Whif
These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.
Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory. For even cleansed data routinely lead to evolutionary trees that are incongruent (the opposite of consilience). As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”
This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionist admitted “a bit shocking.”
Or as another evolutionist put it, “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”
Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.
What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained, “if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”
Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so. That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific investigation.
related notes:Another area of evidence for common descent that has fallen completely apart is the genetic similarity evidence between chimps and humans.,, First, it is found that the genetic similarity one derives is highly subjective to ‘various methodological factors’
ReplyDeleteGuy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity – 2009
Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html
Even ignoring the subjective bias of ‘various methodological factors’ that Darwinists introduce into these similarity studies, the first inkling, at least for me, that something was terribly amiss with the oft quoted 99% similarity figure was this,,,
Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows – 2002
Excerpt: Genetic studies for decades have estimated that humans and chimpanzees possess genomes that are about 98.5 percent similar. In other words, of the three billion base pairs along the DNA helix, nearly 99 of every 100 would be exactly identical.
However, new work by one of the co-developers of the method used to analyze genetic similarities between species says the figure should be revised downward to 95 percent.
http://www.caltech.edu/content/humans-and-chimps-have-95-percent-dna-compatibility-not-985-percent-research-shows
and then this,,,
Chimps are not like humans – May 2004
Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said.
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm
this had caught my eye in 2008,,,
DeleteChimpanzee?
10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
…Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf
And then this caught my eye in 2011:
Study Reports a Whopping “23% of Our Genome” Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny – Casey Luskin – June 2011
Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html
In late 2011 Jeffrey P. Tomkins, using an extremely conservative approach, reached the figure of 87% similarity:
Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89% – Jeffrey P. Tomkins – December 28, 2011
Excerpt: A common claim that is propagated through obfuscated research publications and popular evolutionary science authors is that the DNA of chimpanzees or chimps (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) is about 98–99% similar. A major problem with nearly all past human-chimp comparative DNA studies is that data often goes through several levels of pre-screening, filtering and selection before being aligned, summarized, and discussed. Non-alignable regions are typically omitted and gaps in alignments are often discarded or obfuscated.
In an upcoming paper, Tomkins and Bergman (2012) discuss most of the key human-chimp DNA similarity research papers on a case-by-case basis and show that the inclusion of discarded data (when provided) actually suggests a DNA similarity for humans and chimps not greater than 80–87% and quite possibly even less.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/blastin
Genomic monkey business – similarity re-evaluated using omitted data – by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman
Excerpt: A review of the common claim that the human and chimpanzee (chimp) genomes are nearly identical was found to be highly questionable solely by an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in an assortment of key research publications.,,,
Based on the analysis of data provided in various publications, including the often cited 2005 chimpanzee genome report, it is safe to conclude that human–chimp genome similarity is not more than ~87% identical, and possibly not higher than 81%. These revised estimates are based on relevant data omitted from the final similarity estimates typically presented.,,,
Finally, a very recent large-scale human–chimp genome comparison research report spectacularly confirms the data presented in this report. The human–chimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact.
http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated
Then earlier this year, 2013, with better resolution of data, and still using an extremely conservative approach, Tomkins reached the figure of 70% genetic similarity between chimps and humans:
DeleteComprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013
Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
Though outliers, I’ve even found studies for percent similarity figures as low as 62%,,
A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps – September 2010
Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-alleged-99-genetic-identity-between-humans-and-chimps/
and even as low as 49%
Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
moreover the gene count is now known to be broadly similar across species, even at the most ‘primitive’ level:
More Questions for Evolutionists – August 2010
Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacteria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-questions-for-evolutionists/
and even Zebrafish,,
DeleteFamily Ties: Completion of Zebrafish Reference Genome Yields Strong Comparisons With Human Genome – Apr. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Researchers demonstrate today that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish,,,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130417131725.htm
and even Kangaroos and opossums had a surprise,,
First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007
Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,,
The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html
Yet what accounts for such drastic differences in the species if the gene count is basically the same across species? Alternative splicing does. But alternative splicing is found to be species specific:
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
The mouse is not enough – February 2011
Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/
This finding is far more devastating than most people realize.. ,,,The reason why finding very different alternative splicing codes between closely related species is devastating to (bottom up) neo-Darwinian evolution is partly seen by understanding ‘Shannon Channel Capacity’:
“Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life
Shannon Information – Channel Capacity – Perry Marshall – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/
But perhaps the best way to understand why this is so devastating to (bottom up) neo-Darwinian evolution is best understood by taking a look at ‘ontogenetic depth’
DeleteDarwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Moreover, as if that was not devastating enough to the 99% similarity myth, orphan genes are now being found in each new genome that is sequenced:
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story – 16 January 2013 – Helen Pilcher
Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these “orphan genes” are high achievers (are just as essential as ‘old’ genes),,,
But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn’t be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven’t-quite the opposite, in fact.,,,
The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, “the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero”.,,,
Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing.
http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf
Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed ‘non-answer’ from Darwinists) – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome – Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten – 2008
Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf
The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zJaetK9gvCo#t=760s
The essential genome of a bacterium – 2011
DeleteFigure (C): Venn diagram of overlap between Caulobacter and E. coli ORFs (outer circles) as well as their subsets of essential ORFs (inner circles). Less than 38% of essential Caulobacter ORFs are conserved and essential in E. coli. Only essential Caulobacter ORFs present in the STING database were considered, leading to a small disparity in the total number of essential Caulobacter ORFs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202797/pdf/msb201158.pdf
Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species – Branko Kozuli - PhD. Biochemistry
Excerpt: Horizontal gene transfer is common in prokaryotes but rare in eukaryotes [89-94], so HGT cannot account for (ORFan) singletons in eukaryotic genomes, including the human genome and the genomes of other mammals.,,,
The trend towards higher numbers of (ORFan) singletons per genome seems to coincide with a higher proportion of the eukaryotic genomes sequenced. In other words, eukaryotes generally contain a larger number of singletons than eubacteria and archaea.,,,
That hypothesis – that evolution strives to preserve a protein domain once it stumbles upon it contradicts the power law distribution of domains. The distribution graphs clearly show that unique domains are the most abundant of all domain groups [21, 66, 67, 70, 72, 79, 82, 86, 94, 95], contrary to their expected rarity.,,,
Evolutionary biologists of earlier generations have not anticipated [164, 165] the challenge that (ORFan) singletons pose to contemporary biologists. By discovering millions of unique genes biologists have run into brick walls similar to those hit by physicists with the discovery of quantum phenomena. The predominant viewpoint in biology has become untenable: we are witnessing a scientific revolution of unprecedented proportions.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0025v1.pdf
No, I’m not nearly as inclined to accept the genetic similarity evidence for common ancestry as I once was. And considering that the recent ENCODE study, which found 80% plus functionality for the genome, is calling for a redefinition of the entire concept of a ‘gene’, I don't see ever changing my mind in the future towards the fact that the 99% genetic similarity figure is now completely overthrown:
Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012
DeleteExcerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html
Demise of the Gene – September 19, 2012
Excerpt: Although the gene has conventionally been viewed as the fundamental unit of genomic organization, on the basis of ENCODE data it is now compellingly argued that this unit is not the gene but rather the (RNA) transcript (Washietl et al. 2007; Djebali et al. 2012a). On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA. (What does our genome encode? John A. Stamatoyannopoulos Genome Res. 2012 22: 1602-1611.)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/demise_of_the_g064371.html
Yet, RNA transcripts appear to be even more uncooperative towards alignment for similarity than Genes currently are:
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution – Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. – Elie Dolgin – 27 June 2012
Excerpt: “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. “…they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist – Kevin Peterson)
Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says.
Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong.
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
footnote, and we haven’t even mapped the entire genome yet:
Ten years on, still much to be learned from human genome map – April 12, 2013
Excerpt:,,,”What’s more, about 10 percent of the human genome still hasn’t been sequenced and can’t be sequenced by existing technology, Green added. “There are parts of the genome we didn’t know existed back when the genome was completed,” he said.,,,
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-04-ten-years-human-genome.html
To any new reader
DeletePlease be advised of our two resident teen age antagonists that go by the name of Thorton and The Whole Truth (the latter as an anti statement)
Many atheists and opponents of ID on this blog have had and do have worthwhile things to say and express themselves as adults but please be advised in this lightly moderated blog these poster are seldom among them and are given to the most childish of rants and name callings.
Please feel free at your discretion to skip their posts as we often do in responding to them
Damn Batspit 77, do us all a favor and drink a gallon of Kaopectate. That or get a cork. Your verbal diarrhea is totally out of control.
ReplyDeletelol
DeleteLook who is talking. If only Kaopectate still worked for you
You go bornagain77. Keep it up. Plus anything that bumps Thorton down the page where no one will read him is good stuff ;)
Wow, Cornelius Goebbels makes an amazing scientific discovery! The phylogenetic history of single celled asexually reproducing creatures at the very bottom on the tree of life gets indistinct, more like a bush than a tree, due to increased instances of horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Something the rest of the scientific world has known for decades.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Cornelius. Your understanding of evolutionary theory has almost reached the 1970's.
Something the rest of the scientific world has known for decades.
DeleteExcept, umm, the evolutionists doing the work. Does it ever get tiring?
"Except, umm, the evolutionists doing the work. Does it ever get tiring?"
DeleteROFL. Its Thorton - of course not. You must read these comments even less than I thought.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteT: "Something the rest of the scientific world has known for decades."
Except, umm, the evolutionists doing the work.
They knew the evolutionary phylogenies of the yeast would be 'bushy'. The experiment was done to determine how bushy. But nice try to save face with some more dishonest spin.
Does it ever get tiring?
Scientifically investigating the unknowns and expanding our knowledge never gets tiring. But since you gave up your scientific career to be a paid political propagandist I don't suppose you'd know.
Does sitting on your butt writing BS anti-science articles for a right wing religious 'think tank' ever get tiring? Probably not as long as their checks cash, eh?
"They knew the evolutionary phylogenies of the yeast would be 'bushy'."
DeleteSee Cornelius they knew it all along. Press TH enough and he might even claim Darwin knew it was bushy too
"Scientifically investigating the unknowns and expanding our knowledge never gets tiring."
and how would you know T. Still trying to convince us that you are a scientist that just has all this time to hang out and bitch at an ID site week in and week out. Ever heard the expression
"actions speaks louder than words"
Now tell us about the wahmbulance you kept bringing up a few months back. We like when scientists use big words of the trade. It sounds so sciencey ;)
The most surprising thing about Darwinian evolution is not so much that the theory (read, religion) claims that the complexity of life arose on its own or that evolutionists dishonestly fudge the data. The most surprising thing about evolution is the level of stupidity that its believers are willing to embrace in order to keep it alive. The stupidity is stunning once you remove the scientific-sounding jargon.
DeleteAs Paul Feyerabend once put it, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."
louis said:
Delete"The most surprising thing about evolution is the level of stupidity that its believers are willing to embrace in order to keep it alive. The stupidity is stunning once you remove the scientific-sounding jargon."
Speaking of stupid beliefs, hey louis, will you please explain in scientific detail how a man could live inside a fish for days, how a woman could be turned into a pillar of salt, how a snake could talk, and how dead saints and dead jesus could become animated zombies that mingled with living people?
By the way, what language did the snake speak?
"The whole truthJune 12, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Deletelouis said:
"The most surprising thing about evolution is the level of stupidity that its believers are willing to embrace in order to keep it alive. The stupidity is stunning once you remove the scientific-sounding jargon."
Speaking of stupid beliefs, hey louis, will you please explain in scientific detail how a man could live inside a fish for days, how a woman could be turned into a pillar of salt, how a snake could talk, and how dead saints and dead jesus could become animated zombies that mingled with living people?
By the way, what language did the snake speak?"
Bpragmatic said:
Hey twat, thanks again for demonstrating your only "scientifically" relevant argument for NDE is an anti-"religious" rant. You bastards have been living off of this kind of crap for decades.
BornAgain77 - Thanks for all your excellent work but I see you replied to your own comment. Therein madness lies!
ReplyDeleteSo was the new data contradicting the "correct tree" there-by invalidating the prior theory? Or did the new data illuminate the existing theory's shortcomings? Do we now have a more complete understanding, and thus, a newer, revised theory? It sounds like they decided to stick with the old theory and disregard the new data. Oh well, I guess that's good enough for government work.
ReplyDeleteNo, data is never disregarded. The problem here is that Cornelius is inflating new discoveries to seem like knock-down refutations of evolution. He does that a lot.
DeleteWe make new discoveries all the time, but that does not mean they falsify our old theories. Geneticists have known for years that the tree of life gets rather tangled when we go as far back as singled-celled organisms, where mechanisms such as Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) significantly muddy the evolutionary process. But this is not grounds to doubt the validity of the tree of life pattern for animals who are incapable of HGT (ie, organisms larger than single cells), does it?
The way Cornelius words this is deliberately misleading. He makes it sound like scientists set up a test FOR EVOLUTION and declared: "If evolution is true, here are the trees for 1,070 genes we would expect to find" - and none of them were right. But that is not what actually happened - as a reading of his sources reveals.
In actual fact, this was a study on incongruence. The scientists knew the results would clash with their gene trees inferred by concatenation - the issue is by how much and what patterns we can divine to make our models more accurate at this level.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with, for example, the evolutionary implication that humans are just another branch on the ape family, or that all life does indeed share a common ancestor.
