Monday, February 19, 2018

This Didn’t Evolve a Few Mutations At a Time

Action Potentials

Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen. Let’s have a look at an example: nerve cells and their action potential signals.

[* Note: Some evolutionists have attempted to get around this problem with the neutral theory, but that just makes matters worse].

Nerve cells have a long tail which carries an electronic impulse. The tail can be several feet long and its signal might stimulate a muscle to action, control a gland, or report a sensation to the brain.

Like a cable containing thousands of different telephone wires, nerve cells are often bundled together to form a nerve. Early researchers considered that perhaps the electronic impulse traveled along the nerve cell tail like electricity in a wire. But they soon realized that the signal in nerve cells is too weak to travel very far. The nerve cell would need to boost the signal along the way for it to travel along the tail.

After years of research it was discovered that the signal is boosted by membrane proteins. First, there is a membrane protein that simultaneously pumps two potassium ions into the cell and three sodium ions out of the cell. This sets up a chemical gradient across the membrane. There is more potassium inside the cell than outside, and there is more sodium outside than inside. Also, there are more negatively charged ions inside the cell so there is a voltage drop (50-100 millivolt) across the membrane.

In addition to the sodium-potassium pump, there are also sodium channels and potassium channels. These membrane proteins allow sodium and potassium, respectively, to pass through the membrane. They are normally closed, but when the decaying electronic impulse travels along the nerve cell tail, it causes the sodium channels to quickly open. Sodium ions outside the cell then come streaming into the cell down the electro-chemical gradient. As a result, the voltage drop is reversed and the decaying electronic impulse, which caused the sodium channels to open, is boosted as it continues on its way along the nerve cell tail.

When the voltage goes from negative to positive inside the cell, the sodium channels slowly close and the potassium channels open. Hence the sodium channels are open only momentarily, and now with the potassium channels open, the potassium ions concentrated inside the cell come streaming out down their electro-chemical gradient. As a result the original voltage drop is reestablished.

This process repeats itself as the electronic impulse travels along the tail of the nerve cell, until the impulse finally reaches the end of the nerve cell. Although we’ve left out many details, it should be obvious that the process depends on the intricate workings of the three membrane proteins. The sodium-potassium pump helps set up the electro-chemical gradient, the electronic impulse is strong enough to activate the sodium channel, and then the sodium and potassium channels open and close with precise timing.

How, for example, are the channels designed to be ion-selective? Sodium is about 40% smaller than potassium so the sodium channel can exclude potassium if it is just big enough for sodium. Random mutations must have struck on an amino acid sequence that would fold up just right to provide the right channel size.

The potassium channel, on the other hand is large enough for both potassium, and sodium, yet it is highly efficient. It somehow excludes sodium almost perfectly (the potassium to sodium ratio is about 10000), yet allows potassium to pass through almost as if there were nothing in the way.

Nerve cells are constantly firing off in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies, and there is no scientific reason to think they gradually evolved, one mutation at time.

Indeed, that idea contradicts everything we know from the science. And yet this is what evolutionists believe. Let me repeat that: evolutionists believe nerve cells and their action potential designs evolved one mutation at time. Indeed, evolutionists believe this is a proven fact, beyond all reasonable doubt.

It would be difficult to imagine a more absurd claim. So let’s have a look at the details of this line of thinking. Here is a recent paper from the Royal Society, representing the state of the art in evolutionary thinking on this topic. The paper claims to provide a detailed explanation of how early evolution produced action potential technology.

Sounds promising, but when evolutionists speak of “details,” they have something slightly different in mind. Here are several passages from the paper which reveal that not only is there a lack of details, but that the study is thoroughly unscientific.

We propose that the next step in the evolution of eukaryote DCS [membrane depolarization (through uncontrolled calcium influx), contraction and secretion] coupling has been the recruitment of stretch-sensitive calcium channels, which allow controlled influx of calcium upon mechanical stress before the actual damage occurs, and thus anticipate the effects of membrane rupture.

The recruitment of calcium channels? And exactly who did the recruiting? Here the authors rely on vague terminology to paper over a host of problematic details of just how random mutations somehow performed this recruiting.

To prevent the actual rupture, the first role of mechanosensory Ca++ channels might have been to pre-activate components of the repair pathway in stretched membranes.

“To prevent”? Let’s spell out the logic a little more clearly. The authors are hypothesizing that these calcium channels evolved the ability to pre-activate the repair pathway “to prevent” actual rupture. By spelling out the logic a bit more clearly, we can see more easily the usual teleology at work. The evolution literature is full of teleology, and for good reason. Evolutionists are unable to formulate and express their ideas without it. The ever-present infinitive form is the tell-tale sign. Aristotelianism is dead—long live Aristotelianism.

As another anticipatory step, actomyosin might have been pre-positioned under the plasma membrane (hence the cortical actomyosin network detected in every eukaryotic cell) and might have also evolved direct sensitivity to stretch … Once its cortical position and mechanosensitivity were acquired, the actomyosin network could automatically fulfil an additional function: cell-shape maintenance—as any localized cell deformation would stretch the cortical actomyosin network and trigger an immediate compensatory contraction. This property would have arisen as a side-effect (a ‘spandrel’) of the presence of cortical actomyosin for membrane repair, and quickly proved advantageous.

An “anticipatory step”? “Pre-positioning”? Actomyosin “evolved” sensitivity to stretch? The position and mechanosensitivity “were acquired”? The network could “fulfil an additional function”? Sorry, but molecular machines (such as actomyosin) don’t “evolve” anything. There is more teleology packed into these few sentences than any medieval tract. And for good measure the authors also add the astonishing serendipity that this additional function “would have arisen as a side-effect.” That was lucky.

Once covering the cell cortex, the actomyosin network acquired the ability to deform the cell by localized contraction.

The actomyosin network “acquired the ability” to deform the cell by localized contraction? Smart move on the part of the network. But may we ask just how did that happen?

Based on the genomic study of the protist Naegleria which has a biphasic life cycle (alternating between an amoeboid and a flagellated phase), amoeboid locomotion has been proposed to be ancestral for eukaryotes. It might have evolved in confined interstitial environments, as it is particularly instrumental for cells which need to move through small, irregularly shaped spaces by exploratory deformation.

Amoeboid locomotion evolved “as it is particularly instrumental.” No infinitive form but this is no less teleological. Things don’t evolve because they are “instrumental.” What the authors fail to inform their readers of is that this would require an enormous number of random mutations.

