Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes

It Was Inevitable

If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferred—a complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:

In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals.

The point here is not that any of this is impossible. The details of how such horizontal transfer of genetic material could occur and then propagate in the higher species are not well understood. But that doesn’t mean it cannot happen. In fact BovB has been found in a reptile tick. So BovB vectors do exist.

The point, rather, is that this is another example of how failed predictions are so easily sustained by evolutionary theory. And when you sustain failed predictions you crush the theory’s explanatory power. For when a theory explains everything, then it really is nothing more than a tautology.

This new research demonstrates yet again how evolutionary predictions about the species patterns don’t really matter. In particular, the evolutionary tree and common descent are not predictions that, when found to be false, falsify evolution. Instead, when found to be false those predictions, as with the many others, are simply forfeited. Therefore practically any pattern can be explained by evolutionary theory. And those that cannot are simply classified as research problems.

What cannot be forfeited is the theoretical core of evolutionary thought, which is that the world arose spontaneously, via chance events and according to natural laws and processes. This cannot be forfeited because we know it to be true.

The epistemological claims of evolution are entirely separate and distinct from the research claims of evolution.

302 comments:

  1. LoL! They try to explain it by invoking HGT because they sure as hell cannot invoke a COMMON DESIGN!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another misguided rant, Hunter.

    You might as well argue that the excessive precession of Mercury's perihelion should have falsified classical mechanics. Tell me why we still teach classical mechanics in high school and in college.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is taught because there are uncountable classes of problems which are perfectly solvable using classical mechanics. AND classical mechanics is perfectly suitable for teaching the methods of analysis and especially beginning calculus, as students find mechanical problems comparatively straightforward in the sense of visualization at their level. And the rigor AND elegance of such solutions can be demonstrated time and time again.

      Clear enough?

      I can't think of any class of problems even imperfectly solvable by stochastic processes offered up to rigorously model the advent of any biological structure with statistical methods. Much less with any hint of elegance unless one wants to make a joke of the term.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    2. MSEE,

      Whether mutations are random or not is absolutely irrelevant to the topic, which is (in case you did not notice) vertical vs. horizontal gene transfer. Dont muddy the waters with stochastic processes.

      Darwin's original idea of the tree of life is based on vertical gene transfer, from parents to offspring. It is thought that HGT was fairly common at the early stages of evolution (single-celled organisms) but is rare for multicellular life. Hunter is trying to say that HGT in eukaryotes falsifies common descent. The tree of life is bogus, he seems to say.

      My example of Mercury's perihelion demonstrates that a scientific theory may be not 100% accurate and still very useful. Classical mechanics clearly fails in certain well-documented cases such as that one. Nonetheless we find it exceedingly accurate in everyday situations and do not discard it.

      Likewise, rare instances of HGT in eukaryotes do not make the idea of common descent invalid. VGT is by far the dominant mode of gene transfer in eukaryotes. HGT is the exception that proves the rule.

      Delete
    3. The fact that it is scientifically untestable makes the idea of universal common descent scientifically invalid.

      Delete
    4. Also given VGT you could have multiple trees of life. It all depends on how many starting populations that you have.

      And seeing that Darwin didn't say how many starting populations there were then he couldn't say how many trees there should be.

      Delete
    5. oleg:

      My example of Mercury's perihelion demonstrates that a scientific theory may be not 100% accurate and still very useful. Classical mechanics clearly fails in certain well-documented cases such as that one. Nonetheless we find it exceedingly accurate in everyday situations and do not discard it.

      This is the reason that a new theory, relativity, was named and defined to replace the part of Newtonian mechanics that failed. Although the general theory of relativity subsumes Newtonian mechanics at non-relativistic speeds, relativity is distinct from Newtonian physics.

      Retaining the name of a falsified theory for the replacement is fallacious at best and disingenuous at worst.

      Delete
    6. Fear not, Louis! A new terminology is already in place. Biologists distinguish Darwinian evolution, where genes propagate vertically from communal evolution, where HGT is the primary mechanism.

      See this essay by David Wells for example.

      Delete
    7. Of course biologists can distinguish between darwinian evolution, which only breaks and deteriorates things, with Intelligent Design Evolution which constructs things.

      Delete
    8. OK if it was incorrect to invoke stochastic processes as relevant to the discussion then maybe there is overwhelming evidence for the converse, i.e. determinism in horizontal gene transfer, as I'm admittedly fairly ignorant on the topic. And maybe even there are examples of deterministic methods in the investigations of these gene transfers, in the sense of how physicists study stellar processes. That is, since it is so obvious, at least to the experts, that this universe is strictly mechanistic in all aspects.

      Delete
  3. HGT in eukaryotes has been known for decades. Yawn.

    How did Jesus do it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, Dr. Troy. Nice to see you.

      :)

      Delete
    2. Troy:

      HGT in eukaryotes has been known for decades.

      That's not the issue, Beelzebub, even if it's true, which I doubt. The issue is that the theory of evolution once predicted in no uncertain terms that living organisms fall into a strictly nested tree of life. That Darwinian crap has been soundly and humiliatingly falsified.

      Now, get your tail out of your asteroid orifice. LOL.

      Delete
    3. The issue is that the theory of evolution once predicted in no uncertain terms that living organisms fall into a strictly nested tree of life. That Darwinian crap has been soundly and humiliatingly falsified.

      Not at all. If I swapped a few genes between you and your cousin, do you think that would invalidate the use of DNA fingerprinting to establish your relatedness?

      Please, think again.

      END



      Delete
    4. LoL! I would love to see you use the same DNA sequences that establishes that cousins are related to establish if the same cousins are any relation to chimps.

      What do you think they would find?

      My bet is they would find the chimps are not of any relation to those human cousins.

      Delete
    5. Multilocus microsatellites can be used to infer relatedness within species (e.g. between cousins), but also to reconstruct phylogenies between species.

      In your case, I expect a perfect match with cockroaches.

      Delete
    6. LoL! No troy, I am not related to you. Try again.

      Delete
    7. I would love to see you use the same DNA sequences that establishes that cousins are related to establish if the same cousins are any relation to chimps.

      What do you think they would find?

      My bet is they would find the chimps are not of any relation to those human cousins.


      IOW no one uses the same multilocus microsatellites to establish relatedness within a species and reconstructing phylogenies between species. troy's dishonesty is duly noted, again.

      Delete
    8. Me:

      The issue is that the theory of evolution once predicted in no uncertain terms that living organisms fall into a strictly nested tree of life. That Darwinian crap has been soundly and humiliatingly falsified.

      Beelzebub:

      Not at all. If I swapped a few genes between you and your cousin, do you think that would invalidate the use of DNA fingerprinting to establish your relatedness?

      Wow. Answered with a lie just like a psychopath. Listen here, Beel. Evolutionists believed and predicted for many years that the tree of life was strictly nested and disparaged anybody who disagreed. No swapping allowed, period. This is the historical truth. What part of 'strictly nested' do you fail to understand?

      Please, think again.

      I'm hesitant to give you the same advice for fear of being pelted with more lies.

      END

      Nope. This is only the beginning of the pain and suffering for the pathological liars. LOL.

      Delete
    9. IOW no one uses the same multilocus microsatellites to establish relatedness within a species and reconstructing phylogenies between species.

      Um, yes they do. For example, the famous Grants used microsats to infer a phylogeny of Galapagos finches: link

      The same microsats had been used before to assign parentage within species. From the methods section:

      Eight of these loci have been used to test parentage in 159 Geospiza scandens offspring

      So, you are wrong, as always. The same microsatellite loci are used to infer relatedness between individuals, as well as phylogenies between species.

      Delete
    10. Louis Savain screams:

      Wow. Answered with a lie just like a psychopath. Listen here, Beel. Evolutionists believed and predicted for many years that the tree of life was strictly nested and disparaged anybody who disagreed.

