Wednesday, February 6, 2013

The Exosome: RNA Degradation and Evolution

Major Problems

When the cell makes a copy of a segment of DNA the result is called RNA. This long, thin molecule has many roles, including transmitting information, regulating the cell’s activities and helping molecular machines perform various tasks. But when its job is done, an RNA molecule must be broken apart. The job of destroying RNA is crucial for without it the cell’s RNA would rapidly build up and kill the cell. So cells are equipped with an intricate machine that chops up RNA molecules when they no longer are needed. This RNA degradation machine is called the exosome and it is comprised of ten finely-tuned proteins, nine of which form a cylinder through which the spent RNA is threaded. The tenth protein then chops up the RNA molecule. New research is now elucidating just how the exosome works, and the results pose yet more profound problems for evolution.

Different versions of the exosome are found across biology’s different types of life, but the exosome’s basic mechanisms for degrading RNA are conserved. For evolutionists this means that the exosome must have been present very early in evolutionary history, in the common ancestor of all life. This unlikely juxtaposition of high complexity in early life is a common theme in evolutionary thought. Repeatedly the patterns of life force evolutionists to suppose that evolution, somehow, struck upon profound designs early on.

Of course it makes sense that the exosome would be present from nearly the beginning, given its crucial role. But how could it have evolved? For instance, the mere presence of those different proteins is an immediate problem for evolution. After all, beyond speculation evolutionists cannot even explain how a single such protein could have evolved.

And even if those proteins could somehow have evolved, how would the cell know how to assemble them together to form the exosome?

And how would the exosome know where to position itself within the cell? And how would the cell know which RNA molecules to send its way?

But that’s not all. Not only does the exosome have incredible proteins, but it requires all of them in order to function. Remove any one of them and all you have is a useless hulk of molecules. As one researcher explained:

Cells lacking any of the ten proteins do not survive and this shows that not only the catalytic subunit but also the entire barrel is critical for the function of the exosome.

But how could evolution construct such a marvel which is useless until the final brick is in place? If the machine doesn’t work without all its parts, that means there is no gradual evolutionary path leading up to it.

To avoid this problem evolutionists must say that the different proteins each evolved for some other reasons. They did other jobs in the cell, and then once all were constructed, they happened to fit together to form the exosome.

But that story is unlikely for it would require a substantial dose of serendipity. Evolution would have gotten lucky yet once again.

The problem here is that once again evolutionists have set themselves against the science. Once again they put themselves in the position of having to demonstrate what clearly goes against the facts.

But it’s even worse yet. Not only do evolutionists go against the empirical grain, but they repeatedly insist that theirs is the only answer. Evolution, they cry, is the obvious and the only acceptable explanation. They contrive false histories of science, accuse others of abusing science, and blackball those who don’t go along.

As you can see this just doesn’t add up. I’m more than willing to consider evolution. But the science isn’t there while evolutionists misrepresent the facts, make undefendable truth claims, and mistreat people. This isn’t a pretty picture.

123 comments:

  1. Cornelius:

    But how could evolution construct such a marvel which is useless until the final brick is in place? If the machine doesn’t work without all its parts, that means there is no gradual evolutionary path leading up to it.

    To avoid this problem evolutionists must say that the different proteins each evolved for some other reasons. They did other jobs in the cell, and then once all were constructed, they happened to fit together to form the exosome.


    This is a nonsensical argument on the part of the usual bozos because those proteins could not have evolved with the exosome.

    But that story is unlikely for it would require a substantial dose of serendipity. Evolution would have gotten lucky yet once again.

    Cornelius, you must stop cutting those evolutionists so much slack. The bozos do not deserve it. There is absolutely zero chance that their story is valid. ZILCH. Luck has nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction:

      This is a nonsensical argument on the part of the usual bozos because those proteins could not have evolved with the exosome.

      I meant to write, WITHOUT the exosome.

      Delete
  2. "The problem here is that once again evolutionists have set themselves against the science. Once again they put themselves in the position of having to demonstrate what clearly goes against the facts."

    Evolutionists demonstrate what they claim to be is true??? Surely you jest Dr. Hunter!

    in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject."
    James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist

    The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
    David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

    of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here are several examples that intelligence can do as such:

    (Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video
    https://vimeo.com/36880067

    Whether Lab or Cell, (If it's a molecular machine) It's Design - podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-01-25T15_53_41-08_00

    Examples of molecular machines (molecular switches (or shuttles) and molecular motors) - Synthetic (Made By Chemists)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#Examples_of_molecular_machines

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

      Delete
    2. To push the edge of the envelope a bit, it is found that quantum entanglement is generated even in the "unfavorable conditions" of molecular machines:

      Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states – November 2011
      Excerpt: We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors.
      http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2126

      INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR
      Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito
      Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state.
      http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

      This quantum entanglement being found in "unfavorable conditions" for molecular machines is a problem for the reductive materialism of neo-Darwinism because,,,

      Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012)
      Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,,
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

      ,,, neo-Darwinism has no beyond space and time cause to appeal to to explain finding quantum entanglement being generated within molecular machines (or within DNA or proteins), whereas Theism does,,,

      "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment."
      Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html

      verse:

      Acts 17:28
      'For in him we live and move and have our being.',,,

      Music in tribute to the death and burial of Darwinism by such evidence:

      The Band Perry - Better Dig Two - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwURLp1MIFY

      Delete
  3. I wonder how an exosome "knows" which RNA molecule it's "suppose" to disassemble. Obviously some other player is involved in informing the exosome that an RNA molecule is no longer needed. Does the ToE infer this "communication" must have occurred by chance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are anthropomorphising. The molecules do not 'know' anything. They do not think and they are not informed, anymore than a brick 'knows' its duty is to keep a wall standing.

      Delete
  4. I'm starting to think that this blog is fully automated. A machine searches the online popular science sites for stories about biology that include the word "complex". An algorithm garbles the text, adds a random photograph and a few sentences along the lines of "that's soooooo complex, it's impossible to explain for those stuuuupid evolutionists" and end with "religion drives science and it matters"

    Then some additional robots named bornagain77 and Louis Savain dump a load of irrelevant links, bible quotes and insults in the comments. Usually a bit later an especially primitive robot called Joe G is started up and generates lots of insults and meaningless standard phrases ("your position can't even muster a single testable hypothesis").

    I might have left out part of the algorithm, but that seems to be the gist of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Troy, what do evolutionists say about the origin the exosome? Does this also fall into the category of "we don't have to know everything" to know evolution is a fact?

      Delete
    2. Neal -

      I know this is hard for people who think "the Bible is the answer to everything if only you interpret it right" but yes, scientific theories do not give you all the answers. They act as an explantory framework from which you continue to make new discoveries.

      That is, unless you make a discovery that breaks your framework. But new discoveries don't qualify, and neither do unsolved mysteries.

      This is just more God of the Gaps logic. Cornelius' speciality.

      Delete
    3. Ritchi said:

      "They act as an explantory framework from which you continue to make new discoveries."

      And how ToE helped to discover the structure of the exosome.

      Delete
    4. Tedford:

      So Troy, what do evolutionists say about the origin the exosome?

      Do your homework and read this paper. I expect a report within 24h.

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

      Delete
    6. Yes Troy I agree - Dr. Hunter does appear to be using a very formulaic approach.

      Question is - does it work? Given that Dr. Hunter's real goal (from a few posts again) is to win people over to Jesus, I wonder.

      Perhaps he thinks that if he can cast sufficient doubt on evolution, somehow this would be a catalyst for people to examine other belief systems, and then face up to the possibility of a Designer.

      But is that an effective approach to evangelism? I doubt it, although perhaps some have taken this road. I think one reason is that probably many scientists who support evolution understand the provisional nature of science. And since Dr. Hunter cannot seem to articulate any viable replacement for evolution (other than believing in Jesus), then I don't see his approach as at all effective.

      Perhaps I'm wrong - anybody here converted to Christianity because of doubts with evolution?

      Delete
    7. Blas -

      And how ToE helped to discover the structure of the exosome.

      Pardon?

      Delete
    8. JDRick -

      Question is - does it work? Given that Dr. Hunter's real goal (from a few posts again) is to win people over to Jesus, I wonder.

      You are more optimistic that I am.

      The arguments for ID may be weak and flawed, but a persuasive and charismatic speaker can still make them sound appealing to people who are not scientifically illiterate.

      I think the purpose of all this ID evangelism is to make belief in a creative deity sound reasonable - even scientific. Whether or not it actively converts many, it gives the masses for whom science is a foreign country hope that their mythology could be rational.

      Delete
    9. "ToE act as an explantory framework. From ToE scientist continue to make "assumptions" [new discoveries] that led to the description of exosome´s structure."

      Can you describe how?

      Delete
    10. "The prediction of the archaeal exosome, variations in its composition, and its interactions with the proteasome and the translational and transcriptional machineries illustrates context analysis, an approach that is becoming increasingly popular in genomics, whereby gene functions are predicted by a combination of detailed sequence analysis, comparison of protein domain architectures, and operon organization and examination of phyletic patterns"

      Here again, evolution is an assumed fact. The archaeal exosome share some features with eukaryotes, and in other ways they don't. If they do, then (because evolution is assumed fact) it is said to be conserved. It they don't, they weren't conserved.

      The value in the study is in understanding and predicting gene function, not in the unfounded assumption of evolution based on supposed homology.

      Delete
    11. Blas -

      Not in detail. I don't know the exact circumstances of the description of the exosome's structure. I'm not a geneticist.

      Delete
    12. I`m not looking for details, I´m just wandering how the framework of ToE contributed to the discovery of exosomes structure.

      Delete
    13. Well it was ToE which hypothesised that traits are passed on directly from parent to offspring.

      This led to the search for, and discovery of, the unit of inheritance - the gene, and from there the field of genetics.

      Beyond that it gets a little fuzzy. A geneticist might be able to give you a more descriptive answer. For us its enough to mark that we owe the entire field of genetics to ToE.

      Delete
    14. Ritchie

      "Well it was ToE which hypothesised that traits are passed on directly from parent to offspring."

      What an ignorant am I! I though that Lammarck and well before this concept was known

      "This led to the search for, and discovery of, the unit of inheritance - the gene, and from there the field of genetics."

      More for my ignorance! I beleived that Maendel without any knowledge of ToE discovered the gene.

      "Beyond that it gets a little fuzzy."

      Of course because you can discover the structure of the exosome ignoring ToE.

      "For us its enough to mark that we owe the entire field of genetics to ToE."

      LOL

      Delete
    15. Troy:

      I might have left out part of the algorithm, but that seems to be the gist of it.

      You left out the most important ingredient: your own gutlessness and stupidity. LOL.

      Delete
    16. What an ignorant am I! I though that Lammarck and well before this concept was known

      And what Lamarck drew up was the first modern theory of evolution.

      The only thing he failed to get right was the exact mechanism - natural selection.

      More for my ignorance! I beleived that Maendel without any knowledge of ToE discovered the gene.

      It was indeed Mendel, but he did not trip over this discoery by accident. His working hypotheses was a distinctly evolutionary one - parent organisms pass on their traits to their offspring.

      Of course because you can discover the structure of the exosome ignoring ToE.

      Well it's possible, but what would start you looking?

      LOL

      It's true.

      To see why, let's compare it with a different hypothesis: one that says that God made all living creatures (just for argument's sake, of course).

      Now this God-hypothesis does not necessitate a unit of inheritance. In fact it does not necessitate anything at all. It just attributes whatever exists to the handiwork of God by 'means unknown'. Which leads us nowhere.

      Which goes a long way to explaining why biology never really got off the ground until the Enlightenment took us intellectually out of the shadow of the Church's authority.

      Contrast this with ToE which NECESSITATES a unit of inheritance. That's fertile ground for new discovery - and lots of it. What is this unit? What shape is it? How does it operate? What is it made of? Lots to keep biologists happy for decades.

      Delete
    17. Ritchie:

      “And what Lamarck drew up was the first modern theory of evolution.

      The only thing he failed to get right was the exact mechanism - natural selection.

      It was indeed Mendel, but he did not trip over this discoery by accident. His working hypotheses was a distinctly evolutionary one - parent organisms pass on their traits to their offspring.”

      For you everything is ToE.


      “Well it's possible, but what would start you looking?”

      “It's true.

      To see why, let's compare it with a different hypothesis: one that says that God made all living creatures (just for argument's sake, of course).

      Now this God-hypothesis does not necessitate a unit of inheritance.

      Why not.? Why were Mendel studying the beans?

      “In fact it does not necessitate anything at all. It just attributes whatever exists to the handiwork of God by 'means unknown'. Which leads us nowhere.”

      That is not true, science developed in teistic enviroments. Atheism is an exception in human history. Atheist are and were minorities in monoteistics cultures.

      “Which goes a long way to explaining why biology never really got off the ground until the Enlightenment took us intellectually out of the shadow of the Church's authority.”

      Mendel was under the “Church's authority” and biology got off the ground only with the electronic microscope and with the radioactive marking of molecules.

      Delete
    18. Blas -

      For you everything is ToE.

      Now you're back to being ignorant again.

      Of course Lamarck's theory was a theory of evolution. What did you think it was, a theory of quantum mechanics? A theory of candy bar wrappers?

      "Now this God-hypothesis does not necessitate a unit of inheritance."

      Why not?


      Because if all your hypothesis says is "God deisgned it" without actually bothering to state HOW, then it doesn't necessitate anything at all.

      ToE necessitates a unit of inheritance because it would have been falsified if no such unit had existed. God-hypothesis makes no specific real-world claims, and is therefore not falsifiable.

      Which is exactly the problem with ID today.

      Therefore genetics actively supports ToE. But it does not actively support "Goddidit".

      Why were Mendel studying the beans?

      To discover how traits were passed on through the generations. Haven't we gone over that already?

      That is not true, science developed in teistic enviroments... Mendel was under the “Church's authority”

      One does not need to be an atheist to perform or study science. But one does need to search for naturalistic causes for events and phenomena instead of palming every mystery off as the work of God.

      biology got off the ground only with the electronic microscope and with the radioactive marking of molecules.

      The first electronic microscope was invented in 1926, and the radioactive marking of molecules was first done later still. Biology was a thriving field of study long before then.

      Delete
    19. "One does not need to be an atheist to perform or study science. But one does need to search for naturalistic causes for events and phenomena instead of palming every mystery off as the work of God."

      Mendel was a creationist, - you know, the kind that believed in a young earth and all. Yet he was able to do wonderful scientific work? Why? He wasn't dealing with the unobservable, unrepeatable, and untestable past. He was dealing with what he could see and test. He was looking to understand the design of the Creator in his creatures and it spurred on science as opposed to hindering science.

      Believers in the Designer look to understand the design in things even when evolutionists claim there is none - vestigial organs, junk DNA, etc. And this whole idea is part of the reason science did so well in the West.

