Sunday, March 24, 2013

Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments

A Big Challenge

You probably remember that an organism’s DNA is collectively referred to as the genome and that it contains genes that code for proteins. What you may not know is that the genome is tagged here and there with small molecules helping to determine which genes to express. These small molecules are collectively referred to as the epigenome and one recent study found a tremendous variation between the epigenomes in the same species of plant collected from different locations around the world. As one researcher explained:

We looked at plants collected from around the world and found that their epigenomes are surprisingly different. This additional diversity may create a way for plants to rapidly adapt to diverse environments without any genetic change in their DNA, which takes a very long time.

In other words, different specimens of a given species of plant, all with the same genome, had significantly different epigenomes.

Epigenetics is another example of how the species do not appear to have evolved. Evolution may be true or false, but the scientific evidence presents a great many challenges to the idea. Recall that under evolution the idea is that random biological changes that naturally occur and are inheritable, such as mutations in the germline, might luckily sometimes be an improvement to the organism’s fitness. In those cases the organisms with the change would likely be successful and procreate, thereby passing on the change to future generations.

But epigenetics challenges all this. First, the tagging of DNA does not naturally occur as mutations do. In order for an epigenetic change to occur and have any effect, there must be a small army of coordinated molecular machines that are working according to the same code. Some machines attach the tags according to external, environmental signals. Other machines remove or move the tags, again according to other signals. And yet other machines interpret the tags, thus influencing which proteins are expressed.

This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works. In fact epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.

The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.

And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.

That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science.

But that is not all. For even given such a miracle, such epigenetic tags would not be inheritable. And yet they are. So there are even more machines that must have arisen by chance to preserve the tags when the cell divides.

This brings us to yet another set of problems with epigenetics: the machinery described above is not inheritable unless is evolves in the germline. But in the germline it doesn’t do anybody any good. Only when it is a passed on to the progeny can it help.

But even then the epigenetics capability likely won’t help because this capability gives the organism the ability to respond to a wide range of environmental conditions—conditions that probably won’t even occur in the organism’s lifetime.

In other words, we must believe that an astronomically unlikely capability arose by chance and though most of it wasn’t helpful, it was preserved anyway. Then, in future generations, when a particular environmental shift occurred, the epigenetics came to the rescue.

These problems are highlighted by the new research discussed above, showing how the epigenetic tagging can be so different in the same species of plant, in different locations around the world. Those environments are very different, so the tagging is very different.

But the origin of the epigenetics machinery would have had to anticipate all these different environments, long in advance.

Simply put, this just doesn’t make much sense under evolution. Epigenetics goes against the evolutionary model. Not surprisingly, evolutionists resisted the early epigenetic findings. And when the findings became undeniable evolutionists downplayed their significance.

But these findings are an obvious and dramatic falsification of evolutionary expectations. And this problem comes after several other, equally vexing, problems, many of which were at least somewhat understood in Darwin’s time.

Epigenetics is an example of how the science does not bode well for evolutionary theory. But in evolution the science does not carry the day. The science represents a research problem to be worked out. Otherwise evolution is protected from such show-stoppers because evolution is known to be a fact from non scientific considerations. We may not know how epigenetics and a dozen other contradictions could have evolved, but we know they must have evolved.

For what about all the designs that make no sense, and all the designs that are harmful? No creator would have intended or created such a world. It must have evolved. That was Darwin’s argument and that remains the conviction today. As Stephen Jay Gould once explained:

Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.

You see evolution is, quite literally, a religious theory. Sometimes people say evolution is a religious theory because it is so unlikely and therefore requires faith to believe it. Others say evolution is a religious theory because it is driven by atheism.

No, evolution is a religious theory because it entails religious claims about God. Claims that, to a great many people, seem to be a given. These claims, as in Gould’s quote above, are taken to be so obvious that they are in no need of explaining or defending. In fact, they aren’t even religious. They simply are.

And so evolutionists do not understand the objection. They do not understand why their theory would be considered to be religious. Are they not simply reasoning according to evidence and science?

Meanwhile, the science shows evolution to be astronomically unlikely.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

475 comments:

  1. related note:

    Bacteria 'Invest' Wisely to Survive Uncertain Times, Scientists Report - Dec. 1, 2009
    Excerpt: "We have found that a particular genetic circuit is responsible for generating diversity within the bacteria population,",,
    "There seems to be an optimization going on in these organisms," he added.,,
    Essentially, variability of bacterial cells appears to match the variability in the environment, thereby increasing the chances of bacterial survival, he said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112102.htmated note:

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Hunter, excellent article. I only disagree with one thing:

      "First, the tagging of DNA does not naturally occur as mutations do.,,,
      This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works."

      Dr. Hunter, I'm know you are well aware that, as James Shapiro has repeatedly pointed out, mutations to DNA are, for the vast majority of times, now found to be "non-random". Thus even that 'random' part of Darwin's theory, which you inadvertently gave credence to, is called into severe question by the present state of evidence:

      Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009
      Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
      http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

      Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein) of neo-Darwinism.



      Delete
  2. You see evolution is, quite literally, a religious theory.

    It most definitely is not. It may have implications for some religious beliefs, depending on which faith we are talking about, but the theory itself is concerned only with the evolution of life on Earth.

    Sometimes people say evolution is a religious theory because it is so unlikely and therefore requires faith to believe it.

    Generally EID/creationists.

    Others say evolution is a religious theory because it is driven by atheism.

    How does that saying go, calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby?

    No, evolution is a religious theory because it entails religious claims about God.

    So does most science if you interpret it that way. Are you saying that quantum mechanics or relativity are also religious theories?

    You're also equivocating on the usage of "religious". If I, as an atheist, comment on some aspect of faith I can be accused of making a religious claim. A Christian defending the doctrine of his or her faith can also be described as making religious claims. In one case, the commenter is holds and is acting on firm religious convictions, in the other case, not. The adjective "religious" does not necessarily imply belief . It depends on context.

    And so evolutionists do not understand the objection. They do not understand why their theory would be considered to be religious. Are they not simply reasoning according to evidence and science?

    They understand perfectly well that this sort of criticism is a rhetorical device.

    Meanwhile, the science shows evolution to be astronomically unlikely.

    You are astronomically improbable. I am astronomically improbable. So are the upwards of seven billion other individual human beings on this planet. Astronomically improbable things happen all the time.

    Religion drives science, and it matters.

    Your religion would drive any science not consonant with your religious beliefs out of the classroom. That matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

      The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
      Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP

      Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek

      The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g

      “The strength of materialism is that it obviates the problem of evil altogether. God need not be reconciled with evil, because neither exists. Therefore the problem of evil is no problem at all.,,, And of course since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil-the very thing the materialist seems to deny. The argument (from Theodicy) that led to materialism is exhausted just when it is needed most. In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,,
      The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,,
      Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159
      http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118

      Delete
    2. "How does that saying go, calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby?"

      I've never seen someone who doesn't collect stamps running around with dedication to stamp collection sites to tell them they are wrong. Claiming there is not a higher motivation in atheist than simply not believing is pointless as a fabrication of the truth. IN the thread two posts ago I just finished answering you on UNDENIABLE meta physics claims made by atheists.

      You appeal to or accept meta physics beliefs among your faithful then people have every right to think of you as religious.

      There have been quite a few religions that didn't adhere to a personal God anywhere close to Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions

      Delete
    3. Ian H,

      "How does that saying go, calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby?"

      This is the most idiotic argument going. There is absolutely no analogy to be drawn between atheism as a religion and not collecting stamps as a hobby. It's fallacious in at least two ways.

      First, those who do not collect stamps do not deny the existence of stamps, or that stamps have a function in our everyday lives. Nor do they actively campaign for others to not take up stamp collecting, or pressure those that already do collect stamps, to stop doing so as it is delusional and harmful to society. Atheism does both those things.

      Secondly, if those who do not collect stamps did indeed deny the existence of stamps, and actively discouraged anyone from collecting stamps, as atheists do with those who pursue religious beliefs, then not collecting stamps could indeed be seen as a hobby.

      The logic of evolutionists. Gotta love it.

      Delete
  3. Cornelius Goebbels

    Sometimes people say evolution is a religious theory because it is so unlikely and therefore requires faith to believe it. Others say evolution is a religious theory because it is driven by atheism.


    Some say evolution is a religious theory because they are unscrupulous paid political propagandists who take money from the Discovery Institute to lie about the solid science supporting ToE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
      Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
      Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher
      http://www.icr.org/article/455/

      Delete
    2. Given a choice between voodoo and evolution, I would pick voodoo. Evolution is a religion of cretins, created by cretins for cretins. ahahaha...

      A bunch of insecure morons, mostly folks like Thorton and Dawkins who believe they suffered child abuse growing up in a Christian environment use evolution to get their revenge against God and Christianity. What a bunch of wussies. It's pathetic, really.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
  4. Cornelius Hunter: That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science.

    Just your usual "it's too complicated to have evolved" argument.

    Cornelius Hunter: In other words, we must believe that an astronomically unlikely capability arose by chance and though most of it wasn’t helpful, it was preserved anyway. Then, in future generations, when a particular environmental shift occurred, the epigenetics came to the rescue.

    Organisms have flexibility to respond to their environments. That hardly contradicts evolutionary theory, and is supported by the mathematics of evolution, which implies that organisms can adapt to environmental fluctuations experienced over multi-generational time scales, with structures persisting between generations of non-use.

    It's not clear if epigenetic states are persistent over many generations. If not, they may be just a type of phenotypic variation. Plants, especially, which can't easily move in response to changing conditions, may rely on epigenetic variation.

    Cornelius Hunter: Epigenetics is an example of how the science does not bode well for evolutionary theory.

    If epigenetics can persist long term in a lineage, it wouldn't call into question evolution, but it might cause additional stress in neodarwinist theory (which is already outmoded for a number of reasons).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z:

      Just your usual "it's too complicated to have evolved" argument.

      Non scientific protectionism.

      Organisms have flexibility to respond to their environments.

      Yes, they certainly do. And with remarkable swiftness and accuracy to the challenge. We call it epigenetics.

      That hardly contradicts evolutionary theory.

      Yes it does because it requires too many coordinated mutations to be feasible, and it requires adaptation to threats that are not currently present and require travelling to the other side of the world to see (see article).

      It's not clear if epigenetic states are persistent over many generations. If not, they may be just a type of phenotypic variation.

      Irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter

      Yes it does because it requires too many coordinated mutations to be feasible


      You have the data to back up this assertion?

      Didn't think so.

      Looks like you're going with the standard Creationist big lie and argument from personal incredulity. AGAIN.

      Delete
    3. Thorton:

      Looks like you're going with the standard Creationist big lie and argument from personal incredulity. AGAIN.

      And what is your excuse? Credulity. AGAIN.

      Delete
  5. Z: If epigenetics can persist long term in a lineage, it wouldn't call into question evolution, but it might cause additional stress in neodarwinist theory (which is already outmoded for a number of reasons).

    J: "Outmoded?" It never was science if, by "science," you mean it predicted specific fauna and flora at specific times in earth history. Your new theory can predict (actually, imply) alright, just like the "5-minute" theory for the universe can. That's why it's no better THAN the 5-minute theory. Any theory/hypothesis can be saved from falsification if you're willing to posit the requisite ad-hoc hypotheses to do so.

    Of course, you could always use the number of ad-hoc hypotheses as the relative plausibility criteria, as induction requires. So by that view of relative plausibility criteria, show me you posit less ad-hoc hypotheses than are required for the 5-minute theory? Good luck!

    Any atheistic theory is laden with the same infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses for the simple reason that they can't account for a NON-incidental correspondence of thought and non-self beings. The 5-minute theory is just one of an infinite set of ways of demonstrating the absurdity of that approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,
      the simple reason that they can't account for a NON-incidental correspondence of thought and non-self beings


      Mind clarifying/ expanding on this?

      Delete
    2. Jeff March 24, 2013 at 7:54 AM

      [...]

      Your new theory can predict (actually, imply) alright, just like the "5-minute" theory for the universe can. That's why it's no better THAN the 5-minute theory. Any theory/hypothesis can be saved from falsification if you're willing to posit the requisite ad-hoc hypotheses to do so.


      Since Jeff is a bit casual about explaining some of his terms and allusions, this is what Wikipedia has to say about the 5-minute hypothesis.

      Five-minute hypothesis

      The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly-used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regards to memory.


      The interesting thing about this argument is that if we discard ad-hoc hypotheses such as the existence of an ordered, objective reality and an ancient universe then we have no grounds for dismissing the idea of a 5-minute old universe as absurd.

      As for the comment about ad hoc hypotheses being used to rescue theories from falsification this is a case of "pot, kettle, black" because proposing an all-powerful, all-knowing intelligent agency is the biggest ad hoc hypothesis of all since it can explain literally anything.

      Delete
    3. Ian,
      because proposing an all-powerful, all-knowing intelligent agency is the biggest ad hoc hypothesis of all since it can explain literally anything.


      I think in Jeff's thinking it still counts one,no matter how large it is. It is number not the size that counts

      Delete
    4. Do you know what this" the simple reason that they can't account for a NON-incidental correspondence of thought and non-self beings" means?

      Delete
    5. "The interesting thing about this argument is that if we discard ad-hoc hypotheses such as the existence of an ordered, objective reality and an ancient universe then we have no grounds for dismissing the idea of a 5-minute old universe as absurd."

      Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. We have every ground for dismissing the idea since any apparatus which creates the memories would require not exclude an ordered objective reality. There would be nothing ad hoc about that.

      " because proposing an all-powerful, all-knowing intelligent agency is the biggest ad hoc hypothesis of all since it can explain literally anything."

      How is that substantially different from proposing an all powerful, infinite cosmos whose powers include creating all kinds of intelligence,order and originating logic itself and can explain anything - on occassion even other universes with other laws?

      pot , kettle, black is appropriate though.

      Delete
    6. velikovskys March 24, 2013 at 11:45 AM

      [...]

      I think in Jeff's thinking it still counts It is number not the size that counts



      I think you're right and I think Jeff is wrong. In this case, size does matter.

      I'm still trying to work out why ad hoc hypotheses such a Bad Thing, though.

      Delete
    7. velikovskys March 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM

      Do you know what this" the simple reason that they can't account for a NON-incidental correspondence of thought and non-self beings" means?