      And it still is strictly nested. Some individual genes may violate the nested structure, but at the species level the tree is there. Get over it, sicko.

      Delete
    11. Seeing that the finches can interbreed it is obvious that they are the same species. Calling the finches different species is like calling the different races of humans different species.

      You are a moron, as usual.

      Now if they used the same multilocus microsatellites to determine the relatedness of finches and say eagles, then you would have something.

      Also just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy- there isn't anything special about them.

      Delete
    12. Seeing that the finches can interbreed it is obvious that they are the same species.

      Hahaha. We're talking about different genera of birds here, and the analyses also included mainland species. Hybridization among them is extremely rare. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been possible in the first place to discriminate among them genetically.

      Tigers and lions can interbreed. Are they the same species?

      Once again you have been exposed as an ignorant poseur.

      Delete
    13. We're talking about different genera of birds here, and the analyses also included mainland species.

      Can they interbreed?

      Humans live on islands too- are they a separate species too?

      Genera and species are just OUR WAY of catergorizing organisms and doesn't mean anything. Just so you know.

      Tigers and lions can interbreed. Are they the same species?

      Most likely- just as Great Danes and chihuahuas are the same species- just different VARIATIONS of te same species.

      Delete
    14. troy,

      "Tigers and lions can interbreed."


      They may be able to breed, but the results are not very healthy.

      I would be cautious as to whom I call an ignorant poser.

      Delete
    15. I have seen a liger- it looked healthy to me.

      Just sayin'...

      Delete
    16. Joe G,

      "I have seen a liger- it looked healthy to me."

      Looking healthy and being healthy are two different things. Do a little more research into it.

      Delete
    17. It was healthy- as defined by its physical and mental health.

      It may have been sterile, but that doesn't make it unhealthy.

      Delete
    18. Joe G

      "It may have been sterile, but that doesn't make it unhealthy."

      It certainly does in relation to evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    19. You are confusing reproductive fitness with health.

      And we don't know that every liger would be sterile.

      Delete
    20. Joe G,

      "And we don't know that every liger would be sterile."

      No we don't, but we can be pretty sure each one will be feline, so it's still a non-starter for evolution, isn't it?

      Delete
    21. That all depends on what you mean by "evolution"- ;)

      Delete
    22. Joe G

      "That all depends on what you mean by "evolution"- ;)"

      Well I don't subscribe to the idea that evolution is simply 'change'. That being the case, evolution would mean descent from a single common ancestor, in which case a Liger is not good news for the theory.

      Delete
  4. "If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box."

    So true! But how could it be otherwise that Darwinism would fail to make accurate predictions? How is it possible for a materialistic theory (Darwinism), which denies the reality of 'mind', to have any real predictive power as a scientific theory in the first place since to make accurate predictions it takes a 'mind' to assess what the future may hold and predict what may, or may not, take place in that future!

    Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) -
    "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx

    Exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerating science program’
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

    Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos
    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012
      Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html

      Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.
      “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

      Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      Delete
    2. Whereas, where Darwinists fail to accept any evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution, ID, on the other hand, does provide a fairly rigid framework for falsification:

      Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,

      10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
      10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
      10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

      Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

      How many bits would that be:

      Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits

      Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
      Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors
      http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

      This short sentence, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
      Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity - Winston Ewert - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

      Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

      Delete
    3. Here is a general overview of the predictions for Intelligent Design:

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

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

      On the Origin of Protein Folds - Jonathan M. - September 8, 2012
      Excerpt: A common objection to the theory of intelligent design is that it makes no testable predictions, and thus there is no basis for calling it science at all. While recognizing that testability may not be a sufficient or necessary resolution of the "Demarcation Problem," my article, which I invite you to download, will consider one prediction made by ID and discuss how this prediction has been confirmed.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/on_the_origin_o_1064081.html

      Delete
  5. What? It's been known for years. For example, HGT in higher eukaryotes gives distinctive markers, useful in cladistics. My copy of Doug Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, about 15 years old, has a discussion of a retroviral insert that (as far as anyone can tell) passed from ancestral apes to ancestral cats some time before the divergence of the Big Cats and the 'higher apes'.

    Yes, big surprise, genes do not all travel through 'vertical' inheritance on whole chromosomes. Darwinism in tatters shock. Yawn.

    A Common Design explanation of the cladistic pattern would be an absolute hoot, though I'm sure Joe G and Louis Savain could give it a go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Umm cladistics is based on a common design- ie common characteristics.

      Delete
    2. Alan states:

      "My copy of Doug Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, about 15 years old, has a discussion of a retroviral insert"

      And yet Dr. Hunter notes as such:

      "In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection."

      Moreover, retroviral insertion is more problematic than is commonly believed:

      Delete
    3. Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119
      Sternberg, R. v. & J. A. Shapiro (2005). How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110: 108-116.

      Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation - 2006
      http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract.

      Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs - (Nov. 26, 2012)
      Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, "This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!"
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121125192838.htm

      Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It - September 2011
      Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retroviruses-and-common-descent-and-why-i-dont-buy-it/

      Some (inconsistances) ERVs that don't fit into the nauralistic evolutionary assumption of common descent:

      PTERV1 in chimpanzee, African great apes and old World monkeys but not in humans and asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon).
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

      The Human Lineage Was Somehow “Purged” - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012
      Excerpt: Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans. The problem is that these viruses are present in the other primates, and so according to evolutionists these viruses must be present in their common ancestor which, again according to evolution, would be an ancestor of humans as well.,, In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged.” We got a do-over! Hilarious.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/unbelievableevolution-in-complete-free.html

      More Counterpoints on ERVs - JonathanM - May 2011
      Excerpt: 'In the absence of a feasible naturalistic mechanism to account for how evolution from a common ancestor could have occurred, how can we be so sure that it did occur? In such a case, one ought to reasonably expect there to be some quite spectacular evidence for common ancestry. Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, the evidence for common ancestry is paper thin on the ground.'
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/more_points_on_ervs046761.html

      Delete
  6. OT: Save for the gratuitous nod to evolution at the beginning of the following video, I find that even the lowly dung beetles reflect Design to an extraordinary degree in the video:

    Marcus Byrne: The dance of the dung beetle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eosckjQ4mJ0

    Music:

    Help – The Beatles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8MeE8Ik4Y

    ReplyDelete
  7. Latest Hot Entertainment News, Latest updata about Bollywood, hollywood, pakistani Girls
    hotentertainnews.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. We can discriminate among the different races of humans, genetically.

    By troy's "logic" all the races are different species and maybe even different genera.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By your logic you and your uncle are different species, although I can see why your uncle would appreciate that conclusion.

      Delete
    2. troy:
      By your logic you and your uncle are different species,

      LoL! Make your case that I stated anything that would lead to that conclusion.

      Delete
  9. One other thing, it is curious that this argument presented here is taken from an abstract of an article which evidently the author did not read, and even more interesting that the points raised have nothing to do with those of the authors of that article or in the wider discussion involved.

    Already horizontal information transfer is well known to have existed among prokaryotes and in fact is a primary method of their adaptation and evolution. It also is known among one-cell eukaryotes. And there is a growing awareness of it having a role in the evolution of multicellular organisms although it is not yet understood.

    Nobody is saying anywhere that it in brings the general theory of evolution into question, although certainly it makes it more interesting. Except with human genetic engineering there is no intentionality in its evolutionary effects on the host organism.

    Even in the case of human genetic engineering it is undertaken according to human purposes, not with host organism's own adaptation in mind. Given the complexity of the adaptive process, the compromises it engenders (eg, giraffe neck length vs high blood pressure), and the almost infinite variables involved, unintended consequences are inevitable.

