real force of nature, and it was one long before Darwin gave it a name.

      And it doesn't have a purpose. Not one ascribed by Darwin or anyone else. What incredibly peculiar ideas you have about biology.

      BTW ID HAS shown design in nature.

      Where? Give me some examples, please.

      What YOU can't do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can do anything but break and degenerate.

      You mean I can't prove that the terrestrial processes we study AREN'T supernatural or the result of supernatural intervention?

      Of course not. Because the whole idea of the supernatural is totally unscientific. That's not science.

      Science can show that gravity is a real force, just as we can show that evolution is a real force. But if you want us to prove that there AREN'T magic creatures making it all happen, then no, we can't do that.

      But such ideas are simply not for science. They are religion and philosophy.

      Delete
    8. IntelligentAnimation, Darwinists have hijacked the word 'evolution'. It is such a muddled term nowadays, with so many definitions that it isn't worth the trouble to pull the good from the bad. I think it is better to pursue a course of getting away from the fuzzy headed thinking altogether and use terms that are clear and specific.

      Cars and computers have been said to have 'evolved'. Substitute the word 'changed' and you'll be just as well off. But, understanding that it was a guided process with intelligent intention with specific engineering changes (1, 2, 3, etc) is where the real science comes into play.

      Because of its popular use, evolution is basically the same thing as universal common descent. I am aware of the other definitions (7+), such as used by scientists when referring to allele frequency changes, etc, but it really all boils down to UCA in their view.
      Bird beak variation = evolution = UCA. It's just a matter of degrees.

      Let them have the sloppy term and let's move on and speak specifically and scientifically about the changes we see in nature.

      Delete
    9. It wasn't 'invented'.

      Yes, it was invented as a designer mimic.

      BTW ID HAS shown design in nature.

      Where?

      many places- starting with the universe and including biology. Your position can't account for anything.

      Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

      Delete
    10. Joe G -

      Yes, it was invented as a designer mimic.

      Ridiculous! That's like saying "Gravity didn't exist until Newton 'invented' it as a way to keep planets in orbit!"

      many places- starting with the universe and including biology. Your position can't account for anything.

      No, I'm going to need much more specific examples than that.

      "Life/the universe just LOOKS designed to me!" will not suffice. You need a tangible piece of evidence that you can explicitly explain as supporting the hypothesis of a designer and not its null hypothesis.

      Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

      Testable hypotheses are made from UCA all the time.

      When it was discovered that our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, has one pair more chromosomes than we did, it led directly to a testable hypothesis - that one pair of human chromosomes must be a fusion of two. And we looked, and that's exactly what we discovered.

      When we found a curious bone in the ankle of ancient whales linking them surprisingly deep inside the family of even-toed ungulates, it was a testable hypothesis that the genomes of whales should bare out this relationship. And it does.

      Can YOU provide a testable hypothesis for YOUR position?

      Delete
    11. Ritchie, Origin of Species set the tone for argument of ToE ever since. You'll find the same basic arguments from theology ever since Darwin up to this present time. Dawkins, Coyne, and others simply recycle the same old same old and put a fresh cover on it to drive book sales and make money.

      Delete
    12. Neal -

      Only in it's essentials it is not the same argument. It has been updated with 150 years worth of evidence and scientific discovery, and is still being so.

      Our modern ToE is very much like Darwin's that he set out in OoS, but with a lot more information.

      So why would I need to know Darwin's original theory? Surely all that matters is learning ToE as it stands today?

      Delete
    13. Ooops - obviously I meant "Only in its essentials is it the same argument".

      Delete
    14. Ritchie said

      "ID has to show design in nature...

      No-one can be sure of what an omnipotent Creator would or would not create...

      Which leaves us with absolutely no way of detecting design in nature, and no reason to suppose the natural world was designed."



      This is a very research limiting view to artifically construct. First of all I think your premise is based on "pointing out apparently badly-designed features" as your starting point.

      What are you thinking of specifically, that would qualify as "apparently badly designed features". Name one.

      You do have a good point about the creator being able to do what he wants. I do agree with that. I think your further ahead in that regard than many evolutionists, who are pretty firm on what a creator should/shouldn't have done.

      First of all, can an omnipotent creator who could literally do anything for any reason have designed and created life as we know it?

      The answer is yes.

      Second, are the natural processes that we observe (ToE mechanisms) capable of producing all the life past and present?

