Friday, January 18, 2013

A Marine Mollusk Grinds Down Rock

It May Lead to Better Engineering Machinery

Algae do not merely grow on rocks, they also grow in the cracks and crevices of rocks making the seaweed organisms a difficult meal for consumers such as Cryptochiton stelleri, otherwise known as gumboot chiton, a marine mollusk off the coast of California. This tenacious chiton solves the problem by grinding down rocks with an amazing set of teeth which contain the hardest known biomineral, magnetite. The outer shell of the chiton’s teeth, as professor David Kisailus explains in his latest paper, develop in four distinct stages:

(i) the formation of a crystalline α-chitin organic matrix that forms the structural framework of the non-mineralized teeth, (ii) the templated synthesis of ferrihydrite crystal aggregates along these organic fibers, (iii) subsequent solid state phase transformation from ferrihydrite to magnetite, and (iv) progressive magnetite crystal growth to form continuous parallel rods within the mature teeth.

What is remarkable is that the formation of this advanced,  super-hard material, occurs at standard temperature and pressure. This inspires Kisailus to use these same strategies to produce cost-effective, advanced nanomaterials.

That’s a great idea. An even better one would be to steal the chiton’s designs for using its teeth to grind down rock. As one report explains:

Over time, chitons have evolved to eat algae growing on and within rocks using a specialized rasping organ called a radula, a conveyer belt-like structure in the mouth that contains 70 to 80 parallel rows of teeth. During the feeding process, the first few rows of the teeth are used to grind rock to get to the algae. They become worn, but new teeth are continuously produced and enter the “wear zone” at the same rate as teeth are shed.

The report explains that all this evolved. In other words, random mutations just happened to construct the elaborate process of forming the chiton’s teeth and the complex structures, mechanisms and processes for using the teeth to grind down the rock, to obtain a modest meal of seaweed.

Every mutation, at every point along the way, must have been random. They could not have been induced by the need of the moment. Those are the rules. Otherwise teleology and final causes would be back in play, and that is not allowed in evolutionary theory.

You see evolutionary theory is not driven by empirical science. It is driven by metaphysics. In fact evolutionists have no idea how the amazing gumboot chiton evolved. But they are certain that it did evolve, because they are certain that everything evolved.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

253 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter

    The report explains that all this evolved. In other words, random mutations just happened to construct the elaborate process of forming the chiton’s teeth and the complex structures, mechanisms and processes for using the teeth to grind down the rock, to obtain a modest meal of seaweed.


    Once again like clockwork you tell a most egregious lie about how evolutionary processes actually work.

    Random mutation by themselves didn't "just happen" to construct the chitons' teeth and feeding habits. Random mutations filtered by selection which allow an accumulation of the beneficial ones over generations did.

    I know it, and you know it, so why do you keep posting these bare-faced lies?

    Does it make you sleep better at night knowing you're feeding this steaming load of bull to the functionally illiterate readers like Jeff and Lino and BA77?

    Is taking money to lie about science really the best way you can think of to serve God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Random mutations filtered by selection which allow an accumulation of the beneficial ones over generations did.

      This crap is thoroughly refuted by specified complexity. Why even bring it up, Mr. psychopath? That being said, I think there is something that is even deadlier to evolution than specified complexity. It's the observation that destructive mutations are many orders of magnitude more numerous than constructive mutations. Anything evolution builds is immediately destroyed by its own essential mechanism. It's pathetic, really.

      OK. I already read about the BS statistics that you evotards brandish every time this subject comes up. So be cool and don't tempt me to grind your nose in your own excrement. I'll do it for free. LOL.

      Delete
    2. Keyword "filtered." Mutations still random. Selection cannot induce mutations and evolutionists haven't a clue how random mutations could lead to this design. Next time try science.

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

      Delete
    4. "This crap is thoroughly refuted by specified complexity. Why even bring it up, Mr. psychopath? That being said, I think there is something that is even deadlier to evolution than specified complexity. It's the observation that destructive mutations are many orders of magnitude more numerous than constructive mutations. Anything evolution builds is immediately destroyed by its own essential mechanism. It's pathetic, really."

      Exactly.

      The typical response to this will be "so what? A few will survive at the cost of many dead, its NS!"

      RM & NS doesn't have the answer to how x came to be in the first place.
      What has to be shown is how RM & NS can produce rather than reduce.

      Delete
    5. Here are a few 'minor' problems with Natural Selection that evolutionists seems to be very reticent to talk about:

      An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - December 2012
      Excerpt: And as for Darwin’s grand principle, natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. (Adam Sedgwick)” Yet Darwin had smuggled in teleological language to avoid the absurdity and make it acceptable. For Darwin had written of natural selection “as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.” Yet again, this criticism is cogent today. Teleological language is rampant in the evolutionary literature.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html

      Major problems with natural selection - list of major problems
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-coyne-and-poisoning-the-well/#comment-441150

      As well, ‘selection’ acts at the very coarse level of the entire organism and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only 'seen' at the very fine 'molecular' level and are far below the power of selection to remove. i.e. 'princess and the pea paradox'

      The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) - Abel - 2009
      Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level.
      http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm

      Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/

      Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video
      http://vimeo.com/35088933

      Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
      Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
      http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf
      MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
      http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net/

      Delete
    6. Cornelius Hunter

      Keyword "filtered." Mutations still random. Selection cannot induce mutations and evolutionists haven't a clue how random mutations could lead to this design.


      More with the big lie! Mutations are random WRT reproductive fitness but selection does not have a uniform probability distribution. That's why the beneficial changes are retained and accumulate in the population over generations.

      Science has known how genetic variations filtered by selection are carried forward as heritable traits for almost 60 years now.

      Next time try science.

      Next time try honesty presenting the science instead of lying for the DI's money.

      Delete
    7. @Thorton
      That’s what dr. Hunter is saying: mutations are random. Natural selection cannot induce them. The coarse sieve of natural selection, can only confirm what random mutations have to offer. The idea that there is a step-by-step-path -each step beneficial for the organism- towards the final completion of the ‘design’ is an article of faith.

      Delete
    8. ignorant coward:
      Mutations are random WRT reproductive fitness

      Meaningless cowardice. According to Ernst Mayr all genetic change is chance/ happenstance. WRT reproductive fitness is meaningless garbage. Directed mutations could be random wrt reproductive fitness. That does not make them chance events, loser.

      but selection does not have a uniform probability distribution

      What "selection"? Natural selection doesn't select. Whatever is good enough to survive and reproduce, survives and reproduces. And that can be any number of traits and variations.

      That's why the beneficial changes are retained and accumulate in the population over generations.


      LoL! "Beneficial" is relative and changes.

      Science has known how genetic variations filtered by selection are carried forward as heritable traits for almost 60 years now.

      Thanks to Mendel, a Creationist.

      Delete
    9. Evidence for Creation now banned from UK religious education classes - July 2012
      Excerpt: Recently, evolutionist Suzan Mazur published a book entitled, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.,, The Altenberg 16 is a group of top university academics who met together at a symposium held at Altenberg in Austria in 2008. According to Mazur, these leading evolutionary scientists ‘recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.’ Some of the delegates would clearly go further. According to molecular biologist, Professor Antonio Lima-de-Faria, not only is the Darwinian paradigm wrong, but it ‘actually hinders discovery of the mechanism of evolution.’ Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini spoke for a number in stating simply that natural selection ‘is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.’ Professor Jerry Fodor confessed, ‘I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.’ If scientists can’t point to a natural process that can drive evolution, why should evolution (by force of law) be taught as science, (as a fact), in school classrooms?
      http://creation.com/creation-religious-education

      Delete
    10. Mendelian genetics, named after a monk named Gregor Mendel who discovered the laws by which fixed traits are passed on, is very anti-Darwinian in its formulation. It was only the addition of ‘random mutations’ that allowed a very, very, rough fit in the modern synthesis between Mendelian Genetics and Darwinism. The trouble is that Mendelian Genetics remains steadfast to this day (perhaps some refinement with Genetic Entropy is needed), whereas the forced fitted addition of random mutations from Darwinism (modern synthesis) is what is now known to be severely inadequate if not outrightly false.

      Notes:

      The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html

      The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009
      Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis

      Shapiro on Random Mutation:
      "What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation."
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html

      Majority of mutations are directed (non-random) - Jonathan Bartlett - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJwWhhpua_o

      Revisiting the Central Dogma - David Tyler - Nov. 9, 2012
      Excerpt: "The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome - that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence - have all been called into question in the last few years.",,
      Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma:
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/11/09/revisiting_the_central_dogma

      The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011)
      Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory!
      http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf

      The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

      Delete
    11. Chubby Joke G

      What "selection"? Natural selection doesn't select.

      Thanks to Mendel, a Creationist.


      LOL! So there's no such thing as natural selection, yet how natural selection works was discovered by a Creationist.

      It takes a really special kind of stupid to directly contradict yourself in the same post.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest "special" Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    12. Carolus L

      @Thorton
      That’s what dr. Hunter is saying: mutations are random.


      WRT reproductive fitness, yep.

      Natural selection cannot induce them.

      Yep.

      The coarse sieve of natural selection, can only confirm what random mutations have to offer.

      3 for 3.

      The idea that there is a step-by-step-path -each step beneficial for the organism- towards the final completion of the ‘design’ is an article of faith.

      Dead wrong The iterative process of evolution has been well studied and empirically observed for over a century. The power of such iterative feedback processes to create novelties is also well know. It's the whole basis for the scientific field of genetic algorithms.

      Delete
    13. ignorant moron:
      So there's no such thing as natural selection,

      I didn't say that you lying loser. NS exists, it doesn't do anything and it definitely doesn't select.

      yet how natural selection works was discovered by a Creationist.