      I've been struggling with that one myself. There are times when Jeff's writing approaches postmodernist standards of impenetrability.

      The nearest I can get is that it has something to do with solipsism and the difficulty of accounting for the existence of beings beyond the self. Jeff really needs to explain it himself, though.

      Delete
    8. Elijah2012 March 24, 2013 at 11:49 AM

      [...]

      We have every ground for dismissing the idea since any apparatus which creates the memories would require not exclude an ordered objective reality. There would be nothing ad hoc about that.


      Who said anything about an apparatus? This whole thing could be something conjured up in the mind of this immaterial, supernatural being that you believe in. How could you tell?

      [...]

      How is that substantially different from proposing an all powerful, infinite cosmos whose powers include creating all kinds of intelligence,order and originating logic itself and can explain anything - on occassion even other universes with other laws?

      Probably not but since that's not what I'm proposing, it's irrelevant.

      My position is that, unless this whole thing really is an illusion or simulation, we live in an ordered universe. We can experience our immediate environment directly and observe more remote parts indirectly.

      Our studies have found the Universe is expanding. Tracking back through time suggests that the whole thing was compressed into some sort of singularity about 13.8bn years ago. What conditions were like in that singularity and why it chose to go "Bang!" when it did no one knows. Where did the laws come from that create the order we see around us? Guess what? No one knows

      "I don't know" is a perfectly respectable position in science if you actually don't know. It doesn't stop people speculating, though, and there's nothing wrong in playing around with ideas just as long as you don't pretend it's some sort of God's honest Truth.

      If you want to believe in some tri-omni Creator, that's your choice. I might express my opinion about that belief but I wouldn't do anything to prevent you holding it, even if I could. If you want to persuade me that there's anything to it, however, you'll have to come up with much better arguments or evidence than we've seen so far.

      Delete
  6. Jeff: "Outmoded?" It never was science if, by "science," you mean it predicted specific fauna and flora at specific times in earth history.

    Scientific, as in making important predictions about biology, but not necessarily useful at attacking strawmen.

    Jeff: Any atheistic theory is laden with the same infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses for the simple reason that they can't account for a NON-incidental correspondence of thought and non-self beings.

    Heh. All scientific theories are non-theistic; e.g., Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Plate Tectonics.


    ReplyDelete
  7. Z: Scientific, as in making important predictions about biology,

    J: Yeah, well, to the extent that the neo-darwinian "theory" actually implied anything based on observed mechanisms and tendencies, it was consistent with Ken Ham's views.

    Jeff: Any atheistic theory is laden with the same infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses for the simple reason that they can't account for a NON-incidental correspondence of thought and non-self beings.

    Z: Heh. All scientific theories are non-theistic; e.g., Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Plate Tectonics.

    J: Theists don't have atheistic theories. Because their belief in the validity of induction is, itself, grounded in their theism. Thus any inductive inference for them is theistic in that sense, at least.

    If a theory is truly absolutely atheistic, it is completely arbitrary in the sense that it, like all other atheistic theories, requires an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. J1: If a theory is truly absolutely atheistic, it is completely arbitrary in the sense that it, like all other atheistic theories, requires an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses to be true.

    J2: Correction --

    If a theory is truly absolutely atheistic, it is completely arbitrary in the sense that it, like all other atheistic theories, requires an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses to corroborate the theory at all. Any such theory is as good/bad as any other such theory for that reason.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeff: Yeah, well, to the extent that the neo-darwinian "theory" actually implied anything based on observed mechanisms and tendencies, it was consistent with Ken Ham's views.

    Well, no. Ken Ham thought humans and dinosaurs co-existed in the recent past, while neodarwinian theory indicates that dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans appeared. Neodarwinian theory also makes predictions about population genetics, a crucial insight important to modern medicine.

    Jeff: Theists don't have atheistic theories.

    Of course they do. They propose them all the time. Newton was a theist, but his theory is non-theistic.

    Jeff: If a theory is truly absolutely atheistic, it is completely arbitrary in the sense that it, like all other atheistic theories, requires an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses to be true.

    No. It only requires the usual precept about the universe being understandable. Anyway, you've devolved into religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. * dinosaur meaning non-avian dinosaur, of course

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

      Delete
    3. Z: Well, no. Ken Ham thought humans and dinosaurs co-existed in the recent past, while neodarwinian theory indicates that dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans appeared.

      J: You're seriously confused, Z. The millions of ad-hoc hypotheses you have to posit to:

      1) render known stratigraphic ranges strongly correlated to existential ranges

      AND

      2) to render morphological gaps bridged by a-teleological effects of mutations, etc in the posited time frames,

      is astronomically huge. Now, prove you posit less ad-hoc hypotheses than Ken Ham (never mind the additional infinite set you have to posit to be absolutely atheistic).

      Z: Neodarwinian theory also makes predictions about population genetics, a crucial insight important to modern medicine.

      J: That's because some of neodarwinian theory doesn't depend on the falsehood of SA's. Some of it depends on observation and plausible degrees of analogical extrapolation. IOW, some of it has nothing to do with Darwin's hypotheses about common ancestries.

      Z: Of course they do. They propose them all the time. Newton was a theist, but his theory is non-theistic.

      J: No, Newton didn't believe in arbitrary, ad-hoc views of reality, because he held to benevolent theism. His theory had to satisfy the relevant inductive criteria to be considered PLAUSIBLE. Otherwise, he could have applied his mathematical theory only to subjective conscious experience on the assumption of solipsism. Or he could have assumed lots of events are uncaused, and therefore inexplicable, like lots of modern physicists.

      Jeff: If a theory is truly absolutely atheistic, it is completely arbitrary in the sense that it, like all other atheistic theories, requires an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses to be true.

      Z: No. It only requires the usual precept about the universe being understandable.

      J: The five-minute theory is understandable. As is the 6-minute theory, the 7-minute theory, ........... You're confused.

      Delete
    4. For the love of FSM you blithering moron why don't you get a new writer? You've been regurgitating the same philosophical nonsense for four months' straight now. "Blah blah blah ad-hoc excuses blah blah blah atheistic theory blah blah blah stratigraphic ranges and existential ranges blah blah blah" You have no idea what any of that even means but you keep running on like a broken record (skipping CD to those under 30).

      You haven't convinced a single person with your ignorant philosophical garbage but you have become damn boring.

      Delete
    5. Thorton, maybe you should stick to blogs that are more at your pace.

      http://evolution-for-kids.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    6. Moronton: You haven't convinced a single person with your ignorant philosophical garbage but you have become damn boring.

      J: Sucks having no free-will to go elsewhere, huh? Poor animalistic Moronton!

      Delete
    7. "Thorton, maybe you should stick to blogs that are more at your pace.

      http://evolution-for-kids.blogspot.com/"


      No fair. you know Thorton would end up getting himself banned from any moderated blog especially with a blog for kids.

      Delete
    8. Hey Elijah2012, tell us how the U.S. Civil War started in 1813.

      Tell us how malaria was caused by The Fall.

      Show us more of your amazing scientific and history knowledge.

      Delete
    9. Don't have to T. I still am giggling at your definition of

      "mutually exclusive"

      your claims that cancer does not run in families and no gene or sets of genes ever caused a cancer.

      That in modern humans Wisdom teeth have no function even in those that use them to chew

      and your most recent Gaffe that cats giving rise to cats is evidence of MACRO evolution.

      ROFL. All you got is that late at night I was thinking War Of Independence when I wrote a date about the Civil war. Feel free I have a rich assortment of evidences of your "amazing scientific and historical knowledge - lol just remembered another one trying to compare a time period 2000 years ago to 150 and even referencing photographs as not being present as a point of one over the other. that was some great thinking there T :)


      Delete
    10. LOL! Poor ignorant little Godbotherer, dumb as a box of rocks, still scared to death of the science he doesn't understand.

      Tell us about all that "scientific" evidence for Noah's Ark, and how all languages were created at Babel, and how Jonah lived for three days in the belly of the great fish, and how animals belong to their own "kind". All that "science" you Godbotherers want taught in science classes.

      Delete
    11. Come on T

      I was waiting for you to go first with your fairy tales man

      Ya know how the universe just popped out of absolutely nothing by accident and then poof life just came together just about when it was cool enough to do so in some magical unexplained way out of some pond and Poof all these body plans just explode onto the scene in the Cambrian and how magically the eye evolved countless times and the appendix 30 something times and echolation a few times and marsupial at least twice and on and on with all these magical convergent stuff thats so cool and gnarly. who knew? the universe could just come up with the same solutions over and over again.

      Hey you can even throw in some multiverse stuff in the feature section of the DVD. Maybe some dragons popping out of nothing from a collider in one of the Many Worlds universes or maybe one of those magigies that Krauss talks about where you are just sitting there in nothingness and BANG new laws of the universe pop into existence (in what space? in what time? but who cares?)

      Come on T your side tells much more interesting fairy tales. I got my popcorn. You go first.

      Delete
    12. LOL!

      My side has all the positive evidence.

      You lose.

      But do keep chirping if it helps you be less frightened of reality.

      Delete
    13. NO one shows themselves to be more frightened of the facts that someone who spends copious amounts of time on an opposing view blog running around hand waving at every posts that raises serious issues with his position

      Thats not a sign of a confident person.

      Meanwhile feel free to present any evidence for any of the fairy tales you believe that I mentioned. Truth is you got nothing and thats why your next post won't have evidence for a single one of the things mentioned above - just more rhetoric and hand waving

      Delete
    14. Elijah2012

      chirp! chirp! chirp!


      There there baby, it'll be all right. Just pull the covers over your head and that mean old science that scares you so badly will just disappear!

      Let's see - you crapped yourself and ran from the Felidae evolutionary data. Maybe you'll be able to keep your pants clean and give us your Creationist story for the Sirenia.

      Iterative Evolution of Sympatric Seacow (Dugongidae, Sirenia) Assemblages during the Past ∼26 Million Years

      Abstract: "Extant sirenians show allopatric distributions throughout most of their range. However, their fossil record shows evidence of multispecies communities throughout most of the past ~26 million years, in different oceanic basins. Morphological differences among co-occurring sirenian taxa suggest that resource partitioning played a role in structuring these communities. We examined body size and ecomorphological differences (e.g., rostral deflection and tusk morphology) among sirenian assemblages from the late Oligocene of Florida, early Miocene of India and early Pliocene of Mexico; each with three species of the family Dugongidae. Although overlapping in several ecomorphological traits, each assemblage showed at least one dominant trait in which coexisting species differed. Fossil sirenian occurrences occasionally are monotypic, but the assemblages analyzed herein show iterative evolution of multispecies communities, a phenomenon unparalleled in extant sirenian ecology. As primary consumers of seagrasses, these communities likely had a strong impact on past seagrass ecology and diversity, although the sparse fossil record of seagrasses limits direct comparisons. Nonetheless, our results provide robust support for previous suggestions that some sirenians in these extinct assemblages served as keystone species, controlling the dominance of climax seagrass species, permitting more taxonomically diverse seagrass beds (and sirenian communities) than many of those observed today"

      Of course you won't, but it will be fun to laugh at you while you run from another set of scientific data.

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

      Delete
    16. Yes T... run....run away...as fast as you can....to some other topic because you KNOW you had nothing on the subject asked about.

      :) Elijah is like a prophet

      "thats why your next post won't have evidence for a single one of the things mentioned above"

      Delete
    17. LOL!

      Run Elijah2012 run!

      It's that scary evidence for evolution again!

      Delete
    18. LOL, Thorton posts an article about sea cows evolving into sea cows.

      Thorton, seriously, check out that Evolution 4 Kidz blog. It will get you up to speed on what the theory of evolution actually says.

      Delete
    19. lifepsy

      LOL, Thorton posts an article about sea cows evolving into sea cows.


      LOL! To the surprise of no one, the ignorant Godbotherer refuses to read the paper or do any research himself. If he had, he'd learn that the ancestors of extant dugongs and manatees were semi-terrestrial and had hind limbs.

      Sirenian Evolution

      Sirenian fossil with hind limbs

      But there's no hope that these willfully ignorant clowns will ever read and educate themselves in the actual scientific data. Pity, because there are lots of educated, intelligent Christians in the world. It's just not these Bozos. They're too busy lying for Jeebus.

      Delete
    20. More story-time with fossils, huh?

      Thorton I see your sources are still displaying Rodhocetus as having a whale-like tail with flukes even though that's been admitted by the evolutionist who researched it to be a total fabrication.

      Delete
    21. lifepsy

      More story-time with fossils, huh?


      More willful ignorance and denial of the evidence by the Godbotherer.

      Thorton I see your sources are still displaying Rodhocetus as having a whale-like tail with flukes even though that's been admitted by the evolutionist who researched it to be a total fabrication.

      LOL! Neither of the links I gave to the Sirenia even mention Rodhocetus. But I guess since you're caught with your pants down again you need to rustle up some lie as a diversion.

      Don't worry, I never expected a clown like you to deal with the evidence honestly. It's provided more for the lurkers to see just how slimy and dishonest you liars for Jeebus can be.

      Delete
    22. Thorton,,, that looks pretty contrived to me. Almost as contrived/fraudulent as the fossil evidence for whale evolution is:

      Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
      http://vimeo.com/30921402

      An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin
      Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
      In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.
      The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion.
      http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm

      Then there is that whole 'you ain't got a mechanism' thing Thorton:

      Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011
      Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/

      Delete
    23. Thorton, Please note in the video that it is Gingerich himself who admits his evidence is fraudulent!

      Delete
  10. The Darwinian Mystics tell us that typically, natural selection conserves the good, and gets rid of the bad, or wasteful, and anything neutral is passed on by chance.

    Epigenetic processes activate genetic function not currently in use. They turn genes on or off by adding or removing binding molecules from them. They un-package chromatin so that genes can be accessed in the first place.

    Why is natural selection conserving genetic pathways that are not expressed unless the organism is in a specific environment? Why is Natural Selection strategically conserving unused genetic function that will only come in handy later on if the species is relocated or the climate changes, etc.

    Why is natural selection maintaining several layers of functional phenotypes... phenotypes that may go hundreds of generations before becoming beneficial and therefore epigenetically expressed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If conserving epigenetic variants imposes no burden on the organism, such that it has no effect on fitness one way or the other, then why shouldn't they just be carried along?

      Perhaps, given enough time, they would become degraded or disabled. Who knows?