    Finally, as I said in my previous post, addressing the issue under the rubric of "falsifiability of science" is a red herring introduced by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many mutations did it take to make the giraffe's neck?

      Delete
    2. Stephen Mikesell

      One other thing, it is curious that this argument presented here is taken from an abstract of an article which evidently the author did not read, and even more interesting that the points raised have nothing to do with those of the authors of that article or in the wider discussion involved.


      You must be new here to not be aware of the blog owner's usual M.O. in these weekly anti-science propaganda attacks.

      Delete
    3. Wrong again- he attacks evolutionism, not science

      Delete
    4. "You must be new here to not be aware of the blog owner's usual M.O. in these weekly anti-science propaganda attacks."

      Yes yes yes, so logical that our host with a PhD in the hard sciences is involved in anti-science propaganda. It's so logical that no doubt the contributor thornton is making a philosophical statement, even as he is ignorant of philosophy. But even primitive philosophical positions are required to support mental states driving him to this blog over and over, year in, year out.

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

      Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome – Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten – 2008
      Excerpt: We have found >139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
      http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf

      Delete
    6. MSEE,
      Yes yes yes, so logical that our host with a PhD in the hard sciences is involved in anti-science propaganda.

      Who better? It is always advantageous to know your opponents position,and let's say Dr Hunter has a greater alligence to a higher truth than science , then logically he would be a perfect man for the job.

      It's so logical that no doubt the contributor thornton is making a philosophical statement, even as he is ignorant of philosophy

      It seems to more logic than philosophy,but perhaps you might explain what philosophical background would be necessary,maybe Thorton has unsuspected depth.

      Delete
  10. Joe G,

    "Wrong again- he attacks evolutionism, not science."

    How many times do you have to be told Joe? Evolution IS science and science IS evolution. Try to keep that straight, it makes things so much easier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic,
      How many times do you have to be told Joe? Evolution IS science and science IS evolution

      Do you think that evolution does not occur?

      Delete
    2. We say that evolutionism can't even muster a testable hypothesis. And you confirm that every day.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    3. Hey come up with one yourself and we can judge which one fits the facts better, hint,just saying design is not an testable hypothesis

      Delete
    4. Hey I understand that you are a cowardly loser. And we cannot judge anything because YOU are too afraid to post a testable hypothesis for evolutionism.

      So just how can anyone say which fits the facts better when you can't ante up anything?

      Delete
    5. You misjudge me , Joe. I am no expert at biology.i only wish to see all sides,so far I see only the ToE and not ToE. Why so shy?

      Delete
    6. No, I don't misjudge you at all. I have always known that you are a cowardly equivocator, liar and loser.

      I see evolutionism too. And I see that it is too vague to even be considered a theory.

      And as you have demonstrated it is too weak to even muster a testable hypothesis.

      As for being shy, well my blog references plenty of positive evidence for Intelligent Design along with the methodology for inferring design.

      OTOH you still have nothing.

      Delete
  11. velikovskys,

    "Do you think that evolution does not occur?"

    I think change occurs, if that is what you're asking. What there is zero evidence for is changes within kinds of animals such as canines, felines, etc., inevitably leads to descent from a common ancestor. Such belief is based solely on presumptive conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just curious, how about astronomy and geology,presumptive as well?

      Delete
    2. velikovskys,

      "Just curious, how about astronomy and geology,presumptive as well?"

      Astronomy and geology can both be studied in real time, so are not really analogous to evolution.

      Delete
    3. Really, the formation of the earth can be studied in real time? Formation of the Grand Canyon? All three seem to me to rely on present day observations which they use to explain history ,of course all explanations are conditional on. additional data. All three can as easily be attributed to a designer. Seems fairly analogous,after all change within species has been observed in real time.

      Delete
    4. Vel, name one observed case of animal speciation? Not incipient speciation, but a genuine full fledged animal speciation. A species being defined as the creation of a new species (not subspecies) in the biological classification system after this documented event.


      Nothing?

      Delete
    5. Nic

      Astronomy and geology can both be studied in real time, so are not really analogous to evolution.


      What's to prevent the study of evolutionary processes in real time? Biologists have been doing exactly that for centuries.

      Delete
    6. Tedford

      Vel, name one observed case of animal speciation? Not incipient speciation, but a genuine full fledged animal speciation.


      Tedford, name one observed case of plate tectonics producing a new mountain. Not incipient mountain formation due to plates colliding, but a genuine full fledged new mountain.

      Nothing?

      Delete
    7. velikovskys,

      "Really, the formation of the earth can be studied in real time? Formation of the Grand Canyon?"

      Geology goes far beyond studying the past, as in the formation of the Earth. That is part of geological research, but only a small part. Geological forces are in constant effect and therefore can be studied in real time and observed in real time. Despite your belief to the contrary, evolution cannot.

      "Seems fairly analogous,after all change within species has been observed in real time."

      Change within species is observed, in that dogs can take on many varieties, as can cats, etc. What is not observed is change within species, such as dogs and cats, which would account for descent from a common ancestor. Descent from a common ancestor is simply presumptive speculation.

      Delete
    8. Plate tectonics, ie continental drift, was first proposed by Snider, a Creationist.

      Delete
    9. Thorton,

      "What's to prevent the study of evolutionary processes in real time? Biologists have been doing exactly that for centuries."

      Name an 'evolutionary process' observed in real time. And PLEASE, do not reply with ring species or bacteria remaining bacteria.

      Delete
    10. Nic

      Name an 'evolutionary process' observed in real time.


      Genetic variation produced both by sexual recombination and by imperfect copying are both empirically observed in real time.

      Changes to morphology base on those new variations are empirically observed in real time.

      Improved reproductive fitness based on those morphological changes are empirically observed in real time.

      And PLEASE, do not reply with ring species or bacteria remaining bacteria.

      Why not? You Creationists have no problems with mammals remaining mammals, what's the problem with bacteria remaining bacteria?

      You didn't answer all my questions about canid 'kinds' either. I take it you have no answers.

      Delete
    11. Thorton,

      "Genetic variation produced both by sexual recombination and by imperfect copying are both empirically observed in real time."

      Neither of which can be used as evidence for descent from a common ancestor without the application of presumptive conjecture.

      "Improved reproductive fitness based on those morphological changes are empirically observed in real time."

      What? Are you saying every time there is sexual recombination and imperfect copying, we observe improved reproductive fitness? If so, I would like to see a demonstration of that claim.

      "Why not? You Creationists have no problems with mammals remaining mammals, what's the problem with bacteria remaining bacteria?"

      Have you been lacking sleep lately? Of course creationists have no problem with mammals remaining mammals. Bacteria remaining bacteria is no problem either for creationists. It is, however, a problem for evolutionists who promote the idea of common descent.

      "You didn't answer all my questions about canid 'kinds' either."

      Why would canines not be the same 'kind'?

      Delete
    12. LOL @ Nic! You asked for evolutionary processes that can be observed in real time like those of astronomy and geology, I gave you three.

      You get out the rocket powered goal posts, twist what I wrote and start making completely different yet equally stupid Creationist demands.

      You're a real peach Nic. A good little creationist through and through.

      Bacteria remaining bacteria is no problem either for creationists.

      Then you accept Lenski's long term E coli experiment as a clear example of evolution. Good to know.

      Why would canines not be the same 'kind'?

      Why would they be? How do you define a 'kind'? Do you think dogs, foxes, and hyenas are all the same 'kind'? How did they evolve to be so different then?

      Delete
    13. Genetic variation produced both by sexual recombination and by imperfect copying are both empirically observed in real time.

      Baraminology is OK with that.

      Then you accept Lenski's long term E coli experiment as a clear example of evolution.

      Yes it appears to be a good example of Intelligent Design Evolution.