One can hypothesize that, if stretch-sensitive calcium channels and cortical actomyosin were part of the ancestral eukaryotic molecular toolkit (as comparative genomics indicates), membrane deformation in a confined environment would probably trigger calcium influx by opening of stretch-sensitive channels, which would in turn induce broad actomyosin contraction across the deformed part of the cell cortex, global deformation and cell movement away from the source of pressure.

The concept of a “molecular toolkit” is standard in evolutionary thought, and another example teleological thinking.

One can thus propose that a simple ancestral form of amoeboid movement evolved as a natural consequence of the scenario outlined above for the origin of cortical actomyosin and the calcium–contraction coupling; once established, it could have been further elaborated.

Amoeboid movement evolved “as a natural consequence,” and “once established” was “further elaborated”? This is nothing more than teleological story-telling with no supporting evidence.

It is thus tempting to speculate that, once calcium signalling had gained control over primitive forms of amoeboid movement, the same signalling system started to modify ciliary beating, possibly for ‘switching’ between locomotor states.

Calcium signaling “gained control” and then “started to modify” ciliary beating “for ‘switching’ between locomotor states”? The “for switching” is yet another infinitive form, and “gained control” is an active move by the calcium signaling system. Pure, unadulterated, teleology.

Possibly, in ancestral eukaryotes calcium induced a relatively simple switch (such as ciliary arrest, as still seen in many animal cells and in Chlamydomonas in response to high Ca++ concentrations), which was then gradually modified into more subtle modulations of beating mode with a fast turnover of molecular actors mediated by differential addition, complementation and loss.

“Calcium induced a relatively simple switch”? Sorry, ions don’t induce switches, simple or otherwise. And the switch “was then gradually modified into more subtle modulations”? Note how the passive voice obviates those thorny details. The switch “was modified” conveniently omits the fact that such modification would have to occur via random mutation, one mutation at a time.

Alternatively, control of cilia by calcium could have evolved convergently—but such convergence would then have been remarkably ubiquitous, as there seems to be no eukaryotic flagellum that is not controlled by calcium in one way or another.

“Could have evolved convergently”? And exactly how would that happen? At least the authors then admit to the absurdity of that alternative.

Unfortunately, they lack such sensibility for the remainder of the paper. As we saw above, the paper is based on a sequence of teleological thinking. It falls into the evolutionary genre where evolution is taken, a priori, as a given. This going in assumption underwrites vast stretches of teleological thought, and cartoon-level story telling. Not only is there a lack of empirical support, but the genre is utterly unscientific, as revealed by even a mildly critical reading.

And needless to say, the paper does absolutely nothing to alleviate the problem we began with. The many leaps of logic and reasoning in the paper reveal all manner of monumental changes evolution requires to construct nerve cells and the action potential technology. We are not looking at a narrative of minute, gradual changes, each contributing to the overall fitness. Many, many simultaneous mutations are going to be needed. Even a conservative minimum number of 100 simultaneous mutations leads to the untenable result of a one in 10^800 chance of occurring.

It’s not going to happen. Religion drives science, and it matters.

225 comments:

  1. It boggles the mind that anyone could look at nerves and think they evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. Just a look outside of the nerves to the requisite neurotransmitters and you can see how impossible the task is- nerves are useless without neurotransmitters to relay the signal to the next nerve. And after the signal is sent to the next nerve the neurotransmitters must be removed so the nerve can reset.

    Evolutionists are still dreaming. And even though dreaming is good it ain't science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. People actually get paid to write this stuff? I wonder how how much of the scientific literature would get eliminated if storytelling without verification was eliminated from the literature?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charles Darwin was not very bright but modern Darwinists are so excruciatingly stupid and gutless, it hurts just to think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bacteria also use sodium channel action potentials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what? My statement was very clear. And factual.

      Delete
    2. Factual. Clear. And pointless and meaningless in regards to the article's proposition.

      Delete
    3. Not really. The proposition was that these things could not possibly have arisen by natural processes in the few hundred millions of years that nerve cells have been around. But given that these processes probably started two or three billion years ago opens the door for all sorts of possibilities.

      Delete
    4. Yea really. One thing I have noticed about those who are knowledgeable about biology is that they do not appreciate the complexity of building something. First, you have absolutely no idea if those "processes" even exist. You must first assume that they do. You making an assumption here on an imaginary process that is functioning over the past two to three billion years. How are you going to vet this process? Imaging it is just storytelling.

      The only way to "vet" the process is to assess viability to doing what you claim it can do. This can only be done by examining the likely hood that the process will deliver the goods. That is what the article is about. It shows that assessment. Two to three billion years is not enough time. Your missing the part of building something not just interactions.

      We have something already... us. To make the claim that the probabilities are overcome by your simplistic example is to just assume that the processes will deliver the goods.

      Basically, William, your argument is "I assume its true and your not going to change my mind."

      But what does that gain you William? You fight tooth and nail in this blog to what end? That life is without ultimate purpose or meaning. Have you thought through that one, William? Do you really grasp what it means for Darwinian Evolution to be true?

      As I have posted before: If Darwinian Evolution is true then life is without meaning or purpose.

      The contropositive of this is: If life has meaning and purpose then Darwinian Evolution is false.

      This is rationally and logically sound. Yet, do you find meaning an purpose is life, William?

      Delete
    5. The proposition was that these things could not possibly have arisen by natural processes in the few hundred millions of years that nerve cells have been around.

      And it stands unchallenged

      But given that these processes probably started two or three billion years ago opens the door for all sorts of possibilities.

      Question begging. Just because today's bacteria has it doesn't mean the bacteria of x years ago did. Also yours can't even account for bacteria so you still have an insurmountable problem

      Delete
    6. As I have posted before: If Darwinian Evolution is true then life is without meaning or purpose.”

      No. Life is without some airy-fairy external purpose. If you are not capable of bringing meaning and purpose to your own life, that is your problem.

      Delete
    7. If you are not capable of bringing meaning and purpose to your own life, that is your problem.

      The only purpose your position offers is live/ survive and reproduce. Anything else is made up and meaningless.

      But that is moot as Darwinian evolution is not even wrong

      Delete
    8. Joke: “The only purpose your position offers is live/ survive and reproduce. Anything else is made up and meaningless.“

      The fact that you can’t bring meaning to your life is sad. I feel sorry for you.

      Delete
    9. What? I have great meaning in my life for the simple reason I know Darwinian evolution is not even wrong. The fact that you have to try to twist what I say tells me your purpose in life is to be a loser. Congratulations- you have succeeded.

      Delete
    10. Internet Dude: But what does that gain you William?

      LOL. You just threw your beautiful pearls to a dirty friggin swine.