      You still haven't told us how your personal brand of mysticism explains epigenesis.











      Delete
    2. Ian: If conserving epigenetic variants imposes no burden on the organism, such that it has no effect on fitness one way or the other, then why shouldn't they just be carried along?

      If the variants are 'neutral', then their conservation is totally random. So by pure luck, Natural Selection happened to carry along multiple functional but unexpressed variations. Mutational drift avoided all these regions somehow.

      Here's another question I just thought of.. Do we see "broken" epigenetic processes..? By that, I mean they would be essentially harmless, but not be able to confer their prior function. A "vestigial epigenome", if you will... Wouldn't evolution predict something like that?

      I think more likely the organism was purposely designed for multiple adaptations in fluctuating environments. Science doesn't have all the answers, though.

      Delete
    3. lifepsy March 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      [...]

      Here's another question I just thought of.. Do we see "broken" epigenetic processes..? By that, I mean they would be essentially harmless, but not be able to confer their prior function. A "vestigial epigenome", if you will... Wouldn't evolution predict something like that?


      Great minds, eh? That's exactly the question that occurred to me. I'm hoping it's also occurred to researchers in the field and guessing that it has.

      Delete
  11. "Epigenetics is an example of how the science does not bode well for evolutionary theory. "

    No it doesn't . Especially not to the goal of evolutionary atheists of raising their percentage in the population."

    The average man on the street would say "epi who?" They are already doubtful of chance and accidents being able to explain the DNA they know about but expecting them to swallow hook line and sinker yet another complex system on top of what they already are having problems accepting as non design is asking more than the atheists will ever get.

    There will of course be people hanging on for dear life against the facts but as unbelievable as it would sound to me ten years ago if the research at the molecular level keeps up at this pace we might actually in our lifetime see Neo-darwinism come crashing down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elijah2012, we might actually in our lifetime see Neo-darwinism come crashing down.

      There are pioneering biologists in epigenetics calling for just that.

      Look at Eva Jablonka's work.

      Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis 2008

      ...Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm that was constructed during the 1930s and1940s (Mayr, 1982) and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway.


      http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf

      Neo-Darwinists are basically just seeing how much longer they can keep bluffing the public.

      Delete
    2. lifepsy

      Neo-Darwinists are basically just seeing how much longer they can keep bluffing the public.


      LOL! When do you think you genius Creation "scientists" will be presenting that genetic data on the original cat "kind"? When will you be listing those attributes the original Created cat and dog "kinds" had that extant species have lost and can never recover?

      Delete
    3. http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf

      Thanks LIfe .. Interesting link.

      Delete
  12. Jeff: You're seriously confused, Z. The millions of ad-hoc hypotheses you have to posit to ...

    We don't posit millions of ad hoc hypotheses, just a handful sufficient to predict multiple facts in biology; something you have repeatedly refused to do.

    Jeff: Otherwise, he could have applied his mathematical theory only to subjective conscious experience on the assumption of solipsism.

    Seriously, is that your argument?

    Jeff: The five-minute theory is understandable.

    Sure it is. It just doesn't entail empirical consequences that distinguish it from an infinitude of other such vacuous hypotheses.

    ReplyDelete
  13. lifepsy: Why is natural selection conserving genetic pathways that are not expressed unless the organism is in a specific environment?

    This is actually fairly easy to model. If an organism is in a fluctuating environment, then it can evolve adaptations for each.

    lifepsy: Neo-Darwinists ...

    Neodarwinism, meaning a naïve model of mutation and selection, has been considered incomplete for decades. However, like many models, it has its uses within certain domains.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel: This is actually fairly easy to model. If an organism is in a fluctuating environment, then it can evolve adaptations for each.

      IF, but that's not always the case. Take the Podarcis Sicula lizards. They lived on an insect diet for probably tens of thousands of generations.

      Yet when they were suddenly moved to the plant diet on a new island, they were able to epigenetically express cecal valves for fermentation of cellulose.

      They conserved the function for a major anatomical feature that the original populations never used.


      Not that this is a make-or-break situation. Neo-darwinism doesn't make any sense even without epigenetics. I just find it interesting that NS has to select for layers of information that the population isn't even using. It's mystical powers are constantly being upgraded like some sort of cartoon character.

      Delete
  14. Jeff: You're seriously confused, Z. The millions of ad-hoc hypotheses you have to posit to ...

    Z: We don't posit millions of ad hoc hypotheses, just a handful sufficient to predict multiple facts in biology; something you have repeatedly refused to do.

    J: State the handful of ad hoc hypotheses and then deduce the existence of the relevant phenotypes/morphologies/species at the relevant times from them; something you have repeatedly refused to do. You're so confused it's astonishing.


    Jeff: The five-minute theory is understandable.

    Z: Sure it is. It just doesn't entail empirical consequences that distinguish it from an infinitude of other such vacuous hypotheses.

    J: Neither does yours, Z. You're positing millions of ad-hoc hypotheses about biology alone (never mind geology, taphonomy, etc) and still can't imply anything but the nested hierarchy. It's pathetic. The 5-minute theory, taken with other extant analogical theories, can explain tons of observations that occurred over the last 5 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J1: The 5-minute theory, taken with other extant analogical theories, can explain tons of observations that occurred over the last 5 minutes.

      J2: Unless, of course, those analogical theories happen to only coincidentally work when we test them. And if reality is as non-analogical as you imply it is, maybe that's the case after all.

      Delete
    2. The problem isn't with any 5-minute theory.

      The problem is that the ignorant blithering philosopher has a 5-minute cartoon understanding of a very well-developed and sometimes quite complicated scientific theory. One that science professionals can spend their whole careers studying and only scratch the surface of all the details that are known.

      But the ignorant blithering philosopher doesn't care as long as he gets to blither his usual meaningless gibberish.

      Delete
    3. Moronton: One that science professionals can spend their whole careers studying and only scratch the surface of all the details that are known.

      J: Maybe that's why they say such clearly illogical and/or utterly bald pontifications when trying to articulate it. Nah, just kidding. It's because there are so many non-analogous details that no parsimonious naturalistic theory can explain them all.

      It takes lots of ad-hoc assumptions to tie them together such that that something like a system results therefrom. The problem is, that can be done for an SA system too. It's just that SA'ists realize how pointless that is. It buys us nothing we can use to adjudicate how to better live our lives, and it doesn't clearly render SA or UCA more or less plausible than the other to many people.

      The nature of ad-hoc hypotheses is that no independent evidence exists for them, and yet they aren't self-evincing, either. A conclusion only has the plausibility it inherits from its grounds unless the conclusion can be otherwise corroborated with a high corroboration per ground ratio. This is the plausibility that derives from parsimony.

      But you believe on, you credulous little fideist you!!

      Delete
    4. I take it back. Ignorant philosopher Liar for Jesus Jeff here has a 5-second cartoon understanding of actual evolutionary theory. And even that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
  15. lifepsy: Take the Podarcis Sicula lizards. They lived on an insect diet for probably tens of thousands of generations. Yet when they were suddenly moved to the plant diet on a new island, they were able to epigenetically express cecal valves for fermentation of cellulose.

    You're probably referring to Vervust et al. 2010. If so, they note that gut morphology in many organisms can vary due to dietary demands from seasonal changes, availability of food, reproduction, or aging in the organism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, epigenetic plasticity is common.

      However the populations in question can go many generations without being exposed to the variant environments such as a changed diet.

      So the unused variant expression should not be expected to be so conserved unless there is some sort of "Save For Later" message being communicated.

      Delete
    2. lifepsy

      Exactly, epigenetic plasticity is common.


      Previously you said the Felinae, a subfamily of the Felidae represented one cat "kind". You also claimed that all the members of the Felinae hadn't evolved but were just phenotypic plasticity variants of that original "kind".

      The Felinae includes not only small cats like the domestic tabby but also cougars and cheetahs.

      Tell us what diet we should feed a domestic moggy to get it to turn into a cougar or cheetah. Or vice versa.

      Talk is cheap lifepsy, and all you've done since you got here is talk talk talk. When will we see some actual evidence for cats having lost traits they can never recover?

      Delete
    3. Actually I said small/medium cats descended from a small/medium cat kind that is primarily represented by Felinae. And I never mentioned plasticity in that context.

      Thorton, it's time to be a big-boy and stop misrepresenting other people.

      Delete
    4. lifepsy, it's time to be a man and back up some of your ignorant Creationist bluster with some actual scientific data, or admit that you can't.

      I have no problem rubbing your nose in your willful ignorance and stupidity and beating you over the head with research data all night long. Do you have a problem with it? Too bad.

      Delete
  16. Jeff: State the handful of ad hoc hypotheses and then deduce the existence of the relevant phenotypes/morphologies/species at the relevant times from them; something you have repeatedly refused to do.

    You seem confused on the scientific method. Not everything can be predicted from theory. Many events are due to contingency. However, we can make other predictions, such as the nested hierarchy, intermediate organisms and traits, fossil series, fishapods, non-human hominids, geographic dispersion patterns, patterns of embryonic development. These are not single predictions, but vast sets of confirmatory evidence. What's interesting is that Darwin couldn't observe what we call microevolution, but predicted it from the evidence for macroevolution.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z: You seem confused on the scientific method.

      J: If positing millions of ad-hoc hypotheses to imply a handful of observations is what impresses scientists, I'll leave "science" to you extremely credulous folk.

      Z: Not everything can be predicted from theory.

      J: Yes, well, DUH! Who said it could?

      Z: Many events are due to contingency.

      J: If by contingency you mean that there are/were events for which there were no antecedent conditions that were necessary and sufficient for their occurrence, that would be false. That's the definition of an uncaused event.

      If by contingency you mean that some conditions are so complex that no human can devise a theory to imply all the detail thereof, then, yeah. But so what?

      A theory, to be valuable, still needs to produce a significant number of corroborative observations PER assumption. This is what the ToE does NOT do when it comes to historical explanation.

      Z: However, we can make other predictions, such as the nested hierarchy,

      J: Yes, after making millions of ad-hoc assumptions that imply the nested hierarchy.

      Z: intermediate organisms and traits, fossil series, fishapods, non-human hominids, geographic dispersion patterns, patterns of embryonic development.

      J: Yes, after making the requisite millions of ad-hoc assumptions required to imply them.

      Z: These are not single predictions, but vast sets of confirmatory evidence.

      J: Something on the order of one empirically corroborated implication per million ad-hoc assumptions. Anyone can do that, Z.

      Z: What's interesting is that Darwin couldn't observe what we call microevolution, but predicted it from the evidence for macroevolution.

      J: Really? That is interesting. I observe it every time a human is born.

      Delete
  17. If life was designed by a designer similar to a human designer, I would expect to see something like a nested hierarchy. Things created by humans can be arrainged into nested hierachies. So if life was designed, I would expect to see something like what we see. And since there are so many anomalies that evolution can't explain, that require things like horizontal gene transfer, deep homology, and convergence, I'm not sure evolution is the best explanation for what we see.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Book fully best luxury serviced apartments gurgaon have now started introduction luxury homes, every time with a product new plan, a product brand new fashion. The mounting order for luxury homes in gurgaon and bigger Noida Service Apartment has enthused them lots to require the plan.

    ReplyDelete
  19. lifepsy: Exactly, epigenetic plasticity is common. However the populations in question can go many generations without being exposed to the variant environments such as a changed diet. So the unused variant expression should not be expected to be so conserved unless there is some sort of "Save For Later" message being communicated.

    A lot of plasticity can be due to gene expression, so it tends to conserve over longer periods as the genes may have other uses within the organism. None of this is contrary to evolution.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel: the genes may have other uses within the organism.

      Maybe in some cases. You're still asking natural selection to preserve multiple unused phenotypes, when it is supposed to be efficiently finding and following new function on the codon-level, and turning deer into whales in a few million years. Seems like Natural Selection is both a ruthless transformative machine, and a nurturing nanny-type figure with foresight, that makes sure the species will be comfortable if their food source happens to change after thousands of generations.

      Zachriel: None of this is contrary to evolution.

      Kind of a silly statement. Nothing is contrary to evolution if you assert that random variations and natural selection can explain anything found in nature.

      If you want to see that in all its comical glory, just look into orphan genes.

      Delete
    2. lifepsy

      If you want to see that in all its comical glory, just look into orphan genes.


      OK, I did. Here's some recent research.

      Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes.
      Wissler et al
      Genome Biol Evol. 2013 Jan;5(2):439-55.

      Abstract: "Orphan genes are defined as genes that lack detectable similarity to genes in other species and therefore no clear signals of common descent (i.e., homology) can be inferred. Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome because their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10% to 30% of all genes in a genome. Several case studies demonstrated that orphans can contribute to lineage-specific adaptation. Here, we study orphan genes by comparing 30 arthropod genomes, focusing in particular on seven recently sequenced ant genomes. This setup allows analyzing a major metazoan taxon and a comparison between social Hymenoptera (ants and bees) and nonsocial Diptera (flies and mosquitoes). First, we find that recently split lineages undergo accelerated genomic reorganization, including the rapid gain of many orphan genes. Second, between the two insect orders Hymenoptera and Diptera, orphan genes are more abundant and emerge more rapidly in Hymenoptera, in particular, in leaf-cutter ants. With respect to intragenomic localization, we find that ant orphan genes show little clustering, which suggests that orphan genes in ants are scattered uniformly over the genome and between nonorphan genes. Finally, our results indicate that the genetic mechanisms creating orphan genes-such as gene duplication, frame-shift fixation, creation of overlapping genes, horizontal gene transfer, and exaptation of transposable elements-act at different rates in insects, primates, and plants. In Formicidae, the majority of orphan genes has their origin in intergenic regions, pointing to a high rate of de novo gene formation or generalized gene loss, and support a recently proposed dynamic model of frequent gene birth and death."

      Looks like the researchers have clearly identified evolutionary mechanisms for the appearance of such orphan genes. Go ahead and tell us why you think this is such a big problem for evolution.

      Delete
    3. pointing to a high rate of de novo gene formation

      There's your first clue Thorton.

      You're swimming out in the deep end without floaties now, though. You might want to go back to the fun pictures of whales.

      Delete
    4. lifepsy

      pointing to a high rate of de novo gene formation

      There's your first clue Thorton.


      The clue that you're a scientifically ignorant boob who doesn't understand the topic but knows how to dishonestly quote-mine the abstract as a diversion?