      Lenski's experiments definitely don't help your position at all. No new proteins, no new functions. Just an existing protein being expressed in an oxygen-rich environment.

      You need much, much more than that and you can't produce it.

      Loser.

      Delete
    14. Thorton,

      "I gave you three."

      You gave me nothing more than conjecture, as you always do.

      Nothing you provided is demonstrable as proceeding from a common ancestor to new creatures. Sure, sexual recombination results in a unique creature from its parents. Now show how this will translate backward to a common ancestor or forward to an as yet unknown creature.

      You can't. All you ever do is supply presumptive conjecture and expect someone to accept it as proven fact.

      I am not moving the goal posts, you're just a lousy shot. That is not my fault.

      "Then you accept Lenski's long term E coli experiment as a clear example of evolution. Good to know."

      You talk about me twisting your words. Where did I say I accept Lenski's work as a clear example of evolution. Better still, why don't you demonstrate for us how Lenski continuing to produce only more bacteria is a clear example of evolution in action.

      "How did they evolve to be so different then?"

      How different are they really?

      Delete
    15. Nic,
      Geology goes far beyond studying the past, as in the formation of the Earth.

      I agree, so does biology. Both rely on a historical theory to understand the present , both rely on natural causes.

      That is part of geological research, but only a small part. Geological forces are in constant effect and therefore can be studied in real time and observed in real time.

      But many are not, the uplift of the Colorado Plateau is not, the eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano isn't,

      Despite your belief to the contrary, evolution cannot

      As you said change occurs in animals, why can small changes create the Grand Canyon but small changes in animals do not accumulate as well?

      Better still, why don't you demonstrate for us how Lenski continuing to produce only more bacteria is a clear example of evolution in action.


      It sounds like you want to be able to see the Grand Canyon eroded,not just observe erosion taking place in real time.

      Delete
    16. As you said change occurs in animals, why can small changes create the Grand Canyon but small changes in animals do not accumulate as well?

      Small changes do accumulate in animals. They just don't seem to amount to much.

      Having an albino dwarf with sickle-cell anemia isn't quite what the ToE needs.

      Delete
    17. Neal,

      Vel, name one observed case of animal speciation? Not incipient speciation, but a genuine full fledged animal speciation. A species being defined as the creation of a new species (not subspecies) in the biological classification system after this documented event.

      Would that prove ToE? The same challenge goes to astronomy and geology, name one observed case of the Grand Canyon being formed? Not erosion taking place.Not the wind blowing, the actual canyon being formed. Therefore anything taking longer than a human lifetime is designed.

      Delete
    18. Typical cowardly evolutionist- has to hide behind eons of time, as if that makes it OK that its position is totally untestable.

      Delete
    19. Nothing worse than facts getting in the way of dogma,

      Delete
    20. Exactly! Facts always get in the way of evolutionism's dogma.

      Always.

      Delete
    21. velikovskys,


      "But many are not, the uplift of the Colorado Plateau is not, the eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano isn't."

      Did I not say geology can be applied in the study of the past?


      "As you said change occurs in animals, why can small changes create the Grand Canyon but small changes in animals do not accumulate as well?"

      Please enlighten me as to how the Grand Canyon is analogous to descent from a common ancestor.

      Delete
    22. Sorry missed your reply,
      Nic


      Please enlighten me as to how the Grand Canyon is analogous to descent from a common ancestor.


      Accumulative small changes over geologic time can create large and complex results

      Delete
    23. How are you defining "complex"?

      Reproduction is complex and there isn't anything in geology even remotely as complex as reproduction.

      Delete
    24. velikovskys,

      "Accumulative small changes over geologic time can create large and complex results"

      Granted, but you're still only talking about erosion of rocks, not a living organism.

      Delete
    25. Nic, vel is a simpleton so just about anything is complex to it.

      Delete
  12. Nic

    What there is zero evidence for is changes within kinds of animals such as canines, felines, etc.


    Of course you can't define "kinds", or identify any genetic of morphological barriers that would prevent changes above species level, right?

    And all those nested hierarchical phylogenies created from the genetic and fossil records don't count either, right?

    (cue Fatboy Joke G screaming "that supports common design too!!")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course thorton cannot define what the first livng organisms were nor how many mutations it took for them to evolve into something else.

      He cannot tell us anything about the changes tat are required to do anything.

      Not only that nested hierarchies are NOT evidence for common descent

      Delete
    2. thorton can't define the first living organisms nor can he say how they came to be.

      Yup ALL SCIENCE SO FAR, eh tard boy...

      Delete
    3. Thorton,

      "Of course you can't define "kinds", or identify any genetic of morphological barriers that would prevent changes above species level, right?"

      Well canines would be a 'kind' as would felines. Even you'll have to admit that they cannot breed with one another even though they are both mammals and supposedly would have a common ancestor. Obviously there is some barrier there, would you not agree?


      "And all those nested hierarchical phylogenies created from the genetic and fossil records don't count either, right?"

      You sure like to harp on 'nested hierarchies'. They fit very well into a design scenario, so what's your point?

      Delete
    4. Nic

      Well canines would be a 'kind' as would felines.


      Are domestic dogs and wolves the same kind? How about domestic dogs and hyenas? Domestic dogs and foxes? Domestic dogs and jackals? Domestic dogs and racoons?

      Here is the phylogenetic tree of canids

      Canid Family Tree

      Are they all the same 'kind'?

      How about lions and tigers? Lions and ocelots? Same kind? How about lions and house cats? They're certainly not interfertile.

      Do you definition 'kind' as 'a group of animals that can only produce fertile offspring with members of the same group'? How many 'kinds' are there in the world?

      You sure like to harp on 'nested hierarchies'. They fit very well into a design scenario, so what's your point?

      Actually, they don't. There is no prediction and no reason at all for a designed series of objects to fit into a nested hierarchy. An omnipotent designer can mix and match parts as It chooses. Speciation through common descent however always leaves a branching nested hierarchy, which is what we see in the real world.

      Delete
    5. Thorton,

      "An omnipotent designer can mix and match parts as It chooses."

      And this helps your argument how?

      "Speciation through common descent however always leaves a branching nested hierarchy, which is what we see in the real world."

      Please demonstrate why this is the result of common descent and not common design?

      Simply seeing this similarity in the 'real world' does not mean it's the result of common descent.

      Delete
    6. Nic

      Please demonstrate why this is the result of common descent and not common design?


      What does 'common design' even mean? It's a completely worthless buzz phrase that predicts nothing, explains nothing.

      What evidence would falsify 'common design'?

      Delete
    7. Thorton,

      "What does 'common design' even mean?"

      You really must be lacking sleep. The term 'common design' is self explanatory. Just think about it for awhile and put aside your knee-jerk evolutionary thought patterns. You might make some progress if you do.

      Delete
    8. Nic

      The term 'common design' is self explanatory.


      No, it's not. Explain it for the readers.

      Be sure to include:

      1. what 'common design' predicts and why.

      2. the objective criteria for determining how close two morphologies must be to count as 'common design'

      3. what observation would falsify 'common design'.

      Start explaining Nic.

      Delete
    9. LoL! Common design explains why most houses are framed the same. Why cars are 90% similar. Why PCs are more than 90% similar.

      Common design means designed via common design standards. Most likely so that things can play together and to avoid reinventing the wheel for every different organism.

      Design standards, building codes, electric codes, plumbing codes, IEEE- you get two different teams of carpenters building two different houses to the same building code and those two different houses will have a great deal in common.

      Cladistics are based on common designs- just replace the hypothetical common ancestor with archetype, and badda-bing, badda-boom, you see the predictions.

      What would falsify a common design? If we didn't see any similarities. If the gentic code was totally different in different populations.

