Sunday, February 3, 2013

Evolutionist: “Evolutionary Processes Not Fully Understood”

Teleology to the Rescue

Frauke Gräter’s latest paper on how the speed of protein folding evolved begins by stating that the disparity in protein folding times (from microseconds to hours) is the result of roughly 3.8 billion years of evolution during which new protein structures were created and optimized. No citation is given because no citation is available. As usual, evolutionists begin their work with non scientific premises. As if sensing a problem the paper next offers a partial concession: “The evolutionary processes driving the discovery and optimization of protein topologies is complex and remains to be fully understood.” In fact not only do these evolutionary processes remain to be “fully understood,” they remain to be understood at all. Not to worry though, because evolutionists can always switch to a teleological tone whenever they have dug themselves into a hole, as the paper next explains: “Nature probably uncovers new topologies in order to fulfill new functions, and optimizes existing topologies to increase their performance.” Such design language masks, at least temporarily, the obvious problems with evolution’s creation-by-chance narrative. Biology’s incredible structures arose to fill a need. That certainly sounds better than explaining that a whole bunch of random mutations just happened find an astronomically unlikely design for no reason.

103 comments:

  1. CH: ... evolutionists can always switch to a teleological tone whenever they have dug themselves into a hole, as the paper next explains... That certainly sounds better than explaining that a whole bunch of random mutations just happened find an astronomically unlikely design for no reason.

    J: When such irrationality coincides with a pathological aversion to legitimate criticism, one has to wonder what such narcissists would NOT be capable of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please don't be fooled. This is just Cornelius' propaganda version of events concocted from a pile of fallacies. Specifically, a little God of the Gaps, a bit of Argument from Ignorance, and a dash of Evolution is Random Chance, left to stew for a while. He has had these fallacies explained and debunked step by step many times, but he will never accept or understand them.

      Delete
    2. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      When such irrationality coincides with a pathological aversion to legitimate criticism, one has to wonder what such narcissists would NOT be capable of?


      Having a scientifically illiterate goober claim this his philosophical blithering somehow invalidates over 150 years' worth of physical empirical evidence isn't legitimate criticism. Neither is having a paid Creationist propagandist lie about what ToE actual posits concerning the actual physical mechanisms which produce new species.

      Delete
    3. 150 years of chicken feather voodoo science is more like it. And so what if he's a paid creationist? Is that illegal? Aren't atheists and evolutionists also getting paid by both the private and the public sector? Seeing my tax dollars being wasted every day on crappy science is not particularly appealing.

      Psychopaths always want all the money for themselves. Let the others starve so they can claim victory. I got news for you. Soon, y'all be eating your own excrement. I'll be watching your writhings from the other side of the fence with a smile on my face and a bag of Cheetos. LOL.

      Delete
    4. . . . 150 years' worth of physical empirical evidence . . .

      With the discovery of Mendelian genetics, Darwinism was almost completely discredited. Neo-Darwinism had to be resurrected in the 1940's, primarily based on R.A.F Fisher's 'fundamental equation of evolution', which he derived from actuarial tables.

      Why not white-wash history?

      And there are now voices in evolutionary circles who publicly state that "neo-Darwinism" is dead!

      Yes, nothing but 150 years' worth of physical evidence--none of which supports Darwin's Law of Divergence.

      Delete
    5. Lino -

      With the discovery of Mendelian genetics, Darwinism was almost completely discredited.

      What? Mendelian genetics was a spectacular vindication of Darwin's theory. Darwin knew nothing about the gene, but he knew that for his theory to work, there had to be a unit of inheritance that was passed down, and (which differentiated his theory of evolution from Lamarck's) that this unit would be unchanged by the events of the life of parent organism.

      Then Mendel announced he had found exactly what Darwin had predicted - the gene. It was this that totally vindicated Natural Selection over the rival theories.

      And there are now voices in evolutionary circles who publicly state that "neo-Darwinism" is dead!

      No there aren't. There just aren't. There may be one or two Creationists dressed up in lab coats who say that, but that's all.

      Yes, nothing but 150 years' worth of physical evidence--none of which supports Darwin's Law of Divergence.

      If you think so, you know nothing of biology.

      Why not try learning science from actual scientists, rather than just absorbing everything from your pastor? He is not more of an expert than the experts.

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

      Delete
    7. Louis,

      "150 years of chicken feather voodoo science is more like it. And so what if he's a paid creationist? Is that illegal? Aren't atheists and evolutionists also getting paid by both the private and the public sector? Seeing my tax dollars being wasted every day on crappy science is not particularly appealing."

      Well said. I could not agree more. The double standard applied in these debates is palpable. Ch says what he does only because he is a paid stooge. While evolutionary scientists, regardless of whose payroll they are on, are completely objective without a biased bone in their being. They are only interested in the truth. Yeah, right.

      Delete
    8. Lino rapes Fisher's work:

      With the discovery of Mendelian genetics, Darwinism was almost completely discredited. Neo-Darwinism had to be resurrected in the 1940's, primarily based on R.A.F Fisher's 'fundamental equation of evolution', which he derived from actuarial tables.

      That would be the 'fundamental theorem of natural selection' (FTNS), published by Sir R.A. Fisher in 1930. Presented without proof in Fisher's characteristically obscure manner ("it's easy to see that..."). Many papers have been written about the FTNS, trying to figure out what Fisher "really meant", what assumptions are required, etc.

      And it wasn't derived from actuarial tables. You're confusing the FNTS with Fisher's (mathematical) concept of reproductive value (RV). Applications of RV were derived from actuarial tables on age-specific fertility and mortality rates of Australian women in 1912. I teach a course about this stuff.

      Delete
    9. "he knew that for his theory to work, there had to be a unit of inheritance that was passed down, and (which differentiated his theory of evolution from Lamarck's) that this unit would be unchanged by the events of the life of parent organism.

      Then Mendel announced he had found exactly what Darwin had predicted - the gene"

      Oh good lord what a pile of rot substituting for logic. Anyone that had children, raised cattle, planted a seed anywhere since man walked the earth knew that species had to have a system of inheritance. What a total act of desperation to claim Darwin as a unique predictor of genes

      "It was this that totally vindicated Natural Selection over the rival theories."

      by that logic the Biblical "kinds" was totally vindicated at it predicted a means of passing on a unit of inheritance thousands of year before Darwin.

      Delete
  2. What is understood is that no one understands how, if it happened at all, an historical, naturalistic UCA-tree of descent could have occurred. And that's all CH is ever saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a million ways it COULD have happened. What interests scientists is how it DID happen.

      Unfortunately this necessitates inductive reasoning. Like a detective at a crime scene, scientists have to piece together events that happened in the past. This inevitably involved a certain degree of uncertainty - all knowledge is provisional.

      But this is no excuse to insinuate a theory is likely to be wrong simply because it does not explain MORE than it currently does. This is God of the Gaps logic, and it is demonstrably a fallacy. THIS is what CH is doing.

      Delete
    2. Scientists don't know if it could happen, nevermind how.

      Delete
    3. Hey joey, if you're not anti-evolution, and if evolution is a fact, why do you claim that scientists don't know if a naturalistic UCA-tree of descent could happen? Is a UCA-tree of descent supernaturalistic?

      Delete
  3. R: There are a million ways it COULD have happened.

    J: There are two senses of could that are relevant here. One is the sense of, "for all we know, it COULD have happened." In that sense, you are right. CH agrees with this.

    The other sense is, "we have conceived of how a set of event regularities which, applied to relevant initial conditions, IMPLY the subsequent phenotypes/forms in the posited time-frames." The latter is clearly false. CH realizes this too.

    In short, CH agrees with what is known. He disagrees with pontifications that are known to be UNknown.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ... more specifically, CH disagrees with the propriety of pontificating as fact that which is not knowable by inductive/deductive modes of reasoning at this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With respect, that is simply not true. That is the complete opposite of his stance.