      I've known that from almost the first day you started posting Creationist crap and running from the actual evidence.

      Delete
    5. "You're swimming out in the deep end without floaties now, though. You might want to go back to the fun pictures of whales."


      LOL....he's got these other fun pictures about something he calls a waaambulance too along with some pics of the civil war.

      kid is funny though. He's always set on angry comic mode.

      You might need to tell him what "de novo" means though

      Delete
    6. Elijah2012, have you washed the stains out of your BVDs caused by that Sirenian genetic and fossil data yet?

      Sorry the evidence is giving you such a big laundry bill. Maybe if you weren't such a coward and tried explaining the data instead of running away you'd get over those irrational fears.

      Delete
  20. Jeff: If positing millions of ad-hoc hypotheses to imply a handful of observations is what impresses scientists, I'll leave "science" to you extremely credulous folk.

    It's a handful of hypotheses and millions of observations.

    Jeff: If by contingency you mean that there are/were events for which there were no antecedent conditions that were necessary and sufficient for their occurrence, that would be false. That's the definition of an uncaused event.

    contingent, happening by unforeseen causes; e.g., a comet striking the Earth, a mudslide trapping and fossilizing soft tissue organisms.

    Jeff: Yes, after making millions of ad-hoc assumptions that imply the nested hierarchy.

    Not sure why you are so confused on this point. The only assumptions necessary to explain the nested hierarchy are a common ancestor, bifurcating descent, and natural variation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. natschuster: If life was designed by a designer similar to a human designer, I would expect to see something like a nested hierarchy. Things created by humans can be arrainged into nested hierachies.

    Actually, most human design cannot be arranged in a singular nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel, your simple one liners mask the huge problems with your interpretation of the nested hierarchy. It's all in the selection criteria. Evolutionists have created the NARRATIVE for this, but it is a false narrative. Look to the contrary data - this tells you more about the quality of your model because anyone can cherry pick.

      There are serious telltale signs that your model has major problems. You dismiss these as mere exceptions and cling to old morphology criteria based hierarchies for support. Biological relationships may be evidence for evolution or common design... but the exceptions deal serious problems to the idea of descent with modification. It takes too much faith to believe in all the convergences and cascading convergences that are afixed to your model in ad hoc fashion.

      That life is built on a common biological platform with code features turned on or off is brilliant. Evolutionists have focused on the high level basic platform and demanded that descent with modification is the only explanation. A much more elegant and powerful explanation is common design. You can stick with your ad hoc explanations of cascading convergence and continue to try to dumb down the complexity of life, but believing a lie never helped anyone.

      Delete
    2. Tedford the Slow

      A much more elegant and powerful explanation is common design.


      Also a much more elegant and powerful explanation is MAGIC!

      The huge problem for those who are permanently stuck in idiot mode is that both "common design" and MAGIC have exactly the same amount of supporting positive evidence. NONE.

      Tedford the Slow isn't bothered by things like empirical reality.

      Delete
    3. "the same amount of supporting positive evidence. NONE."

      hmmmm kinda like your take on abiogenesis then?

      Delete
    4. Elijah2012

      "the same amount of supporting positive evidence. NONE."

      hmmmm kinda like your take on abiogenesis then?


      No, the same probability you'll engage in any honest scientific discussion instead of just posting smarmy non-answers and running away.

      Delete
    5. Quote Zachriel:

      """natschuster: If life was designed by a designer similar to a human designer, I would expect to see something like a nested hierarchy. Things created by humans can be arrainged into nested hierachies.""

      Actually, most human design cannot be arranged in a singular nested hierarchy."

      Doesn't it depend on how you define similarities and differences? And I understand that some evolutionist are now saying, due to genetics and such, that there is no "Tree of Life," but rather a bush. So, it seems that life does not have a single nested hierarchy either.

      Anyway, if a human like designer created life, then why wouldn't it look like what we see?

      Delete
  22. Neal Tedford: your simple one liners mask the huge problems with your interpretation of the nested hierarchy. It's all in the selection criteria.

    That is incorrect. This has been subjected to intensive scientific scrutiny. There is an objective nested hierarchy across most taxa.

    Neal Tedford: You dismiss these as mere exceptions and cling to old morphology criteria based hierarchies for support.

    Exceptions have been noted since Darwin posed his theory (Darwin 1859).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zach, "there is an objective nested hierarchy across most taxa"

    This is a false statement and it becomes increasely clear as more genomes are sequenced. You've simply lost objectivity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing that is clear is that Tedford the Slow is pitifully ignorant of the actual evidence. That processes involving bifurcating descent from a common ancestor (such as biological evolution and languages) produce obvious 'best fit' objectively determined nested hierarchies was conclusively demonstrated over two decades ago.

      Consistency Indices and Random Data
      Klassen et al
      Systematic Biology (1991) 40 (4): 446-457.

      Abstract: "This study was undertaken to determine the range of consistency index (CI) values obtainable from random data sets. We generated multiple random data matrices for each of 49 different matrix sizes ranging from 5 taxa and 4 (binary) characters to 49 taxa and 124 characters. The CI of the minimum-length tree(s) was calculated for each. CIs decreased in a monotonic, nonlinear fashion with addition of either taxa or characters. The influence of addition of taxa was far greater than that of addition of characters, and an interaction effect was recognized. The general curvilinear relation we found between CIs and number of taxa is consistent with results obtained by other authors, but our random data CIs were lower than those of other studies. Mean random CIs varied from 0.70 for the smallest data sets to 0.072 for the largest. Maximum random CIs reached 0.80. A regression through means of random CIs against number of taxa was calculated with a 95% confidence interval. This CIrandom is the minimum value that real data sets should exceed to be considered to contain phylogenetic information. The CIs of real data sets can be adjusted with the CIrandom, and these values are found to meet current criteria for adequate measures of homoplasy. However, the homoplasy indices that are uncorrelated with taxa are also insensitive to internal data set structure, and no current index is adequate for comparison of homoplasy among data sets. "

      Tedford the Slow, permanently stuck in idiot mode.


      Delete
  24. Neal Tedford: This is a false statement and it becomes increasely clear as more genomes are sequenced.

    There are two approaches to resolving this. We could appeal to authority, from Linnaeus to modern cladistics. Or we could consider cases.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zach, consider the case of the lowly sea squirt for starters. You can insist on sticking with the old morphology based classification which supposedly was rock solid or consider the huge genetic data contradictions.

    Evolutionists have no objectivity. It's always about pampering ToE and excusing exceptions, ad hoc stories, and cherry picking. The missing link is always right around the corner. Like the Wizard of Oz behind the smoke and curtains. No wonder most of you don't reveal your full names - who among you wants to be committed and attached to a mess like ToE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tedford the Slow

      Zach, consider the case of the lowly sea squirt for starters. You can insist on sticking with the old morphology based classification which supposedly was rock solid or consider the huge genetic data contradictions


      LOL! Tedford the Slow drags out his favorite "sea squirts disprove evolution" stupidity again.

      WHOLE GENOME COMPARISONS REVEALS A POSSIBLE CHIMERIC ORIGIN FOR A MAJOR METAZOAN ASSEMBLAGE
      Syvanen, Ducore
      J. Biol. Syst. 18, 261 (2010)

      Abstract: "The availability of whole genome sequences from multiple metazoan phyla is making it possible to determine their phylogeny. We have found that a sea urchin and human define a clade that excludes a tunicate, contradicting both classical and recent molecular studies that place the tunicate and vertebrate in the Chordate phylum. Intriguingly, by means of a novel four taxa analysis, we have partitioned the 2000 proteins responsible for this assignment into two groups. One group, containing about 40% of the proteins, supports the classical assemblage of the tunicate with vertebrates, while the remaining group places the tunicate outside of the chordate assemblage. The existence of these two phylogenetic groups is robustly maintained in five, six and nine taxa analyses. These results suggest that major horizontal gene transfer events occurred during the emergence of one of the metazoan phyla. The simplest explanation is that the modern tunicate (as represented by Ciona intestinalis) began as a hybrid between a primitive vertebrate and some other organism, perhaps from an extinct and unidentified protostome phylum, at a time close to but after the diversification of the chordates and echinoderms and before the lineages leading to Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans diverged."

      Poor Tedford the Slow. Forever destined to be willfully ignorant of the actual evolutionary data.

      Delete
    2. These results suggest that major horizontal gene transfer events occurred during the emergence of one of the metazoan phyla.

      LOL.. Says it all right there.


      On a related-note... I think Thorton should have to offer a paragraph summing up the article abstract in his own words to show he understands it. It's fairly obvious Thorton has no idea what he's referencing.

      Delete
    3. lifepsy, when will you be presenting that genome sequence of the originally created perfect cat "kind" you claimed to know about?

      Where's that list of traits that extant cats and dogs have lost through genome degradation from that perfect original "kind", the traits you claim they can never regain?

      Any more incredibly stupid Creationist PRATT claims you want to amuse us with today?

      Delete
  26. Neal Tedford: consider the case of the lowly sea squirt for starters.

    Eukaryote, metazoa. In any case, the nested hierarchy is objectively discernible. Exceptions have been noted since Darwin posed his theory (Darwin 1859).


    ReplyDelete
  27. lifepsy: LOL.. Says it all right there.

    So you agree with the paper then? That tunicates stand out as an exception to the nested hierarchy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel, I'm not even sure what nested hierarchy you're referring to. The only example I've seen you use to demonstrate it is feathers.

      So is your nested hierarchy a model that always conforms to observation 'except when it doesn't'?

      Delete
    2. lifepsy

      Zachriel, I'm not even sure what nested hierarchy you're referring to.


      Things like this one, which only shows an extremely simplified view of the mammal phylogenetic tree.

      There is way too much detail to put in just one digram, but at an extremely high level for all life it looks like this,

      Delete
    3. That's a list of animal families ordered by a certain level of genetic similarity. Re-mapping to other genes could shuffle the whole thing around.

      Delete
    4. lifepsy

      That's a list of animal families ordered by a certain level of genetic similarity. Re-mapping to other genes could shuffle the whole thing around.


      Sure if you cherry-pick just a few unique genes. But when you do an objective best fit mapping using all the major know sequences you get a single, unambiguous tree to well over 99% certainty.

      That's the part you guys can't seem to grasp.

      Mapping the Tree of Life: Progress and Prospects

      As Zachriel has already explained numerous times, the only place phylogenetic relationships aren't crystal clear is at the very base of the tree where HGT has played a not insignificant role.

      I'd love for you to show me a tree made with any gene sequences you choose which shows the Felinae aren't closely related to the Pantherinae. But you can't.

      Delete
    5. I forgot to add a critical point:

      You can do the exact same objective best fit mapping using all the major know morphological traits of multi-cellular animals as you do for genome sequences. You also get a single, unambiguous tree of phylogenetic relationships to well over 99% certainty.

      Here's the kicker:

      The two trees formed by two completely independent methods are virtually identical, again to well over 99% correspondence.

      Science refers to them as the twin nested hierarchies of life, and together they are one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for evolution.

      Delete
    6. Thorton: Sure if you cherry-pick just a few unique genes. But when you do an objective best fit mapping using all the major know sequences you get a single, unambiguous tree to well over 99% certainty.

      But you're not using "all major sequences", you're using the ones that give you the desired tree. There are more than a "few unique genes" that contradict it. I've spent some time comparing gene orthologues in Ensembl. It is a regular event to find mammal genes with greater sequence alignment to birds and lizards, than to other mammals. Try it for yourself.

      Furthermore, entire gene sets that code for microRNA's totally reshuffle the vertebrate trees.

      There's no telling how many omissions and fudge-factors went into developing these "most parsimonious" trees that you're linking to. You probably think they just hit a button and computer crunched out a 100% objectively analyzed tree.


      Thorton: As Zachriel has already explained numerous times, the only place phylogenetic relationships aren't crystal clear is at the very base of the tree where HGT has played a not insignificant role.

      Well, that is completely false. I've mentioned a few reasons above. Furthermore, HGT is widespread in higher taxa. You really should know this by now. Furthermore you have major percentage of all genes (orphans) not aligning to ANY tree.

      Thorton, you are simply ignorant and bluffing making these sweeping assertions.


      Thorton: I'd love for you to show me a tree made with any gene sequences you choose which shows the Felinae aren't closely related to the Pantherinae. But you can't.

      I never implied I could or would want to. These animals have very similar physiology and anatomy, which predicts similar genotypes. I have no issue with that.

      Delete
    7. Thorton: You can do the exact same objective best fit mapping using all the major know morphological traits...

      The two trees formed by two completely independent methods are virtually identical, again to well over 99% correspondence.


      Based on your previous assertions, I don't think you're qualified to make those assessments.

      The molecular data has already been shown to be highly selective, so you've already lost anything close to a "99%" claim.

      Your claim about morphology matching genomes is just ridiculous though. Please tell me you've heard of "convergent evolution" ?

      This is what researchers say whenever similar morphology is shown to have evolved independently, and NOT because of genetic relatedness. And this happens CONSTANTLY.

      So yes, Thorton, Morphology Trees always align with Genetic Trees, except for the thousands of times that they don't, and then it's convergence.

      Thorton:Science refers to them as the twin nested hierarchies of life, and together they are one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for evolution.

      "Science" doesn't say that. Evolutionists say that. Science is built on testable hypotheses and empirical evidence. Not patterns riddled with fudge-factoring, ad-hoc exceptions, and assumptions. Especially since you don't even have a biological mechanism that could conceivably create the pattern in the first place.

      Delete
    8. lifepsy

      But you're not using "all major sequences", you're using the ones that give you the desired tree.


      LOL! No, science uses all the data, doesn't cherry-pick like you Creationist fools.

      There's no telling how many omissions and fudge-factors went into developing these "most parsimonious" trees that you're linking to.

      CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!

      Why don't you write up your evidence for this deliberate scientific fraud and submit it to Genetics or Nature? You'd make quite a name for yourself.

      I never implied I could or would want to. These animals have very similar physiology and anatomy, which predicts similar genotypes. I have no issue with that.

      You claimed the Felinae and Pantherinae are separately created "kinds". You should be able to show that in the genetic data. But you can't.

      Your claim about morphology matching genomes is just ridiculous though. Please tell me you've heard of "convergent evolution" ?