      The answer is no. If I arrived from Mars with no bible or religious influence and simply looked at the evidence of ToE, I would say the same. IF one assumes that there had to be a completely unguided explanation for life, then really one is left with the very poor explanation of ToE. Evolutionists believe it is a good explanation, but they are way to excited about seeing the similarities and supporting evidence, but ignore the massive amount of data that runs counter to it. Any hypothesis can find supporting data. So, counter data is more important than supporting data in scientific research.

      Evolutionists see similarities between life forms and this suggests evolution. However, the differences are more important than the similarities.

      If I see someone that just had successful brain surgery and then a man with a hospital maintenance uniform comes by and claims that he was the surgeon, I'm skeptical. If he is unable to identify a scalpel, then I become strongly convinced that he is liar. Evolution is like this. Lots of claims, but the mechanisms it identifies and describes just can't do what it says they can. Reason tells me to look elsewhere for the correct answers. I used to be an evolutionist, but it just fell short. I didn't have the metaphysical prejudice or career pressure or peer pressure to hold me to that view. It was bye-bye to evolution, and my search for more began.

      Delete
    15. Neal -

      First of all I think your premise is based on "pointing out apparently badly-designed features" as your starting point.

      I am not taking this as a starting point of anything. Apparent bad design is something ID proponents need to account for, but that is hardly relevant to much. They need an actual working theory first.

      What are you thinking of specifically, that would qualify as "apparently badly designed features". Name one.

      Well, off the top of my head, the giraffe's laryngeal nerve, which runs the entire length of its neck and back again to end up at the larynx, mere inches away from where it started. Why would a Creator create it thus? We will obviously never know, but it does SEEM pretty inefficient. It is, at least, APPARENT bad design.

      First of all, can an omnipotent creator who could literally do anything for any reason have designed and created life as we know it?

      The answer is yes.


      Of course. Because you have defined him as being capable of such. Could an omnipotent unicorn do the same? The answer is yes. Does that give us reason to think such a unicorn might exist?

      Second, are the natural processes that we observe (ToE mechanisms) capable of producing all the life past and present?

      The answer is no.


      Now here is where you take a massive leap out into the dark. Why says 'no'? You? Who are you to judge? What are your credentials?

      I don't want to seem insulting, but really, I honestly doubt you get your information from anywhere other than Christian ID sources. Which spend their whole time lying and misrepresenting science, slurring ToE as an article of religious faith.

      I could, of course, be wrong, but I do not see how anyone but the most brainwashed can reach the conclusion you have reached.

      How can you state with total certainty that it is absolutely impossible for natural evolutionary processes to create all terrestrial life? Do you know this 100% for an absolute fact, in which case where is the evidence? Or is this your personal judgement call? In which case, with respect, why should your opinion count for much?

      Spend your life listening only to people who slam and slur ToE (because it nothing must be allowed to threaten the sanctity of 'Goddidit') and of course you will have a bad opinion of it. That's called, being biased.

      Delete
    16. Yes, it was invented as a designer mimic.

      Ridiculous!

      Yes, you are

      That's like saying "Gravity didn't exist until Newton 'invented' it as a way to keep planets in orbit!"

      No, it isn't. Darwin took something tat existed and made it out to be something tat it ain't.

      many places- starting with the universe and including biology. Your position can't account for anything.

      No, I'm going to need much more specific examples than that.

      And it has all been written about. Are you saying tat you are ignorant of ID too?

      Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

      Testable hypotheses are made from UCA all the time.

      Nice equivocation- you need a testable hypotehsis pertaining to blind and undirected chemical processes.

      Delete
    17. Ritchie,
      Research the laryngeal nerve with respect to its development from embryo to birth and get back to us.

      Delete
    18. Joe G

      Yes, you are

      Mature. Bravo.

      Darwin took something tat existed and made it out to be something tat it ain't.

      That would be a 'designer mimic', right?

      You still have not explained what you mean by that term.

      And it has all been written about.

      Where has it been written about? SHOW ME! Or will you just continue to dodge and evade forever to hide the fact that you don't have a single shred of evidence?

      Nice equivocation- you need a testable hypotehsis pertaining to blind and undirected chemical processes.

      You first.

      Delete
    19. Neal -

      It sounds like you are getting at something specific. Couldn't you just come out and say it, please?