      Tat has nothing to do with what I said. Mendel taught us about heritable traits.

      It takes a really special kind of stupid to directly contradict yourself in the same post.

      Well I didn't contradict myself. However it takes a special kind of loser to think that I did.



      Delete
    14. That’s what dr. Hunter is saying: mutations are random.

      ignorant puke:
      WRT reproductive fitness, yep.

      NO! They are random as in chance/ happenstance events.

      The iterative process of evolution has been well studied and empirically observed for over a century.

      Liar.

      It's the whole basis for the scientific field of genetic algorithms.

      Genetic algorithsm = Intelligent Design. So thank you for finally admitting ID is science.

      Delete
    15. LOL!

      So the empirically observed natural processes that form the basis for genetic algorithms don't work, yet they support Intelligent Design.

      Fatboy Joke is really on a confused self-contradicting roll this morning folks!

      Delete
    16. occam's afterbirth:
      So the empirically observed natural processes that form the basis for genetic algorithms don't work, yet they support Intelligent Design.

      LoL! No natural process is goal-oriented searching for a solution to a specific problem.

      Goal-oriented processes searching for solutions to specific problems are evidence for Intelligent Design.

      And thorton/ occam's afterbirth/ some other cowardly sock-puppet's flailing isn't going to change that.

      Again it is amusing to see thorton squirming and spewing its usual ignorance.

      Delete
    17. Chubby Joke G

      No natural process is goal-oriented searching for a solution to a specific problem.


      Of course there are Chubs. The goal is just the extremely broad "find something that lets you produce one more generation". There are a myriad number of different evolved life forms on the planet because there a myriad number of different ways to solve the 'survive and reproduce' problem.

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    18. No natural process is goal-oriented searching for a solution to a specific problem.

      thortty boo-boo:
      Of course there are

      Liar.

      There are a myriad number of different evolved life forms on the planet because there a myriad number of different ways to solve the 'survive and reproduce' problem.

      Evolved BY DESIGN.

      thortty boo-boo, biggest coward ever.

      Delete
    19. Chubby Joke G

      Evolved BY MAGIC!


      Whatever you say "Topper" Joe.

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

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

      Delete
    21. thortty boo-boo:
      Evolved BY MAGIC!

      Exactly- your position relies on magic.

      Nice job ace boo-boo

      Delete
    22. Hunter: Keyword "filtered." Mutations still random. Selection cannot induce mutations and evolutionists haven't a clue how random mutations could lead to this design. Next time try science.

      And even that is not the full story. There is one more keyword: cumulative selection. You, guys, had so much fun with Dawkins's Weasel, but it seems like it didn't teach you anything.

      Delete
    23. oleg:
      There is one more keyword: cumulative selection.You, guys, had so much fun with Dawkins's Weasel, but it seems like it didn't teach you anything.

      Dawkins' weasel = Intelligent Design.

      IOW oleg proves he cannot learn anything.

      Delete
    24. Chubby Joke G

      Dawkins' weasel = Intelligent Design.

      IOW oleg proves he cannot learn anything.


      We know Chubs. If someone writes a program that models the effects of gravity that proves gravity was Intelligently Designed.

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    25. LoL! Your position can't account for gravity.

      However when someone designs a program to design something, and it does, it did so BY DESIGN.

      Also even Dawkins said weasel is not how evolution works.

      Thortty boo-boo- biggest ignorantass ever

      Delete
    26. Thorton:"Dead wrong The iterative process of evolution has been well studied and empirically observed for over a century. The power of such iterative feedback processes to create novelties is also well know."
      Mr.Thorton, can you provide an example of such a step-by-step evolution of a novel trade?

      Delete
    27. Also even Dawkins said weasel is not how evolution works.

      Way to miss the point. By that Dawkins meant to say that Weasel illustrates not all of Darwinian evolution, but one specific aspect of it: cumulative selection.

      Delete
    28. Carolus L

      Mr.Thorton, can you provide an example of such a step-by-step evolution of a novel trade?


      Read up on genetic algorithms is general

      "In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover."

      Read up on evolutionary algorithms in specific.

      "In artificial intelligence, an evolutionary algorithm (EA) is a subset of evolutionary computation, a generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. An EA uses mechanisms inspired by biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the environment within which the solutions "live" (see also cost function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Artificial evolution (AE) describes a process involving individual evolutionary algorithms; EAs are individual components that participate in an AE.

      Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape; this generality is shown by successes in fields as diverse as engineering, art, biology, economics, marketing, genetics, operations research, robotics, social sciences, physics, politics and chemistry"

      Come back if you have any questions.





      Delete
    29. oleg:
      By that Dawkins meant to say that Weasel illustrates not all of Darwinian evolution, but one specific aspect of it: cumulative selection.

      Except cumulative selection is NOT Darwinian. In order for there to be cumulative selection there has to be a target/ goal.

      Delete
    30. thorty boo-boo- ignorANUS-

      GAs and EAs are examples of Intelligent Design Evolution.

      When someone designs a program to design something, and it does, it did so BY DESIGN.

      So you are either very ignorant, very stupid or very dishonest.

      Delete
    31. No, Joe, cumulative selection does not require a goal. It just requires differential reproduction.

      Delete
    32. oleg:
      No, Joe, cumulative selection does not require a goal.

      Yes, it does. Otherwise the word "cumulative" doesn't belong.

      Your ignorance of the English language is not a refutation.

      It just requires differential reproduction.

      You can have differential reproduction without cumulative selection.

      Delete
    33. The term cumulative has nothing to do with having a goal. It just means that improvements (on whatever scale) accumulate.

      Delete
    34. Thorton

      This is rather disappointing. I was asking for one simple example from the actual world. Now you tell me to read up on computer science.
      How can anyone incorporate the maddeningly complex world of life in a computer program?
      I assumed you were talking about biology when you stated:
      Thorton:"Dead wrong The iterative process of evolution has been well studied and empirically observed for over a century. The power of such iterative feedback processes to create novelties is also well know."

      Delete
    35. oleg: And even that is not the full story. There is one more keyword: cumulative selection. You, guys, had so much fun with Dawkins's Weasel, but it seems like it didn't teach you anything.

      No, you've shown nothing. You have no idea how the chiton could possibly have originated via random mutations. Not a clue. And yet you claim it to be a fact. You're not a scientist.

      Delete
    36. Cornelius, the irony is rich.

      A long time ago you published a couple of papers under the guidance of your advisor, got your PhD diploma, and left science to practice Christian apologetics. I work full-time in physics, publishing papers and graduating students with a Ph.D. When you tell me that I am not a scientist, one of us looks like a dork. Which one is left as an exercise to the reader.

      Delete
    37. oleg: I work full-time in physics, publishing papers and graduating students with a Ph.D.

      Why is it a fact that Cryptochiton stelleri evolved?

      Delete
    38. It's not a fact, Cornelius. It's a basic assumption of evolutionary theory. An axiom if you will. Not that you didn't know it.

      Delete
    39. oleg: It's not a fact, Cornelius. It's a basic assumption of evolutionary theory. An axiom if you will. Not that you didn't know it.

      Let's try again. Why do you believe evolution is a fact?

      Delete
    40. This isn't the language that I would choose. I would not equate any scientific theory with a fact.

      To see why, let's take a non-controversial topic such as optics. Is geometrical optics a fact? Well, no. It works exceedingly well in some very important limits: we make prescription glasses on its basis. But it fails in other limits (diffraction). Yet geometrical optics is a good scientific theory: it provides a concise, comprehensive and realistic description of multiple phenomena in simple terms.

      My choice of words would be to say that evolutionary theory (modern synthesis plus new developments) provides a concise, comprehensive and realistic description of biological origins. That is why it is considered to be a good scientific theory.

      Delete
    41. Carolus L

      This is rather disappointing. I was asking for one simple example from the actual world. Now you tell me to read up on computer science.


      No, I was telling you to read up on evolutionary processes that are used as the basis for GAs. I can't do anything for your willful ignorance.

      BTW, here is a good real world example of where a scientist worked out the ancestral evolutionary pathways for the development of a specific biological function, the V-ATPase proton pump.

      Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine

      Abstract: Many cellular processes are carried out by molecular ‘machines’—assemblies of multiple differentiated proteins that physically interact to execute biological functions. Despite much speculation, strong evidence of the mechanisms by which these assemblies evolved is lacking. Here we use ancestral gene resurrection and manipulative genetic experiments to determine how the complexity of an essential molecular machine—the hexameric transmembrane ring of the eukaryotic V-ATPase proton pump—increased hundreds of millions of years ago. We show that the ring of Fungi, which is composed of three paralogous proteins, evolved from a more ancient two-paralogue complex because of a gene duplication that was followed by loss in each daughter copy of specific interfaces by which it interacts with other ring proteins. These losses were complementary, so both copies became obligate components with restricted spatial roles in the complex. Reintroducing a single historical mutation from each paralogue lineage into the resurrected ancestral proteins is sufficient to recapitulate their asymmetric degeneration and trigger the requirement for the more elaborate three-component ring. Our experiments show that increased complexity in an essential molecular machine evolved because of simple, high-probability evolutionary processes, without the apparent evolution of novel functions. They point to a plausible mechanism for the evolution of complexity in other multi-paralogue protein complexes"

      Feel free to explain what the author of the study got wrong.

      Delete
    42. oleg: evolutionary theory (modern synthesis plus new developments) provides a concise, comprehensive and realistic description of biological origins.

      But evolution does not provide a "realistic description of biological origins." Not even close. If I pressed you for answers as to why you believe this, all you could do is stonewall, all the while carefully avoiding the metaphysics that underwrites evolution.

