Sunday, January 17, 2016

How Evolutionists Stole the Histones

A Textbook Example

The recent finding that the DNA packaging technology and structure, known as chromatin, is not limited to eukaryotes but is also present in archaea, and so from an evolutionary perspective must have “evolved before archaea and eukaryotes split apart—more than 2 billion years ago,” is merely the latest in a string of misadventures evolutionists have incurred ever since they stole the histones.

Histones are the hub-like proteins which (usually) serve as the hubs about which DNA is wrapped in the chromatin structure. Like a thread wrapped around a spool this design packs DNA away for storage with an incredible packing factor. Interestingly, the histone proteins are highly similar across vastly different species. Again, from an evolutionary perspective, this means they must have evolved early in evolutionary history to a very specific design. As one textbook explains:

The amino acid sequences of four histones (H2A, H2B, H3, and H4) are remarkably similar among distantly related species. For example, the sequences of histone H3 from sea urchin tissue and of H3 from calf thymus are identical except for a single amino acid, and only four amino acids are different in H3 from the garden pea and that from calf thymus. … The similarity in sequence among histones from all eukaryotes indicates that they fold into very similar three-dimensional conformations, which were optimized for histone function early in evolution in a common ancestor of all modern eukaryotes. [1]

But the new finding pushes back this evolutionary “optimization” far earlier in time. Once again, evolution’s heroics are moved to the distant past where no one can see. Early life was not simple.

And of course DNA needs to be accessed so this histone packaging is quite dynamic. It can roll or it can be removed and moved. The histones themselves have tails that stick out and are tagged with small chemical groups that influence whether the packaging is tight or unrolled. Again, early life was not simple.

But the fact that histones are so similar across a wide range of species leads to an entirely different dilemma for evolution. For from an evolutionary perspective, it means that the histones must not tolerate change very well. Here is how a leading 1994 textbook described it:

When the number of amino acid differences in a particular protein is plotted for several pairs of species against the time since the species diverged, the result is a reasonably straight line. That is, the longer the period since divergence, the larger the number of differences. … When various proteins are compared, each shows a different but characteristic rate of evolution. Since all DNA base pairs are thought to be subject to roughly the same rate of random mutation, these different rates must reflect differences in the probability that an organism with a random mutation over the given protein will survive and propagate. Changes in amino acid sequence are evidently much more harmful for some proteins than for others. From Table 6-2 we can estimate that about 6 of every 7 random amino acid changes are harmful over the long term in hemoglobin, about 29 of every 30 amino acid changes are harmful in cytochrome c, and virtually all amino acid changes are harmful in histone H4. We assume that individuals who carried such harmful mutations have been eliminated from the population by natural selection. [2]

So the reason the histone proteins are so similar, again from an evolutionary perspective, is because mutations changing those proteins could not be tolerated. This is the evolutionary prediction and here is how the next edition of that same textbook, eight years later in the year 2002, added to the discussion of the high similarity of the histone proteins:

As might be expected from their fundamental role in DNA packaging, the histones are among the most highly conserved eucaryotic proteins. For example, the amino acid sequence of histone H4 from a pea and a cow differ at only at 2 of the 102 positions. This strong evolutionary conservation suggests that the functions of histones involve nearly all of their amino acids, so that a change in any position is deleterious to the cell. This suggestion has been tested directly in yeast cells, in which it is possible to mutate a given histone gene in vitro and introduce it into the yeast genome in place of the normal gene. As might be expected, most changes in histone sequences are lethal; the few that are not lethal cause changes in the normal pattern of gene expression, as well as other abnormalities.

There was only one problem. That is false. In fact, even at the time studies had already shown that histone H4 could well tolerate many changes. It was not merely an example of evolution pointing in the wrong direction and producing yet another failed prediction. It was an all too frequent example of evolution abusing science, force-fitting results into its framework. And of course all of this became doctrine for wider consumption. As a 2001 PBS documentary stated:

Histones interact with DNA in the chromosomes, providing structural support and regulating DNA activities such as replication and RNA synthesis. Their ability to bind to DNA depends upon a particular structure and shape. Virtually all mutations impair histone's function, so almost none get through the filter of natural selection. The 103 amino acids in this protein are identical for nearly all plants and animals.

But it is not, and was not, true that “virtually all mutations impair histone’s function.” That was not science, it was dogma disguised as science. And since then the dogma has become even more obvious. As one recent paper summarized:

Furthermore, recent systematic mutagenesis studies demonstrate that, despite the extremely well conserved nature of histone residues throughout different organisms, only a few mutations on the individual residues (including nonmodifiable sites) bring about prominent phenotypic defects.

Similarly another paper bemoaned the confusing results:

It is remarkable how many residues in these highly conserved proteins can be mutated and retain basic nucleosomal function. … The high level of sequence conservation of histone proteins across phyla suggests a fitness advantage of these particular amino acid sequences during evolution. Yet comprehensive analysis indicates that many histone mutations have no recognized phenotype.

In fact, even more surprising for evolutionists, many mutations actually raised the fitness level:

Surprisingly, a subset of 27 histone mutants show a higher intensity after growth (log2 ratio >+1.5) suggesting they are collectively fitter and maintain a selective advantage under glucose limitation.

It was yet another falsified evolutionary prediction, and yet another example of evolution abusing science.

Now evolutionists propose a redundancy hypothesis. Those histone mutations are well tolerated because evolution constructed a backup mechanism. Both mechanisms would have to mutate and fail before any lethal effects could be felt.

As usual, contradictory results are accommodated by patching the theory with yet more epicycles. The epicycles make the theory far more complex, and far more unlikely, if that were so possible. In this case, evolution not only struck on incredible complexity, and did so early in history (before there were eukaryotes and nucleus’s in which to pack the DNA), but the whole design now must have incorporated layers of redundancy which we haven’t even been able to figure out yet.

And all of this, evolutionists insist, must be a fact. Anyone who would so much as doubt this truth must be blackballed.

It has been one misstep after another ever since the evolutionists stole the histones. Evolution is truly a profound theory, not for what it reveals about nature, but for what it reveals about people. Religion drives science, and it matters.

1. H Lodish, A Berk, SL Zipursky, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman, 2000).

2. B Alberts, D Bray, J Lewis, M Raff, K Roberts, J Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd ed. (New York: Garland Science, 1994), 243.

3. B Alberts, A Johnson, J Lewis, et. al., Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. (New York: Garland Science, 1994), 243.

[Repost]

210 comments:

  1. "Here's some new scientific findings, therefore everything science has learned about evolution in the last 150+ years is wrong".

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor Hunter. What a pathetic attack on science...

      Delete
  2. ghostrider,

    "Here's some new scientific findings, therefore everything science has learned about evolution in the last 150+ years is wrong".

    It is just one more nail in the coffin of evolution. Nails which have been growing in number from the moment Darwin published. But fear not ghostrider, facts will not undermine the philosophical basis of evolutionary thought. That philosophy is impervious to logic and reason and has no adherence to scientific rigor, it is all about dogma. As such you will be able to continue unabated in your adherence to 'the fact which is evolution'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      It is just one more nail in the coffin of evolution. Nails which have been growing in number from the moment Darwin published.


      The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

      Yawn.

      Delete
  3. ghostrider,

    I never said the demise of evolution was imminent, just the opposite in fact. Philosophically it will endure for a long time to come, it is necessary to prop up that other philosophical nonsense known as atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Ghostrider "Here's some new scientific findings, therefore everything science has learned about evolution in the last 150+ years is wrong".


    Maybe you can give us a few scientific examples, real evidence, free from assumptions, just so stories, tested, observed, repeated etc. that poves evolution is a fact.
    I assume, after 150 years the evidence must be OVERWHELMING!!


    Go ahead and take your time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've provided such evidence to you repeatedly. You apparently are too stupid to understand any of it. Oh well.

      Delete
  5. In your case, bluffing is part of your nature.

    Off course you can give a few.

    Wait.. Give me one, just one. One solid evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a recent (2014) paper with a nice overview of the genetic evidence for cetacean evolution.

      The Creationists here won't understand it, probably will be too afraid to even look at it.

      Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea

      Delete
    2. Basilosaurid jawbones that are supposed to be 49 million years old date to within like 3 million years of their supposed doglike ancestors. That find was in 2011. So much for being "best-characterized".

      Also echolocation is now supposed to have evolved at least twice independently. It even hit on some of the same sequences! Isn't evolution powerful? It has no need of mathses!

      Since I found two whoppers in just 10 minutes of skimming, why don't we just skip to the part you find most convincing?

      Delete
    3. LOL! In steps John, another Creationist moron who didn't read the paper but can only parrot back talking points he got from YEC websites.

      What's the problem with the basilosaurus? How does finding the lineage split off earlier than previously believed somehow negate all the other genetic evidence presented?

      Yes, echolocation evolved twice in some bat lineages and some cetacean lineages. The molecular convergence is because as mammals they both started out with the same proteins and the particular protein prestin has unique biomechanical properties that allow for high frequency hearing.

      Why did your Magic Designer only give echolocation to some cetaceans and some bats, not all? Why did your MD give them very different sound generation mechanisms if this was "common design"?

      Creationists never have any answers, just ignorance and personal incredulity.

      Delete
    4. "What's the problem with the basilosaurus?"

      The problem is the first claim was that the evidence showed that it's MRCA was with at least 3 ghost lineages that now even your theory must claim it has shown itself to predate. If you had listened to geneticists that said you can't fix traits that quickly, you can barely fix a slight morphological change in less than 5 million years within a large metazoan population, you would not have been humiliated. But if you can believe the insanity that evos are claiming these days, why not believe a doglike thing could turn into a whale in 3 million years?

      "How does finding the lineage split off earlier than previously believed somehow negate all the other genetic evidence presented?"

      Is that your theory now? The "finding" was that the initial theory you accepted was wrong, not that the theory you came up with to replace it must be right. The fossils were placed into the clade in the order that had the fewest apparent conflicts, so claiming it as a "finding" that it split off earlier when it can't even be considered a "finding" of what you would normally assume given the rules of your clade is clearly absurd. It's just the next least abusrd possibility and grates against the coherence of your newly developed classification criteria (I'm being generous here and not assuming that you just made it up on the fly).

      As for the gentic evidence, I asked you, given the quality of the work, if you would present the part you found most convincing since I don't feel like examining 20 other arguments if they are of the same shabby quality. You have not done this. If you find such poor quality work convincing, then why should I believe you really have any idea what it's saying? Surely you must have seized upon one or maybe two gems that put the slam dunk on the creationists?

      "Yes, echolocation evolved twice in some bat lineages and some cetacean lineages. The molecular convergence is because as mammals they both started out with the same proteins and the particular protein prestin has unique biomechanical properties that allow for high frequency hearing."

      And it just so happened to evolve the same conversions in both organisms that happened to develope the rest of an echolocation system at just the right time to fit? This flies in the face of the other evo argument about "the life we don't know". Now we know echolocation is a thing... like vision. It's practically a Platonic form to which all gene sequences must bend! Dolphins more recently shared a common ancestor with dogs and cats and horses than with bats according to the current model (not according to prestin though according to a blastp). Hey, isn't this about where you left the Myosin conversation?

      "Why did your Magic Designer only give echolocation to some cetaceans and some bats, not all?"

      To leave a signature that would be unlikely left by a random force maybe. Why do some painters like blue and some red?

      "Why did your MD give them very different sound generation mechanisms if this was "common design"?"

      Who needs FM when you got AM? Who needs radar when you got sonar? Maybe he wanted to show off in a way that makes it hard for evolutionists to pretend there is no creator?

      "Creationists never have any answers, just ignorance and personal incredulity."

      My answer is that your claimed knowledge is baloney. My answer is that we don't know how these things were created but it is clear that it took a very great amount of knowledge and ability. Claiming you know, when every day evidence shows that your previous claims were crap is not better than admitting you don't know.

      Delete
    5. Hit and run John

      waaaah! waaaah! waaah!


      Let me know when you're capable of more than just regurgitating the usual Creationist talking points, OK? Of course it comes as no surprise you can offer no alternative explanations for the genetic data besides the usual "But GAWD felt like doing it that way!!"

      Ignorance based personal incredulity. It's all the ID-Creationists have.

      Delete
    6. I can definitely understand if you only want to discuss the article with people who are like minded.

      Delete
  6. ghostrider: ""Here's some new scientific findings, therefore everything science has learned about evolution in the last 150+ years is wrong".

    Yawn."

    Let's rephrase that in Darwin speak:

    "Here's some new scientific findings that we can't explain and that doesn't fit with our current understanding of evolution, but given everything "science" has learned about evolution in the last 150+ years, we know it cannot be right. We know there has to be some kind of explanation because we know evolution cannot be false. So just ignore it as an anomaly that perhaps someday somewhere in the distant future will be explained."

    More data that does not fit the paradigm? Yawn. So what else is new.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ghostrider, i asked for evidence free of assumptions..

    Can you give me that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, I told you you'd be too stupid to understand what was presented.

      Delete
  8. Topgoosz,

    "Ghostrider, i asked for evidence free of assumptions..

    Can you give me that?"

    No, he cannot. In fact I don't think ghostrider actually grasps the fact all his rhetoric is laced throughout with assumptions. I think he is under the delusion that all evolutionary scientists are totally objective in their approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Thanks Nic. As per usual your ignorant and pointless blithering always adds to the discussion.

      If you get tired of picking your nose you can always read the cetacean paper and tell us what the scientists got wrong. I won't hold my breath.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "LOL! Thanks Nic. As per usual your ignorant and pointless blithering always adds to the discussion."

      Maybe if you spent a little less time LOLing, you might, just might, be able to construct something approaching a coherent argument. But somehow I really doubt it. All you've got or will ever have is rhetoric and really bad attempts at humour and ad hominems.

      "tell us what the scientists got wrong."

      What they always get wrong. They presume evolution to be a fact and thus the only interpretations of evidence allowed are those which pass through that filter.