      Delete
    20. tokyojim

      Mendel was a creationist, - you know, the kind that believed in a young earth and all. Yet he was able to do wonderful scientific work?

      Which perfectly illustrates my point. One can practice science whatever one's religious beliefs.

      But what one CANNOT do is use one's personal religious beliefs as part of one's theories. Mendel did not do this.

      Believers in the Designer look to understand the design in things...

      In science, motivations do not matter. Method matters.

      As Mendel demonstrates, Creationists are not forbidden from performing science, per se. They are just forbidden from using their religious assumptions as part of their theories.

      Believers in the Designer look to understand the design in things even when evolutionists claim there is none - vestigial organs, junk DNA, etc. And this whole idea is part of the reason science did so well in the West.

      Belief in design played no part in these discoveries.

      Scientific advancement alone was responsible for these discoveries.

      And religion has no place at all within science.

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

      Delete
    22. Ritchie,

      "Well it was ToE which hypothesised that traits are passed on directly from parent to offspring."

      What absolute, palpable nonsense. The concept of inheritable traits has been known for thousands of years. Do you really suppose animal breeders never noticed that traits were passed down from generation to generation until evolution 'hypothesized' its occurrence?

      "For us its enough to mark that we owe the entire field of genetics to ToE."

      This is probably one of the dumbest comments one could make. I'll be laughing about that one for days. You're famous for making ridiculous claims Ritchie, but that one is a new high, even for you.

      Delete
    23. Ritchie,

      "As Mendel demonstrates, Creationists are not forbidden from performing science, per se. They are just forbidden from using their religious assumptions as part of their theories."

      Exactly how does Mendel demonstrate creationists are 'forbidden' from using their religious assumptions?

      "Belief in design played no part in these discoveries."

      Well it certainly would be interesting to see you demonstrate this claim.

      "Scientific advancement alone was responsible for these discoveries."

      And scientific advancement occurs only through scientists who ignore or deny any religious beliefs?

      "And religion has no place at all within science."

      So declares the all knowing Ritchie, arbiter of all that is true and good, and of that which does and does not constitute sound scientific enquiry. Wow, the arrogance is stifling.

      Delete
    24. Nic

      So declares the all knowing Ritchie, arbiter of all that is true and good, and of that which does and does not constitute sound scientific enquiry. Wow, the arrogance is stifling.


      Nic buddy, you might want to knock off your chirping until you finally come up with those better explanations than the ones science accepts now.

      Just sayin...

      Delete
    25. Thorton,

      "Nic buddy, you might want to knock off your chirping until you finally come up with those better explanations than the ones science accepts now."

      Science is coming up with them all the time, only they're trying desperately to keep them within the evolutionary paradigm. The result is a dysfunctional paradigm which is constantly required to re-define itself.

      It looks as though my Leafs should play all their games on the road. And Kessel finally pots one. Glad to see it was a great shot. Breaking out of a slump with a nice goal like that is the best way to do it. The son of an old university hockey buddy set him up beautifully.

      Delete
    26. Nic -

      What absolute, palpable nonsense. The concept of inheritable traits has been known for thousands of years. Do you really suppose animal breeders never noticed that traits were passed down from generation to generation until evolution 'hypothesized' its occurrence?

      Oh it was certainly common knowledge that big parents tend to produce big children. But why? How does that happen? Evolution is the field of study of why and how that happens.

      This is probably one of the dumbest comments one could make. I'll be laughing about that one for days. You're famous for making ridiculous claims Ritchie, but that one is a new high, even for you.

      Yes, you do like to paint me as an idiot, don't you? Interesting though how I still manage to box you into a logical corner on every thread we've exchanged over the last week or so. I imagine you'll come back with "I stop when I realise I'm wasting my breath" or "I stop when I see you're too stupid to understand" or some other transparent excuse, but the truth is that you stop when you have nothing else to fall back on. You stop when you've trotted out all the relevant textbook arguments in ID Handbook 101 which you're just parroting without examination, and I try to get you to actually think them through. You oddly seem to go very quiet then.

      Exactly how does Mendel demonstrate creationists are 'forbidden' from using their religious assumptions?

      'Forbidden' is indeed the wrong word here. Mendel is simply an example of a Creationist who did not use his religious beliefs as part of his scientific work. Unlike today's ID/Creationists who want to do exactly that.

      Well it certainly would be interesting to see you demonstrate this claim.

      You want me to prove a negative?

      And scientific advancement occurs only through scientists who ignore or deny any religious beliefs?

      Close. It only occurs through scientists who do not include any religious beliefs in their work (whether or not they hold any personally). Other than that, yes, bang on.

      So declares the all knowing Ritchie, arbiter of all that is true and good, and of that which does and does not constitute sound scientific enquiry. Wow, the arrogance is stifling.

      No, science does not forbid religion just because I say so. It forbids religion - that is a fact, which I am merely relaying. And if you weren't so jaw-droppingly ignorant of how science operates and insistant that your bronze-age mythology be accepted as a scientific explanation, you might already know this.

      Delete
    27. Nic

      Science is coming up with them all the time, only they're trying desperately to keep them within the evolutionary paradigm. The result is a dysfunctional paradigm which is constantly required to re-define itself.


      In other words you're never going to provide those ID-Creation explanations for the 5 major extinction events, or the geology of the Goosenecks incised meanders, or why atavistic limbs on cetaceans really aren't atavistic. Right?

      It's easy to sit in the bleachers and scream that the on ice players are lousy Nic. When will you lace 'em up yourself and get into the science game?

      Delete

    28. "In other words you're never going to provide those ID-Creation explanations for the 5 major extinction events, or the geology of the Goosenecks incised meanders, or why atavistic limbs on cetaceans really aren't atavistic. Right?"

      Wrong! I already explained the meanders. As for atavisms, don't make me laugh.

      "It's easy to sit in the bleachers and scream that the on ice players are lousy Nic. When will you lace 'em up yourself and get into the science game?"

      I never sit in the bleachers and berate the on ice players.

      Delete
    29. Ritchie,
      Ritchie

      "Oh it was certainly common knowledge that big parents tend to produce big children. But why? How does that happen? Evolution is the field of study of why and how that happens."

      No Ritchie, evolution is not the field of study which determines how and why this happen, that would be the field of study known as genetics, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Sure evolution appeals to genetics for support, but genetics is a discipline which exists completely independent of evolutionary theory.

      Ancient mans understanding of inheritance went beyond 'big parents produce big kids.'

      "Yes, you do like to paint me as an idiot, don't you?"

      I'm afraid you do that all on your own. I have absolutely nothing to do with that.

      "Interesting though how I still manage to box you into a logical corner on every thread we've exchanged over the last week or so."

      Now that's another hilarious comment. Perhaps you would like to point out some of these corners you've backed me into.

      "Mendel is simply an example of a Creationist who did not use his religious beliefs as part of his scientific work."

      How do you know what Mendel thought about as he did his research. It's statements such as these that paint you as an idiot, as you like to say.

      "You want me to prove a negative?"

      You made the claim, why do you think you should be exempt from proving it?

      "Close. It only occurs through scientists who do not include any religious beliefs in their work,..."

      Well, Ritchie, you just put yourself in the position of having to prove a negative again. How do you know a religious scientist does not include his beliefs in the course of his work.

      "No, science does not forbid religion just because I say so. It forbids religion - that is a fact, which I am merely relaying."

      You just keep coming up with absolute tripe. Science is a discipline which makes no rules. Science is a discipline practiced by individuals who do make rules. Get the difference?

      Delete
    30. Nic -

      No Ritchie, evolution is not the field of study which determines how and why this happen, that would be the field of study known as genetics, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

      Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics in biological populations over time.

      Genetics is the study of genes and heredity in living organisms.

      The two cover much the same ground. The difference is that evolution takes into consideration a few other factors too. The two are hardly separable.

      Ancient mans understanding of inheritance went beyond 'big parents produce big kids.'

      And evolution began before Darwin.

      Anyone throughout the whole of history who ever wondered about or studied the development of species over time has been studying evolution. That's simply what evolution is.

      Now that's another hilarious comment. Perhaps you would like to point out some of these corners you've backed me into.

      Go back over the last 6/7 posts. We have talked several times on almost all of them and I have had the last word on them all.

      How do you know what Mendel thought about as he did his research. It's statements such as these that paint you as an idiot, as you like to say.


      No, Nic, it's questions like this that mark you out to be the desperate ignoramus you try so hard to paint me as.

      At no point in his research did Mendel ever attribute any observed data to magic, or miracles, or the unknowable hand of God.

      You made the claim, why do you think you should be exempt from proving it?

      If you knew the first thing about science you'd understand why proving a negative doesn't compute.

      How do you know a religious scientist does not include his beliefs in the course of his work.

      Yet another foolish question - because it is published, of course! And if, at any point, the word 'miracle' is used to explain any observations or data, then it is laughed out of the lab.

      I really think you need to take the time to read this. It is short, easily readable, and it is painfully obvious that you do not understand the elementary point at it's heart at all:

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

      You just keep coming up with absolute tripe. Science is a discipline which makes no rules. Science is a discipline practiced by individuals who do make rules. Get the difference?

      Again, it is you who is coming up with the tripe. Science is investigation via the application of the scientific method. If you were to conduct an investigation and did not stick to the scientific method, then it would not be a science.

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

      Delete
    32. Nic

      Wrong! I already explained the meanders. As for atavisms, don't make me laugh.


      LOL! Of course you never offered a 'catastrophe' explanation for incised meanders. All you offered was some hand wave about "sediment cracks and water flow in" which doesn't explain switchback meanders even a little bit, let alone a catastrophic one that formed the Goosenecks Park. You also never explained the 5 major extinction events, or why atavisms aren't really atavisms.

      Here's another easy one for you to run from. Explain the iridium rich Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary layer found all over the earth. The geological evidence is that it's from a celestial impact that helped kill off the dinosaurs 65 MYA when a 10km wide asteroid hit at Chicxulub. A recent study has now narrowed the date to within 33,000 years of the dinosaur's demise, well within the error bars to conclude the impact was the major extinction cause

      Asteroid Impact That Killed the Dinosaurs: New Evidence

      I never sit in the bleachers and berate the on ice players

      You're doing it right now Nic. Sitting in bleachers throwing rocks at honest scientists and their work while providing zero input of your own.

      I'll help you with the science you don't understand, but you have to make an effort too.

      Delete
    33. Thorton,

      "LOL! Of course you never offered a 'catastrophe' explanation for incised meanders. All you offered was some hand wave about "sediment cracks and water flow in" which doesn't explain switchback meanders even a little bit, let alone a catastrophic one that formed the Goosenecks Park."

      Oh, but it does. Using the same physics which creates smaller switchback meanders, you can extrapolate to the size of meanders found in the Grand Canyon and Goosenecks. It's done all the time in research labs, when designing dams, ships, etc.

      "or why atavisms aren't really atavisms."

      Anne Boelyn had six fingers, was that an atavism, or simply a genetic error? Are you going to argue for a six fingered common ancestor leading to man?

      "Here's another easy one for you to run from."

      I won't be running. I'll be reading.

      "You're doing it right now Nic. Sitting in bleachers throwing rocks at honest scientists and their work while providing zero input of your own."

      Ritchie, an honest scientist? Yeah, right. He comes up with some of the most outrageously ridiculous statements and convoluted logic.

      Watched the Leafs beat Montreal last night. During a break in the play Glenn Healy showed a clip of the funniest thing I've ever seen in a professional hockey game. Video from a Russian league, maybe the KHL. The Ref calls a penalty and the player getting the penalty skates over and knocks the Ref to the ice. The Ref calmly gets up, slowly removes his helmet and puts his whistle in his pocket. He then turns and starts pounding on the player. Only in Russia.

      Delete
    34. Ritchie,

      "Genetics is the study of genes and heredity in living organisms."

      That's right, and it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Except of course if you're an evolutionist and assume the only explanation for genetics is evolution. What about the geneticist who don't believe in evolution, are they simply ignorant?

      "The two are hardly separable."

      They are as separable as the East is from the West. If evolution was to fall from sight tomorrow it would effect genetics not one iota.

      "Anyone throughout the whole of history who ever wondered about or studied the development of species over time has been studying evolution. That's simply what evolution is."

      That's your view, but not the view of everyone, nor the view of all scientists. And no, evolution is not simply change over time. It's a claim all life descends from a single common ancestor. Quite different in reality than simply saying 'things change over time'.

      "Go back over the last 6/7 posts. We have talked several times on almost all of them and I have had the last word on them all."

      Well first of all that's because you never know when your beat. On all of them you wound up so tangled in your illogic you didn't know which way to turn. This happens with just about everyone with whom you exchange comments. It's actually quite humouress at times.

      Secondly, I usually just tire of trying to point out your errors and simply move on. Having the last word seems to indicate to you that you've somehow won the point. Not the case at all. But if it makes you feel good to think that, by all means go ahead. Imaginary victories are better than nothing, I guess.

      "No, Nic, it's questions like this that mark you out to be the desperate ignoramus you try so hard to paint me as."

      So, one can assume, as usual, you've made an ignorant comment for which you can provide no support. Nothing new there.

      "At no point in his research did Mendel ever attribute any observed data to magic, or miracles, or the unknowable hand of God."

      And this proves what to you? Mendel clearly believed what he was studying was the work of God. That is simply a fact you can't deny and a fact which grates you no end. Evolutionists required to stand behind the work of a creationist for credibility in their fantasies. Boy, that must really burn.

      "If you knew the first thing about science you'd understand why proving a negative doesn't compute."

      Backing up a claim is not proving a negative. You made a claim to knowledge, either you can support that claim or you can't. As usual you can't, so you try to dodge it by claiming I demand you prove a negative. Just another example of your poor reasoning.

      "Yet another foolish question - because it is published, of course! And if, at any point, the word 'miracle' is used to explain any observations or data, then it is laughed out of the lab."

      Oh but you are a piece of work. Because they didn't use the word 'miracle' means they did not consider the supernatural in the course of their work. How naive are you really?

      On the other hand I would like to thank you for putting clearly in print the a priori bias against the potential of supernatural explanations. This is exactly what CH was trying to point out to you. As soon as you a priori reject ANY explanation, you cease practicing open and honest science.

      "I really think you need to take the time to read this."

      I will.

      Delete
    35. Nic

      Oh, but it does. Using the same physics which creates smaller switchback meanders, you can extrapolate to the size of meanders found in the Grand Canyon and Goosenecks


      Only over millions of years. Not with a one time catastrophe you can't.

      It's not just switchback meanders. It's INCISED switchback meanders carved 1000' deep in solid stratified rock layers

      You need to explain the INCISED part too with your catastrophe. Well?

      Anne Boelyn had six fingers, was that an atavism, or simply a genetic error?

      Having six fingers isn't at atavism Nic. An atavism is the reactivation of ancestral genes that are still present but normally unexpressed in the DNA of extant animals.