      Delete
    43. Cornelius Hunter

      Let's try again. Why do you believe evolution is a fact?


      To which definition of evolution are you referring? Please be specific.

      Delete
    44. You are entitled to your opinion, Cornelius, but very few biologists will take you seriously.

      As to your constant appeals to metaphysics of evolution, they sound pretty hollow given your own baggage. You live in a glass house, so don't throw stones.

      Delete
    45. oleg: You are entitled to your opinion, Cornelius, but very few biologists will take you seriously.

      Science is not a democracy. Unlike you , it follows the evidence. In this case, that majority of evolutionary biologists, to whom you refer, has made its religious premises clear.

      oleg: As to your constant appeals to metaphysics of evolution, they sound pretty hollow given your own baggage. You live in a glass house, so don't throw stones.

      Another non scientific fallacy. Evolution's metaphysical certainty is independent of other metaphysics. The fact that I do not agree that evolution is necessarily a fact because "Goddidit" explanations are not allowed, does not change the fact that evolution entails non scientific assumptions.

      Not only are you not a scientist, your attempts to explain otherwise make it even more clear.

      Delete
    46. Thornton,
      You are probably aware of Behe's objections:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

      exerpt:"The most glaringly obvious point is that, like the results of Lenski's work, this is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems. What's more, unlike Lenski's results, the mutated system of Thornton and colleagues is not even advantageous; it is neutral, according to the authors."

      Delete
    47. Cornelius,

      I agree that science is not a democracy. A theory gets accepted when a general consensus emerges. This isn't good or bad, it's just the way science works.

      It's not just evolutionary biologists who will find your resistance of evolutionary theory silly. Pretty much any biologist will shrug and dismiss you as a creationist crank.

      CH: Another non scientific fallacy.

      This is an oxymoron, Cornelius. Fallacies aren't scientific by definition. Science is not an exercise in formal or informal logic.

      The fact that I do not agree that evolution is necessarily a fact because "Goddidit" explanations are not allowed, does not change the fact that evolution entails non scientific assumptions.

      You are not very coherent today. An assumption is, well, assumed, not entailed. Evolutionary theory begins with the assumption that evolution proceeds through imperfect replication of genetic information and selective pressure. That's a perfectly scientific assumption. It may be disappointing to you that there is no role for God in this picture, but that is no different from theory of gravity.

      Not only are you not a scientist, your attempts to explain otherwise make it even more clear.

      LOL. You plainly contradict that which is manifestly true.

      Delete
    48. Carolus L

      Thornton,
      You are probably aware of Behe's objections:


      I'm aware that Behe waved his hands and gave the typical IDiot denials. That and $4.50 will get you a vente latte at Starbuck's.

      I'm not aware of Behe or anyone publishing a refutation of Dr. Thornton's work in any scientific literature. Are you?

      Delete
    49. oleg: I agree that science is not a democracy. A theory gets accepted when a general consensus emerges. This isn't good or bad, it's just the way science works.

      You asserted that evolution “provides a concise, comprehensive and realistic description of biological origins.” That is a non scientific claim. I reminded you that evolution does not provide any such description. You responded that very few biologists will take me seriously.

      Of course they won’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are making non scientific assertions. Evolution provides no such realistic description. Even evolutionists, in their “honest moments” as Gould put it, acknowledge the substantial problems.

      Now you switch the topic to “theory acceptance.” This has nothing to do with theory acceptance. Why people believe in unrealistic theories such as evolution is a complex topic. None of that changes the fact that evolution is not realistic.


      oleg: This is an oxymoron, Cornelius. Fallacies aren't scientific by definition. Science is not an exercise in formal or informal logic.

      Evolution is a religious theory. It entail theological premises. That is why it is accepted as fact. No religion, no fact. When I reminded you of this, your response was that I, Cornelius, have my own metaphysics. But that is irrelevant. It is an obvious fallacy, and another example of how you are unable to defend yourself scientifically. You make unscientific claims and when asked about them, it is one fallacy after another. And when I point out your fallacy, you say it is an oxymoron because “Science is not an exercise in formal or informal logic.”


      oleg: Evolutionary theory begins with the assumption that evolution proceeds through imperfect replication of genetic information and selective pressure.

      No, that is a sub hypothesis. Evolutionary theory begins with assumption that the species arose naturalistically. In other words, Evolutionary theory begins with assumption that evolution, broadly construed, is true. As historian Janet Browne put it, Darwin and Wallace believed in transmutation, and so they sought a suitable mechanism to explain it (Secular Ark, p. 169). And of course evolutionary thinking, more broadly construed as the naturalistic origin of the world, was promoted as fact long before Darwin and Wallace. Selection is not at the core of evolutionary theory. It is easily forfeited as necessary (and has been in many instances).


      oleg: That's a perfectly scientific assumption.

      Of course, but that is not the claim. The claim is that evolution is a fact. You backpedaled from this, but nonetheless made the non scientific, empirically absurd, claim that is a realistic description of biological origins.


      oleg: It may be disappointing to you that there is no role for God in this picture.

      No, that doesn’t disappoint me. Remember, you are the one with the metaphysical commitments in this topic, not me. It makes no difference to me whether evolution is true or not.

      Delete
    50. CH: No, that is a sub hypothesis. Evolutionary theory begins with assumption that the species arose naturalistically.

      Yawn. Same goes for theory of gravity. It is assumed that the motion of celestial bodies is explained in naturalistic terms. It is what science does, for Christ's sake! Every scientific theory is built in naturalistic terms.

      Welcome to the real world!

      Delete
    51. Cornelius Hunter.

      Of course, but that is not the claim. The claim is that evolution is a fact. You backpedaled from this, but nonetheless made the non scientific, empirically absurd, claim that is a realistic description of biological origins.


      No one backpedaled. You still refuse to provide the definition of evolution you are referring to.

      It's just another part of your childish rhetorical games and disingenuous approach to 'scientific' discussion. Then again you're being paid to produce religious propaganda, not honesty.

      Delete
    52. CH: It is an obvious fallacy, and another example of how you are unable to defend yourself scientifically. You make unscientific claims and when asked about them, it is one fallacy after another.

      You are not making much sense, Cornelius, when you juggle terms from science and informal logic. It might sound impressive in your apologetics class, but to a scientist you just sound like an angry crank.

      Delete
    53. Thornton:"I'm aware that Behe waved his hands and gave the typical IDiot denials."

      Where can I find your refutation of Behe's claims?

      Can you provide another example of a step-by-step evolution of a novel trade; one which has not been contested?

      Delete
    54. Carolus L

      Thornton:"I'm aware that Behe waved his hands and gave the typical IDiot denials."

      Where can I find your refutation of Behe's claims?


      I have no need to disprove every off the wall IDiot assertion made to push DI's religious agenda. It's up to Behe to support his specious claims to the scientific community.

      Dr. Thornton did the work and published the results in a peer reviewed professional scientific journal. Where is Behe's published work on the topic?

      Delete
    55. oleg: Yawn. Same goes for theory of gravity. It is assumed that the motion of celestial bodies is explained in naturalistic terms. It is what science does, for Christ's sake! Every scientific theory is built in naturalistic terms. Welcome to the real world!

      Well first of all, when gravity got it wrong with Uranus, the problem was reconciled not by adding epicycles to the theory, but by the discovery of the perturbing body. That highlights an important difference between gravity and evolution.

      Second, you are defining science not as figuring out how nature works, but as explaining nature, including origins, strictly naturalistically. In other words, you are restricting the answer up front, a priori. So we can drop any pretense of objectivity and realism. Naturalism is in the driver’s seat, regardless of the evidence.

      That helps to explain your non empirical claim that evolution “provides a realistic description of biological origins.”

      Finally, of course all of this is underwritten by the usual evolutionary metaphysics. Naturalism was not the universal consensus, though it was a growing trend, in Darwin’s day. So it is by no means merely a “Yawn” that Darwin believed the species arose naturalistically prior to having an explanation for how they could have done so.

      In fact Darwin was persuaded by the metaphysics that the world arose strictly naturalistically. And that is how evolution is taken to be a fact today.

      Delete
    56. Thorton:"I have no need to disprove every off the wall IDiot assertion made to push DI's religious agenda."

      Thank you sir for clearing that up.

      I repeat my question: can you provide another example of a step-by-step evolution of a novel trade; one which has not been contested?

      Delete
    57. Carolus L

      I repeat my question: can you provide another example of a step-by-step evolution of a novel trade; one which has not been contested?


      I repeat my answer:

      I already gave you one that has not been contested in the scientific community.

      Having a religiously motivated wingnut bellyache about the published science on a religious webpage doesn't equate to "scientifically contested."

      Delete
    58. CH: Well first of all, when gravity got it wrong with Uranus, the problem was reconciled not by adding epicycles to the theory, but by the discovery of the perturbing body. That highlights an important difference between gravity and evolution.

      And then there is Mercury. Precession of its perihelion could not be accounted for entirely by Newtonian mechanics. So theory failed and physicists had to come up with an entirely new theory of gravity (general relativity) to explain that small extra precession.

      Did physicists discard Newton's theory of gravity after that? Hardly. It remains a good physical theory in its range of validity. It perfectly agrees with general relativity in the realm where both apply.

      That is how it goes in biology, too. Darwinian evolution has limitations. It does not apply to early stages of evolution, where genes are thought to have flown primarily horizontally. Communal evolution is not an epicycle. It is an entirely new theory that applies in a different domain.

      CH: Second, you are defining science not as figuring out how nature works, but as explaining nature, including origins, strictly naturalistically. In other words, you are restricting the answer up front, a priori.