      Convergent evolution creates superficially similar morphologies, things like streamlined shapes in fish and seals. Occasionally we can get a convergence at the molecular level, like the Prestin gene that aids echolocation in bats and whales. But scientists can easily tell by looking at ALL the morpology, including the internal structures and ALL the genetics when cases of convergence have occurred.

      You IDiots continue to insist we consider at each piece of evidence in a vacuum while science considers the consilience of ALL the evidence as a whole. That's why you'll always be IDiots, on the outside looking in.

      Especially since you don't even have a biological mechanism that could conceivably create the pattern in the first place.

      Go ahead and write that up too, that science knows of no mechanism for genetic and morphological change. See how fast you get laughed out of the office.

      Delete
  28. DOesn't it get hard to sort out relationships of the various taxa when we get to the level of kingdom and phylum? Doesn't that mean that we can't connect the actual branches to the trunk. If that is the case, then we don't really have a complete nested hierarchy, but a whole bunch of little nested hierarchies, kinda like what people make.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Z: Not sure why you are so confused on this point. The only assumptions necessary to explain the nested hierarchy are a common ancestor, bifurcating descent, and natural variation.

    J: You had it right previously. One can predict A nested hierarchy from a common "ancestor" and bifurcating "descent." The problem is, these assumptions alone don't imply any SPECIFIC tree. Thus, they don't imply THE tree we're talking about. Because THE tree we're talking about is a SPECIFIC tree. Thus, what would guarantee that THE tree we're talking about is implied by bifurcating descent from a precambrian ancestor is if the rules of historical natural variation could be applied to those precambrian initial conditions such that THE tree is IMPLIED. But that's precisely what we have no idea of.

    Moreover, the trajectories are posited to constantly diverge such that that there is no analogical pattern to the descent (other than the bifurcating nature of it) to at least garner the warrant of analogical inference to the specificity of lineages.

    Thus it's ALL ad-hoc the minute you get beyond what's predictable from KNOWN natural variation. You can call it contingent or whatever you want. It's AD-HOC precisely because it's not implied or even probable (by virtue of analogy or caculable probability) based on anything we know.

    The same is true for abiogenesis. It's all utterly ad-hoc. MILLIONS of ad-hoc'ly posited events. You're utterly confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LFJJ, just curious. Do you babble this same incoherent philosophical bullshit to random strangers on the street in real life?

      Delete
    2. Moronton,

      Your fellow ad-hoc'ists are busy proclaiming your gospel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM)--ad-hoc'ly ;) assuming they exist at all, i.e. In the meanwhile, Z can't seem to remember that the nested hierarchy exists WITHOUT the posited intermediate traits. Nothing about the tree implies they ever existed. They have to be posited ad-hoc'ly (on top of the millions of ad-hoc events he already posits) to have existed to even infer their nature. You, like Z, are utterly confused.

      But we love how you demonstrate incessantly that all you can do is reveal how utterly unable to think for yourself you are. You're living proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of your view. But you believe on you zealous little fideist you!!!

      Delete
    3. So you do babble incoherent philosophical nonsense at strangers on the street, I knew it! Hopefully you don't drool on yourself in the process.

      Delete
    4. Z, the only rational reason you could argue that gravitational theory WAS the evidence for the existence of Neptune is the fact that gravitational theory is a mind-bogglingly analogical (AND parsimonious because of the quite large corroborations-to-assumptions ratio) theory. This is your inductive mind working naturally.

      But when you resort to millions of ad-hoc hypotheses (rather than analogical extrapolation or known natural, temporally-ordered variational effects) to imply a fishy-pod critter that shows up after tetrapod tracks, it's asinine to claim THAT theory is plausible in any conceivable inductive sense.

      Of course, we realize that atheists have a completely UNIQUE species of plausibility criteria. That plausibility criteria is basically this: Any explanation, no matter how non-analogical, ad-hoc, and void of knowable probability, that renders a teleological interpretation of a non-solipsistic perspective seemingly more ad-hoc than is tolerable to the inductive mind just IS more plausible for that very reason.

      Never mind that if one has to become non-inductive to render teleology seemingly non-inductive, you've only won by promoting radical skepticism, mind-boggingly arbitrary credulity, or, as is more typical, a combination of both.

      Delete
    5. Jeff,
      Your fellow ad-hoc'ists are busy proclaiming your gospel.


      I believe it is Ad-Hocotations.

      Gospel
      Noun
      1)The teaching or revelation of Christ.
      2)A thing that is absolutely true.

      Must be 2)

      Delete
    6. Wow. LFJJ ia an obsessive compulsive serial blitherer.

      Delete
    7. V: Gospel
      Noun
      1)The teaching or revelation of Christ.
      2)A thing that is absolutely true.

      Must be 2)

      J: Yeah, must be.

      Delete
  30. Jeff: You had it right previously. One can predict A nested hierarchy from a common "ancestor" and bifurcating "descent."

    Good. That already separates it from the vast majority of possible patterns, and makes it a better explanation than Separate Ancestry or Special Creation.

    Jeff: The problem is, these assumptions alone don't imply any SPECIFIC tree.

    We can narrow down the specifics with a few other mechanisms, such as natural selection. But being a historical process, contingency, e.g. cometary impacts, changing climate, continental drift, will always be a factor.

    Jeff: In the meanwhile, Z can't seem to remember that the nested hierarchy exists WITHOUT the posited intermediate traits.

    Great point! So let's look for the posited intermediates.
    http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

    What do we find? Two new gaps!

    Jeff: But when you resort to millions of ad-hoc hypotheses

    As we pointed out, the prediction of a fishapod only required a handful of assumptions; common ancestor, bifurcating descent, natural variation. From these assumptions, we can make a myriad of testable predictions.

    Jeff: (rather than analogical extrapolation or known natural, temporally-ordered variational effects)

    Don't know what you mean by "analogical extrapolation", but we do observe natural variation.

    Jeff: to imply a fishy-pod critter that shows up after tetrapod tracks, it's asinine to claim THAT theory is plausible in any conceivable inductive sense.

    Lucky guess, then. Just stumbling around the Arctic with a trowel and brush. Heh. Is that your explanation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z: Good. That already separates it from the vast majority of possible patterns, and makes it a better explanation than Separate Ancestry or Special Creation.

      J: Have you counted? Do you know how many possible bifurcated patterns there are? Isn't there an infinite set of them? One divided by infinity is zero. How impressive.

      Z: We can narrow down the specifics with a few other mechanisms, such as natural selection.

      J: Natural selection isn't a mechanism unless you use it like an ad-hoc teleology machine--which, BTW, is what UCA'ists actually do.

      Z: But being a historical process, contingency, e.g. cometary impacts, changing climate, continental drift, will always be a factor.

      J: Yep, just like with SA. The question is, which posits more ad-hoc hypotheses to compel implications of observations? Have you done the count?

      Jeff: In the meanwhile, Z can't seem to remember that the nested hierarchy exists WITHOUT the posited intermediate traits.

      Z: Great point! So let's look for the posited intermediates.
      http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

      What do we find? Two new gaps!

      J: Yep, millions of ad-hoc hypotheses, one observation that shows up AFTER tetrapod tracks. Do I really need to posit ad-hoc hypotheses to imply something observed to show you how easy that is?

      Jeff: But when you resort to millions of ad-hoc hypotheses

      Z: As we pointed out, the prediction of a fishapod only required a handful of assumptions; common ancestor, bifurcating descent, natural variation. From these assumptions, we can make a myriad of testable predictions.

      J: Nope. As I point out, those imply A nested hierarchy, not a SPECIFIC nested hierarchy. Millions of geological, taphonomic, biological, etc ad-hoc hypotheses are required to imply THE one SPECIFIC nested hierarchy.

      Jeff: (rather than analogical extrapolation or known natural, temporally-ordered variational effects)

      Z: Don't know what you mean by "analogical extrapolation", but we do observe natural variation.

      J: That's why you don't understand why physicists think so different than biologists about what renders a theory valuable and/or plausible.

      Jeff: to imply a fishy-pod critter that shows up after tetrapod tracks, it's asinine to claim THAT theory is plausible in any conceivable inductive sense.

      Z: Lucky guess, then. Just stumbling around the Arctic with a trowel and brush. Heh. Is that your explanation?

      J: There are multiple known cases where correlation is much better and yet is known to be coincidental. It's the well-known correlation vs. causation problem. And your correlation requires ADDITIONAL ad-hoc hypotheses about geology, taphonomy, etc because of the earlier tetrapod tracks, unless the nesting order implies nothing about evolutionary order in the first place. An implication is not probabilistic,
      Z. It's an all or nothing species of evidence.

      Delete
  31. Jeff: Do you know how many possible bifurcated patterns there are? Isn't there an infinite set of them? One divided by infinity is zero. How impressive.

    Try to read more carefully. By the way, it's finite mathematics, even if the numbers are very large.

    # nested hierarchy ÷ # all possible patterns << 1

    Jeff: Natural selection isn't a mechanism unless you use it like an ad-hoc teleology machine--which, BTW, is what UCA'ists actually do.

    Of course it's a mechanism, a filter.

    Jeff: Yep, just like with SA. The question is, which posits more ad-hoc hypotheses to compel implications of observations? Have you done the count?

    You haven't clearly defined "SA", however, while common descent only makes one assumption, SA makes as many assumptions as there are separate ancestries. It also makes the additional assumption that these separate ancestries look just like common descent.

    Zachriel: Lucky guess, then. Just stumbling around the Arctic with a trowel and brush. Heh. Is that your explanation?

    Jeff: here are multiple known cases where correlation is much better and yet is known to be coincidental.

    Now that's funny.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z: By the way, it's finite mathematics, even if the numbers are very large.

      J: I'm talking about conceivable bifurcating "descent" PATTERNS. So natural variation has to do all the work of ruling out, of that infinite set, all but the ONE OBSERVED hierarchy of earth's organisms. But no one has deduced the ONE tree from any known natural laws The explanation is all ad-hoc.

      Jeff: Natural selection isn't a mechanism

      Z: Of course it's a mechanism, a filter.

      J: It implies NO SPECIFIC variation. It's all AD-HOC.

      Z: common descent only makes one assumption, SA makes as many assumptions as there are separate ancestries.

      J: It takes lots of ad-hoc assumptions about geology, taphonomy, etc for either approach to imply a significant number of observations. Naturalistic UCA requires millions more just to ad-hoc'ly explain the non-analogical DEGREES of evolutionary plasticity in the posited time-frames.

      Z: It also makes the additional assumption that these separate ancestries look just like common descent.

      J: They don't look like separate ancestries. Because all that could possibly mean is that huge morphological/phenotypic gaps LOOK like what would be bridged by known natural, genealogical causality in the posited time-frame (including the Cambrian explosion and other "explosions"), and without leaving pertinent fossil evidence. That is self-evidently absurd.

      Jeff: there are multiple known cases where correlation is much better and yet is known to be coincidental.

      Z: Now that's funny.

      J: No, it's actually sad that you are that ignorant of the issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation_).

      The problem of falsely interpreting correlation as having causal implications occurs even for subject matters where no one is positing millions of ad-hoc hypotheses in the first place. How much more, then, when dealing with millions of ad-hoc assumptions will some MERE correlations be somewhat occur for relatively random reasons (geological and taphonomic contingences, etc)? Some theorists were disappointed when the tetrapod tracks were found below the fishy-pod. They knew that the failure of the temporal correlation revealed the inference to natural, bifurcated descent to be the mere speculation every real geologist knew it was.

      Whale evolution has biological problems and geological problems. Anne Yoder admitted:

      "Why did virtually all placental groups—such as primates, bats, ungulates, and whales—appear so abruptly in the fossil record? Where are the transitional forms that must link the diminutive insectivores of the Mesozoic to today’s multitude of mammals?"

      The odds of the "whale sequence" surviving future paleontological finds may be low. Recently a type of whale had it's KNOWN stratigraphic range extended by 5 million years (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/new-whale-species-unearthed-in-c.html):

      "Among those finds, she says, were four newly identified species of toothed baleen whale—a type of whale that scientists thought had gone extinct 5 million years earlier."

      These kinds of KNOWN stratigraphic range increases happen relatively frequently. And we have no compelling reason to believe ACTUAL stratigraphic ranges correspond significantly with existential ranges. As Benton admits (http://www.academia.edu/450680/Assessing_the_quality_of_the_fossil_record_Insights_from_vertebrates ):

      "Assessing the quality of the fossil record is notoriously hard, and many recent attempts have used sampling proxies that can be questioned... A single answer to the question of whether the fossil record is driven by macro-evolution or megabias is unlikely ever to emerge because of temporal, geographical, and taxonomic variance in the data."

      Benton is an evolutionist. He probably prefers to believe that megabias is not the explanation for fossil succession. But he, like other scientists, isn't near so credulous as you are.

      Delete
  32. Zachriel: Don't know what you mean by "analogical extrapolation", but we do observe natural variation.

    Jeff: That's why you don't understand why physicists think so different than biologists about what renders a theory valuable and/or plausible.

    Notably, you didn't answer. We want to know what *you* mean by "analogical extrapolation".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel: Don't know what you mean by "analogical extrapolation", but we do observe natural variation.

      Jeff: That's why you don't understand why physicists think so different than biologists about what renders a theory valuable and/or plausible.

      Notably, you didn't answer. We want to know what *you* mean by "analogical extrapolation".

      J: All physics theories are highly analogical extrapolations. They analogically extrapolate relationships over space and time. Then they are corroborated over space and time. Sometimes they have to be modified, like in the case of relativistic modifications. Sometimes they don't obviously work at the galactic level (so some posit dark matter). But the degrees to which those analogical extrapolationz work, rendering the corroboration-to-assumption ratio extremely large, is astronomically superior to the mind-bogglingly ad-hoc nature of the ToE, as it is applied to biological history.

      Delete
    2. As we speak, another example:

      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/03/24/acorn_worms_from_the_cambrian_explosion

      Delete
    3. Serial Blitherer Jeff

      As we speak, another example:


      Another example of you being a blithering ignoramus who wouldn't understand scientific data if it crawled up your leg and took a bite out of your ass.

      Delete
  33. Zachriel: You haven't clearly defined "SA", however, while common descent only makes one assumption, SA makes as many assumptions as there are separate ancestries.

    Common Descent invokes trillions of purely assumed events found at each stage of increasing complexity in a population.