      What is your IDC explanation for them? Don't say "common design" unless you have a good reason your Designer kept unused genes that match exactly the evidence for evolution through common descent in the fossil record.

      T: ""You're doing it right now Nic. Sitting in bleachers throwing rocks at honest scientists and their work while providing zero input of your own."

      Ritchie, an honest scientist?


      I'm not talking about Ritchie. I'm talking about the tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists whose work you don't understand but summarily dismiss anyway.

      Sharks now winless in 4. Started like a house afire but PP has gone ice cold. Frustrating game!

      Delete
    36. Nic -

      That's right, and it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

      How can studying the change in genes and heredity of living organisms (genetics) be totally unrelated to, and have nothing at all to do with studying the change of allele frequencies in populations of living organisms over time (evolution)? They are practically the same from the start.

      What about the geneticist who don't believe in evolution, are they simply ignorant?

      There aren't any, Nic. All geneticists accept ToE. You know why? Because ToE is absolutely fundamental to genetics.

      If evolution was to fall from sight tomorrow it would effect genetics not one iota.

      It is becoming obvious you have absolutely no idea what evolution is. As you later demonstrated.

      That's your view, but not the view of everyone, nor the view of all scientists.

      No, Nic, it IS the consensus scientific view, challenged only by religious fundies who insist "Goddidit".

      And no, evolution is not simply change over time. It's a claim all life descends from a single common ancestor.

      No you foolish person, that's Common Ancestry. Evolution is simply a process of how life develops - the mechanisms which bring about change in genes and alleles in population pools. That is all. It is perfectly possible (in theory) for several lineages to evolve seperately, unrelated to each other.

      Well first of all that's because you never know when your beat.

      Shallow and transparent. My arguments are clear and logical. You simply cannot refute them.

      Secondly, I usually just tire of trying to point out your errors and simply move on.

      Equally shallow and equally transparent.

      So, one can assume, as usual, you've made an ignorant comment for which you can provide no support. Nothing new there.

      I followed that remark up with an explanation of exactly WHY that question was foolish. So not make out I didn't just because you're so desperate to score points you turn to quote-mining.

      And this proves what to you? Mendel clearly believed what he was studying was the work of God.

      No Nic, again you utterly fail to grasp how science works.

      At no point in his work did Mendel attribute any observed data or phenomena to un-, sub- or super- natural causes. He attributed all observed data to natural causes. In short, he assumed methodological naturalism. Which is the point I made, the point you refuted, and the point which is evidenctly correct. Making me right and you wrong.

      That is exactly how science operates. You make observations, gather data, and try to discover by experimentation, what natural causes and forces brought them about. Beyond that the scientist is free to believe whatever they wish. They are free to believe these natural forces are sustained by God, or were put in place by the magic pink unicorn, or are the handiwork of Santa in Lapland, if they so choose. Such beliefs are simply irrelevant as long as the work the scientist is doing attributes natural phenomena to natural causes.

      In this way, Mendel was behaving like a true scientist. He was not behaving like a person who wants to allow the possibility of supernatural forces into the scientific process, which is what most modern ID/Creationists are trying to do.

      Delete
    37. Nic (2)

      Backing up a claim is not proving a negative. You made a claim to knowledge, either you can support that claim or you can't.

      Vestigal organs are redundant organs used by the ancestors of modern species which have fallen into disuse in their descendants. At no point in history has anyone used the hypothesis of design to predict that vestigial organs must exist. There is just no train of logic there. Design does not necessitate vestigial organs.

      Junk DNA are lengths of DNA in the genome which do not encode protein sequences. At no point in history has anyone used the hypothesis of design to predict that such junk DNA must exist. There is just no train of logic there. Design does not necessitate junk DNA.

      Oh but you are a piece of work. Because they didn't use the word 'miracle' means they did not consider the supernatural in the course of their work. How naive are you really?

      What absolute nonsense are you talking now? What word do you think that use that means 'miracle' or 'supernatural cause'?

      Scientific papers are published and rigorously scrutinised by fellow scientists. If there was ever one that attributed natural phenomena to supernatural forces, then it would be ripped to shreds. And deservedly so.

      On the other hand I would like to thank you for putting clearly in print the a priori bias against the potential of supernatural explanations. This is exactly what CH was trying to point out to you.

      Which is correct - science DOES reject supernatural explanations a priori. I have never contested this. But this is NOT, as Cornelius claims, the result of bias, religious or otherwise. It is a matter of practicality. Science would be utterly, completely impossible if we did not reject supernatural explanation a priori.

      As soon as you a priori reject ANY explanation, you cease practicing open and honest science.

      How ironic. No, actually the reverse is true.

      Science MUST reject the supernatural a priori.

      If you DON'T reject the supernatural a priori then you are not performing honest and open science.

      I will.

      Good. Then perhaps you might get a clue as to why science absolutely and unavoidably must assume methodological naturalsim.

      Delete
    38. Ritchie, it is nice to see that you agree that creationists can do good science - although you add the caveat "as long as they don't let their religious assumptions affect their science."

      I disagree with the caveat. The problem is not one's religious assumptions, but the type of science a person is doing. Mendel was doing regular science that was verifiable, repeatable, observable, and testable. His religious assumptions did influence his work because believed God had created everything and his motivation was to discover this design. In his line of science, this assumption worked in his favor and enabled him to do good science.

      When evolutionists assumed "no function" in vestigial organs because they assumed these organs were leftover from the evolutionary process, this assumption hindered the progress of science.

      As vestigial organ fell one after another, it became obvious that perhaps there were functions to these other organs that were still assumed to be vestigial. So, the discovery of design actually encouraged evolutionists to look for design and function where they had originally assumed there was none. Same is true with junk DNA.

      If Mendel had been working in the area of historical science where the scientific method could not be used, then you would have claimed foul and accused him of unscientific work because he certainly would have used his worldview to interpret the evidence, just like you do.

      Historical science is much less accurate and involves much more guesswork and interpretation than regular every day science that is observable and testable.

      Ritchie says: "If you DON'T reject the supernatural a priori then you are not performing honest and open science."

      That is not an accurate statement as you yourself admitted to me in the previous post. Scientists who believe in God can do wonderful science. And in fact, it was this very belief in God that led to the rise of science in the West because scientists were seeking to understand the order and design of the Creator's handiwork.
      science.

      At least you are honest in that you assume methodological naturalism.

      And as a result, that means that your assumption could be wrong.

      That also means that science cannot be the only arbiter of truth. The accuracy and dependability of scientific "truth" all hangs on the validity of this assumption which cannot be proven - at least when it comes to historical science.

      Perhaps that is why the historical sciences are so difficult and riddled with problems.

      So that should at least make you open to the possibility that science may not be able to solve all the problems it faces. It should also make you open to a different answer outside of science when science hits a brick wall.

      I mean where does science and absurdity begin if you will never admit defeat no matter how difficult and insurmountable the problem seems, how do you know when you have left science and entered the realm of absurdity by insisting on a natural cause when it is very possible that there is none

      Delete
    39. Tokyojim

      When evolutionists assumed "no function" in vestigial organs because they assumed these organs were leftover from the evolutionary process, this assumption hindered the progress of science.

      As vestigial organ fell one after another, it became obvious that perhaps there were functions to these other organs that were still assumed to be vestigial.


      Er...vestigial doesn't mean useless. Vestigial means having lost or been modified from its original function. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that prohibits an organ from taking on a new, secondary function after the first one is gone.

      It really helps to learn the basic terminology before making yourself look silly.



      Delete
  5. Richie said: "You are anthropomorphising. The molecules do not 'know' anything. They do not think and they are not informed, anymore than a brick 'knows' its duty is to keep a wall standing."

    A brick doesn't sometimes keep a wall standing and then sometimes not. A brick in a wall has been placed there, and there it stays not doing anything except being a brick. On the other hand, an exosome disassembles an RNA molecule when it's appropriate to do so. Somehow it must be activated to do so, and that activation would be some sort of signal, whether embedded in the RNA molecule itself, or sent to it separately. This would be a form of communication. As evolutionists like to point out, you don't need to be a human to communicate. But you do need to be designed to do so, because it takes two to communicate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the other hand, an exosome disassembles an RNA molecule when it's appropriate to do so.

      Yes. Just as seeds which lie dormant through the winter germinate in the spring. That doesn't mean they make conscious decisions. It just means certain behaviours are only triggered under certain conditions.

      As evolutionists like to point out, you don't need to be a human to communicate. But you do need to be designed to do so, because it takes two to communicate.

      No you don't. Unless I've missed something huge here, the RNA molecule is not communicating back. This is not a conversation. The 'communication' is entirely one way - the RNA molecule is just reacting to certain triggers, whatever those might be. There is no reason design is necessary for this.

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think micro-evolution is coded into life's grand design to enable the organism to make small changes to help it survive and adapt to it's environment. Camouflaging is a good example where a species incorporates the appearance of it's environment into it's exterior. Various examples of this can be seen among both predators and prey.

    Ultimately I think the most correct answer is a combination of intelligent design and evolution with intelligent design being far more intelligent than we are willing to give credit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal -

      Ultimately I think the most correct answer is a combination of intelligent design and evolution

      How do you combine the two, exactly?

      Delete
    2. Good question: I look at evolution being a coded in factor of intelligent design. The level of intelligence to code intelligence would have to be inconceivably intelligent. There have been fossilized evidence of mirco-evolution discovered. It's impossible to argue with evolutionists because they have hard evidence to support micro-evolution. They lack the evidence to support full evolution and form their conclusion on speculation that if micro-evolution exists, then the later must also. For evolutionists, level of curiosity ends there.

      Is it not possible that life has the ability to make alterations by design? Call it coded intelligence within intelligent design. If you consider the level of knowledge required to strip an RNA strand specific to generate one particular type of cell from a complete DNA sequence, you have to inadvertently accept a level of detailed knowledge above and beyond one's mental awareness of DNA structures at a biological level. There would have to exist a need to repair/replace, the communication of that need, and a whole series of other factors that are taken for granted in order for the entire process to occur. To include the destruction of the RNA strand at the final stage.
      I often say that if we had to mentally think about performing all of the functions that keeps us live, we'd all be dead inside of ten minutes. Obviously there is a biological level of awareness that is far more amazing than our mental awareness is giving it credit for.
      Ultimately, with all of the functions that can be attributed to a biological awareness system, I don't think it's out of reach to consider the possibility that the biological awareness intelligence has the ability to alter it's code to increase it's ability to survive and exist in an environment that is ever changing.

      If we know nothing else, we know that only think that is consistent is change itself. The designer of life would have to have know that it would need to factor in an ability to do so if it's creations were to exist beyond release 1.0 -- If the intelligence that created life is anything like our own intelligence, it would have automated as much as possible anything it would need to survive in the environment it was designed for.. including the ability to adapt to minor changes in its environment.

      This is why I consider evolution a feature integrated into intelligent design. If you remove the human intelligence factor, you have to open the doors to above human intelligence being factored into the design.

      Delete
    3. It's impossible to argue with evolutionists because they have hard evidence to support micro-evolution. They lack the evidence to support full evolution and form their conclusion on speculation that if micro-evolution exists, then the later must also.

      Microbiology and macrobiology are not different processes. They are exactly the same process, just on different scales.

      Accepting microevolution but denying macroevolution is like accepting that water erosion on a directly observable scale, but denying that it can carve cliff faces and canyons.

      It is the exact same process. Evidence for one is evidence for the other.

      Is it not possible that life has the ability to make alterations by design?

      Well we humans are alive, and we make things by design. So yes.

      I often say that if we had to mentally think about performing all of the functions that keeps us live, we'd all be dead inside of ten minutes. Obviously there is a biological level of awareness that is far more amazing than our mental awareness is giving it credit for.

      You don't attribute these functions to instinct then?

      I don't think it's out of reach to consider the possibility that the biological awareness intelligence has the ability to alter it's code to increase it's ability to survive and exist in an environment that is ever changing.

      You think living organisms consciously choose to create mutant genes?

      If you remove the human intelligence factor, you have to open the doors to above human intelligence being factored into the design.

      No, step one would be to explain how we can infer design.

      Delete
    4. Ritchie, macro-evolution does not have supporting evidence. I understand the drawn conclusion that there exists evidence for micro-evolution and thus macro-evolution therefore must exist. The problem with that is the initialization process where by life is created by a series of accidents. This is a rather shallow conclusion that would stand with the odds of a single person winning every lottery across the globe every day of their life.

      You don't attribute these functions to instinct then?
      Instinct is another level of acknowledged intelligence that gets taken for granted. I consider instinct an amazing form of biological intelligence that passes a pre-coded set of instructions to offspring. The mechanisms that allow instincts to exist side with intelligent design (pre-coded instructions to increase the survival rate of a species). I think the instinct ability is often abused for ignorance of giving awareness to conscious decision making ability to other species. i.e. Several species hunt as packs and work together without the use of apparent communications. Some even play specific roles in the pack hunt as to suggest that if it were instinct alone, they would all function and perform the same role.

      You think living organisms consciously choose to create mutant genes?
      You think mutant genes are the products of life's most mysterious functions? That's like saying a 1982 computer virus in DOS accidentally created smart phones complete with a functioning network and stocked full of apps.
      I wouldn't call micro-evolution mutations. The difference being one is done with intentional benefits and the other is a considered a flawed regeneration (error 91ERNA: Duplication code failed CRC.) continue cell construction [y/N] >

      No, step one would be to explain how we can infer design.
      Ritchie, our best minds around the globe are constantly trying to reverse engineer this great accident. The more they unravel the incredible details, the more accepting the intelligent design creation concept becomes. I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of it all they find a small segment in the DNA sequence that states:
      "Copyright 0000 00:00:00.001 God, Life Creations Division. A solely owned subsidy of God, The Creator.
      **All rights reserved. Any attempt to copy, distribute, manipulate, or otherwise reverse engineer will nullify and void support. For more information contact 1-777-777-7777 or visit online www.prayforhelp.com. Follow us on GodsBook or Twitter @GodAlmighty"

      Alright.. had a bit of fun with that. :D

      Delete
    5. Neal -

      The problem with that is the initialization process where by life is created by a series of accidents. This is a rather shallow conclusion that would stand with the odds of a single person winning every lottery across the globe every day of their life.

      Neal, we do not know exactly how life started. So how exactly have you calculated the odds of such an event happening? For all we know it might be as good as inevitable given enough time.

      Which leads me to another point - people are generally terribly bad at judging probability. Incredibly unlikely things happen all the time. Virtually every week someone DOES win the lottery, yet the odds against them at the start were millions to one. Is that a reason to infer supernatural agency?

      I wouldn't call micro-evolution mutations.

      Then you do not understand evolution.