      Delete
  18. Ritchie asks: "How is it not logical that those who are most suited to survival and reproduction will be most likely to survive and reproduce?"

    Because it is a circular, vapid, non-explanatory, useless tautology.

    You are merely re-stating the premise as the result, so you added nothing of value nor anything explanatory or causal. How could it be more obvious?

    The question is how does anything become more suited to survival, not what would happen if they did. Darwinism is the most banal stupidity in the history of science, hands down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IA -

      Because it is a circular, vapid, non-explanatory, useless tautology.

      You are merely re-stating the premise as the result, so you added nothing of value nor anything explanatory or causal. How could it be more obvious?


      I actually agree with you! That is true. It really is a tautology.

      Which makes it all the more incredible that Joe G (and doubtless other ID-ers) actually think it is categorically false!

      The question is how does anything become more suited to survival, not what would happen if they did.

      That is true. And Darwinism provides and intelligent and elegant answer to that question.

      Darwinism is the most banal stupidity in the history of science, hands down.

      Non-sequitur. How are you jumping to this odd conclusion?

      Delete
    2. Which makes it all the more incredible that Joe G (and doubtless other ID-ers) actually think it is categorically false!


      What do I think is categorically false? Please be specific - you have already lied about me in this thread.

      Delete
    3. I am not lying. Your position is clearly barking.

      You have already stated that:

      "And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts."

      THERE is a lie for you.

      Delete
    4. Yes, you have ben caught lying about me.

      And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts.

      If there were you would present it mr zoology...

      Delete
    5. Joe G

      Yes, you have ben caught lying about me.

      Grow up.

      And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts.

      You already said you accepted that random mutations may affect the morphology of creatures.

      If there were you would present it mr zoology.

      There's that sneery tone again. Trying to mock me for actually having biology qualifications while you don't? Bitterness is very unbecoming.

      Delete
    6. I need to grow up because you are a liar? How does that work, exactly?

      And there isn't any evidence to support accumulating random mutations producing new body plans and new body parts.

      You already said you accepted that random mutations may affect the morphology of creatures.

      So what? That does NOT mean we can get new body plans and new body parts.

      And obviou;sy I have mor equalifications than you do. You don't even understand natural selection.

      Delete
  19. CH, the trend among Darwinists who are seeing clear evidence for non-random mutations is to claim that these non-random changes are the result of random changes from millions of years ago.

    How do random changes cause non-random changes? Darwinist arguments are getting so circular it is dizzying. Transcription factors is what caused transcription factors. Adaptation is what caused adaptation. Creatures adapted the ability to adapt.

    Is any of this supposed to be an explanation?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The problem, of course, is that modern day evidence of evolution shows a picture that could not be further from Darwinism if you scripted it. Nothing is anything like what Darwin guessed, not that his theory ever made any sense anyway. Genetics are not random at all, which renders falsified the entire ridiculous concept of luck and death Darwinism.

    Unfortunately, the train wreck we used to call Life Science is littered with pseudoscientists who have been bragging about the supposed brilliance of Darwin, lauding him with parades, a holiday in his name, statues and shrines. These idiots will not die a glamorous Hollywood death. This paradigm change is ugly already and worsening weekly.

    What an embarassment to the once venerable vocation of science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IA,
      Genetics are not random at all, which renders falsified the entire ridiculous concept of luck and death Darwinism.

      All mutations are non random? I know usually people are loathe to spell out their explanation for the biosphere , but since you seem so unequivocal about the TOE, might you elaborate on your view of the truth which biologists are so maliciously ignoring? Thanks

      Delete
    2. Eugen,

      Ck this out, http://www.bombsight.org/#12/51.5405/-0.1157 . It is safe

      Delete
  21. That is amazing. When you zoom out the whole city is a red freaky blob.

    I think our British readers will appreciate that web page, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. And it centres pretty much exactly over where I live. Ceepy.

      Delete
  22. "HGT does not invalidate UCA."

    No, HGT is the only way to keep alive UCA with the data we have, so I do not understand how you said "evidence support UCA", you have to say UCA is possible only if multiple HGT happenned before and after UCA.

    "Why would they do that, exactly?"

    Why not? I find more improbable the multiple HGT of aatRNAsintases than allien seeding different forms of life on earth. There is a scientific way to confirm one or another?

    ReplyDelete