"The way Cornelius words this is deliberately misleading."
DeleteThis is very tiresome, sneaky and dirty on the part of Darwin's Cheerleaders. It is a strong accusation, but NEVER substantiated. Since this accusation is done so freely and casually, I accuse the people making the accusation of being deliberately misleading themselves, seeking to demonize the person instead of refuting the argument. (Hint: "No it isn't!"..."That's not true!"..."You don't understand evolution" and other contradictions are *NOT* refutations.) Using loaded terms to influence emotions is typical of people like this.
No, if you're going to accuse Cornelius of being a liar, it would help if you showed how you knew his heart and mind. Or perhaps you have magic powers the rest of us only dream about? Say hello to Professor X for me.
Does cornelius have "magic powers the rest of us only dream about" that enable him to "know" the "heart and mind" of evolutionists that he constantly accuses of all kinds of horrible things, including lying?
DeleteIt doesn't take any magic powers to see that cornelius is just a typical bible thumper with a dominionist agenda. cornelius's twisted, dishonest "heart and mind" are abundantly revealed by his own words.
Stormbringer
DeleteI did not simply level that one-line accusation that you quoted. The rest of my post explains why what Cornelius is implying is wrong.
No, if you're going to accuse Cornelius of being a liar, it would help if you showed how you knew his heart and mind. Or perhaps you have magic powers the rest of us only dream about? Say hello to Professor X for me.
The information Cornelius displays is misleading, but it is done according to regular patterns. One of the most common is "Here is a new discovery, evolution did not predict it, therefore it invalidates evolution."
Either he KNOWS this is fallacious, in which case his deception is deliberate, or he somehow does not know it is fallacious, in which case he has somehow managed to delude even himself. I do not know which is the more worrying.
And, as the whole truth says, your objection is extremely ironic given that Cornelius claims to be able to speak the minds of biologists in practically every post. You don't find this objectionable in him. Why? Because you happen to like his conclusions?
R:"No, data is never disregarded. The problem here is that Cornelius is inflating new discoveries to seem like knock-down refutations of evolution. He does that a lot.
DeleteM: It seems each of the new discoveries are viewed through the lens of common ancestry. Since nobody knows how the first cell became alive or appeared, it makes sense to question new data that doesn't fit into that world view. Especially if you think God created everything after its own kind. I'm glad Cornelius is highlighting these problems on his blog.
What if the tree of life is a complete fabrication of one's imagination? How would we ever get beyond it if courageous people did not ask questions? It's far more likely people who have invested many years in study will support their theories to the death even if they are wrong.
"This is very tiresome, sneaky and dirty on the part of Darwin's Cheerleaders. It is a strong accusation, but NEVER substantiated."
DeleteNot to worry. Its pretty standard for that commenter and then when you you catch them in their own lies and double standards they cry that you point out their own lying too much.
"Or perhaps you have magic powers the rest of us only dream about? "
No but ritchie recently made a mean defence for the blue fairy who creates everything out of nothing by chance which he claimed repeatedly needs no evidence since the explanation of chance according to him needs no evidence - its just the defacto position needing none Shucks you might even see that argument in his next post.
So magic powers he might not have but he believes in them
Just because you don't like what Cornelius is saying does not make him a liar, Skippy. And saying he's wrong (or a liar) does not make either true. Perhaps on your planet it works, not for the rest of us.
DeleteBTW, personal attacks and demonizing are showing us your lack of confidence in your position, and are unacceptable. Sucks to be you, huh?
Marcus
DeleteIt seems each of the new discoveries are viewed through the lens of common ancestry.
That's true to a degree. Common ancestry has already been demonstrated to such a level of satisfaction that it may now be safely taken as a given.
Since nobody knows how the first cell became alive or appeared,
This is not evolution. It is abiogenesis, which is a separate (though related) theory.
it makes sense to question new data that doesn't fit into that world view.
Of course. Our theories are constantly being refined according to new data. That is how science progresses.
Especially if you think God created everything after its own kind. I'm glad Cornelius is highlighting these problems on his blog.
They aren't problems. That is the issue. Cornelius just wants to make them sound like problems because he wants to make it sound like there is lots of evidence against evolution when such is not actually the case.
What if the tree of life is a complete fabrication of one's imagination?
Then how are we to explain the fact that evidence from genetics, anatomy, paleontology, geography and more, all point to it being true? Indeed, the very consilience of this evidence which is evolution's strongest argument. Is this simply a big coincidence? What theory can better make sense of the evidence?
How would we ever get beyond it if courageous people did not ask questions? It's far more likely people who have invested many years in study will support their theories to the death even if they are wrong.
Asking courageous questions is what science is all about. No-one ever became a great scientists by towing the status quo. The great scientists are the ones who struck out with outrageous new ideas, who turned everything upside down. They also had to be proved right, of course. But the point is that there is no concept of 'heresy' in science. There is no evil conspiracy shutting the doors to ID. The total failure of ID to stand as a credible scientific theory is not down to academic bullies closing their doors to Creationists with their 'scandalous' ideas.
Elijah
DeleteNo but ritchie recently made a mean defence for the blue fairy who creates everything...
Magic beings making everything out of nothing was a parody of the Creationist position. It is astonishing that this point still eludes you.
...he claimed repeatedly needs no evidence since the explanation of chance according to him needs no evidence - its just the defacto position needing none
Methodological naturalism needs no evidence since science is simply impossible without it.
Stormbringer
DeleteJust because you don't like what Cornelius is saying does not make him a liar, Skippy.
I am not objecting on the grounds that I don't like it. I am objecting on the grounds that what he is saying is demonstrably false.
And saying he's wrong (or a liar) does not make either true.
No. It is the fact that he is wrong that makes him wrong.
BTW, personal attacks and demonizing are showing us your lack of confidence in your position, and are unacceptable. Sucks to be you, huh?
Not really, since I am not making personal attacks. I have stated nothing I cannot support. Dressing up new discoveries as contradictory evidence to evolution is one of Cornelius' more common tactics. And it has never served him well since - except, of course, to gain himself another round of empty canned applause.
R:"This is not evolution. It is abiogenesis, which is a separate (though related) theory."
DeleteI know it's abiogenesis. My point is without the logic of a first cell, how do you get to the logic of common ancestry from the first cell? I know common ancestry between animals of the same species is proven. There are many different types of dogs for example.
Why is the general understanding that life formed from a single cell at one time vs multitudes of different cells forming simultaneously? Is it a mathematical problem, that is, the odds of that happening are so remote as to be impossible? If we look at the fossil record, one interpretation could be that all of the major body plans appeared at once.
If we don't know how the first cell appeared, why would it be wrong to speculate that the whole organism appeared fully developed?