      Delete
    11. >>If you are not capable of bringing meaning and purpose to your own life, that is your problem

      One day, William, you will take a long vacation to the town of hopelessness. No one plans these trips, rather the town's excellent planning committee will put together a package you can't refuse. They will make accommodations for you in their five-star hotel that allows you all the time to focus on being hopeless. In that time, William, remember these words:

      "But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand"

      They are not the words of neutrons and protons. They hold purpose and meaning, hope and a future. They will bring hope in the town of hopelessness.

      One day, William, one day... and when that day arrives, remember.

      Delete
    12. Dude, I like the spirit of hope, loving and understanding provided in the following scripture:

      "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

      I will rely on myself to bring meaning and hope to my life. I am far more loving and forgiving than the God you worship.

      Delete
    13. Quote-mining the Bible to make oneself feel good. There's a name for people like that.

      I will rely on myself to bring meaning and hope to my life.

      And for that you are missing the higher purpose and meaning. You live in willful ignorance. But then again ignorance is bliss.

      Delete
    14. The little self-righteous, dirt-worshipping turd quotes the Bible, thinking himself more righteous than the Creator of the universe.

      Listen, jackass. There is no room in the universe for unrighteousness no matter how small. If you steal a pencil, you don't deserve to live. All human souls, including the infants of the Amalekites, are unrighteous and deserve to be dead. The only reason you are alive and breathing right now and somehow feel free to blaspheme against the Master Creator is because he has pity on your gutless soul.

      Delete
    15. Mapou: "The little self-righteous, dirt-worshipping turd quotes the Bible, thinking himself more righteous than the Creator of the universe."

      I am certainly more righteous than some being who tells soldiers to kill women, children and infants. There was a guy in Germany during the last century who instructed soldiers to do the same thing. Should we be worshipping him?

      "If you steal a pencil, you don't deserve to live."

      Is this another example of the infinite love of your God?

      "All human souls, including the infants of the Amalekites, are unrighteous and deserve to be dead. "

      Says who? Your loving God?

      "The only reason you are alive and breathing right now and somehow feel free to blaspheme against the Master Creator is because he has pity on your gutless soul."

      I wouldn't underestimate 3+ billion years of evolution.

      Delete
    16. Dirt worshipping Spear Shaker here confirms something that I have long suspected: Darwinism and materialism are just the antics of a bunch of little cretins who are rebelling against their idea of God. They shake their fists to heaven, tell everyone that God is evil but does not exist, foam at the mouth and then they die.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    17. I am certainly more righteous than some being who tells soldiers to kill women, children and infants.

      Context. You do not know the context of the order.

      I wouldn't underestimate 3+ billion years of evolution.

      Question-begging and just throwing time at any problem isn't scientific.

      Delete
    18. The self-righteous dirt worshipper is mad at the Judeo-Christian God. How sad. But can he walk on water? Will he live forever? Nope, he turns into dust just like everyone else.

      PS. You're lucky Hunter is censoring my comments. Otherwise, I'd let you have it.

      Delete
    19. Joke: "Context. You do not know the context of the order."

      What context could justify the murder of children?

      Mapou: "PS. You're lucky Hunter is censoring my comments. Otherwise, I'd let you have it."

      I'm quaking in my boots.

      Delete
    20. William,

      "Life is without some airy-fairy external purpose."

      I don't view my beliefs or my relationship with Christ as an 'airy-fairy' experience. It is central to who I am as a person and a human being. My relationship with Christ is not based on a blind hope for something better in the future, it is based on the fact of something better in the here-and-now.

      Delete
    21. Louis,

      "You're lucky Hunter is censoring my comments. Otherwise, I'd let you have it."

      How refreshing, yet another mature adult comment from Louis. What a sad little individual you must be.

      Delete
    22. WS,

      There are a multitude of anti-religious sites that will give you their thoughts on select scriptures they think deconstruct the Bible. The fact is that reading anything, even when literal, requires interpretation. Reading the Bible is no different. No one really should say which is right or wrong, but there are certain flavors of Christianity and factions of religions that feel they have the overwhelming correctness of scripture. You have chosen what you think is the right framework on how to gauge that scripture.

      Scripture is a major reason why many believers attend church and are selective in choosing which church to attend and which preacher to listen to. It is not because we enjoy sitting in rows, but we go to get interpretation of the Bible which provides a ton of insight on how to live life, conduct business, manage relationships, raise children etc etc. No book comes close to providing as much knowledge in those areas. So, what you gain from scripture is yours alone and getting just a single, biased interpretation and then using it in the way those sites want you to, well, just makes you look uninformed to people who actually have reviewed varying different views on it.

      Yes, the Old Testament has a lot of hellfire and brimstone, but the scripture in question is related to the Amalekites and while the passage may seem unreasonable to you it does not display a trait outside the character of God.

      Surely, you can understand the problems with getting only a piece of the story. A good preacher could shed more light on the subject and show you other places in the Bible that are related, but those sites you go to refuse to do that. They cherry-pick scriptures and then force-fit their own idea of God. We've all heard anti-religious people tell us what God would and wouldn't do.

      I am just saying it is a bad tactic to try to use the Bible against itself or when you clearly aren't religious or haven't been for a long time that you shouldn't try to use scripture in that manner. I realize that was in response to some scripture being thrown at you which is a bad tactic too. It is not hard to see that when dealing with someone who does not believe in the Bible that quoting it will not do anything.

      The other place you error is saying that you rely on yourself to bring meaning and hope to your own life. This is still a dilemma that atheist struggle with as it remains incompatible with a purely evolutionist world view. In fact, you can see the dilemma in action in the Richard Dawkins / Wendy Wright interview. I thought Wendy Wright was a mess, had difficulty articulating but overall made Dawkins, who is a very experienced debater, look foolish and childish. Those qualities were only reinforced by other appearances Dawkins made days, weeks, months later on atheist media outlets to basically ridicule her. It was very ironic, but understandable because his feelings were hurt during what he thought would be a cake-walk and should have been a cake-walk.

      I think a good book for you would be Mere Christianity by CS Lewis if you haven't already read it.

      Delete
    23. What context could justify the murder of children?

      Demon children. Diseases. Again context is important and we just don't have it. But instead of whining about the action you should be asking what did those people do or what were they to warrant such an action

      Delete
    24. William,

      "I will rely on myself to bring meaning and hope to my life. I am far more loving and forgiving than the God you worship."

      Man relying on himself is what got us into this mess and continues to keep us in this mess.

      As for being more forgiving and loving than God, are you without the need for forgiveness? None of us are, yet God is willing to forgive us. Have you willingly laid down your life for others? The God I worship did that even though we were guilty of sin worthy of punishment.