      Evolution is a scientific fact. Note the word scientific. It is a safeguard against the fact that all knowledge in science is provisional.

      Therefore, to take evolution being a fact as a starting premise is not unscientific. It is not unreasonable. It is not even a problematic stance.

      However, his crusade against evolution (no matter the open-minded seeker-of-truth he pretends to be) is based enitrely on his belief in ID - the proposition that God intervened to create life on Earth as it is. It is THIS belief which is unreasonable, unevidenced and wholly unscientific. It is not even potentially discoverable, either by deduction or induction, and yet Cornelius is happy to pontificate THAT as fact.

      Delete
    2. Yes evolution is a fact. The question is is evolution by design or just via accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Also ID is not about God. And unlike your position ID has a methodology, it can be tested and confirmed or falsified.

      Delete
    3. A shame though nobody has ever published the secret ID methodology and its successful application, except in the shriveled organ that passes for Joe's brain.

      Delete
    4. LoL! troy boy can't produce any methodology his position uses, let alone an application, let alone a testable hypothesis.

      Heck troy doesn't even understand ribosome research...

      Delete
    5. Go ahead and cite some ID papers that describe the methodology and its successful application to biology.

      Delete
    6. joey barfed:

      "The question is is evolution by design or just via accumulations of genetic accidents."

      BZZZT. Wrong.

      Delete
    7. Go ahead and cite some evolutionary papers that describe the blind watchmaker methodology and its successful application to biology

      Delete
    8. "The question is is evolution by design or just via accumulations of genetic accidents."

      clueless TWiT:
      BZZZT. Wrong.

      Wow, what a devastating refutation! Too bad TWiTty's ignorance is meaningless.

      Delete
    9. joey said (contrary to his constant attacks on evolution):

      "Yes evolution is a fact."

      Hey Cornelius, Louis, Nic, ICplusplus, ba77, Jeff, gordo, byers, etc., what say you to that?

      Delete
    10. Well, joey, you never come up with a devastating refutation of anything but your own IDiotic assertions.

      Delete
    11. TWiT,

      You are a moron as I do NOT attack evolution. ID is NOT anti-evolution. And I refute just about everything you spew.

      Delete
    12. joey drooled:

      "Also ID is not about God."

      LMAO!

      "And unlike your position ID has a methodology..."

      Yup, the so-called methodology is 'It looks designed to me!' and 'the entire, finely tuned, programmed universe is designed except for a thrown in accident and random effect here and there', because I, joey the IDiot troll, SAY SO evotards!11!!111

      "...it can be tested and confirmed or falsified."

      LMAO!

      Delete
    13. Joe

      Also ID is not about God.

      Yes it is. Entirely.

      And unlike your position ID has a methodology, it can be tested and confirmed or falsified.

      Evidence please.

      Delete
    14. Ritchie,

      "Evolution is a scientific fact. Note the word scientific. It is a safeguard against the fact that all knowledge in science is provisional."

      So what's the difference between saying evolution is a 'scientific fact' and evolution 'maybe' occurred?

      "Therefore, to take evolution being a fact as a starting premise is not unscientific."

      So, if you're only 'presuming' evolution to be true, why are we who oppose the idea of evolution, wrong for doubting its truth?


      "However, his crusade against evolution (no matter the open-minded seeker-of-truth he pretends to be) is based enitrely on his belief in ID - the proposition that God intervened to create life on Earth as it is. It is THIS belief which is unreasonable, unevidenced and wholly unscientific. It is not even potentially discoverable, either by deduction or induction,..."

      This is a pretty rash statement. Do you suppose you would be willing to back it up?

      Delete
    15. The whole truth,

      "Joey said (contrary to his constant attacks on evolution):

      "Yes evolution is a fact."

      Hey Cornelius, Louis, Nic, ICplusplus, ba77, Jeff, gordo, byers, etc., what say you to that?"

      Of what definition of evolution does he speak?

      If he speaks of simply change, which is in fact not evolution, only variation, then I'm fine with that. If he speaks of descent from a common ancestor, then no, I don't agree.

      And please, do not respond with variation IS evolution.

      Delete
    16. Nic -

      So what's the difference between saying evolution is a 'scientific fact' and evolution 'maybe' occurred?

      Apart from the latter being grammatically poor?

      The first implies we can take it as fact for the purpose of building new theories and hypotheses. The latter still seems to cast a large shadow of doubt as to whether evolution occurred.

      So, if you're only 'presuming' evolution to be true, why are we who oppose the idea of evolution, wrong for doubting its truth?

      It is not a presumption. That implies a guess - a hypothesis simply assumed to be true.

      In actual fact there is a truly vast cache of supporting evidence for evolution. We are as sure of its true as it is scientifically possible to be.

      This is a pretty rash statement. Do you suppose you would be willing to back it up?

      Have you not seen Biola university's mission statement? It has been posted around here quite a few times.

      Delete
    17. Nic:

      "Joey said (contrary to his constant attacks on evolution):

      "Yes evolution is a fact."

      Hey Cornelius, Louis, Nic, ICplusplus, ba77, Jeff, gordo, byers, etc., what say you to that?"

      Of what definition of evolution does he speak?


      Of course, evolution is a fact. Any time you have intelligent design over time, you also have evolution. The computer you are using right now evolved from Charles Babbage's analytical engine of a century and a half ago. And that evolved from the abacus.

      But is it Darwinian evolution? Of course not. Darwinian evolution is a mountain of crap built on a foundation of more crap.

      Delete
    18. Nic said:

      "Of what definition of evolution does he speak?"

      With joey, the definition of evolution is anyone's guess.

      "If he speaks of simply change, which is in fact not evolution, only variation, then I'm fine with that. If he speaks of descent from a common ancestor, then no, I don't agree."

      In other words, your main complaint is about any evolutionary association between 'man' and apes, amphibians, fish, etc., etc., etc., eh?

      You're 'specially created in God's image' and didn't descend from an ape or any other filthy animal, right?

      Tell me Nic, is "God" a conglomeration of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and some other stuff along with some human and "God" cells? Does "God" pee and poop like humans do? Does "God" have warts, moles, pimples, hemorrhoids, post nasal drip, bunions, morning breath, and ingrown toenails like humans do? If humans are 'specially created in God's image, "God" must be just like humans, including all of the 'bad' stuff.

      Delete
    19. The whole truth,

      "Tell me Nic, is "God" a conglomeration of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and some other stuff along with some human and "God" cells? Does "God" pee and poop like humans do? Does "God" have warts, moles, pimples, hemorrhoids, post nasal drip, bunions, morning breath, and ingrown toenails like humans do? If humans are 'specially created in God's image, "God" must be just like humans, including all of the 'bad' stuff."

      The willful ignorance displayed by this passage is palpable.

      Delete
    20. Ritchie,

      "Apart from the latter being grammatically poor?"

      No problems grammatically.

      "The first implies we can take it as fact for the purpose of building new theories and hypotheses. The latter still seems to cast a large shadow of doubt as to whether evolution occurred."

      Oh believe me, the shadow of doubt is extremely large, and growing larger by the day.

      "It is not a presumption. That implies a guess - a hypothesis simply assumed to be true."

      Such is the nature of a hypothesis, my friend. If it was known to be true, it would not be a hypothesis.

      "In actual fact there is a truly vast cache of supporting evidence for evolution. We are as sure of its true as it is scientifically possible to be."

      And all that evidence is interpreted based on assumption of the truth of evolution.

      "Have you not seen Biola university's mission statement? It has been posted around here quite a few times."

      Are you implying Biola's mission statement requires people to be dishonest?

      What is the basis of your crusade against ID? And please,don't tell me it's based on the fact that evolution is true.

      Delete
    21. Nic -

      Oh believe me, the shadow of doubt is extremely large, and growing larger by the day.

      Only in your head, Nic.