      Parents pass on their genes to their offsrping. Occasionally with mutations. If those mutations are detrimental, the animal is at a disadvantage and will likely not survive. If the mutation is beneficial, that creature is more likely to survive, thrive, and pass on that beneficial gene. That is evolution, no matter what scale it operates on.

      The more they unravel the incredible details, the more accepting the intelligent design creation concept becomes.

      Why, exactly? Can you point to a single shred of evidence which gives us the slightest reason to suppose design?

      I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of it all they find a small segment in the DNA sequence that states:
      "Copyright 0000 00:00:00.001 God, Life Creations Division. A solely owned subsidy of God, The Creator.
      **All rights reserved.


      Right. I'll just hold my breath for that one, shall I?

      Delete
    6. Ritchie said:

      "Microbiology and macrobiology are not different processes. They are exactly the same process, just on different scales.

      Accepting microevolution but denying macroevolution is like accepting that water erosion on a directly observable scale, but denying that it can carve cliff faces and canyons.

      It is the exact same process. Evidence for one is evidence for the other."

      That is what you want everyone to believe, but creationists and IDers take issue with this claim. I don't think it has been proven. It is more theory than fact.

      Whether mutations can really find a path to increase an animal's fitness in such a way as to change from a dinosaur to a bird is quite questionable.

      How could a dinosaur lung change in small incremental steps into a bird lung and improve function all along the way through random copying errors in the genome?

      This change would have had to be accompanied by other simultaneous changes in the animals body as well. If you don't think that is incredible, wow! Does that mean it didn't happen? No, but the evidence seems to be stacked against it. This is the kind of macro-evolution, (information increasing changes) that we want evidence for.

      Delete
    7. tokyojim -

      That is what you want everyone to believe, but creationists and IDers take issue with this claim.

      Of course they do. Because it infringes on their religious beliefs. But that is their issue.

      Whether mutations can really find a path to increase an animal's fitness in such a way as to change from a dinosaur to a bird is quite questionable.

      We have a large number of transitional fossils that give us snapshots of that exact process.

      If you don't think that is incredible, wow!

      I certainly do think it is incredible. I just don't think it is at all improbable.

      This is the kind of macro-evolution, (information increasing changes) that we want evidence for.

      And we have plenty of that. Perhaps your knowledge of dinosaur evolution is a little out of date? A trove of fossil discoveries in China are filling in the gaps in our knowledge as we speak.

      http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/dinosaur-institute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs

      Delete
  8. Neal, we do not know exactly how life started. So how exactly have you calculated the odds of such an event happening? For all we know it might be as good as inevitable given enough time.

    Let's put chance to the test then. Given the remainder of you life, try as often as humanly possible to throw a deck of cards into the air with all the might you can possibly muster. Given the probability and enough time, it is remotely possible that the deck of cards will fall back to the ground in perfect A-K order, in suited order, and stacked into an amazing house of cards that boggle even our most famed architects of our time. Each card so intricately balancing itself on a corner and resting against another card on end and so forth. Mind you if one card is out of order but the balancing act is by chance a success, the overall grade is FAILURE! We can't have a heart for brain now can we... just doesn't work no matter how pretty it might be on the outside.

    I wouldn't call micro-evolution mutations.
    Please provide a list of 3 beneficial mutations. I'm not familiar with that concept. Human or non.. just any "beneficial" mutation. Once you've amazed me with your examples, please define for us what you understand evolution to be. You seem to think accidental occurrences are the source for the incredible brilliance required to create a self sustaining environmental system of life. That the sponge like substance that cushions the giraffes brain from losing blood when it lifts its head from drinking water to run from a predator is an accidental card trick that enable it to survive by running rather than passing out from blood deprivation.. thereby laying down unconscious for the predator to feast upon.

    If you actually take the time to amaze yourself with the various brilliant designs of life, you surely would come to understand the insane odds of it happening by chance. The key is to unit functionality to necessity. Evolution is a cop-out for those who can't comprehend the true brilliance of it all.

    Why, exactly? Can you point to a single shred of evidence which gives us the slightest reason to suppose design?
    I've already provided this with the above example in a giraffe. But there are countless others. Let's take camouflaging for example. Lets assume that the design is completely by chance.. what might we expect creatures to look like? What are the odds that so many species would get their exterior to accidentally and without intentional design or patterning look remotely similar to their surroundings? Since you're so quick to shoot down my attempt at guessing those odds, and more so that you're the one who believes those odds are favorable to Intelligent Design, why don't you provide your best guess as to what those odds might be.

    Right. I'll just hold my breath for that one, shall I?
    Funny you should mention that. Holding your breath is the one function that is controlled by both the mental awareness and the biological awareness. You can mentally hold your breath (granted by bio to accommodate less safe environmental conditions).. but after a short time, bio overrides your mental awareness. Never have I read a report whereby someone held their breath to death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal

      Let's put chance to the test then.

      But you haven't put chance to the test. You've just given me a nonsense, vastly improbable scenario. That's not putting anything to the test.

      Putting chance to the test would be to calculate the likelihood of the event (life starting) happening by chance. For which we would need to know the parameters and factors involved. Which we don't know. So don't act as though we know it is vastly improbable. For all we know it could have been all but inevitable.

      Please provide a list of 3 beneficial mutations.

      How about 10?

      http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

      I'm not familiar with that concept.

      I can see I'm going to have to go slowly here...

      Your body is determined by your genome. Your body pattern, height, eye colour, ear-shape - all determined by your genes. A change in your genes would bring about a change in your body (actually some genes don't get expressed, but we'll ignore those).

      You pass on your genes to your children through sexual reproduction. But they do not always get passed on correctly. Sometimes a mutation occurs in the copying.

      Still with me so far?

      Once you've amazed me with your examples, please define for us what you understand evolution to be.

      It is change over time of inherited characteristics within a gene pool through successive generations.

      More specifically, it is the process of natural selection acting on random mutation.

      You seem to think accidental occurrences are the source for the incredible brilliance required to create a self sustaining environmental system of life.

      I do. Not in single, giant leaps, but in an accumulation of small steps.

      If you actually take the time to amaze yourself with the various brilliant designs of life, you surely would come to understand the insane odds of it happening by chance.

      Evolution is not random chance. That is a Creationist fallacy. The mutations are random, but they are filtered through the process of natural selection, which acts as a ratchet, ensuring deleterious mutations are deleted and only beneficial mutations are spread throughout the gene pool. Evolution is thus, not random, but directional - always working towards increased fitness.

      Evolution is a cop-out for those who can't comprehend the true brilliance of it all.

      On the contrary. 'Goddidit' is a cop-out for people who cannot fathom how natural processes could create the wonders of nature.

      I've already provided this with the above example in a giraffe.

      No you have not. You have poured scorn on the idea of random chance. But that will not do. Design is not the only alternative to random chance: it could also be non-random natural processes (of which evolution is one).

      To support the design hypothesis you need to:

      a) state how we can detect design,
      b) provide a testable mechanism of design, that is, state how the proposed designer actually created these 'designs'.

      And good luck with that. No ID-er has ever been able to meet these elementary criteria.

      Delete
    2. Ritchie, I like you. You do a great job of inspiring argument. And with argument, answers are uncovered. I apologize for any insulting tone that may have came across. I don't want to create an environment of hate. That only destroys any good that may have come from an argument. You are intelligent and searching for answers. That's the best any of us can do.

      Delete
    3. Ritchie, I agree with you on evolution. It's indisputable. The difference is in the details of the wording of the observed change. On one side, one could say that it is by chance and that it is void of intent. That chance alone is the sole factor by which improvement evolves. The other side of the coin is that evolving with an implied improvement requires knowledge of a condition by which an improvement would require intentional resolution. One could argue that with the chain of evolving improvements, that there seems to be a common denominator whereby a condition improved upon would need assessment at a variety of levels.

      Lets go back to camouflaging. We can agree that the environment is in a continuous state of change. Effective camouflaging requires visual input. In order for such a wide variety of species to have effectively implemented camouflaging into their exterior appearances by chance alone, you would have to liken the probability to flinging paint at a canvas with random coloring and eventually having master piece unfold before you. Not just any abstract master piece, but one with an intentional result of masking and blending in with its surroundings. That requires intentional selection of color and pattern. Let's say I'm blind. Someone tells gives me three brushes with three colors. I'm told to use straight lines. Given that input is a lot more than by chance will ever have. But even with that much, I'm clueless as to which colors to use in which lines. I don't even know if I need vertical, horizontal, or diagonal lines. Even with cheat mode active (color, and the knowledge of lines) I'm almost certain of absolute fatal failure.

      So with the countless examples of beneficial improvements found among the various species, I have a problem with the word "mutation" being used to describe the change. The word doesn't differentiate change as one from beneficial or defective. For evolution to succeed, there requires an awareness of the need for change, consideration of an approach to change, the effects the change may have on subsystems, and the risks associated with implementing such change. As a Sr software engineer, I'm aware of the SDLC (system/software development life cycle) we have implemented to safe-guard ourselves from releasing intentional benefits into existing/working code base. Often, unintentional side affects are induced into dependent codes that require bug fixes and numerous updates. I think a biologist would discover new levels of appreciation by learning about our existing software methodologies.

      Delete
    4. Neal -

      I promise I have taken no offense, and I hope I have not given any either. Your intellectual curiosity seems sincere and does you credit.

      Lets go back to camouflaging. We can agree that the environment is in a continuous state of change.

      Indeed. Therefore what is considered 'good camouflage' is subject to the surroundings.

      Now let us consider a population of, say, ground-nesting birds. There will naturally be variation among colouring. Just as there is variation in size, beak-length, etc.

      The ones that happen to be well camouflaged will simply be less likely to be spotted by predators. Thus it will be the ones whose colour happens to camouflage them well who will reproduce and pass on their genes.

      Via this simply mechanism, the camouflage of these birds will simply get better and better. Eventually we end up with a population of birds who are superbly well camouflaged. No design or intervention necessary.

      For evolution to succeed, there requires an awareness of the need for change, consideration of an approach to change, the effects the change may have on subsystems, and the risks associated with implementing such change.

      No, all there needs to be is variation. As long as there is variation, the ones with traits better suited to survival will be more likely to survive and propagate.

      Delete
  9. -- I know you're probably near 200 or so card deck tossings by now. But before you get too far, I thought we'd increase the difficulty just a tad. Bundle 8 decks together as one and throw it into the air. Expect the same results. By my calculations, it would take 1,000,000,000 decks of cards to equate to the likelihood of a single cell organism coming into existence from nothing more than accidental chance. Given time that could possibly happen... once. Then after a 100 trillion retries, it would have to learn from experience that it would be more convenient to (by chance alone -- no intention of design implied) .. to create the ability to reproduce. Wow, this is starting to push the insanity envelope with the odds. So insane it makes winning the lottery look as common as taking a breath of air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal

      By my calculations, it would take 1,000,000,000 decks of cards to equate to the likelihood of a single cell organism coming into existence from nothing more than accidental chance.


      So? Only the most ignorant of Creationists think single cell organism came into existence from nothing more than accidental chance. The ToE sure doesn't posit that.

      Just once it would be nice to meet a Creationist who actually understands the science he's blindly attacking.

      Delete
    2. Neal -

      By my calculations,

      This is the key phrase of your whole post. What exactly ARE you calculations? How have you calculated the odds of a cell organism coming into existence undesigned?

      You cannot just declare "That is as likely as a tornado in a junkyard" without knowing what the odds actually are. Otherwise you are just guessing.

      Delete
    3. Just once it would be nice to meet a Creationist who actually understands the science he's blindly attacking.

      Thorton, since we're still in the theory stage of trying to figure out life. I take everything with a grain of salt. It is important to realize that. Being ignorant is a quality we all possess primarily because we're human. I say that because we pride ourselves on our mental capacity yet we are ignorant of so much. Stupidity, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing. We have countless examples to choose from... which one should I use...? How about the notorious "Flat Earth"? It was ignorant for the people of the time to think that the Earth was flat. They had no hard evidence available to them to support otherwise. It was stupid of them to accept the "Flat Earth" concept as fact and even more stupid of them to convict those who said otherwise. Imagine where we would be today if we had never escaped the bounds of that viral stupidity. I think this subject requires a truly open mind to find the answer. We've already begun the path down stupidity by teaching theory as fact in our education systems. There are two very popular theories that I regard as mistakes of "Flat Earth" magnitude in stupidity. The teaching of evolution as the only theory in our education system... And the teaching of relativity. I think of it as "Flat Earth" because we are inadvertently brain washing ourselves into believing a theory by doing so. I believe that there should be a multitude of theories taught as to enforce the idea that they are theories and that we are still ignorant of the true answer. Even if one theory is severely unpopular, it stands to reinforce the fact that theories are not fact.

      My opinion regarding ToE is that it's solid evidence for micro-evolution makes it indisputable that evolution exists. I don't argue that point. I argue the Creationism is a less insane concept for creation and that ToE is but yet another feature of God's design. I think the most correct answer is that they're both right.

      I don't believe in God. Not because I doubt that God exists, but for the dislike of the use of the word "believe". Once I came to terms that DNA is coded instructions and with a bio-chemical binary mechanism
      ( http://youtu.be/qy8dk5iS1f0?t=35s )
      -- AtoT (zero) / GtoC (one), I said to myself "This is proof!". This is physical code! A tangible none human originating code. Although the DNA may or may not be human it's not our code. At that point it became apparent to me that to use the word "believe" is to have doubt. With the discovery of DNA, we can now say we "know" God exists. We no longer have to be ignorant!

      I know if I had written code that was capable of living, breathing, healing, caring, and even learning; I would be would be fascinated by it. What's my code going to do? If it goes bad, am I going to be responsible? Honestly, I would go mad trying to control it. But that's what makes me human. The true power of God is in the ability to give his own creation the free will to do as it sees fit. The more I compare what has been done to what humanity as done with it, the more amazed I am. I'm amazed by not only the creator but by the fact that it still allows us to exist despite of what we're doing. Then the answer came to me. Wisdom comes with the cost of having made mistakes. It wants to see how far the code can go (survive).

      I refer to God as it because I don't feel comfortable humanizing God. To give it a sex infers that it lives as a sexual being. I don't think the creator of life is an organic life form itself that needs to reproduce. So I un-brain-washed myself from Religion's perspectives. With religions having more variety that my grocery store has brands of cereals, it's clear that religion is man made and evident they are as clueless as the next.

      Delete
    4. Neal -

      Being ignorant is a quality we all possess primarily because we're human. I say that because we pride ourselves on our mental capacity yet we are ignorant of so much.

      That is a very wise and mature attitude. I tip my hat to you on that, truly. We are all born in ignorance and would do well to remember that.

      Stupidity, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing. We have countless examples to choose from... which one should I use...? How about the notorious "Flat Earth"?

      Not that it undermines your point, but just fyi; it is actually a fallacy that anyone believed the Earth was flat. Urban legend. In fact, people knew the Earth was round since the days of the Ancient Greeks - they even calculated it's circumference to with an incredible degree of accuracy with a simple application of geometry. No-one thought Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the Earth.

