Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert

Over the Top Lies

Readers here will know that Darwin’s God has covered the topic of epigenetics extensively for many years now, and so we were interested to read Michael Skinner’s Aeon article on this subject, which appeared last week. Skinner’s piece reminds us of the old maxim that truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. If we can slightly modify these three stages as follows, then we have the history of how evolution has struggled and opposed the scientific findings we now refer to as epigenetics:

1. Reject and persecute
2. Delegitimize and minimize
3. Rename and incorporate

Skinner’s position represents the move, which has been taking place in recent years, into Stage 3 (for example, see here).

Skinner’s Aeon article provides an excellent rundown of findings, both old and new, that confirm and elucidate what evolutionists have aggressively and violently opposed for a century: that epigenetics is not only real, but significant in causing long-term biological change. Natural selection plays no role in this process.

From 18th century observations of plants adapting to hotter temperatures, to Conrad Waddington fruit fly experiments in the 1950s (for more tidbits see here), to more recent observations of a range of species, Skinner provides an accessible summary and makes the inescapable conclusion:

Much as Lamarck suggested, changes in the environment literally alter our biology. And even in the absence of continued exposure, the altered biology, expressed as traits or in the form of disease, is transmitted from one generation to the next.

Much as Lamarck suggested? That is an astonishing admission given how evolutionists have, in the past century, vilified Lamarck and anyone who would dare associate with his ideas. And to this day such resistance continues, but it is waning. Hence evolutionists such as Skinner can broach the truth.

Skinner also comes clean on the problem that evolution’s basic source of biological variation, DNA mutations, is insufficient:

the rate of random DNA sequence mutation turns out to be too slow to explain many of the changes observed. Scientists, well-aware of the issue, have proposed a variety of genetic mechanisms to compensate: genetic drift, in which small groups of individuals undergo dramatic genetic change; or epistasis, in which one set of genes suppress another, to name just two. Yet even with such mechanisms in play, genetic mutation rates for complex organisms such as humans are dramatically lower than the frequency of change for a host of traits, from adjustments in metabolism to resistance to disease.

Mutations are too slow for evolution? Again, this is an astonishing admission. The last time mathematicians reported this inconvenient truth they were told by evolutionists that it didn’t matter because, after all, we all know that evolution is true. Nothing like contradicting the science. Skinner admits that a paradigm shift is needed.

Unfortunately for Skinner and his readers that is where the light ends and smoke begins. Qua evolutionist, Skinner must present this contradictory biology as, somehow, consistent with evolution. The first sign that Skinner will firmly plant himself in the Stage Three lie (Rename and incorporate) is the opening sentence:

The unifying theme for much of modern biology is based on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, the process of natural selection by which nature selects the fittest, best-adapted organisms to reproduce, multiply and survive.

Evolution is the unifying theme for much of modern biology? This not so secret handshake is such an over-the-top misrepresentation that it hardly seems worthwhile to dignify it with a rebuttal. Given how evolutionists are consistently surprised by biology, one would hope they at least could stop with this lie. But there it is.

Unfortunately it doesn’t stop there. Skinner’s next Big Lie, and the thesis of his article, is that the long rejected epigenetics will now fit conveniently into evolutionary theory. It was all a big misunderstanding and rather than rejecting epigenetics, we should see it as merely another component in the ever increasingly complex theory called evolution.

This is Stage Three: Rename, recast, retool, reimagine, and incorporate the new idol into our modern-day Epicureanism.

With enough massaging and story-telling evolutionists will forget the contradictions and convince themselves, and their fawning audiences, that the fit is perfect and epigenetics is, in fact, yet more proof of evolution.

There’s only one problem. This is all absurd.

What Skinner and the evolutionists won’t tell you is that all of this makes no sense on their theory. With epigenetics the biological variation evolution needs is not natural. It is not the mere consequence of biophysics—radiation, toxins or other mishaps causing DNA mutations. Rather, it is a biological control system.

It is not simple mistakes, but complex mechanisms.

It is not random, but directed.

It is not slow, but rapid.

It is not a single mutation that is selected, but simultaneous changes across the population.

This is not evolution.

And as Skinner inconveniently realizes, such epigenetics are found across a wide range of species. They are widely conserved and, for evolution, this is yet more bad news. It means the incredible epigenetics mechanisms must have, somehow, arisen very early in the history of evolution.