    Zachriel:It also makes the additional assumption that these separate ancestries look just like common descent.

    But life doesn't look anything like common descent. We see extremely unique and specialized families of life, split up by major gaps in anatomy, morphology, and physiology. They all have up to a third totally unique gene sequences from each other, as well, which is a massive molecular gap. And there is no observed mechanism that could possibly bridge these gaps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But life doesn't look anything like common descent.

      To those who actually study and work with the data it does. To willfully ignorant Creationist boobs who haven't been within a half mile of a science class maybe not. But generally speaking science doesn't much care about the uninformed personal opinions of willfully ignorant Creationist boobs.

      Delete
  34. We can measure the growth of mountains... we can measure genetic variation oscillating AROUND the mean within the species boundary - but we can't measure or observe the directional change that ToE requires. One can't take the movement of a grandfather clock and extrapolate that in a million years it will turn into a propellor.

    ReplyDelete
  35. jeff ignorantly asserted:

    "to imply a fishy-pod critter that shows up after tetrapod tracks, it's asinine to claim THAT theory is plausible in any conceivable inductive sense."

    In other words:

    If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

    If birds evolved from dinosaurs, why were there still dinosaurs after birds evolved?

    If whales evolved from land animals, why are there still land animals?

    If white people evolved from black people, why are there still black people?

    Those pretty much cover your lame arguments, don't they jeff?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWT: In other words:

      If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

      If birds evolved from dinosaurs, why were there still dinosaurs after birds evolved?

      If whales evolved from land animals, why are there still land animals?

      If white people evolved from black people, why are there still black people?

      Those pretty much cover your lame arguments, don't they jeff?

      J: No, TWT. What I said isn't remotely like those rhetorical questions. Z is claiming that nested hierarchical relationships IMPLY things about fossil succession. They don't. Because geology and taphonomy are contingent sciences in the first place, which is why the tetrapod tracks can't falsify the theory. In the second place, when you posit millions of ad-hoc hypotheses just to IMPLY the nested hierarchy, it is absurd to think that you wouldn't luckily IMPLY some mere correlation that has nothing to do with evolutionary causality.

      Delete
  36. Let's see, ToE demands a fish climb out on land - so let's survey the millions of species and fossils inthe whole earth and let's cherry pick something like what we need for our theory. Never mind that the timeframe is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Let's see, ToE demands reptiles turn into mammals - so let's survey the millions of species and fossils in the whole earth and let's cherry pick varied bone fragments of everything under the sun until we can put together some kind of sequence of at least a little part of an animal body that fits our theory. Don't be too picky about timeframes, geniune transitionals, or remaining 99% of the body. Poof, we have an evolutionary ear sequence from reptile to mammal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pastor Tedford the Slow still arguing from his ignorance and personal incredulity, still stuck in idiot mode.

      Some things never change.

      Delete
  38. lifepsy: Common Descent invokes trillions of purely assumed events found at each stage of increasing complexity in a population.

    It assumes bifurcation. There is substantial evidence of the process of speciation. We have gradations of reproductive isolation, as well as direct observations of speciation.

    lifepsy: But life doesn't look anything like common descent. We see extremely unique and specialized families of life, split up by major gaps in anatomy, morphology, and physiology.

    Um, that's the expected pattern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel: It assumes bifurcation. There is substantial evidence of the process of speciation. We have gradations of reproductive isolation, as well as direct observations of speciation.

      Your model of bifurcation needs to create novel function and increasingly complex structures as it divides. None of the observed cases "speciation" or reproductive isolation even remotely supports that model.

      Your model of evolutionary "bifurcation" exists only in your imagination. Your prediction has already failed before we even get to the pattern.


      Zachriel: Um, that's the expected pattern.

      Not for common descent it isn't. Common Descent certainly does not predict the major gaps between islands of function (Without exception) that we see. I don't think you realize that your nested hierarchy exists independently of evolution. All evolution does is complicate it with untestable, unobserved ad-hoc explanations such as HGT, convergent evolution, and de novo orphan generation.

      I don't expect you to concede any of this. You obviously have a great deal invested in your model, and this is a bit like arguing with a brick wall because you keep asserting the same thing over and over again without providing any substance or demonstration.

      Delete
    2. lifepsy

      Your model of bifurcation needs to create novel function and increasingly complex structures as it divides.


      LOL! More amazing ignorance. Evolution can produce both novel functions and increased complexity, but neither are required for speciation events. What "novel function and increased complexity" are exhibited between African elephants and Asian elephants?

      Your model of evolutionary "bifurcation" exists only in your imagination.

      And the places where the process is being empirically observed. But we understand Creationists don't deal well with reality.

      Common Descent certainly does not predict the major gaps between islands of function (Without exception) that we see.

      It doesn't specifically predict gaps but it also doesn't exclude gaps. Once a species diverges into two each is free to follow its own independent pathway. Those may or may not end up functionally close to each other.

      I don't expect you to concede any of this.

      Why should anyone concede any of the imaginary Creationist cartoon bullcrap you've been making up as you go?

      you keep asserting the same thing over and over again without providing any substance or demonstration.

      Feel free to explain that data on the Sirenia or the Felidae that you claim wasn't presented. I know it's what Creationists do but lying about the data won't make the data go away.

      Delete
  39. Neal Tedford: We can measure the growth of mountains... we can measure genetic variation oscillating AROUND the mean within the species boundary - but we can't measure or observe the directional change that ToE requires.

    Species boundary? Reproductive isolation often grades between closely related organisms. We also have many cases in the fossil record of directional change.

    Neal Tedford: Let's see, ToE demands reptiles turn into mammals - so let's survey the millions of species and fossils in the whole earth and let's cherry pick varied bone fragments of everything under the sun until we can put together some kind of sequence of at least a little part of an animal body that fits our theory.

    They didn't survey "the whole earth". They traveled to a specific geographic location, stuck a shovel in the ground, and pulled out a fishapod.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zach, incipient speciation is not actually speciation. Speculation is not evidence.

      What??? they just "stuck a shovel in the ground" and pulled out tiktaalik? You are overly fond of romantizing and overselling bad data.

      Actually, their estimates were completely wrong as to when the supposed fishapods should appear and given all the variety of life on earth, after awhile they got lucky enough to cherry pick something that matched their wrong assumption. Then they wrote articles, put up websites, became famous for finding a supposed missing link until it was shown to NOT be any such thing. Retraction on page 56F bottom left, font size 3.

      Delete
    2. Neal Tedford: incipient speciation is not actually speciation.

      No, it's evidence of the process of speciation, and against the fixity of species.

      Neal Tedford: What??? they just "stuck a shovel in the ground" and pulled out tiktaalik?

      You're right, of course. They actually found it just sticking out of a cliff.

      Delete
    3. Poor Tedford the Slow. Too ignorant to understand that no one claims or thinks there was just a single lineage of transitional forms from lobe-finned fish to fully terrestrial tetrapods. It really is the "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" stupidity all over again.

      But Tedford is permanently stuck in idiot mode, so it's understandable why he doesn't know what the term 'transitional species' means.

      Delete
    4. Zach, and the movement of the pendulum on a grandfather clock is evidence for the process of them turning into propellors.

      Delete
    5. Tedford the Slow

      Zach, and the movement of the pendulum on a grandfather clock is evidence for the process of them turning into propellors.


      LOL! Tedford the Slow, king of the ill-conceived and inapplicable analogies.

      Delete
  40. lifepsy: But you're not using "all major sequences", you're using the ones that give you the desired tree.

    Looking at all traits, there is a singular best fit nested hierarchy.

    lifepsy: There's no telling how many omissions and fudge-factors went into developing these "most parsimonious" trees that you're linking to.

    Methodologies are published in the literature.

    lifepsy: HGT is widespread in higher taxa.

    That doesn't mean the nested hierarchy is not discernible. And, often, the evidence of horizontal gene transfer helps confirm phylogeny, such as endogenous retroviruses.

    lifepsy: These animals have very similar physiology and anatomy, which predicts similar genotypes. I have no issue with that.

    Not just similar, but a nested hierarchy of traits.

    lifepsy: Your claim about morphology matching genomes is just ridiculous though. Please tell me you've heard of "convergent evolution" ?

    Sure. Darwin 1859.

    lifepsy: This is what researchers say whenever similar morphology is shown to have evolved independently, and NOT because of genetic relatedness. And this happens CONSTANTLY.

    Of course it does. It's important evidence of natural selection. But, while a fish flipper and a dolphin flipper have some similar features, a close look reveals their separate evolutionary histories.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel: Looking at all traits, there is a singular best fit nested hierarchy.

      Um, that is inevitable with any assortment of combined traits. Walk into a grocery store and compare all 'cereal shapes' and their ingredients list and you will eventually have a "singular best-fit" nested hierarchy. It is inevitable.

      Zachriel: Methodologies are published in the literature.

      Non-response. Of course they are. Researchers readily admit to omitting genes that conflict with the expected tree, in order to find "maximum likelihood"

      Zachriel: And, often, the evidence of horizontal gene transfer helps confirm phylogeny, such as endogenous retroviruses.

      No it doesn't. You run into the same non-falsifiability issue with ERV's. If they conform to expected phylogeny, then the ERV was carried through common descent, if they don't, then the ERV was picked up independently or lost in certain lineages, and/or picked up again independently. And all scenarios are documented.


      Zachriel: [convergent evolution] is an important evidence of natural selection.

      Uh, no. You have zero evidence that natural selection can create a new feature even once. From that, you certainly can not predict that it made the feature 2,3,10,or 50 times. You are simply forced to conclude that it must have, if evolution is true.


      Zachriel:But, while a fish flipper and a dolphin flipper have some similar features, a close look reveals their separate evolutionary histories.

      You're using cherry-picked examples. It feels like you're channeling the spirit of talkorigins.

      Convergence comes in different degrees. Look at these lizards for instance.

      Some of the most striking examples of convergent evolution are found in desert lizards throughout the world. Australian and North American deserts each support a cryptically colored lizard species that is specialized to eat ants and is protected by sharp spines. The Australian species, the thorny devil ( Moloch horridus, Agamid family) is only distantly related to the American species, the desert horned lizard ( Phrynosoma platyrhinos Iguanid family), as shown by sequencing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). They are much more similar anatomically than either is to its closest living relatives. Clearly, the desert environment has posed strong challenges for survival, which have been met by evolution of similar external characteristics.

      http://www.biologyreference.com/Co-Dn/Convergent-Evolution.html

      While you say different anatomies in dolphin and fish show separate lines of descent, here, separate lines of descent produce similar anatomies.

      Delete
    2. lifepsy

      While you say different anatomies in dolphin and fish show separate lines of descent, here, separate lines of descent produce similar anatomies.


      No, what produces similar anatomies (and other convergent evolution) is similar environmental selection pressures. There are only a finite number of solutions to the physics problems faced by animals. For example, streamlined shapes are the most energy efficient for moving through water. That's why it's not surprising that fish and seals have both streamlined shapes.

      Once again, science can easily determine cases of convergent evolution by examining ALL the traits of the animals, both morphological and genetic. NOT just cherry-picking the similarities the IDiot Creationists demand but examining the differences too.

      Your ignorance of virtually everything associated with evolutionary biology is just pitiful.

      Delete
  41. Everything that evolutionists say, can be appended with "or not...".

    If one believes evolution is a fact then ad hoc stories that sound the best, fossils that appear to fit the ToE storyline, and empty terms such as cascading convergence become a Freudian wish-fullment for evolutionists.

    For those not seeking such wish fullment, then "or not..." is an equally or better explanation of the data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go ahead Tedford, give us your Creationist explanation for the all the tetrapod fossil data.

      How many Devonian tetrapods were on the Ark?

      No one will hold their breath.

      Delete
  42. lifepsy: Your model of bifurcation needs to create novel function and increasingly complex structures as it divides.

    We were discussing common descent, not adaptation.

    lifepsy: Not for common descent it isn't. Common Descent certainly does not predict the major gaps between islands of function (Without exception) that we see.

    Darwin was quite aware of the functional gap between butterflies and buttercups.

    lifepsy: I don't think you realize that your nested hierarchy exists independently of evolution.

    The nested hierarchy is an observation. Common descent provides a testable explanation of the pattern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel: We were discussing common descent, not adaptation.

      Excuse me, you were making claims that there was evidence for your mechanism, which I argued against. Now you pretend I was changing the subject. Whatever.

      Zachriel: Darwin was quite aware of the functional gap between butterflies and buttercups.

      That's right. Darwin started a religious Mysticism movement, of viewing the natural world in terms of "bifurcating descent", despite all the contradictory evidence that such gaps in nature existed, with no evidence of gradations, and were thoroughly unbridgeable by randomness and differential reproduction.

      Zachriel: Common descent provides a testable explanation of the pattern.

      Uh huh.. what a great test when the only possible answer is:

      Hypothetical Bifurcating descent + Ad-Hoc Explanation X (if there is no X, then invent X)

      And the answer can not possibly be falsified or proven wrong. Amazing test.

      Delete
  43. lifepsy

    That's right. Darwin started a religious Mysticism movement, of viewing the natural world in terms of "bifurcating descent", despite all the contradictory evidence that such gaps in nature existed, with no evidence of gradations, and were thoroughly unbridgeable by randomness and differential reproduction.


    That's the same "unbridgeable gap" stupidity that IDiot 'scientists' Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger just made themselves look like fools over. They examines one extant protein A and claimed it would be too hard for it to evolve into another extant protein B. The scientific community said "so what?" to their gap argument since no one thinks B evolved from A anyway. The actual evidence being that A and B shared a common ancestor.

    It's like you start a Boy Scout Troop in the base of the Grand Canyon. Half the troop hikes to the north rim, the other half hikes to the south rim. Along come the IDiots screaming that because the scouts can't directly jump the huge gap between the north and south rims that means they were MAGICALLY POOFED onto the rims.

    And the answer can not possibly be falsified or proven wrong.

    Why do you keep lying about this? I already gave you a potential falsification - if you find two species with different, non-compatible forms of DNA then common descent is falsified.

    For the umpteenth time: not falsified doesn't mean not falsifiable.

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. lifepsy: Um, that is inevitable with any assortment of combined traits.

    The singular nested hierarchy is trillions of times better fit than other hypotheses, including separate ancestry.

    lifepsy: You run into the same non-falsifiability issue with ERV's. If they conform to expected phylogeny, then the ERV was carried through common descent, if they don't, then the ERV was picked up independently or lost in certain lineages, and/or picked up again independently. And all scenarios are documented.