      We've already begun the path down stupidity by teaching theory as fact in our education systems.

      In science, an unevidenced proposal or idea is called a hypothesis. When that hypothesis is tested and verified by supporting evidence, it is called a theory. It never upgrades from a theory. Calling something 'just a theory' is no indication that there is any reasonable doubt about it.

      Scientific facts are different to scientific theories. Evolution, however, happens to be both. It is a theory, and it is also a scientific fact.

      I believe that there should be a multitude of theories taught as to enforce the idea that they are theories and that we are still ignorant of the true answer.

      Do you believe demon-possession and exorcism should be taught alongside medicine as an equal and viable alternative theory?

      Do you believe holocaust denialism should be taught in history classes as an equal and viable alternative to 20th century history?

      Do you believe initiating rain by human sacrifice should be taught alongside modern meteorology as an equal and viable alternative?

      Although the DNA may or may not be human it's not our code. At that point it became apparent to me that to use the word "believe" is to have doubt. With the discovery of DNA, we can now say we "know" God exists.

      Unfortunately not. This is not proof of any such thing. You are leaping to conclusions. DNA is not that sort of code. There are no symbols which arbitrarily represent something else. Perhaps this short blog post will help to explain:

      http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/

      Delete
    5. Neal said:

      "I believe that there should be a multitude of theories taught as to enforce the idea that they are theories and that we are still ignorant of the true answer."

      Where would teachers find the time to teach a multitude of theories? Who would decide what the multitude would include, and exclude?

      Should Fifi the pink unicorn god be included, or excluded? How about the FSM? Odin? Zeus? Allah? How about Satan as the designer/creator? How about Mother Earth? Leprechauns? Dr. Who? The cat in the hat? How about a slimy, 3 headed, 8 armed alien from another universe as designer/creator? How about a 12 year old, 6th grade ghost in the ghost universe designing/creating this universe for a classroom project? How about me as the designer/creator?

      "To give it a sex infers that it lives as a sexual being. I don't think the creator of life is an organic life form itself that needs to reproduce."

      Then why did you say:

      "The true power of God is in the ability to give his own creation the free will to do as it sees fit." (my emphasis)

      By the way, the ToE is a scientific theory, not just a theory in the 'whatever someone thinks up and asserts' sense.

      Delete
    6. Neal

      Thorton, since we're still in the theory stage of trying to figure out life.


      You need to take an introductory science course and learn what the term 'theory' means in science. HINT: It isn't 'wild guess'

      We've already begun the path down stupidity by teaching theory as fact in our education systems.

      Bull. Where is theory taught as fact? It certainly isn't in evolutionary biology, where the observed fact of evolution and the theory which explains the observations are two very distinct things.

      I know if I had written code that was capable of living, breathing, healing, caring, and even learning; I would be would be fascinated by it.

      DNA isn't software code and it wasn't 'written'. Human produced software is used as an analogy for the complex chemical reactions that take place with DNA but that's all it is, an analogy..

      Like I said, just once it would be nice to meet a Creationist who actually understands the science he's blindly attacking. Scientifically ignorant computer programmers and engineers seem to be the worst at getting things completely wrong.

      Delete
    7. That's one of the most difficult brain washings for me to undo. I'm constantly catching myself (as did you) falling into religion's perspective on that. I fight that brain wash but it's too deeply ingrained to completely eliminate.

      Delete
    8. Neal said:

      "I take everything with a grain of salt."

      "...we are still ignorant of the true answer.'

      "...yet we are ignorant of so much."

      "They had no hard evidence available to them to support otherwise. It was stupid of them to accept the "Flat Earth" concept as fact and even more stupid of them to convict those who said otherwise. Imagine where we would be today if we had never escaped the bounds of that viral stupidity."

      "I think this subject requires a truly open mind to find the answer."

      Yet you also said:

      "I argue the Creationism is a less insane concept for creation..."

      And:

      "we can now say we "know" God exists. We no longer have to be ignorant!"

      So, Neal, you say that "we are still ignorant of the true answer", and that "this subject requires a truly open mind to find the answer" (which implies that the answer hasn't been found), so will you show me the "hard evidence" for "God" and especially for the "God" that you say you "know" exists, and especially if "Creationism" is just a "less insane concept"? And what does an allegedly "less insane concept" of "creation" have to do with the ToE?

      Delete
    9. Ritchie said:

      "...it is actually a fallacy that anyone believed the Earth was flat. Urban legend. In fact, people knew the Earth was round since the days of the Ancient Greeks"

      I'm going to have to disagree with you on your "fallacy" and "anyone" claims, Ritchie, and again on your claim that "No-one thought Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the Earth." I don't think that "fallacy", "anyone, and "No-one" are valid claims. And there are flat-Earthers even now.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

      Delete
    10. The whole truth: (big shoes to fill with that name)

      First, I agree with your correction to Ritchie. Although I try to restrain from nit-picking details as to not get side tracked from what my original attempt of conveying a thought was intended. Which I'm doing now...


      So, Neal, you say that "we are still ignorant of the true answer", and that "this subject requires a truly open mind to find the answer" (which implies that the answer hasn't been found), so will you show me the "hard evidence" for "God" and especially for the "God" that you say you "know" exists, and especially if "Creationism" is just a "less insane concept"? And what does an allegedly "less insane concept" of "creation" have to do with the ToE?


      In my opinion, one must accept all (viable) possibilities in order to come to truly contemplate their probabilities. If you are 100% convinced that God does not exist, then it impacts your ability to consider it as a viable option. The existence of DNA is proof enough that non-human intelligence exist. To me, that is evidence enough to support a Creator. Whether or not that leads me to a religion or not is a different story. And to be clear, everything minus the fact there exists fossilized evidence for micro-evolution is merely speculation. I don't argue ToE, I argue that it's possible that it's in the design. The "insane" reference comes from the infinite unknowns to be factored into an invalid feeble attempt to apply some level of statistical odds to the likelihood of probability. I leave everything on the table.. even cat in the hat. For after all my insane attempts to affix a number to the answer, it may be something as simple as the cat in the hat that inspires the answer in our next super-genius Einstein.

      I'm going to close the door on this as I really have nothing more to offer on this. I appreciate all of your insightful responses and have learned a few things along the way. My initial intent was to open the door to the possibility of ToE as an ingenious built in feature where by a mysteriously bio-awareness is responsible for the intentional changes that we perceive as evolution. IMO: there exists a consciousness within the fine layers of life itself that is of higher presidence than our mental conscious awareness. This bio awareness is responsible for keeping us alive day to day. It seems reasonable to me that it is far more aware and intelligent than we are. Sharks are one of the oldest living animal species on the planet. With that longevity, they have become the only animal species to be immune to cancer. By chance that is insanely impossible.

      Ultimately, this forum is not very well suited for deeply rooted ongoing discussions and with that I think it best to part ways with the concepts we have shared etched in our minds. Perhaps it will one day inspire something to come from it all.

      Delete
    11. And there are flat-Earthers even now.

      *faith in humanity shatters*

      Delete
    12. The evolutionist speaks:

      Only the most ignorant of Creationists think single cell organism came into existence from nothing more than accidental chance. The ToE sure doesn't posit that.

      Just once it would be nice to meet a Creationist who actually understands the science he's blindly attacking.


      What science? Please explain to all onlookers the "science" of how a "single cell organism came into existence". We await.

      Answer: In some pond . . . Oops. Down near some underwater vent, some gooey stuff got tangled up against some silica that somehow got to the bottom of the ocean. And in this 'gooey stuff' there were these sugars that just happened to be there, you know, and they stuck to the silica mimicking the silica pattern. And the heat from the vent made them 'fuse' together these sugars in just the right configuration.

      Then a bar of soap came down to the vent from a Holiday Inn and sidled up against these fused sugars and incapsulated them. Etc., etc., etc.

      "Just-so" stories passing as "science." It's laughable.

      Delete
    13. PaV Lino

      "Just-so" stories passing as "science." It's laughable.


      Just once it would be nice to meet a Creationist who actually understands the science he's blindly attacking.

      Hey PaV, tell us again how your Designer used magic to POOF all the original created "kinds" into existence 500MYA back in the Cambrian era.

      Delete
    14. Something about DNA and code:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

      Delete
    15. The evolutionist speaks again:

      And, so, let me repeat:

      What science? Please explain to all onlookers the "science" of how a "single cell organism came into existence". We await.

      That was the question. And what do we get in return: insults.

      This, apparently, is the 'new' scientific method employed by Darwinists.

      Where's your answer? Remember, you're the 'scientist', and we're not. So tell us all about your 'scientific' understanding of all this.

      Delete
    16. The ever fatuous evolutionist proclaims:

      Hey PaV, tell us again how your Designer used magic to POOF all the original created "kinds" into existence 500MYA back in the Cambrian era.

      I never said anything of the sort in the first place; so there's nothing to "tell . . . again."

      I stated that the Fossil Record gives evidence for the "kinds" we read about in Creation: that is, the one, and the other, are 'commensurate' with one another.

      Meanwhile, of course, the Fossil Record is a complete---absolutely complete---repudiation of Darwinian theorizing.

      So, pray tell, do let us know how Darwin would explain what we now know about the Cambrian Explosion and the dearth of fossils prior to it.

      Come on. You're the 'scientist.' Surely you have an answer.

      And then please tell me how all of the Universe just "magically" POOF-ed its way into existence 13.5 bya. You surely must have some kind of explanation, right?

      Delete
    17. PaV Lino

      T: "Hey PaV, tell us again how your Designer used magic to POOF all the original created "kinds" into existence 500MYA back in the Cambrian era."

      I never said anything of the sort in the first place; so there's nothing to "tell . . . again."


      Yes you did PaV, right here.

      T: "Then why can't you produce a single piece of physical empirical evidence for your 'separately created kinds' fantasy?

      PaV Lino: t's called the Fossil Record. It's called the Cambrian Explosion.

      You said it PaV. Why are you lying about it now? Oh, that's right, you're a Creationist. Lying is what you do.

      Delete
    18. Thorton,

      "DNA isn't software code and it wasn't 'written'. Human produced software is used as an analogy for the complex chemical reactions that take place with DNA but that's all it is, an analogy.."

      Thorton, my hockey loving buddy, you've got to adequately explain the source of those 'complex chemical reactions'. You can't just wave your hand and say they evolved.

      In addition, you need to demonstrate how these chemical reactions contain specific information. How and where did this information originate? The production of information requires foreknowledge and intelligence. How would foreknowledge and intelligence come about through evolutionary processes?

      Delete
    19. No one said DNA is "software" code. The technology and encoding that it is using is not human derived. Whether or not it is using "symbols" or not is irrelevant. That's a human derived technique. Whether it is written or not is also irrelevant. It is instructional code that is stored in a molecular structure. Just so we're clear, man kind is drooling over this storage technology.
      see: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram

      Delete
    20. Nic

      Thorton, my hockey loving buddy, you've got to adequately explain the source of those 'complex chemical reactions'. You can't just wave your hand and say they evolved.


      It's being worked on by thousands of researchers Nic. More details are emerging daily

      On the Origin of DNA Genomes: Evolution of the Division of Labor between Template and Catalyst in Model Replicator Systems

      "Abstract: The division of labor between template and catalyst is a fundamental property of all living systems: DNA stores genetic information whereas proteins function as catalysts. The RNA world hypothesis, however, posits that, at the earlier stages of evolution, RNA acted as both template and catalyst. Why would such division of labor evolve in the RNA world? We investigated the evolution of DNA-like molecules, i.e. molecules that can function only as template, in minimal computational models of RNA replicator systems. In the models, RNA can function as both template-directed polymerase and template, whereas DNA can function only as template. Two classes of models were explored. In the surface models, replicators are attached to surfaces with finite diffusion. In the compartment models, replicators are compartmentalized by vesicle-like boundaries. Both models displayed the evolution of DNA and the ensuing division of labor between templates and catalysts. In the surface model, DNA provides the advantage of greater resistance against parasitic templates. However, this advantage is at least partially offset by the disadvantage of slower multiplication due to the increased complexity of the replication cycle. In the compartment model, DNA can significantly delay the intra-compartment evolution of RNA towards catalytic deterioration. These results are explained in terms of the trade-off between template and catalyst that is inherent in RNA-only replication cycles: DNA releases RNA from this trade-off by making it unnecessary for RNA to serve as template and so rendering the system more resistant against evolving parasitism. Our analysis of these simple models suggests that the lack of catalytic activity in DNA by itself can generate a sufficient selective advantage for RNA replicator systems to produce DNA. Given the widespread notion that DNA evolved owing to its superior chemical properties as a template, this study offers a novel insight into the evolutionary origin of DNA."

      Tell me Nic, what details about the origin of DNA through IDC can you provide? The next one will be the first.

      Delete
    21. Nic

      In addition, you need to demonstrate how these chemical reactions contain specific information. How and where did this information originate?


      Please define "information" as you are using the term. If you mean the specific patterns in DNA that give rise to specific proteins, they came from interaction with the environment. Self-replicators make copies of themselves with random changes, they get filtered by the environment and the beneficial changes accumulate over time. That's where the "information" comes from.

      The production of information requires foreknowledge and intelligence. How would foreknowledge and intelligence come about through evolutionary processes?

      Starlight contains information about the chemical composition of the star. What foresight and intelligence put the spectral information in starlight?

      Roll a standard six-sided die 100 times and write down the results. Where did the information in that 100 digit string come from? Was it "front-loaded" in the die?

      Delete
    22. Thorton,

      "Tell me Nic, what details about the origin of DNA through IDC can you provide? The next one will be the first."

      Come on my friend, this is simply more of the same. Evolution assumed to be true and all we need to do is find out how. regardless of which viewpoint one comes from genetics, biology, etc., are all going to function in the same way. Describing how things function does not reveal its origin.

      Identifying replication cycles, etc., is not evidence of evolution except if you presume evolution.

      "Why would such division of labor evolve in the RNA world?"

      Assumption that it evolved. Not science, simply speculation based on presumption.

      Delete
    23. Nic

      T: "Tell me Nic, what details about the origin of DNA through IDC can you provide? The next one will be the first."

      Come on my friend, this is simply more of the same.


      Sadly, it's more of the same evasions by you without addressing the question. I asked for your IDC DETAILS. All you did was go back to the standard "ToE" doesn't explain it!!" hand-wave.

      Really Nic, if all you can do is parrot back the standard Creationist deflections and non-answers this is going to get real boring real quick.

      Delete
    24. Part I:

      Thorton:

      I've said that I will respond to you only if I have to. And so I will since you don't care to either think things through or be honest with yourself.

      T: "Then why can't you produce a single piece of physical empirical evidence for your 'separately created kinds' fantasy?

      PaV Lino: t's called the Fossil Record. It's called the Cambrian Explosion.