Ritchie said
Delete"None of this has anything whatsoever to do with, for example, the evolutionary implication that humans are just another branch on the ape family, or that all life does indeed share a common ancestor."
Off course, this is the dogma revealed, and all the data has to be ajusted to fit it. Otherwise anathema, because "it will be perverse withold provisional assent".
Marcus
DeleteI know it's abiogenesis. My point is without the logic of a first cell, how do you get to the logic of common ancestry from the first cell?
Well the first cell is not the same thing as the universal common ancestor. They are different.
But I think I see what you are saying. And the more relevant point is that evolution starts from the point where we have a first self-replicating cell. From that point on evolution begins. Evolution describes how life develops, not how it originates. Asking where the first cell came from is beyond its scope.
I know common ancestry between animals of the same species is proven. There are many different types of dogs for example.
Indeed. Though if you accept common ancestry of different breeds of the same species, do you accept common ancestry of different species in the same genus? And if so, do you accept common ancestry between different genera in the same family? Families in an order? Orders in a class? Classes in a phylum? Phyla in a kingdom? Where do you draw the line of 'impossible' and, more to the point, why?
Why is the general understanding that life formed from a single cell at one time vs multitudes of different cells forming simultaneously?
Because every living thing on Earth shares the same genetic code - DNA. This implies we all descended from a single ancestor.
That is not to say this common ancestor was the first of its line, or that life did not spontaneously arise several times. It just states that nothing else has left a living descendant today.
If we look at the fossil record, one interpretation could be that all of the major body plans appeared at once.
Except they didn't.
If we don't know how the first cell appeared, why would it be wrong to speculate that the whole organism appeared fully developed?
That is not a proposition we can disprove. But how are you saying this happened, exactly? Are you saying it just appeared in a poof of magic?
Blas
DeleteOff course, this is the dogma revealed, and all the data has to be ajusted to fit it.
No, the data actually does fit it. That's the point.
Otherwise anathema, because "it will be perverse withold provisional assent".
No idea what you are talking about here.
Ritchie
Delete"Well the first cell is not the same thing as the universal common ancestor. They are different."
This is interesting, we should have a FUCA that evolved in a unique LUCA. We do not have a trace of all the others "evolved FUCAs" that do not survived.
How was the FUCA? How different is the FUCA with the LUCA?
"Because every living thing on Earth shares the same genetic code - DNA. This implies we all descended from a single ancestor."
That is false the same genetic code do not implies, only is compatible with a LUCA.
And if you look objectively to the data they fit very well with the hypothesis that life was seeded on earth. And there is no reason to seed only a FUCA/LUCA and wait it to evolve.
Blas
DeleteHow was the FUCA? How different is the FUCA with the LUCA?
Obviously the FUCA and LUCA would have to have been the same species.
That is false the same genetic code do not implies, only is compatible with a LUCA.
Why? What other explanation accounts for it?
And if you look objectively to the data they fit very well with the hypothesis that life was seeded on earth.
Seeded by how, and by whom/what?
This is a totally relevant point. If life was 'seeded', then how? If it came from another planet, then you have not solved the abiogenesis problem - you have merely shifted it to another location.
Here's two interesting quotes from the abstracts CH linked to:
DeleteThese results question the exclusive reliance on concatenation and associated practices, and argue that selecting genes with strong phylogenetic signals and demonstrating the absence of significant incongruence are essential for accurately reconstructing ancient divergences.
“Just about all the trees from individual genes were in conflict with the tree based on a concatenated data set,” says Hilu. “It’s a bit shocking.”
From what I remember of this imbroglio, the "concatenation" they're talking about is a result of using a Markov Chain process to simulate evolution. Why use the Markov Chain process? Well, you see, it mimics "common descent."
So, if we are to interpret this correctly, the results show that if you try to impose "common descent" on the data, it won't work; but, if we content ourselves with asserting some kind of "intermediate forms" (you know, just like how they do it for whale lineages, etc.) then you get better results.
That's why the author says that "it's a bit shocking."
All of this has simply become laughable. It's why I rarely post any more.
Lino
DeleteSo, if we are to interpret this correctly, the results show that if you try to impose "common descent" on the data, it won't work
No Lino, that's the point. This is not a single test which gives you the expected results for if common descent were correct. That is Cornelius' implication, but it is not so.
This is about refining the methods we use to deduce gene selection over long periods.
This does not undermine common descent per se. That is merely what the step too far that Cornelius is edging you to take.
"RitchieJune 12, 2013 at 3:48 AM
DeleteNo, data is never disregarded. The problem here is that Cornelius is inflating new discoveries to seem like knock-down refutations of evolution. He does that a lot."
Bpragmatic says:
Itchy Ritchie, you hypocrytical sob. When has ANY discovery from an NDE perspective NOT BEEN INTERPREDTED TO SUPPORT THE REIGNING PARADIGN. WHAT A DUMB B. New discoveries, ha ha ha. The vast amount of "new discoveries" if interpreted in an unbiased fashion would have aholes like you, liddle, twat, zachriel etc etc etc looking for another outlet for your metaphysical expressions. Meaning, no significant historical verifications whatsoever required.
Ritchie:
Delete"Concatenation" literally means "within a chain." 'Catena' is the Latin form of 'chain.'
That's why I mentioned Markov Chain process. And that method is used because of its perceived parallel to how 'common descent' happens. When the experimenters tell us that 'concatenation' methods push the phylogenetic trees, so derived, further and further apart, then this undermines the efficacy of 'concatenation' methods, and, thus, the whole notion of 'common descent.'
bpragmatic
DeleteI was trying to find an actual point among all that childish verbal abuse, but I can't see one. If you were hiding one somewhere, you'll be sure to point it out, won't you?
Lino
DeleteThat's why I mentioned Markov Chain process. And that method is used because of its perceived parallel to how 'common descent' happens. When the experimenters tell us that 'concatenation' methods push the phylogenetic trees, so derived, further and further apart, then this undermines the efficacy of 'concatenation' methods, and, thus, the whole notion of 'common descent.'
Not so, because common descent itself is not a process. Common descent itself is a conclusion. The means by which life diversified from a common ancestor is what we are trying to establish.
"Magic beings making everything out of nothing was a parody of the Creationist position. It is astonishing that this point still eludes you."
Deletelol Dude do you ever have a day you do not lie? You know where it comes from when I reference it - your days long defense of Krauss and New scientist claim that everything came out of nothing complete with your babbling lunacy that systems with energy are not real tangible things but mere concepts
With the top off lie with your denial days later that you ever defended it even though linking to new scientist and stating it had scientific merit
just lie and lie and lie. which is why I couldn't and still won't bother going back and forth with you at length again
now go ahead and lie again
"Not really, since I am not making personal attacks. I have stated nothing I cannot support. Dressing up new discoveries as contradictory evidence to evolution is one of Cornelius' more common tactics."
Deletelol more lies. C almost always links to a new study and quite often one which makes science news sites so the claim that ho hum its just what we always knew is pure nonsense.
Elijah
DeleteDude do you ever have a day you do not lie?
Ah, Elijah. So good to see you again...
You know where it comes from when I reference it
I know what you want it to be a reference to. The fact that it is a poor fit for when you use it, and a much better one when I do seems to escape you though.
your days long defense of Krauss and New scientist claim that everything came out of nothing complete with your babbling lunacy that systems with energy are not real tangible things but mere concepts
You were the one who kept babbling on about Krauss. I told you many times I haven't even read his books.
The New Scientist was to help you make sense of the idea of the universe from nothing. You ended up insisting the NewScientist was actually LYING to you. I still haven't stopped finding that hilarious, fyi... :-D
And you never answered my question about the sort of energy an empty box would contain. Could it be because you finally realised that was nonsense? (I'm not holding my breath on that though.)
lol more lies.
"LIIIES!!! IT's AAAALL LIIIIES! EVERYONE LIES TO ME!!!"
C almost always links to a new study and quite often one which makes science news sites so the claim that ho hum its just what we always knew is pure nonsense.
I did not say the studies he links to are old. I said he dresses them up as knock-down evidence against evolution, which they never are.
And that pointing this out does not constitute a personal attack.
Cornelius Hunter: It was, as one evolutionist admitted “a bit shocking.”
ReplyDeleteFrom the article, "Every gene they studied appeared to tell a slightly different story of evolution."
slightly, small of its kind or in amount
You should know, a small mountain is bigger than a big fly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDrHunter
DeleteContradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070
Better than sitting in the stands.
V: Better than sitting in the stands.
DeleteJ: What makes you think he's arguing against research? He's never said that. What he opposes is lying in the name of science about what is and isn't known with any plausibility as derived from a non-arbitrary relative plausibility criteria. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jeff,
DeleteJ: What makes you think he's arguing against research? He's never said that.
I wasn't referring to DrHunter personally.though a case might be made the his reluctance to actually adopt a position is a rhetorical means to avoid the same scrutiny as he employs. Actually probably a wise decision.
I was just referring to the alternate theories to ToE, how do they accommodate the same data? Are they more or less effective? After, not all 0 fors are equal. Perhaps theories are graded on a curve.
What he opposes is lying in the name of science about what is and isn't known with any plausibility as derived from a non-arbitrary relative plausibility criteria
I am surrounded by heathens, to paraphrase the Untouchables, do any of you know what constitutes a lie? One must portray as true that which they know to be false.
Unless you have proof that those "lying" know what a "plausibility as derived from a non-arbitrary relative plausibility criteria." means, then logically they could not know what they say is false. No lie is possible when judged by that standard
I have been reading your stuff for a while and I am still confused how something can be non arbitrary and relative at the same time
It this a concept which eludes a concise definition, as well?
This is not constrained to bacteria. This same theory-based data-fudging is going on across the board in all phylogenetic tree constructions.
ReplyDeleteIf phylogenetic sequences line up with common ancestry than they are considered 'correct', and problem genes that are incongruent are treated as anomalous or 'non-conserved' or filtered out. The phylogenetic reconstructions are driven by the theory(religion). They begin with their conclusion always that Evolution happened and Common Ancestry is true.
Look at microRNA with vertebrate phylogeny... evolutionists just shrug and say "whatever, something weird is happening with those genes" and ignore them. They have to be anomalies because they contradict the preconceived religious conclusions that various vertebrate species magically shape-shifted along specific lines of descent.
Aren't yeast eukaryotes? That means they have complex cells, and evolved later than bacteria. And how does HGT work in yeast?
ReplyDeleteAdn doesn't things like HGT mena that evolution nio longer predicts a "tree of life?" If there was more HGT then there owuld be more bushiness and less treeness.
Nat,
Delete"Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to some fungi, especially the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, has been well documented. "
Is hgt the primary source of genetic transfer in all organisms? What does ID predict concerning HGT? Why? What is ID prediction concerning the " tree of life" ?
If we had more HGT,then we have more bushiness. Isn't the amount of HGT that happens random? There could have been more or less. More would have messed up the tree pattern. The main point is that evolution no longer predicts a tree pattern.
DeleteAnd isn't the explanation for the pattern observed in the above OP HGT Between species of yeast, not bacteria to yeast?
nat
DeleteThe main point is that evolution no longer predicts a tree pattern.
Only at certain levels. Animals, for example, are incapable of HGT. So this does not complicate the tree of life pattern for them, does it?
Ritchie:
DeleteThen why is it complicated?
nat
DeleteThen why is it complicated?
Let me give you an example.
Humans shared an ancestor with chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. And we shared an acestor with gorillas around 7 million years ago.
So, any mutations gorillas developed in the last 7 million years would be theirs alone. Any mutations developed by the human-chimp ancestors between 7 and 6 million years go would be shared by both of us. And any mutations either humans or chimps developed in the last 6 million years would be ours alone.
Now lets us consider a specific gene: Gene A. Gorillas developed a mutation on it in the last 7 million years. So the fact that chimps and humans share the same Gene A is evidence that they are more closely related.
Now let us consider another gene: Gene B. Chimpanzees developed a mutation on this gene in the last 6 million years. So humans share the same Gene B with gorillas, even though they are more closely related to chimps. So in this case, a shared gene is not evidence of being more closely related.
This is an example of the sort of thing that makes sorting out the tree of life quite a difficult task. Sometimes we discover new evidence which causes us to make a few ammendments - maybe we discover Salamander A is more closely related to Salamander C, when we had previously thought it was Salamander B. But the basic tree shape is not undermined by this.
Bu tif all of this stuff happened, then anything could have happened, and evolution doesn't require or predict a tree shape.
Deletenat
DeleteBu tif all of this stuff happened, then anything could have happened
Anything? How literally do you mean that?
I pointed out that drawing up the tree of life is not totally straightforward. It has its complications.
It does not logically follow that 'anything' could have happened.
and evolution doesn't require or predict a tree shape.
Doesn't it? Why, what other shapes does it form?
If we had more HGT, then we would have more contradictory trees. If we had more deep homology, we would see more contradictory trees. IF we had less of the above, then there would be more treeness. The reason that evolution is more intellectually satisfying as an explanation for the tree "of life" (to some people) is that it explains why we see a tree form and not something else. And omnipotent designer didn't have to make a tree shape. But once we allow all these apologetic like HGT, convergence, and deep homology, then anything could have happened. Evolution is no better than "God did to" to explain why we see a tree, and not something else.
Deletenat
DeleteThe reason that evolution is more intellectually satisfying as an explanation for the tree "of life" (to some people) is that it explains why we see a tree form and not something else. And omnipotent designer didn't have to make a tree shape.
Quite so.
But once we allow all these apologetic like HGT, convergence, and deep homology, then anything could have happened
I still don't understand your point. You call HGT, convergence and deep homology 'apologetics'? For what? Evolution? They aren't excuses - they are demonstrable mechanisms. We aren't playing a guessing game here; we don't just make this stuff up.
Evolution is no better than "God did to" to explain why we see a tree, and not something else.
The whole problem with "God did it" is that it doesn't explain anything. It proposes no mechanisms. Thus it is no explanation at all.
Even if evolution proposed a thousand contradictory mechanisms, it would still be a better explanation that one which proposed none at all.
Marcus: Indeed. Though if you accept common ancestry of different breeds of the same species, do you accept common ancestry of different species in the same genus? And if so, do you accept common ancestry between different genera in the same family? Families in an order? Orders in a class? Classes in a phylum? Phyla in a kingdom? Where do you draw the line of 'impossible' and, more to the point, why?
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact that many phenotype variations can stem from an original gene pool, (such as we observe with dog breeds) Dogs are not "evolving" increasingly complex biological structures.. just altering or reducing expression in preexisting genetic function and complexity. This isn't complicated. It's a very, very simple distinction between a process like the one above, and a process which would attempt to produce the function of that gene pool to begin with.
It is amazing to me that you, and so many other evolutionists are blissfully aloof of such a simple line of demarcation that even a 10 year-old could understand. You go on and on with this silly rant about the "invisible barrier" that you believe creationists are invoking.
It isn't about drawing a 'line of the impossible'...
It's about looking at the data realistically, observing that basic types of life vary within their wildtype genomes... without the need to take your preferred leap into darwinian storyland and invoking mystical tales about the origin of those types of genomes.
How you can so seamlessly conflate these two concepts (as if one who maintains the distinction is the one making an extraordinary claim) is truly a thing to behold.
I believe you were addressing me, not Marcus.
DeleteIt is a fact that many phenotype variations can stem from an original gene pool, (such as we observe with dog breeds) Dogs are not "evolving" increasingly complex biological structures.. just altering or reducing expression in preexisting genetic function and complexity.
Reducing expression? What are you reducing to make a great dane and corgi out of a wolf?
It's about looking at the data realistically, observing that basic types of life vary within their wildtype genomes
And what 'basic types of life' are those? How are you dividing life here, exactly? Species? Genus? Order...?
lifepsy said:
Delete"It's about looking at the data realistically, observing that basic types of life vary within their wildtype genomes... without the need to take your preferred leap into darwinian storyland and invoking mystical tales about the origin of those types of genomes."
But of course the religious "mystical tales" of supernatural poofing and other nonsense that you believe in and promote are realistic, eh?
Ritchie: Reducing expression? What are you reducing to make a great dane and corgi out of a wolf?
DeletePlease Read: Or altering expression. There's certainly no new genetic function being added. Such a thing might actually be evidence for Evolution. But as most of us know, there can be major phenotypic changes with zero increases in biological complexity. Actually, that is practically always the case, because Evolution doesn't happen.
Ritchie:And what 'basic types of life' are those? How are you dividing life here, exactly? Species? Genus? Order...?
Probably roughly the Family/Genus level represents the original gene pool that all variations and speciations have stemmed from. The types of variations we can actually observe. There is certainly no evidence that major families of organisms descended from other families.
You're the one making the outlandish claims when you hand-wave others who choose to make sensible divisions of types of life. I don't think on any scientific grounds, but because this is some sort of blasphemy to atheist-creationism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletelifespy
DeleteBut as most of us know, there can be major phenotypic changes with zero increases in biological complexity. Actually, that is practically always the case, because Evolution doesn't happen.
This is nonsense. We have many times directly observed mutation specifically adding information to the genome. Most commonly by Gene Duplication.
Here is one such study which shows exactly that:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf
Indeed, if genetic information was always either 'altered' or reduced, then how would there be any genetic variation in any gene pools these days? There must logically be a constant source of new variation being positively added.
And there is - random mutation.
Probably roughly the Family/Genus level represents the original gene pool that all variations and speciations have stemmed from. The types of variations we can actually observe.
The only barrier to observation here is time. We have witnessed two species forming from one. There is no logical problem with the idea that, given enough time, each species could give rise to diverse more species and eventually become the basal species for entirely different orders. The only missing component here is time - the mechanisms remain exactly the same.
There is certainly no evidence that major families of organisms descended from other families.
Except the fact that they fit neatly into nested hierarchies, you mean?
lifepsy said:
Delete"But as most of us know, there can be major phenotypic changes with zero increases in biological complexity."
Point out at least several examples in the wild. Also, define "biological complexity" and describe in detail how you measure/calculate biological complexity, and include at least several examples of living things that you or another IDiot-creationist have measured/calculated the biological complexity of/in.
"Actually, that is practically always the case, because Evolution doesn't happen."
Practically always? Your evidence of that is...?
Some IDiot-creationists (e.g. joe g) claim that ID is not anti-evolution. You claim that evolution doesn't happen. Who speaks for ID?
It is fine for Dr. Hunter to express his failures to understand aspects of evolution which scientists explained decades ago. But the difference from the D student who interrupts the calculus class is that the D student doesn't usually claim that his confusion indicates that the mathematics professor is wrong. That is what frustrates me so much of evolution-denial among my Christian brethren (if I put aside the pattern of dishonesty among many but not all denialist leaders.)
ReplyDeleteI used to post long explanations to answer blogs like this one. But I found that it accomplished nothing. When The Theory of Evolution is assumed to be inherently atheistic, no amount of evidence nor explanation matters to denialists. We as Christians have a long history of denying scientific discoveries and claiming that the Bible denies them---until the evidence becomes undeniable and we eventually rewrite history and say, "That was only a few Christian leaders who said the Bible denied ______. We fully accept the reality of the scientific theory of _________." Fill in the blanks. We are watching the same process underway with evolution. When I was a Young Earth Creationist, we used to claim that no evolution was possible beyond "species" boundaries. Now the emphasis is on kinds (and our new-found "science" of baraminology) and the mantra is "We affirm micro-evolution but not macro-evolution"---even while refusing to define what obstacles restrain evolution from passing such imagined boundaries.
No, it is not a matter of science and evidence. It is a matter of protecting a long cherished set of traditions. Tradition is a powerful force and we naturally tend toward the thinking of Pharisees today just as in the first century. Opposition to The Theory of Evolution is a matter of fearing the loss of cherished traditions.
As for me, I praise God for the marvels of one of his greatest creationist: evolutionary processes, which adapt and diversify life under changing environments. Amazing! Denialists can keep their tiny deity of "special creation". I prefer the God of the Bible as described in Genesis, an account fully compatible with The Theory of Evolution.
Bible.and.Science.Forum@gmail.com:
DeleteThank you for your comment.
It is fine for Dr. Hunter to express his failures to understand aspects of evolution which scientists explained decades ago. But the difference from the D student who interrupts the calculus class is that the D student doesn't usually claim that his confusion indicates that the mathematics professor is wrong.
Well I’d be glad to correct the post. Can you explain the failures you are referring to?
That is what frustrates me so much of evolution-denial among my Christian brethren (if I put aside the pattern of dishonesty among many but not all denialist leaders.)
Again, I’d like to correct it. Can you explain what is dishonest?
When The Theory of Evolution is assumed to be inherently atheistic, no amount of evidence nor explanation matters to denialists.
But I don’t make that assumption. In fact, I have repeatedly explained the exact opposite.
Now the emphasis is on kinds (and our new-found "science" of baraminology)
Where did I say this?
Opposition to The Theory of Evolution is a matter of fearing the loss of cherished traditions.
But again, I have repeatedly explained I don’t care if evolution is true or false.
cornelius said:
Delete"But again, I have repeatedly explained I don’t care if evolution is true or false."
Oh come on! You DO care, a LOT. So much so, in fact, that you're obsessed with denying evolution to yourself and others and with replacing evolutionary theory with your fairy tale religious beliefs. Why won't you just be honest?
BSF said:
Delete"Now the emphasis is on kinds (and our new-found "science" of baraminology)"
cornelius responded:
"Where did I say this?"
BSF didn't claim that you specifically said that, but it's abundantly clear that you believe in and promote the bible as being inerrant, which includes the belief that all 'kinds' were/are separately created.
How about some questions that you will likely avoid:
Do you accept that biological evolution (including 'macro-evolution') occurred and occurs?
Do you believe that 'kinds' were/are separately created?
Do you believe that humans were/are 'specially created in God's image'?
Do you believe that humans are superior and exceptional to the rest of nature?
Do you believe that the universe was created in six days?
Do you believe that adam and eve were the first humans and that all other humans descended from them?
Do you believe that a snake talked to eve?
Do you believe that the theory of evolution is evil blasphemy?
Do you believe that your chosen god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, uncaused, and perfect?
Do you believe that all religions are wrong except yours?
Do you believe that the alleged flood and ark were real, and as depicted in the bible?
Do you believe that your religious beliefs should be included in science and public policy and that other religious beliefs should be excluded?
Do you believe that atheism or agnosticism should be excluded from science and public policy?
Do you believe that you are not related to apes?
Do you believe that 'evolutionists' are amoral/immoral blasphemers?
And, where did cain's wife come from?
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteBut again, I have repeatedly explained I don’t care if evolution is true or false.
Sorry for being frank CH but that is a flat out lie. You know it, all the regulars of this blog know it, everyone who has seen the nonsense you push for the DI knows it.
Wouldn't your conscience rest easier if you were just honest about your true beliefs? Is the money the DI pays you to lie that important to you?
"Sorry for being frank CH but that is a flat out lie. You know it, all the regulars of this blog know it, ."
DeleteROFL. The wheels have completely come of on thorton. He now actually believes he can speak for "all the regulars" here
LOL hilarious stuff. NO laddie because you are allowed to post here does not mean you are now the designated spokesperson for "all the regulars". Get some coffee you are day dreaming in the middle of the day. this is still an ID blog with ID rgulars as well.
"We as Christians have a long history of denying scientific discoveries and claiming that the Bible denies"
DeletePure crap. name one besides the favorite atheist canard of earth centricity. Anyone can come on here and claim to be Christian and speak about "we" but when they lie about the "we' they are terribly suspect.
I don't even know for a fact you are a real christian and that has NOTHING to do with belief in evolution because YES many Christians do have that belief and ARE Christians.
"we eventually rewrite history and say, "That was only a few Christian leaders who said the Bible denied ______. "
There is no rewriting of anything. You are so dreadfully ignorant of Church theology I again cannot be sure you are a Christian. No set of leaders out side of the apostles ever spoke for the whole church. The final word on Christianity is the Bible.
Take the famous earth centricity position. Was that the position of Christianity or the position of Rome? SURPRISE!! Rome never spoke for all of "Christianity" even when they thought they did. Protestants always existed and any discussion of the "We" of Christianity cannot leave them out.
So no saying that this or that was not the position of Christianity is not rewriting history - its stating an ABSOLUTE fact that is undeniable.
To make your point actually stick you will have to find a position of Christianity that actually was representative for protestants and Catholics
"We are watching the same process underway with evolution. When I was a Young Earth Creationist, we used to claim that no evolution was possible beyond "species" boundaries. Now the emphasis is on kinds (and our new-found "science" of baraminology) and the mantra is "We affirm micro-evolution but not macro-evolution"
Ding Dong! Ding Doing! The wheels on the total lie have fallen off and I can at this point safely categorize you as a liar or some one truly uneducated even in Creationism which given your claims would still be lying. Sounds like you were a nominal Christian Creationist at best. Sheeesh dreadfully poor lie. You can pick up creationist books from the 70s and see references to "kinds"
Its stretches back thousands of years before that since its THE WORD IN THE BIBLE and the word species NEVER appears. to imply that scientific discoveries pushed the "we" Christians from species to kinds is not just ignorant - its blithering biblical ignorance and as your example goes so goes your whole argument
Right down the drain.
Perhaps you are a Christian. God knows your heart but coming on a forum and making up false accusations against other believers that can so easily be demonstrated to be false makes it very clear
You are not a very good one
LOL! The above post is from Elijah2012, our resident cowardly, ignorant YEC whiner. He can't deal with the scientific evidence that gets presented and those tough technical questions he can't answer. His 'solution' is to call all those who disagree with his Fundy nonsense LIARS!, and to demand that those who make him look like a clueless idiot be banned.
DeleteWhat he hasn't realized is that it's his own ignorance and cowardice that make him look like a clueless idiot. But of course it's easier to blame the messenger.
"As for me, I praise God for the marvels of one of his greatest creationist: evolutionary processes, which adapt and diversify life under changing environments"
DeleteI praise God every time I see more and more proof published that the ability of species to adapt has less and less to do with Neo-darwinian natural selection than adherents to it such as yourself would have ever thought 40 years ago
"The above post is from Elijah2012, our"
DeleteAnd the wheels come off again for Thorton. LOL you cannot claim "our". this is an ID blog. You are in no way shape or form as an atheist a part of "Us"
Here I'll go ahead and show you how this works for an Idist on an idist blog
Elijah,
DeleteI praise God every time I see more and more proof published that the ability of species to adapt has less and less to do with Neo-darwinian natural selection
You are up to bat what are the published mechanisms that provide the ability of species to adapt?
lol....you can put no one up to bat. When I see you answer any question put to you then we can talk. Previous attempts to educate you have failed and usually result in various form of lying and then asking questions for the sake of dodging answering any
DeleteSimilar as above
If you really want a second chance however being gracious I would require For re-enrollment candidacy
some application of effort
some demonstration of reading skills that hitherto have been lacking
a pledge of honesty
and
For general reading and possible pop quiz follow up some reading in Epigenetics.
Elijah,
Deletelol....you can put no one up to bat.
True, one has to actually want to defend their statement that
"praise God every time I see more and more proof published that the ability of species to adapt has less and less to do with Neo-darwinian natural selection"
When I see you answer any question put to you then we can talk.
So I must do want you are unwilling to do? Go ahead throw the pitch.
Previous attempts to educate you have failed and usually result in various form of lying and then asking questions for the sake of dodging answering any
Sorry, a swing and a miss.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteElijah,
DeleteIf you really want a second chance however being gracious I would require For re-enrollment candidacy
I am not worthy of your magnificence and your boundless mercy.
some application of effort
some demonstration of reading skills that hitherto have been lacking
What?
a pledge of honesty
Mea culpa,mea culpa,mea maxima culpa
and
For general reading and possible pop quiz follow up some reading in Epigenetics.
A reading list would be helpful O Great One. Perhaps, the pop quiz might help.
"A reading list would be helpful O Great One. Perhaps, the pop quiz might help."
Deleteand voila he fails the very first test as expected
"some application of effort"
:)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteand voila he fails the second test as expected
Delete"What?"
"True, one has to actually want to defend their statement"
Deleteand voila he fails the third test as expected
a pledge of honesty
after all what has he presented for me to defend against.
velikovskys
DeleteYou are up to bat what are the published mechanisms that provide the ability of species to adapt
LOL! Notice that Elijah2012 couldn't answer the question but instead resorted to his usual blustering and evasions.
Par for the course for Elijah2012, our resident cowardly ignorant YEC whiner.
Hey elijah, if cornelius doesn't "care if evolution is true or false", then why does he constantly bash evolution, evolutionists, and evolutionary theory?
DeleteBSF said:
Delete"When The Theory of Evolution is assumed to be inherently atheistic, no amount of evidence nor explanation matters to denialists."
cornelius responded:
"But I don’t make that assumption. In fact, I have repeatedly explained the exact opposite."
Oh really? Then of what theistic religion are evolutionists and the theory of evolution?
Elijah,
Delete"True, one has to actually want to defend their statement"
and voila he fails the third test as expected
a pledge of honesty
after all what has he presented for me to defend against.
Sorry, not defend against, defend/support your own statement concerning published proofs. One would have been sufficent.
It would have been interesting to see what you have specifically in mind. I am surprised given your " keen" insight you were not already aware of this.
elijah said:
ReplyDelete"name one"
1. That HIV causes AIDS.
2. That accelerated climate change is caused by humans.
3. Evolution.
4. That humans are closely related to other apes.
5. That the biblical characters adam and eve did not exist.
6. That snakes don't talk.
7. That there was no worldwide flood as depicted in the bible.
8. That people did not and cannot live for 900+ years, or anywhere near that.
9. That people who have been dead and buried for days cannot come back to life.
10. That the universe and the Earth are WAY older than 6,000 years.
There, that's ten. There are thousands more, especially when particular scientific discoveries are considered.
And it doesn't matter to what BSF said that ALL christians must deny scientific discoveries and claim that the bible denies..., for BSF's point to be valid. christians, and the adherents to other religions, have been denying scientific discoveries and reality in general since their religions were first conjured up. You, elijah, are a profound example of that.
elijah said:
ReplyDelete"The final word on Christianity is the Bible."
Which version?
And which of the millions of interpretations of the versions?
Oh, and thanks for admitting that the ID agenda is religious. Of course that's already well known but it's always good when another IDiot-creationist confirms it.
marcus said:
ReplyDelete"It seems each of the new discoveries are viewed through the lens of common ancestry. Since nobody knows how the first cell became alive or appeared, it makes sense to question new data that doesn't fit into that world view. Especially if you think God created everything after its own kind."
Well, that "worldview", as you call it, is based on a lot of scientific research and discoveries. Scientifically questioning things that don't seem to fit is legitimate, and scientists do question things that don't seem to fit. If they didn't, scientific investigation into abiogenesis and evolution would soon come to an end. Asserting 'God', without evidence, is not legitimate.
"What if the tree of life is a complete fabrication of one's imagination? How would we ever get beyond it if courageous people did not ask questions? It's far more likely people who have invested many years in study will support their theories to the death even if they are wrong."
What if your religious beliefs are a complete fabrication of your fearful, authoritarian imagination and the fearful, authoritarian imaginations of some ancient, middle eastern screwballs and the fearful, authoritarian imaginations of the screwballs who have been pushing that crap ever since? How many years have you "invested" in your religious beliefs? Do you ask yourself "courageous" questions about the religious fairy tales that you rely on for your beliefs? Have you ever really thought about how absurd and barbaric those fairy tales are? Are those fairy tales worth defending to the death?
TWT:Well, that "worldview", as you call it, is based on a lot of scientific research and discoveries. Scientifically questioning things that don't seem to fit is legitimate, and scientists do question things that don't seem to fit. If they didn't, scientific investigation into abiogenesis and evolution would soon come to an end.
DeleteI agree with this statement.
TWT:"Asserting 'God', without evidence, is not legitimate."
I disagree with this statement. I assert God because there is evidence. He tells us why we are here, what He expects from us and where we are going.
TWT:"What if your religious beliefs are a complete fabrication of your fearful, authoritarian imagination and the fearful, authoritarian imaginations of some ancient, middle eastern screwballs and the fearful, authoritarian imaginations of the screwballs who have been pushing that crap ever since? How many years have you "invested" in your religious beliefs? Do you ask yourself "courageous" questions about the religious fairy tales that you rely on for your beliefs? Have you ever really thought about how absurd and barbaric those fairy tales are? Are those fairy tales worth defending to the death?"
If the One True God was a man made god, then mentally, I would be completely crushed and my life would be undone. I hope that answers your question as it is the most honest way I know of. I see Gods work all around me so the thought that He is man made never enters my mind. It's like looking at Mt Rushmore and not seeing the art of a man. The idea it was a random natural event that put those faces on the mountain makes no sense at all.
If you are rational, it's totally understandable to question God about His creation, and why He allows bad things to happen. Based on your posts, you have thought about that often. When you read, John 3:16 For God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son that whoever believed in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life. Does that stir you at some deeper level? There is power in those words.