What the evolutionists will never admit is that epigenetics contradicts evolutionary theory. Not only must such incredibly complex mechanisms have evolved early on, and not only must they have arisen from chance mutation events, and so not only must evolution have created evolution, but they would have persisted in spite of any fitness advantage.

The whole idea behind the evolution mythology is that natural selection saves the day by directing the blind, chance mutations. Setting aside the silliness of this idea which we have discussed many times, the problem with epigenetics is that if they were to arise from chance mutations (and “oh what a big if”), they would not increase the organism’s fitness.

Epigenetics mechanisms are helpful at some future, unknown, time when the environmental challenge finally presents itself. They are useless when they initially arise, and so would not be preserved by evolution’s mythical natural selection.

Of course evolutionists will contrive yet more complex, silly, just-so stories about how epigenetics mechanisms arose from pre existing parts used for other purposes (the ridiculous co-adaptation argument), and about how they just happened to provide some other functions so as to improve fitness.

Skinner’s presentation of how to integrate epigenetics with evolution is entirely gratuitous. He has empirical evidence for the former, and religious dogma for the latter. There is no scientific need for the addition of evolution—it is a multiplied entity and is gratuitous. But Skinner needs it.

These are all the usual lies, which will be trotted out as yet more “facts.” Evolutionists must tell these lies. Otherwise they would have to move beyond Stage Three, and admit the science contradicts the theory.

And that is not going to happen. Old scientists don’t change their minds, they just die.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

112 comments:

  1. This is wrong:

    the process of natural selection by which nature selects the fittest, best-adapted organisms to reproduce, multiply and survive.

    According to Ernst Mayr, it should read:

    the process of natural selection by which nature eliminates the less fit, least-adapted organisms and leaves the good-enough to survive and get the chance reproduce.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yawn. Another hair-on-fire over the top rant from a Creationist over another well known facet of evolutionary theory. Science has known about epigenetic effects since the 1940's. They're nothing mysterious, just another way genetic variations naturally occurs. #LiesOfACreationist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually epigenetic variation is evidence for "built-in responses to environmental cues". But you wouldn't be able to understand that

      Delete
    2. Sorry GR, humor doesn't work when you don't know what you're talking about.

      Delete
    3. Au contraire. Some of your anti-science rants where you exhibit zero knowledge of actual evolutionary theory are exceedingly funny! :)

      Delete
  3. "Epigenetics mechanisms are helpful at some future, unknown, time when the environmental challenge finally presents itself. They are useless when they initially arise, and so would not be preserved by evolution’s mythical natural selection."

    Epigenetics, at its simplest, is the environmental influence on genetic expression. We have known that the phenotype was the result of the interaction of the genes and the environment for many decades. The sex of turtles is determined by the temperature at which the eggs are incubated. No news here. What is new is the extent that they may play a role in evolution.

    Any epigenetically affected expression of a gene (or an assemblage of genes) is still dependent on the DNA. No DNA, no epigenetics.

    There is no reason to assume that epigenetic affects are not acted on by section, thereby resulting in a change in allele frequency (i.e., evolution). For example, let's assume that gene A is responsible for fur thickness (I realize that this is a vast over-simplification of the nature of gene expression but is reasonable for the purpose of making my point). Let's further assume that there are three alleles of this gene:

    1) A(1) results in decreased fur thickness with elevated temperatures.
    2) A(2) results in increased fur thickness with elevated temperatures.
    3) A(3) is not affected by temperature.

    Under these conditions, A(2) will likely be at a disadvantage if temperatures increase in the environment, resulting in an increased relative frequency for A(1) and possibly A(3). Evolution in action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Epigenetics at its simplest is "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner's non-random evolutionary hypothesis.

      Delete
    2. We have known that the phenotype was the result of the interaction of the genes and the environment for many decades.

      Stage 3! "We knew it all along." Ten years ago he was denying it all. PZ Myers: "it's NOT Lamarckism!"

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/bogey-moment-with-pz-myers.html

      Delete
    3. "PZ Myers: "it's NOT Lamarckism!""

      Lamarckism and epigenetic are not the same thing. A simple search of the net will show you this.

      Wiki: "Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance)."

      Nobody is suggesting that epigenetic works in this fashion. No matter how much I pump iron, my musculature will not be passed to my children.

      "Stage 3! "We knew it all along.""

      My education took place in the seventies. Even back then we were being taught that the phenotype was not an invariant expression of the genes; that it was also affected by the environment experienced during development. You can claim that this is not the case but all you have to do is look at an advanced evolution text book from that era. What we have learned more recently, and are continuing to learn about, are the mechanisms behind epigenetic.