      Such is the nature of a hypothesis, my friend. If it was known to be true, it would not be a hypothesis.

      Why is why evolution is not merely a hypothesis.

      And all that evidence is interpreted based on assumption of the truth of evolution.

      No, evolution is the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence. Unless, of course, you have a better one...?

      Are you implying Biola's mission statement requires people to be dishonest?

      No, it requires people to believe in the direct involvement of God to influence the development of life on Earth. That he is being dishonest about it is entirely Cornelius' own doing.

      What is the basis of your crusade against ID? And please,don't tell me it's based on the fact that evolution is true.

      The ID movement is an extremely insidious movement which is trying to crowbar religious doctrine and scientific ignorance into the education system. The importance of this is not to be underestimated. And since it is built on nothing but ignorance, misinformation and erroneous reasoning, it seems the most reasonable thing to do is simply to point out those failings at every opportunity.

      Delete
  5. How can a belief be both unreasonable/unevidenced AND unscientific unless scientific is just another way of saying rational (which is what CH and I hold to)? And if so, how is it a-rational or irrational to hypothesize in terms of final causality once you do (and you do) concede the reality of final causality?

    It seems that you're saying a hypothesis is a fact MERELY because it's naturalistic. But that would mean that the hypothesizing that humans never make free choices is the equivalent of stating a FACT. This is incoherent, Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alternatively, you seem to be saying a hypothesis is NOT a fact MERELY because it posits final causality. Either way, it's logically problematic.

      Delete
    2. What does final causality have to do with anything?

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. How can a belief be both unreasonable/unevidenced AND unscientific unless scientific is just another way of saying rational (which is what CH and I hold to)?

    'It was magic', as an explanation is unevidenced, but also unscientific because it is not actually an explanation.

    'It was designed' suffers the very same problems.

    It seems that you're saying a hypothesis is a fact MERELY because it's naturalistic.

    That is not what I am saying. But if a hypothesis is NOT naturalistic then it fails to be scientific.

    But that would mean that the hypothesizing that humans never make free choices is the equivalent of stating a FACT.

    No, that is silly. hypotheses do not become facts. Hypotheses, when evidenced, become theories. Theories never become facts.

    Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Both these are true, but for different reasons. Facts and theories are not the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ritchie:
      But if a hypothesis is NOT naturalistic then it fails to be scientific.

      Nonsense. Science only cares about reality and reality says that natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature. And science says nature had an origin.

      And your position can't even muster a testable hypothesis

      Delete
    2. Speaking of nonsense, let's see you prove that anything supernatural exists, and especially prove that a supernatural designer of the entire universe exists. Yeah, I said prove, joey, because one of your favorite demands is "prove it".

      Delete
    3. ID doesn't require the supernatural.

      However it is obvious that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

      And it is also obvious that you have nothing but your ignorant belligerence.

      Delete
    4. Hmm, you say that ID doesn't require the supernatural even though you claim that "ID is all about origins" and "that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin". So then, joey, if the entire universe (nature) didn't originate naturally or supernaturally, how did it originate? And how did 'the designer' and all of its antecedents originate?

      Delete
    5. Yes twitty, we already know that you have nothing but your ignorant belligerence.

      Delete
    6. And joey scores yet another devastating refutation of his IDiotic assertions!

      You said one thing that's correct though, joey, science only cares about reality, and that's why scientists ignore or laugh at you IDiot-creationists.

      Delete
    7. Joe -

      Nonsense. Science only cares about reality and reality says that natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.

      Where do you get these silly ideas from?

      1. Science is the application of the scientific method. You cannot apply the scientific method to supernatural forces. So yes, non-naturalistic hypotheses ARE unscientific.

      2. 'Natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature'? What does that even mean? What makes you think that question even makes sense?

      No-one and nothing had to 'make' gravity. There was not a time when two objects with mass would do nothing, and then somehow gravity was created and suddenly the objects started attracting each other.

      Delete
    8. Joe G,

      "However it is obvious that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin,..."

      Good point. This is a truism that evolutionists can never seem to grasp. Explaining how something works does not explain its origins. They continue in the fallacy that a natural explanation of function means there is in fact, no supernatural origin. It's simply mind numbingly poor logic.

      How they cannot grasp the reality that function and origin are separate streams of inquiry is beyond me.

      Delete
    9. Nic -

      Explaining how something works does not explain its origins.

      That is quite so. But so what?

      They continue in the fallacy that a natural explanation of function means there is in fact, no supernatural origin.

      No - supernatural origins are simply not scientific explanations. That is universally true whether the function can be explained naturally or not.

      How they cannot grasp the reality that function and origin are separate streams of inquiry is beyond me.

      It seems to me that the ones committing this fallacy are the one who insist that ToE account for the origin of life.

      ToE explains how life evolves, not its origin. Anyone demanding that ToE account for the origin of life (or the origin of 'natural processes', as both you and Joe are doing here) are the ones who are making this confusion.

      It's simply mind numbingly poor logic.

      On that we can agree.

      Delete
    10. Ritchie,

      "That is quite so. But so what?"

      Because you continually claim the 'origin' of the diverse life we see is evolutionary in nature. A claim you try to defend by claiming naturalistic explanations of function demonstrate there is no need for a designer. In other words, doing away with the 'god of the gaps'. The claim there is no need for a designer in nature is, therefore, a claim that naturalistic sources are the origin.

      Therefore, the claim that naturalistic explanations of function prove no need for a designer is a claim that function demonstrates origin, ie. nature. This is simply logical nonsense.

      Can you not critically analyze any of your claims?

      "It seems to me that the ones committing this fallacy are the one who insist that ToE account for the origin of life."

      Evolution must ultimately do that very thing or it will never go beyond the status of hypothesis.

      So no, it is not the ID side which is committing the fallacy. It is evolution by believing it can deny the need to explain origins, while at the same time claiming to know those origins (ie. nature), and also demanding its critics explain the origin of everything in minute detail, including the origin and identity of the designer.

      The double standards applied here are deplorable.

      Delete
    11. Nic -

      Because you continually claim the 'origin' of the diverse life we see is evolutionary in nature.

      That is simply untrue. The ToE does not account for how life started - only how it develops. That is a fact I have stated many times. The origin of life is certainly a related one, but technically beyond the scope of ToE.

      I do claim that science must, and does, assume naturalism. That is a plain fact. Thus, supernatural explanations will never be a part of science.

      The designer hypothesis fails to account for the origin of life. This is not because ToE has given us a better alternative, rendering the designer hypothesis mute. It is because the designer hypothesis explains nothing. It posits no mechanisms, no processes. And (in the mouths of some) it does not even restrict itself to the naturalistic. That being so, it is simply not science.

      "It seems to me that the ones committing this fallacy are the one who insist that ToE account for the origin of life."

      Evolution must ultimately do that very thing or it will never go beyond the status of hypothesis.


      You have just done a complete 180. In your last post you said that it was illogical to confuse function with origin. Now here you are doing that very thing.

      ToE does NOT claim to account for the ORIGIN of life. Only to explain how life develops. Function - not origin.

      And yet now, here you are only one post later making the very same mistake you warned others not to make.

      Incidentally, ToE already is more than a hypothesis. It is a theory. Because it is so eminently well evidenced.

      So no, it is not the ID side which is committing the fallacy.

      Yes it is. ID needs to propose mechanisms. Testable mechanisms. And it needs to be naturalistic. These are standards which every theory needs to pass to be scientific. ToE passes these. ID does not.

      Delete
    12. Nic said:

      "So no, it is not the ID side which is committing the fallacy. It is evolution by believing it can deny the need to explain origins, while at the same time claiming to know those origins (ie. nature), and also demanding its critics explain the origin of everything in minute detail, including the origin and identity of the designer."