      You said it PaV. Why are you lying about it now? Oh, that's right, you're a Creationist. Lying is what you do.


      Since you're a little slow on the uptake, let me explain things to you little-bit by little-bit. Do pay attention and try to keep up as best you can.

      In a period of some 20 to 35 million years, simple multi-cellular organisms changed (not 'evolved'; 'changed') into 29 of our present day 30 phyla. Phyla represent different plans of organizing a living entity. They're different "bau-plans", or "body plans." These plans, fundamental in nature, have changed over time, most notably in the vertebrate and insect lineages; but, the fundamental plans have been in place for over 500 million years. Those plans include almost the entirety of organismal novelty and diversity.

      This incredible increase in novelty and diversity in so short a period of geological time, i.e., the Cambrian Explosion, is something that is unimaginably, astronomically beyond anything neo-Darwinism and its supposed mechanisms could ever possibly accomplish. Any sentient, thinking person who is willing to be honest with himself and the facts, knows this.

      Yet, at the same time, to have 29 of our present day 30 phyla appear so quickly is, as I stated above, "commensurate" with something akin to the creation of "kinds" that we read about in the Bible.

      Now, the Bible is NOT a scientific document. Nor have I ever used it as such, or described it as such. But big boob that you are, you simply assumed that I was relying on the Bible for scientific justification here. In your prejudiced mind, it was as if I were saying that the "Bible tells us that God created all these kinds. And the Bible is the final word on this." That was your ASSUMPTION. But I NEVER made that kind of a statement. Nor, again, do I consider the Bible some kind of 'scientific document.'

      So, what was I getting at then?

      I know subtlety is lost on you, so, in answering, again, pay attention.

      As one can easily see from the quote above, I simply responded to your demand for a "single piece of physical empirical evidence for . . . 'separately created kinds'." IOW---let me go slow here; I don't want to lose you---the Fossil Record accords itself much more properly to the Book of Genesis than does any wildly concocted neo-Darwinian fantasy.



      Thorton, you keep evading my challenge to you:
      "So, pray tell, do let us know how Darwin would explain what we now know about the Cambrian Explosion and the dearth of fossils prior to it."

      If Darwin were alive today, and chose to be intellectually honest, he would tell us that his theory was incorrect. That's what the FACTS of the Fossil Record tell us. And those same FACTS, whether it irritates you, or not, are consonant wit--- commensurate to---what is found in Genesis.

      IOW---let me help you out here since the rather obvious evades you at times---people who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

      The "physical empirical evidence" you demand ends up giving support not to Darwinian thinking, but to the Creation account of Genesis; further, it simultaneously actually refutes Darwinian theory. (In case you think I'm wrong about that, then just read the Origins of Species and the Chapter on the "Difficulties upon the Theory.")

      So why don't you just grow up and face facts. Neo-Darwinism is nonsense. Intelligent Design makes sense.

      And just because you don't like it that way, doesn't mean the facts are changed in any way.

      Delete
    25. Part II:

      And, please, do tell us how our Universe "magically" (using your terminology) 'poofed' itself into existence as really good, really smart, brilliant scientists tell us. Native Americans could figure things out better than they can. So much for your vaunted "science," which has become, distressingly, no more than a religion. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess they actually call it "consensus science."

      Delete
    26. PaV Lino

      This incredible increase in novelty and diversity in so short a period of geological time, i.e., the Cambrian Explosion, is something that is unimaginably, astronomically beyond anything neo-Darwinism and its supposed mechanisms could ever possibly accomplish.


      Your bullcrap is stinking up the place again PaV.

      Please provide your evidence to back up this remarkable claim that 35 million years is too short for evolution to act. Once again you've mistaken your ignorance based personal incredulity for data.

      the Fossil Record accords itself much more properly to the Book of Genesis than does any wildly concocted neo-Darwinian fantasy.

      LOL! "I don't use the Bible as a science book, but the evidence proves a literal Genesis is correct!!"

      You're such a transparent idiot PaV.

      "So, pray tell, do let us know how Darwin would explain what we now know about the Cambrian Explosion and the dearth of fossils prior to it."

      Sorry idiot, but we have another 2.5 billion years' worth of fossils before the Cambrian, not the least of which are the multi-cellular Ediacaran biota. Some of the Cambrian forms can trace their lineage back to the Ediacaran. How do they and the rest of those 2.5 billion years of fossils fit into your Genesis story?

      Speak up PaV, this should be good.

      Delete
    27. Thorton:

      Speak up PaV, this should be good.

      One answer: you're a moron. Simple as that. You don't know up from down.

      2.5 billion years of fossils. If you weren't so stupid---or blinded by prejudices---you would realize that this figure only serves to highlight the Cambrian Explosion, not to explain it.

      And, of course, the 2.5 billion years is nothing but bluster, a claim that has been put to rest.

      Further, your wild claim that the Ediacaran fossils and the Cambrian fossils are related is false. Recent studies have shown otherwise.

      Thorton, you are ill-informed, immune to subtle arguments, and at times very dense. I really don't have anything I much care to talk to you about.

      Have a wonderful life.

      Delete
    28. PaV Lino

      derp derp derp


      Exactly as predicted, PaV and his 'literal Genesis' stupidity have no explanation for the Precambrian fossil record.

      BTW PaV, I didn't say ALL body forms in the Cambrian evolved from the Edicaran, just some of them which the evidence shows they did

      Evolutionary Scenario of the Early History of the Animal Kingdom: Evidence from Precambrian (Ediacaran) Weng’an and Early Cambrian Maotianshan Biotas, China

      Abstract: Late Proterozoic (Ediacaran) Weng’an (580 mya) and Early Cambrian Maotianshan (c. 530 mya) faunas of South China, illustrated here, document diverse body plans at phylum and subphylum level and confirm that bilaterians evolved well before the “Cambrian explosion”. The Weng’an faunas (from Guizhou), the oldest record of metazoans, consist mainly of embryos with possible affinities to living sponges, cnidarians, and bilaterians, but with adult specimens (though microscopic) of the same groups. The Maotianshan Shale faunas (from Yunnan), remarkably diverse at species level (over 100 species), have great diversity of metazoan body plans, many comparable with those of living groups. Because they occur at or near the evolutionary roots of many animal groups, intermediate forms are present. Evolution of Early Cambrian metazoans was surprisingly rapid. Worm-like ancestral euarthropods elucidate the evolutionary origins of the arthropods. The diverse Maotianshan vertebrates, representing “missing” history between an amphioxus-like ancestor and craniate vertebrates, provide an improved understanding of the early evolution of the vertebrates.

      Go crawl back under your rock PaV, where the rest of the scared-of-reality cowardly Creationist morons live.

      Delete
    29. Thorton:

      From your reference:

      The Weng’an faunas (from Guizhou), the oldest record of metazoans, consist mainly of embryos with possible affinities to living sponges, cnidarians, and bilaterians, but with adult specimens (though microscopic) of the same groups.

      Do you understand the word "possible"? It's not the same as "known", for example. But, of course, "evolution" is a "fact", not an "hypothesis, or theory", right?

      This is from the RECENT article I was referring to:

      Ediacaran fossils are known worldwide in a variety of sedimentary facies, generally interpreted as shallow to deep marine, following Sprigg’s comparison with marine animals, although such comparisons now seem increasingly doubtful. Most Ediacaran fossils have no clear relationship with modern animals. Putative Neoproterozoic ‘embryos’ were more likely to have been protists.

      Ref: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11777.html

      Here is part of what the author had to say to PhysOrg.com:

      Ediacaran fossils, he said, represent "an independent evolutionary radiation of life on land that preceded by at least 20 million years the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals in the sea." Increased chemical weathering by large organisms on land may have been needed to fuel the demand of nutrient elements by Cambrian animals. Independent discoveries of Cambrian fossils comparable with Ediacaran ones is evidence, he said, that even in the Cambrian, more than 500 million years ago, life on land may have been larger and more complex than life in the sea.

      Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-limbs-tree-life-ancient-australian.html

      Try to keep up, Thorton.

      Apparently, the Ediacaran fossils might all be "terrestial" fossils, meaning that not only do they have no connection with the Cambrian fossils (all marine), but that Darwinism now has to explain how in the world these 'terrestial' Ediacaran fossils came to be.

      Read it, and weep.

      When will you Darwinists finally give up? I suppose never. Why? Because your such dogmatists!!

      [And, BTW, we are all still waiting for your wonderful neo-Darwinian explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, something even Darwin himself would not attempt given what we know today.]

      You're all bluff, Thorton, and no "stuff." (except for your invective.)

      Delete
    30. LOL!

      PaV you moron, finding that *some* Ediacaran life may have been terrestrial (which is still very much in dispute BTW) doesn't mean that it *all* was. It doesn't make the evidence for some Cambrian lineages to have evolutionary roots in the Ediacaran biota mysteriously vanish either.

      It also doesn't explain away that 2.5 billion years worth of fossil data from *before* the Cambrian that has you crapping your pants. Where does the Ediacaran biota fit with your fantasy PaV? Why can't you come up with an answer?

      Sorry PaV, you're still a clueless idiot. Go crawl back under that rock.

      Delete
    31. Thorton:

      You're a poseur. And a pompous one at that.

      I gave you a web article you could link to. Why didn't you?
      Here's what the author, Rettalack, says at PhysOrg:

      The soils with fossils, Retallack writes in his study, "are distinguished by a surface called 'old elephant skin,' which is best preserved under covering sandstone beds." The healed cracks and lumpy appearance of sandy "old elephant skin" are most like the surface of microbial soil crusts in modern deserts.

      "Modern deserts." Did you get that? Deserts aren't underwater. Did you know that?

      Further: "This discovery has implications for the tree of life, because it removes Ediacaran fossils from the ancestry of animals," said Retallack, professor of geological sciences and co-director of paleontological collections at the UO's Museum of Natural and Cultural History. His evidence, mostly gathered from a site in the Flinders Ranges, is presented in a paper placed online ahead of print by the journal Nature.

      Did Rettalack say: " . . . it removes SOME Ediacaran fossils from the ancestry of animals. . . ", or did he say simply, " . . . it removes Ediacaran fossils from the ancestry of animals. . . "?

      Then YOU say: " . . . (which is still very much in dispute BTW) . . .".

      Isn't this something. You don't know anything at all about this paper; you belittle what I said in reference to it; you don't seem to understand the negative implications it has for Darwinism; but you strike a pose as someone who is "on top of the situation." As I said: you're a poseur.

      As to the negative implications this has for Darwinian theory---something I pointed out in my previous post---you simply ignore all of this.

      If you were an honest scientist, then you would have acknowledged these problems and said they need to be studied, but that, in the meantime, they present a problem for neo-Darwinism.

      But you're incapable of this. Why? Because you're not interested in being honest. You have an agenda you want prosecute.

      And then the this gem: It also doesn't explain away that 2.5 billion years worth of fossil data from *before* the Cambrian that has you c----ing your pants.

      Vulgarity: is this your "ace up your sleeve"?

      If you had a brain that served you, you would have thought about your insistence about "2.5 billion years worth of fossil data . . ." This "data" is highly controversial. I"ve already pointed that out to you. I've quoted from, and provided a link, to a paper that says nothing should be said about anything more than a billion years old; yet, you insist going back to 2.5 billion years ago. But, of course, you're a moron.

      If bacteria, the paragon of mutation, needs almost 2 billion years to rise up to the level of multi-cellularity (something quite simple given later leaps in animal complexity), then how is it that in 20 to 30 MILLION years, organisms that mutate at a much lower rate than bacteria, make colossal advances in organizational structure? You remember: 29 out of 30 Phyla appear out of nowhere.

      Why should I be upset in the least? It makes your position look even more ridiculous. And yet you think I'm shaking in my boots about this.

      Thorton, you're verging on buffoonery. Quit while you're ahead, while you have a shred of competency left.

      Delete
    32. Thorton: (part II)

      And then this final nonsense: Where does the Ediacaran biota fit with your fantasy PaV? Why can't you come up with an answer?

      "The best defense is an offense."

      I point out that this represents a problem for Darwinism, and instead of you pointing out that it is not, you throw it in my face.

      Nice try. Won't work. What's your explanation?

      DId you notice this in the PhysOrg article:

      Increased chemical weathering by large organisms on land may have been needed to fuel the demand of nutrient elements by Cambrian animals. . . . life on land may have been larger and more complex than life in the sea.


      You see. There was a PURPOSE for those land-loving critters. They fit a "design criteria" needed for the Cambrian Explosion to take place.

      Delete
    33. Sorry PaV but you're still a clueless idiot. Right now Rettalack's paper has convinced virtually no one in the paleontology community. He also didn't cover ALL the Ediacaran examples known in the world. His paper has zero significance to the Ediacaran finds in China and elsewhere, and zero bearing on the evidence for Precambrian lineages.

      I see you can offer no support for the claim 35 MY was too short for evolution to produce different body plans beyond your own personal ignorance and incredulity. What a surprise.

      I know you don't want evolution to be true because it threatens your religious beliefs, but that's no reason to keep making yourself look like an ignorant Creationist knob day in and day out.

      Your stuff about there are no fossils older than 1 BY is pretty priceless too.

      The Fossil Record of Cyanobacteria

      Abstract: Fossil evidence of cyanobacteria, represented in the geological record by microbially laminated stromatolites, cyanobacterial and cyanobacterium-like microscopic fossils, and carbon isotopic data consistent with the presence of Rubisco-mediated CO2-fixation, extends back to ∼3,500 million years ago. The most abundant and best-documented fossil cyanobacteria, known from thousands of specimens preserved in several hundred geological units, belong to five taxonomic families: the Oscillatoriaceae, Nostocaceae, Chroococcaceae, Entophysalidaceae and Pleurocapsaceae. As documented by the essentially identical morphologies, life cycles, and ecologic settings of such fossils and their modern counterparts, members of these families have exhibited extreme evolutionary stasis over enormous segments of geological time. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, however, such data do not resolve the time of origin of O2-producing cyanobacteria from their anoxygenic, bacterial, evolutionary precursors. Though it is well established that Earth’s ecosystem has included autotrophs since its very early stages, available data indicate only that O2-producing photoautotrophic cyanobacteria originated earlier than the Great Oxidation Event at ∼2,450 million years ago; that such microbes were evidently extant by ∼2,700 million years ago; and that the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis may date from as early as, or even earlier than, 3,500 million years ago.

      Stay under your rock PaV. Every time you come out the real science makes you crap you pants.

      Delete
    34. Look out PaV! Better put on your Depends! Here's more of that mean old scientific evidence! The oldest fossilized prokaryotes date back over 3BY, but even the oldest eukaryotic fossils date to around 1.8 BY.