      What epigenetic provides is an additional source of the variation necessary for selection to work on.

      Delete
    4. Umm, natural selection is passive. It doesn't work on anything. What epigenetics provide is a way to access built-in responses to environmental cues.

      But anyway, how does unguided evolution account for regulatory networks and developmental pathways? That seems to be missing form peer-review.

      Delete
    5. "What epigenetics provide is a way to access built-in responses to environmental cues."

      Built in responses that were the result of random mutations and natural selection.

      Delete
    6. William:
      Built in responses that were the result of random mutations and natural selection.

      When you find a way to test that claim please let us know. Otherwise "built-in" means they were designed into the system.

      Delete
    7. "Otherwise "built-in" means they were designed into the system."

      Straws. Clutching.

      Delete
    8. Yes, you are clutching at straws. Tat is all you do.

      Built-in means it was there from the beginning and not added later. That means your Built in responses that were the result of random mutations and natural selection.- is total nonsense and exhibits "Straws. Clutching".

      Delete
    9. You do realize that you were the one who first used the "built-in" term, don't you? But if your entire argument is based on semantics, then you are no better that Gordon Mullings or William J. Murray. Watch out handling all that straw. You might get a rash.

      Delete
    10. Yes, William, I know I was the one who first used "built-in". And unlike you I actually know what it means.

      As for semantics, well that deals with meanings of words. Did you have a point? I understand that people like you like to change meanings of words to suit your needs but whining about that proves that you are a baby.

      Delete
    11. " I understand that people like you like to change meanings of words to suit your needs..."

      Like equating Lamarckism with epigenetics? Or Darwinism with the modern understanding of evolution? Yes, you make an excellent point Joe/Frankie/Virgil.

      Delete
    12. Like equating Lamarckism with epigenetics?

      So a parent A acquires something that that it did not get from its parents, parent A passes that acquisition down to its offspring, and that is somehow anti-Lamark? I don't think he would agree

      Or Darwinism with the modern understanding of evolution?

      I have never done that. Obviously you are having integrity issues, again.

      Delete
    13. "So a parent A acquires something that that it did not get from its parents, parent A passes that acquisition down to its offspring, and that is somehow anti-Lamark? I don't think he would agree "

      Please provide a single example of what you are suggesting here. Or are you just bluffing?

      If you are talking about epigenetics, then the parent, the grandparent, and the children all had the same genes. Which were inherited. The same genes that were expressed (or not) depending on environmental factors. The environment isn't the "blueprint" for the trait. The DNA is. And, the last time I looked, DNA is inherited.

      Delete
    14. So there are species that evolved genes in order to have a new phenotype keepimg the genes for the old phenotype just in case.
      Smart evolution! Weren´t the evolution blind, scopeless?

      Delete
    15. William:
      If you are talking about epigenetics, then the parent, the grandparent, and the children all had the same genes.

      Yes, just as our cells all have the same genes. Yet the cells are different.

      Yes the same DNA is inherited along with the new expression pattern.

      Delete
    16. But anyway, how does unguided evolution account for regulatory networks and developmental pathways? That seems to be missing form peer-review.

      Delete
    17. "So there are species that evolved genes in order to have a new phenotype keepimg the genes for the old phenotype just in case."

      First, species don't evolve new genes in order to do anything. But species often (always?) have multiple variations on their genes. They are called alleles.

      But if we are talking about epigenetics, that phenomenon does not involve new genes. It is just differential expression of the same gene.

      Delete
    18. William:
      It is just differential expression of the same gene.

      And guess what? There are evolutionary biologists who say that is the key to macroevolution- the same genes expressed differently.

      I doubt that you will understand the implications...

      Delete
    19. "I doubt that you will understand the implications..."

      You mean that's gives natural selection more variation to work with than would be expected from just the DNA sequences available? Seems to help that whole evolution theory, not hinder it.

      Delete
    20. But if we are talking about epigenetics, that phenomenon does not involve new genes. It is just differential expression of the same gene.

      Differential expression regulated by genes. But that is not the problem for ToE. The problem is that a species should halve evolve two phenotypes trough RM being both NS in different conditions.
      How do you keep the orders for express the phenotype A when the conditions favour the expression of phenotype B.

      Delete
    21. William:
      You mean that's gives natural selection more variation to work with

      LoL! Natural selection is passive and doesn't work on anything. And if epigenetics is built-in responses to environmental cues then NS isn't even a factor.