    We can observe viruses inserting themselves into genomes. Once inserted, we can predict that they should form a nested hierarchy in descendants. As this is only a very tiny percentage of possible patterns, and as we see it over and over again, it's as clear as your the DNA in your father's chromosome.

    lifepsy: You have zero evidence that natural selection can create a new feature even once.

    Evolution leads to adaptation. Natural selection alone can't create anything.

    lifepsy: While you say different anatomies in dolphin and fish show separate lines of descent, here, separate lines of descent produce similar anatomies.

    And just those characteristics we would expect from convergence due to natural selection. Amazing! Other features distinguish Iguanidae from Agamidae, such as pleurodont dentition.

    lifepsy: Common Descent certainly does not predict the major gaps between islands of function (Without exception) that we see.

    Zachriel: Darwin was quite aware of the functional gap between butterflies and buttercups.

    lifepsy: That's right. Darwin started a religious Mysticism movement, of viewing the natural world in terms of "bifurcating descent" ...

    You just said that Common Descent doesn't predict large gaps. Saying Darwin, one of the greatest biologists of his age, didn't account for gaps is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Zachriel: We can observe viruses inserting themselves into genomes. Once inserted, we can predict that they should form a nested hierarchy in descendants.

    And you also predict that they can insert independently of descent, or be removed in particular lineages after accumulation. You predict both conformity and non-conformity, iow: you predict a non-falsifiable scenario. That's not hard to understand is it?

    Zachriel: Evolution leads to adaptation. Natural selection alone can't create anything.

    Childish. I assumed you were above those petty word games.

    Zachriel: You just said that Common Descent doesn't predict large gaps. Saying Darwin, one of the greatest biologists of his age, didn't account for gaps is nonsense.

    Darwin, like all neo-darwinists, let his presuppositions and mystical "evolution of the gaps" beliefs, (as opposed to scientific research), guide the theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lifepsy

      And you also predict that they can insert independently of descent, or be removed in particular lineages after accumulation. You predict both conformity and non-conformity, iow: you predict a non-falsifiable scenario. That's not hard to understand is it?


      We have lots of empirical evidence that both types of events have happened. It's not an "either / or" scenario. Apparently that's too hard for a pea-brained Creationist to understand.

      Childish. I assumed you were above those petty word games.

      He just pointed out you don't understand the basic concepts. Arguing against the Creationist cartoon version of evolution as you do just makes you look silly.

      Darwin, like all neo-darwinists, let his presuppositions and mystical "evolution of the gaps" beliefs, (as opposed to scientific research), guide the theory.

      Each desperate Creationist claim gets dumber than the last. Darwin presented all of his scientific evidence right up front. What have you Creationists presented?

      Delete
  47. lifepsy: While you say different anatomies in dolphin and fish show separate lines of descent, here, separate lines of descent produce similar anatomies.

    Zachriel:And just those characteristics we would expect from convergence due to natural selection. Amazing! Other features distinguish Iguanidae from Agamidae, such as pleurodont dentition.


    lol.. yes amazing. Okay, so now we know:

    1. Genetics
    2. Morphology
    3. Underlying Anatomy

    Any combination of Yes or No for similarity in any of these categories produces a result that conforms somewhere within or without a group in your nested hierarchy of bifurcating descent.

    For example, if the two lizards had similar genetics (but differing morphology and anatomy), then Poof, they are closely related but rapidly evolved different phenotypes.

    If we're really put in a bind, we can even do relatedness without genetic similarity by invoking large amounts of HGT and de novo orphan generation since last divergence from a common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. You really are too dense to understand that there's not a single simplistic explanation for all observed phenomena. The details in every case are going to be somewhat different.

      Sorry lifepsy, but in the real world life is a messy, complicated, kludged-together affair. Just like it evolved without conscious guidance instead of being planned.

      Delete
    2. It's pretty funny that simple minded people believe in and promote a simplistic explanation like the designer-god-did-it, even though the simpletons assert that complexity is what proves the simplistic explanation, which isn't really an explanation.

      Delete
  48. lifepsy: And you also predict that they can insert independently of descent, or be removed in particular lineages after accumulation.

    Yes, that's what the evidence indicates.

    lifepsy: You predict both conformity and non-conformity, iow: you predict a non-falsifiable scenario.

    You don't seem to understand the nested hierarchy. It's a very peculiar pattern.

    lifepsy: I assumed you were above those petty word games.

    It's an important distinction.

    lifepsy: Darwin, like all neo-darwinists, ...

    Now that's funny.

    lifepsy: ... let his presuppositions and mystical "evolution of the gaps" beliefs, (as opposed to scientific research), guide the theory.

    Sorry, it's just not tenable to say that Darwin didn't account for morphological divergence, when he wrote extensively on the subject.

    lifepsy: Any combination of Yes or No for similarity in any of these categories produces a result that conforms somewhere within or without a group in your nested hierarchy of bifurcating descent.

    Nope. Only a tiny subset of possible observations fit the theory of evolution.

    Thorton: there's not a single simplistic explanation for all observed phenomena.

    Especially when dealing with historical processes.

    ReplyDelete
  49. lifepsy: Any combination of Yes or No for similarity in any of these categories produces a result that conforms somewhere within or without a group in your nested hierarchy of bifurcating descent.

    Z: Nope. Only a tiny subset of possible observations fit the theory of evolution.

    J: But you have to posit millions of ad-hoc hypotheses to IMPLY the nested hierarchy is the result of bifurcated descent.

    Thorton: there's not a single simplistic explanation for all observed phenomena.

    Z: Especially when dealing with historical processes.

    J: There ya go. There is nothing about the natural causal piece of your "handful of assumptions" that implies the nested hierarchy was produced so analogically that the causality can be articulated and conceptually captured in ONE assumption. It's the equivalent of MILLIONS of ad-hoc hypotheses to get the infinite set of mere bifurcated descent PATTERNS winnowed down to ONE such HISTORICAL pattern. And that doesn't even account for all the geological and taphonomic ad-hoc assumptions you have to make for the SAME reason. No analogously-extrapolatable or observationally-repeatable causality involved? Then there are necessarily LOTS of ad-hoc hypotheses required to do the deductive work.

    If a causal theory is mostly analogical in its ability to imply observations, then a few ad-hoc assumptions are tolerable. But when the whole theory is causally ad-hoc from top to bottom, it's utterly worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jeff: There is nothing about the natural causal piece of your "handful of assumptions" that implies the nested hierarchy was produced so analogically that the causality can be articulated and conceptually captured in ONE assumption.

    Heh. That's how history works. You can't even explain one birth without positing a huge number of assumptions. Perhaps if the breeze had wafted a different direction on that moonlit night, he never would have smelled her perfume.

    In any case, a nested hierarchy results from a handful of assumptions; a common ancestor, variation, and bifurcating descent. The specifics of that divergence may depend on whether a comet slammed into the Earth millions of years ago, or which way the breeze wafted on a moonlit night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In any case, a nested hierarchy results from a handful of assumptions; a common ancestor, variation, and bifurcating descent. The specifics of that divergence may depend on whether a comet slammed into the Earth millions of years ago, or which way the breeze wafted on a moonlit night. "

      Shake and shimmy dance and twirl. The exclusions are so sweeping we can fit anything we want into that.

      How are we to fit the growing examples of molecular convergence into the narrative of nested hierarchies?

      Should we invoke something like the hilarity Thorton tried to float

      ""No, what produces similar anatomies (and other convergent evolution) is similar environmental selection pressures. There are only a finite number of solutions to the physics problems faced by animals."

      :) so that the environment selection pressures magically force changes at the dna LEVEL and even duplicate sequences?

      Earth to T and others serving that moon shine. Non guided processes have no intent to solve the "physics problems faced by animals". Thats teological. mutations are quite happy to come up with an almost infinite amount of ways to fail to come up with solutions at each and every step of an organism's supposed evolution.

      The Darwin worshippers here will no doubt hold on for dear life but the writing is on the wall. We are going find even more examples of molecular convergence (See? Who said ID makes mno predictions?)since we basically just started looking at sequences.

      With each one your position will become less and less credible and you'll see more articles like this from your friendly neighborhood ID publications

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/tangling_the_tr059321.html

      Buckle up. Atheists numbers instead of actually hitting double digits is forecast for a significant drop

      Delete
    2. Elijah2012

      so that the environment selection pressures magically force changes at the dna LEVEL and even duplicate sequences?


      No moron. Changes at the DNA level, even duplicated sequences, are part of the random genetic variability. Environmental selection pressure only assures that the genetic changes which produce morphologies that outcompete the rest spread through the population and become the new norm.

      Why is it that IDiot Creationists will scream "random mutations can't create anything new!!", and "natural selection can't create anything new!!", but never have the smarts to consider the two effects working together in an iterative process?

      Delete
    3. "No moron. Changes at the DNA level, even duplicated sequences, are part of the random genetic variability. Environmental selection pressure only assures that the genetic changes which produce morphologies that outcompete the rest spread through the population and become the new norm."

      Thorton you my young laddie are the one typing like a moron. That WAS exactly my point. lol. selection does nothing absolutely nothing but preserve DNA changes which randomly are generated WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SOLUTIONS.

      You are a die hard "I will stick with Darwinism regardless of the facts" kinda kid but the populace is not going to buy for a moment that duplicated sequences in distant related organisms just converged by a matter of random chance to be preserved by selection because unlike you they have a better grasp of mathematics and probability.

      SO who cares if you will live in denial with each discovery of molecular convergence. Have it. Even more people will join the majority and go on without you.

      Delete
  51. Zachriel: It's an important distinction.

    And you're childish. When I say "natural selection creates", we both know that I am referring to its filtering properties of differential reproduction, and theoretical fixation of randomly acquired advantageous attributes.

    It's pathetic of you to seize on this in a lame and dishonest attempt to score intellectual points. What are you, 12 years old?

    Zachriel: Nope. Only a tiny subset of possible observations fit the theory of evolution.

    My, you are cryptic. Getting any substance out of you is like pulling teeth. Feel free to share this mysterious criteria and its conditions of falsifiability. I've been trying to get you to spell it out for days now.

    ReplyDelete
  52. lifepsy: When I say "natural selection creates", we both know that I am referring to its filtering properties of differential reproduction, and theoretical fixation of randomly acquired advantageous attributes.

    We didn't fixate on it, but expected you to simply correct yourself and move on. It is an important distinction as you have already shown you don't understand basic evolutionary theory.

    lifepsy: Feel free to share this mysterious criteria and its conditions of falsifiability.

    As we said, start with the objective observation of the nested hierarchy. It's a very peculiar pattern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolutionists apparently believe that if human designs can be formed into a nested hierarchy, but not an objective nested hierachy it is a common characteristic of design. The mixing of some characters across the hierarchy causes it to lack the objective property.

      Life, however, is unique and shows evidence for evolution because it forms an "objective" nested hierarchy. The mixing of characters across the mosiac of life does not invalidate the objective property, because of such things as horizontal gene transfer and convergence. So, huge exceptions to the objective part are allowed while still maintaining its "objective" character.

      And, since evolutionists possess no metric for measuring how many exceptions are allowed before it becomes "unobjective"...we must just trust them that they know best.

      Delete
    2. "It is an important distinction as you have already shown you don't understand basic evolutionary theory. "

      Same tired , weak and intellectually dishonest tactic almost all online atheists use. Is there an online class where you guys rehearse on how to activate dishonest debate tactics when confronted?

      In the school of honest debate all disagreement cannot be put down to "basic (you always know there a fudge coming when you hear basic before evolutionary. Its not enough to say they disagree or don't understand the specific point being discussed) misunderstanding on the entire subject. If that were the case thats all you would have to say in an official debate and then site down. You would lose just on form.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel whines about my use of the phrase "natural selection creates"...

      Zachriel, We didn't fixate on it, but expected you to simply correct yourself and move on. It is an important distinction as you have already shown you don't understand basic evolutionary theory.

      You've corrected nothing and I have nothing to correct. That phrase is used in the literature all the time and by leading proponents of evolution.

      The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
      -Stephen Jay Gould


      And you can find hundreds more examples with a simple google-scholar search.

      You obviously aren't very well-read on the literature, to get hung up on a simple phrasing like that. In any case, your pedantic nonsense is a waste of my time. Let me know when you want to debate like an adult.

      Delete
    4. Elijah2012

      "It is an important distinction as you have already shown you don't understand basic evolutionary theory. "

      Same tired , weak and intellectually dishonest tactic almost all online atheists use.


      Sorry but that's just an empirical observation. Ignorant Godbotherers like you don't understand the basics of the theory you're attacking. We see it every time you run crying from scientific studies that are presented, like the ones on the Sirenia and Feladae I presented. We see it every time you mindlessly C&P another Creationist PRATT claim from the DI. We see it every time you scream "atheist!!" at those who support the sciences regardless of their actual religious beliefs.

      Face it Elijah2012 - Godbotherers like you and Tedford and lifepsy are scientific illiterates with way more mouth than knowledge. That's why you clowns end up the butt of the joke so often.

      Delete
    5. lifepsy

      Let me know when you want to debate like an adult.


      Let us know when you want to back up your claims like an adult and provide that genetic data on the perfect original cat "kind" you claimed to have. Let us know when you can provide your list of traits that extant dogs and cats have lost from the original "kind" that they can never get back.

      Delete
    6. "As we said, start with the objective observation of the nested hierarchy. It's a very peculiar pattern. "

      Peculiar to what though. The whole argument from nested hierarchies is a Non sequitur. Its immeasurably weak because the people making it make strawman assumptions out of the gate. Both ID and Creationism allow for guided process as design. Morphological and molecular convergence make far more sense in their frameworks and even if they did not exist nested hierarchies would make no point whatsoever against design processes (unless it was a theological point).

      Its a common misunderstanding of ID and creationism that when the word "Design" is used it is made in the sense of each organism/kind being separately designed. I'll confess this is greatly perpetuated by many people particularly in creationism that seldom explain what they mean by design.

      However taking biblical creationism as an example the Biblical record is perfectly clear that there was a guided process (and it need not be nor do I hold it was evolutionary). There are are only three commands not several thousand for the creation of life and from those all organisms spring forth. The each life form was designed separately inference is nowhere in sight.