      This is how science has always worked. Give me one example of a scientific theory that relies on supernatural. One example. You can't.

      Delete
    59. oleg: It [gravity] remains a good physical theory in its range of validity. It perfectly agrees with general relativity in the realm where both apply. That is how it goes in biology, too. Darwinian evolution has limitations.

      No, the problem with evolution is not that it has limited range of validity. It is not realistic. Its predictions are mostly failed. Yes evolutionists hold it to be a fact.


      oleg: This is how science has always worked. Give me one example of a scientific theory that relies on supernatural. One example. You can't.

      No, SETI does not use natural laws as the explanation for the signals it tries to detect. When you restrict science to strictly naturalistic explanations, then you forfeit realism. The problem with your science is not that strictly naturalistic explanations might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that you’ll never know any better. You’ll always be mandating naturalism, regardless of the evidence. That’s where your metaphysics takes you.

      Delete
    60. Thorton:

      """""Random mutation by themselves didn't "just happen" to construct the chitons' teeth and feeding habits. Random mutations filtered by selection which allow an accumulation of the beneficial ones over generations did.""""

      One problem I have with this is that each step has to have some sort of benefit before the filter of selection can take effect. How would that work in the case of the Chiton. Each step in the evolution of the very complex process of making these very special teeth needs to provide some benefit.

      Delete
    61. Thorton: "I already gave you one that has not been contested in the scientific community."


      Just one example which is being contested by Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry, is far from convincing mr. Thorton. It doesn't backup your earlier statement:
      Thorton:"Dead wrong The iterative process of evolution has been well studied and empirically observed for over a century. The power of such iterative feedback processes to create novelties is also well know."

      Delete
    62. CH: No, SETI does not use natural laws as the explanation for the signals it tries to detect.

      SETI isn't a scientific theory. Try again.

      When you restrict science to strictly naturalistic explanations, then you forfeit realism. The problem with your science is not that strictly naturalistic explanations might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that you’ll never know any better. You’ll always be mandating naturalism, regardless of the evidence. That’s where your metaphysics takes you.

      Them's the breaks. Science has its limitations.

      Delete
    63. Carolus L

      Just one example which is being contested by Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry, is far from convincing mr. Thorton.


      Behe can stand on the sidelines and throw as many rocks as he likes. Until he does some actual research that refutes Dr. Thorton's results and gets it published in the professional literature he's just another noisy crank, just like CH.

      Delete
    64. oleg: Them's the breaks. Science has its limitations.

      The problem is this leads you to non empirical theory evaluation, such as your conclusion that evolution “provides a concise, comprehensive and realistic description of biological origins.” It is anything but concise, with its seemingly uncountable number of sub hypothesis epicycles. Nor is it comprehensive. All manner of structures, including the chiton, are left unexplained, unless you count hand waving as an explanation. And it is not realistic. Even evolutionists admit that large-scale change is unexplained, in any sort of scientific detail. And its predictions are mostly failed.

      So if you were to say “Them's the breaks. Science has its limitations” and that was all. Then you would have no problem. But you are a dogmatic defender of an empirically problematic theory, clearly defending a position of realism for a theory that is not well supported by the data, and it metaphysically motivated.

      Delete
    65. Thorton:

      RE: Evolutionary algorithms.

      I read that evolutionary algorithms aren't use to make entirely new things. They are only used to improve things that already exist. For example, they can't be used to design a whole jet engine from scratch. They are only used to do things like improve the efficiency of a turbine blade. This is because they evolutionary algorithms can only go so far because they tend to get stuck on local fitness peaks, and because, when things get too big, the computers processing capacity gets strained, and time constraints start to take effect. So it is kind of like a micro-evolution versus macro-evolution thing.

      Delete
    66. So, Cornelius, how about one example of a scientific theory that relies on supernatural? Chicken?

      Delete
    67. Cornelius Hunter

      No, SETI does not use natural laws as the explanation for the signals it tries to detect.


      Really? SETI researchers include the supernatural in their research? I bet that's a huge surprise to them. I'd ask you to back up your remarkable claim but I know you can't verify dumb propaganda.

      When you restrict science to strictly naturalistic explanations, then you forfeit realism.

      I'll ask you the same questions none of your IDC cohorts will touch: how do you science if you have to allow for a supernatural Loki God changing the laws of chemistry and physics on a whim? How do you provide repeatable results? How do you trust he results you do get?

      Delete
    68. natschuster

      I read that evolutionary algorithms aren't use to make entirely new things. They are only used to improve things that already exist.


      Just like real natural evolution. Once we had imperfect self replicators competing for resources and carrying forward heritable traits, we had evolutionary processes improving things. The improvements can and do include the development of entirely new features and functions.

      Delete
    69. oleg: So, Cornelius, how about one example of a scientific theory that relies on supernatural? Chicken?

      You already decided they don’t count as theories. The problem is not that you want evolution to be true. The problem is not that evolutionists advocate, promote, research, publish, etc. about evolution. In fact, the problem is not even the metaphysical premises and motivations. The problem is the misrepresentations. I don’t care if you’re a realist, anti-realist, whatever. That can all fit under science’s wide umbrella. But when you misrepresent the evidence, then I’m sorry, you’ve left science. Religion drives science to misrepresent the data.

      Delete
    70. Oleg,

      What is natural?

      When you play a game, the virtual "player" at the software/application layer knows nothing about the physical layer (console, CPU, GPU, electrons etc...). The virtual player only knows about the virtual environment that has been programmed which is, from their point of view, as far as the "natural" world goes. To the virtual "player", it is a completely different universe. Yet, it can be manipulated by "outside" forces.

      This simple example, even though its "childs play" refutes your claim.

      Delete
    71. CH: You already decided they don’t count as theories.

      They? Who are they? Name them. You mentioned SETI, but SETI is not a scientific theory. It's a program to look for extra terrestrial life. That is clearly not a theory, let alone a scientific one.

      CH: The problem is not... [snip] ...The problem is the misrepresentations. I don’t care if you’re a realist, anti-realist, whatever. That can all fit under science’s wide umbrella. But when you misrepresent the evidence, then I’m sorry, you’ve left science.

      What have I misrepresented? That's a serious charge, Cornelius. You accuse me of being dishonest. As a one-time scientist, you surely know that this is the worst accusation you can make in science. People are drummed out of science for that, you know. Detail my misrepresentations.

      CH: Religion drives science to misrepresent the data.

      Oh, I see. Just segueing off to your mantra. "Religion drives science and that matters." This is a hoot. A conservative Christian, employed at the birthplace of Christian fundamentalism, accuses an atheist of having a religious agenda. LOL. Your shenanigans are quite transparent, Cornelius.

      Delete
    72. lc++,

      I fail to see any scientific theory specifically named in your toy example.

      Delete
    73. Cornelius Hunter

      The problem is the misrepresentations. I don’t care if you’re a realist, anti-realist, whatever. That can all fit under science’s wide umbrella. But when you misrepresent the evidence, then I’m sorry, you’ve left science.


      Oh, you mean like the OP article where you deliberately misrepresented evolution as positing random mutations all by themselves were responsible for the chiton's teeth. Your conscience finally has you admitting that you've left science. Thank you Lance Armstrong.

      Religion drives science to misrepresent the data.

      You mean religion drives paid religious propagandists like yourself to misrepresent the data. But we understand.

      Delete
    74. Oleg,

      "I fail to see any scientific theory specifically named in your toy example."

      Software refutes your naturalistic claims, Oleg.

      Its the realization that not only can different "natural" (whatever that is) realities be instantiated but they can also be manipulated afterwards by "outside" forces.

      Its these hidden "variables" where "natural" science is completely oblivious.

      std::cout << "Hello, World!"; ...literally

      Delete
    75. oleg: You mentioned SETI, but SETI is not a scientific theory. It's a program to look for extra terrestrial life. That is clearly not a theory,

      Ah, a program, right. So when evolutionists say evolution must be a fact because god wouldn’t create pseudogenes, that’s a “scientific theory.” But when astronomers say signals are evidence of a civilization, that’s a “program.” Glad we have you scientists to straighten things out.


      oleg: What have I misrepresented? That's a serious charge, Cornelius.

      You’re the one who made and won’t retract the scientifically ridiculous, religiously-motivated assertion that evolution “provides a concise, comprehensive and realistic description of biological origins.”


      oleg: A conservative Christian, employed at the birthplace of Christian fundamentalism, accuses an atheist of having a religious agenda. LOL. Your shenanigans are quite transparent, Cornelius.

      Shenanigans? Remember, you’re the one who needs evolution to be true. I’m the one who can take it or leave it. Christians can have evolution to be true or false. They’re all over the map regarding evolution.

      Delete
    76. lcplusplus

      Software refutes your naturalistic claims


      LOL! Oh man, this is just rich.

      First we have Jeff the ignorant philosopher tell us philosophy refutes the ToE.

      Then we have lcplusplus the ignorant software writer telling us that software refutes naturalism in science.

      What's next? Joe The Dumbest Creationist Of Them All toaster repairman telling us that buttered pumpernickel refutes all of reality?

      These idiots are worth the price of admission!

      Delete
    77. lc++,

      Software has nothing to do with scientific theories. Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Here are a few examples: Newtonian mechanics, geometrical optics, wave optics, quantum mechanics, the Standard Model of particle physics. None of these relies on the supernatural. In fact, I know of no scientific theory that does. If you know an actual scientific theory that does, name it.

      Delete
    78. CH: Ah, a program, right. So when evolutionists say evolution must be a fact because god wouldn’t create pseudogenes, that’s a “scientific theory.”