      Reassessing the first appearance of eukaryotes and cyanobacteria
      Rasmussen et al
      Nature 455, 1101-1104 (23 October 2008)

      Abstract: he evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis had a profound impact on the Earth’s surface chemistry, leading to a sharp rise in atmospheric oxygen between 2.45 and 2.32 billion years (Gyr) ago and the onset of extreme ice ages. The oldest widely accepted evidence for oxygenic photosynthesis has come from hydrocarbons extracted from ~2.7-Gyr-old shales in the Pilbara Craton, Australia, which contain traces of biomarkers (molecular fossils) indicative of eukaryotes and suggestive of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria. The soluble hydrocarbons were interpreted to be indigenous and syngenetic despite metamorphic alteration and extreme enrichment (10–20‰) of 13C relative to bulk sedimentary organic matter. Here we present micrometre-scale, in situ 13C/12C measurements of pyrobitumen (thermally altered petroleum) and kerogen from these metamorphosed shales, including samples that originally yielded biomarkers. Our results show that both kerogen and pyrobitumen are strongly depleted in 13C, indicating that indigenous petroleum is 10–20‰ lighter than the extracted hydrocarbons5. These results are inconsistent with an indigenous origin for the biomarkers. Whatever their origin, the biomarkers must have entered the rock after peak metamorphism ~2.2 Gyr ago and thus do not provide evidence for the existence of eukaryotes and cyanobacteria in the Archaean eon. The oldest fossil evidence for eukaryotes and cyanobacteria therefore reverts to 1.78–1.68 Gyr ago and ~2.15 Gyr ago, respectively. Our results eliminate the evidence for oxygenic photosynthesis ~2.7 Gyr ago and exclude previous biomarker evidence for a long delay (~300 million years) between the appearance of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria and the rise in atmospheric oxygen 2.45–2.32 Gyr ago.

      How did you so quaintly put it? "read it and weep".

      Delete
    35. BTW Pav, here is a pretty scathing review of Rettalack's work that was also published in Nature. Look at how well his hypothesis is being received:

      Controversial claim puts life on land 65 million years early

      From the article

      "Some enigmatic fossils regarded as ancient sea creatures were land-dwelling lichen, argues a paper published today in Nature. But other palaeontologists flatly reject the hypothesis, by Gregory Retallack, a geologist at the University of Oregon in Eugene. His paper not only marks a dramatic reinterpretation of the fossils but suggests life on land began 65 million years earlier than researchers now estimate.

      Retallack has been advancing his hypothesis — that fossils such as the segmented, pancake-shaped Dickinsonia and the worm-like Spriggina were not animals, but instead lichens, traces of slime moulds and soil structures — since the 1990s.

      Other experts on the Ediacaran period give Retallack’s paper a cool reception. “I and my colleagues are quite weary with being asked to review his material over the last ten years,” says James Gehling, a palaeontologist at the South Australian Museum in Adelaide.

      Guy Narbonne, a palaeobiologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, says that the new paper is little more than a summary of Retallack’s “long-standing views” on Ediacaran life.

      He adds: "Most of us appreciated that Retallack's lichen hypothesis was innovative thinking and tested his ideas critically, but it quickly became clear that there are simpler explanations for the features Retallack had validly noted, and most of us moved on to more promising explanations."

      Gehling is unconvinced by the new paper: “Retallack has presented not a single piece of evidence that would contradict the interpretation of the sedimentary layers involved as anything other than marine.”


      Like a typical moron Creationist, you regurgitated some Creationist propaganda about a paper you didn't understand on a topic you're almost completely ignorant of.

      Hide under that rock PaV. It's safe and dark there. No scary science to frighten you.

      Delete
    36. Thorton pontificates anew:

      I see you can offer no support for the claim 35 MY was too short for evolution to produce different body plans beyond your own personal ignorance and incredulity. What a surprise.

      I see. It's my job to prove it can't happen. If you want to claim Darwinism as a theory, then just show us how it's done. It's your job to demonstrate how the theory works. So, give us evidence for how quickly evolution takes place. I keep asking. You keep dodging.


      Here's more of that mean old scientific evidence! The oldest fossilized prokaryotes date back over 3BY, but even the oldest eukaryotic fossils date to around 1.8 BY.

      Your citation gives "molecular markers" which they claim are signs that eukaryotes existed back then. And you call that a "fossil"???? So now molecules constitute 'fossils'. Isn't that interesting?

      Another example of evolutionists as 'invisibilists': "You can't see it; but just take my word for it; it's there." Talk about faith driving science!!!!!!

      Like a typical moron Creationist, you regurgitated some Creationist propaganda about a paper you didn't understand on a topic you're almost completely ignorant of.

      Let me see here . . . The prestigious journal, Nature, publishes a "peer-reviewed" paper, and you describe this as "Creationist propaganda." Apparently Nature is no different, in your eyes, than the Discovery Institute. And then when I quote the lead author, you say that I "don't understand the paper." Did the author not understand the paper either?

      Do you see how silly you look?

      Right now Rettalack's paper has convinced virtually no one in the paleontology community. He also didn't cover ALL the Ediacaran examples known in the world. His paper has zero significance to the Ediacaran finds in China and elsewhere, and zero bearing on the evidence for Precambrian lineages.

      Isn't the reason papers are published is so that your fellow scientists might be "convinced"? But this means nothing to you, convinced as you are about your Darwinian orthodoxy. How dare Rettalack issue a paper that might throw the Darwinian viewpoint into a tizzy!! We ALL KNOW that Darwin was right!

      What a great scientific mind you are!

      Please allow me to include what you didn't include in your above quote regarding Rettalack's critics:

      Retallack remains unfazed. “I am expecting controversy,” he says, adding that he anticipates “the usual trajectory of grief, beginning with denial, then proceeding to mourning and acceptance” of his idea.

      What stage of denial are you in, Thorton?

      You come to this website to lie, distort, to insult and demean. Thank you for your contribution.

      Delete
    37. PaV

      I see. It's my job to prove it can't happen.


      LOL! Yes idiot, if you make outlandish claims it's your job to support them. But you're just another mouthy Creationist fool who can't even begin to back up the bluster.

      Let me see here . . . The prestigious journal, Nature, publishes a "peer-reviewed" paper, and you describe this as "Creationist propaganda."

      No I didn't you blatant liar. I described the ridiculous spin on the article you regurgitated as Creationist propaganda, which it is.

      All Creationists are pretty dense PaV, but you're even more stupid than most. Just because an article is published doesn't mean it's automatically accepted as gospel by the scientific community. Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is merely a gateway for serious consideration by the scientific community. In this instance, the overwhelming majority still think Retallack didn't make his case. But you're an idiot Creationist who doesn't understand how actual science progresses.

      You're also an idiot if you think there are no confirmed fossils older than 1BY. Here are yet more examples of confirmed soft bodied metazoans from India that are dated between 1.4 to 1.5 BYA.

      Discovery of soft bodied metazoans and microphytofossils from the Mesoproterozoic sediments of Vindhyan Supergroup, India

      You're a moron on the first order PaV. With clowns like you leading the Creationist charge science has nothing to fear.

      Delete
    38. Thorton:

      LOL! Yes idiot, if you make outlandish claims it's your job to support them. But you're just another mouthy Creationist fool who can't even begin to back up the bluster.


      Which is the "outlandish claim" you're talking about: that neo-Darwinism is capable of explaining the Cambrian Explosion, or that it is not?

      You're the one making the outlandish claim. And I'm calling you on it. And, of course, you keep running and hiding. It's called intellectual dishonesty.

      As another example of intellectual dishonesty, you write this:

      You're also an idiot if you think there are no confirmed fossils older than 1BY. Here are yet more examples of confirmed soft bodied metazoans from India that are dated between 1.4 to 1.5 BYA.

      Here's the exchange you're responding to:

      THORTON: Here's more of that mean old scientific evidence! The oldest fossilized prokaryotes date back over 3BY, but even the oldest eukaryotic fossils date to around 1.8 BY.

      LINO: Your citation gives "molecular markers" which they claim are signs that eukaryotes existed back then. And you call that a "fossil"???? So now molecules constitute 'fossils'. Isn't that interesting?


      It is abundantly clear that you're unresponsive to my critique: you just changed the subject around to conceal the deficiency of the citation you provided.

      You're a moron on the first order PaV. With clowns like you leading the Creationist charge science has nothing to fear.

      But, as you well know, I'm not a Creationist. I think Darwinism is a silly scientific proposition given what we now know about the fossil record and genomes.

      It's only a matter of time before Darwinism will be almost entirely discarded. More and more questions; more and more complexity; and still, in the face of all this, the same, old simple mantra: RV + NS. It just doesn't get it any longer---and deep down in your heart (do you have one?) you know that is the truth. You're simply a denialist. Ciao.

      Delete
    39. PaV Lino

      Which is the "outlandish claim" you're talking about:


      This one you made above PaV

      PaV Lino: "This incredible increase in novelty and diversity in so short a period of geological time, i.e., the Cambrian Explosion, is something that is unimaginably, astronomically beyond anything neo-Darwinism and its supposed mechanisms could ever possibly accomplish."

      You ran your big mouth and made the claim evolution in the Cambrian was virtually impossible you asshat. Now when asked to back it up you crap your pants and waddle away.

      Here's the exchange you're responding to:

      No PaV you blatant liar, here is your original claim:

      PaV Lino: " nothing should be said about anything more than a billion years old;"

      You're a lying idiot PaV. You don't have the faintest sniff of a clue what the Creationist idiocy you regurgitate even means but that never stops you. Every time you make a stupid claim I present scientific findings that refute your stupidity, and all you do is the Hershey squirts in your drawers.

      Stay under the rock you Creationist ass.

      Delete
    40. Thorton:

      You ran your big mouth and made the claim evolution in the Cambrian was virtually impossible you asshat.

      That's right. That's what I claim. I claim that for neo-Darwinians to attempt to explain the Cambrian Explosion using the methods of neo-Darwinism is an impossibility. In fact, it is an "outlandish claim."

      Now prove me wrong.

      I'm not Darwinist. You're the Darwinist claiming that neo-Darwinism can explain what happened. Now back up your "outlandish claim." Show us the math.

      You act as if you've proven your case. You haven't. So, show us how it's done.

      But, if you can't . . . Well, then, maybe you should shut up.



      THORTON: No PaV you blatant liar, here is your original claim:

      PaV Lino: " nothing should be said about anything more than a billion years old;"


      Again, Thorton, you prove yourself a blithering idiot. The remark you quote has to do with "actual" fossils; or, at least, what is purported to be "actual" fossils. You gave as a citation, disputing what I had said about fossils, a paper that uses "molecular markers". These are "molecules". Do you understand that? And, I hope you can understand this, "molecules" aren't "fossils". Do you get this yet?

      Every time you make a stupid claim I present scientific findings that refute your stupidity . . .

      Yeah, like citing a paper that deals with "molecular markers" as evidence of the presence of "actual" fossils.

      And my mention of having suspicion of anything older than a billion years, when it comes to stromatolites, comes from an evolutionist's paper, which I've cited for you.

      It's the most current paper on the subject, but just because it undermines your view of the world, you pay it no heed.

      Finally, it was you, brilliant mind that you are, that termed a paper published in Nature as Creationist propaganda. Remember?

      That's your entire argument for Darwinism: if it isn't Darwinism, then it's Creationism. And I hate Creationists.

      That's your argument, brilliant scientist that you are.

      And, again, I'm not a Creationist. My argument comes from a strictly scientific point of view. But, biased, blinded, arrogant fool of a man that you are, you simply transmogrify this into "He's a Creationist." I guess this helps you sleep better at night.

      Wake up and smell the coffee. Darwinism is on its deathbed. And deep down you know this better than anyone else here.

      Delete
    41. LOL!

      PaV the Creationist

      Tell us how the Designer made the Ediacaran biota just to pave the way for the Cambrian "original created kinds".

      Tell us how there are no fossils of single celled animals older than 1BYO.

      Tell us how the ToE is on its death bed again for the 7425th time.

      You're such a clueless idiot PaV. Go clean the crap out of your BVDs.

      Delete
    42. Thorton:

      Tell us how neo-Darwinism can explain the Cambrian Explosion.

      You keep evading this question.
      Why?

      And things such as this:
      Go clean the crap out of your BVDs. . . . . Well, I think it's called "projection."

      Is Darwinism almost dead---why do you call it the 'Theory of Evolution'? It's Darwin's "theory of the "Origin of Species". He doesn't use the world evolution but once or twice---well, this is just from today (and every day is just like it):

      Folmer Bokma, researcher at Umeå University, explains that living species have a limited ability to adapt to the environment. His results suggest that species do not change gradually, as the modern evolutionary theory assumes, but suddenly when a new species arises.

      http://phys.org/news/2013-02-species-sudden.html


      So much for Darwin's "gradualism," I'm afraid.

      Delete
    43. Thorton:

      Here's another--the same day!

      PhysOrg.com:
      [http://phys.org/news/2013-02-evolution.html]

      . . . researchers show that similar—or even identical—mutations can occur during diversification in completely separate populations of E. coli evolving in different environments over more than 1000 generations. Evolution, therefore, can be surprisingly predictable.



      This is the second such type of experiment showing "predictability"---you know, the complete opposite of Darwinian "randomness."

      When will you give up the ghost?

      Delete
    44. LOL!

      PaV the Creationist with the crap-filled drawers.

      Tell us how the Designer made the Ediacaran biota just to pave the way for the Cambrian "original created kinds".

      Tell us how there are no fossils of single celled animals older than 1BYO.

      Tell us how the ToE is on its death bed again for the 7426th time.

      Try Depends next time PaV.

      Delete
    45. PaV Lino with the crap-filled pants

      Here's another--the same day!


      Here idiot, here is the paper you were too lazy to actually read

      Parallel Evolutionary Dynamics of Adaptive Diversification in Escherichia coli

      "Abstract: The causes and mechanisms of evolutionary diversification are central issues in biology. Geographic isolation is the traditional explanation for diversification, but recent theoretical and empirical studies have shown that frequency-dependent selection can drive diversification without isolation and that adaptive diversification occurring in sympatry may be an important source of biological diversity. However, there are no empirical examples in which sympatric lineage splits have been understood at the genetic level, and it is unknown how predictable this process is—that is, whether similar ecological settings lead to parallel evolutionary dynamics of diversification. We documented the genetic basis and the evolutionary dynamics of adaptive diversification in three replicate evolution experiments, in which competition for two carbon sources caused initially isogenic populations of the bacterium Escherichia coli to diversify into two coexisting ecotypes representing different physiological adaptations in the central carbohydrate metabolism. Whole-genome sequencing of clones of each ecotype from different populations revealed many parallel and some unique genetic changes underlying the derived phenotypes, including changes to the same genes and sometimes to the same nucleotide. Timelines of allele frequencies extracted from the frozen “fossil” record of the three evolving populations suggest parallel evolutionary dynamics driven at least in part by a co-evolutionary process in which mutations causing one type of physiology changed the ecological environment, allowing the invasion of mutations causing an alternate physiology. This process closely corresponds to the evolutionary dynamics seen in mathematical models of adaptive diversification due to frequency-dependent ecological interactions. The parallel genetic changes underlying similar phenotypes in independently evolved lineages provide empirical evidence of adaptive diversification as a predictable evolutionary process."