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joe G

      Common design means designed via common design standards


      Where are the 'common design standards' for biological organisms Chubs? How did you determine them?

      Most likely so that things can play together and to avoid reinventing the wheel for every different organism.

      You mean like the Magic Designer used the same design for pterosaur wings, bat wings, bird wings, and insect wings instead of reinventing the wheel. Right.

      Cladistics are based on common designs- just replace the hypothetical common ancestor with archetype,

      What are the common design archtypes for biological organisms Chubs? How did you determine them?

      You idiots love to make up crap as you go but your can never support it.

      Go ahead Fatboy, let's hear your sing your favorite song

      "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!"

      Delete
    11. The common design archetypes for organisms can be found by reading Linnean taxonomy- that is what it was based on you ignorant tard.

      And you can determine the standards by looking at the designs. Tat is what Linneas did.

      As for idiots making crap up as you go, well that would be the evolutionitwits, like you.

      Delete
    12. Thorton,

      "No, it's not."

      Yes, it really is.

      What do you suppose 'common design' would propose? Are you asking me because you're genuinely interested or because you're simply looking for insult fodder. I suspect the latter, because anyone with an iota of intelligence can figure out exactly what 'common design' would propose and what would be required as evidence to support it.

      As for falsifiability, provide a clear, continuously functional pathway from non-sight to the present day human eye.

      Delete
    13. Chubby Joke G

      The common design archetypes for organisms can be found by reading Linnean taxonomy- that is what it was based on you ignorant tard.


      LOL! Fatboy waves his hands but can't provide a list of his claimed 'designed' archtypes. What a surprise

      And you can determine the standards by looking at the designs. Tat is what Linneas did.

      More handwaving from Fatboy but he can't provide his list of 'design standards'. Another big surprise.

      Fatboy, you're so full of crap if anyone ever slipped you an ExLax you'd cover Ashburnham 30' deep in brown.

      Delete
    14. Nic

      anyone with an iota of intelligence can figure out exactly what 'common design' would propose and what would be required as evidence to support it.


      Then why can't you provide those answers?

      Here's the list you cowardly avoided:

      1. Explain what 'common design' predicts and why.

      2. Explain the objective criteria for determining how close two morphologies must be to count as 'common design'

      3. Explain what observation would falsify 'common design'. The last example you gave won't do it because a designer could always design the steps of the eye to make it look like the eye evolved. Try again with a real falsification this time.

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

      Delete
    16. tard dumbass:
      Fatboy waves his hands but can't provide a list of his claimed 'designed' archtypes.

      Linneas already did that you moron. Just read his taxonomy.

      Just because you are too lazy and too stupid to look it up doesn't mean anything to me.

      1. Explain what 'common design' predicts and why.


      Already did. And you choked on it, as usual.

      2. Explain the objective criteria for determining how close two morphologies must be to count as 'common design'

      Already done- see Linnean taxonomy and cladistics.

      3. Explain what observation would falsify 'common design'.

      I already told you that too.

      So here we have thorton the moron choking on reality, as usual.

      Delete
    17. Chubby Joke G

      I already told you there's lots of evidence for common design, I just can't provide any of it!


      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the dumbest Creationist of them all.

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

      Delete
    19. LoL! I have provided positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Others have also.

      Just because you are too ignorant to understand what evidence is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      Your willful ignorance is a reflection on you, not me.

      Delete
    20. THorton,

      "Try again with a real falsification this time."

      Nope, the ball is bouncing around in your court, at least try to hit it.

      Delete
    21. Nic

      Nope, the ball is bouncing around in your court, at least try to hit it.


      Cowardly evasion of questions noted. Here they are again:

      1. Explain what 'common design' predicts and why.

      2. Explain the objective criteria for determining how close two morphologies must be to count as 'common design'

      3. Explain what observation would falsify 'common design'.

      Why do you clowns keep offering 'common design' when you can't give even one detail about it?

      Delete
    22. Thorton,

      "Cowardly evasion of questions noted."

      The only one evading here is you, my friend. Can you show the evolution from non-sight to the human eye in sequential steps, with each step being fully functional, ie, useful to the organism?

      Let's here no more about my cowardice until you answer that request.

      Delete
    23. 1. Explain what 'common design' predicts and why.

      Already told you.


      2. Explain the objective criteria for determining how close two morphologies must be to count as 'common design'

      Already done- see Linnean taxonomy.

      3. Explain what observation would falsify 'common design'.

      Again we have already told you that too.

      Just because you are too ignorant to understand what evidence is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      Your willful ignorance is a reflection on you, not us.

      Delete
    24. Cowardly evasions from both Nic and Fatboy Joe both noted.

      All your BS about 'common design' is just that, BS.

      Hey Fatboy, tell us more about the 'common design standards'. Why would an omnipotent Designer need them? Did the Intelligent Standards Writer subcontract out to multiple other Intelligent Designers all competing for the job of creation? Was there an Intelligent Standards Inspector to check the work after and see if it met code? Were there fines / penalties if the work didn't conform?

      The more you make up stuff as you go the more stupid you look.

      Delete
    25. Cowardly and ignorant thorTARD thinks its ignorance means something.

      Common design is observed throughout the design world, tard-boy.

      Don't blame us for your ignorance. And just because you are a belligerent little asshole, that doesn't refute anything.

      Delete
    26. Thorton,

      "Cowardly evasions from both Nic,..."

      Still waiting on the functional step, by functional step evolutionary development of the eye. I have a feeling we're going to be waiting a really long time.

      Delete
    27. More cowardly evasions by Nic and Fatboy Joke noted.

      You clowns are the ones who brought up 'common design' and 'common standards'. Now you're doing your best tapdance to change the subject and hide the fact you're full of BS.

      You Creationists make me laugh!

      Delete
  13. Speciation through common descent however always leaves a branching nested hierarchy, which is what we see in the real world.

    Based on what, exactly? Ya see we already know that a family tree does not produce a nested hierarchy based on defined characteristcs. And a family tree is descent with modification.

    tard boy is totally ignorant of the fact that nested hierarchies are strictly man-made constructs and just about anything can be placed in one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe,

      tard boy is totally ignorant of the fact that nested hierarchies are strictly man-made constructs and just about anything can be placed in one.


      Ok, will you make one for iPods?

      Delete
    2. Your ignorance will cost you $7,000

      Delete
    3. It certainly has in the past, however your lack of proof for your claim is noted

      Delete
    4. LoL! My claim is supported by the mere KNOWLEDGE of nested hierarchies.

      And your IGNORANCE is NOT a refutation.

      Delete
    5. I freely admit I am ignorant of evidence of your knowledge, but it would be easy to remedy if you would demonstrate it

      Delete
    6. You are obvioulsy ignorant of nested hierarchies too.

      I will start it for you:

      "All iPods"

      From there you just have to define your sets and levels:

      Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory

      Delete
    7. It was your claim that" just about anything" can be placed in a nested hierarchy , are iPods the exception? Here I'll help the UCA was released oct 23 2001. There is the classic,touch shuffle nano and mini. The are different colors ,capacity, models. Different placement of earphone jack,some have radio some have touch screens

      Delete
    8. Umm it ain't my claim, it's a fact.

      All you have to do is pick the characteristics you want to group them by- as I said:

      From there you just have to define your sets and levels: (per the instructions linked to)

      The superset- ie the all inclusive superset- would be called "All iPods", then you fill it in from there.

      Delete
    9. BTW vel, a UCA wrt nested hierarchies, is irrelevant.

      You do not construct a nested hierarchy based on ancestor-descendent relationships, ie as said relationships as the classifying criterion.

      If you look at the nested hierarchy of Linnean taxonomy there isn't any "UCA". If you look at the nested hierarchy of the US Army, there isn't any UCA.