      This is your misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. At one point I pressed you to find any examples of such reasoning in the scientific literature. You failed. You are the liar.

      Delete
    79. Moronton: First we have Jeff the ignorant philosopher tell us philosophy refutes the ToE.

      Jeff: I never said that, and logic doesn't refute the ToE, or even ad-hoc hypotheses. Rather, there is no inductive evidence for UCA. Whatever you mean by an evidential "indication," you have yet to articulate how you know when data "indicates" something pro or con about an hypothesis. Nor have your priests. That's why non-fideists stick to deduction and induction and leave the mystery religion stuff to you UCA'ists.

      Delete
    80. Oleg,

      In the "toy" example lets assume the virtual player can also perform science, in the end what will he know about reality in general?

      You can't simply discount ID based on the "natural", natural does not necessarily mean reality, and if natural does not equate to reality, this does not mean reality cannot be tested or that natural somehow discounts reality.

      Delete
    81. lc++,

      I am not interested in make-believe situations. I asked you to name an actual, accepted, successful scientific theory that relies on the supernatural. You failed to name one because there is none.

      Delete
    82. Oleg,

      It is not a make-believe situation especially when one considers A.I. The virtual player will perform "science" and will believe arrogantly he's solved all the riddles of the "universe", when all he's done is explored what he thinks is reality.

      Delete
    83. Cornelius dishonestly said:

      "It makes no difference to me whether evolution is true or not."

      And:

      "Remember, you’re the one who needs evolution to be true. I’m the one who can take it or leave it."

      Yeah, sure, yet you've made a career out of bashing evolution and the theory of evolution.

      "Christians can have evolution to be true or false. They’re all over the map regarding evolution."

      Of course, because christians are all over the map, period.

      Delete
    84. lcplusplus

      It is not a make-believe situation especially when one considers A.I. The virtual player will perform "science" and will believe arrogantly he's solved all the riddles of the "universe", when all he's done is explored what he thinks is reality.


      Wow, this just keeps getting better! Now we're going to be told we're all just virtual characters in a gigantic computer simulation.

      IDC does attract some real winners.

      Delete
    85. Thorton,

      Evolutionists have made a career out of bashing others who disagree with them (both religious and non-religious), correct me if I'm wrong but according to you they've been doing "science" all along.

      Delete
    86. lc++,

      As I said, I am interested in real science, not in a science you imagine might exist in a virtual world or in science fiction. And if you want to argue that perhaps we live in a simulation, I find the idea to be only slightly more intellectually stimulating than the idea that we are are pictures in someone's notebook.

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

      Delete
    88. lcplusplus

      Evolutionists have made a career out of bashing others who disagree with them (both religious and non-religious), correct me if I'm wrong but according to you they've been doing "science" all along.


      Wrong. Evolutionary scientists make a career out of investigating and understanding the workings and history of life.

      IDiot Creationists only get bashed when they try to force their idiocy into public science classrooms. The rest of the time their stupidity is just ridiculed and laughed at, and rightly so.

      Delete
    89. oleg: This is your misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. At one point I pressed you to find any examples of such reasoning in the scientific literature. You failed. You are the liar.

      Actually I’ve presented many examples, such as:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/this-non-scientific-claim-regularly.html

      Delete
    90. The whole truth: "It makes no difference to me whether evolution is true or not." And: "Remember, you’re the one who needs evolution to be true. I’m the one who can take it or leave it."

      Yeah, sure, yet you've made a career out of bashing evolution and the theory of evolution.


      When I say it makes no difference to me whether evolution is true or not, I mean in principle. Of course given the reality of the abuse of science and the underlying religious mandate, then clearly you guys have caused a problem.

      Delete
    91. CH: Actually I’ve presented many examples, such as:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/this-non-scientific-claim-regularly.html


      You have claimed that many times. However, all examples along the lines of "God would not make that" come not from scientific literature but from essays about science and creationism or some such. Not that I did not point that out before. Yet you continue your misrepresentations.

      Delete
    92. oleg: You have claimed that many times. However, all examples along the lines of "God would not make that" come not from scientific literature but from essays about science and creationism or some such. Not that I did not point that out before. Yet you continue your misrepresentations.

      The Oxford Journal of Glycobiology isn’t good enough for you?

      http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/8/747.long

      Delete
    93. That article does not mention God as far as I can see.

      Delete
    94. Cornelius Hunter

      The Oxford Journal of Glycobiology isn’t good enough for you?

      http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/8/747.long


      What does that almost 14 year old paper have to do with your claim that "God wouldn't do it that way" is an argument offered in the primary scientific literature?

      The paper doesn't come within a parsec of mentioning such a thing.

      Please copy the relevant portions if you claim otherwise. Looks like you're making another meaningless evasion.

      Delete
    95. I will venture a theory, Thornton. The paper quotes Dobzhansky's famous phrase “nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” Hunter thinks it is the equivalent of "God wouldn't make it that way."

      Amiright?

      Delete
    96. oleg

      I will venture a theory, Thornton. The paper quotes Dobzhansky's famous phrase “nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” Hunter thinks it is the equivalent of "God wouldn't make it that way."

      Amiright?


      I'm thinking it's more like Dembski's blithering about The Bible Code. CH knows the sooper-dooper secret formula to extract hidden messages about God from innocuous scientific text.

      Is that it CH? You can read things no one else on the planet can see?

      Delete
    97. oleg: The paper quotes Dobzhansky's famous phrase “nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.”

      I should have known you would be fond of metaphysics even this blatant. Those who want to understand evolution’s motto can read about it here:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/08/of-and-about-tes-how-evolutionists.html

      It is a non scientific IFF statement, which evolutionists are so fond of.

      Delete
    98. Looks like I win, Thornton! Hunter has a field day every time he sees that quote from Dobzhansky.

      There is nothing in the glycobiology article itself that remotely uses the reasoning "God would not make it that way, therefore evolution." The Dobzhansky quote is merely a cliched prelude to a discussion of glycan diversity in nature.

      What a sad hack you are, Cornelius. A troll, really.

      Delete
    99. I see, so the paper on glycans didn't have a darn thing to do with your silly propaganda claim. It was just a weak attempt at a diversion. Got it.


      Delete
    100. Yawn. It is getting late on the East Coast. I am off to bed.

      Delete
    101. oleg

      What a sad hack you are, Cornelius. A troll, really.


      But he laughs all the way to the bank to cash the DI's check.

      Delete
    102. oleg: There is nothing in the glycobiology article itself that remotely uses the reasoning "God would not make it that way, therefore evolution." The Dobzhansky quote is merely a cliched prelude to a discussion of glycan diversity in nature.

      Are you saying IFF statements are not metaphysical?

      Delete
    103. I doubt Hunter gets much, if anything, from DI. He teaches at Biola.

      Delete
    104. Cornelius,

      Your attempts at evasion look pretty bad. Go ahead and find an example in the scientific literature something along the lines "evolution must be a fact because god wouldn’t create pseudogenes." Those are your own words. Back them up.

      Delete
    105. The whole truth: "It makes no difference to me whether evolution is true or not." And: "Remember, you’re the one who needs evolution to be true. I’m the one who can take it or leave it."

      Yeah, sure, yet you've made a career out of bashing evolution and the theory of evolution.

      When I say it makes no difference to me whether evolution is true or not, I mean in principle. Of course given the reality of the abuse of science and the underlying religious mandate, then clearly you guys have caused a problem.


      Yeah, the principle and anything else about evolution and the theory of evolution. In other words, you're being dishonest when you say that it makes no difference to you whether evolution is true or not and that you're the one who can take it or leave it. Evolution and the theory of evolution bugs you no end and your agenda is to deny evolution and replace the ToE with your religious dogma.

      Some questions for you:

      Does evolution occur?

      What aspects, if any, of the ToE do you accept?

      Are you a YEC?

      Are you a bible literalist/fundamentalist?

      Delete
    106. Cornelius Hunter

      Are you saying IFF statements are not metaphysical?


      He's saying the paper you posted had absolutely nothing to support your claim "God wouldn't make it that way" is an argument found in the primary scientific literature.

      You are indeed a sad hack CH. Really a shame that's the best way you can come up with to serve God.

      Delete
    107. oleg

      I doubt Hunter gets much, if anything, from DI. He teaches at Biola.


      He's still listed as a Fellow on the DI's web site. DI fellows get around $40K a year stipend.

      That buys a lot of propaganda in these parts.

      Delete
    108. The whole truth: In other words, you're being dishonest when you say that it makes no difference to you whether evolution is true or not and that you're the one who can take it or leave it. Evolution and the theory of evolution bugs you no end

      No, I’m not. What bugs me, as I said, is the abuse of science and the underlying religious mandate that you evolutionists have brought.


      The whole truth: your agenda is to deny evolution and replace the ToE with your religious dogma.

      This is becoming comical. Religious dogma? What would that be, pray tell.


      The whole truth: Does evolution occur?

      When I use the word “evolution” the meaning I intend is no different than the colloquial meaning: the origin of species by natural means, or more generally, the origin of the world by natural means. You ask, does this occur? I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t know. And I also know that you don’t know. So when you say it is a fact you are making a metaphysical claim, not a scientific claim.


      The whole truth: What aspects, if any, of the ToE do you accept?

      There are substantial scientific problems with the theory that the species by natural means. But who knows, I would have said the same about a mass also being a wave. So it is not a matter of accepting or not accepting. It is about understanding the science. There are problems with the idea. It certainly does not seem likely.


      The whole truth: Are you a YEC?

      No.


      The whole truth: Are you a bible literalist/fundamentalist?

      No.

      Delete
    109. Cornelius Hunter

      This is becoming comical. Religious dogma? What would that be, pray tell.