      You're the ones who claim that there's a 'designer' ("God") who designed and created everything, so why shouldn't you be expected to "explain the origin of everything in minute detail, including the origin and identity of the designer", especially since you expect "evolution" to explain the origin of everything in minute detail, even though the ToE (not "evolution") doesn't deal with ultimate origins?

      "The double standards applied here are deplorable."

      Yep, they sure are, by the "ID side".

      By the way, you rely on a supernatural origin but joey said above that ID doesn't require the supernatural, even though he often claims that "ID is all about origins". So, which origin does ID rely on and require, natural or supernatural?

      Delete
  8. Evolution, per se, is a fact and a theory. Particular inferences about lineages that don't follow from the posited initial conditions when the theory is applied to it are NEITHER facts NOR implications of the theory. THIS is all CH is saying.

    Now, if you go further and say "it was designed" is the inferential equivalent of "it was magic," then you're saying inferring that humans design things is the inferential equivalent of "humans are magic." Dude, that's problematic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Now, if you go further and say "it was designed" is the inferential equivalent of "it was magic," then you're saying inferring that humans design things is the inferential equivalent of "humans are magic." Dude, that's problematic.


      Dude, no one made your idiot strawman that science views ALL design is the equivalent of magic. We're talking strictly about the IDiot claims that all life on the planet was designed.

      We have clearly identified and validated methods by which humans do design. You don't have even an inkling of a clue as to how or when your Designer physically created your claimed designs. Manufacture of life as posited by IDiots now is the logical equivalent of saying "MAGIC!".

      Delete
    2. Jeff,

      Evolution, per se, is a fact and a theory. Particular inferences about lineages that don't follow from the posited initial conditions when the theory is applied to it are NEITHER facts NOR implications of the theory


      Many disagree.

      Now, if you go further and say "it was designed" is the inferential equivalent of "it was magic," then you're saying inferring that humans design things is the inferential equivalent of "humans are magic." Dude, that's problematic

      So the designer is human?

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

      Delete
    4. Lying psychopath Thorton:

      We have clearly identified and validated methods by which humans do design. You don't have even an inkling of a clue as to how or when your Designer physically created your claimed designs. Manufacture of life as posited by IDiots now is the logical equivalent of saying "MAGIC!".

      Good design principles have nothing to do with whether or not humans or aliens are the designers, moron. Besides, scriptures repeatedly insists that the Christian God created everything using knowledge and wisdom. That MAGIC strawman you keep using over and over will one day wrestle you to the ground and tear you a new asteroid orifice. LOL.

      Delete
    5. Evolution, per se, is a fact and a theory. Particular inferences about lineages that don't follow from the posited initial conditions when the theory is applied to it are NEITHER facts NOR implications of the theory. THIS is all CH is saying.

      This is not 'all CH is saying'. He does not beleive evolution is a scientific fact at all, and that as a theory it is all but discredited by everyone except a small band of academic hangers-on. This position is quite delusional.

      Now, if you go further and say "it was designed" is the inferential equivalent of "it was magic," then you're saying inferring that humans design things is the inferential equivalent of "humans are magic." Dude, that's problematic.

      Are you deliberately trying not to understand me?

      Design itself is a perfectly valid hypothesis. But alone it is not an explanation of anything unless you can say HOW something was designed.

      A house is built by laying bricks with mortar. A painting is made by applying paints to a canvas with a brush. But how are biological features created? Just saying 'design' is not enough. You much say how. What tools were used? What processes created them? And what/who did the designing. These are all essential questionsa, and if they are not addressed and answered, then just yelling 'it was designed' has as much explanatory power as 'it was magic'. That is my point.

      Delete
    6. Ritchie:
      Design itself is a perfectly valid hypothesis. But alone it is not an explanation of anything unless you can say HOW something was designed.

      How comes AFTER design is determined. We still don't know how Stonehenge was constructed. And that is something we could build today.

      Heck your position's mechanism is lame, so perhaps you should focus on that. IOW you don't know how new body parts and new body plans evolved.

      Delete
    7. Well, joey, since you IDiots claim that you have determined that the entire universe was/is designed, when are you going to get around to demonstrating 'how' the entire universe was/is designed and constructed? (You brought up "constructed".)

      While you're at it, tell me 'how' Stonehenge was designed and constructed? Don't forget to be 'specific'.

      Delete
    8. Hey twitty,

      If you don't like the design inference all you have to do is step up and present some positive evidence for your position as the way to the design inference is through your position.

      I take it that bothers you.

      Delete
    9. So then, joey, you've got nothing but bluster. Of course I already knew that.

      By the way, you really need some new material. You're a skipping record, endlessly repeating the same old same old monotonous noise.

      Delete
    10. Joe

      How comes AFTER design is determined.

      No, the How comes in step with determining design. You do not determine design without having even a single hypotheses of how it is possible.

      We still don't know how Stonehenge was constructed. And that is something we could build today.

      It is perfectly possible for humans to carve and move large slabs of stone. We have done it many times. This is not something we need to determine.

      ID by contrast offers us absolutely nothing in the way of suggesting mechanisms.

      Delete
    11. Thorton,

      "We have clearly identified and validated methods by which humans do design."

      On that, my friend, you are so right. What puzzles me is how you can objectively discern the need for design in our everyday lives, but deny its need for the origin of life in general. And in fact, go as far as denying there is even any evidence for design. Why is that?

      "You don't have even an inkling of a clue as to how or when your Designer physically created your claimed designs. Manufacture of life as posited by IDiots now is the logical equivalent of saying "MAGIC!"."

      This is simply logical nonsense. It does not follow that because a method is unknown, that there is, in fact, no method. It only means that a method is unknown. This does not translate to a claim of 'magic' as you suggest.

      At one time there was no method for getting man to the moon. Does that mean there was, in fact, no method by which to accomplish that? Or did it simply mean there was no known method at the time?

      As man has been to the moon and back several times, the answer is obvious.

      As science is supposed to be involved in discovering the unknown, what exactly is the problem with people exploring the possibility of design as the origin of all things natural? Why do you have a problem with people who carry out this work? If you don't agree that's fine. But why ridicule them and say they are wrong, when in fact you don't know whether they are or are not.

      Science is supposed to be about inquiry, not about assuming the answer and looking only for confirmation of your assumptions. And as nothing in science can ever be an absolute fact, you have no basis for attacking those who disagree with your stance.

      Delete
    12. Nic

      What puzzles me is how you can objectively discern the need for design in our everyday lives, but deny its need for the origin of life in general. And in fact, go as far as denying there is even any evidence for design. Why is that?


      Because no one has ever produced any evidence that the life forms we see need to be the product of external conscious design, or actually are the product of external conscious design.

      As science is supposed to be involved in discovering the unknown, what exactly is the problem with people exploring the possibility of design as the origin of all things natural?

      No problem at all. Build yourselves some labs, do some research, publish some papers, knock yourselves out. Come back if/when you finally come up with some positive evidence for this claimed external conscious design.

      You've unwittingly highlighted exactly why IDC is not considered science. IDC is an entirely negative argument - "Science can't explain this complex feature to my satisfaction so the Designer did it!". That's called the "God of the gaps" argument and was rejected by science centuries ago. As you just admitted, there may be many unknown natural mechanisms out there. Even if you falsified ToE that doesn't mean IDC wins by default. The science "party" is BYOPE - bring your own positive evidence.

      Science is supposed to be about inquiry, not about assuming the answer and looking only for confirmation of your assumptions. And as nothing in science can ever be an absolute fact, you have no basis for attacking those who disagree with your stance

      I don't go after people merely for disagreeing with my stance. I only go after those who have provided no positive evidence for their case yet continually try to force their religious Creation beliefs into public science classes. I ridicule those who insist on presenting the nitwit cartoon version of evolution instead of learning about the actual science involved. Believe whatever fairy tales you like, no skin off my nose. Just don't insult real scientists and their work by trying to pass off unverified Creationist BS as being of equal scientific value.

      Delete
    13. Thorton,

      "Because no one has ever produced any evidence that the life forms we see need to be the product of external conscious design,..."

      You freely admit the products produced by humans must be the result of design. The things we produce come no where near the quality of design found in nature. Yet you think it logical that design is required for man's simplistic products, but no design is required for natures extremely complex products.

      Yes, that is an argument that complexity implies design. You apply that argument everyday of your life without even being aware of it, so don't try to argue it's an illogical conclusion.

      "You've unwittingly highlighted exactly why IDC is not considered science. IDC is an entirely negative argument,..."

      No, it is not. It a positive claim that what we see is of such a nature that all our experience tells us it is the result of design.

      "That's called the "God of the gaps" argument and was rejected by science centuries ago."

      No, it is not the 'god of the gaps argument'. That is a singularly childish response and I am disappointed in you that you would see that as a sound argument. You're simply falling into the same illogical nonsense as Ritchie and others spew. The idea that function explains origin. Ie., that understanding how something functions in nature proves there is no need for a supernatural origin.

      There are two main problems with this thinking. One is the belief a natural explanation of function proves nature, and only nature, is the origin. And second, that nature itself is without need of explanation as to its origin.

      "As you just admitted, there may be many unknown natural mechanisms out there. Even if you falsified ToE that doesn't mean IDC wins by default."

      No it doesn't. But neither does evolution win by default because evolutionists a priori reject the possibility of explanations beyond their understanding or ability to measure.

      "I don't go after people merely for disagreeing with my stance. I only go after those who have provided no positive evidence for their case yet continually try to force their religious Creation beliefs into public science classes."

      I don't know personally of any creationists which demand creationism be taught in classrooms. I do however, see multitudes of evolutionists who abhor the idea that anyone teach the possibility that evolution might be wrong. So much in fact, that they try to pass laws to make it an offence to even question the idea of evolution in the classroom.

      "I ridicule those who insist on presenting the nitwit cartoon version of evolution instead of learning about the actual science involved."

      There really is not much science involved in evolution. I'm afraid that is a fact you must come to grips with. Simply applying biology, genetics, etc., to evolutionary beliefs does not make evolution scientific. Many biologists and geneticists reject outright the idea of evolution. So is biology scientific if the biologist is an evolutionist, but unscientific if the biologist is a creationist?

      You see, my friend, evolution is a world view which claims scientific status by appealing to scientific disciplines for credibility. The fact that many scientists in all disciplines deny evolution is proof of that. If you're going to claim scientific status for evolution because some biologists, geneticists, etc., believe in it, then you logically must apply scientific status to creation as there are biologists, geneticists, etc., who believe in that.

      You cannot simply hand wave away the credentials of scientists who disagree with you.

      How are you doing in terms of Sharks loss syndrome? Are you coming to grips with that trauma? Maybe watching some videos of past victories might help.

      Delete
    14. Nic

      The things we produce come no where near the quality of design found in nature. Yet you think it logical that design is required for man's simplistic products, but no design is required for natures extremely complex products.


      Nic's personal incredulity. Check.

      Yes, that is an argument that complexity implies design. You apply that argument everyday of your life without even being aware of it, so don't try to argue it's an illogical conclusion.

      No Nic, I don't. No one else I know trained in the biological sciences does either. We understand that simple iterative feedback processes like evolution can and do produce amazing complexity. Take a look at any fractal.

      No, it is not. It a positive claim that what we see is of such a nature that all our experience tells us it is the result of design.

      More Nic's personal incredulity. Check.

      No, it is not the 'god of the gaps argument'. That is a singularly childish response and I am disappointed in you that you would see that as a sound argument.

      Sorry Nic, but "Science can's explain this so GAWDDIDIT!" is the classic GOTG argument.

      Ie., that understanding how something functions in nature proves there is no need for a supernatural origin.

      Not just understanding how it functions but also the historical path of how it arose. That's what eliminates the need for a magic POOF.

      There are two main problems with this thinking. One is the belief a natural explanation of function proves nature, and only nature, is the origin.

      No one in the biological sciences says or thinks that Nic. That's the nitwit cartoon version of ToE again.

      And second, that nature itself is without need of explanation as to its origin.

      That's a philosophical argument and has absolutely nothing to do with scientific biological evolution.

      No it doesn't. But neither does evolution win by default because evolutionists a priori reject the possibility of explanations beyond their understanding or ability to measure.

      1. No one claims ToE wins by default. ToE wins due to the quality and quantity of its positive evidence.

      2. ALL scientific fields reject supernatural explanations, beyond human understanding or ability to measure. ALL sciences Nic.

      I don't know personally of any creationists which demand creationism be taught in classrooms.

      They're still out there trying to undermine scientific education. That's why they still need to be confronted. If the good guys do nothing the institutionalized stupidity will do damage

      I do however, see multitudes of evolutionists who abhor the idea that anyone teach the possibility that evolution might be wrong.

      Do you support the right of crackpots to teach geocentric theory in science classes? Or that the stork brings the babies? Why not?

      So much in fact, that they try to pass laws to make it an offence to even question the idea of evolution in the classroom.

      Honest questioning is already allowed. What is being fought against is the dishonest manipulation and outright lying to schoolkids by Creationism pushers.

      Answer me this Nic - why do Creationists always target middle schools, kids who haven't developed critical thinking skills yet, instead of trying to get "Creation science" introduced into public colleges and universities?

      There really is not much science involved in evolution.

      You mean there's none that you know about or understand, but that's typical of most uneducated laymen.

      You cannot simply hand wave away the credentials of scientists who disagree with you.

      I don't. I reject their BS claims due to complete lack of supporting evidence.

      How are you doing in terms of Sharks loss syndrome? Are you coming to grips with that trauma? Maybe watching some videos of past victories might help

      Sharks will do fine. I'm a lot more bummed the 49ers blew the Super Bowl. :(

      Delete
    15. Nic

      If you're going to claim scientific status for evolution because some biologists, geneticists, etc., believe in it, then you logically must apply scientific status to creation as there are biologists, geneticists, etc., who believe in that.


      Dammit Nic quit misrepresenting my position. I've corrected you on it half a dozen times now. I DON'T say or think ToE is scientific and correct because many scientists believe in it. I and virtually all scientists accept ToE because of the quality and quantity of the positive evidence for it. THAT's what makes it both scientific and correct, not popular opinion.

      Delete
  9. T: We have clearly identified and validated methods by which humans do design.

    J: The issue is libertarian causality. Dennett, Harris, Dawkins, Shermer, etc believe in human design but they deny libertarian causality. ID'ists, for the most part, just MEAN by design that a libertarianly-caused initial condition is a necessary condition of teleological causal sequences. So throwing the "design" word around doesn't get to the issue in question.

    T: You don't have even an inkling of a clue as to how

    J: One POSITS hypothetically what one must to render the event sequence causal/explanatory. I can posit that God can create light by thinking "Let there by light." That would involve libertarian causality which is no more magical than human libertarian causality. The latter merely requires more means to bring about the end. It's the initial libertarianly-caused event that one can deem magic or not. Regardless, humans either have libertarian capacity or they don't. If they don't, then what ID'ists mean by intelligent design is non-existent. But the inductive value of positing libertarian causality is that it brings ad-hoc hypotheses down to a finite number.

    When court judges claim humans are not libertarianly-free (and they probably will, eventually), ID'ists will no longer have reason to continue their fight against epistemological tyranny--but not one minute sooner. So get over it cry-baby.

    All explanation posits something intuitively inductive, whether it be the preferability of parsimony, the preferability of minimizing ad-hoc hypotheses, etc. Short of such inductive axioms, we lose non-arbitrary plausibility criteria. This is what metaphysical naturalism does. It posits non-intuitive (therefore arbitrary) axioms (like "determinism is true") and then pretends it can non-arbitrarily infer relative plausibility. That's logically impossible.

    T: or when your Designer physically created your claimed designs.

    J: Nor do you know when phenotypes originated or went extinct merely from known stratigraphic ranges. You're just confused.

    V: Many disagree.

    J: Say two parties disagree. How does this, per se, tell us who is more rational/scientific? Come back when you actually have something relevant to the discussion, V.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's what I find interesting about this topic: Not only is the evolution of protein folding not understood, but the mechanism of protein folding is not understood either. Exactly how the particular 3-D conformation can arise in microseconds, seconds or minutes has not yet actually been modeled! If all possible conformations were tried at random, it would take many orders of magnitude longer to fold functional proteins.

    In other words, *something* is guiding the folding of the proteins in real time, although we do not know what. Now, when ID theorists run into a situation where the probabilistic resources available are insufficient to yield a particular complex result, they normally invoke "intelligent causation" as the best explanation. So the question is this: Why don't ID theorists suggest that intelligent causation is operating inside of our cells, busily folding up these proteins correctly?

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

      Delete
    2. aiguy: Why don't ID theorists suggest that intelligent causation is operating inside of our cells, busily folding up these proteins correctly?

      J: Because event sequences that seem regular are most plausibly inferred to be natural whether or not we can explain them in a reductionist fashion.

      Delete
    3. The folding of proteins is not any more "regular" than any other complex, functional system arising in biological systems.

      If, as ID says, the complex functional structures of biology could not have arisen by natural processes in evolutionary time, then the complex functional structures of proteins cannot be arising by natural processes within the cell.

      So no, Jeff, that's not why ID theorists don't posit intelligence operating inside the cell. Want to try another guess?

      Delete
    4. aiguy,

      ID says that complex functional structures of biology could not have arisen by blind and undirected chemical processes.

      That said IDists do posit that cells are programmed, ie information is running the cells.

      Delete
    5. AIGUY: If, as ID says, the complex functional structures of biology could not have arisen by natural processes in evolutionary time, then the complex functional structures of proteins cannot be arising by natural processes within the cell.

      J: What they're saying is that there is no KNOWN naturalistic explanation of the arising of these sequence-conditioned regularities in the posited time-frames. They're not saying they can prove there are no naturalistic explanations at all.

      Delete
    6. Joe G,

      AIGUY:ID says that complex functional structures of biology could not have arisen by blind and undirected chemical processes.
      Joe: That said IDists do posit that cells are programmed, ie information is running the cells.

      Yes that is what IDists say. The fact remains that highly improbable, specific protein conformations appear spontaneously in the cell all the time, despite the fact that there are insufficient probabilistic resources to account for it. If IDists were consistent, they would conclude that intelligent agency must be at work in the cells, producing this CSI all the time. But it is just too ridiculous to imagine little intelligent agents at work inside our cells, folding up proteins. It is equally ridiculous to imagine God doing the folding - that would be a lot of busy-work, even for God.


      Jeff,

      Jeff: What they're saying is that there is no KNOWN naturalistic explanation of the arising of these sequence-conditioned regularities in the posited time-frames. They're not saying they can prove there are no naturalistic explanations at all.

      Exactly right, Jeff. If IDists were consistent, they would say that there is no KNOWN naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and biological complexity. They should not be saying they can prove there are no naturalistic explanations at all. And yet, they still do say that.

      Delete
    7. A: They should not be saying they can prove there are no naturalistic explanations at all. And yet, they still do say that.

      J: That's true, of course. Because sometimes they say what they suspect. But UCA'ists do as well. But when either speak in the name of science, they should clearly distinguish between that which is explained by event regularities, that which requires ad-hoc hypotheses in addition to event regularities, and that which is beyond (in some sense) either of these. The hypothesis of a designer and of naturalistic UCA are both of the latter case. Because the designer has to be conceived of as causing effects without material means in some cases. And UCA is so complicated one can't even imagine enough ad-hoc hypotheses to add to event regularities to actually explain it. So both are unlike most "normal" science.

      Delete
    8. Jeff,
      I don't think you understood my point. Here it is again:
      1) ID posits intelligent agency to account for life, because it is too improbable for such complex form and function to arise by chance, and no other explanation is known.
      2) It is also too improbable for proteins to fold the way they do inside our cells, and no other explanation is known for that either, so ID should conclude that intelligent agency is at work inside our cells, folding up proteins.
      3) ID does not conclude that intelligent agency is at work folding our proteins. The reason is because it is ridiculous to imagine such a thing.
      4) However, what ID should see is that this is an reductio ad absurdum argument against ID! If it is ridiculous to imagine little intelligent agents folding up our proteins, it is equally ridiculous to imagine some intelligent agent designing flagella and eyeballs.

      Delete
    9. I understand your point, AIGUY, but I don't think you understand ID, as held by the likes of Meyer and Dembski. They accept that libertarian causality is real. So that makes it viable for hypothesizing, as we do in courts for certain cases. They then analyze why we make design inferences at all. And they try to see what properties of data cause people to infer design. Then they note that such inferences correspond pretty well to the less technical "appearance of design." These inferences are only inductive and therefore not the equivalent of absolute certainty.

      Delete
  11. “Evolutionary Processes Not Fully Understood”

    Is that so..? As an Austrian workmate of mine was wont to murmur.

    ReplyDelete
  12. thorntonYou don't have even an inkling of a clue as to how or when your Designer physically created your claimed designs.

    Seems ID has nothing to say about how life was created, UNLIKE CREATIONISTS. Oh by the way, I've been waiting a few years for thornton to document one proven random mutation occuring in the advent of any structure, any species.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MSEE

    Seems ID has nothing to say about how life was created, UNLIKE CREATIONISTS. Oh by the way, I've been waiting a few years for thornton to document one proven random mutation occuring in the advent of any structure, any species.


    Well, if you weren't such a lazy incompetent Creationist tool you could search the scientific literature yourself. But you are, so you won't.

    Evolution Makes A Bat Via Just One Gene Mutation

    " A CHANGE to a single gene allowed bats to grow wings and take to the air, a development that may explain why bats appeared so suddenly in the fossil record some 50 million years ago. Bats have been an evolutionary enigma. That’s because the oldest fossil bats look remarkably like modern ones, each having wings formed from membranes stretched between long fingers, and ear structures designed for echolocation. No fossils of an animal intermediate between bats and their non-flying mammal ancestors have been found.

    Now Karen Sears, at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, has discovered why intermediate forms may be missing in the fossil record. In a bid to understand where bats’ specialised finger digits evolved from, Sears compared their embryological development with that of the finger digits of mice. In both animals, digits form from cartilage cells which divide and mature into bone in regions called growth plates.

    But in bats, a key region of the growth plate called the hypertrophic zone is much larger than in mice, which allows their digits to grow much longer. That difference is controlled by a single gene known as BMP2, one of a family of genes important for limb development in mammals. Sears found that a protein produced by BMP2 is present in the hypertrophic region of bats, but not in mice. When she applied the protein to the digits of mouse embryos growing in the lab they elongated just like bat digits. Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated. Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly, Sears told the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Denver. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not science. That is nothing but speculation based on an assumption.

      Evolutionism can't even explain BMP2.

      Delete
    2. Did the baby mice become bats, or just mice with big fingers? I owuld imagine for them to function as bats, that is, fly, they need a lot more mutations.

      Delete
    3. Nat,

      The claim was" document one proven random mutation occuring in the advent of any structure",

      Delete
  14. Jobs at your Home, Internet Online Jobs like data entry, copy pasting, Form Filling, Facebook Sharing Jobs, Clicking Jobs, Web Surfing, Google Jobs and Much More Earning Systems Online
    www.jobzcorner.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thorton posted: "That difference is controlled by a single gene known as BMP2, one of a family of genes important for limb development in mammals. Sears found that a protein produced by BMP2 is present in the hypertrophic region of bats, but not in mice. When she applied the protein to the digits of mouse embryos growing in the lab they elongated just like bat digits. Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated."

    If I switch my tv from just sound to sound and picture it doesn't "evolve" from a radio to a tv by a single change. Everything was already there to function as either a radio or a tv. And the switch wasn't a mistake, it was provided for when circumstances warranted it.

    So try searching some more, Thorton.

    ReplyDelete
  16. awstar

    If I switch my tv from just sound to sound and picture it doesn't "evolve" from a radio to a tv by a single change.


    Try reading for comprehension. MSEE asked for an example of one proven mutation occurring in the evolution of any structure. He got one.

    TVs and radios aren't living organisms either. They don't reproduce with heritable traits. Don't you understand anything about biology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! empty bluster boy's position cannot explain reprodcution.

      Delete
    2. Thorton,

      "Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly,..."

      This article and this statement are hardly supportive of its title "Evolution Makes a Bat Via Just One Gene Mutation'.

      Be honest, Thorton, you know full well this single mutation is an astronomically long way from a flightless non-bat becoming a bat capable of flight. There is a whole boat load of mutations necessary for that event to occur. I would be curious to actually see the 'elongation' which occurred in the mouse digits. My guess it would look like most other 'tinkered' genetic experiments. Much more on the 'mutated' side than the 'functional' side of things.

      Seriously, this type of article is what makes me laugh at evolutionary claims. The simple elongation of mouse digits, induced genetically by design by the way, is extrapolated into a sonar equipped, flying, hunting marvel. The fact that multiple thousands of other changes would be required is simply glossed over, with the hope no one will notice or ask any questions.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Be honest, Thorton, you know full well this single mutation is an astronomically long way from a flightless non-bat becoming a bat capable of flight.


      Neither I nor the author of the paper ever claimed a single mutation created a flightless non-bat becoming a bat capable of flight. The headline is certainly inaccurate and was probably written by an editor at the web site SciScoop who was using hyperbole to make the story more intriguing. If you read the article the original press release at NewScientist had the headline "Rogue finger gene got bats airborne".

      Here is the actual study

      Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits

      Instead of nitpicking why don't you try and understand the actual scientific work for a change.

      Delete
    4. Thorton,

      I read the paper. It's as usual, one long assumption. 'Evolution definitely is the reason, let's find out how.'

      "This absence of transitional forms in the fossil record led us to look elsewhere to understand bat wing evolution.'

      Couldn't possibly be this way from the start. It HAD to evolve.

      "Together, our results suggest that an up-regulation of the Bmp pathway is one of the major factors in the developmental elongation of bat forelimb digits, and it is potentially a key mechanism in their evolutionary elongation as well."

      And this 'up-regulation' could not be 'designed', it HAD to happen via mutation.

      "The earliest known bats appear in the fossil record ≈50 million years ago, and they appear suddenly and already possessing the anatomical hallmarks of powered flight (including elongated third, fourth, and fifth forelimb digits) (6–8). Thus, it seems to be likely that the earliest known fossil bats were already capable of powered flight,..."

      But we know this could not be the case, it MUST have evolved somehow, sometime.

      "the fossil record currently can provide little evidence of the evolutionary transitions,..."

      Could it be possible there are none? No, not at all possible, we will eventually find them.

      "we identified uniquely derived developmental features of bat wing digits. Doing so allows us to highlight a key developmental genetic change and suggest evolutionary mechanisms underlying bat digit elongation."

      This key developmental genetic 'change' could not be a design component, it MUST be an evolutionary mechanism.

      "Therefore, little knowledge regarding one of the key morphological transitions in mammalian evolutionary history, that of the elongation of bat forelimb digits to support the wing membrane, can currently be gleaned from the fossil record."

      Is it possible evolutionary evidence may never be gleaned from the fossil record, because it simply is not there? No, only an idiot would think the bat wing was the result of anything other than evolution. We'll find the evidence eventually.

      My friend, this is NOT science. It is simply nothing more than the story telling I referred to earlier.

      I'm not saying that the differences between mouse digits and mice digits does not occur by the genetic processes outlined. I only question the assumption it is through evolutionary processes.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      I read the paper. It's as usual, one long assumption. 'Evolution definitely is the reason, let's find out how.'


      LOL! Poor Nic. No matter how he tries he just can't grasp that ALL science is built on previous work, and every new paper doesn't have to justify the centuries' of research that came before.

      The bmp2 finding is just one more piece of the giant puzzle Nic, the one with the big picture that scares you spitless.

      Could it be possible there are none? No, not at all possible, we will eventually find them.

      Actually since that paper was written (2006) an earlier, more primitive "transitional" bat has been found.

      Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation

      The evidence suggest it could fly but not very well and had no echolocation capability. Its other limb morphology suggest it was also adapted to tree climbing, possibly dropping down / fluttering to catch insects below. The 'drop down' strategy is commonly seen in young bats first learning how to fly.

      New theory on bat fluttering flight

      That's the neat thing about science. It keeps making new exciting discoveries, increasing our knowledge while Creationist keep being ignorant as dirt Creationists.

      This key developmental genetic 'change' could not be a design component, it MUST be an evolutionary mechanism.

      It theoretically could be a design mechanism. There's just not a shred of evidence that is is. There is a whole boatload of evidence that it was done by evolutionary mechanisms. The bat digit paper is just one more piece in the huge pile of of positive evidence for ToE.

      We'll find the evidence eventually.

      Why don't you present all the positive evidence you have that the bat's wing was consciously designed and we'll compare. Shouldn't take you long. BTW, the earliest known bat fossils date to approx. 55 MYA. Is that when the Designer did all his handiwork, or just some? When was the rest of it done?

      My friend, this is NOT science. It is simply nothing more than the story telling I referred to earlier

      I agree, what you described certainly isn't science. It's that nitwit cartoon version of science Creationists are enamored with.

      Ready for your next geology lesson? :)

      Delete
    6. Thorton,

      "LOL! Poor Nic. No matter how he tries he just can't grasp that ALL science is built on previous work, and every new paper doesn't have to justify the centuries' of research that came before.'

      Poor Thorton. No matter how often it's pointed out to him he can't grasp that science is like building a house. If your foundation is lousy, the rest of the house will be lousy as well.

      "The bmp2 finding is just one more piece of the giant puzzle,..."

      And the proof bmp2 is the result of evolution is what? Ah yes, assumption. More of the old 'knowing how something works explains its origin' reasoning.

      "Actually since that paper was written (2006) an earlier, more primitive "transitional" bat has been found."

      So older and different adds up to transitional? Boy, that's simple. How could anyone doubt this type of science?

      "The evidence suggest it could fly but not very well and had no echolocation capability. Its other limb morphology suggest it was also adapted to tree climbing, possibly dropping down / fluttering to catch insects below. The 'drop down' strategy is commonly seen in young bats first learning how to fly."

      All this from a fossil? If I remember correctly Coelacanth fossils showed it to be a fish ready to move from sea to land. How did that work out?

      "while Creationist keep being ignorant as dirt Creationists."

      Well, I for one, am not as ignorant as dirt.

      There is a whole boatload of evidence that it was done by evolutionary mechanisms."

      We don't need a boat load, how about one cargo container of evidence it was evolutionary mechanisms.

      "Is that when the Designer did all his handiwork, or just some? When was the rest of it done?"

      When did evolution do its work. It's supposed to be ongoing, but bats have been the same fro the last 55 million years, coelacanth, 65 million years, dragonflies, 200 million years, etc., etc.

      I repeat, this is NOT science. It is simply nothing more than story telling.

      You still have not answered my question as to why you readily admit the reality of design in human achievements of all kinds, yet deny its reality in nature, which is far more exquisite in design than is any thing man has yet accomplished? Seriously, why do you hold that position?

      You admit a Boeing 787 is the result of intense effort on the part of thousands of intelligent beings. But the world which surrounds us and which is infinitely more intricate and complex in form and function, you attribute to blind, uncaring, unthinking forces with no plan or goal in mind. The whole idea is completely counterintuitive.

      "Ready for your next geology lesson? :)"

      Looked at some pictures of Goosenecks State Park and the San Juan River. Tell me truthfully, do you seriously believe this trickle of a river cut that canyon? Do you really believe the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon?

      Delete
    7. Nic

      Poor Thorton. No matter how often it's pointed out to him he can't grasp that science is like building a house. If your foundation is lousy, the rest of the house will be lousy as well.


      You keep claiming the foundation is rotten yet it’s withstood every scientific challenge over the last 150 years and been incredibly productive to boot.

      And the proof bmp2 is the result of evolution is what? Ah yes, assumption. More of the old 'knowing how something works explains its origin' reasoning.

      We were talking about the origin of bats, not the origin of bmp2. Bmp2 is actually a highly conserved protein found in all tetrapods and probably evolved soon after the rise of multicellularity over 600MYA.

      So older and different adds up to transitional? Boy, that's simple. How could anyone doubt this type of science?

      No Nic, the age and the physical features of the specimen establish it as a primitive “transitional”.

      All this from a fossil?

      Yes, all that from a fossil. Scientists can deduce quite a lot of information from the biomechanical measurements - range of motion of joints, muscle strength based on muscle attachment points, etc. Just because you’re ignorant of what can be gleaned doesn’t mean everyone is.

      If I remember correctly Coelacanth fossils showed it to be a fish ready to move from sea to land. How did that work out?

      You remember wrong. Coelacanths represent an entire order of lobe-finned fishes that first appeared over 400 MYA. It was thought the last species went extinct 70MYA but since the 1930’s several living colonies have been found. The modern Coelacanths are noticeably different from the 70MY fossilized ones, being 40% larger and having different fin morphology. Their features have evolved from the 70MY ones.

      Well, I for one, am not as ignorant as dirt.

      You’re sure hiding your knowledge well then.

      We don't need a boat load, how about one cargo container of evidence it was evolutionary mechanisms.

      I’ve given you many scientific papers with evidence, you hand-waved away every last one. I can’t do anything about willful ignorance Nic.

      When did evolution do its work. It's supposed to be ongoing, but bats have been the same fro the last 55 million years, coelacanth, 65 million years, dragonflies, 200 million years, etc., etc.

      The processes have been at work for over 3 billion years. The modern examples of “living fossils” are different species in ongoing orders or families and can be readily distinguished from their fossil ancestor counterparts.

      You still have not answered my question as to why you readily admit the reality of design in human achievements of all kinds, yet deny its reality in nature, which is far more exquisite in design than is any thing man has yet accomplished? Seriously, why do you hold that position?

      I already told you. It’s because there’s no evidence of any external conscious design in biological life forms. Your personal incredulity that “complexity = design” has zero relevance to the actual science.

      The whole idea is completely counterintuitive.

      So? Lots of things in reality are counter-intuitive. That’s why we go with evidence over intuition.

      Tell me truthfully, do you seriously believe this trickle of a river cut that canyon?

      Absolutely. 180 deg switchback incised meanders can only be formed by a slow flowing river eroding the rock over great time. You were going to give me your “catastrophic’ version for the formation, remember? Just like you were going to explain the 5 major mass extinction events, and explain why atavistic legs on cetaceans weren’t really atavistic.

      Your plate is getting pretty full Nic. Maybe you should try answering a few of the outstanding questions before taking on any more.

      Sharks look tired last night - 3rd game in 4 days. Too many sloppy mental mistakes.

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

      Delete
    9. Thorton,

      "yet it’s withstood every scientific challenge over the last 150 years,..."

      Not that long as far as the pace of science is concerned. That's not meant as as slight on science, it's just the nature of the discipline. Change is slow, but it's coming.

      "Bmp2 is actually a highly conserved protein found in all tetrapods and probably evolved,..."

      You just keep piling up the assumptions. What evidence do you have that bmp2 evolved?

      "the age and the physical features of the specimen establish it as,... “transitional”."

      No, it's theassumption that makes it transitional. You've no way of demonstrating it's simply not another type of bat.

      "Just because you’re ignorant of what can be gleaned,... "

      I'm aware of what can be determined from a fossil. Are you denying they determined from the coelacanth fossil evidence that it was a shallow water fish, transitioning to land? In fact it was a deep water creature unable to live in shallow seas. Assumption drives the interpretation and always will.

      "You remember wrong. The modern Coelacanths are noticeably different from the 70MY fossilized ones, being 40% larger and having different fin morphology. Their features have evolved from the 70MY ones."

      That's nonsense, there is virtually no change at all. This is just evo gab for 'damn, this is embarrassing'.

      "I’ve given you many scientific papers with evidence, you hand-waved away every last one."

      And I've amply demonstrated over and over again, the basis of all these papers is the assumption of evolution as fact. It's not hand waving when the conclusion is assumed on the first page of each and every paper you've cited.

      "The modern examples of “living fossils” are different species in ongoing orders or families and can be readily distinguished from their fossil ancestor counterparts."

      No one denies minor changes may have occurred, but nothing which would lend an iota of support to the claims of evolution. If after 65m years a modern coelacanth is virtually indistinguishable from its fossilized ancestors, evolution, as presented, is definitely not occurring.

      "It’s because there’s no evidence of any external conscious design in biological life forms."

      Are you saying the only reason you believe a 787 is designed is because you've seen the process. If you had not seen the process involved in mankind's achievements, would you think they occurred on their own, free of any design or intelligent agency behind them? I hardly think so. Your denial is not based on lack of evidence of external conscious involvement. It's based on your world view. You've come to deny God's existence and this is the only position left to you.

      "So? Lots of things in reality are counter-intuitive. That’s why we go with evidence over intuition."

      It's becoming clearer all the time that the evidence for evolution is eroding, and rapidly. Besides, intuition is not always wrong.

      "Absolutely. 180 deg switchback incised meanders can only be formed by a slow flowing river eroding the rock over great time."

      Meanders can be formed by the laying of sediment which cracks while drying. Later flooding events then flow into the cracks. I've observed this on a small scale many times. Obviously The Grand Canyon is on a massively larger scale, but the physics involved are the same.

      "Your plate is getting pretty full,.."

      It seems I'm having less time to spend here. It might look like I'm avoiding you, but as I increase my work hours, my 'leisure' time decreases.

      "Sharks look tired last night,..."

      All teams are going to face that over the short schedule. I wouldn't worry, the Sharks are a good team and will do well. Personally I think the addition of Gomez was a good move. He's got something to prove and he's motivated. If he can pass that on to the rest of the team it could translate into a very good season for the Sharks.

      Delete
  17. Another day, another dozen one-liner content free posts by Chubby Joke Gallien, the dumbest Creationist of them all.

    Hey Joke, what is the IDC explanation for the five major mass extinction events that occurred in the last 500MY?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thorton said: "TVs and radios aren't living organisms either. They don't reproduce with heritable traits. Don't you understand anything about biology?"

    I know that tv's and radios are manufactured (synthesized), according to a blueprint. But so are biological organisms. From the first two cells, all the way up to the fully developed body, according to a blueprint whereby all of the instances of mice are of similar design. And turning a tv set into a functioning radio only takes a change of one bit of data. But by design, not by accident. And so does changing the length of finger digits in one mouse embryo. Just one bit of data changes, and a new design function is implemented, by design.

    You're just sore your model doesn't even address where the data used to synthesize mouse fingers comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  19. sincere thanks and deep respect. Jie in November, I started my prom dresses 2013 thesis work, after a long period of writing papers and now basically completed. Thesis writing is a long process, and the need to constantly careful modifications to study various aspects of literature, conscientiously sum up.

    ReplyDelete