      Delete
    10. Joe,
      Umm it ain't my claim, it's a fact

      Umm,it is your claim that is is a fact.

      BTW vel, a UCA wrt nested hierarchies, is irrelevant.

      Suit yourself, then show how the iPod fit into existing players,Walkman etc


      If you look at the nested hierarchy of Linnean taxonomy there isn't any "UCA". If you look at the nested hierarchy of the US Army, there isn't any UCA.


      In the military rank and power structure, it narrows to a single point,POTUS, just as a hierarchy of IPods will narrow to a single point and branch from there.

      You do not construct a nested hierarchy based on ancestor-descendent relationships, ie as said relationships as the classifying criterion.

      Interesting, I thought you said it was a " man made" and you could do it on " just about anything" . It now appears that you are shift the focus to my knowledge, which I made no claim of fact, from your's which was claimed to be factual. Maybe it will become clearer when you support your claim. Perhaps a back of the envelope start generally what sets of characteristics would you use?

      Delete
    11. vel- did you read the article I linked to?

      Did you understand it?

      You could even email the author of that site and ask him. Zachriel said Dr Allen says that a tree- ONE tree- could be placed into a nested hierarchy depending on the criteria used. And I have seen biology books make a human body into a nested hierarchy. Again it all depends on how you slice and dice it- ie teh criteria used.

      All you have to do is keep the integrity of the top superset and make sure that your definitions do not ofer any overlapping- which is at issue with the ToE because gradual change would require a smooth blending of characteristics thereby ruining any nice, neat nested hierarchy. Not that you would understand that.

      Do you understand Linnean taxonomy?

      But anyway, I do not own an iPod. I do not know what characteristics they have. I do not care. And if you are really interested you would send Dr Allen an email- or even see Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49

      You can email him too.

      In the military rank and power structure, it narrows to a single point,POTUS, just as a hierarchy of IPods will narrow to a single point and branch from there.

      So you did NOT read the article I linked to. Or perhaps you just didn't understand it.

      You are pathetically ignorant, vel.

      Delete
    12. Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

      No POTUS you SCROTUS. POTUS = non-nested hierarchy

      Delete
    13. Chubby Joke's ignorance of the nested hierarchies of life is legendary.

      Fatboy still hasn't figured out that the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics aren't arbitrary human constructs. They're objectively determined patterns that are embedded in the empirically observed data.

      Designed objects that don't reproduce and don't evolve through common descent can have any number of equally valid hierarchical trees created. But branching evolutionary processes such as life always generate unique best fit nested hierarchical patterns exactly as are observed.

      Chubs has had that explained to him only about a hundred times, and been unable to grasp the simple concept a hundred times.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the dumbest Creationist of them all.



      Delete
    14. Hey saclicker, strange that I actually support my claims with valid references. OTOH YOU have NEVER provided a reference that supports what you say about nested hierarchies. heck you haven't even shown that you understand what a nested hierarchy is. So fuck off asshole.

      Also why don't family trees produce a nested hierarchy based on defined characteristics?

      ALL NESTED HIERARCHIES ARE MANMADE CONSTRUCTS. ALL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

      Someone needs to define the levels. They do NOT define themselves. Someone also has to define the sets, they do not define themselves.

      IOW thorton, you are nothing but an ignorant piece of dogshit, and it shows.

      Delete
    15. thorton is the premier spokesthing for the society of of cowardly and ignorant pathological liars.

      Delete
    16. Chubby Joke Gallien

      Hey saclicker,

      So fuck off asshole.

      you are nothing but an ignorant piece of dogshit


      LOL! Fatboy gets called on his ignorance, reverts to his usual evidence-free fallback position.

      You're the perfect spokesman for Intelligent Design Creationism Fatboy, bar none.

      Delete
    17. LoL! thorton spews its usual ignorant drivel and sez I am getting called.

      And Intelligent Design Creationism still only exists in the small minds of the willfully ignorant- and here you are, again.

      Delete
    18. Chubby Joke's ignorance

      Fatboy still hasn't figured out

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the dumbest Creationist of them all


      LoL! thortard gets called on its ignorance and reverts to its usual evidence-free spewage.

      Delete
    19. Joe,

      So you did NOT read the article I linked to. Or perhaps you just didn't understand it.

      You are pathetically ignorant, vel.


      Why would my knowledge of nested hierachies have anything to do with your supporting your claim that " just about everthing" can be placed in one?

      Delete
    20. LoL! If you weren't so ignorant there wouldn't be an issue with my claim.

      So stuff it

      Delete
    21. I was wondering how long it was going to take you to blame someone else for your unwillingness to support your claim


      LoL! If you weren't so ignorant there wouldn't be an issue with my claim.


      I expect that is exactly how biologists feel about your demands that they produce evidence you find acceptable.



      So stuff it


      Now you of all people against free speech?

      Delete
    22. LoL! Stop blaming me for your ignorance. I have provided the references that support my claim. YOU refuse to read them or you are to stupid to understand them.

      BTW there are many biologists that agree with the design inference. And not one biologist that can support the claims of unguided evolution. Not even one named Steve.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    23. Joe,

      BTW there are many biologists that agree with the design inference. And not one biologist that can support the claims of unguided evolution. Not even one named Steve.


      Ok Joe ,fair enough, please provide a couple of quotes that back up your claim the '" just about anything" can form a nested hierarchy, of course following your example no biologist needs to support his claims,it is your ignorance that stops you from seeing his claim as true

      Delete
    24. Umm, mere knowledge of nested hierarchies back up my claim that "just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy".

      An Army of similar men and women can be placed into a nested hierarchy. A human body can be constructed into a nested hierarchy. And a tree can be constructed into a nested hierarchy.

      And if you understood anything about nested hierarchies you would understand that just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE CRITERIA USED. And that is up to the person or people constructing it.

      Stop blaming me for your ignorance. I have provided the references that support my claim. YOU refuse to read them or you are to stupid to understand them.

      Delete
  14. Joe

    7000 pesos? It's a good price!
    :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well maybe if it was Argentinian pesos. But then he would have to do all the work in getting me the information on every different iPod in existence.

      ;)

      Delete
    2. This is what is know as " crayfishin' " in South Louisiana ,Joe. Backing out

      Delete
    3. LoL! So La isn't known as a bastien of intelligence.

      And again, your ignorance, while hilarious, is not a refutation.

      Delete
    4. What do people in So. La. say about someone who wants someone else to do a great deal of WORK WITHOUT PAY?

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joke G

      What do people in So. La. say about someone who wants someone else to do a great deal of WORK WITHOUT PAY?


      When they see someone running his big mouth with outlandish claims then demanding money to produce the evidence, they say he's a LIAR. Same as what the rest of the country says.

      Delete
    6. What outlandish claims? Please be specific.

      OTOH you and your ilk live on unsupprted outlandish claims. So by your logic, you are a LIAR.

      Nice job, tard boy

      Delete
    7. thorton is the premier spokesthing for the society of of cowardly and ignorant pathological liars.

      Delete
    8. Joe,
      What do people in So. La. say about someone who wants someone else to do a great deal of WORK WITHOUT PAY?


      Probably" Don't let your mouth write a check your butt can't pay, chew".

      Delete
    9. My mouth wasn't writing any checks- YOU need to send me some money if you want me to do YOUR work.

      Delete
    10. Joe.

      My mouth wasn't writing any checks- YOU need to send me some money if you want me to do YOUR work.

      Earlier,Joe's " mouth wrote this check"
      tard boy is totally ignorant of the fact that nested hierarchies are strictly man-made constructs and just about anything can be placed in one.


      So is it safe to assume that all claims made by you require someone else to provide the evidence.Ok,let's try, I find no evidence for your claim therefore it is in error,now prove me wrong. Or am I required to do that for you as well?