      How about the Biola Doctrinal Statement that you swore an oath you agreed with when you took the job there?

      Really CH, the only one you may be fooling is yourself.

      Delete
    110. Oleg,

      "I find the idea to be only slightly more intellectually stimulating than the idea that we are are pictures in someone's notebook."

      Well that analogy fails on many levels, but we will leave it at that.

      Delete
    111. Cornelius, your whole way of thinking is based on dishonesty. You're dishonest with yourself and with others. You won't even admit to your own religious dogma, which is YEC biblical inerrant literalism/fundamentalism, as evidenced by the doctrinal and mission statements of your employer.

      http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/

      http://www.biola.edu/about/mission/

      Also see:

      http://www.biola.edu/about/history/


      This, from the doctrinal statement, is sick, disgusting, threatening, abusive, and monstrous:

      "All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish."

      Yeah, so much for a 'loving god/jesus'.

      Delete
    112. oleg: "There is nothing in the glycobiology article itself that remotely uses the reasoning "God would not make it that way, therefore evolution."

      Would you consider Jerry Coyne’s ‘Why Evolution Is True’ to be scientific literature?

      Delete
    113. Carolus L

      Would you consider Jerry Coyne’s ‘Why Evolution Is True’ to be scientific literature?


      No. Coyne's book is not considered part of the primary scientific literature.

      Primary scientific literature is original scientific research initially published in peer reviewed scientific journals. This would be papers in journals like Nature and Science.

      Secondary literature summarizes and synthesizes the primary literature. It is both broader and less current than the primary literature. Topics may include things like monographs on specific areas of research.

      Tertiary literature deals with broad, discipline-level topics in the sciences such as evolution or biochemistry. Such writing is usually done to provide high level background information to better understand a topic.

      ‘Why Evolution Is True’ is considered tertiary literature, a popular press book written primarily for laymen as an overview of the huge amount of positive scientific evidence for evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    114. Thorton

      By your definition of scientific literature the 'The Origin of Species' by C.D. has to be considered third rate.

      Delete
    115. oleg:
      The term cumulative has nothing to do with having a goal.

      Yes, it does. There has to be something that it is cumulating towards, duh.

      It just means that improvements (on whatever scale) accumulate.

      No, it doesn't. And that is because "improvements" can be anything and not necessarily adding anything to the previous improvement.

      Delete
    116. oleg:
      Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

      Enough to know that the "thery" of evolution does NOT qualify as a scientific theory.

      OTOH you do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

      Delete
    117. Carolus L,

      "Scientific literature" in the present context refers to papers and (rarely) books that communicate new science to its practitioners. Books addressed to the lay audience do popularization of already existing science.

      Cornelius claims that he finds reasoning like "evolution must be a fact because god wouldn’t create pseudogenes" in the scientific, not popular literature. Time and again I challenged him to provide exact quotes from scientific literature and he invariably failed. His claim has no merit, he knows it, and he thus willfully misrepresents the state of science. And yes, I just called him a liar.

      Delete
    118. Carolus L

      By your definition of scientific literature the 'The Origin of Species' by C.D. has to be considered third rate.


      No. OOS when published was original scientific research by Darwin so it would be considered primary literature by the standards of those days. There were no peer reviewed specialty journals to publish in at that time so the common practice of scientists was to self-publish.

      Tertiary doesn't mean third rate either, don't be a clown.

      Delete
    119. oleg,

      There isn't any scientific literature that supports evolutionism.

      Delete
    120. thortty boo-boo:
      OOS when published was original scientific research by Darwin so it would be considered primary literature by the standards of those days.

      Pfft- it argued against a strawman and it didn't present anything testable. That's some science there...

      Delete
    121. Joe G, an expert on scientific literature. Has read all of it.

      Delete
    122. It was so nice and quiet around here for almost a day without Chubby Joke G having to add a brainless denial and insulting retort to every pro-science post.

      I'm seriously starting to believe Joe Gallien is indeed mildly mentally retarded IRL. He's like an idiot savant without the savant part. Beyond any doubt he's emotionally and maturity retarded.

      Delete
    123. In fairness, Thornton, what are the chances that Hunter will come up with anything new in this thread? Virtually zero, even though I am sure he is feverishly googling open-access journals.

      Meanwhile, Joe G is here to fill in the awkward pause.

      Delete
    124. Did thortty boo-bboo REALLY link to Thrnton's work on "complexity"? Really?

      thortty-boo-bboo crapped himself, again!

      thornton exposed

      We are relieved to know that darwinists have been puzzled by something nontrivial, but we think the new analysis does not justify Thornton's broad conclusion. First, the slightly more complicated fungal protein pump does no more than the simpler version did, so no new function was gained. More importantly, the conclusion ignores something obvious. Paralogs that vary slightly from the original are ubiquitous and easy to explain, but the first version, the "original," remains unexplained. While paralogs relate to each other, the whole family usually lies well-isolated (>100 mutations removed?) in nucleotide sequence space. If it were not so, identifying and naming gene families would be much more difficult. In brief, the divergence of paralogs does nothing to explain the existence of a paralog family. And the divergence of these specific proteins does not in any way account for the creation of the proton pump of which they are parts.

      Delete
    125. Well oleg, you could just post the scientific literature that refutes my cliam. But you won't because you can't.

      Loser

      Delete
    126. I see you have a new signature, Joe. It suits you well.

      Delete
    127. thortty boo-boo- you have never posted anything pro-science. You don't know what science is.

      You are a brain damaged troll.

      Delete
    128. I see that you are still a cowardly lowlife, oleg. It suits you very well.

      Delete
    129. oleg

      Meanwhile, Joe G is here to fill in the awkward pause.


      Yeah, but watching him scream and rant and fling his own poo gets boring pretty quickly.

      Delete
    130. Thorton, let's ask Joe to share with us his vast knowledge of science. He is proficient in so many fields in ways none of us can ever be.

      Joe, tell us how you have read at least 100 papers on the formation of stars, planets and solar systems. What did you learn from them?

      Delete
    131. thortty boo-boo:
      Yeah, but watching him scream and rant and fling his own poo gets boring pretty quickly.

      Nice cowardly projection.

      Look you loser- I could kick your ass in a fight and I could kick your ass in a scientific debate.

      And I am willing to put up thousands of dollars to prove that both are true.

      OTOH you are an ignorant coward who doesn't even understand the theory of evolution.

      Delete
    132. oleg:
      Thorton, let's ask Joe to share with us his vast knowledge of science. He is proficient in so many fields in ways none of us can ever be.



      Does this mean that you aren't going to post any peer-reviewed literature that supports the theory of evolution?

      I knew you were a coward. Thanks for providing the proof.

      Delete
    133. There is no point in discussing with you science, Joe. You are incapable of basic learning. Zachriel has tried for years to teach you what a nested hierarchy is, but he failed.

      Delete
    134. oleg

      Joe G, an expert on scientific literature. Has read all of it.


      In one afternoon. Got chocolate fingerprints all over the pages too. Cretin.

      Delete
    135. LoL! I don't need any more proof taht you are a coward, oleg. And I already knew that you are a liar. So I didn't need any more evidence for that either.

      Strange that Zachriel NEVER linked to a valid and accepted definition on nested hierarchy. OTOH I did and my references support my claims.

      IOW you are just a little dick.

      Delete
    136. Yes thortty boo-boo- I am sure you get "chocolate" (it's really just the stuff you pulled from your arse) fingerprints on everything you touch.

      Delete
    137. Evidence for the 'Joe G is mentally retarded' hypothesis keeps piling up.

      Delete
    138. We know where you got your "accepted definitions" of nested hierarchy, Joe. From the crackpots at the International Society for the Systems Sciences, a bunch of von Bertalanffy wannabes.

      Delete
    139. Evidence for the 'thorton/ occam's afterbirth is mentally retarded' fact keeps piling up.

      Delete
    140. oleg:
      We know where you got your "accepted definitions" of nested hierarchy, Joe.

      Yes, from scientist and professor at the Univ of Wisconsin. And all the cowardly oleg can do is attack the website that posted it.

      YOU are a pathetic coward oleg.

      Delete
    141. thorton is ignorant of the theory of evolution:

      Thorton is so freaking stupid he should learn to shut up.



      Now he is proving that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution!



      Over on Cornelius Hunter's blog Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:



      There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans




      Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn't posit life evolving through genetic 'accidents'.



      Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?





      Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:



      Thorton shot down by reality



      So now what does Thorton do?



      Why it throws a hissy fit as expected...



      Evotards are sooo predictable.

      Delete
    142. Oleg Tchernyshyov is turning out to be one hell of a low-life loser.



      Trying to get him to support his claims is close to useless.



      But that isn't even the worst of it.



      When discussing nested hierarchies oleg was shown the following website with definitions of hierarchies, including nested hierarchies:



      Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory



      Does oleg address any of the content?



      No



      oleg attacks the owners of the website- the organization ISSS.



      Did you get that? He attacks the organization!



      What a little pussy.



      Does he ever provide a valid reference as to what nested hierarchies are and what rules must be followed in their construction? No.



      Does he ever give any indication he knows something about nested hierarchies? No.



      But he did expose his ignorance of nested hierarchies when he agreed with Zachriel that a nested hierarchy can be constructed without calling on characteristics to do so.



      He never did provide a valid example. He did try to defend Zachriel's misuse of set theory.



      IOW oleg will say anything and help anyone who disagrees with me.



      Case in point- oleg links to UC Berkley Understanding Phylogenies which says that:




      Clades are nested within one another—they form a nested hierarchy.





      The site never defines nested hierarchy nor does it say why clades form a nested hierarchy.



      But that doesn't matter because oleg thinks they disagree with me so that is good enough for him.



      Pathetic- and this asshole is a professor at a US university.



      So I found another website hosting the Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory- the University of Wisconsin (Botany dept).



      I asked oleg if the university was also full of crackpots.



      He didn't respond. And he still has not demonstrated any knowledge of what a nested hierarcy is.



      Yet he "knows" I am wrong and sez that I am unable to learn.



      Working with frustrated magnets must have turned his brain into mush...

      Delete
    143. Chubby Joe G

      oleg: "The term cumulative has nothing to do with having a goal."

      Yes, it does. There has to be something that it is cumulating towards, duh.


      Chubs, when a delta forms at the mouth of a river from the cumulative deposits of silt, is that the river's conscious 'goal'?

      When the snow depth increases over the winter from cumulative periods of snow, is that the weather's conscious 'goal'?

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    144. That professor Joe refers to is Timothy Allen from Wisconsin. Here is his own brief description of his shenanigans:

      There are chaos theorists, network analysts and business management gurus who claim pieces of complexity, but their analyses are often incomplete or naive. There are two central issues: thermodynamic emergence and observer-dependent linguistic constraints. The former gives dynamics and self-organized emergence, while the latter gives structure and linguistic control, the recognition of which are an observers responsibility. With emergence, contexts change, and so observers must change their decisions as to the structures they assert. Equations usually do not help, because the parameters change. Models are not the point of it all, but narratives improved by challenges from models are. I take a post-modern view, where it is the intrinsic process of science that lends quality. Truth is beside the point, in a complex world perceived in an infinity of ways. Complexity is not a property of nature, rather it comes from the questions we choose to ask.

      There you have it. Allen himself says that his stuff is po-mo gibberish. Funny how all kinds of crackpots (including IDers lately) gravitate toward post-modernism.

      Delete
    145. thortty boo-boo- TRY to stay in CONTEXT. I know that is difficult for an ignorant moron like you. But at least TRY.

      BTW how do you know it's cumulative deposits as oppsed to just accumulating deposits?

      Delete
    146. oleg:
      There you have it. Allen himself says that his stuff is po-mo gibberish.

      No, he doesn't. You are a moronic coward, period.

      Not only that but peer-reviewed papers on nested hierarchy reference Dr Allen's work on the subject.

      You are just an ignorant coward oleg.

      Delete
    147. Oh, clades! Joe remembers how Zachriel tried to teach him clades, and all for naught. Remember, Joe, how you thought that reptiles formed a clade? :D

      Delete
    148. oleg- ignorant of cladistics, too:

      oleg said:


      Joe, give it up already. We've been talking about clades for ages and you still don't understand what a clade is! It is not defined by shared characteristics, it is defined by common ancestry.





      Reality check-



      intro to cladistics


      The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.







      cladistics:


      Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).







      And also what is cladistics?



      The common theme is that they all agree with me.



      Go figure...

      Delete
    149. oleg:
      Remember, Joe, how you thought that reptiles formed a clade?

      Wasn't me, but you can form a clade with retiles. Again your ignorance is meaningless.

      Delete
    150. Is there a Reptilia clade, Joe? A simple question with a well-defined answer.

      Delete
    151. oleg- your cowardly distractions are an obvious ploy to keep you from suppoorting your nonsense.

      Thank you for continuing to prove that you are nothing but an ignorant coward.

      Delete
    152. That's a very simple question, Joe. Anyone who understands the definition of a clade must be able to answer it. You can do it, big boy!

      Delete
    153. You may call your imaginary friend Jim for help. :)

      Delete
    154. Chubby Joke G

      BTW how do you know it's cumulative deposits as oppsed to just accumulating deposits?


      Those mean the same thing Chubs. Tell us, does the river or the weather have a conscious goal?

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    155. I don't have an imaginary friend named Jim. I told you that we, both, could come down to John Hopkins and meet you.

      As for reptillia- I say it can be a clade. Others disagree because they say, but cannot scientifically support, that birds evolved from some reptiles.

      So it is a matter of disagreement only- and a disagreement that not one scientist can support.

      Delete
    156. oleg

      You may call your imaginary friend Jim for help. :)


      I hear Frisbee_kid and ID_Guy are available too.

      We could have a regular retard party, and we'd only need one chair.

      Delete
    157. BTW how do you know it's cumulative deposits as oppsed to just accumulating deposits?

      dumbass boo-boo:
      Those mean the same thing

      No, they don't.

      Delete
    158. For thorton/ occam's afterbirth/ numerous other sock puppets, we could have a regular retard party, and we'd only need one chair.

      Delete
    159. So we have oleg, proven ignorant wrt nested hierarchies and cladistics.

      And we have thorton who was proven ignorant wrt the theory of evolution.

      Life is good...

      Delete
  2. In a sense, I don't fault evolutionists for sticking to their faith. Heck, I do the same thing. Just make sure that the reasons that you stick to your faith are always honest, no matter what. Because, in the end, it's all about guts and honesty to oneself. May the gutsiest religion win.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Louis said: "May the gutsiest religion win."

    I placing my bet on the religion whose gutsy founder died to appease an angry God who can't stand a creation that continually lies about Him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. awstar January 19, 2013 at 5:27 AM

      Louis said: "May the gutsiest religion win."

      I placing my bet on the religion whose gutsy founder died to appease an angry God who can't stand a creation that continually lies about Him.


      It's not exactly a big sacrifice getting crucified when you know you're immortal and you'll be up and about again in no time.

      As for God, it's His own damn fault for designing us this way.

      Delete
    2. No, Ian, don't blame God just because you are a loser.

      Delete
    3. How many times must it be repeated to Spedding that God does not create our spirits (souls)? The soul can neither be created nor destroyed. That's the problem with evolution. It makes you dense.

      Delete
    4. Hey joey, why are you defending "God" if you're not religious? Since, according to you, 'the designer' ("God") designed everything, "God" is responsible for EVERYTHING.

      joey g: Dumbest. Godbot. Ever.

      Delete
    5. Louis Savain January 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM

      How many times must it be repeated to Spedding that God does not create our spirits (souls)? The soul can neither be created nor destroyed. That's the problem with evolution. It makes you dense.


      You must be talking about a different god, not the Christian one. The God of Christianity created literally everything and that would include souls or spirits. (assuming they exist, of course)

      If you want to worship a lesser god, that's fine. It's just not Christian.

      Delete
    6. You must be talking about a different god, not the Christian one. The God of Christianity created literally everything and that would include souls or spirits. (assuming they exist, of course)

      If you want to worship a lesser god, that's fine. It's just not Christian.


      Dude, you don't know the first thing about the real God of Christianity. You came up with your own conception of what the Christian God is and how he should behave based on what you heard other Christians say and what you think he should be in your feeble imagination. Nothing new here. You're just following in Darwin's footsteps. I challenge you or any atheist or Christian to find any verse or phrase in the Christian Bible that claims that God can create or has created the spirits (souls) of man or any other creature.

      The truth is that Genesis is categorical in that God created man's body from the dust (matter) of the earth. There are many passages in the Bible that teach us that a man's soul does not die with the body.

      The main difference between the physical and the spiritual is that the former can be created and destroyed whereas the latter can be neither created nor destroyed. If you don't know this, your Christian education is severely lacking.

      The hypothesis that God is all-knowing and all-powerful is about as silly as they come. It's not based on the scriptures. It's really an evil and erroneous concept that crept in early in the history of Christianity. And yet you fell for it hook, line and sinker. So much so that now it's your favorite little strawman that you can wrestle to the ground and copulate with at the slightest opportunity. Afterwards, you triumphantly declare victory over the beast, not realizing that you just had sex with a bunch of straw and spilled your seed in the dust. You're are a pathetic little man, Spedding. LOL.

      Delete
    7. Louis Savain January 20, 2013 at 12:07 AM

      [...]

      The hypothesis that God is all-knowing and all-powerful is about as silly as they come. It's not based on the scriptures. It's really an evil and erroneous concept that crept in early in the history of Christianity.


      Is that right?

      Is God omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient? In answering such questions, we should always begin with another question: “What does the Bible teach on these matters?” If our beliefs are not rooted in God’s inspired word, they are not beliefs worth having!...
      Is God Omnipotent?

      This is, perhaps, the easiest of the three to answer: Yes, God is omnipotent! There is even a verse that, in the King James Version and New King James Version, uses this very word: “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6).

      The Greek word translated as “Omnipotent” here is pantokrator, meaning “All-ruling” or (as it is more frequently translated) “Almighty.” When we say God is “Almighty,” we are stating our belief in His authority and rulership over all creation, and the Bible is firm in declaring this fact. Even though Satan is now the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), it belongs to him only because Almighty God has granted it to Him: “And the devil said to Him, ‘All this authority [over all the kingdoms of this world] I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish’” (Luke 4:6).

      It is God who ultimately reigns in the universe, and all legitimate authority must derive from Him. If we let Scripture tell us of God’s authority, we must agree that He has all authority to do all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10–11), and to see to the fulfillment of His plans without fail. If we accept the Scriptural definition of “almighty”—and we must accept no other!—we can rightly call God omnipotent. Indeed, Christ says clearly that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

      However, if we were to insist that omnipotent meant God could do anything and everything at all, we would need to reject that description, because His word says He cannot! For example, God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2), and He “cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible clearly shows that God cannot act contrary to His nature. But do these “cannots” mean He is not omnipotent—not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!


      -- Smith, W. Living Church News, Sep-Dec 2007, "God and the Three 'O's"

      Delete
    8. TwiTTY boo-boo-:
      Since, according to you, 'the designer' ("God") designed everything

      Nope, I never said that. You are just a liar.