      Seems to help that whole evolution theory, not hinder it.

      What theory? No one seems to be able to find it.

      Delete
    22. Blas: "How do you keep the orders for express the phenotype A when the conditions favour the expression of phenotype B."

      If by "order" you are referring to the DNA sequence for the gene, it doesn't change because the DNA sequence for phenotype A is the same as for phenotype B. The same gene is expressed in different ways due to environmental influences.

      Delete
    23. It doesn't matter as unguided evolution can't account for gene expression and regulation anyway.

      Delete
    24. William,

      "Built in responses that were the result of random mutations and natural selection."

      William, if they are 'built in' responses they cannot be the result of random mutations and natural selection. "Built in', by definition, means they were there from the beginning.

      Delete
    25. Nic, "built-in" was just Joe's term that I threw back at him in a throw-away comment. If you haven't noticed, Joe uses terms like "built-in", "protein machine", etc. so that he can throw them back at you as if they are a real argument.

      "Pre-existing" is probably a more accurate term. I think they arose through mutation, selection, drift, etc. But if anyone wants to argue for supernatural intervention, I am willing to look at any evidence they have.

      Delete
    26. ""Pre-existing" is probably a more accurate term. I think they arose through mutation, selection, drift, etc"


      And how can that mechanism could exist if they were not selected? Chance?

      Delete
    27. LoL! @ William' willful ignorance. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" is part of Dr Spetner's non-random evolutionary hypothesis. I luv how evos are so willfully ignorant of their opponents' claims.

      And a bacterial flagella, ATP synthase ARE protein machines. William chokes again on scientific biological terminology.

      Too bad for William he doesn't have any way to test hos claim. And also too bad for William that ID does not require the supernatural.

      Delete
    28. "And how can that mechanism could exist if they were not selected?"

      They could exist but they would not likely spread in a population without selection and/or drift.

      Delete
    29. William,

      "I think they arose through mutation, selection, drift, etc."

      How would a system such as epigenetics arise via random mutation and natural selection. What would be selected and why would it be selected in relation to unknown future environmental pressures?

      Delete
    30. That is the problem, Nic. Natural selection does NOT select for. Natural selection eliminates the less fit, which in many cases is contingent upon the environment (as opposed to lethal mutations regardless of the environment).

      Delete
    31. Joe,

      "Natural selection does NOT select for. Natural selection eliminates the less fit,..."

      Exactly, and that is my point. Random mutations and natural selection cannot possibly explain a system such as epigenetics.

      Delete
    32. Nic: "How would a system such as epigenetics arise via random mutation and natural selection. "

      Hi Nic. If the expression of a gene flips back and forth fairly routinely over several generations, and one expression was deleterious, it is likely that the gene responsible for both expressions would be eliminated. We wouldn't see it. If one were advantageous and the other neutral or mildly deleterious, the gene might survive and proliferate. And if both expressions were advantageous, it would very likely be very successful in spreading throughout the population.

      "What would be selected and why would it be selected in relation to unknown future environmental pressures?"

      Selection doesn't act on unknown future environmental pressures. It can only act on the present. But if some environment in the future causes methylation (or other chemical reactions that affect gene expression) selection can then act.

      Delete
    33. William,

      "If the expression of a gene flips back and forth fairly routinely over several generations,..."

      The whole process of epigenetics is vastly more complex than flip flopping genes.

      Delete
    34. Thank you for admitting that yours is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

      Delete
    35. Nic: "The whole process of epigenetics is vastly more complex than flip flopping genes."

      Everything is complex, but epigenetics is nothing more that specific genes being expressed in different ways depending on the environment they find themselves. And each one of these expressions can be acted on by selection.

      Delete
    36. William,

      "but epigenetics is nothing more that specific genes being expressed in different ways,..."

      With all due respect, that is an incredibly simplistic statement. It is the expression of those genes which you pass off as simply 'nothing more than' which is so highly developed and complex and which the existence of cannot begin to be explained via evolutionary processes.

      For example, can evolution explain how certain short-horned grasshoppers, usually innocuous and low in numbers, can, under the right conditions, transform to a massive, devastating swarm of locusts? No 'just-so' stories will do, evolution must be able to provide a detailed step-by-step explanation as to how this ability arose via RM/NS.

      Delete
    37. CH: "Stage 3."

      Incredulity is not an argument. By the way, how does ID explain away epigenetics?

      Nic: "For example, can evolution explain how certain short-horned grasshoppers, usually innocuous and low in numbers, can, under the right conditions, transform to a massive, devastating swarm of locusts?"

      Obviously, I don't know the details. But one thing I am fairly certain of is that if the swarming aspect was seriously detrimental (from a fitness perspective) the gene responsible for it would quickly die out unless the benefit of the other expression of the gene far outweighed the deleterious effect of swarming.

      Delete
    38. Incredulity is not an argument.

      There was nothing to argue against. You did not address problem that epigenetics poses for evolution.

      Delete
    39. how does ID explain away epigenetics?

      Why would it need to be explained "away"?

      Under evolution it needs to be explained "away".

      Delete
    40. William,

      "But one thing I am fairly certain of is that if the swarming aspect was seriously detrimental,..."

      Why are you concerned with the possible detrimental aspect of swarming when you cannot even begin to explain how swarming would arise via RM/NS? That is where you must start, not what the possible negative aspects may be. How would RM/NS bring about the swarming activity and the morphing of a grasshopper into a locust?

      Delete
    41. Nic, the morphology doesn't change, the behaviour does. Overcrowding has long been known to change behaviour in many organisms. Overcrowding of grasshoppers results in locust swarming. Overcrowding of rodents results in increased homosexual activity (that should piss off the anti-gay crowd). Have you ever heard of mob-mentality?

      I guess, by definition, this is all epigenetic (on or above genetic) but not in the sense that CH is talking about.

      Delete
    42. Yes behaviour changes are easier to come by than waiting for random mutations. Tat is just another reason why evolutionism fails.

      Thanks William.

      Delete
    43. William,

      "Nic, the morphology doesn't change,..."

      Yes, William, it does, as is evidenced by the following quote.

      "Morphological characters are also affected. Crowded adults,... are larger and display different body proportions from their uncrowded,... counterparts.

      Dingle, Hugh; (1996) Migration: The Biology of Life on the Move.

      If you wish you can look up the source as it goes into more detail as to what morphological changes actually occur. You will also see the quote is in context.

      Delete
    44. Nic, thank you. I will check out the source.

      As an aside, I have never suggested that you provide quotes out of context.

      Delete
    45. William,

      "As an aside, I have never suggested that you provide quotes out of context."

      I know, it was obliquely directed at others who love to accuse everyone who is opposed to evolution of quoting out of context.

      Delete
  4. For Creationists who are terminally ignorant of epigenetics and how it fits into evolutionary theory I recommend this excellent overview by Mark Ptashne.

    Epigenetics: Core Misconceptions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any evolutionary theory. But evos can make anything fit their version of evolutionism.

      Delete
    2. It takes an incredibly stupid and ignorant moron to claim there is no such thing as evolutionary theory. Fortunately creationists have Joe G stepping up to fill the role. :)

      Delete
    3. "There is no theory of evolution"- cytologist Jerome Lejeune at the 1982 close of the meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (no one disagreed and the meeting ended)

      "There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution." geneticist and former editor of a peer-review journal, Giuseppe Semonti

      It takes an incredibly dishonest loser to claim there is an evolutionary theory without being able to reference it.

      Every time I say there isn't a theory of evolution I always get attacked but never get refuted. Go figure...

      Delete
    4. Creationists everywhere must be so proud to have an intellectual giant like Joe G leading them into battle against scientifically verified reality. :)

      Delete
    5. Every time I say there isn't a theory of evolution I always get attacked but never get refuted. Go figure...

      I am OK with that.

      Delete
    6. Joe G

      Every time I say there isn't a theory of evolution I always get attacked but never get refuted. Go figure...

      I am OK with that.


      You're OK with demonstrating you're a scientifically ignorant moron.

      We're OK with demonstrating you're a scientifically ignorant moron.

      It's a win - win for sure.

      Delete
    7. LoL! You have never demonstrated that I am a scientific moron. You are just a self-deluded loser.

      It takes an incredibly dishonest loser to claim there is an evolutionary theory without being able to reference it.

      Ya see, dork, you can only do what you say by actually referencing the alleged theory and no one ever has. Go figure...

      Delete
    8. Joe G

      I am a scientific moron.... a self-deluded loser.


      Truer words were never spoken.

      Delete
    9. For any lurkers who want to learn about evolutionary theory here is an excellent beginner's tutorial from the U. of California / Berkeley

      Evolution 101

      Don't click on the link Joe. Wouldn't want you to accidentally learn some science and have an aneurysm.

      Delete
    10. Umm that UC Berkley link is NOT a theory of evolution. You must be the most desperate moron ever.

      Ghostrider:
      I am a scientific moron.... a self-deluded loser.

      Yes, we know. And you are also one dishonest lowlife.

      Delete
    11. How many citations does the alleged theory of evolution have? What articles cited it?

      My bet is more bluffing and no link to this alleged theory.

      Delete
    12. Thanks to Ghostrider for proving it is scientifically illiterate as it doesn't even know what a theory entails.

      Delete
    13. No surprise that Joe G was too stupid to understand the Evolution 101 tutorial. It was written at the high school level so it was at least half a dozen years past his mental ability.

      Delete
    14. LoL! I understood the tutorial, moron. It is NOT a theory.

      Grow up, loser.

      Delete
    15. UC Berkeley doesn't even reference a theory of evolution.

      Discussing a CONCEPT does NOT mean said concept is a theory.

      But then again GR doesn't know what a theory is.

      Delete
    16. Joe
      "UC Berkeley doesn't even reference a theory of evolution.

      Discussing a CONCEPT does NOT mean said concept is a theory.

      But then again GR doesn't know what a theory is."

      Why in you opinion does Evolution fall short of theory? Is it the lack of a testable mechanism?

      Delete
    17. BC: "Why in you opinion does Evolution fall short of theory? Is it the lack of a testable mechanism?"

      No, it is because there is not a single published document that explains all phenomenon that we observe, that all scientists agree on. Rather, it is an aggregation of hypotheses that attempt to explain the various aspects of evolution (e.g., drift, HGT, epigenetic, mutation rates, selection, sexual selection, etc.). The relative importance of the different parts is what is being argued over and tested. Much like there is no single theory of physics.

      But, mostly, it is just because Joe likes to be obnoxious and thinks that his repeated harping on the issue actually means something.

      Delete
    18. Joe G

      UC Berkeley doesn't even reference a theory of evolution.


      Poor Joke can't read too well. From the very first page of the UC Berkeley Teaching Evolution site:

      "The Understanding Evolution project aims to help develop student understanding of:

      Basic evolutionary patterns and processes

      Evolutionary theory's ability to explain phenomena across the many subdisciplines of biology

      The many applications of evolutionary theory, both in solving real world problems and in scientific research

      The evidence supporting evolutionary theory"

      The punchline changes but the Joke remains the same.

      Delete
    19. LoL! They do NOT reference the theory, moron. And without said reference their words are meaningless.

      Delete
    20. Bill Cole:
      Why in you opinion does Evolution fall short of theory? Is it the lack of a testable mechanism?

      That is part of it, yes. But also it lacks quantification and quantification is fundamental to science.

      And I have quoted biologists who also say there isn't any theory of evolution. Nice of my opponents to ignore that as if their willful ignorance means something.

      Delete
    21. Only a moron would think that a site that says "evolutionary theory" would say that is referencing said theory.

      Enter ghostdorkrider.

      Referencing the theory of evolution would be linking to it or at least a bibliography. That way people can see what it actually says.

      Delete
    22. LOL! keep up the good work Joke. Keep claiming there's no such thing as the theory of evolution when a "theory of evolution" Google search turns up over 11 million hits.

      You're so stupid even your fellow YECs are ashamed of you.

      Delete
    23. Wow, 11 million hits just means the phrase can be found all over the place. Yet not one of those hits will give you the actual theory of evolution. You would figure the actual theory of evolution would be in the top 1,000 hits on some search engine but it isn't.

      "Bigfoot" gives up over 22 million hits so be ghostdorkrider's logic bigfoot exists just because of that.

      "ghosts" produces 159million hits

      "demons" gets 107 million with "unicorn" coming in at 114 million.

      The desperation is entertaining, though

      Delete
    24. Everybody stay tuned for Joke G's next brilliant YEC assaults on science!

      There is no germ theory of disease says Joke!

      There is no theory of plate tectonics says Joke!

      There is no theory of gravity says Joke!

      You are one of the most entertaining clowns on the web Joke despite your ignorance and stupidity, or maybe because of it.

      Delete
    25. Great news and what a relief!

      Santa Claus is real! over 51 million hits!!!!

      Delete
    26. OK Joke, you convinced us. You're such an entertaining clown because of your overwhelming ignorance and stupidity. :)

      Delete
    27. And when all is lost try to put words in your opponent's mouth. Grow up ghostdorkrider. But thank you for proving my point

      Delete
    28. Like always Joke your blustering ignorance and stupidity on all things scientific gets boring really fast. You need a new writer for your clown show, it's past stale.

      Delete
    29. But, GR, don't forget that it was Joe who proved to the world that wavelength = frequency. That has to count for something.

      Delete
    30. Ghostdorkrider, The stupidity and blustering ignorance is all yours. And evolutionism isn't science, moron. It doesn't make testable claims and testability is a hallmark of science.

      You lose, loser.

      And William, you have already proved that you are a bluffing lowlife coward. So everyone understands why you two have to attack me rather than actually posting something of substance.

      So thank you both for helping me make my point.

      Delete
    31. William Spearshake

      But, GR, don't forget that it was Joe who proved to the world that wavelength = frequency. That has to count for something.


      Joe G's belligerent scientific ignorance is legendary on internet C/E boards. The few remaining ones he hasn't been banned on that is. Even places like UD have kicked him out. He repeats the same tired Creationist talking points ad nauseum, followed of course by streams of verbal diarrhea and insults. In a way you have to feel sorry for such an angry and clueless loser.

      Delete
    32. Here Joke, Cliff Notes even has a definition of the theory of evolution.

      Modern Theory of Evolution

      The neo‐Darwin view of evolution incorporates modern understanding of population genetics, developmental biology, and paleontology, to which is being added knowledge of the molecular sequencing of DNA and the insights it provides concerning the phylogeny of life. The major premises of the genetic (synthetic) theory of evolution are: evolution is the change of gene (allele) frequencies in the gene pool of a population over many generations; species (and their gene pools) are isolated from one another, and the gene pool of each species is held together by gene flow; an individual has only a portion of the pool, which came from two different parents, and the portions are different in each individual; the alleles the individual receives are subject to chromosomal or gene mutations and recombinations; natural selection will favor some individuals, who will then contribute a larger portion of their gene combinations to the gene pool of the next generation; changes of allele frequencies come about primarily by natural selection, but migration, gene flow, and chromosomal variations are contributing factors; isolation and restriction of gene flow between subpopulations and their parent populations are necessary for the genetic and phenotypic divergence of the subpopulations.

      Delete
    33. LoL! A definition without the actual theory is more useless than you are.

      Keep flailing away, though. It is entertaining.

      Delete
    34. Note to administrator- why are you blocking my posts while allowing others to attack me?

      Delete
    35. Boo Hoo. Life's not fair. Too bad that Mullings isn't here to defend you. After all, you have been unfairly treated by people like your past employer who fired you for posting abusive comments on company time, using a company computer.

      Delete
    36. Looking at the given definition of the alleged ToE it seems the alleged ToE is in line with baraminology. But it also contains a glaring mistake:

      The major premises of the genetic (synthetic) theory of evolution are: evolution is the change of gene (allele) frequencies in the gene pool of a population over many generations; species (and their gene pools) are isolated from one another, and the gene pool of each species is held together by gene flow; an individual has only a portion of the pool, which came from two different parents, and the portions are different in each individual; the alleles the individual receives are subject to chromosomal or gene mutations and recombinations; natural selection will favor some individuals, who will then contribute a larger portion of their gene combinations to the gene pool of the next generation; changes of allele frequencies come about primarily by natural selection, but migration, gene flow, and chromosomal variations are contributing factors; isolation and restriction of gene flow between subpopulations and their parent populations are necessary for the genetic and phenotypic divergence of the subpopulations. (mistake in bold)

      Natural selection eliminates some individuals, ie the less fit. Artificial selection favors some and that depends on the breeder and/ or demand.

      Also evos always ask for a barrier between micro and macroevolution which assumes macro is just a continuance of micro. Unfortunately that view is false as the two processes involve different genes and different processes.

      Delete
    37. William Spearshake, The bluffing coward still spewing lies and nonsense. You can always tell when you are winning the debate. Life is good. Thank you.

      My censored comment was a direct challenge to both of you pertaining to our knowledge of science and evolution. There wasn't any bad language so I was curious as to why it wasn't posted.

      You have already proven the best you have is to bluff and dodge and ghostrider can only attack and flail, so I am more than comfortable going up against either or both of you.

      Delete
    38. Yet, my comments haven't been censored. I wonder why?

      Delete
    39. That would be because you are a great example to the vacuity of your position. Between you and ghostrider any fence-sitter would be convinced that evolutionism is a total failure.

      It isn't enough for him just to make posts but having clowns like you trying to rebut him is icing on the cake.

      Delete
    40. Joe G

      My censored comment was a direct challenge to both of you pertaining to our knowledge of science and evolution.


      Oh, like your "scientific knowledge" that wavelength = frequency? You spent a solid month arguing that bit of stupidity. That's despite several dozen people correcting you and explaining the same frequency signal will have different wave lengths depending on the phase velocity of the medium the wave is traveling in. Or maybe you mean like now where you're trying to convince people one of the most well known and well verified scientific theories of all time doesn't exist.

      Sorry Joke, your only value is in providing a pitiful fool to laugh at.

      Delete
    41. GR, are you saying that wavelength really doesn't equal frequency? I am crestfallen.!!

      Delete
    42. Oh, like your "scientific knowledge" that wavelength = frequency?

      Yes, frequency and wavelength are directly correlated. Once you have the wave on your o'scope you have both with just the one wave.

      Every wave has one and only one wavelength that correlates to one and only one frequency.

      Everything else you spewed is irrelevant and not part of the original context- which is something else you are ignorant of.

      Or maybe you mean like now where you're trying to convince people one of the most well known and well verified scientific theories of all time doesn't exist.

      You can't find it. Where is it? And seeing that the claims can't even be tested just how was it verified?

      You are just a self-deluded loser. You can't even answer the basic questions about evolutionism. All you can do is attack and insult. You will never engage anyone with something of substance.

      Delete
    43. William:
      Yup. That must be it.

      That is what the evidence says. All you can do is spew nonsense without ever supporting it. You think that you are some sort of authority who gets the final say. You are pathetically self-deluded.

      Delete
    44. Joe: "Every wave has one and only one wavelength that correlates to one and only one frequency."

      Dont let the fact that this isn't true detract you from your stubborn belief. A little hint. Mr. Google is your friend. Thirty seconds with him will show you the errors of your ways. And let's forget for a moment that for two sides of an equation (eg., wavelength = frequency) to work, the units must be the same, or cancel out.

      Delete
    45. "Every wave has one and only one wavelength that correlates to one and only one frequency."

      William:
      \Dont let the fact that this isn't true detract you from your stubborn belief.

      It is true, William. And you will never be able to demonstrate otherwise. And I dare you to try...

      Hint- your say-so is meaningless as you are a proven liar and bluffer.

      Delete
    46. "It is true, William. And you will never be able to demonstrate otherwise."

      As light moves from one medium to another (e.g., vacuum to water), the frequency remains the same but the wavelength doesn't.

      "Hint- your say-so is meaningless as you are a proven liar and bluffer.""

      No. You don't have to take my word for it.

      http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Dept2/APPhys1/optics/optics/node7.html

      But, by all means, continue to insist that wavelength equals frequency.

      Delete
    47. William:
      As light moves from one medium to another (e.g., vacuum to water), the frequency remains the same but the wavelength doesn't.

      It becomes a DIFFERENT wave.

      Delete
    48. As light moves from one medium to another (e.g., vacuum to water), the frequency remains the same but the wavelength doesn't.

      The wave in a vacuum has one and only one frequency that correlates to one and only one wavelength. The wave in water has one and only one frequency tat correlates to one and only one wavelength.

      We have already been over and over this. Nice to see that you can't follow along.

      Delete
    49. "No man steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he's not the same man." Heraclitus

      Delete
    50. Hard to know which is funnier - when Joke makes an incredibly stupid claim like "wavelength = frequency" or his following tap dancing as he tries to get his foot out of his mouth. Both are hilarious! :D

      Delete
    51. LoL! To the moron who thinks the ToE exists because of the number of google hits.

      You should just shut up Ghostrider. That is worse tan anything I have ever said. And it is very telling that you are too stupid to understand my explanation. And seeing that you don't know the original context of what was being said you have nothing to say about it.

      However we all know that you will continue to harp on it to try to distract from then fact that you are a liar and a loser

      Delete
    52. Nothing says entertainment like the narcissistic inability to admit an error.

      Delete
    53. LoL! William the projectionist strikes again.

      Delete
    54. Joe: "LoL! William the projectionist strikes again."

      Working in the movie theatre was a great experience. I am surprised that you were aware of it.

      Delete
    55. You are a master at projecting your ignorance onto others. Everyone is aware of that.

      Delete