      Delete
    11. So is it safe to assume that all claims made by you require someone else to provide the evidence.

      Only a moron would say that. And here you are.

      You want me to do a big job. A job that will require quite some time and effort. And the only outcome will be you saying "by golly you are right" and nothing else will have changed. That ain't worth it.

      That is why YOUR IGNORANCE will cost you. OR you can just send the experts the email and ask them for yourself.

      Your choice- I am OK with either one.

      Delete
    12. v So is it safe to assume that all claims made by you require someone else to provide the evidence.

      J...Only a moron would say that. And here you are.


      Joe
      You want me to do a big job. A job that will require quite some time and effort. And the only outcome will be you saying "by golly you are right" and nothing else will have changed. That ain't worth it........ Or you can just send the experts the email and ask them for yourself

      Sounds like you just said it.Of course there is option B that when you construct it it will show something adverse to your claim. This is my bet

      That is why YOUR IGNORANCE will cost you.

      You missed the point again, I never claim that either iPods could or could not be put in a nested hierarchy, yes I am ignorant of whether they could, you claimed that " just about anything" could. Are iPods the exception? It seems you are making claims that you are unwilling to support with even a slight effort,while you demand of others what you are unwilling to do yourself. Even someone from South Louisiana can see that

      Delete
    13. vel-

      An Army of similar men and women can be placed into a nested hierarchy. A human body can be constructed into a nested hierarchy. And a tree can be constructed into a nested hierarchy.

      And if you understood anything about nested hierarchies you would understand that just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE CRITERIA USED. And taht is up to the person or people constructing it.

      Delete
    14. You want me to do a big job. A job that will require quite some time and effort. And the only outcome will be you saying "by golly you are right" and nothing else will have changed. That ain't worth it........ Or you can just send the experts the email and ask them for yourself

      Sounds like you just said it.

      Only a cowardly retard would say such a thing as the two are not related.

      Ya see it ain't worth correcting an anonymous cowardly tard like yourself. Because even when I do nothing will happen and I will just be at a loss.

      Delete
    15. Joe,


      And if you understood anything about nested hierarchies you would understand that just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE CRITERIA USED. And taht is up to the person or people constructing it.


      Geez Joe, if you can't do it don't worry, most people probably don't actually take your claims seriously anyway. I just thought you might actually be able to some degree actually provide proof. My apologies .

      Delete
    16. Joe,
      You want me to do a big job. A job that will require quite some time and effort. And the only outcome will be you saying "by golly you are right" and nothing else will have changed. That ain't worth it........ Or you can just send the experts the email and ask them for yourself

      Only a cowardly retard would say such a thing as the two are not related.


      It is not worth the effort to prove your claim but I can find someone else to do it. Sounds like the only way I could find out what kind of nested hierarchy iPods make is to ask an expert other than you. I really don't see any other interpretation. I have to admit I see no reasons that would make me a coward. I'd ask you to explain but that most likely would be pointless

      Ya see it ain't worth correcting an anonymous cowardly tard like yourself. Because even when I do nothing will happen and I will just be at a loss.

      No reason to get emotional, Joe. Perhaps we should drop this before you become overwrought. I am flattered you wish to know more about me but I am not an expert like you, nor have any web presence beyond this. I apologize for actually taking your claim seriously , I realize now it was more of a hollow jab, not meant to be taken as factual.

      I am still baffled how it is possible to correct someone who asks another to just prove with a random example the truth of their claim while expressing no opinion themselves. Great minds are hard to fathom, I guess

      Delete
    17. No, dumbass. It isn't worth the effort to educate an obviously willfully ignorant asshole such as yourself.

      And the only people who don't take my claim seriously are the people who are uneducated dolts. And no one cares about them.

      And the Army, the human body and the tree all provide proof for my claim, assface. Just because YOU are too stupid to grasp that fact doesn't mean anything to me.

      Delete
    18. Joe calmly explains his view,

      No, dumbass. It isn't worth the effort to educate an obviously willfully ignorant asshole such as yourself.

      Translation... I can only prove my claim if you believe it the first place and therefore require no proof.

      And the only people who don't take my claim seriously are the people who are uneducated dolts. And no one cares about them.

      There you go again, making a claim . I now realize that I should just accept it and I will miraculously become an educated dolt, and everyone will care about me.

      And the Army, the human body and the tree all provide proof for my claim, assface. Just because YOU are too stupid to grasp that fact doesn't mean anything to me.

      Yes Joe those three specific things can form a nested hierarchy , are you saying that since three things are the members of a set then it is true to conclude that " just about anything" belongs to that set? The easiest thing would have been to reply that " no iPods are one of those things that can't be put in a best fit nested hierarchy" . If I refused your claim,then your whole "you are stupid " defense would makes sense.

      Again Joe,your claim is not that some things form a nested hierarchy, it is that " just about anything" does. Even an uneducated dolt from South Louisiana knows those are different claims . It is interesting that all you had to do is slightly modify your claim and claim victory. Apparently in your case ,Joe, that is not an option.

      Delete
  15. I've been thinking about this nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution thing. It seems to me that it is based on a sort of negative reasoning. Evolution is said to explain why life forms a nested hierarchy and not something else. Creationism can explain why a nested hierarchy formed, because that was the will of the creator. But, since an omnipotent designer cold have created life differently, then creationism does not explain why something else was not chosen. (Have I got it right so far?) But evolution does not require that life evolved into a nested hierarchy. For example, dogs and cats form two separate groups. But they had a common ancestor. IF the common ancestor of dogs and cats survived as a "living fossil" then we would a have species that straddled the fence between dogs and cats. It would mess up the nested hierarchy. And What if the common ancestor of all placental mammals survived? Then it would mess up the nested hierarchy even more. Then we could go back even further to the common ancestor of all mammals and really mes up the nested hierarchy. SO evolution doesn't really predict a nested hierarchy. It just gives evolutionists an opportunity to say, "we predicted this all along." But not really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dumbest post of the thread. Congrats.

      What did those poor kids ever do to deserve a biology teacher as dumb as you?

      Delete
    2. Your claiming it is dumb doesn't make it dumb. Please explain what is wrong with my reasoning.

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

      Delete
    4. nat- troy & thorton are the premier spokesthings for the society of of cowardly and ignorant pathological liars.

      But I am sure you already suspected as much...

      Delete
    5. natschuster

      Your claiming it is dumb doesn't make it dumb. Please explain what is wrong with my reasoning.


      Having a parent species spawn a daughter species while the parent species still exists doesn't negate the common descent nested hierarchy. In fact, such speciation is observed quite regularly as in this example of a population of Italian wall lizards evolving rapidly after being transported to an island.

      Delete
    6. A family tree = common descent and it does NOT produce a nested hierarchy based on defined characteristics.

      And rapid speciation supports baraminology.

      Delete
    7. Troy,
      Dumbest post of the thread. Congrats.

      Joe is just pacing himself

      Delete
    8. LoL! Having known evoTARDs say anything about the dumbest post anywhere, is just hilarious.

      Delete
    9. Nat, sorry for the harsh words, but it's dumb because even if the ancestor of dogs and cats survived unchanged, and dogs and cats split off from the ancestral branch at different times, then you still have a bifurcating tree.

      It may help to draw it for yourself on a piece of paper. You'll see 3 tips and 2 nodes in a bifurcating tree.

      Delete
    10. Yet with evolutionism one population can split into thousands of others- some with lost traits and some with gained traits and some with the same traits, just slightly altered. IOW the pattern would be like an asterisk. It would be asterisks all the way down.

      Delete
    11. Troy et.al.