      It's exactly the same with you. You're convinced evolution is a scientific fact and as such have closed your mind to anything which would cast doubt on that assumption.

      Delete
    3. Poor Nic still too afraid to read the paper and too ignorant comment on the actual scientific work. Same as always.

      Delete
  9. Ghostrider: Or you are too stupid to see through al the ''Just So Stories'' full of assumptions and then presented as a fact.

    First i was told the whale pelvic bones were vestigial/leftovers and now they find out they are fully functional..

    Huh?

    But again... Free from assumptions please, tested, observed with a large amount of new information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Topgoosz

      First i was told the whale pelvic bones were vestigial/leftovers and now they find out they are fully functional..


      Pssst...Loosy Goosy...vestigial doesn't mean non-functional. It means having lost or been degraded from its original function. There's nothing in evolution that says a vestigial feature can't take on a new, secondary function.

      I wish I had a dollar for every time I've corrected a creationist on this stupid misunderstanding. I wouldn't need to win the Powerball.

      Delete
  10. @ghostrider
    "See, I told you you'd be too stupid to understand what was presented."

    "...when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards."
    Clifford N Lazarus Ph.D
    Phycology Today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Phillymike

      "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan.

      Same offer goes out to you PM. feel free to read the cetacean paper and tell us what the scientists got wrong. You won't of course, just like Nic and Goosy won't. Internet Creationists tend to be both scientifically ignorant and intellectual cowards.

      Delete
    2. Silly creationist peasant revolt against science...

      Delete
  11. Phillmike,

    Notice how ghostrider just assumes that when we read the cetacean paper we will be overwhelmed by its contents and have no choice but to accept his view of the world. Funny how he presumes we need someone else to do our thinking for us. But I guess if that is how ghostrider's limited world works he would assume that is how the real world works as well. Cest' la vie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually Nic I know you won't read it. You never look at any of the scientific papers presented. Too many big technical words you don't understand, no place to color with your crayons.

      Delete
    2. I think it's funny how he doubled down on the sarcasm.

      Delete
    3. PhillyMike

      I think it's funny how he doubled down on the sarcasm.


      All I doubled down on was my offer to discuss the details of the paper I provided. I can't help it if all you Creationists are too cowardly to accept.

      Delete
  12. ghostrider,

    The first few sentences from the abstract of the paper you referenced. Do you have any clue what they will conclude in this paper? Do you for even a second believe these researchers are objective in any way, or that their conclusions will be based on objective investigation?

    "Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) is a model group for investigating the molecular signature of macroevolutionary transitions. Recent research has begun to reveal the molecular underpinnings of the remarkable anatomical and behavioral transformation in this clade. This shift from terrestrial to aquatic environments is arguably the best-understood major morphological transition in vertebrate evolution.

    Provide me a free link to this paper and I will read it, but I will not pay one penny to do so. I'm sure you will use that as an example of my 'cowardice', but I really don't care. Indulge yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (facepalm) The paper is free access Nic.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "(facepalm) The paper is free access Nic."

      Where? I looked at three links and they all wanted payment to access the whole paper.

      So, instead of condescending nonsense why not just send me the free link? I guess the urge to be childish is just too strong for you.

      Delete
    3. (double facepalm) The ResearchGate link I provided just above provides a free pdf copy of the paper.

      Does your browser not support pdf? Or is your new cowardly excuse to lie and claim the paper isn't freely available?

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "Does your browser not support pdf? Or is your new cowardly excuse to lie and claim the paper isn't freely available?"

      I have it now. For some reason when I clicked on that link the first time it did not open. I went back now and it worked. Probably the fault is at my end. I am on a work computer and the network is forever doing weird things.

      I will read it later, thanks.

      Delete
    5. OK, no harm no foul. Please read it and if you can ask intelligent questions without the usual Creationist snark I'd be glad to answer.

      Delete
  13. @Gooserider .vestigial doesn't mean non-functional. It means having lost or been degraded from its original function


    Huh? Notice the contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Topgoosz

      "vestigial doesn't mean non-functional. It means having lost or been degraded from its original function. There's nothing in evolution that says a vestigial feature can't take on a new, secondary function."

      Huh? Notice the contradiction?


      No because there is none.

      Delete
  14. @gooserider All I doubled down on was my offer to discuss the details of the paper I provided.

    The Head of the paper? Molecular evolution tracks MACROEVOLUTIONARY transitions in Cetacea


    One assumption makes your whole article one big joke.

    Macroevolution? Really? How did they tested that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Topgoosz

      Macroevolution? Really? How did they tested that?


      Since you're too afraid to read the paper you'll never know.

      Delete
    2. Topgoosz,

      "Macroevolution? Really? How did they tested that?"

      ghostrider does not have a clue. He probably has not read more than the title of the article. If he had read it you would think he would be very willing to share his abundant knowledge which he is so eager to tell us about.

      Delete
  15. What happened with Tiktaalik has also happened with whales in 2011. They got caught out proposing at least 3 ancestral species with ghost lineages all of which now post date recent finds of basilosaurids. Apparently this paper hasn't caught up with that.

    It was amusing to see them acknowledge independent evolution of echolocation. They say, "Taken together, these results provide extraordinary evidence of adaptive convergence at the molecular level across the genome"

    I wonder if they would care to quantify how extraordinary the signal would be before they would acknowledge it wasn't found randomly. I mean, that's how this thread started - they assumed sequence similarity indicated strong negative selection instead of design, and so they lied about it and got busted (by Behe incidentally). Here they are assuming strong positive selection, but to a degree they should recognize as absurd. Instead they say it's "extraordinary". LOL, ok!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For those actually interested in the details of the molecular convergence in echolocation here is a detailed discussion

      Parallel sites implicate functional convergence of the hearing gene prestin among echolocating mammals.

      ABSTRACT: Echolocation is a sensory system whereby certain mammals navigate and forage using sound waves, usually in environments where visibility is limited. Curiously, echolocation has evolved independently in bats and whales, which occupy entirely different environments. Based on this phenotypic convergence, recent studies identified several echolocation-related genes with parallel sites at the protein sequence level among different echolocating mammals, and among these, prestin seems the most promising. Although previous studies analyzed the evolutionary mechanism of prestin, the functional roles of the parallel sites in the evolution of mammalian echolocation are not clear. By functional assays, we show that a key parameter of prestin function, 1/α, is increased in all echolocating mammals and that the N7T parallel substitution accounted for this functional convergence. Moreover, another parameter, V1/2, was shifted toward the depolarization direction in a toothed whale, the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and a constant-frequency (CF) bat, the Stoliczka’s trident bat (Aselliscus stoliczkanus). The parallel site of I384T between toothed whales and CF bats was responsible for this functional convergence. Furthermore, the two parameters (1/α and V1/2) were correlated with mammalian high-frequency hearing, suggesting that the convergent changes of the prestin function in echolocating mammals may play important roles in mammalian echolocation. To our knowledge, these findings present the functional patterns of echolocation-related genes in echolocating mammals for the first time and rigorously demonstrate adaptive parallel evolution at the protein sequence level, paving the way to insights into the molecular mechanism underlying mammalian echolocation.


      It's the biomechanical properties of prestin to allow high frequency hearing that were selected for in both bats and cetaceans. No magic POOFING required, just the normal evolutionary processes at work.

      Delete
    2. Nice owngoal:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/prestin-and-darwins-gardener.html

      Delete
    3. Cornelius Hunter

      Nice owngoal:


      Not as nice as reposting a column you wrote in 2010 to refute a scientific paper published in 2014. :)

      Delete
    4. As though the 2014 paper made any difference. #Own_Goal

      Delete
    5. LOL! Just like Behe. Hadn't read the current literature on blood clotting but he just knew it couldn't be right.

      How did that strategy work out for you guys at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial?

      Delete
    6. Poor Hunter. So lonely in science land. No one listens to the self acclaimed prophet...

      Delete
  16. I have read several comments here where GR is asked to provide evidence, free from assumptions, that supports evolution. This question clearly shows that the questioner knows nothing about how science works. Assumptions are a fundamental part, a necessity, of all science. Feel free to prove me wrong. All you have to do is name a single field of science that does not involve assumptions. Just one.

    ReplyDelete
  17. William,

    "Assumptions are a fundamental part, a necessity, of all science."

    Hey William, how are you doing?

    I agree assumptions are a part of science. In fact, they are a basic part of our everyday reasoning processes. Which brings up the obvious question. If evolutionists are free to assume evolution from a common ancestor, why are creationists not allowed to assume the existence of a creator? Why are we ridiculed for believing in an omnipotent God for which you say we have no proof, but we are expected to accept that life sprang into existence on its own when it cannot be demonstrated that such an event could happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      If evolutionists are free to assume evolution from a common ancestor, why are creationists not allowed to assume the existence of a creator?


      Science doesn't assume evolution. That evolution over deep time has occurred is a conclusion established by the empirical evidence collected over centuries from dozens of different sciences. The conclusion is so well supported it is considered a scientific fact by all except the most willfully ignorant.

      How are you coming with reading the cetacean genetic evidence paper?

      Delete
    2. Nic

      Why are we ridiculed for believing in an omnipotent God


      No one has ridiculed you for believing in your God. YECs are ridiculed for accepting fantasy stories about how the universe and all extant life was poofed into existence only 6K years ago in the face of overwhelming contradictory scientific evidence.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "Science doesn't assume evolution."

      Yes, it does , as is amply displayed in virtually each and every abstract of research papers dealing with evolution.

      As for the paper I have read some of it, but right now I am in the middle of reading several books and preparing for various meetings that I have not had the time to read it thoroughly. I will get it done over the week-end.

      "YECs are ridiculed for accepting fantasy stories,..."

      And life arising spontaneously and diverging into the mind numbing array of extremely complex organisms is based on sound, fundamental research? It all came about by random mutations acted upon by natural selection. The blind leading the blind got us to where we are? Yeah, right.

      When the blind lead the blind they all wind up in the ditch.

      Delete
  18. Hi Nic. Doing well. Hope you are the same.

    I have not seen that much ridiculing of people who assume that God is the creator of everything. But I think that we are defining "assume" in two different ways. Theists (and IDists) use it as a synonym of "belief". They believe that God is the creator, but they have no evidence or even a way to test it. As far as I can tell, they put all of their effort into picking at all of the weaknesses in evolutionary theory (and there are weaknesses; nobody denies that).

    Scientists use assumptions to define possible limitations. Essentially, being transparent as to where the possible weaknesses in their hypotheses may lie. For example, one line of research may assume a constant mutation rate. But if the testing and observations do not support this assumption, they may modify their assumption, or discard it completely. Or modify/discard the hypothesis.


    ReplyDelete
  19. William,

    Yes, I am doing great actually. Four years in remission is making me feel pretty good.

    "But if the testing and observations do not support this assumption, they may modify their assumption, or discard it completely. Or modify/discard the hypothesis."

    So when can we expect the discarding of the hypothesis of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      So when can we expect the discarding of the hypothesis of evolution?


      When someone comes up with a new theory that explains the empirical evidence in a better, more consilient manner, is falsifiable, has better predictive and postdictive power.

      Do you know of one? :)

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Do you know of one? :)"

      I think you already know the answer to that, design. In all ways it does a better job of explaining what is so readily observed. In fact empirical evidence works wholly against evolution, not for it. Evolution is forever having to construct stories to accommodate conflicting evidence, convergent evolution being one such series of tall tales.

      Also, if there was no such explanation readily known that would not make evolution right by default.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      "Do you know of one? :)"

      I think you already know the answer to that, design.


      Just saying "design" doesn't explain anything more than saying "magic" does. If for want to replace ToE you need to provide details. You need to describe the physical mechanisms, the timelines, the interactions between the various species. You need to explain the empirically observed incipient speciation events like ring species. You need to explain vestigial features and atavisms. You need to explain ALL the data in a better, more consilient manner. Just saying "design" doesn't cut it.

      Evolution is forever having to construct stories to accommodate conflicting evidence, convergent evolution being one such series of tall tales.

      All theories are modified as new evidence becomes available Nic. That's how science works. The only changes ToE has seen are in the fine details. The overarching concepts still hold.

      Also, if there was no such explanation readily known that would not make evolution right by default.

      Evolution doesn't win by default. Evolution has won so far because of the strength and quantity of its positive supporting evidence. ID/Creationism is the only one trying to "win by default" by attacking evolution.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "All theories are modified as new evidence becomes available Nic."

      It gets to a point where common sense tells you the theory does not work. There is a difference between modification and manipulation. Evolution has long been manipulating the theory, not modifying the theory.

      "You need to explain the empirically observed incipient speciation events like ring species. You need to explain vestigial features and atavisms."

      You're really going to make arguments based on ring species and vestigial features? How out of touch with reality are you? You're not content with bacteria remaining bacteria, so now you need to argue lizards remaining lizards and gulls remaining gulls, etc., is evidence for descent from a common ancestor? The mind just reels.

      Do you really not grasp the fact that ring species in no way support the idea of common descent. They do however, provide excellent arguments for creatures such as gulls remaining what they have always been, gulls.

      The only thing ring species demonstrate is despite the ability to vary greatly lizards, for example, are still lizards all the way around the ring.

      Extrapolating changes within a kind to common descent is not science, it is complete wishful thinking.

      "Evolution has won so far because of the strength and quantity of its positive supporting evidence."

      This is not a scientific argument, it's philosophical. It's strictly the opinion of evolutionists that the evidence supports the theory. I don't agree that the evidence supports the theory, just the opposite.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      "All theories are modified as new evidence becomes available Nic."

      It gets to a point where common sense tells you the theory does not work.


      Sorry but science doesn't recognize "Nic's common sense" as valid evidence.

      You're really going to make arguments based on ring species and vestigial features?

      I asked if you have a better supported, more detailed explanation than evolution. You don't. You lose.

      Extrapolating changes within a kind to common descent is not science, it is complete wishful thinking.

      Ah, the mysterious "kind" that no one can define or identify the boundaries of. You're a funny guy.

      This is not a scientific argument, it's philosophical.

      Only to people who don't understand science or philosophy.

      It's strictly the opinion of evolutionists that the evidence supports the theory.

      It's strictly the opinion of round Earthists that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not flat. It's strictly the opinion of Germists that germs cause diseases and not evil spirits. It's strictly the opinion of Gravityists that gravity causes masses to attract and not the magic fairies pushing things around. Do you have a point?

      I don't agree that the evidence supports the theory, just the opposite.

      You're entitled to your personal opinion. People knowledgeable on the topic are entitled to think you're a clueless knob.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "Sorry but science doesn't recognize "Nic's common sense" as valid evidence."

      First, I don't hold the patent on common sense, so it is not just Nic who feels this way.

      Second, it was not presented as 'evidence' against evolution, it was simply pointing out the obvious.

      "I asked if you have a better supported, more detailed explanation than evolution. You don't. You lose."

      How do you feel evolution is 'better supported'? What does the empirical evidence actually show, ghostrider?

      First, it shows life does no come from non-life. Not good for evolution.

      Second, it shows that felines always produce felines, mammals always produce mammals, reptiles produce reptiles, on and on, ad nauseum. Again not good for evolution.

      Third, mutations, the very life blood of evolutionary theory, are overwhelmingly detrimental and do not produce forward moving results. In fact they are almost without variation backward in nature. Strike three against evolution.

      That is what the empirical evidence shows ghostrider, and none of it is supportive of evolution.

      "Only to people who don't understand science or philosophy."

      Well then, perhaps you would like to demonstrate in what way the following claim IS scientific: "Evolution has won so far because of the strength and quantity of its positive supporting evidence."

      "It's strictly the opinion of round Earthists that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not flat."

      Really? Come on, you must be able to do better than that. The fact the Earth is round was demonstrated by Eratosthenes in the 2nd century BC. Empirically demonstrable science, remember, ghostrider?

      "You're entitled to your personal opinion. People knowledgeable on the topic are entitled to think you're a clueless knob."

      Yep, that's me, a clueless knob just like, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, etc. All of those giants of science of the past and the many modern scientists who reach the same conclusions. Clueless knobs the whole bunch of them. I kind of enjoy their company.

      By the way, calling someone a clueless knob is not a scientific argument either.

      Delete
    7. Nic, I'm glad to hear that you are four years in remission. Cancer sucks, but the advances in treatment has been amazing. Treatment, I might add, whose development is predicated on the "assumption" that evolution proceeded (and proceeds) much as we understand it to.

      "First, it shows life does no come from non-life."

      If you are talking about Pasteur and his work on spontaneous generation, that is not what he proved. He proved that modern life cannot arise, spontaneously. And nobody disputes this. That is a far cry from saying that it proves that modern life could not have arisen as the result of small changes from generation to generation, over billions of years.

      The biggest mystery now is not how we evolved from the first simple cell. The details will never be known, but most of the major mechanisms by which it occurred are fairly well understood.

      The biggest myster is how we went from non life to the first thing that we could identify as life. There are several promising avenues of research, but we will never know conclusively how it happened because chemicals do not fossilize.

      "Second, it shows that felines always produce felines, mammals always produce mammals,..."

      Yes, this is true based on the direct evidence of living animals. But if we assume that fossils are an accurate (although incomplete) record of the past, then this simply isn't true.

      "Third, mutations, the very life blood of evolutionary theory, are overwhelmingly detrimental"

      Then why are any of us alive. We all carry numerous mutations that did not exist in either of our parents.

      "and do not produce forward moving results. In fact they are almost without variation backward in nature."

      That is simply not true. There are plenty of examples of mutations resulting in new function. The idea of forward or backward moving is decided by fitness. The loss of sight may appear to you and I as a backwards move, but to an animal living in the dark it removes a costly developmental path that does not benefit survival.

      Delete
    8. William,

      "Nic, I'm glad to hear that you are four years in remission. Cancer sucks, but the advances in treatment has been amazing. Treatment, I might add, whose development is predicated on the "assumption" that evolution proceeded (and proceeds) much as we understand it to."

      Thank you. You're right, Cancer is no fun at all. However, I have come to know some wonderful people as a result of my dealing with Cancer. Among those are many specialists in Cancer treatment and research and I can assure you they do not give evolutionary theory a moments thought in their work. They concern themselves with what is going on in the here and now in dealing with Cancer.

      "He proved that modern life cannot arise, spontaneously. And nobody disputes this. That is a far cry from saying that it proves that modern life could not have arisen as the result of small changes from generation to generation, over billions of years."

      That's not empirical science William, that's wishful thinking and story telling. If life cannot spontaneously arise today what reason do we have to believe it could have happened in the past? The answer is none, outside of an ideological need for it to have happened.

      "Yes, this is true based on the direct evidence of living animals. But if we assume that fossils are an accurate (although incomplete) record of the past, then this simply isn't true."

      There are two factors to consider in this comment. First, accuracy of the record is wholly determined by one's interpretation of the record and the presumptions applied to that interpretation. Second, incomplete is an extraordinary understatement in regards to the fossil record. To try and draw substantive conclusions from such an overwhelmingly miniscule resource is questionable at best. The only real conclusion one can draw from the fossil record is that life was complex from the outset, that there were a vast array of animals who once existed and now do not and those creatures that have managed to survive over the eons of time appear to be virtually identical to their predecessors.

      "Then why are any of us alive. We all carry numerous mutations that did not exist in either of our parents."

      Because we are designed to survive. However, genetically we are breaking down and eventually we will all succumb to degeneration. In fact the whole human race is genetically deteriorating. John Sanford, an internationally recognized geneticist wrote a book on this subject entitled Genetic Entropy. It is a good read and I recommend you get a copy.

      "There are plenty of examples of mutations resulting in new function....The loss of sight may appear to you and I as a backwards move, but to an animal living in the dark it removes a costly developmental path that does not benefit survival."

      The loss of a function cannot in any way be defined as a 'new' function. Yes, an animal living in complete darkness may lose the use of its sight, but that is still a loss of function, not a gain.

      Besides, such an example in no way is an adequate explanation in defence of the concept of descent from a single common ancestor which demands trillions upon trillions of functional gains via random mutation. Loss of function by very definition requires the function lost to have been gained to begin with, so sighting an example of function loss does nothing to get you out of the woods.

      Delete
  20. Nic

    First, I don't hold the patent on common sense, so it is not just Nic who feels this way.


    "common sense" isn't accepted as evidence from anyone in any science Nic. What is "obvious" to an untrained layman like yourself may be the exact opposite of what the empirical evidence shows. It's obvious the Sun revolves around the Earth too.

    How do you feel evolution is 'better supported'?

    It's better supported than your "design" alternative which has no positive evidence or details AT ALL.

    Second, it shows that felines always produce felines, mammals always produce mammals, reptiles produce reptiles, on and on, ad nauseum.

    Felines, mammals, reptiles are human created categories for the observed patterns in the fossil record. 50 million years ago there were no such things as felines. 300 million years ago there were no such things as mammals.

    The fact the Earth is round was demonstrated by Eratosthenes in the 2nd century BC.

    The fact that evolution over deep time has occurred was demonstrated in the 18th century by the scientists of that era.

    Clueless knobs the whole bunch of them. I kind of enjoy their company.

    If you like having the same scientific understanding as people from the 16th and 17 century more power to you. Real science is well into the 21st century. Creationists love living in the distant past.

    By the way, calling someone a clueless knob is not a scientific argument either.

    True but it is an accurate description of someone who thinks the world is only 6000 years old and that all life today came from Megaflood survivors on a big wooden boat 4500 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ghostrider,

      "It's obvious the Sun revolves around the Earth too."

      Empirical science, remember?

      "Felines, mammals, reptiles are human created categories for the observed patterns in the fossil record. 50 million years ago there were no such things as felines. 300 million years ago there were no such things as mammals."

      Yes, felines, etc., are human originated categories. The question is, does that change the fact that felines always produce felines, and reptiles, reptiles? That is the real factor to be determined here, not the origin of their categorization.

      As for the pattern in the fossil record, it clearly demonstrates stasis, once again not good for evolution.

      "The fact that evolution over deep time has occurred,..."

      Very nice NON-SCIENTIFIC assertion. Well done.

      "Real science is well into the 21st century."

      So, there are no scientists today who disagree with evolution? Or is it a case of those who do disagree with evolution are simply not 'real scientists'? Or perhaps they are biased and therefore they can be ignored.

      "True but it is an accurate description of someone who thinks the world is only 6000 years old and that all life today came from Megaflood survivors on a big wooden boat 4500 years ago."

      Okay, have it your way, I'll be a clueless knob if it makes you feel superior. I know you need that.

      Delete
    2. "As for the pattern in the fossil record, it clearly demonstrates stasis, once again not good for evolution."

      Darwin was well aware of stasis, as were most naturalists of the day, yet his theory was still developed.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Empirical science, remember?


      Yes, like all the empirical science that shows evolution over deep time to be a fact.

      The question is, does that change the fact that felines always produce felines, and reptiles, reptiles?

      Going back in the fossil record 10 MYA we have clear felines and canines. 30 MYA we have canine and feline fossils that are not easy to tell apart. 50 MYA we have no feline or canine fossils but fossils of carnivores with features common to both. As it turns out this same pattern of divergence over time is seen in the genomes of extant felines and canines. What is your explanation for the observed matching patterns?

      So, there are no scientists today who disagree with evolution?

      I know of none who disagree for scientific technical reasons. There are certainly a few who disagree because of their religious beliefs but that doesn't impact science.

      Okay, have it your way, I'll be a clueless knob if it makes you feel superior.

      Actually willful ignorance like yours makes me sad Nic. You could do a whole lot better.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "Yes, like all the empirical science that shows evolution over deep time to be a fact."

      You really don't get it do you? Empirical evidence showing evolution over deep time is exactly what you DON'T have. What you have is a particular interpretation of evidence. That is NOT empirical evidence. Maybe you should look up the definition of empirical.

      "I know of none who disagree for scientific technical reasons."

      Then I suggest you look a little deeper.

      "Actually willful ignorance like yours makes me sad Nic. You could do a whole lot better."

      How very arrogant of you. By saying I could do a whole lot better I assume you mean I could think like you. Sorry, already was there and tried it. I gave it up when I got an open mind and started actually looking at the evidence.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      "Yes, like all the empirical science that shows evolution over deep time to be a fact."

      You really don't get it do you? Empirical evidence showing evolution over deep time is exactly what you DON'T have.


      LOL! Yes Nic, we do have it. You childish denials of reality won't make reality go away.

      How very arrogant of you. By saying I could do a whole lot better I assume you mean I could think like you.

      Ok, I take it back. Seems like you've maxed out the capabilities of that teeny Fundy brain and can't do any better. :D

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      Nic: "You really don't get it do you? Empirical evidence showing evolution over deep time is exactly what you DON'T have."

      ghostrider: "LOL! Yes Nic, we do have it. You childish denials of reality won't make reality go away."

      You spend so much time laughing that would be better spent educating yourself.

      Look up the definition of empirical and then come back and show us how you have empirical evidence for evolution over deep time.


      "Seems like you've maxed out the capabilities of that teeny Fundy brain and can't do any better. :D"

      I'm not the one who has to resort to calling people stupid when I cannot answer a question. That would be you. An example is found in your recent response to John who provide you with a polite and well reasoned response to your comment: "Too stupid to understand a simple analogy I see. Still regurgitating the same Creationist PRATTS and arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity also."

      This certainly raises the question as to who has the teeny brain which has been maxed out.

      You must have very few toes left from shooting yourself in the foot so often.;)

      Delete
  21. Nic

    I admire how you can deal with his "I'm so superior" attitude with such patience. I felt like calling on Joe to blast him. Lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could do it yourself PM if you had the scientific chops. But you don't.

      BTW I don't consider myself superior to anyone. However I do have years of scientific training and experience that lets me intelligently discuss topics in evolutionary biology. You and Nic and hit-n-run John don't. That's why you guys always flee when I post a scientific paper and offer to discuss it.

      Delete
    2. I don't have to understand the science of an egg to know if it's rotten or not, which is kind of why I don't believe your theory. And I can also see a lot about a man's character by how he treats others in his conversations, which is kind of why I wouldn't engage you. Thanks but no thanks. Your scientific knowledge is far surpassed by your rudeness. "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies."

      Delete
    3. PhillyMike

      I don't have to understand the science of an egg to know if it's rotten or not, which is kind of why I don't believe your theory.


      Actually for a complex scientific theory like evolution you do have to understand the workings before you can make any worthwhile judgments. Otherwise all you're doing is silly teenager posturing. And it's not my theory, it's a scientific theory that belongs to everyone.

      And I can also see a lot about a man's character by how he treats others in his conversations, which is kind of why I wouldn't engage you.

      You've consistently behaved like a snotty juvenile delinquent. Why are you surprised when you get treated like a snotty juvenile delinquent?

      "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies."

      Fine by me. Stay in love with your ignorance.

      Delete
    4. no dude, you just are on here constantly. You are the one that ran from the Myosin phylogeny remember? Let me know if I need to check back.

      Delete
    5. also, I replied to the meta analysis post again above. Sorry, I don't check every day.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "That's why you guys always flee when I post a scientific paper and offer to discuss it."

      First, we do not flee from anything you present. You got handed your lunch over the Lenski bacteria argument and could not deal with that. You could only accuse me repeatedly of lying. You still have not provided a logical and cogent response to my question as to why whales and fish use different motions to swim. Saying they evolved that way is NOT an answer.

      If I were you I would try using the 'I have years of scientific training' tact. If you paid for any of that 'training' I suggest you request a refund.

      "Actually for a complex scientific theory like evolution you do have to understand the workings before you can make any worthwhile judgments."

      Actually, the only reason evolution is such a 'complex theory' is due to its need for continual course correction and story telling to keep the ship headed in the direction evolutionists want it to go. If they would actually follow the evidence where it leads the theory would have been abandoned long ago. But as I and others have said before, it's not about the science, it's about the world view.

      Delete
    7. Yawn Nic. Let us know when you come up with a better explanation for the empirically observed patterns in the fossils over deep time and genetic record.

      Delete
    8. Phillymike,

      "I admire how you can deal with his "I'm so superior" attitude with such patience."

      I can deal with it because first, I really don't take what he says seriously. As with everyone here we really don't know each other and as a result if we were to meet in person ghostrider and I might find we have a lot of things, outside of this blog, we have in common and maybe would be very good friends.

      Second, I wish to present an alternate view for individuals who may be reading blogs such a this in search of answers. If all they see is ridicule of those who deny evolution they may conclude their is no one who can really answer the rhetoric thrown about by evolutionists. As such I'm not as much concerned with changing ghostrider's mind as I am concerned with showing others there is an alternate view to these questions.

      Delete
    9. ghostrider,

      "Yawn Nic. Let us know when you come up with a better explanation for the empirically observed patterns in the fossils over deep time and genetic record."

      Yawn. When are you going to admit there is more than one way to interpret evidence? When are you going to realize the evolutionary interpretation is only one method, not the ONLY method? Such a realization would do you a world of good, it would open up a whole new realm of thought. And believe me, your mind could use the exercise.:)

      Delete
    10. Nic

      Yawn. When are you going to admit there is more than one way to interpret evidence?


      Of course there's more than one way. You can do it the honest way science does by coming up with one coherent theory that explains all the details in a consilient and consistent manner. Or you can do it the dishonest Creationist way by coming up with a different ad hoc excuse for every piece, not knowing or caring that the silly hand-waves often directly contradict one aother.

      Science's way is better, which is why it's universally accepted by all but the most willfully ignorant.

      What was your detailed explanation for the observed patterns in the fossil and genetic records again?

      Delete
    11. ghostrider,

      "Of course there's more than one way. You can do it the honest way science does by coming up with one coherent theory that explains all the details in a consilient and consistent manner. Or you can do it the dishonest Creationist way by coming up with a different ad hoc excuse for every piece, not knowing or caring that the silly hand-waves often directly contradict one aother."

      So anyone who interprets the evidence in any way other than the evolutionary way is being dishonest. You're priceless, really. And you expect us to believe you have an extensive science background. Not likely.

      Delete
    12. Nic

      So anyone who interprets the evidence in any way other than the evolutionary way is being dishonest.


      That's not what I said. Anyone who makes up a different ad hoc explanation for each piece of evidence separately instead of considering all the evidence as a unified whole is being dishonest. That's all Creationist ever do.

      What was your detailed explanation for the observed patterns in the fossil and genetic records again? You keep forgetting to answer.

      Delete
    13. Just to be clear Nic, the need for honesty in considering all the evidence as a whole is a requirement across ALL sciences, not just evolution. Cherry picking individual bits of data while ignoring the other 99% contradictory evidence like Creationists do will get you laughed out of any scientific field.

      Delete
    14. ghostrider,

      Nic: "So anyone who interprets the evidence in any way other than the evolutionary way is being dishonest."

      ghostrider:"That's not what I said."

      ghostrider: "Of course there's more than one way. You can do it the honest way science does by coming up with one coherent theory that explains all the details in a consilient and consistent manner. Or you can do it the dishonest Creationist way by coming up with a different ad hoc excuse for every piece, not knowing or caring that the silly hand-waves often directly contradict one aother."

      Then what do you mean by this statement? How about some examples of these ridiculous handwaves which contradict each other?

      Delete
    15. Nic

      Then what do you mean by this statement? How about some examples of these ridiculous handwaves which contradict each other?


      Easy Nic. Creationists tell us that macroevolution - evolution of one species from another - is impossible no matter how many millions of years we have. Then they turn around and tell us all of extant life's around 8 million known species macroevolved from the few hundred "kinds" on the Ark in just 4500 years.

      Creationist claim all radiometric dating is wrong because all radioactive decay rates were 6 orders of magnitude faster before the Flood which somehow magically made them slow. But cramming the heat energy released by all of Earth's 4.5 billion years history into 1500 years (creation to Flood) would melt the Earth into slag.

      Details Nic. They need to be logically consistent.

      Delete
    16. ghostrider,

      "Then they turn around and tell us all of extant life's around 8 million known species macroevolved from the few hundred "kinds" on the Ark in just 4500 years."

      Thank you for so effectively demonstrating how you have absolutely no idea of the subject you're trying to criticize.

      What you're describing is variation within kinds and not macroevolution. Macroevolution is the position that all extant organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. In other words, you originated from the same common ancestor as a pine cone.

      Creation science holds to the view that specific kinds were created and through the process of variation over time each of these kinds came to be represented by a vast array of different forms. However, equines never ceased to be equines, nor canines, canines. This is what is clearly observed and demonstrable in what is known as the empirical practice of science. Something you claim to adhere to but seem to not understand in the slightest.

      Creation science has always been consistent on this topic. It has always held that all equines could be derived from a single pair of equines, all felines from a single pair of felines, etc.

      Also, within Creation science the term species is not interchangeable with the term kind. That is simply another example of how little you actually know about what is actually adhered to in creationism.

      Your view, on the other hand, that all organisms stem from a single common ancestor is not empirical science, it is nothing more than speculation and extrapolation without foundation based on a world view which wishes to do away with God. It is not observable nor is it demonstrable, it is simply asserted to be true. Again, it is not science, it is philosophy.

      "But cramming the heat energy released by all of Earth's 4.5 billion years history into 1500 years (creation to Flood) would melt the Earth into slag."

      Do you not see the inconsistency in this statement?

      Details ghostrider. You need to understand what is being taught within a particular discipline if you wish to effectively criticize the views held within that discipline. You have clearly demonstrated you do not understand the creationists position in any way.

      A defence lawyer needs to know in detail what the prosecution is going to present in order to provide an effective defence for his client. Likewise it is incumbent upon you to understand what actually constitutes creationist thought in order to effectively argue against it. You clearly demonstrated you do not.

      If you were a lawyer you would be sanctioned by the law society for incompetent representation.

      Delete
    17. Nic

      What you're describing is variation within kinds and not macroevolution. Macroevolution is the position that all extant organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.


      No Nic, in the evolutionary sciences macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level. That's why it's so hard to have any sort of technical discussion with you. You don't understand even the simplest scientific terms.

      Don't bore everyone with the stupidity about "kinds". You can't list the "kinds". You can't even define "kind" enough to objectively tell which "kind" an animal is. You can't offer any reason that speciation should be limited to "kinds" besides the usual YEC idiocy "you didn't see it in person!!".

      However, equines never ceased to be equines, nor canines, canines.

      Then why do we never see felines or canines in the fossil record dating before 50 MYA? We have multicelled fossils going back over 2.1 billion years but we NEVER find dogs or cats anywhere except the last 50 MY. You have no explanation.

      Do you not see the inconsistency in this statement?

      There's no inconsistency. If YEC is correct then everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong. Everything we know about geology is wrong. Everything we know about biology is wrong. It's one ad hoc bit of contradictory stupidity after another with you guys.

      Delete
    18. ghostrider,

      "No Nic, in the evolutionary sciences macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level."

      Sorry ghostrider, but equines remaining equines, even if different species, is NOT macroevolution, it is simply variation. I know you can't and won't accept that, but honestly, that's just too bad.

      "You can't offer any reason that speciation should be limited to "kinds"

      I really don't need to offer a reason why speciation, as some like to label it, would be limited, that is without a doubt what is empirically observable and demonstrable. The onus is 100% on the shoulders of evolutionary thought to provide a reason why we should believe all organisms share a single common ancestor and by extension, why we should believe reptiles could become non-reptiles. Evolutionary thought alone is making that claim, therefore the burden lies with it alone to demonstrate it. Extrapolation and speculation do not fall within the definition of empirical science, ghostrider. You should understand that from your extensive science education.

      Why should I be asked to disprove something for which you cannot provide evidence in the form of observation and demonstration, the basic elements of empirical science which you consistently say you practice?

      "but we NEVER find dogs or cats anywhere except the last 50 MY.You have no explanation."

      In my view, I'm not dealing with billions of years. That is your view. As such, I don't need an explanation for the absence of felines 75 MYA, you do. And because you do, a fancy little story has been concocted to fill that need.

      "If YEC is correct then everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong. Everything we know about geology is wrong. Everything we know about biology is wrong."

      No, only what you believe you know about these subjects would be wrong. Big difference. Therein lies your problem ghostrider, you can't come to grips with the possibility evolutionary thought could be wrong.

      "That's why it's so hard to have any sort of technical discussion with you."

      I think that stems from the fact you can't comprehend that others have a different view of the "technicalities." A view which you do not even remotely understand and one which you obviously have made less than no effort to learn.

      Delete
    19. HAHAHAHA!!

      Biblical "kinds.

      Seriously Nic?

      Tell you what. Tomorrow when I get to work I'll make sure to add to science's agenda "disprove Biblical kinds". You'll have to be patient though. Ahead of you on the science to do list are "disprove bunyips", "disprove leprechauns", and "disprove the Tooth Fairy". :D

      Delete
    20. ghostrider,

      "Tell you what. Tomorrow when I get to work I'll make sure to add to science's agenda "disprove Biblical kinds"."

      Yet another immature response from our resident 'professional scientist'.

      If you're such a wonderful scientist I'm sure you will have no problem demonstrating there are no barriers which would prevent descent from a common ancestor. But remember, you must do so via empirical science, not speculative or extrapolative story telling.

      I'll be waiting patiently, though not expectantly.

      Delete
    21. Nic

      If you're such a wonderful scientist I'm sure you will have no problem demonstrating there are no barriers which would prevent descent from a common ancestor.


      You don't have to be a professional scientists to know you can't prove a negative Nic. Even a reasonably bright high school student could tell you that. You should find one and ask him to tutor you.


      You claim such a barrier exists, you provide the positive evidence for the barrier.

      Oh, and you still forgot to provide your detailed explanation for the observed patterns in the fossil and genetic records.

      Delete
    22. ghostrider,

      "You don't have to be a professional scientist to know you can't prove a negative Nic. Even a reasonably bright high school student could tell you that."

      Sure you can prove a negative, every amateur logician knows that. However, it would appear you do not. So what does that say about you when you're compared to a reasonably bright high school student?

      I guess it is necessary to teach you some entry level logic. You say one cannot prove a negative, yet I can prove there are no round squares. I can also prove there are no married bachelors. I can prove the Earth is not flat.

      Is that sufficient? Because ghostrider, that is all it means to prove a negative. Perhaps it is you who needs to look up a reasonably bright high school student.


      "You claim such a barrier exists, you provide the positive evidence for the barrier."

      Empirical science does that for me. Remember how empirical science works from all your extensive scientific training? ALL observable, demonstrable, repeatable and testable experience tells us you cannot get a living organism by breeding an equine with a feline. There is an observable, demonstrable and testable barrier which, in all our experience, cannot be crossed.

      Therefore the onus is really upon you to demonstrate an equine or a feline could, over any amount of time, become something other than an equine or feline while equines continue to breed with equines and felines continue to breed with felines.

      That is simply the fact of the matter ghostrider, it is you who is making a claim counter to all observable and demonstrable empirical evidence. Therefore the onus completely falls on you to demonstrate such a barrier does not exist by using the same empirical scientific processes.

      Again, I will wait patiently, but not expectantly.

      "the observed patterns in the fossil and genetic records."

      I know you think this is a tough question which I have been avoiding, but I'm sorry to disappoint you. As I believe in a common omnipotent designer I would expect to see observable patterns in the fossil and genetic records. It's simply a logical conclusion as that is a common factor of design. I simply thought you could logically come to that conclusion on your own. But, of course, you have amply demonstrated your poor standing when it comes to the subject of logic.

      "disprove leprechauns"

      Exactly on what evolutionary basis would you say leprechauns do not or could not have existed? As I am 1/2 Irish in my heritage I would be interested to hear your answer.

      Delete
    23. Nic

      "You claim such a barrier exists, you provide the positive evidence for the barrier."

      Empirical science does that for me.


      You forgot to provide your positive evidence for your claimed barrier. "No one has seen it happen in real time" isn't evidence. No one's seen a mountain form from plate tectonic collisions in real time either. Does that prove mountain formation is impossible?

      As I believe in a common omnipotent designer I would expect to see observable patterns in the fossil and genetic records.

      LOL! Again with the zero-detail hand wave. WHY should we see the specific patterns we do? The specific temporal and stratgraphic distribution of the fossils? Evolution has an answer. You don't. You never do.

      Keep looking for that high-school student to teach you Science 101. Maybe the high-schooler can read that cetacean genetics paper to you since you've bailed on that idea too.

      Exactly on what evolutionary basis would you say leprechauns do not or could not have existed?

      Science says nothing about leprechauns since there's zero positive evidence they actually exist.

      Delete
    24. ghostrider,

      "No one has seen it happen in real time" isn't evidence."

      Yeah, it is. As empirical science is based in part on observation, the fact that such an occurrence has never been observed is indeed evidence.

      "No one's seen a mountain form from plate tectonic collisions in real time either."

      As plate tectonics is an ongoing process, it is continually observable.

      "Keep looking for that high-school student to teach you Science 101."

      And you keep looking for the high school student to teach you logic.:)

      "Science says nothing about leprechauns since there's zero positive evidence they actually exist."

      Not to Irishmen. :)

      Delete
    25. Nic

      "No one has seen it happen in real time" isn't evidence."

      Yeah, it is. As empirical science is based in part on observation, the fact that such an occurrence has never been observed is indeed evidence.


      Then the fact no one's seen a whole mountain form start to finish must be evidence mountain formation is impossible.

      "No one's seen a mountain form from plate tectonic collisions in real time either."

      As plate tectonics is an ongoing process, it is continually observable.


      Evolution is an ongoing process that is continually observable. .

      Can't have it both ways Nic. Looks like your "barrier" argument against evolution is screwed.

      Your forays into YEC fantsyland are getting boring again. Since you refuse to read the cetacean paper are there any scientific topics you aren't afraid of?

      Delete
    26. ghostrider,

      "Then the fact no one's seen a whole mountain form start to finish must be evidence mountain formation is impossible."

      "Looks like your "barrier" argument against evolution is screwed."

      For one who claims to have such an extensive science education and claims to follow so rigorously the scientific method you display an amazing lack of understanding as to how it actually works.

      When dealing with mountains and plate tectonics the processes are being observed in real time with the expected results following logically from those observations.

      The situation is not at all the same with the common descent scenario. What is observed is completely contrary to what evolutionary thought claims has occurred and continues to occur. Observations tell us equines produce only more equines, reptiles only more reptiles. However, common descent from a single ancestor demands the opposite of what is being observed must result over the long term. At some point reptiles must become non-reptiles. Exactly the opposite to what the observations tell us.

      However, evolutionary thought demands that at some point organisms had to fundamentally change their nature. As such stories have been invented to present a scenario the science simply does not support.

      Are you really so blind that you cannot see the fundamental differences in these two lines of thought? One is fundamental science at work and the other is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.

      "are there any scientific topics you aren't afraid of?"

      Sorry, I'm not afraid of anything you wish to present.

      As for the cetacean paper, there was really nothing new there at all.

      Delete
    27. Nic

      Observations tell us equines produce only more equines,


      Modern horses only appear in the fossil record about 3.5 MYA. Before about 52 MYA there were no equines at all even though the fossil record extends back over 3 billion years before then. What was ancestral to the first equines 52 MYA?

      When will you be telling us how to objectively determine what "kind" an animal is? Or even how many different "kinds" there are?

      As for the cetacean paper, there was really nothing new there at all.

      So you were too afraid to read it. Nothing new there at all.

      Delete
    28. Hey Nic, since you know lots about Creation 'science":

      If the layers in the geologic column were laid at the same time in Da Flud why do we get vastly different radiometric dates for them from bottom to top?

      Even if the dates are wrong why aren't they all the same?

      Explanation please.

      Delete
    29. ghostrider,

      "So you were too afraid to read it. Nothing new there at all."

      Nope, just nothing new, that's all.

      "What was ancestral to the first equines 52 MYA?"

      That would be a question for you as I don't hold to the view of 'millions and billions' of years. I'm of the opinion they have been equines from the beginning. That is something you should know if you understood the creationist position, which obviously you do not. If you did understand the position you would realize this is a moot question.

      You're the one claiming something non-equine gave rise to equines, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that, not me.

      Can you demonstrate via empirical science that something non-equine gave rise to equines?

      "Even if the dates are wrong why aren't they all the same?"

      You're the one with all the science education and you're not aware of the fact there are factors other than time which can affect the radiometric readings? Interesting.

      Delete
    30. Nic

      Nope, just nothing new, that's all.


      You can't explain the cetacean genetic evidence so you're just going to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Got it.

      I'm of the opinion they have been equines from the beginning.

      You can't explain the geographic distribution of the fossils and explain why they're never found in strata before 52 MYA. Never found with other mammal fossils alongside the dinosaurs, never found in the Cretaceous or the Triassic or the Jurassic or the Permian or the Carboniferous or the Devonian or the Silurian or the Ordovician or the Cambrian. So you'll ignore that data too. Got it again.

      You're the one claiming something non-equine gave rise to equines, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that, not me.

      As far as we can tell equines arose from the family Phenacodontidae which lived between 60 MYA and about 50 MYA. Tell me Nic, what "kind" are the Phenacodontidae?

      You're the one with all the science education and you're not aware of the fact there are factors other than time which can affect the radiometric readings?

      You have no explanation for all why different geologic strata dates to vastly different times so you'll just ignore that evidence too and pretend it isn't there. Got it yet again.

      You sure have to ignore lots of data to force fit your fantasy.

      Delete
  22. William,

    "Darwin was well aware of stasis, as were most naturalists of the day, yet his theory was still developed."

    That Darwin and others were aware of this fact does not remove it as a problem for evolution, then or now. In fact, it only gets worse as Darwin hoped future discoveries would remove what he knew to be a serious argument against his theory. The hoped for discoveries are yet to be made after almost 160 years of looking.

    The fact they insisted on proceeding with the theory despite the fossil problem is only further proof of their adherence to a system of belief which, because it was not supported by the scientific evidence, was in fact philosophical in nature.

    It is no mere accident of history that the rise of evolutionary theory, which pre-dated Darwin's writings, coincided with the rise of humanistic philosophy with its desire to remove the need for God not only in everyday life but especially in scientific realms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " In fact, it only gets worse as Darwin hoped future discoveries would remove what he knew to be a serious argument against his theory."

      Allopatric speciation explains much of it. As does population genetics.

      Until recently, the entire concept of stasis was limited to the fossil record. But there is much more to an animal than its bones or shells.

      Delete
    2. Nic

      That Darwin and others were aware of this fact does not remove it as a problem for evolution, then or now.


      Why in the world do you think stasis (or Punk Eek) is a problem for evolution? The fossil record shows both lineages with slow gradual change and lineages with long periods of little change followed by a burst of rapid evolution. This makes perfect sense because the rate of evolutionary change tends to track changes in the unpredictably changing environment. If the environment is relatively stable for millions of years you may get very little morphological change. If the environment then changes rapidly or drastically you may get spurts of rapid morphological change.

      It's like driving across the country. You may get a 10 mile stretch with a gradual 1 deg. uphill rise the whole way. You may get 5 miles of dead flat, a 1 mile stretch with a 5 deg. slope, the another 5 miles of dead flat. You may get both in the same long trip.

      Sorry Nic but claiming stasis is a problem for evolution is just one more demonstration of your ignorance.

      Delete
    3. "It's like driving across the country. You may get a 10 mile stretch with a gradual 1 deg. uphill rise the whole way. You may get 5 miles of dead flat, a 1 mile stretch with a 5 deg. slope, the another 5 miles of dead flat. You may get both in the same long trip."

      Selection pressure doesn't work like that. There are practically an infinite number of conceivable competing pressures in any niche. Imagining that it's one dimensional like that is unrealistic. Even if you could devise an almost completely stable environment, random drift will change the genome over time and no one has characterized any type of pervasive force that would be able to keep hundreds of millions of viable mutations from spreading only if they don't alter morphology, like in the horseshoe crab. Now we get to listen to evolutionists tell us how there are islands of function...and that over 450 million years of searching! That's two orders of magnitude more than it supposedly took for a doglike animal to turn into a whale, and over twenty times longer than the whole mammalian radiation!

      The reason you can't stop drift from occuring is because selection happens at the organism level. You can't separate all the new mutations into one place on the chromosome during recombination and always choose the original ones. It might work that way one generation, but not for 40 million generations.

      Also, you can't claim there is an "unpredictably changing environment" and then later claim that "selection is nonrandom". If selection is performed by the random environment, what warrants your belief that the environment will decide to change in just the right sequence to produce gears and motors and walking nanorobots? It doesn't appear to do anything like that currently.

      Delete
    4. Hit and run John

      Selection pressure doesn't work like that.


      Too stupid to understand a simple analogy I see. Still regurgitating the same Creationist PRATTS and arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity also. You're nothing if not consistent.

      Delete
    5. John

      Also, you can't claim there is an "unpredictably changing environment" and then later claim that "selection is nonrandom".


      I missed this special bit of stupidity before. How the environment randomly changes and what works best in any given environment are two completely different things. If you can't even grasp that basic you really don't belong in a discussion of evolution.

      If selection is performed by the random environment, what warrants your belief that the environment will decide to change in just the right sequence to produce gears and motors and walking nanorobots? It doesn't appear to do anything like that currently.

      (facepalm) The environment doesn't consciously adjust itself and "decide" what to produce. The lack of scientific literacy among internet Creationists is astounding.

      I'll note you still haven't given us your alternate explanation for the patterns in the fossil and genetic records. Even Nic agreed falsifying one theory doesn't make another one win by default.

      Delete
    6. William,

      "But there is much more to an animal than its bones or shells."

      Very true, but none of the evidence these factors provide is limited to an evolutionary interpretation only.

      A simple fact that most evolutionists fail to grasp is that evidence is neutral in nature, it's how that evidence is interpreted that applies the colour.

      Delete
    7. ghostrider,

      "Why in the world do you think stasis (or Punk Eek) is a problem for evolution?"

      Gee, I don't know. It could be because evolutionists believe it to be a problem and have since at least Darwin's time. Maybe because Gould came up with PE in an attempt to address the problem. I would think this subject would have been covered in your extensive scientific training.

      Delete
    8. ghostrider,

      "Too stupid to understand a simple analogy I see. Still regurgitating the same Creationist PRATTS and arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity also. You're nothing if not consistent."

      Really well done, ghostrider. It has been a while since I have seen someone fumble the ball, as you just did, at such a critical moment. You had just finished telling everyone how you "have years of scientific training and experience that lets me intelligently discuss topics in evolutionary biology." And what do you do when John provides a reasoned and cogent response to one of your comments? You reply with nastiness, ad hominems and ridicule.

      Very well done ghostrider, you've done a lot to make others appreciate and admire your intelligence and extensive scientific training. I am immensely impressed.

      Delete
    9. ghostrider,

      John: "If selection is performed by the random environment, what warrants your belief that the environment will decide to change in just the right sequence to produce gears and motors and walking nanorobots? It doesn't appear to do anything like that currently."

      ghostrider:"(facepalm) The environment doesn't consciously adjust itself and "decide" what to produce. The lack of scientific literacy among internet Creationists is astounding."

      Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. That 'the environment doesn't consciously change...' was exactly the point John was trying to make. He was asking you why you would believe this would happen, he was not saying he believed it would happen. Notice his question: "what warrants YOUR belief that the environment will decide to change in just the right sequence to produce gears and motors and walking nanorobots? It doesn't appear to do anything like that currently."

      Delete
    10. Nic: "A simple fact that most evolutionists fail to grasp is that evidence is neutral in nature, it's how that evidence is interpreted that applies the colour."

      If you are suggesting that bias plays a role, I don't think that anyone would disagree. But, at least, evolutionary biology and all sciences (some to a greater extent than others) employ a process designed to minimize bias. ID, on the other hand, thinks that any evidence that they "interpret" as being contrary to evolution is evidence for ID. That is like saying that something that isn't green is evidence for it being red.

      Delete
    11. William,

      "But, at least, evolutionary biology and all sciences (some to a greater extent than others) employ a process designed to minimize bias."

      And what would that process be?

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

      Delete
    13. Nic: "And what would that process be?"

      Observation, hypothesis development, hypothesis testing, rinse and repeat. As well as publication and peer review.

      Delete
    14. William,

      "Observation, hypothesis development, hypothesis testing, rinse and repeat. As well as publication and peer review."

      I can agree an effort is made to minimize bias, but I don't think it is very effective.

      First, evolution is not subject to hypothesis testing in the empirical sense as the 'evolutionary' past cannot be directly observed nor can it be repeated.

      Second, peer review is highly overrated. Most advancements in science have come about via individuals who would have had their research stymied by peer review.

      Delete
    15. Nix: "I can agree an effort is made to minimize bias, but I don't think it is very effective."

      But at least an effort is made. What efforts do ID make?

      "First, evolution is not subject to hypothesis testing in the empirical sense as the 'evolutionary' past cannot be directly observed nor can it be repeated."

      The Big Bang can ever be directly observed but there seems to be a shit load of hypothesis testing being conducted. The same holds for much of geology (have you ever observed a diamond formed? Or limestone?).

      Don't kid yourself. Just because we haven't observed something doesn't mean that we can't test it. I have never observed a radioactive isotope decay (nobody has) but I am pretty sure that we can test the concept. In fact, the current standard for time is based on it.

      Delete
    16. Nic

      First, evolution is not subject to hypothesis testing in the empirical sense as the 'evolutionary' past cannot be directly observed nor can it be repeated.


      (facepalm again) Do detectives have to eyewitness every murder and kill another victim every time they solve a crime?

      Events don't have to be directly observed or repeated in order to be understood. Only the evidence left by the events has to be directly observed and tests on the evidence left be repeatable.

      How many times have you been corrected on this particular bit of ignorance now? 20? 30?

      Delete
    17. William,

      "But at least an effort is made. What efforts do ID make?"

      The same.

      "The same holds for much of geology (have you ever observed a diamond formed? Or limestone?)."

      they do it all the time.

      "Don't kid yourself. Just because we haven't observed something doesn't mean that we can't test it."

      I didn't say it could not be tested in any way, I said it could not be tested empirically. And it can't.

      Delete
    18. Nic you really need to find a dictionary and look up the definition of empirical.

      Empirical: (adjective) based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

      Again the event itself doesn't have to be observed or repeated, just the evidence the event leaves behind.

      Empirical Evidence: A Definition

      You really have no excuse for getting this one wrong.

      Delete
    19. ghostrider,

      "Do detectives have to eyewitness every murder and kill another victim every time they solve a crime?"

      No, that is why murder investigations fall into the category of historical science and not empirical science. Those science classes you supposedly took sure left out a lot of details.

      The fact that criminal investigations into murders cannot literally repeat the scenario verbatim is one of the reasons why the standard of proof in courts is based on reasonable doubt.

      "Events don't have to be directly observed or repeated in order to be understood."

      That's true. However, the standard of evidence must meet a certain level which results in the improbability of another explanation. Evolution does not even come close to that standard. Not only is it not in the ball park, it's not even in the same country as the ball park. As I said before belief in descent from a common ancestor requires one to accept as true results which are completely counter to the evidence empirically observed.

      "tests on the evidence left be repeatable."

      Pakicetus is claimed to be evidence of a transition to whales. Explain how testing fossilized Pakicetus can show it was on the road to becoming a whale? Remember, it must be empirical evidence, not someone's imagination.

      Delete
    20. Nic: "Pakicetus is claimed to be evidence of a transition to whales. Explain how testing fossilized Pakicetus can show it was on the road to becoming a whale?"

      Your use of words reveals your lack of understanding of the evolutionary process. "Pakicetus is evidence of a transition to whales", or that it was "on the road to becoming a whale" implies that it had a goal. Which it didn't.

      How is the fossil record not empirical? I would really be interested in how you get the idea that it is not empirical evidence. You can certainly question the validity of any conclusion drawn from the empirical evidence, or even the nature of the empirical evidence, but it is still empirical.

      Delete
    21. Nic

      No, that is why murder investigations fall into the category of historical science and not empirical science.


      LOL! More Creationist ignorance. Science isn't split into two distinct fields of "historical vs. empirical". That's another Ken Ham boner. The scientific method for all science requires empirical testing of hypotheses, which is exactly what ToE is based on.

      However, the standard of evidence must meet a certain level which results in the improbability of another explanation. Evolution does not even come close to that standard.

      It does to the satisfaction of the scientific community and to people who actually study the subject. Your ignorant layman's opinion isn't worth a bucket of spit. BTW scientific theories aren't required to "show improbable" other claimed explanations. They only have to provide positive evidence for their own argument. If you want to champion an alternate view you mist provide positive evidence for that view.

      Pakicetus is claimed to be evidence of a transition to whales. Explain how testing fossilized Pakicetus can show it was on the road to becoming a whale?

      You empirically make detailed measurements of all its morphological features and you find lots of physical evidence in the ankle joints, skull, dentition, ear bones that are all clearly transitional between extant cetaceans and land dwelling artiodactyls.

      Here's another good paper on cetacean evolution that you won't read either.

      From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises

      I notice you dropped horse evolution and the dating of different strata like a hot potato. Remember the Creationist motto - if you ignore the evidence then the evidence doesn't exist!

      Delete
    22. William,

      "Your use of words reveals your lack of understanding of the evolutionary process. ...implies that it had a goal. Which it didn't."

      With all due respect I am tired of people telling anyone who questions evolution they are doing so only because they do not understand the concept or the process.

      I'm fully aware that Pakicetus had no goal in mind, nor does any element of evolution. It is a blind, indifferent, goalless process. However, evolutionists continually claim Pakicetus and other organisms are evidence in the transition of land mammals to whales. As such, they have a responsibility to support that claim with sound empirical evidence. They do not and cannot.

      "How is the fossil record not empirical?"

      Because it was not observed in real time nor can it be tested or repeated. It can only be interpreted from a position of presumption. Differing presumptions result in differing interpretations. This is a basic fact to which evolutionists seem, for some reason, to be totally oblivious.

      Delete
    23. Nic

      However, evolutionists continually claim Pakicetus and other organisms are evidence in the transition of land mammals to whales. As such, they have a responsibility to support that claim with sound empirical evidence.


      You mean like the two scientific detailed technical papers on cetacean evolution I've posted in this thread that you refuse to read. Got it.

      Because it was not observed in real time nor can it be tested or repeated.

      "Empirical" doesn't mean must be observed in real time. The fossil record can certainly be empirically tested and the tests repeated. This is a basic fact to which Nic seems, for some reason, to be totally oblivious.

      Delete
    24. ghostrider,

      "LOL! More Creationist ignorance. Science isn't split into two distinct fields of "historical vs. empirical".

      For a guy who claims to be literate in science you display an amazing level of ignorance on the subject. Yes, ghostrider, there are different forms of scientific investigation, whether you understand it or not.

      The science practiced in the development of components such as computers and aircraft, is not the same type of science practiced in the study of life's origins. The former is the result of direct hands- on observation and experimental development. The latter is based on the interpretation of past events. Only the truly clueless or the completely intellectually dishonest individual tries to argue there is no difference. You're free to choose the category with which you wish to identify.

      "It does to the satisfaction of the scientific community and to people who actually study the subject."

      I will grant it does to the majority of the scientific community at present. However, that does not mean it always will or that that majority makes it right. Just some more of that basic logic you lack.

      "They only have to provide positive evidence for their own argument. If you want to champion an alternate view you mist provide positive evidence for that view."


      True, but it helps to display a balance if you're willing to be honest about opposing opinions. Something the vast majority of evolutionists refuse to do.
      As for one providing positive evidence for opposing views, who, exactly, determines whether or not the evidence is positive? You? Remember Copernicus' evidence was rejected as 'not positive' by the scientific establishment of his time.

      "You empirically make detailed measurements of all its morphological features and you find lots of physical evidence in the ankle joints, skull, dentition, ear bones that are all clearly transitional between extant cetaceans and land dwelling artiodactyls."

      No, they are not shown to be clearly 'transitional' they are simply interpreted as transitional. That is a fact you and other evolutionists can never get your head around. You simply INTERPRET these features to be transitional, you cannot empirically demonstrate they are transitional.

      Tell me, how do you know this creature was not simply a unique organism that has now become extinct? Similarity does not equal relatedness or mean one creature was slowly becoming another. It is only your evolutionary presumptions which result in you presenting that interpretation.

      "I notice you dropped horse evolution and the dating of different strata like a hot potato."

      That may be how you interpret the situation, but as usual, you're wrong. I simply pointed out I don't accept your belief that equines evolved. Therefore, as you are making a claim to know they did evolve from a non-equine the onus is on you to demonstrate this is indeed what occurred, not on me to demonstrate a non-equine did not become equine.

      I have observable evidence on my side that equines have always been equines and continue to this day to produce only equines. What do you have? Continually changing just-so stories telling of slow transitional processes mysteriously producing equines from some ghostly non-equine with zero concrete empirical evidence to support your argument. Yet you believe you're being scientific and I'm a religious fool. I'll retire to bedlam.

      Delete
    25. ghostrider,

      "You mean like the two scientific detailed technical papers on cetacean evolution I've posted in this thread that you refuse to read. Got it."

      You're hilarious, really. You actually think because you post a paper or two. or three, in support of evolution which convinces you of the truthfulness of its contents it is therefore actually true and everyone who reads them must also be convinced of its truthfulness and, if not convinced, they are by necessity ignorant fools.

      You really do think highly of yourself, don't you.

      "The fossil record can certainly be empirically tested and the tests repeated."

      Really? How about you demonstrate how that is done. Show me how Pakicetus can be empirically shown to be a transitional species leading to cetaceans.

      Remember, to do this empirically you cannot just recite your interpretation of why you think the various features of Pakicetus are in fact in transition. You MUST demonstrate these features were in fact transitional. You must demonstrate that Pakicetus displayed these features because it acquired them via random mutation and natural selection from an earlier organism and they were altered down the line of succeeding organisms in the same manner until after multiple thousands of generations we finally arrived at cetaceans.

      You MUST do this via empirical science, not story telling. No 'may have' or it 'appears maybe' or 'somehow, sometime something happened' or 'they are similar to' nonsense. You must be able to test and repeat and demonstrate the process. Because, ghostrider, that is indeed what is required to meet the requirements of empirical science.

      Delete
    26. ghostrider,

      I almost forgot. You're also required to demonstrate this process empirically for every feature which needed to evolve in order to arrive at Moby Dick from Pakicetus.

      Have fun! I will be waiting patiently, but again, not expectantly.

      Delete
    27. LOL! Nic continues to flail and run from the evidence.

      Where is your explanation for the empirical finds Nic? All of the fossil legged whales must have all been separate "kinds" who lived at the same time since they're all found in (supposedly) Flood laid sediment. Yet they all occupy different date ranges in the sediment. Pakicetus is found in 50 MY strata. Ambulocetus in 48 MY strata. Rhodocetus in 45 MY strata. Dorudon in 35 MY strata. Squalodon in 25 MY strata. Kentriodon in 20 MY strata.

      Why the separation Nic? Why aren't they all mixed together with extant whale remains? Why are none found in strata before 55 MY?

      It's the same for fossil equine species. They're all found in "Flood" sediments so must have lived at the same time. Yet we find Eohippus in 52 MY strata. Orohippus in 50 MY strata. Epihippus in 47 MY strata. Mesohippus in 32 MY strata. Miohippus in 24 MY strata. Parahippus in 20 MY strata. Pliohippus in 12 MY strata.
      Modern horses in 3.5 MY or less strata.

      Why the pattern Nic? Why not all mixed together? Science has a good answer. You have pitiful flailing.

      Show me how Pakicetus can be empirically shown to be a transitional species leading to cetaceans.

      That's in the papers already provided you're still too afraid to read. You demand evidence then won't look when it is presented. That's a classic sign of willful ignorance.

      Delete
    28. ghostrider,

      "LOL! Nic continues to flail and run from the evidence."

      Nice rant, ghostrider. Very immature though and not at all what you were asked to provide, what you claimed you could provide. No surprise there, however.

      Feel free to try again. After all, you have such an extensive scientific background that providing empirical evidence to support your clams should be no problem at all. But despite that extensive scientific education which allows you to intelligently converse about scientific subjects, it seems you're completely incapable of backing up your claims. Interesting.


      "That's in the papers already provided you're still too afraid to read. You demand evidence then won't look when it is presented."

      No, it is not, ghostrider. All those papers provide is the usual drivel about how things 'appear' and how things 'may' have done this or 'may' have led to that. The same drivel you continually spew. It is not empirically based science, it is philosophically based story-telling.

      I actually just read the last paper you referenced. Seriously, I laughed. It was just too funny to read. You really think that drivel qualifies as empirical scientific investigation?

      Delete
    29. Nic continues to flail and run from the evidence. He has no explanation for the empirically observed patterns in the fossil record. Ho hum.

      Delete
    30. ghostrider,

      "Nic continues to flail and run from the evidence. He has no explanation for the empirically observed patterns in the fossil record. Ho hum."

      Are you serious? Sure they are empirically 'observable', the important question is what do the observed patterns mean, genius. Not that you can simply see a pattern. Just observing that they exist means nothing.

      Also, it appears you have no idea you're equivocating with the term 'observable'. There is a difference between observing the evidence of a past event and observing the event occurring in real time. Observation in real time is part of empirical science, observation of evidence from past events must be subjected to presuppositions in order to acquire any meaning from what is being observed.

      In empirical science you can witness the occurrence of events causing the pattern observed. When dealing with observable patterns caused by events which were not witnessed you must apply presuppositions before any interpretation can be done. Why is that simple, and oh so very obvious fact, so hard for you to understand?

      Please, let us hear no more about your grand understanding of the scientific process. This is just too funny for words.

      It is not I who is flailing and running, it is you as you are making absolutely no attempt to provide the empirical evidence you say you have in abundance to support your argument. You have been asked several times now to do what you claim your extensive education in science allows you to do and yet nothing has been forthcoming. All you ever do is dodge and weave and avoid the question.

      Why is that. ghostrider?

      Delete
    31. LOL! Nic continues to flail and run as he tries to redefine science to fit his YEC views.

      No explanations from Nic for the observed patterns in the fossil and genetic records yesterday, none today, there will be none tomorrow. Poor Nic.

      Delete
    32. ghostrider,

      "No explanations from Nic for the observed patterns in the fossil and genetic records yesterday, none today, there will be none tomorrow. Poor Nic."

      I'm not the one running, that would be you, as is obvious for all to see. You continually say you have an extensive scientific education and can intelligently converse about biology, etc. Yet you can't supply an answer to a question you claim is so easy to answer. Why?

      Once again, are you going to attempt to answer how you can empirically test the fossil record and empirically demonstrate Pakicetus is a species in transition from land mammal to ocean mammal?

      You can accuse me of flailing and running all you like, but the truth is I'm here waiting to see how you answer the question. However, after repeated requests all I get is dodge, dodge, dodge.

      ghostrider, it is time to put-up or shut-up. Which is it going to be?

      Delete
    33. Nic

      Once again, are you going to attempt to answer how you can empirically test the fossil record and empirically demonstrate Pakicetus is a species in transition from land mammal to ocean mammal?


      The answer won't change from the last three times I explained it to you Nic. The problem seems to be you're just too scientifically ignorant to understand it.

      Since you're incapable of discussing any technical scientific issues just tell us : You admit police detectives can establish beyond reasonable doubt what happened at a crime scene just from the evidence left behind. Why do you think scientists are incapable of the same thing and require a time machine to eyewitness events?

      Delete
    34. ghostrider,

      "The answer won't change from the last three times I explained it to you Nic. The problem seems to be you're just too scientifically ignorant to understand it."

      Now you're just being delusional. You have not even once attempted to answer the question, you've simply asserted that it can be done. Yet you never do it. All you ever do is fall back on the old worn out evolutionist excuse that I am just too ignorant to understand.

      Sorry, ghostrider, but the real truth on display here is that you are the one who is too ignorant to grasp the blatantly obvious contradictions in your reasoning.

      "You admit police detectives can establish beyond reasonable doubt what happened at a crime scene just from the evidence left behind. Why do you think scientists are incapable of the same thing and require a time machine to eyewitness events?

      Because in the case of evolutionary thought they do not come even remotely close to attaining the threshold of reasonable doubt.

      As I have pointed out repeatedly, the evidence is abundant and consistent that equines will only result in equines, yet evolutionary thought insists the evidence points to events which would be completely to the contrary. It states that equines were once non-equines and perhaps someday will morph into another non-equine form despite the continual demonstration that equines have only ever produced equines in the past and continue to produce only equines in the present.

      Such contrary reasoning is not supplying evidence which can be seen as being beyond reasonable doubt. Really, give your head a shake. Your philosophy demands I accept, as fact beyond a reasonable doubt, conclusions which would in reality be 180 degrees contrary to the evidence. How on Earth do you see that as approaching the threshold of reasonable doubt?

      Delete
    35. Nic

      Because in the case of evolutionary thought they do not come even remotely close to attaining the threshold of reasonable doubt.


      In a police case that goes to trial the evidence is judged "beyond a reasonable doubt" or not by a jury of the defendant's peers.

      The same thing happens in science. The "beyond reasonable doubt" in science is judged by a jury of scientific peers - people with the background knowledge and experience to fairly judge the work. This vetting happens twice in science, once when the original work is published and again by the broader scientific community after publication.

      Your philosophy demands I accept, as fact beyond a reasonable doubt, conclusions which would in reality be 180 degrees contrary to the evidence.

      Sorry Nic but you simply aren't qualified to judge the scientific evidence for evolution. In the first place you're ignorant of 99% of the evidence available and second you've shown zero understanding of the small bits you've been shown.

      Every single convicted felon swhines he was railroaded and the evidence doesn't show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You're that con hollering despite being found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on 1000 separate charges.

      Delete
    36. ghostrider,

      Still no answer to the question. I guess that means I must interpret your failure to even attempt an answer as evidence that he have absolutely no clue as to how to answer. Not surprising at all.

      And as for the jury of peers. As I said, a threshold must be met for the standard of reasonable doubt in order to attain a conviction. In the case of evolution the evidence presented would not even make for a very sound case, except for those like you who are presupposed to the truth of evolution regardless of the evidence.

      Sorry ghostrider, it is you who demonstrates the complete lack of understanding vis a vis the quality and nature of evidence.

      Delete
    37. Nic

      Still no answer to the question


      Still lying about the answer you've been given multiple times.

      And as for the jury of peers. As I said, a threshold must be met for the standard of reasonable doubt in order to attain a conviction.

      Already been done. All you're doing is bellyaching because you don't like the result. If you want to change science's "verdict" all you have to do is write up your case and publish it in the appropriate scientific journals.

      Seems we've reached the point we always do where you're reduced to flat out lying to save face. Pathetic.

      Delete
    38. ghostrider,

      "Still lying about the answer you've been given multiple times."

      There has been no answer from you nor has there even been an attempt at an answer. The only lie is the one you're telling yourself.

      "Already been done. All you're doing is bellyaching because you don't like the result. If you want to change science's "verdict" all you have to do is write up your case and publish it in the appropriate scientific journals."

      Further to the jury analogy. It seems your ignorance of facts and processes goes far beyond the area of science.

      In court scenarios both sides of a case are given equal status. Both are allowed to address the evidence and present their interpretation of that evidence. Both are involved in the choosing of the 'peers' who will consider the cases as presented.

      In the choosing of those peers great effort is made to ensure those chosen are as free of bias as is possible, even to the point of changing the venue for the trial if it is deemed necessary to achieve a panel of peers free of bias.

      None of this occurs in the question of the case for evolution. There is no hearing of both sides, there is no effort to achieve an unbiased set of peers. In fact in the choosing of peers to judge the case for evolution it is just the opposite as every effort is made to squelch any opposing view. Anyone who may have an objective view of the case for evolution is scorned and derided as being biased against science and therefore unfit to express an opinion.

      "Seems we've reached the point we always do where you're reduced to flat out lying to save face. Pathetic."

      Yes, we have arrived at the point we always do. The point where you realize you cannot provide answers to support your rhetoric so you blame me of lying and scurry away telling yourself how smart you are.

      The truth is, ghostrider, I can't think of a single time you have actually answered a question put to you. You post links to articles, most of which do not provide any more of an answer than you do. Other than that, it's always just old rhetoric and insults.

      You continually claim you have an extensive science background yet you can never seem to provide even the most basic type of answer. My guess is your 'extensive scientific background' consists solely of youtube videos and talkorigins.

      So run off until next time when yet again you will provide nothing but rhetoric and insults when questions are put to you.

      Delete
    39. Nic

      There has been no answer from you nor has there even been an attempt at an answer.


      Sigh. More flat out lying from Nic. The answer was given here as well as several supporting scientific papers. Why Nic thinks lying about this will help him is a mystery.

      In court scenarios both sides of a case are given equal status. Both are allowed to address the evidence and present their interpretation of that evidence. Both are involved in the choosing of the 'peers' who will consider the cases as presented

      That was done in the scientific literature over the last 100 years. The Creationists failed miserably. All you can do is whine and lie about the results.

      BTW Nic, here are some of the many questions you cowardly ran from.

      "Where is your explanation for the empirical finds Nic? All of the fossil legged whales must have all been separate "kinds" who lived at the same time since they're all found in (supposedly) Flood laid sediment. Yet they all occupy different date ranges in the sediment. Pakicetus is found in 50 MY strata. Ambulocetus in 48 MY strata. Rhodocetus in 45 MY strata. Dorudon in 35 MY strata. Squalodon in 25 MY strata. Kentriodon in 20 MY strata.

      Why the separation Nic? Why aren't they all mixed together with extant whale remains? Why are none found in strata before 55 MY?

      It's the same for fossil equine species. They're all found in "Flood" sediments so must have lived at the same time. Yet we find Eohippus in 52 MY strata. Orohippus in 50 MY strata. Epihippus in 47 MY strata. Mesohippus in 32 MY strata. Miohippus in 24 MY strata. Parahippus in 20 MY strata. Pliohippus in 12 MY strata.
      Modern horses in 3.5 MY or less strata.

      Why the pattern Nic? Why not all mixed together? Science has a good answer. You have pitiful flailing."

      Lying and running from evidence won't make your case to anyone Nic.

      Delete
    40. ghostrider,

      "Sigh. More flat out lying from Nic. The answer was given here as well as several supporting scientific papers."

      Really?

      My question to you was how would you empirically test the fossil record and how would you empirically demonstrate Pakicetus was an animal in transition to becoming a cetacean?

      Where in the following is an answer even remotely related to that question to be found?

      ghostrider: "LOL! More Creationist ignorance. Science isn't split into two distinct fields of "historical vs. empirical". That's another Ken Ham boner. The scientific method for all science requires empirical testing of hypotheses, which is exactly what ToE is based on.

      It does to the satisfaction of the scientific community and to people who actually study the subject. Your ignorant layman's opinion isn't worth a bucket of spit. BTW scientific theories aren't required to "show improbable" other claimed explanations. They only have to provide positive evidence for their own argument. If you want to champion an alternate view you mist provide positive evidence for that view.

      You empirically make detailed measurements of all its morphological features and you find lots of physical evidence in the ankle joints, skull, dentition, ear bones that are all clearly transitional between extant cetaceans and land dwelling artiodactyls.

      Here's another good paper on cetacean evolution that you won't read either.

      From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises

      I notice you dropped horse evolution and the dating of different strata like a hot potato. Remember the Creationist motto - if you ignore the evidence then the evidence doesn't exist!"

      This is nothing there but your usual rhetoric. It does not even come close to the level of answering my question.

      "That was done in the scientific literature over the last 100 years."

      Sure it was. Would that be why evolutionary thought is more in question now than it has ever been since Darwin published? Talking about living with your head in the sand.

      "Pakicetus is found in 50 MY strata. Ambulocetus in 48 MY strata. Rhodocetus in 45 MY strata. Dorudon in 35 MY strata. Squalodon in 25 MY strata. Kentriodon in 20 MY strata."

      This is only evidence of fossils in a different layer of dirt, nothing more. You're applying your evolutionary mindset in assuming because they are in a different level one must have logically followed another in time. That is all that is ghostrider, an assumption. Supporting this assumption with empirical, demonstrable, repeatable evidence is what you have been asked to do and have not done.

      "Why the pattern Nic?"

      There is no pattern outside of your assumptions. Fossils of all kinds are found in various levels of sediment. But to evolution fossils cannot be out of sequence so when one is found it simply claims the organism in question evolved earlier than previously believed.

      Coelacanth is a prime example. It was believed to have been alive 65 million years ago according to fossil evidence and extinct since that time. How did that work out?

      "Lying and running from evidence won't make your case to anyone Nic."

      As is usual ghostrider, it turns out it is you who is lying and running from the evidence. Personally, I'm beginning to find your continual dodging quite boring.

      Delete
    41. Boring Creationist liar is boring.

      Delete
    42. ghostrider,

      "Boring Creationist liar is boring."

      Really, that's the best you have? Yet again you have your lunch handed to you and this is the best response you can muster. My 5 year grandson displays more maturity. This is absolutely pathetic.

      Why not take the fact that you cannot provide answers to what should be very easy questions if you really have the science education you claim. Your answers may not be correct but at least it would display some understanding of the subject and show a little maturity. Eventually you will need to come to the realization you don't know what you like to think you know. Use the opportunity to actually learn.

      Delete
    43. Boring Creationist liar is still boring

      Delete
    44. "This is only evidence of fossils in a different layer of dirt, nothing more. You're applying your evolutionary mindset in assuming because they are in a different level one must have logically followed another in time. That is all that is ghostrider, an assumption."

      I guess ghostrider is trusting the validity of radiometric dating to assume the different ages of the layers.

      I don't want to assume what you do or don't think about this Nic, but is it fair to say you don't trust radiometric dating and if so what are the reasons for that? Just curious that's all.

      Delete
    45. Slittle87

      I guess ghostrider is trusting the validity of radiometric dating to assume the different ages of the layers.


      Not just radiometric dating though that is used to provide the chronology of the depositions. It's also the Law of superposition which is the foundation for all modern geology. Also it's the easily discernible different materials in layers of strata. When looking at the geologic column it's easy to tell the difference in layers - sandstone, limestone, basalt, etc. Here's a good example of the Missouri geologic column.

      Geology is another subject Creationists run screaming from.

      Delete
    46. Slittle87,

      "I don't want to assume what you do or don't think about this Nic, but is it fair to say you don't trust radiometric dating and if so what are the reasons for that? Just curious that's all."

      Radiometric dating is not the most trustworthy tool in the box. It must function under the thumb of several assumptions such as how much of an element was in the rock when it was formed, whether or not any forces affected the rate of decay and whether the rate of decay has remained constant over the life of the rock. These are all factors which cannot be known and must be assumed.

      So, the short answer is no, I do not put much stock in radiometric dating, it is simply built on too many assumptions.

      That being said does not mean it is totally useless as a geological tool if properly applied.

      Delete
    47. ghostrider,

      "Boring Creationist liar is still boring"

      And you never want to grow up and actually learn something as it would just take too much effort and would spoil the little fantasy world you've built around your devotion to evolution. I think Peter Pan would serve you better as a screen name. It would certainly describe your attitude.

      Delete
    48. Boring Creationist liar who has steadfastly refused to read any of the scientific literature provided him for fear he may learn something is still boring.

      Delete
    49. ghostrider,

      "refused to read any of the scientific literature provided him,..."

      Sorry, I did read them. I wasn't impressed with them as you obviously are, but I did read them.

      Delete
    50. Nic

      Sorry, I did read them.


      LOL! Of course you didn't. Jesus doesn't like it when you tell such blatant lies.

      Delete
    51. ghostrider,

      "LOL! Of course you didn't."

      I know this will come as a shock to you, but some of us are able to think for ourselves and don't drink the evolution kool-aid. Obviously you just aren't bright enough to see the obvious problems in logic of which these papers are guilty.

      Everyone one of the papers you provided are guilty of assuming what they are trying to prove. A really basic logical fallacy about which both you and the writers seem totally unaware.

      I know it's hard for you to believe that someone could read one of your favourite fairy tales and not be swayed by it. But that's the way it is, get used to it.

      Delete
    52. Nic thanks for your thoughts on radiometric dating.

      "That being said does not mean it is totally useless as a geological tool if properly applied."

      In what ways can it be properly applied?

      Delete
    53. Nic

      Everyone one of the papers you provided are guilty of assuming what they are trying to prove.


      Thanks for more confirming evidence you lied when you said you actually read the papers.

      Delete
    54. ghostrider,

      "Thanks for more confirming evidence you lied when you said you actually read the papers."

      Wow, you have an incredible form of logic. Or should I say an incredible lack of logic? How does the fact I don't accept the conclusions presented in the papers confirm I did not read them?

      Are you really so delusional that you believe these articles contain irrefutable proof of evolution? You must, or you wouldn't make such a ridiculously stupid statement.

      Delete
    55. Go ahead and describe the evidence for cetacean evolution offered in the Mcgowen, Liu, and Thewissen papers. Even if you disagree just describe them here. You don't have to go over them all, just the top 5 will do. Should be easy if you really read the papers like you claimed.

      Time to put up or shut up Nic.

      Delete
    56. ghostrider,

      "Again the event itself doesn't have to be observed or repeated, just the evidence the event leaves behind."

      "You really have no excuse for getting this one wrong."

      ghostrider's link: Empirical Evidence: A Definition; LiveScience web page


      The following comment can be found on the link you sent in your effort to show me how you understand the definition of empirical evidence so well and I do not.

      Just to refresh your memory here is your comment; "Again the event itself doesn't have to be observed or repeated, just the evidence the event leaves behind."

      From your link: LIVESCIENCE; Empirical Evidence: A Definition:

      Quote: "According to the Pennsylvania State University Libraries, there are some things one can look for when determining if evidence is empirical:

      "Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation,..."

      "Can the experiment be recreated and tested?"

      There is more, but that is sufficient.

      There you go ghostrider, the link you supplied in your plan to embarrass me just hoisted you on your own petard. Well done. Better get a bandage for that wound.

      When you're finished bleeding maybe you would like to take another crack at explaining to us how you would provide empirical evidence that Pakicetus was a transitional creature. You can use the guidelines on the LiveScience page link you sent me to help you.

      I'll be waiting patiently. :)

      Delete
    57. Nic

      "Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation,..."

      "Can the experiment be recreated and tested?"

      There is more, but that is sufficient.


      Sufficient to gain you entry into the Stupid Creationist Hall of Fame maybe.

      Tests and experiments are performed on the evidence events leave behind. Those tests and experiments can be repeated.

      An example is genetic sequencing of extant species and creating a best fit phylogeny. Those tests examine the empirical data and are repeatable by anyone, even moron Creationists.

      I see you can't supply that overview of the cetacean evolutionary evidence. I knew you couldn't because you lied about reading the papers. Lying when you're cornered seems to be second nature to you.

      Delete
    58. ghostrider,

      "Sufficient to gain you entry into the Stupid Creationist Hall of Fame maybe."

      And how do experiments on the fossils tell you it was a transitional animal? How do you recreate and test the transitional nature of the creature?

      Genetic sequencing tells you nothing in that regard. It does nothing to prove Pakicetus was transitional without your presuppositions in place.

      Remember, genetic similarity does not necessarily indicate relatedness. Even as an ignorant creationist I know that much. Apparently you, as an educated scientist, do not.

      You're simply incredible. It does not matter to what extent you are proven wrong you will still argue you are right. I guess you deserve credit for perseverance, except that this type of perseverance results in you remaining ignorant when you have an opportunity to learn.

      It's not that hard ghostrider. Just mouth the words silently until you get used to them. Go ahead, try it; ghostrider was wrong, ghostrider was wrong. Keep working at it and it will get easier.

      Delete
    59. Boring lying Creationist is back to being boring again.

      Delete
    60. ghostrider,

      "Boring lying Creationist is back to being boring again."

      I guess I can assume from the childish response you've finally come to the realization you cannot answer my question and the realization you really don't understand the nature of empirical science after all.

      Just chalk it up as a learning experience and move on, remembering not to make the same mistake again.

      Maybe you should actually read the LiveScience web page you referred too. If you had read it before putting the link in your post you might have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment. Oh well, live and learn.

      Take care until next time.

      Delete
    61. Slittle87,

      "In what ways can it be properly applied?"

      Google problems with radiometric dating, you will get a bunch of articles to read that cover subject quite well.

      Delete
    62. "Google problems with radiometric dating, you will get a bunch of articles to read that cover subject quite well."

      Sure, I can do that (and have), but was interested in your viewpoint and thinking on the topic.

      Delete
    63. Sure, I can do that (and have), but was interested in your viewpoint and thinking on the topic.

      Nic doesn't do any thinking on any scientific topic. All he can do is regurgitate nonsense from AIG or ICR that he doesn't understand and can't defend.

      Nic could of course prove me wrong at any time by offering intelligent, informed commentary on the science topics raised here. But he won't.

      Delete
    64. ghostrider

      "he doesn't understand and can't defend."

      Let's see. Only a couple of weeks ago I demonstrated you had no clue what the real findings in Lenski's long term bacterial research were and today I just finished demonstrating you had no clue what constituted empirical scientific investigation.

      Yeah, I guess you're right, you're much too smart for me. You win.

      Delete
    65. Slittle87,

      "Sure, I can do that (and have), but was interested in your viewpoint and thinking on the topic."

      As to its usefulness in actually being able to determine how old rocks are, I don't believe it can be accurate enough to be of any great use. As I said, it is dependent on too many assumptions in order to function. Remove these assumptions and the data becomes meaningless.

      Where it can be of use is in the area of comparison between material in a given area. If testing of material over an area gives similar results it can be seen as evidence that the material in question may have come from the same source at around the same time.

      Delete
    66. Nic

      Let's see. Only a couple of weeks ago I demonstrated you had no clue what the real findings in Lenski's long term bacterial research were and today I just finished demonstrating you had no clue what constituted empirical scientific investigation.


      Oh, you mean when you regurgitated some YEC nonsense over a Lenski paper you never read? And how you couldn't parse a simple English sentence in the description of empirical science, one of the few links you actually did look at? Yeah, you came out smelling like a rose in that one. :D

      Yeah, I guess you're right, you're much too smart for me.

      At least I'm smart enough to not shoot off my mouth on topics I'm totally ignorant of like some Fundies we know.

      Delete
    67. Nic

      If testing of material over an area gives similar results it can be seen as evidence that the material in question may have come from the same source at around the same time


      What about cases where two contiguous areas give vastly different times. What does that tell you?

      Delete
    68. ghostrider,

      "Oh, you mean when you regurgitated some YEC nonsense over a Lenski paper you never read?"

      No, it was that part where you didn't understand the bacteria always had the ability you thought it had gained via evolution.

      "And how you couldn't parse a simple English sentence,...."

      Do you mean that sentence which described how empirical science operated in the manner I had been trying to tell you it did for weeks? Is that sentence you mean? Yeah, I must admit that one was bad for you. Sorry.

      "At least I'm smart enough to not shoot off my mouth on topics I'm totally ignorant of like some Fundies we know."

      Yeah, you sure are.

      "What about cases where two contiguous areas give vastly different times. What does that tell you?"

      It could tell you number of things. One is older than the other. One was laid down in a different manner than the other. One had been exposed to different forces during formation than the other.

      I know where you're trying to go, but you will be walking there on a whole bunch of unsupportable assumptions again.

      Delete
    69. Nic

      It could tell you number of things. One is older than the other.


      Can you tell how much older?

      One was laid down in a different manner than the other.

      Why would the manner they were laid down affect the decay rates of the radioisotopes? Mechanism please.

      One had been exposed to different forces during formation than the other.

      Why would being exposed to different forces during formation affect the decay rates of the radioisotopes? Mechanism please.

      You weren't just rectally extracting your "facts" again now, were you?

      Delete
    70. ghostrider,

      "Can you tell how much older?"

      Not without making some assumptions.

      "Why would the manner they were laid down affect the decay rates of the radioisotopes? Mechanism please."

      If one was laid down from volcanic eruption it would naturally differ from that which was laid down via sedimentation.

      "Why would being exposed to different forces during formation affect the decay rates of the radioisotopes? Mechanism please.

      Same as above.

      Do you not think before asking questions?

      "You weren't just rectally extracting your "facts" again now, were you?"

      Too bad, just when I thought you were starting to show some maturity. Cest' la vie.

      Delete
    71. Nic

      Not without making some assumptions.


      What assumptions? More precisely, which assumptions are valid and will make the two measured dates be correct?

      If one was laid down from volcanic eruption it would naturally differ from that which was laid down via sedimentation.

      That wasn't the question Nic. It's well known in physics that heating a sample above the closure temperature will allow accumulated daughter products to diffuse and "reset" the clock. The question was how would the manner of being laid down affect the decay rate of the isotopes. Try again.

      Same as above.

      You above non-answer is invalid as shown.

      Do you accept the physics of closure temperature "resetting" the radiometric decay clock? Yes or no.

      Delete
    72. ghostrider,

      "That wasn't the question Nic."

      It is a completely valid answer.

      "reset" the clock."

      Reset the clock to what?

      Take some time to think this over before you answer. You will have plenty of time as I am leaving on holidays at the end of the day and will not be posting while I'm gone.

      Delete
    73. Nic

      It is a completely valid answer.


      Just not to the question asked. Which makes your deflecting non-answer worthless.

      Reset the clock to what?

      LOL! You don't have the faintest idea how radiometric dating works, do you?

      You will have plenty of time as I am leaving on holidays at the end of the day and will not be posting while I'm gone.

      Have a nice vacation, travel safe.

      Delete
    74. ghostrider,

      "LOL! You don't have the faintest idea how radiometric dating works, do you?"

      Just answer the question. Reset to what?

      "Have a nice vacation, travel safe."

      I always try to do both. Thank you for the kind words.

      Delete
    75. Nic

      "LOL! You don't have the faintest idea how radiometric dating works, do you?"

      Just answer the question. Reset to what?


      As radioactive elements decay the original (parent) material will produce decay (daughter) products at a known rate. Measuring the ratio of parent / daughter isotopes will give you the age the original material was all intact with no daughter products present. Heating a material above its closure temperature will cause any daughter products in the sample to diffuse out and effectively reset the sample to the all original state, i.e. reset the decay countdown.

      That is why basalt (solidified lava) is so easy to date using radiometric methods. When the lava was molten it was "reset". That means any decay daughter products found in the basalt can be used to back calculate the time the rock was formed.

      Radiometric Dating

      Closure Temperature

      Now you know.

      Oh, and contrary to idiotic YEC claims the rate of nuclear decay for various known decay series did not change by the six orders of magnitude required to make a 6000 year old Earth possible.

      Delete
  23. www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4ZJXPl99Q

    "The Principle" brings to light astonishing new scientific observations challenging the Copernican Principle; the foundational assumption underlying the modern scientific world view. The idea that the Earth occupies no special or favored position in the cosmos has launched the last two scientific revolutions - the Copernican Revolution and Relativity - and, as Lawrence Krauss has said, we could be on the verge of a third, with "Copernicus coming back to haunt us". Interviews with leading cosmologists are interspersed with the views of dissidents and mavericks, bringing into sharp focus the challenges and implications not only for cosmology, but for our cultural and religious view of reality.

    http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gabblebabble, are you seriously trying to resurrect the idea of the geocentric universe?

    Theists produce videos like this one, and Expelled, and then wonder why nobody takes them seriously. If nothing else, videos like these are great for a good laugh. And since it has been demonstrated that laughter is good for you, myself and everyone with even a high school level understanding of science should be thanking the producers of these movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And since it has been demonstrated that laughter is good for you, myself and everyone with even a high school level understanding of science should be thanking the producers of these movies."
      I agree. Richard Dawkins was hilarious! It was so funny hearing his belief that life was formed on the back of crystals that was brought here by aliens. LOL

      Delete
    2. Phillymike, yes, that would make me laugh as well. But since Dawkins only speaks for himself, and has not been scientifically relevant for at least twenty-five years, I'm not sure what your point is.

      Delete
    3. I wasn't aware of his irrelevance. So what is your theory of how life was formed?

      Delete
  25. Just like gravity, bro. Just like gravity.

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

    ReplyDelete


  27. Willam Spearshake aka joehalfgallon aka brian douglas aka pro hac vice etc says

    "Theists produce videos like this one, and Expelled, and then wonder why nobody takes them seriously. If nothing else, videos like these are great for a good laugh."

    What a fool like you takes seriously or not is irrelevant.

    Willam Spearshake aka joehalfgallon aka brian douglas aka pro hac vice etc says


    "And since it has been demonstrated that laughter is good for you, myself and everyone with even a high school level understanding of science should be thanking the producers of these movies."

    What a fool going by the name of Willam Spearshake etc doesn't understand, he laughs at.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jack Jones/Virgil Cain/Frankie/Joe G. How has the toaster repair business been going?

      Delete
    2. Not this bullshit again. Not the toasters!!!

      Delete
  28. With supporters like Nic, Jack, did I do that, PhillyMike, Topgoosz. John and others like them, friend Cornelius Hunter must really make some lasting impression in the scientific world.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ed, as a Darwinworshipper without any evidence for the fairytale called evolution (whatever that is), your brain is heavily degenerated. But wait, even that they called it evolution.
    Such a sad person preaching the teaching of the false prophet Darwin, the copycat, thief of other ideas, the biggest scientist of all time... yeah right.

    http://thedailyjournalist.com/theinvestigative/experts-who-claim-evidence-shows-darwin-plagiarized-matthew-s-prior-discovery-of-natural-selection/

    ReplyDelete
  30. Btw Ed, it's so easy to beat any Darwinworshipper in a debate because there's no evidence for the fairytle of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  31. For 154 years we have been telling ourselves a great lie about the discovery of natural selection. For so long and so often has the lie been told that we

    Discovery of the worlds greatest science fraud
    believe it to be true. Darwinists live in fear that only chaos will ensue if the truth is accepted that they are named for the worlds greatest science fraudster only because of his fraud.

    Mike Sutton...


    ReplyDelete
  32. What's your next comment Ed? Sticks and striped goats

    Ed = a big laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Darwin.. the greatest science-fraudster.
    Really love that line.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ed's believe in darwinism is solely based on pop science journalism, you know, the bat falls for millions years out of a tree and suddenly the bat evolved wings because the poor bat was so tired of smashing the ground.
    Now that's real science, discovered by, you never guess, a darwin follower.

    ReplyDelete
  35. How boring life must be at Saturday Afternoon...

    ReplyDelete
  36. No sticks and striped goats Ed?
    If you feel boring... try this.

    http://darwinstories.blogspot.nl

    Just skip the evidence about the bearded budah fraudulent life.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It might be a joke: religious fanatics, brainwashed to believe that everything in the world revolves around their (interpretation of the) Bible, never understanding the magnitude of their isolation. After 150 years still believing that evolution theory is about to collapse, just like these Jehova people that again and again postpone the End of Times.
    It so much looks like the ravings of a paranoid person, always convinced that the bad world fears him and is constantly conspiring against him.

    "Yes! They actually know God exists! But they want to deny Him! They are led by greed and lust and want to lead an immoral life!!!!"

    The problem of a fanatic is that he cannot possibly imagine that a person can honestly have a different opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Tsss... Such a frustration.. Evilution ''theory means nothing in the world. Nobody's talk about it except a few.
    Scientists? Come on, they all gonna die and whats left? No hope no future, nothing. How worst can a life be?
    But your understanding of the bible is really embarrassing feed by Dawkins and all the other fools where you lay your life on in their hands.
    Wow, Ed have recently buy Jerry Coyne's fairytale ''Why evilotion is true?''
    Now i'm impressed... not.
    Ed deserves a big tap on his shoulder.

    Get a life instead of demonstrate your frustration.

    So what have you learn after reading that unscientific rubbish based on pseudo-science?
    Teach me Ed, teach me why evilution is true. I'm dying to know it so i can do anything the bible forbid.

    But Ed, nobody is taking you serious. After all these years you're stil unable to provide valid empirical evidence for the theory of fairytale.
    Nobody's taking you serious because you got nothing you can defend. Even your belief in the fairytale of evilution makes you mentally sick because you know very well there's no evidence for that evolution-crap.

    But well, sometimes it's amusing to see you show up with nothing then a bunch of nothing.

    ReplyDelete