      Delete
  4. Awstar,

    I placing my bet on the religion whose gutsy founder died to appease an angry God who can't stand a creation that continually lies about Him.

    So God reacts liike Joe does, instead of profanity requires a blood sacrifice ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least God doesn't react as you do, with cowardly ignorant spewage.

      Delete
    2. Would you feel better if blood was shed to appease your anger?

      Delete
    3. What anger? Why do you spew your ignorance to appease your anger?

      Delete
  5. Pity we didn't evolve those teeth. Would've saved a lot on dentists bills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that Intelligent Designer with his 'common design' was sure on the ball, wasn't he? Instead of super-hard teeth we get fragile, decay prone ones AND wisdom teeth.

      But it's all part of GAWD's, er, THE DESIGNER'S mysterious plan doncha see.

      Delete
    2. Our teeth aren't fragile. Just because you are too stupid to take care of your teeth doesn't mean they are poorly designed.

      Delete
    3. Go ahead Joke. Convince all those people who had severe medical problems due to impacted wisdom teeth that their dentition was intelligently designed.

      Delete
    4. My wisdom teeth came in OK. I know many people who didn't have an issue with their wisdom teeth.

      No one said the design was to remain perfect after many generations. You are nothing but a cowardly strawman maker

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joe G

      My wisdom teeth came in OK. I know many people who didn't have an issue with their wisdom teeth.


      I'm sure that's great consolation to the many people who did have severe problems.

      No one said the design was to remain perfect after many generations.

      When was the design perfect Chubs? Timeline with evidence please.

      How could a perfect design get so bad when you say there is still functioning 'evolutionary programming' in the cells to guide the evolution?

      That's the third time you're directly contradicted yourself today Chubs. What's the record?

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    6. thorty boo-boo:
      I'm sure that's great consolation to the many people who did have severe problems.

      That is THEIR problem. Perhaps their parents shouldn't have mated.

      How could a perfect design get so bad when you say there is still functioning 'evolutionary programming' in the cells to guide the evolution?

      Entropy.

      And only in your little-btty ignorant boo-boo mind did I ever contradict myself.

      Delete
    7. Chubby Joke G

      That is THEIR problem. Perhaps their parents shouldn't have mated.


      So it's their fault they developed impacted wisdom teeth. How did they manage to do that Chubs? How did they manage to change the perfect design?

      When was the design perfect Chubs? You made the claim, so back it up.

      Entropy.

      What about entropy Chubs? You claimed your internal 'genetic programming' could change the laws of chemistry and overcome entropy.

      FOUR times directly contradicting yourself in one morning! That has to be some kind of IDiot record!

      Delete
    8. thorty boo-boo:
      So it's their fault they developed impacted wisdom teeth.

      No, it's called genetic entropy. However their diet or their mom's diet could have an effect.

      When was the design perfect

      Before it was implemented.

      You claimed your internal 'genetic programming' could change the laws of chemistry and overcome entropy.

      Stuff still happens. It isn't perfect. It would be very boring if it was- there wouldn't be anyting to learn so you would be very, very happy.

      Delete
    9. There's obviously something seriously wrong with you, joey. Any normal person would be extremely embarrassed to make such a fool of themselves on a daily basis. Thorton's right about your contradictions, and there's obviously no limit to what you will stoop to to pretend that you've made sense and 'won' an argument.

      joey g: Dumbest. Nonsensical. Narcissist. Ever.

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joke G

      T: "When was the design perfect?"

      Before it was implemented.


      When was it implemented Chubs? Give us an approximate time. You must have some knowledge of the event to make all these grandiose claims.

      Sadly, the compulsive liar in you is making it up as you go again. You just never tire of showing us what a clueless tool you are.

      Delete
    11. thorty moron boo-boo:
      When was it implemented

      I don't know. I don't need to know.

      Delete
    12. Chubby Joe G

      I don't know. I don't need to know.


      Apparently you don't know anything at all, yet you still claim the 'original design' of our mouth and teeth was perfect. Where did you get that particular bit of knowledge?

      Being a compulsive liar like you are I'm sure that not knowing anything isn't a problem. Heck, being 100% scientifically ignorant doesn't even slow your mouth down.

      Delete
    13. thortty boo-boo:
      Apparently you don't know anything at all,

      Nice cowardly projection. I take it that is all you have- your ignorant belligerence.

      Do you really think that your cowardice means something? Really?

      Delete
    14. OK Chubs, you were just lying when you claimed to know the original design for human dentition was perfect. Got it.

      Chubby Joke caught lying AGAIN.

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

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

      Delete
  7. Ian said: "It's not exactly a big sacrifice getting crucified when you know you're immortal and you'll be up and about again in no time."

    That was the mark of the early Christians, before we started embracing the popular world view. They gladly sacrificed themselves to tend to those dying from the plague."

    Ian also said: "As for God, it's His own damn fault for designing us this way."

    God doesn't have any fault, we do. He designed Adam to live forever, but Adam thought he knew better. Now we all suffer the consequences. But some with more hope than others. Which is what your comment pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. awstar January 19, 2013 at 9:40 AM

      Ian said: "It's not exactly a big sacrifice getting crucified when you know you're immortal and you'll be up and about again in no time."

      That was the mark of the early Christians, before we started embracing the popular world view. They gladly sacrificed themselves to tend to those dying from the plague."


      Yes, they did. It was a noble and heroic thing to do.

      They had no understanding of what was happening and no means protecting themselves from the threat, short of running away.

      They accepted the risk, stood their ground and took care of those they loved as best they could.

      It's what people do, at their best, and have done, around the world, regardless of their faith - or lack of it.

      Maybe there's a purpose to it all or maybe it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't matter. Most people will not - cannot - abandon those they care about, even if their own lives are at risk. That's part of what we are.

      If we were designed by God then He got that bit right, at least.

      Ian also said: "As for God, it's His own damn fault for designing us this way."

      God doesn't have any fault, we do. He designed Adam to live forever, but Adam thought he knew better. Now we all suffer the consequences. But some with more hope than others. Which is what your comment pointed out.


      God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving.

      If He designed Adam to live forever then he would have lived forever. That God doesn't make mistakes, doesn't get it wrong.

      If Adam and Eve were disobedient, even rebellious, then that was how God meant them to be and must have known it. That's what it means to be all-knowing and all-powerful. Any faults we have He gave us.

      As for suffering the consequences, if some one commits a crime and is caught, that person is tried and, if found guilty, punished for the offense - that person and that person alone.

      We don't punish his or her descendants, generation after generation, for something they didn't do.

      It isn't fair and it isn't just and it isn't something an all-loving god would or could do.

      You can have your all-loving, all-knowing all-powerful Creator but you can't, at the same time, have The Fall and all the other Old Testament Book of Horrors. They just don't go together.

      Delete
    2. The Old Testament doesn't portray God as all-knowing in the sense of foreknowing libertarian choices. Nor does it portray God as punishing some for others' abuse of volitional power.

      Delete
  8. Thorton:

    I pasted some of the Wikipedia entry on genetic algorithms below. They seem to be saying that genetic algorithms can only get you so far. It looks loike htey are onloy good for microevolutionary things, just like evolution in biology.

    Genetic algorithms do not scale well with complexity. That is, where the number of elements which are exposed to mutation is large there is often an exponential increase in search space size. This makes it extremely difficult to use the technique on problems such as designing an engine, a house or plane. In order to make such problems tractable to evolutionary search, they must be broken down into the simplest representation possible. Hence we typically see evolutionary algorithms encoding designs for fan blades instead of engines, building shapes instead of detailed construction plans, airfoils instead of whole aircraft designs. The second problem of complexity is the issue of how to protect parts that have evolved to represent good solutions from further destructive mutation, particularly when their fitness assessment requires them to combine well with other parts. It has been suggested by some[citation needed] in the community that a developmental approach to evolved solutions could overcome some of the issues of protection, but this remains an open research question.

    The "better" solution is only in comparison to other solutions. As a result, the stop criterion is not clear in every problem.

    In many problems, GAs may have a tendency to converge towards local optima or even arbitrary points rather than the global optimum of the problem. This means that it does not "know how" to sacrifice short-term fitness to gain longer-term fitness. The likelihood of this occurring depends on the shape of the fitness landscape: certain problems may provide an easy ascent towards a global optimum, others may make it easier for the function to find the local optima. This problem may be alleviated by using a different fitness function, increasing the rate of mutation, or by using selection techniques that maintain a diverse population of solutions, although the No Free Lunch theorem[7] proves[citation needed] that there is no general solution to this problem. A common technique to maintain diversity is to impose a "niche penalty", wherein, any group of individuals of sufficient similarity (niche radius) have a penalty added, which will reduce the representation of that group in subsequent generations, permitting other (less similar) individuals to be maintained in the population. This trick, however, may not be effective, depending on the landscape of the problem. Another possible technique would be to simply replace part of the population with randomly generated individuals, when most of the population is too similar to each other. Diversity is important in genetic algorithms (and genetic programming) because crossing over a homogeneous population does not yield new solutions. In evolution strategies and evolutionary programming, diversity is not essential because of a greater reliance on mutation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... In short, all the problems with genetic alorithms have to solved by lots of ad-hoc hypotheses. At no point do known event regularities applied to relevant initial conditions IMPLY or analogically INDICATE the posited subsequent effects. Thus, there is NO inductive evidence for such evolution.

      Delete
    2. Liar for Jesus Jeff still just doesn't get this science stuff. Sad.

      Delete
    3. thortty boo-boo still doesn't know anything about science.

      It is just a belligerent moron.

      Delete