      If the common ancestor of dogs and cats survived, I imagine it would fall somewhere between cats and dogs morphologically. Some with the other ancestors. There would be a bunch of animals that would not fall into any neat category. We would not see a nested hierarchy, but rather a continuum. So evolution does not explain why there is a nested hierarchy and not something else.

      Delete
    12. Thorton

      Excellent link on Italian wall lizards evolution. I had no idea such experiment was done in my old neighborhood.

      It makes me think of some questions for you or any biologist familiar with the experiment.

      New lizards evolved to eat vegetation instead of insects but are they new species?

      Obviously evolution can work very fast so can humans who breed animals "push" one species into completely new one?

      Delete
    13. Eugen

      New lizards evolved to eat vegetation instead of insects but are they new species?


      Keep in mind that 'species' is a human designation. Two populations of animals are generally considered different species when they no longer exchange genetic material with each other, either through geographic separation, morphological/genetic differences, or behavioral differences. Note that it has nothing to do with being interfertile - lions and tigers are interfertile but are considered two different species because they don't interbreed in the wild.

      Because species is a human construct there are always going to be grey areas as to where one diverging population should be considered two species. This is especially true in the fossil record where there are only temporal and physical differences of specimens to go on.

      In extant animals there is no 'golden' time for how long the species have to be reproductively isolated to be considered two. There is a good argument that by most criteria these new island lizards are indeed a new species.

      Delete
    14. Chubby Joke G

      Yet with evolutionism one population can split into thousands of others- some with lost traits and some with gained traits and some with the same traits, just slightly altered. IOW the pattern would be like an asterisk. It would be asterisks all the way down.


      It would still be a nested hierarchy Chubs.

      Your ignorance of what constitutes a nested hierarchy in biological evolution is just pathetic.

      Delete
    15. Thanks.
      I'm guessing if the vegetarian group would be transported back to original island they would revert to insect eating lizard.
      I'm not sure if something like this is possible with "higher" warm blooded animal of bigger size.

      Delete
    16. Eugen

      Thanks.
      I'm guessing if the vegetarian group would be transported back to original island they would revert to insect eating lizard.
      I'm not sure if something like this is possible with "higher" warm blooded animal of bigger size.


      It already happened with the giant panda. Pandas are members of the order carnivora They have all the hallmarks of meat eaters - sharp canine teeth, acute vision and sense of smell, a short digestive tract not good at processing plant matter - yet they are almost exclusively herbivores. 99% of their diet is bamboo, although they do eat other grasses and occasionally eat birds or small rodents.

      To subsist on the nutrient poor bamboo the giant panda has had to evolve numerous physical and behavioral adaptations similar to what the lizards did.

      Delete
    17. Link to giant panda article above broken, try this one

      giant panda

      Delete
    18. tard bitch:
      It would still be a nested hierarchy Chubs.

      Your ignorance of what constitutes a nested hierarchy in biological evolution is just pathetic.


      YUP ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

      thorton doesn't know what a nested hierarchy is.

      Delete
    19. Go ahead Chubs - explain how your "Intelligent" Designer used common design to give giant pandas carnivore teeth, carnivore senses, and a carnivore digestive tract so they could eat bamboo for 99% of their food intake.

      Delete
  16. Furthermore, if we could come up with a reason why a Designer would choose a nested hierarchy and not something else, then the nested hierarchy would no longer be evidence for evolution. I'll have a go at it, though I'm no theologian or Bible scholar. Conventional theology teaches that Man was given stewardship over the world. This means hat human have to understand what it is they have stewardship over. The human mind works in a hierarchical way. We like to categorize. The Creator created life in a hierarchical way to make it easier for us to understand what it is we have stewardship over. Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natschuster


      I have a better reason for the Designer: he wanted simply to test the faith of his creatures simulating with design the effects of the evolution. So only the persons that are ready to obey him in all without many discussions and not have the pride to try to think with own head (this is also in good agreement with the original sin story) will be rewarded at the end.
      So, evolution defeated 2:0.

      Delete
    2. Germanicus,

      The Designer designed you well

      Delete
    3. germanicus, thank you for the equivocation.

      Delete
    4. Joe G

      I tried only to help Natschuster in his attempt to defeat evolution.
      Nat: << Furthermore, if we could come up with a reason why a Designer would choose a nested hierarchy and not something else, then the nested hierarchy would no longer be evidence for evolution. >>
      But, if you have a better reason for the Designer, feel you free to write it to Natschuster.

      Delete
    5. Germanicus,

      "he wanted simply to test the faith of his creatures simulating with design the effects of the evolution."

      On what do you base this claim?

      Delete
    6. Nic

      "On what do you base this claim?"

      This was exactly my implicit remark to the reason proposed by Natschuster. Can you say me why the reason proposed by him is most based that my claim? But maybe you have a better reason to propose. I am curious.

      Delete
    7. germanicus- no one is trying to defeat evolution. EvolutionISM is the nonsense that can't even be tested.

      Delete
    8. Germenicus et.al.

      My explanation was based on my understanding of fairly conventional theology and my understanding of the Bible.

      Delete
    9. Joe G

      As I have discussed only the Natschuster's statement, how have I to interpret your answer? He is clearly making an argument against evolution. Are you trying to argue that his statement makes no sense or it is ill-conceived?

      Nat: << Furthermore, if we could come up with a reason why a Designer would choose a nested hierarchy and not something else, then the nested hierarchy would no longer be evidence for evolution. >>

      I have followed the line of reasoning that he proposed searching a reason for the Designer to have chosen that particular design style that we can observe. Can you be more precise in your criticism explain me what is wrong in this line of reasoning?

      Delete
    10. I would say that nat is arguing against evolutionism.

      Delete
    11. Joe G.

      My intention was to show how the nested hierarchy is a sort of "evolution of the gaps." We don't know why a creator would create a nested hierarchy and not something else so it must have been evolution. But if we an explain why a Creator would create a nested hierarchy and not something else, then it is no longer evidence for evolution.

      Delete
    12. Germanicus,

      "But maybe you have a better reason to propose."

      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem you're holding to the idea that nested hierarchies and perhaps life in general looks like it evolved. Is that true?

      Delete
    13. JOE G

      "I would say that nat is arguing against evolutionism."

      OK. So if I correct the Natschuster's statement according to your suggestion, it is now in order for you (but maybe you are suggesting another reason other than the specific theological argument of Natschuster)?

      " Furthermore, if we could come up with a reason why a Designer would choose a nested hierarchy and not something else, then the nested hierarchy would no longer be evidence for evolution-ism."

      Delete
    14. nat-

      Nested hierarchies are only evidence for man's cleverness, and nothing else. Also Linnean taxonomy, ie the observed biological nested hierarchy, was constructed, not for evolutionism, but for classifying the Created Kinds.

      Linnean taxonomy has nothing to do with common descent. Nothing to do with natural selection and nothing to do with genetic drift.

      Delete
    15. Chubby YEC Joe G

      Also Linnean taxonomy, ie the observed biological nested hierarchy, was constructed, not for evolutionism, but for classifying the Created Kinds.


      Hey idiot - if the biological nested hierarchy is observed then it wasn't arbitrarily human constructed.

      It takes a special kind of Creationist moron to directly contradict himeslf in the same sentence.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the most 'special' Creationist of them all.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nic

    "Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem you're holding to the idea that nested hierarchies and perhaps life in general looks like it evolved. Is that true?"

    I will be happy to discuss with you in another occasion about my opinion on the matter also if I am not a biologist and I will not be able to bring many new elements to the ongoing discussion. As for this post this point is really not important, I would prefer not to fragment the discussion and first conclude with the points that have been started. I am interested to understand better the point of Natschuster:

    "My explanation was based on my understanding of fairly conventional theology and my understanding of the Bible."

    So, following conventional theology and Bible seems that is possible to arrive to an argument to explain why the Designer would choose a nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete