Friday, February 26, 2016

The 12 Points of Evolution: Evolutionists Outdo The Office

And Air Travel

When The Office manager Michael Scott (played by Steve Carell) gives a guest lecture at the local business school, he reveals not only the depths of his ignorance but his lack of self-awareness. At one point he hilariously makes an attempt at profundity, informing the students with all assuredness that “There are four kinds of business: Tourism, food service, railroads, and sales.” Realizing his categories have left something out he quickly adds “And hospitals-slash-manufacturing. And air travel.” Scott hasn’t had a deep thought in his life, yet is certain his knowledge and intellect tower over those around him.

I was reminded of Carell’s hilarious portrayal of Scott this week when evolutionist Dan Graur made an attempt to describe “All of evolutionary biology” in 12 points. One can picture Graur, like Carell, starting with the four main points of evolution, and quickly realizing there is another point or two that he left out. But Graur’s first point is beyond anything fiction writers could have dreamed up:

1. Evolutionary biology is ruled by handful of logical principles, each of which has repeatedly withstood rigorous empirical and observational testing.

Logical principles? Rigorous empirical testing? You’ve got to be kidding. The entire biological world arising by chance comes from logical principles? A theory that contradicts science at every turn has repeatedly withstood rigorous testing? The sheer pompous absurdity leaves Carell in the dust.

But it gets better.

5. All novelty in evolution starts as a single mutation arising in a single individual at a single time point.

Here Graur has spoken the unspeakable. In his ramblings Graur has laid bare the uncomfortable truth: evolutionary thought holds that the world arose spontaneously. Those Epicurean chance events, whether swerving atoms or mutating molecules, conspired to create everything we see. The idea is prima facie ridiculous and evolutionists do everything to dress it up with more palatable notions of natural selection, fitness landscapes, and all manner of Aristotelian euphemisms (“Dinosaurs were experimenting with flight”).

Not surprisingly evolutionists rushed in to cover over the embarrassment. Outdoing Steve Carell, Matthew Cobb hilariously added predation:

I think the main thing that’s not quite right about this is 5, “All novelty in evolution starts as a single mutation arising in a single individual at a single time point”. While this is essentially true, it misses out two of the most significant novelties in the history of life, which were not created by mutation, but instead by instances of predation that went wrong and instead produced symbiosis, with one kind of cell living inside another. The first such event took place around 2 billion years ago, somewhere in the ocean. Prior to that moment, all life had consisted of small organisms called prokaryotes which had no cell nucleus or mitochondria (these are the tiny cellular structures that help provide you and me and giraffes and mushrooms with energy). Everything changed when one unicellular life-form, known as an achaebacterium, tried to eat another, called a eubacterium. On this one occasion the eubacterium survived inside its would-be predator and became trapped, losing many of its genes to its host and eventually turning into a molecular powerhouse – the mitochondrion – that produced energy from chemical reactions and was used by the new eukaryotic cell. These new eukaryotic life-forms were a weird hybrid, composed of two different organisms. They were our ancestors. A second, similar, event occurred around a billion years ago, when a eukaryotic cell, complete with mitochondria, engulfed a eubacterium that had long ago evolved the trick of acquiring energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis. Predation went wrong again, and another form of symbiosis eventually appeared. This gave rise to algae and eventually plants, in which small organelles called chloroplasts, the descendants of the intended eubacterial victim, turn light into energy for the benefit of the eukaryotic host.

Of course one could also add any number of other evolutionary just-so stories, from Woese’s network of horizontal gene transfer creating a coordinated lateral evolution to retroviruses controlling embryonic development, evolutionary story-telling has no shortage of mechanisms that, as luck would have it, not only were created by evolution but, in turn, have produced more evolutionary change of their own.

The serendipity is staggering. Cobb’s fortuitous predators, as well as all the other imagined evolutionary mechanisms must have been, ultimately, created by those random mutations.

Graur put his finger on it.

All the evolutionary just-so stories, no matter how ridiculous, nonetheless owe their existence to those chance mutations. The rest is serendipity, just ask Michael Scott.

98 comments:

  1. He should have named it "The Twelve Biases of Evolution."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Poor creationists. Still impotently hiding in the shadows and throwing their tiny rocks at the magnificent parade of science that has passed them by. Still beating up their silly little strawmen and pretending they have made a relevant critique.

    Same as it ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Hunter, 'just lettin' you know that links to source material are valuable -- save folks like me the need to google stuff.

    I am using this link to enumerate the 12 points: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/what-are-the-fundamentals-of-evolutionary-biology/

    I love rule 3:
    "New methods merely allow more rapid collection or better analysis of data; they do not affect the evolutionary principles." Yes! Yes! Yes! There is nothing at all new in the theory of evolution. Well, a few surprises along the way such as variations on what is a mutation: HGT, symbiotic predation (described above), etc. But in reality there are these two forces that completely define the theory: Random Variation and Natural Selection. Dispute the yelling and hand waving of a few, that's it, the whole theory in a nutshell.

    Dr. Moran must love rule 7, "The fate of mutations that do not affect fitness is determined by random genetic drift; that of mutations that do affect fitness by the combination of selection and random genetic drift." After all, random drift happens a whole heck of a lot more than actual selection. And then, by some magic, random drift produces all sorts of cool technology.

    Matthew Cobb's addition of predation to rule 5 is, well, interesting. It is assumed that these predatory symbiosis events did occur. In my economy these are just another in a list of variations on the theme of mutational event. What would be intriguing to me would be a replication of one of these events -- especially the first. Is it actually possible to meld an achaebacterium with an eubacterium and get something that lives and reproduces. I am not at all sure such is possible.

    My favorite point for stupidity, however, is point 12: "12. Homo sapiens does not occupy a privileged position in the grand evolutionary scheme."

    This strange view that the other organisms are every bit as "evolved" as homo sapiens are is just silly. We may make up less mass than the ants -- that's what some tell me anyway. There may be fewer humans than there are bacterium in my own gut. However, we have a knowledge base that has no parallel whatsoever in the world of organisms. We have a mastery over nature, often to the detriment of nature, that is seconded by the beaver. A very distant second. Great Scott, we have paved the planet!

    The fact that evolutionary biologists can't figure out that we are a fundamental different category is all the proof that should be needed that they are talking through their, um, donkey.

    Oh, and it may be true that some of these principles -- change in allele frequency -- actually work. What is very far from true is that there is a convincing case that these principles are vaguely sufficient to explain life as we know it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One commentator said:
    "Graur and Cobb have answered my prayers–getting at the core of evolution/evolutionary biology in clear, concise statements. I, although I acknowledge that they are ‘as high above [me] as heaven is hell"
    There, we have a doctrine and a priesthood on display!

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the other hand it's easy to summarize the total knowledge and details ID-Creationism has to offer as its science:

    1. GAWDDIDIT!
    2. See item 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, ID's primary strategy is to show where evolutionists say "chance did it".

      Delete
    2. bFast

      Actually, ID's primary strategy is to show where evolutionists say "chance did it".


      Which demonstrates nicely just how ignorant of actual evolutionary theory the ID-Creationists are.

      Delete
  6. bFast

    My favorite point for stupidity, however, is point 12: "12. Homo sapiens does not occupy a privileged position in the grand evolutionary scheme."

    This strange view that the other organisms are every bit as "evolved" as homo sapiens are is just silly.


    Humans are only "special" if you arbitrarily choose intelligence as the most important evolved physiological trait. You could just as arbitrarily choose size, or speed, or flying ability.

    Drop a naked human and a great white shark into the middle of the ocean, see which one survives.

    Drop a naked human and a bald eagle off a 1000' tall cliff, see which one survives.

    Toss a naked human and a thermophile bacterium into boiling hydrothermal pond, see which one survives.

    Your religion teaches that you are special so you spin the evidence to make yourself feel special. Science doesn't have such heavily skewed religious biases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make my point.

      Great white sharks are endangered because humans are so darn good at killing 'em.

      Not only can humans jump off the 1000 foot cliff, but they can make the cliff.

      Boiling hydrothermal ponds? I don't know what man has done with 'em, but I am sure that if we wanted to we could put a person in the center of a pond that would even cook thermophile bacterium.

      On size, man, complete with his mobile "shell" is bigger than any other animal.

      On speed and flying ability, we are the only organism that has broken the speed of sound ('sept for the hitch-hikers catching a ride with us, of course.)

      Big? We have measured the universe.

      Small? We have looked upon the single atom.

      "Throw a man naked ..."? Um, we aren't naked. All men live in a bubble of man made technology.

      "Your religion teaches that you are special so you spin the evidence to make yourself feel special." Um, the opposite is true. The only ones who don't recognize that we are a species with a very special position are those whose god is chance. Religion drives science -- and it matters.

      Delete
    2. bFast

      You make my point.


      Not at all. Just pointing out you're making the big blunder of confusing evolved human intelligence with the technical products produced through that intelligence.

      I understand however. Your religion teaches that humans were created "special" so you have to ignore all evidence to the contrary.

      Delete
    3. Ghost, be honest, survey real people -- not religious people, regular folk. Do they believe that humans are somehow, well, superior? They do. It is your religion, not mine, that is driving the aberrant view.

      Also, our technology is us. Humans are the only living organism in the known universe that has this incredible ability to "evolve" technology "standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before". This rabid burst of intelligently evolved technology is what sets us way apart from, way above, all other organisms.

      This is not what my religion teaches. My religion teaches that it is our ability to relate to God that sets us apart. My shticks with my religion's perspective are:
      1 - I don't have a clue what relationship the animals have with God. They may have a lot more relationship than all that.

      2 - Folk like you who actively seek to not have a relationship with God remain to be in the homo-sapien super-class. Atheists are able to use technology to break the sound barrier as well as Christians are.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "confusing evolved human intelligence,..."

      Let's get right down to basics. Demonstrate for us how human intelligence evolved as you claim. To do so you would be required to meet at least three demands.

      First, provide evidence that humans are now in possession of more intelligence than they were 50,000 years ago. Not more technology, but more intelligence.

      Second, lay out the details showing the nature of the process by which this increase in intelligence evolved though naturalistic events.

      Third, lay out the process by which you would demonstrate this process empirically through observation and repeatable experimentation and testing.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      Demonstrate for us how human intelligence evolved as you claim.


      It's pretty easy Nic. Anatomically modern humans didn't appear until around 100K years ago. For the few million years before that all that existed in the human lineage were our early hominid ancestors. Can't have human intelligence when you don't have any humans.

      Did you ever figure out how radiometric dating works and how heating can "reset" the samples?

      Delete
    6. Ghost, sometimes you are a space cadet.

      Nic said, "First, provide evidence that humans are now in possession of more intelligence than they were 50,000 years ago."

      You responded "It's pretty easy Nic. Anatomically modern humans didn't appear until around 100K years ago."

      So what does the fact that modern humans appeared 100,000 years ago say about their level of intelligence 50,000 years ago? Non sequitur.

      Delete
    7. bFast, sometimes you are disgustingly dishonest.

      You quote-mined my answer to one of Nic's questions the context of which I provided then applied it to a totally different question.

      That's exactly why you IDiots have the lower than low reputation you do.

      Delete
    8. Oh c-mon Ghost.
      Nic asked you three questions. You gave one answer. Your answer was not an answer to any one of his three questions. Which question were you attempting to answer?
      1 - Intelligence of humans 50,000 years ago?
      2 - Detail the natural processes.
      3 - Prove via repeatable experimentation and testing.

      As only one of these questions mentions years, and your answer mentions years, I presumed that you had answered his first question.

      Shut up the "you IDiots" rot, and look at how non sequitur your answer is. 'Matters not which question you answered.

      Delete
    9. Keep up the dishonesty and lying bFast. It will earn you lots of Get Into Heaven points for sure.

      Delete
    10. Quit the pitty party ghost. You said, "It's pretty easy Nic. Anatomically modern humans didn't appear until around 100K years ago." What question from Nic was this an answer to?

      Delete
    11. Sorry bFast, I don't answer to quote-mining liars.

      Delete
    12. ghostrider,

      "It's pretty easy Nic. Anatomically modern humans didn't appear until around 100K years ago."

      This answer would not even qualify as being in the ball park. All you've done is assert as fact what I asked you to demonstrate. You did not even attempt to demonstrate your claim.

      "Did you ever figure out how radiometric dating works and how heating can "reset" the samples?"

      I already knew how it worked, or didn't work. Maybe you should look up the work of Ephraim Fishbach and Jere Jenkins.

      Delete
    13. ghost, "Sorry bFast, I don't answer to quote-mining liars."

      What the heck is your definition of quote mining? All I ever did was site your words, giving you the credit for them, so as to participate in a conversation.

      rationalwiki.com defines quote mining as:
      "Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize."

      How did I do that when quoting you?

      Truth is, I pointed out that your answer was stupid. You cannot tolerate being seen as stupid because you have a weak ego. Now, grow up, get over it, and accept that even the mighty ghostrider is imperfect.

      Delete
    14. Nic's inane demand was answered, bFast saw fit to quote-mine the answer and lie about it. You clowns deserve each other.

      Delete
    15. ghostrider,

      "Nic's inane demand was answered, bFast saw fit to quote-mine the answer and lie about it. You clowns deserve each other."

      I guess the only interpretation I can make of your response is that you have absolutely no clue how to answer my questions. No surprise there.

      Delete
    16. IMHO humans are the only species who can think about things beyond survival and reproduction. That means that there is more to being human than just surviving. That's kinda special.

      Delete
  7. It's easy to hype evolution using speculations and sweeping statements about things unseen. "#5" is funny, stating that new features seen come from a single moment of de-entropization (of note is that I appear to be the second person to mention this word online) when the same camp talks of multiple simultaneous de-entropization events elsewhere when necessary (bats, anyone?). Talk about a house divided. Clearly, this list is rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to evolutionary theory man and chimp split from a common ancestor around 6 million years ago. I am interested in the range of opinions on what the real scientific status of this claim.
    1. A theory with a mathematical model and tested evidence.
    2. A hypothesis with a mathematical model but not tested.
    3.A hypothesis without a mathematical model or testing.
    4. other
    Is there another transition that anyone can find that meets criteria 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is worth looking up "Haldane's dilemma" which describes the difficulty of chimp to man evolution in the amount of (purported) time available.

      Delete
    2. Bill Cole

      According to evolutionary theory man and chimp split from a common ancestor around 6 million years ago.


      Not quite. That such a split actually took place is supported by enough positive evidence it's considered a scientific fact, although the exact date is a bit murky due to million of years of "cross stream" interbreeding. The theory of evolution is the explanation for the mechanisms that produced the differences between the species.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "That such a split actually took place is supported by enough positive evidence it's considered a scientific fact, although the exact date is a bit murky due to million of years of "cross stream" interbreeding."

      How about an empirical demonstration of this abundance of positive evidence which results in scientific fact.

      So far you've failed to answer my question as to why fish and whales swim differently or demonstrate how humans are more intelligent than they were 50,000 years ago. I fully expect this request will result in strike three.

      Delete
    4. Nic

      How about an empirical demonstration of this abundance of positive evidence which results in scientific fact.


      Easy Nic. Get off your lazy ass and go visit your local Natural History museum. Or check out the Biology or Genetics department of a local college. You won't because you're lazy and happy to stay a willfully ignorant fool.

      So far you've failed to answer my question as to why fish and whales swim differently

      Liar. Again.

      demonstrate how humans are more intelligent than they were 50,000 years ago

      That was your claim liar, not mine.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider,

      "Easy Nic. Get off your lazy ass and go visit your local Natural History museum. Or check out the Biology or Genetics department of a local college. You won't because you're lazy and happy to stay a willfully ignorant fool."

      No answer, no surprise. Strike three!

      Nic: "So far you've failed to answer my question as to why fish and whales swim differently."

      ghostrider: "Liar. Again."

      No answer, AGAIN!

      Nic: "demonstrate how humans are more intelligent than they were 50,000 years ago."

      ghostrider: "That was your claim liar, not mine."

      ghostrider to bFast on February 29th: "Just pointing out you're making the big blunder of confusing evolved human intelligence,..."

      If human intelligence evolved it had to evolve from something, did it not?

      So, yet again, ghostrider does not have an answer.

      Delete
    6. ghostride
      "Not quite. That such a split actually took place is supported by enough positive evidence it's considered a scientific fact, although the exact date is a bit murky due to million of years of "cross stream" interbreeding. The theory of evolution is the explanation for the mechanisms that produced the differences between the species."

      Can you give me an example of the type of evidence that makes this event considered a fact?

      Delete
    7. Bill Cole

      Can you give me an example of the type of evidence that makes this event considered a fact?


      Sure. The primary evidence comes from genome analysis. There is also corroborating evidence from the fossil record but it is not as complete.

      Great ape genetic diversity and population history

      Delete
    8. ghostrider
      Most great ape genetic variation remains uncharacterized1, 2; however, its study is critical for understanding population history3, 4, 5, 6, recombination7, selection8 and susceptibility to disease9, 10. Here we sequence to high coverage a total of 79 wild- and captive-born individuals representing all six great ape species and seven subspecies and report 88.8 million single nucleotide polymorphisms. Our analysis provides support for genetically distinct populations within each species, signals of gene flow, and the split of common chimpanzees into two distinct groups: Nigeria–Cameroon/western and central/eastern populations. We find extensive inbreeding in almost all wild populations, with eastern gorillas being the most extreme. Inferred effective population sizes have varied radically over time in different lineages and this appears to have a profound effect on the genetic diversity at, or close to, genes in almost all species. We discover and assign 1,982 loss-of-function variants throughout the human and great ape lineages, determining that the rate of gene loss has not been different in the human branch compared to other internal branches in the great ape phylogeny. This comprehensive catalogue of great ape genome diversity provides a framework for understanding evolution and a resource for more effective management of wild and captive great ape populations."

      I attached the abstract of the paper. Do you think this paper supports humans and chimps split from a common ancestor x years ago? Do you think this can be called a fact without a testable mechanism?

      Delete
    9. Bill Cole

      I attached the abstract of the paper. Do you think this paper supports humans and chimps split from a common ancestor x years ago?


      Absolutely it supports the idea. Try reading and understanding the paper (and the other studies the paper references) instead of just the abstract.

      Do you think this can be called a fact without a testable mechanism?

      That the split happened is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution provides the testable mechanism. If theory predicts we should see A,B,C in the genetic evidence (if our split hypothesis is correct) and we do indeed see A,B,C then the hypothesis has been tested and supported.

      Delete
    10. Ghostrider
      "That the split happened is a scientific fact."

      What is the basis for saying the split is a fact. Just because someone told you it is a fact you believe them?

      Delete
    11. Bill Cole

      What is the basis for saying the split is a fact.


      The large amount of consilient positive evidence from multiple scientific disciplines have established the split as a fact.

      Yes I do have technical training in evolutionary biology. I accept the scientific consensus on the human/chimp common ancestry because I understand the data and have no reason to suspect it was all faked.

      Delete
    12. Ghostrider
      "Yes I do have technical training in evolutionary biology. I accept the scientific consensus on the human/chimp common ancestry because I understand the data and have no reason to suspect it was all faked."

      Ok. Can you describe to me the evidence that makes this split a fact? Are you aware of any data that challenges the data that makes this statement factual? Could you define what a fact is and see if your data fits this definition?

      Delete
    13. Bill Cole

      Can you describe to me the evidence that makes this split a fact?


      Yes but not on this tiny blog. Go to Google Scholar and search "hominidae evolution" or "chimp human ancestor". You'll find hundreds if not thousands of papers on the topic. Papers like this one

      Evolution of life history and behavior in Hominidae: towards phylogenetic reconstruction of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor.

      Are you aware of any data that challenges the data that makes this statement factual?

      None that can withstand the slightest bit of technical scrutiny. There's lots of lies and BS on Creationist websites but that's all it is - lies and BS.

      Could you define what a fact is and see if your data fits this definition?

      I like S.J. Gould's definition - "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

      Delete
    14. Ghostrider
      "The origin of the fundamental behavioral differences between humans and our closest living relatives is one of the central issues of evolutionary anthropology. The prominent, chimpanzee-based referential model of early hominin behavior has recently been challenged on the basis of broad multispecies comparisons and newly discovered fossil evidence. Here, we argue that while behavioral data on extant great apes are extremely relevant for reconstruction of ancestral behaviors, these behaviors should be reconstructed trait by trait using formal phylogenetic methods.

      Evolution of life history and behavior in Hominidae: Towards phylogenetic reconstruction of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256188563_Evolution_of_life_history_and_behavior_in_Hominidae_Towards_phylogenetic_reconstruction_of_the_chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor [accessed Mar 5, 2016]."

      The paper you provided simply assumes that chimps are our closest relatives. What it does not support is biochemical evidence of the split from a common ancestor. Can you show evidence of the existence of the common ancestor? If this is considered a fact and one would be perverse to withhold provisional assent, I would think that you would need to be able to describe it in a few sentences or it would not meet Gould's requirements.

      Delete
    15. Bill Cole

      The paper you provided simply assumes that chimps are our closest relatives. What it does not support is biochemical evidence of the split from a common ancestor. Can you show evidence of the existence of the common ancestor? If this is considered a fact and one would be perverse to withhold provisional assent, I would think that you would need to be able to describe it in a few sentences or it would not meet Gould's requirements.


      Sorry Bill but it's become obvious you have no intention of learning, only throwing mud at things you don't understand. There is no one paper or one study that establishes human-chimp common ancestry. It's the consilient data from thousands of studies in multiple scientific disciplines (genetics, paleontology, anatomical studies, anthropology, etc.) that lead science to that conclusion.

      I've given you places to look and things to research for yourself. If you choose to remain willfully ignorant there's nothing I can do.

      Delete
    16. I find it interesting that you believe what you are saying.

      Facts have simple explanations everyone can understand. They come from observation and measurement.

      "There is no one paper or one study that establishes human-chimp common ancestry."

      Can you give me an example of any other "fact" that cannot be explained in a single paper?

      If it takes more then one paper then it does not meet the criteria that you gave by Gould.

      Delete
    17. OK Bill, you choose to stay willfully ignorant. Enjoy wallowing in the mud with your fellow ignorant Creationists.

      Delete
    18. Ad hom. argument means you have nothing. Based on what you have said and quoted I would say the transition from chimp to man from a common ancestor is an untested hypothesis. You are claiming it as a fact. I look forward to you explaining your position if you can find experimental evidence to support it.

      Delete
    19. Stay ignorant Bill. The world can always use more janitors and fry cooks. :)

      Delete
    20. I await your new found experimental data to relieve me of my ignorance :-)

      Delete
    21. It's all over the web, in science journals, in Natural History museums and genetics labs everywhere. Won't do you any good when you're too afraid to look at it though.

      Delete
    22. "It's all over the web, in science journals, in Natural History museums and genetics labs everywhere. Won't do you any good when you're too afraid to look at it though."

      And yet you cannot give me one experimental example that backs up your augment that evolution is a fact. Now look at Phillymike who says that facts don't explain anything. What gives? The theory that humans and chimps split from a common ancestor is an untested hypothesis and likely false.

      Delete
    23. Like most Creationists I see Bill Cole is too afraid to read the scientific literature. That's after I told him where to look, what to look for, and even provided a few sample papers.

      Oh well. One more willfully ignorant blustering Creationist won't threaten real science one bit.

      Delete
    24. Ghostrider
      I have read the scientific literature and see that humans have 50 de novo proteins and 50% different splicing sequences then chimps or apes. This makes your "fact" highly unlikely. Did you understand this or are you ignorant of these facts because if you were you could not have possibly taken the position you did. Let's see if you can reply to this without an ad hominem argument.

      Delete
    25. Sigh. Another willfully ignorant Liar for Jesus. Have a nice time lying for your religion.

      Delete
    26. So Christians are unable to contribute to scientific endeavors, and are liars to benefit their cause. The latter sounds like a claim more suited for members of one of the myriad of Jesuit orders fighting on all sides, but I'll move on without going further into that.

      Well, let it be known Master Darwin plagiarized the matured idea of NS by Patrick Matthew. What's funny is that between the first and latter editions of Origins show that Darwin miraculously gained the ideas while on the Beagle that he didn't even believe until almost a decade later. So maybe it's time for pots and kettles to judge themselves first before judging others.

      Delete
    27. Did I do that?

      So Christians are unable to contribute to scientific endeavors, and are liars to benefit their cause.


      Not all Christians or even most. But the YEC flavor who post on boards like these tend to be compulsive liars. See Nic and Bill Cole as examples.

      Well, let it be known Master Darwin plagiarized the matured idea of NS by Patrick Matthew

      I guess we'll add you to the compulsive liar list too. More correctly, you added yourself with that porky.

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just wonder what kind of points ID could make. We are still waiting for a comprehensive theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A comprehensive theory is not required.

      If data is inconsistent with the current theory, then the current theory is falsified. Data is inconsistent with the current theory, the current theory is false even if no other theory is available.

      Delete
    2. So ID do not require a comprehensive theory ? Evolutionary biology and population genetic both have a comprehensive theory, which makes this post from Dr Hunter possible. There is precise points we can discuss with real life example and experiment.

      If ID would have a comprehensive theory, I'm pretty sure it would not withstand any kind of serious scrutiny.

      Delete
  11. ghostrider,

    "If theory predicts we should see A,B,C in the genetic evidence (if our split hypothesis is correct) and we do indeed see A,B,C then the hypothesis has been tested and supported."

    True, evolution provides a hypothesis, but it is not a testable hypothesis, nor is it repeatable or observable. As such, the conclusion you are drawing does not even come close to qualifying as a 'scientific fact'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic the Liar

      True, evolution provides a hypothesis, but it is not a testable hypothesis, nor is it repeatable or observable


      Poor stupid Nic the Liar. If the hypothesis is humans and chimps share a common ancestor approx. 6 MYA, the test is to sequence and compare their two genomes, then measure the genetic distance compared to those expected from extrapolated known mutational rates. You can repeat the test as many times as you want and get the same answer. The results of every test are observable. The conclusion once again is Nic is an ignorant buffon who has no idea how science works.

      BTW Buffy, human-chimp common ancestry is supported by more that just the above genomic analysis.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Poor stupid Nic the Liar. If the hypothesis is humans and chimps share a common ancestor approx. 6 MYA, the test is to sequence and compare their two genomes, then measure the genetic distance compared to those expected from extrapolated known mutational rates."

      Poor ghostrider, the pretend scientist who knows noting of the scientific method.

      To be truly testable the hypothesis must be repeatable and observable from the beginning, not simply extrapolated. You must be able to repeat and observe the whole process in real time. That is basic scientific practice 101. However, that is not evolutionary practice. Evolutionary science is more closely related to creative writing 101 and always will be. It's is better suited to the Pulitzer Prize than the Nobel Prize.

      "BTW Buffy, human-chimp common ancestry is supported by more that just the above genomic analysis."

      Go ahead, let's hear more of your overwhelming evidence.

      Delete
    3. Nic the Liar

      To be truly testable the hypothesis must be repeatable and observable from the beginning, not simply extrapolated. You must be able to repeat and observe the whole process in real time. That is basic scientific practice 101.


      Your posts get dumber every day. A one time event doesn't have to be repeated for scientists to investigate and understand what happened. Only tests on the evidence the event left behind need to be repeatable.

      I'd love to hear your test that a tectonic plate collision created the Alps. Are you going to demand science make a second set of 15,000' mountains from scratch?

      What an idiot.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "What an idiot."

      The idiot would be he who refuses to understand what is actually required in the process of applying empirical science to a question.

      "Your posts get dumber every day."

      I don't think it is my posts which are getting dumber.

      "Only tests on the evidence the event left behind need to be repeatable."

      Palpable nonsense! If you assume you know the origin of those results without being able to duplicate the origin you will simply be arguing in a circle. "If we have B it must be the result of A. We have B, therefore it is the result of A." A child in the sixth grade can grasp that, why can't evolutionists?

      The answer to that is simple. It is not about science and never has been. It is all about world view and when it comes to defending the world view of evolution empirical science goes by the wayside. Speculation, extrapolation and story telling become the order of the day.

      As for tectonic activity, and for about the tenth time, it is an event which is happening in real time and therefore can be observed and measured in real time. The supposed divergence of humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor 6,000,000 years ago was a one-off event and therefore cannot be observed or measured in real time. The idiocy lies with the one who cannot understand the fundamental difference between these two subjects.

      Delete
    5. Nic the Liar


      I don't think it is my posts which are getting dumber.


      You may have a point. You may have reached maximum stupidity with this last batch. But I won't sell you short. You may have untapped pools of stupid in reserve.

      As for tectonic activity, and for about the tenth time, it is an event which is happening in real time and therefore can be observed and measured in real time.

      Evolution can be measured and observed in real time too.

      Go ahead and show me a whole 15,000' mountain forming from a flat plane in real time.

      Idiot.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "You may have reached maximum stupidity with this last batch. But I won't sell you short. You may have untapped pools of stupid in reserve."

      Ad hominems are always a useful tool for evolutionists. When you can't provide a logical, cogent argument, just start calling people stupid. I guess in your mind that counts for something.


      "Evolution can be measured and observed in real time too."

      I suppose you're going to refer to canines becoming different looking canines as proof of evolution happening in real time. You guys are such a hoot, really.

      Tell me, ghostrider, do you have any clue at all about the difference between change over time within in a group of creatures such as canines, reptiles, etc., and the descent of all lifeforms from a single common ancestor? It would seem you don't.

      Delete
    7. The analogy with plaque tectonic is actually pretty good. If you don't get it Nic, that's maybe because you aren't actually interested in open minded arguments. Thus being called a buffoon.

      Delete
    8. Calamity,

      "The analogy with plaque tectonic is actually pretty good."

      And you would be the foremost judge as to what constitutes a good analogy?

      Sorry, I don't feel it is a sound analogy as plate tectonics can be studied as it is happening, descent from a common ancestor cannot. Therefore, it is pretty hard to draw a parallel. But, I guess you guys operate with an 'any port in a storm' mentality when it comes to defending evolution.


      "If you don't get it Nic, that's maybe because you aren't actually interested in open minded arguments. Thus being called a buffoon."

      I am interested in sound, logical arguments which are pretty much non-existent with you and ghostrider. Your lack of the ability to form such arguments is why you are both reduced to calling people names, it's all you've got to offer.

      As for my being open-minded, I used to think like you and other evolutionists, it is the fact that i was open-minded which changed my mind. Sorry to burst your bubble on that attempted as homniem.

      Delete
    9. But how can we test the creation of the Alps ? We can't reproduce it in the lab. So how do we now that the Alps were created because of two plaques colliding into each other ?

      Delete
  12. Aren't the human accelerated regions a problem for the human-chimp split hypothesis? They don't follow the expected pattern. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, and please be kind enough to point out how I'm mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster

      You are mistaken by asking for facts to backup the hypothesis, as pointed out by Eugenie Scott.

      "Facts are interesting, but they're not terribly exciting. Hypotheses help us build theory. Theories are the most important things in science. Theories mean explanation. But laws are broken, both in science as well as in the real world. Laws are not as important as theories, because theories explain laws. Theories are most important! Then come laws, hypotheses, and facts. Facts don't explain anything."

      Delete
  13. Phillymike,

    "Theories are most important! Then come laws, hypotheses, and facts. Facts don't explain anything."

    Interesting logic used by evolutionists.

    Facts don't explain anything.
    Evolution is a fact.
    Therefore, evolution does not explain anything.

    Brilliant. I wish I had thought of such a convincing argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All facts, logic, and context aside for a moment...

      I've read many things here: some have made me laugh, some cry, and some made me want to jump up onto a cliff. This, however, is one of the most amusing things I've read thus far.

      Delete
    2. Nic

      Facts don't explain anything.
      Evolution is a fact.
      Therefore, evolution does not explain anything.


      I see Nic's just as clueless as ever.

      The evolution - common descent over deep time - has occurred is indeed a fact established by the fossil and genetic records. That fact by itself isn't an explanation. The theory of evolution which gives the mechanisms of the changes is the explanation for the observed fact of evolution.

      It's just pitiful that even after all these corrections the Creationists here still don't understand the difference between fact and theory.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "It's just pitiful that even after all these corrections the Creationists here still don't understand the difference between fact and theory."

      Is it not permitted to have a little fun once in a while? Did I do that? was able to pick up on that, why, with your superior intellect, were you not able to do so?

      "The evolution - common descent over deep time - has occurred is indeed a fact established by the fossil and genetic records."

      That is true only if you presuppose evolution to begin with. The evidence on its own shows nothing of the sort. Your particular presuppositions as to the meaning of the evidence is what results in your belief that the evidence shows evolution over deep time to be a fact.

      Delete
  14. Poor Cornelius,

    His creationist supporters here really are dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ed Vaessen,

    "His creationist supporters here really are dumb."

    Then why don't you teach us? If we're really as dumb as you claim it should not be hard to find some snippet of information that would further our education vis a vis evolution. You've had plenty of opportunity but all I've seen from you is ad hominems which are really not very flattering in respect to your intelligence or at all useful. If you have something in the way of intelligent input to offer, please do so.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ghostrider
    "The evolution - common descent over deep time - has occurred is indeed a fact established by the fossil and genetic records."
    Common descent implies a mechanism and mechanisms are theoretical. Or are you saying common decent is a fact but there is no mechanism that applies to this fact so now you are left with Phillymike's point that a fact (common descent) is useless on its own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Bill but you're an idiot on the level of Nic. There's no use engaging clowns like you who have zero desire to learn, only troll. Your only value is as something to poke fun at.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Sorry Bill but you're an idiot on the level of Nic. There's no use engaging clowns like you who have zero desire to learn, only troll. Your only value is as something to poke fun at."

      So once again ghostrider cannot provide anything approaching a sound, logical argument, just tired old rhetoric, so all those who disagree with him are clowns and idiots.

      It's really very sad you simply can't come to grips with the fact that what you so sincerely believe to be true is in fact an unsupportable system of thought. A system based on weak presuppositions, fallacious extrapolation and speculation propped up by poorly constructed just-so stories.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Bill but you're an idiot on the level of Nic. There's no use engaging clowns like you who have zero desire to learn, only troll. Your only value is as something to poke fun at.

      Sorry to see you give up.

      Delete
    4. LOL! Right on cue the two clowns pipe up. Where's your clown car?

      Delete
    5. Bill Cole, "Or are you saying common decent is a fact but there is no mechanism that applies to this fact so now you are left with Phillymike's point that a fact (common descent) is useless on its own."

      Um, even if there is no established "mechanism", suggesting that this astounding fact is "useless" is a bit much, don't you think?

      I personally accept the case for universal common descent, but do not buy the current theory that random genetic accidents filtered by natural selection explains the details of that tree. However, if UCD, then no literal "Adam and Eve". This is a significant piece of knowledge.

      Delete
    6. Hi bFast
      I have continued to struggle with what common decent means. If we could nail down a definition then I am sure based on the evidence we would agree. In the way I see it used often implies a mechanism i.e. that on specie evolved from another by a known cause. There is evidence for common decent which is the common biochemistry among species and similar morphology in the fossil records but whats very foggy is how one evolved into another. So if common decent was defined as having common biochemistry then I would agree it is a fact. I think the bigger point is that without the mechanism that ties it together(theory) what value is it?

      Delete
    7. "However, if UCD, then no literal "Adam and Eve". This is a significant piece of knowledge."

      I am not sure I understand this point. Maybe if you can define UCD it would help.

      Delete
  17. ghostrider,

    "LOL! Right on cue the two clowns pipe up. Where's your clown car?"

    Where is your mature intelligent response to the challenges put to you? All we get is insults and your very tiresome and unfounded air of intellectual superiority.

    As for our clown car, it would probably be beyond your abilities to drive.:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously Nic, do you and Cole buy your clown makeup in bulk? You must go through a 55 gallon drum of grease paint a week.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Seriously Nic, do you and Cole buy your clown makeup in bulk? You must go through a 55 gallon drum of grease paint a week."

      You're trying so hard and I guess you deserve credit for trying, but I'm afraid your comedic talents leave a lot to be desired.

      So, we are again where we always wind up. You making outrageous claims; this time the supposed evolution of human intelligence; me asking you for some empirical research to support your claim and you responding with low grade humour and insults. Does this pattern not indicate to you that there is a problem on your end?

      Delete
    3. Tell me about those giant clown shoes you wear Nic. What are they, about size 50 EEEEEEE? They must take a whole day to polish.

      Delete
  18. ghostrider,

    "Tell me about those giant clown shoes you wear Nic. What are they, about size 50 EEEEEEE? They must take a whole day to polish."

    What's that parable about when you find you're getting deeper into a hole you should think about not digging any further? You're already in way over your head, maybe it's time to give it a rest. While you're taking a break maybe you could do some research on the evolution of human intelligence. If you did, maybe you could answer some questions rather than trying to be a comedian, because that is really not going well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's the matter Nic? I thought troll clowns like you wanted attention?

      Delete
  19. ghostrider,

    "What's the matter Nic? I thought troll clowns like you wanted attention?"

    No, I would like some mature behaviour and some answers. I know that is highly unlikely, but I guess I continue to hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'fess up Nic. We all know trolling clowns like you love attention of any kind.

      Delete
  20. ghostrider,

    "'fess up Nic. We all know trolling clowns like you love attention of any kind."

    Funny how it always works out that 'trolls' are the people whose questions you can't answer.

    Take care. Get back to me when you have something of worth to offer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Learn your lesson Nic. When you act like a trolling clown, you get treated like a trolling clown.

      Delete
  21. ghostrider,

    "Learn your lesson Nic. When you act like a trolling clown, you get treated like a trolling clown."

    Seriously, take your own advice and maybe next time you'll know well enough not to start telling everyone how evolution is such sound science when you have nothing to back up your words.

    You blew it with bacteria, you blew it with the evolution of human intelligence and you blew it with whale evolution. It seems as if you're a glutton for punishment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! You just can't help but act like a blustering clown.

      Delete
  22. Great presentation Friday. Here is the quote:
    “This [wild tobacco] plant’s genome has probably an order of magnitude more genes involved in environmental perception than most animals do. Most plants have to because they sit still and they have to really tune their physiology and biochemistry to what’s going on, and they need a very sophisticated system of perception and response.” --Dr. Ian Baldwin, What Plants Talk About http://bit.ly/1pJNoy8

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dr. Hunter, I know this is way off topic but I was wondering why this OP wasn't also posted at UD?

    ReplyDelete