      Nothing in there about the demise of evolution you Creationist moron. Looks like another study confirming a predicted mechanism for evolutionary diversity.

      See PaV, that's what happens when you're a willfully ignorant Creationist fool who doesn't bother to read and.or understand the science you're attacking. That's why you'll always stay a crap-filled-pants clown.

      Delete
    46. PaV Lino with the poopy pants

      And my mention of having suspicion of anything older than a billion years, when it comes to stromatolites, comes from an evolutionist's paper, which I've cited for you.

      It's the most current paper on the subject, but just because it undermines your view of the world, you pay it no heed.


      What paper was that oh Creationist with the loose bowels? Cite it here.

      Delete
    47. You mean this paper PaV? it's the only one you cited that mentions stromatolites

      Growth of synthetic stromatolites and wrinkle structures in the absence of microbes – implications for the early fossil record

      "Abstract: Stromatolites and wrinkle structures are often taken to be an important indicator for early life. While both may be shaped by microbial mat growth, this can be open to doubt, so that the contribution of abiotic processes in their construction always needs to be established (Grotzinger & Knoll, 1999). We here report laboratory spray deposition experiments that can generate stromatolites and wrinkle structures in the absence of microbes. These minicolumnar and sometimes branched stromatolites are produced artificially by the aggregation of a synthetic colloid in a turbulent flow regime. They self-organize at the relatively low particle concentrations found in the outer parts of a spray beam. This contrasts with adjacent stratiform deposits that are produced by high rates of colloid deposition and relatively low sediment viscosities found in the centre of a spray beam. These stratiform laminae become subsequently wrinkled during hardening of the colloid. These results support numerical models that together suggest that physicochemical processes are capable of generating laminated sedimentary structures without the direct participation of biology. Geological environments where comparable abiogenic stromatolites and wrinkle structures may be found include: splash-zone silica sinters, desert varnish crusts and early Archean cherts formed from silica gel precursors."

      First off moron, it was published in 2008 so it's not the most current on the subject of stromatolites.

      Second, the crux of the paper is that the researchers created synthetic stromatolites that closely mimic real ones. There is nothing in there at all about all fossils older than 1 BY now being suspect. You lied and made that part up.

      You're an idiot's idiot PaV. The crap in your pants has now backed up and is spilling out of your mouth.

      Delete
    48. Thorton:

      That's not the only article of note.

      From the authors of a May 15, 2011 Nature Geoscience article:

      More research is needed to assess whether graphitic carbon in the oldest sedimentary rocks belongs to these rocks and if it indicates the existence of microbial ecosystems on the earliest Earth,” lead author Papineau said.

      The team proposed that biologically-derived carbon in the rock samples could have come from fluids that were deposited along with the apatite or from carbon-containing molecules that infiltrated the rock more recently.


      And,
      Carbon isotopes in carbonaceous material studied by the team were similar in composition to those found in comparable samples from Greenland. These Greenland samples had been interpreted as evidence of the earliest life on Earth. But the Carnegie team’s new results demonstrate that more research is needed to determine whether or not the carbon samples are biologic in origin.

      [http://carnegiescience.edu/news/young_graphite_old_rocks_looking_evidence_earliest_life]

      In a knowingly disengenous way, you keep talking about the "fossil record" going back 3.5 billion years in time, when, in fact, there are NO such FOSSILS, but, instead, biochemical markers, which, it turns out, are questionable themselves.

      In your demented mind, you think that having life begin 3.5 bya makes me tremble.

      But, as I've explained, and to which you refuse to wrap your mind around, this only makes things WORSE for Darwinism.

      Why?

      (1) This means "life" was generated almost immediately after conditions amenable to life arose on our planet. So, "life" sprang up. Does this sound like Darwinism, or the work of a Designing Agent?

      (2) This also means that single-celled life continued for BILLIONS of years before a simple step (compared to 'life' coming up out of 'nothing') to multi-cellularity to take place.

      [Don't bother responding to this. It's always moronic. You're incapable of understanding anything so blinded are you by your Darwinism. You just love your "just-so" stories. Please, I don't need them nor want them.]

      Delete
    49. Thorton:

      From another paper; quite damning:

      Our results strongly suggest that contemporary bacteria inhabit
      what are generally considered exceptionally well-preserved subsurface
      Archaean fossil stromatolites of the Hamersley Basin, Western
      Australia. They are possibly in very low numbers, their distribution
      confined to microfractures where water may circulate (perhaps only
      intermittently), and their metabolic activities might be extremely low. However, upon geological timescales spanning 2.7 Gy, even such low cell numbers must have contributed significantly to the pool of biogenic signatures associated to these rocks, including microfossils, biological isotopic fractionation and lipid biomarkers. Although our results do not necessarily invalidate previous analyses, they cautiously question the interpretation of ancient biomarkers or other life traces associated to old rocks, even pristine, as syngenetic
      biogenic remains when bulk analyses are carried out.


      [From: Modern Subsurface Bacteria in Pristine 2.7 Ga-Old FossilStromatolite Drillcore Samples from the Fortescue
      Group, Western Australia
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671143/pdf/pone.0005298.pdf]


      So, you see, you don't have positive images or structures that could be classified as true "fossils", but only "biogenci signatures" that are questionable in all sorts of ways: the carbon might have migrated there, or, microbes could have invaded the stromatolite formation.

      But you absolutely claim that these are FOSSILS!!!!

      What ever happened to inquisitive minds? Why don't you clarify what is known (almost nothing) from what remains to be determined (almost everything.)

      But for you, "scientific consensus", even when there is no consensus at all, is TRUTH. Sorry. You're wrong big-time.

      From a 2010 paper:

      Fossil evidence of photosynthesis, documented in Precambrian sediments by microbially laminated stromatolites, cyanobacterial microscopic fossils, and carbon isotopic data consistent with the presence of Rubisco-mediated CO2-fixation, extends from the present to ~3,500 million years ago. Such data, however, do not resolve time of origin of O2-producing photoautotrophy from its anoxygenic, bacterial, evolutionary precursor. Though it is well established that Earth's ecosystem has been based on autotrophy since its very early stages, the time of origin of oxygenic photosynthesis, more than 2,450 million years ago, has yet to be established.
      [Found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20607406]

      So, the idea that "oxygenation of the atmosphere" took place 2.5 bya is also questionable. What is left of your "claim"? Very little, indeed!! It's more like 'wishful thinking'.


      THORTON:Second, the crux of the paper is that the researchers created synthetic stromatolites that closely mimic real ones. There is nothing in there at all about all fossils older than 1 BY now being suspect. You lied and made that part up.

      Bufoon that you are, why didn't you consider the possibility that this wasn't the paper I had in mind? And it's likely not. The paper I had in mind I had access to; and the "billion year" qualification came from the "Summary/Discussion" portion of the paper. And I can't get inside this paper, although I remember reading this abstract.


      Why aren't you more careful in your accusations?

      You know what the Bible calls Satan? The Accuser!

      And it's just amazing what a foul person you choose to be.

      Delete
    50. Damn Pav you're trying to take Joe G's title as dumbest Creationist ever, aren't you?

      First you make the claim that all fossils over 1 BYO are suspect, remember?

      PaV Lino: " I've quoted from, and provided a link, to a paper that says nothing should be said about anything more than a billion years old"

      When challenged you give a link to a paper that says bio-signatures in 3.8 - 4.3 BYO rocks may be in question. Then you give a link to another paper reporting on a particular 2.7 BYO stromatolite field (not ALL stromatolites) that may be in question.

      Your data only misses supporting your ignorant claims by 1.7 billion years you dumbass.

      PaV Lino: "why didn't you consider the possibility that this wasn't the paper I had in mind? And it's likely not."

      You claimed you already provided the paper and link and that's the only one you ever mentioned dumbass. If it was another paper, produce it or STFU.

      BTW dumbass, since your ignorant Creationist brain refuses to accept trace evidence, the oldest actual confirmed microfossils of bacteria are 2.724 BYO

      Microbially influenced formation of 2,724-million-year-old stromatolites

      That's still 1.7 billion years older than your dumbass claim above, and roughly 2.2 billion years before your claimed "original created kinds" in the Cambrian.

      Pants-crapping Creationist idiot.

      Delete
    51. Here's more news for you to suck on PaV

      New finds from the Shelley Pool Formation in Australia show solid evidence of bacteria microfossils that date back over 3.4 billion years.

      Microfossil assemblage from the 3400 Ma Strelley Pool Formation in the Pilbara Craton, Western Australia: Results form a new locality
      Sugitania et al
      Precambrian Research, Volume 226, March 2013, Pages 59–74

      "Abstract: A new microfossil locality for the ca. 3400 Ma Strelley Pool Formation (SPF), in the Pilbara Craton, Western Australia, was discovered in the Panorama greenstone belt. Large and morphologically diverse microfossils (>20 μm, up to 100 μm, along the major dimension) are abundant in a carbonaceous laminated black chert of shallow water origin that was originally collected in 2010 and relocated in 2011 just south of the Trendall Reserve (State Geoheritage Reserve, R50149). Over 300 small, spherical and lenticular (flanged and non-flanged lenses) carbonaceous cellular microfossils are present in each replicated thin section measuring 2.5 cm × 3.4 cm. In addition, film-like structures and tubular filaments were discovered. Narrow carbonaceous filaments of several types are also present in and around the secondary cavity-fill cherts, although their biogenicity is uncertain. Colonies of spherical and lenticular structures are often observed. Colonies composed of small spheroids can be classified into at least two groups based on the sizes of the individuals. Their mode of clustering is variable, ranging from tight to loose and from spherical to random. Colonies of lenticular structures are often composed of a mixture of flanged and non-flanged lenses, in addition to those solely composed of either flanged or non-flanged lenses. The size ranges of these three types are not statistically distinguishable. Therefore, it is currently unknown whether flanged and non-flanged lenses represent different species or different life stages of the same species. Although more research will be needed to establish the taxonomic framework for these ancient microfossils, they provide evidence that the coastal region of the 3.4 Ga “Strelley Pool Sea” was inhabited by various microbial communities, reflecting the early stage diversification of life on Earth."

      These aren't just trace biomarkers PaV, they're actual observable microfossils.

      Creationist dumbass.

      Delete
    52. Thorton:


      These aren't just trace biomarkers PaV, they're actual observable microfossils.

      Did you read the abstract that talks about microbes:

      Our results strongly suggest that contemporary bacteria inhabit what are generally considered exceptionally well-preserved subsurface Archaean fossil stromatolites of the Hamersley Basin, Western Australia. . . .

      . . . even such low cell numbers must have contributed significantly to the pool of biogenic signatures associated to these rocks, including microfossils, biological isotopic fractionation and lipid biomarkers.


      They found that the putative "microfossils" were contamination from CONTEMPORARY bacteria!!!

      This was from an ocean basin from Western Australia!

      Why can't you admit that such a finding throws the finding of "microfossils" of ancient origins into question?

      And, again, you act as if a 3.5 by old bacteria would be the end of me? Why? As I've pointed out---twice, at least---this only makes the case for Darwinism all the harder; not easier.

      It's only a question of where the truth lies. And the history of Darwinism is replete with Darwinist always 'finding what they're looking for.'; i.e., they can easily fool themselves into believing almost anything. I don't care to be a part of that foolishness.

      Until there is better evidence, I remain unconvinced---as do, apparently, a fair share of scientists in the field.

      You seem to have a hard time looking at all of this in a dispassionate, objective, scientific manner.

      And all the coarseness and vulgarity-----why?

      I've wasted enough time trying to "lead a horse to water."

      Delete
    53. PaV Lino

      T: "These aren't just trace biomarkers PaV, they're actual observable microfossils."

      Did you read the abstract that talks about microbes:


      I sure read the one from the paper I cited that talks about 3.4 billion year old MICROFOSSILS at the Strelley Pool site, the one you cowardly ignored.

      Why can't you admit that such a finding throws the finding of "microfossils" of ancient origins into question?

      Because it doesn't you lying piece of Creationist dog crap, not even a little bit. Your "evo killer" paper suggests possible contamination at one SPECIFIC site, not ALL microfossils at ALL sites. You made up your dumbass claim of no fossils older than 1 BY, now you're scrambling like a fool trying to save face. You should have thought of that before you started lying.

      You seem to have a hard time looking at all of this in a dispassionate, objective, scientific manner.

      I'm the only one here who HAS been looking at the actual scientific data. You've only been cherry picking snippets here and there you could spin and/or lie about.

      Until there is better evidence, I remain unconvinced

      I'm sure scientists everywhere will lose sleep worrying about what a lying Creationist clown like you thinks.

      Delete
  10. Cornelius, one question I am always asking myself: how long small micro organism are living? Billion years or merely a short time?

    OK, even if it happened that these proteins were prior to exosome different roles and needed to evolve, my questions to evolutionists are these:

    1. How long did it take to evolve within the boundary of the current cell/microorganism/whatsoever? Was it "billions of years" or one single microorganism merely needs very short time to either continue live or die, lacking necessary mechanisms to grow up?

    2. What apparatus these proteins were using to evolve to exosome and how this apparatus evolved based on what code/knowledge?

    3. Obviously, evolutionists believe that all this was coded in the DNA language prior to that and the code appeared by an accident. Good to know, fellows, but information is information, not energy or matter. How you explain information at first place out of quantum vacuum?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to know, fellows, but information is information, not energy or matter. How you explain information at first place out of quantum vacuum?
      DNA is made of matter.

      Delete
    2. Neal,
      yes of course. Same as the computer program on the media storage, that brings the instructions to the CPU. Except I never seen it made BY the matter and that was my question at first place.

      Delete
  11. In a blanket response to multitude of theories should be taught.

    Let me introduce an alternative while retaining Relativity's limitations of speed (Speed of light).

    Let's take two objects (baseballs) and launch them in opposing directions. Ball #1 in a 0 degree bearing at 60% the speed of light. At the same time, launch a second in a 180 degree bearing also at 60% the speed of light. To the observer (point of origin) the two balls are displacing equally and within the visible limitations of Relativity. But to each other, they have exceeded the speed of light. To which I pose the question: What point in the known universe is not moving by which all other motion must reference itself to as to ensure that it does not unravel the theory of relativity?

    -- My intent with multitudes of teachings is to inspire curiosity to so that the concept is furthered. Obviously Cat in the Hat is important enough for us to be familiar with. But it's importance is minimal. Being static on a topic will do nothing in the way of change and only change will lead us to the truth.

    Now, I have some reading to do (thanks Ritchie!)

    --

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

    ReplyDelete