      This predates Darwin by several thousand years. So Nested hierarchies even if they were rock solid (and they aren't) would hurt ID or creationism only if they held that guided process would not create them because each life form was made separately.

      In the biblical example given above thats not the case so Nested hierarchies rebuts not even the oldest accounts of biblical creationism much less ID which allows for actual evolution.

      So whats the point? There is none.

      Delete
    7. Don't pull a muscle there Elijah2012 while thumping that Bible.

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

      Delete
    8. "Let us know when you want to back up your claims like an adult"

      T being new I am one of the few that even bothers to read what you say (will probably stop in another week)- here and there. Life would never have been talking to you about being an adult. We all know where that lies. Your incessant whining, name calling and childish antics (do you want a waaaambulance....lol) marks you as the kid on this blog (one at least).

      I used to wonder how the regulars put up with you but I am beginning to understand that they basically just ignore you. Its like the the sound of a steam engine full of hot air that at first sounds just annoying but that the locals who live near the track get so used to they can later sleep though it not even noticing the sound of the hot air releasing yet again.

      "and provide that genetic data on the perfect original cat "kind" you claimed to have."

      Still bare face lying for Darwin I see. I read those comments. Life never promised you any genetic data. Besides no one can provide the genetic data on any original animal.

      I demand that you present the DNA data for the first evolved Cat. DO it NOW. Can't? To to use your phrase - "you lose". ;)



      Delete
    9. "Don't pull a muscle there Elijah2012 while thumping that Bible.

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!"

      Thats it T run...Run...Sprint like Usain Bolt from molecular convergence. or you didn't know that was science eh?

      Delete
    10. Elijah,
      Both ID and Creationism allow for guided process as design. Morphological and molecular convergence make far more sense in their frameworks and even if they did not exist nested hierarchies would make no point whatsoever against design processes (unless it was a theological point).


      You miss the point, a nested hierarchy isn't evidence against ID and creationism , with either any pattern of traits and genomes is possible, since neither is restricted to the same mechanisms as ToE. What nested hierarchy does is support ToE , and those mechanisms of descent. That is Zach point. Positive support

      Delete
    11. Vel it seems you have missed the point. How does molecular convergence support descent? how does it support nested hierarchy? It doesn't. You can try and force fit it in but thats not any man's thinking definition of support. nested hierarchies adds support for ToE version of decent only if you make a number of assumption - that is Life's WINNING point.

      Delete
    12. Perhaps you are correct, if there are not nested hierachies that is support fot ID/ creationism, if there are that is also support for ID/ creationism.

      That was my point,if not yours, only one theory has any implications for a pattern of descent.

      You can try and force fit it in but thats not any man's thinking definition of support

      Fair enough, what are the restrictions of creationism? With no restrictions everything is supportive
      nested hierarchies adds support for ToE version of decent only if you make a number of assumption

      True, but for someone's who advocating a scientific theory based on a piece of literature, assumptions should be familiar.

      - that is Life's WINNING point.

      Curious, what does this mean?

      Delete
    13. "Perhaps you are correct, if there are not nested hierachies that is support fot ID/ creationism, if there are that is also support for ID/ creationism. "

      Shake, shimmy shimmy. DO the macarena duck and weave. I never stated nested hierarchies support ID. I'm not a darwinist or I would take both sides on evidence and claim victory. No as I recall I did indicate that molecular convergence would support ID/creationism.

      Remarkable how you missed that eh? ANy comments on how molecular convergence would NOT support ID?

      "Fair enough, what are the restrictions of creationism? With no restrictions everything is supportive"

      abject failure. I've said it many times. find a little pond or area of the sea and get to some mixing with no other intelligent input. Creationism would restrict full life from emerging spontaeneously out of it'. Its not our fault that you've been trying for the better part of a century and the evidence isn't in.

      "True, but for someone's who advocating a scientific theory based on a piece of literature, assumptions should be familiar."

      Ah so you admit we are on equal footing there then. I can live with that admission. Meanwhile back in the real world you will never find me citing a piece of literature AS supporting evidence for itself. I of course will use the literature to describe the position of the said piece of literature but not as evidence of itself because I start with the assumption. Apparently you are comfortable with that so rock on. I prefer real science and real facts not mirages based on assumption.

      Delete
    14. Elijah2012

      Besides no one can provide the genetic data on any original animal.


      Then why did he claim that the genomes of extant cat and dog species are "degraded" from the ones in the original "kind"?

      Where did that "scientific" data come from? The 1611KJV Bible, the same place you get all your "science" from?

      It's sweet you want to stick up for your fellow ignorant Godbotherer, it really is. But this is supposed to be a discussion of the scientific evidence.

      Delete
    15. Elijah

      T being new I am one of the few that even bothers to read what you say (will probably stop in another week)- here and there. Life would never have been talking to you about being an adult. We all know where that lies. Your incessant whining, name calling and childish antics (do you want a waaaambulance....lol) marks you as the kid on this blog (one at least).


      LOL! Says the mouthy little baby who followed me around posting "poison the well" messages.

      Real adult of you there Elijah. We'll add flaming hypocrite to your resume along with mouthy ignorant Godbotherer.

      Delete
    16. Elijah2012

      Sprint like Usain Bolt from molecular convergence. or you didn't know that was science eh?


      I'm right here little whiny baby. Molecular convergence occurs for the same reason morphological convergence occurs - there are only a finite number of solutions to the physics problems faced by animals. Sometimes two different not closely related lineages hit on the same solution. In the case of the Prestin molecule in bats and cetaceans it turns out that Prestin has unique properties that aid in the detection of high frequency sounds. It solved the physics problem of hearing these sounds in both instances.

      You'd know that if you weren't such a lazy ignorant Godbotherer and did even a cursory search of the scientific literature. But you are, a clueless dolt with a big mouth who can only mindlessly repeat Creationist lies he's been told.

      Delete
    17. " Molecular convergence occurs for the same reason morphological convergence occurs - there are only a finite number of solutions to the physics problems faced by animals"

      HEY T hold that dogma in your head and click your heels and think "theres no place like home" three times and you'll be transported to a world where people will believe that crapola. :)

      Until then just like I said most people understand mathematics and probability better than you do.

      Yes T the problems faced by animals forces their genes to magically duplicate unrelated organism's DNA sequences to come up with the "finite solutions" over and over and over again. It aint design its just the magical genetic changes appearing in repeat sequence and being saved by the environmental selection

      ALL MATHEMATICS SO FAR!!

      Delete
  53. jeff said:

    "But when the whole theory is causally ad-hoc from top to bottom, it's utterly worthless."

    In that case, your religious beliefs, that are ad-hoc from top to bottom (causally or otherwise), are worthless.

    You sure do like the term "ad-hoc", don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Neal Tedford: Evolutionists apparently believe that if human designs can be formed into a nested hierarchy, ...

    Human artifacts typically don't form a singular objective nested hierarchy. They can be arranged in many different, supportable, nested hierarchies.

    Neal Tedford: Evolutionists apparently believe that if human designs can be formed into a nested hierarchy, but not an objective nested hierachy it is a common characteristic of design. The mixing of some characters across the hierarchy causes it to lack the objective property.

    That's a very odd definition of "objective". If we say the Earth is objectively similar to a sphere in shape, this statement doesn't become non-objective by pointing to a mountain.

    Neal Tedford: The mixing of some characters across the hierarchy causes it to lack the objective property.

    No. It means it's not a perfect nested hierarchy. The fit is very close, though.
    http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zach says, "the fit is close". This is purely a subjective. You lack a clear metric to determine what is very close. Would you say the sea squirt classification is very close? What's your metric? Or, its just hand waving arguments.

      Delete
    2. This is a well-researched topic. See, Swofford et al., Phylogenetic inference, Molecular Systematics 1996; or Huelsenbeck et al., Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology, Science 2001.

      Delete
  55. Elijah2012: The exclusions are so sweeping we can fit anything we want into that.

    Well, no. The fit is much closer than for the claim that the Earth's shape is similar to an oblate sphere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll have to better than analogies.

      No matter how you try molecular convergence does not fit into your nested hierarchy argument and as noted above even if we didn't have any convergence nested hierarchies still would not be distinguishing from a design process.

      Delete
    2. Don't be totally stupid now. You are comparing the fit of nested hierarchies to the fit of the earth shape being similar to an oblate sphere.

      that is analogous.

      Delete
  56. Zachriel: As we said, start with the objective observation of the nested hierarchy. It's a very peculiar pattern.

    Elijah2012: Peculiar to what though.

    A nested hierarchy is only a very tiny percentage of possible maps.

    Elijah2012: The each life form was designed separately inference is nowhere in sight.

    You seem to be claiming that the various kingdoms were separately created, but you're not clear. If so, we would expect separate and disjointed nested hierarchies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You seem to be claiming that the various kingdoms were separately created, but you're not clear. If so, we would expect separate and disjointed nested hierarchies"

      You can't read then. I made no such equivalence with kingdoms. I specifically stated point blank the three creation events of life according to biblical creationism. Further there is not the slightest hint of those three needing distinct and separate ordering patterns. We could have all three the same but repeated. We could have them all separate or even just two similiar. We would not expect separate and disjointed nested hierarchies.

      What you are doing is begging for that to be the case because it would seem this is the first time you are trying to fit your head around the idea that neither ID nor creationism necessarily calls for separate designs of each creature/kind.

      Delete
  57. lifepsy: When I say "natural selection creates", we both know that I am referring to its filtering properties of differential reproduction, and theoretical fixation of randomly acquired advantageous attributes.

    No, we didn't know that.

    lifepsy: You have zero evidence that {evolution by} natural selection can create a new feature even once.

    Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Elijah2012: You are comparing the fit of nested hierarchies to the fit of the earth shape being similar to an oblate sphere.

    They are both measures of fit.

    The Earth's oblateness is about 0.35% (44km over 12755km). The roughest irregularity on the Earth's surface is about 9km, or 0.07%.

    The probability of life not being monophyletic has been calculated as being 1 in 10^2680. Theobald, A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry, Nature 2010.

    Elijah2012: made no such equivalence with kingdoms. I specifically stated point blank the three creation events of life according to biblical creationism.

    You said three commands, so we weren't sure.

    1. Let the land produce vegetation

    2. Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky

    3. Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds

    4. Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness

    If we suppose each command represented a diversification from a common ancestor, then we would have four separate hierarchies. Is that what you mean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They are both measures of fit. "

      You are comparing the two - with one as analogous to the other. Pontificate some more - the point fails on merit and in being inconsequential.

      "If we suppose each command represented a diversification from a common ancestor, then we would have four separate hierarchies. Is that what you mean?"

      No.. IF I tell you a third time will it have any hope of sinking in or will it just be an exercise in futility? We are not talking specifically about ancestry at all. You really are totally lost. You seem to be thinking I am referring to some kind of theistic evolution and shoe horning your assumptions into my statements.

      I stated the three commands merely to indicate that there is nowhere where separate specific designs are made for each organism/kind in biblical creationsism not to represent them as separate hierarchies. They are all described by one word "life".

      I can tell this entire concept is new to you not being covered in any of the new atheist or Talkorigins documents. When I have the time I will figure a way to break it down into easier concepts for your to understand.

      Delete
  59. Elijah2012: You are comparing the two - with one as analogous to the other.

    Let's review. You had said "The exclusions are so sweeping we can fit anything we want into that." We provided an example of how we can make valid claims about a pattern, even if the pattern is not perfect.

    Elijah2012: I stated the three commands merely to indicate that there is nowhere where separate specific designs are made for each organism/kind in biblical creationsism not to represent them as separate hierarchies.

    In other words, you didn't say much of anything. Please try and be specific. Are you positing three creation events? Were all organisms created at the same time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In other words, you didn't say much of anything."

      Nope

      A) in other words you can't read worth a lick because I have said it twice.
      B) in other words You are lost because you have done such a sloppy inefficient intellectually dishonest job of learning about what it is you oppose that you can't even think of a good response to it without stalling with trying desperately to get four hierarchies out of what I said.
      C) In other words your comprehension falls through the floor once we are not dealing with matters of darwinistic rhetoric you have versed yourself on from sources like talkorigin to the exclusion of working on your logic and general comprehension skills.

      The point made was to indicate to you that separate designs are not needed to posit design and that designing forces once we dispense with the idea of an intelligent designer creating each organism uniquely has the same explanatory power as descent and nested hierarchies. In fact better since for general and in particular molecular convergence it has far better explanatory powers.

      "Are you positing three creation events? Were all organisms created at the same time? "

      Sigh...Like I said I will try and find the time to really break it down for you.
      IF by specific you mean i thought you had at least read the first chapter of Genesis then yes I assumed too much given those two questions.

      Delete
    2. Elijah2012

      "Are you positing three creation events? Were all organisms created at the same time? "

      Sigh...Like I said I will try and find the time to really break it down for you.
      IF by specific you mean i thought you had at least read the first chapter of Genesis then yes I assumed too much given those two questions.


      LOL! If this scientifically illiterate Godbotherer thumps his Bible any harder we're going to have a confetti shower!

      I can't wait until he starts on the carrying capacity of the Ark and how all languages came from the Tower of Babel.

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

      Delete
  60. Elijah2012: in other words you can't read worth a lick because I have said it twice.

    Just repeating something twice doesn't necessarily make it comprehensible. You referred to three commands creating life. Then you said this:

    Elijah2012: there is nowhere where separate specific designs are made for each organism/kind in biblical creationsism not to represent them as separate hierarchies. [

    Very non-specific, except to note that the Bible doesn't note individual creation of each species, other than humans.

    Elijah2012: The point made was to indicate to you that separate designs are not needed to posit design ...

    Depends what you mean by design, but it seems you haven't explained anything then.

    Elijah2012: ... and that designing forces once we dispense with the idea of an intelligent designer creating each organism uniquely has the same explanatory power as descent and nested hierarchies.

    Except for the lack of explanation, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zac

      Like I said I assumed you knew a lick of what it was you oppose. When you have to come back and ask me

      "Are you positing three creation events? Were all organisms created at the same time? "

      when I just finished referencing the first chapter of Genesis as the source of what I was talking about you are either

      A) being entirely disingenuos and stalling

      or

      B) have not done anywhere near to any decent research into the point of view you claim to know about and oppose

      either which is intellectually dishonest given your stance.

      Delete