      "I am certainly more righteous than some being who tells soldiers to kill women, children and infants."

      To claim one is more righteous than God is to go out on a very weak limb indeed. As the sovereign creator of all things do you not think God has the right to do with his creation as he wishes? As for those he ordered to be killed do you suppose they were innocent and not deserving of justice?

      It is folly indeed to view God as simply some powerful 'man' subject to the same faults and foibles as we are. God is not simply some being who happens to possess a tremendous amount of power. He is sovereign, he is not us writ larger. He is our creator and we are his creation.

      Delete
    25. Nic: "I don't view my beliefs or my relationship with Christ as an 'airy-fairy' experience. It is central to who I am as a person and a human being. My relationship with Christ is not based on a blind hope for something better in the future, it is based on the fact of something better in the here-and-now."

      I have no problem with your belief system because, as far as I have seen, you treat it as a personal belief, and don't try to force it on others. In my case, I don't see the need for it, but that is a personal choice and I don't try to force it on others.

      But when people make it a personal attack, as is the case with Joe and Mapou, I have no problems criticizing their beliefs.

      Delete
    26. Nic: "As for being more forgiving and loving than God, are you without the need for forgiveness?"

      We are all in need of forgiveness. But the only forgiveness I seek is forgiveness from those I love and respect, and those I have unjustly wronged.

      "To claim one is more righteous than God is to go out on a very weak limb indeed. "

      I didn't say that I was more righteous than God. Just that I was more righteous than any being who would order the murder of children.

      "As the sovereign creator of all things do you not think God has the right to do with his creation as he wishes?"

      No. I think that if he created beings with a conscious, a being that has desires and can suffer, then I believe that he has an obligation towards them. Most people would not breed puppies for the purpose of dog fighting. Why should God get away with it?

      "As for those he ordered to be killed do you suppose they were innocent and not deserving of justice?"

      Nobody can tell me that infants are not innocent. Personally, I think that this bit of scripture was simply written by the victors to justify a horrific act after the fact.

      "It is folly indeed to view God as simply some powerful 'man' subject to the same faults and foibles as we are. God is not simply some being who happens to possess a tremendous amount of power. He is sovereign, he is not us writ larger. He is our creator and we are his creation."

      I don't believe this, but that is immaterial. If we are him writ small (created in God's image and all that), then he is us writ large.

      Delete
    27. Nic the spineless Christian:

      "You're lucky Hunter is censoring my comments. Otherwise, I'd let you have it."

      How refreshing, yet another mature adult comment from Louis. What a sad little individual you must be.


      LOL. I'd hunt him down and kick his worthless, self-righteous ass if we were living in the time of King David.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    28. But when people make it a personal attack, as is the case with Joe and Mapou, I have no problems criticizing their beliefs.

      Now what are you falsely accusing me of?

      The only time you get attacked is when you post unsupportable tripe and act like it is a fact, start quote-mining, blatantly lie and attack people for correcting you.

      Stop acting like the victim you never were. That is just desperation. Do you think that people cannot read what you post?

      Delete
    29. Louis,

      "LOL. I'd hunt him down and kick his worthless, self-righteous ass if we were living in the time of King David."

      It's very fortunate for you we are not living in the time of King David, you would have been stoned for blasphemy long ago. :)

      William, on the other hand would be fine, he would simply be seen as a Greek. If you were to harm him, it would be you who would suffer the consequences.

      Delete
    30. LOL. King David would string up the dirt worshipper, circumcise him (unless he has already neutered himself) and cut off his pagan Philistine head for good measure. The he would let the buzzards and other carrion eaters have their fill.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    31. William,

      "you treat it as a personal belief, and don't try to force it on others."

      Forcing it on others is not the way it works, that's Islam. One must accept it of their own volition.

      "But when people make it a personal attack,..."

      Those are the people who know nothing of the Christian faith and what it teaches.

      In fairness to Joe, he does not claim to be a Christian.

      "We are all in need of forgiveness. But the only forgiveness I seek is forgiveness from those I love and respect, and those I have unjustly wronged."

      One of the basic tenets of the Christian faith is that we have all sinned and need forgiveness in that we have all sinned against God through disobedience. Only God can forgive sins committed against him.

      "then I believe that he has an obligation towards them."

      That obligation and commitment to his creation extended to his dying to redeem it. That goes beyond anything we could do.

      "Personally, I think that this bit of scripture was simply written by the victors to justify a horrific act after the fact."

      That's another debate altogether.

      However, as we believe God is sovereign we believe he can do with his creation what he wills. You might find what William Lane Craig has to say about this question interesting.

      "If we are him writ small (created in God's image and all that), then he is us writ large."

      That is no referring to our physical nature. It is referring to our capacity to create and to love and care for that which we create.

      Delete
    32. I am not a Christian. Jesus is not God. If Jesus was God the there really wasn't any sacrifice on the Cross.

      Those are the people who know nothing of the Christian faith and what it teaches.

      And yet you attack me

      Delete
    33. Joke: "And yet you attack me."

      You are such a delicate, sensitive flower.

      Delete
    34. Joey,

      "And yet you attack me"

      Where did I attack you?

      Read what I said in context. I was explicitly excluding you from the comment about people who know nothing about the Christian faith. Reading comprehension is your friend. :)

      Delete
    35. You attacked me when I said that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. It starts here.

      Delete
    36. willie, buy a vowel as I was just pointing out Nic's hypocrisy. I expect to get attacked as it is almost always the only thing my opponents have. I can take it and give it back.

      But again thank you for proving that you cannot read for comprehension. You seem to get the words but you don't seem to be able to put it all together. It's like a struggle for you and you always seem to end up losing.

      Delete
    37. Joey,

      "You attacked me when I said that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution."

      That's called having a difference of opinion. Mature adults know how to handle such situations.

      Delete
    38. Joke: “I expect to get attacked as it is almost always the only thing my opponents have.”

      Don’t forget laughter. That’s usually my first response to anything you say.

      Delete
    39. Nic:
      That's called having a difference of opinion.

      No Nic, you attacked me- you called me names. You are not a mature adult by any means.

      Also mine was not an opinion and yours was an uneducated "opinion".

      Delete
    40. Yes, willie, I expect laughter from know-nothing, little-minded people like you.

      Delete
    41. Joke: “No Nic, you attacked me- you called me names. You are not a mature adult by any means.”

      This is just priceless coming from the person who has been banned from more sites than we can count for his abissive language.

      Delete
    42. And more quote-mining.

      willie, thanks but I don't need any more proof that you are incapable of following a discussion. How desperate are you? Do you not realize everybody who isn't reading deficient can see and understand the context of my words?

      Delete
    43. WS:

      No. I think that if he created beings with a conscious, a being that has desires and can suffer, then I believe that he has an obligation towards them. Most people would not breed puppies for the purpose of dog fighting. Why should God get away with it?

      You have made several statements dealing with the problem of evil, such as the above. This sentiment goes back centuries, and is fairly common. It is a powerful argument that has persuaded many.

      My question for you is this: Is it a coincidence that you also are an evolutionist, or is does this "problem of evil" issue influence your position that the world arose by naturalistic processes?

      Delete
    44. It is a powerful argument that has persuaded many.

      Only weak minded people like dirt worshippers. The weak minded do not realize that we live in a yin-yang reality. How can God create pleasure sensors without also creating pain sensors? Is one meaningful without the other?

      There is no such thing as happiness without sorrow, pain without pleasure, right without left, etc. The same Gods who created us the way we are had to go through the same pains and miseries that we have to go through. This is part of our initiation into eternal life. The Book of Job also makes the point about yin and yang. There is no other way around it. It's reality.

      After the suffering comes an eternity of bliss, but only for those who have faith. The others will lose their lives forever, that is, their spirits will exist in eternal unconsciousness.

      Delete
    45. CH: “My question for you is this: Is it a coincidence that you also are an evolutionist, or is does this "problem of evil" issue influence your position that the world arose by naturalistic processes?“

      My conclusion that the world arose by naturalistic processes has nothing to do with the evil issue. I just follow the evidence and I don’t see God’s, or any designer’s fingerprints on life.

      If God exists he could have created a universe with evil or one without evil. I don’t really have any problem with either. If he exists, I can’t do anything about it. But allowing evil to occur and actually perpetrating that evil are two different things. One is consistent with a loving god, the other is not. And the bible is full of actions by God that we would consider acts of evil.

      Delete
    46. Your response suggests that you are unaware that your religious beliefs about God and your position on origins are suspiciously aligned in a happy coincidence.

      Delete
    47. CH: “Your response suggests that you are unaware that your religious beliefs about God and your position on origins are suspiciously aligned in a happy coincidence.“

      I don’t have any religious beliefs about God. I have practical issues with how this mythical being is portrayed in the bible.

      Delete
    48. Little Joey,

      "No Nic, you attacked me- you called me names."

      My, aren't we just the little snowflake. What vicious name did I call you?

      "Also mine was not an opinion and yours was an uneducated "opinion"."

      I know, Joey. I already told you you were right. You're always right, Joey. It is ridiculous for mental peons such as myself to question the opinions of little Joey.

      Delete
    49. WS:

      I don’t have any religious beliefs about God.

      Actually you do indeed have such beliefs. You have made that abundantly clear.

      I have practical issues with how this mythical being is portrayed in the bible.

      This is tedious. You have strong beliefs about what God ought to do. You have made that clear. Those beliefs are religious. If you want to claim those are not religious, but are "practical issues" then we are into word games.

      In any case, your semantics don't matter, as my point remains. Regardless of how you want to label your beliefs, my point stands that you are oblivious to the fact that your "practical issues" about God and your position on origins are suspiciously aligned in a happy coincidence.

      Delete
    50. CH: “This is tedious. You have strong beliefs about what God ought to do.”

      Yes. I made that clear.

      Those beliefs are religious.”

      Nonsense. I believe that it is wrong to kill children and infants. That is not a religious belief. If you believe that you need religion to tell you not to kill babies, then the problem is yours, not mine.

      Regardless of how you want to label your beliefs, my point stands that you are oblivious to the fact that your "practical issues" about God and your position on origins are suspiciously aligned in a happy coincidence.“

      If I say that I see no evidence for a god or a designer in life, you see it as a happy coincidence that it aligns with my views on origins. Completely ignoring the fact that the only conclusion that can be drawn if their is no evidence for a god or a designer is a naturalistic explanation.

      Delete
    51. WS:

      My conclusion that the world arose by naturalistic processes has nothing to do with the evil issue. I just follow the evidence and I don’t see God’s, or any designer’s fingerprints on life.

      This is cognitive dissonance. Of course it isn't just a happy coincidence that your origins views are aligned with your religious views.

      But allowing evil to occur and actually perpetrating that evil are two different things.

      Yup, they sure are. You are so deep into the problem of evil you don't even realize it. Of course you don't "see God’s fingerprints on life"--you have mandated that he wouldn't create this world. You can only allow for a distant god, if any at all.

      Delete
    52. WS:

      Nonsense.

      No religious. You are deeply in denial. Beliefs about what God ought to do are *religious* because they entail, drumroll, beliefs about God.

      Delete
    53. WS:

      I believe that it is wrong to kill children and infants.

      So says the abortionist. More cognitive dissonance. You, in fact, believe is it *right* to kill children.

      Delete
    54. WS:

      That is not a religious belief. If you believe that you need religion to tell you not to kill babies, then the problem is yours, not mine.

      Of course it is a religious belief. You are utterly in denial. With evolution there is no such right or wrong, in an objective sense as you are using it. If anything, predation would be a virtue. There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" without an objective law, which requires a law-giver. Anything less is not binding on God.

      Delete
    55. WS:

      If I say that I see no evidence for a god or a designer in life, you see it as a happy coincidence that it aligns with my views on origins. Completely ignoring the fact that the only conclusion that can be drawn if their is no evidence for a god or a designer is a naturalistic explanation.

      You are fooling only yourself. It doesn't matter whether or not there is "no evidence," the result is an alignment, which is a happy coincidence for you. It just so happens that your religious beliefs and position on origins align. Wow, what a happy coincidence that is!

      Delete
    56. Cornelius throws his pearls to the swines only to watch them trample them underfoot. Over and over.

      Delete
    57. WS:

      And of course my point that your views constitute "a happy coincidence" is a rhetorical one. There really is no "happy coincidence." We all know that. You are religiously-driven to the absurdity that 10^-800 probabilities are routinely surmounted, that the world arose spontaneously, and that there is just "no evidence for a god or a designer." You are an Epicurean.

      Delete
    58. Hmmm. Six responses to a single comment. I must have hit close to home.

      But I do like how you try to win an argument by telling me how I must think and believe.

      Delete
    59. My conclusion that the world arose by naturalistic processes has nothing to do with the evil issue.

      And it doesn't have anything to do with science and evidence. If you had some then you would share it.

      But I do like how you try to win an argument by telling me how I must think and believe.

      That is what you always try to do. Welcome home.

      Delete
    60. Joke: “And it doesn't have anything to do with science and evidence. If you had some then you would share it.“

      Even if there were no evidence for naturalistic processes (which there are), the complete lack of evidence for a designer leaves naturalistic processes as the only option.

      When have I argued an issue by telling anyone how they must think? Links please.

      Delete

    61. Even if there were no evidence for naturalistic processes (which there are), the complete lack of evidence for a designer leaves naturalistic processes as the only option.


      Except there is plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design, starting with this planet. Your only explanation is innumerable just-so cosmic collisions that somehow imparted just the right rotation. The claims of your position are beyond ridiculous when it comes to this planet.

      You don't have a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing living organisms.

      You don't have a naturalistic process for producing eukaryotes.

      You don't have a naturalistic process capable of producing metazoans.

      The evidence for ID is summed up by Dr Behe:

      "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

      That is what we observe in living organisms and exactly what you cannot explain.

      When have I argued an issue by telling anyone how they must think?

      You do that to me all of the time. You do it when you quote-mine, which is regularly

      Delete
    62. Hmmm. Six responses to a single comment. I must have hit close to home. But I do like how you try to win an argument by telling me how I must think and believe.

      Except that I didn't do that, making this a strawman argument.

      Delete
    63. Joke: “You do that to me all of the time. You do it when you quote-mine, which is regularly.”

      So you can’t link to any comment where I am telling someone what they must think. I didn’t think so.

      Delete
    64. Joke: “Just read this thread. And there is this willie telling me what I think.”

      Another example of not being able to read for comprehension. My comment didn’t tell you how you think. It said that you were incapable of bringing meaning to your life. Which is the logical conclusion of needing some god to provide meaning to your life.

      Delete
    65. My comment didn’t tell you how you think.

      You tried to tell me what I must think

      It said that you were incapable of bringing meaning to your life.

      Which is total nonsense spewed by someone trying to tell me what I must think.

      Which is the logical conclusion of needing some god to provide meaning to your life.

      It didn't follow from what you were responding to.

      “The only purpose your position offers is live/ survive and reproduce. Anything else is made up and meaningless.“

      The fact that you can’t bring meaning to your life is sad. I feel sorry for you.

      The fact that you spewed y=that bit of pure nonsense- it isn't logical conclusion to what I posted- it is just pure lowlife drivel.

      You are the one with reading and honesty issues.

      Delete
  5. One of the biggest problems with incremental evolution is that, like all incremental optimization algorithms or mechanisms, it suffers from local maxima or minima. Not to mention the serious problem of overfitting.

    Modern AI learning algorithms (e.g., deep learning) all suffer from these problems but the brain does not. This obviously means that, unlike deep neural networks, the brain does not optimize an objective function.

    The brain-dead cretinous Darwinists would have us believe that no-brain evolution not only managed to get around local maximas and minimas, but figured out a way for the brain to do the same. This is not even wrong. It is worse than voodoo superstition. It's the friggin work of Satan.

    ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louis, the goals of your activity in the comments section is unclear. Your posts are full of scorn and derision, but are rather short on any sort of evidence. If you are trying to convince non-Christians that your position is correct and that a life spent following Jesus Christ is a worthwhile endeavor, you may want to form arguments that include more in the way of evidence and less in the way of pointless derision and name-calling. I see no evidence of the fruits of the Spirit in what you have written here.

      Delete
    2. I am not trying to convince anybody to be Christian. You're kidding me? Unless God himself ordains you to preach to the world, you are a false preacher, a charlatan.

      Besides, only Jesus can call a person to the Father. And he does not need preachers for that. His Spirit is enough.

      Delete
    3. That's interesting since Jesus's last words on the earth were instructions to His followers to go forth and make disciples - in all parts of the earth.

      May I ask then why you do persist with your tactic of constant derision without providing evidence to support your claims? It doesn't seem like there is any purpose being served.

      Delete
    4. My last attempted reply hasn't posted yet, so I'll try again. No, I'm not kidding, Jesus Christ's last instructions before ascending to heaven were to go into all the world and make disciples. I may not do it perfectly, but I do try to follow the direct instructions from Jesus.

      Delete
    5. First off, Jesus was not talking to you. He was talking to his Jewish disciples. He specifically instructed them to go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. I can only assume that they all knew who he was referring to.

      He even prophesied to them that a time would come that people would persecute them (the Jews) in his name, i.e., in the name of Jesus. Which is exactly what happened over the centuries: Christian nations persecuted the Jews in the name of Jesus. Over and over.

      Second, you accuse me of not providing evidence while responding to a comment of mine where I took pains to explain that evolution is BS because it is an optimizing mechanism and thus suffers from all the known problems of optimizers.

      So, I am forced to conclude that you are a liar and a child of Satan pretending to be a Christian. Just stay away from me, man.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    6. Louis, I mentioned that you lacked evidence, not lacked an explanation. Do you have anything other than your intuition to use as evidence?

      I've gotta say, I find your observations and conclusions about me to be rather funny, as well.

      Delete
    7. Didn't I tell you to stay away from me, jackass?

      Delete
    8. You did, but I hardly consider offering advice and legitimate questions as infringing on your person in any way, especially since you can choose to simply ignore them.

      Delete
    9. Some more free advice you may choose to ignore if you wish, read (in a teachable spirit) Galatians 5, particularly verses 16-25.

      Delete
    10. Unless you can walk on water and heal the blind and the crippled, don't preach to me, jackass.

      Delete
    11. I cannot walk on water and I cannot heal, nor am I called to preach. If you took a 1 sentence suggestion as "preaching to you", I offer an apology.

      Delete
    12. It is preaching. You're trying to tell me how to be a Christian, goddammit. I try to be a King David type of Christian, a man who was said to be after God's own heart. And God does not change.

      Jesus knew what kind of Christianity would rise over the centuries. He foretold that they would persecute his people, the Jews, in his name. Christianity even introduced a bunch of BS pagan ideas (like the concept of hell) into the religion.

      Now stay away.

      Delete
  6. Curtis,

    You will quickly find trying to reason with Louis is akin to reasoning with a brick.

    Cue a string of ad hominems from Louis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And trying to reason with Nic is beyond hopeless.

      Delete
    2. Joey & Louis,

      You guys must be having a rough day, only one attempt at an insult each.

      Hope you're both feeling better soon. :)

      Delete
    3. I just thought that hopeless and spineless had a nice rhyme to them.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    4. What attempt at an insult are you talking about, Nic? Just because the truth hurts that doesn't make it an insult.

      It is what it is

      Delete
    5. Thanks Nic, I see what you mean! God bless you, brother, for at least attempting to stand against this nonsense.

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

      Delete
  7. Joey,

    It's the poor teacher who blames his student. If I am hopeless at learning anything you try to teach me the fault lies with you.

    I guess you're just not as smart or capable as you think you are. C'est la vie. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except I am not your teacher and you are not my student. I am merely a person who can support his claims. Whether or not people accept that support is up to them. They are free to check it out for themselves. It is up to them. They are free to try to refute my claims but they are going to have support for that and it better trump what I have, ie Wikipedia doesn't trump pubmed.

      But you are right- I am not capable of reaching through to the willfully ignorant, like people who think google hit counts validate the concept you are searching for.

      Delete
  8. Joey,

    "I am merely a person who can support his claims."

    Really, then why don't you? I have asked you numerous times to support your claim there is no scientific theory of evolution and all I ever get is insults.

    "people who think google hit counts validate the concept you are searching for."

    I wasn't saying google hits validate my claim. I was simply pointing out there were plenty of resources which pointed to the existence of a scientific theory of evolution. Strange how you could not counter with resources which support your position that there is no scientific theory of evolution. In fact, you are the only person I have ever heard make the claim there is no such thing as a scientific theory of evolution. Why is that? If it is a fact you must have some sort of resource to support your claim. Yet you never provide anything of the sort.

    As a creationist I would love to get my hands on that evidence which you so strongly insist exists. Why not help me out?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Really, then why don't you?

    I have

    I have asked you numerous times to support your claim there is no scientific theory of evolution

    I have supported that claim.

    I wasn't saying google hits validate my claim.

    Sure you were.

    I was simply pointing out there were plenty of resources which pointed to the existence of a scientific theory of evolution.

    Except those resources didn't do that. Had to read any of those links you would have known that. Not one link was to the alleged scientific theory of evolution. Not one.

    Strange how you could not counter with resources which support your position that there is no scientific theory of evolution.

    I provided a quote from a geneticist. And also the fact that no one can link to the scientific theory of evolution is evidence for my claim. The fact that you don't know who the author was, when it was written and what journal published it are all evidence that supports my claim

    In fact, you are the only person I have ever heard make the claim there is no such thing as a scientific theory of evolution.

    And yet I quoted geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti who says the same thing.

    Clearly you have other issues, Nic.

    If it is a fact you must have some sort of resource to support your claim.

    The fact that no one can find it is that resource, Nic. You can't find it. You don't even know who the author was. You don't know anything about it.

    As I said=- clearly you have other issues.

    "There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution"- Giuseppe Sermonti, "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?", 2004, p 11 (geneticist and former editor of a peer-reviewed journal)

    And guess what? Not one person has ever refuted that claim even though they did take aim at some of his other claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe, are you basing your entire argument on what Dr. Sermonti wrote? If I could find two PhD scientists that claim there is a theory of evolution, would that be twice as effective as your argument? It might be a good idea to be careful with the appeals to expertise... especially if they are vastly outnumbered.

      The encyclopedia britannica has some considerable entries on the subject, written with contributions from numerous PhD scientists.

      https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/The-science-of-evolution

      Delete
    2. Curtis, Link to the scientific theory of evolution. You can't because it doesn't exist.

      I base my argument on the fact that no one can find any scientific theory of evolution. And that includes all PhDs

      Delete
  10. I don't care how many people disagree with me. I don't care how many PhD's disagree with Dr Sermonti. I don't care how many google hits the phrase gets.

    Unless someone can link to any scientific theory of evolution, say who the author was, when it was published and what journal published it, all you have is raw spewage to support your claim. And raw spewage is meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is a pretty good, short list of the major points, by Phillip McClean, in 1997.

      (https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/popgen/popgen5.htm)

      It is from a website and not a journal, because journals report new findings.

      Would you disagree with the theory of gravity because you can't find the theory stated in a peer-reviewed journal?

      Delete
    2. Einstein's theories have been published in peer-review. Newton's equations have withstood the test of time.

      Einstein made specific predictions based on specific equations. And observations and experiments have conformed them.

      And your reference may as well be talking about baraminology, ie the concept of limited descent with modification (variation within the Kind).

      Delete
    3. "Einstein's theories have been published in peer-review. Newton's equations have withstood the test of time."

      It would probably be counterproductive to insist on a single peer-reviewed journal article that states "the theory of gravity", but that is what you are attempting to do with the theory of evolution.

      An honest question on baraminology - is there Biblical basis for stating that the baramins could never change? Clearly, for numerous generations, living things would continue to look like their progenitors, according to their kind. But is there a passage clearly indicating that there is some eternal barrier to the limits of descent with modification?

      Delete
    4. Curtis, If you cannot link to nor find the alleged scientific theory of evolution then clearly it doesn't exist.

      And no one has to demonstrate any barrier exists. It is up to the people making the claim to support it. That means if someone says that fish evolved into tetrapods then they have the burden to demonstrate such a thing. Science 101

      Micro-evolution involves variation but there aren't any known micro-evolutionary events that can be added up to produce macro-evolution, ie new body plans and new body parts.

      Delete
    5. "And no one has to demonstrate any barrier exists. It is up to the people making the claim to support it. That means if someone says that fish evolved into tetrapods then they have the burden to demonstrate such a thing. Science 101"

      Personally, I believe a position that opposes what 99% of PhD Biologists believe would require some rather strong evidence to be taken seriously.

      So in the fish to tetrapod example you use, what do you find erroneous about the accepted series of Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, tetrapod transition?

      Delete
    6. Personally, I believe a position that opposes what 99% of PhD Biologists believe would require some rather strong evidence to be taken seriously.

      So you think science is done via majority rule and not by evidence? Wow. I will go with evidence over say-so.

      So in the fish to tetrapod example you use, what do you find erroneous about the accepted series of Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, tetrapod transition?

      Question-begging. What mechanism was involved and how can that be tested?

      The story used to be that some population of fish was hunted and moved on land to escape predation. But given Tiktaalik's size that story seems nonsensical. Do you know how many just-so genetic changes it takes to take pelvic fin and turn it into the robust limb of Tiktaalik? Can such a thing be tested?

      Delete
    7. Joke: “So you think science is done via majority rule and not by evidence? Wow. I will go with evidence over say-so.“

      When 99.9% of doctors say that I need to take insulin, I will tend to accept their conclusion. Of course, they might be wrong and I may be cured with crystal therapy.

      Question begging: What mechanism...”

      What mechanism was involved in ID producing tetrapods? Oh, silly me. I’m not allowed to ask questions about ID mechanisms.

      Delete
    8. Curtis:

      Personally, I believe a position that opposes what 99% of PhD Biologists believe would require some rather strong evidence to be taken seriously.

      If you studied the history of science you might modify that view.

      So in the fish to tetrapod example you use, what do you find erroneous about the accepted series of Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, tetrapod transition?

      The problem with evolutionary theory is the science. The evidence contradicts the theory. It is not the case that evolutionary examples, such as your fish to tetrapod example, are accepted by “99% of PhD Biologists” because they have carefully examined it, determined the random mutations that must have, or likely, occurred, determined the probabilities, found it to be statistically likely, and so came away accepting the example.

      It doesn’t work like that.

      Delete
    9. "So you think science is done via majority rule and not by evidence? Wow. I will go with evidence over say-so."

      No, I'm saying that the onus of proof would be on the minority position, not the majority.

      "Question-begging. What mechanism was involved and how can that be tested?"

      The difficult thing about any hypothesis regarding evolution is the time-frames needed to test them empirically. Instead of the preferred experimentally-based collection of evidence, conclusions much be drawn be observing the evidence that is already present. I agree that it a less-than-ideal method, but I'm afraid the millions of years that would be required to test the hypothesis are unfeasible. So what we are left with is the EXPERT opinion (not simply majority opinion) of those in the field that are in the best position to formulate hypotheses. If you want to contradict the experts, you should have evidence to support your contradiction.

      Delete
    10. I'm willing to learn, please tell me how the history of science shows that minority views do NOT require strong evidence.

      "The problem with evolutionary theory is the science. The evidence contradicts the theory."

      What evidence do you find that most-obviously contradicts the theory?

      Delete
    11. When 99.9% of doctors say that I need to take insulin, I will tend to accept their conclusion.

      That is based on actual research and science whereas fish to tetrapod is not. Your desperation is still showing.

      What mechanism was involved in ID producing tetrapods?

      1- ID isn't about ten mechanism. It isn't that no one is allowed to ask, it is just a separate question. We don't ask about the how until after we have determined intelligent design exists.

      2- Design is a mechanism. Yes that is very general but so is natural selection and drift. We use evolution by means of intelligent design in our genetic algorithms to produce technology that eludes some humans.

      3- If your position had any evidence and science to support its claims then ID would be falsified as one of ID's claims is that materialistic processes are not sufficient to produce living organisms or the diversity of life. And that is how Newton's four rules of scientific investigation have it. Allow only as many causes as necessary

      Delete
    12. Curtis, The onus is always on the people making the claim that is contrary to observation. No one has ever observed such a transition. No one knows if such a transition is even possible. No one knows the genetics that would be involved or if any amount of change would suffice.

      That said, just throwing father time around as if that solves the problem is far from scientific.

      And further it is not up to me to prove a negative. If the experts cannot support their claims then what makes them experts?

      Delete
    13. Joe, do you disregard forensic evidence collected by crime scene investigators because they were not at the scene to see how it all unfolded?

      The experts spend years on an undergraduate degree in order to scratch the surface of the knowledge base. They then go on to graduate school where more years are spent as they begin to assemble the skills and ability to begin to ask meaningful questions to fill in knowledge gaps. Then years more are spent studying the intricacies of problems they are trying to solve. And yet, the best they can do regarding evolutionary history is to use the available clues, just like crime scene investigators. It is not a matter of "throwing around father time", it is a matter of dealing with the difficulties of investigating the questions of the distant past.

      Have you ever heard of an attorney saying "Since you cannot absolutely prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, then you are clearly not an expert and your opinion is meaningless"?

      Delete
    14. Curtis:

      I'm willing to learn, please tell me how the history of science shows that minority views do NOT require strong evidence.

      There is an old saying that says, in effect, “heroic ideas require heroic evidence.” You have changed this to “minority ideas require heroic evidence, by virtue of the fact that there is a strong majority.” From a history of science perspective this does not hold up well. Many theories held at one time with strong consensus were later considered to be wrong. Holding minority views to a higher standard makes theory evaluation subjective (how much stronger does the evidence need to be? How many times will the goal posts move?), and amounts to theory protectionism. If I had a nickel for every time the goal posts have moved, …

      There is no principled reason why a problematic view should enjoy an arbitrary prior probability advantage, to put it in Bayesian terms, by virtue of being the majority.


      What evidence do you find that most-obviously contradicts the theory?

      Broadly speaking, evolution lacks a plausible mechanism (process) and the phylogenies don’t fit the data (pattern). So the theory fails on both process and pattern. There are a multitude of examples of this. You can see some in this blog, for example. If you want a very quick example you can look at the OP above. 10^-800 isn’t going to happen. And that is conservative.

      Delete
    15. "Many theories held at one time with strong consensus were later considered to be wrong."

      Absolutely - and the re-evaluation was almost certainly done after strong evidence was produced to the contrary.

      "Holding minority views to a higher standard makes theory evaluation subjective (how much stronger does the evidence need to be? How many times will the goal posts move?), and amounts to theory protectionism."

      Also true, and I do understand your point regarding subjectivity. So you suggest evidence should be the primary (if not only) consideration in theory evaluation. What evidence would you use to promote an alternative hypothesis to evolution?

      (and how on earth does one italicize here?! :-P)

      Delete
    16. Curtis:

      Broadly speaking, evolution lacks a plausible mechanism (process) and the phylogenies don’t fit the data (pattern). So the theory fails on both process and pattern. There are a multitude of examples of this. You can see some in this blog, for example. If you want a very quick example you can look at the OP above. 10^-800 isn’t going to happen. And that is conservative.

      Does your non response to my answer to your question indicate concurrence?

      Also, to italicize, you place your text between i and /i, except that each must be within these arrow symbols: <>

      Delete
    17. Joe, do you disregard forensic evidence collected by crime scene investigators because they were not at the scene to see how it all unfolded?

      Yes, I do. And you are out of your mind if you think evolution is the same thing.

      There aren't any experts in the field of fish evolving into tetrapods. No one knows if such a thing is possible.

      It all comes down to evidence, Curtis. And right now there isn't any evidence that says changes in DNA can change a fish fin into the robust flipper of Tiktaalik.

      Delete
    18. Sorry, but let me make sure you just said what it looks like you said -- You disregard forensic evidence because investigators were not actually at a crime scene when it happened?

      Clearly, this is an analogy, and I cannot fully equate evolution science to forensic science. However, I think you can see how the two are indeed similar. Researchers have to use the best evidence available in order to hypothesize about events that lack eyewitnesses.

      There is bountiful evidence of changes in DNA altering phenotype, scientists say that all it takes is sufficient time scale in order to make more dramatic changes.

      If it does indeed all come down to evidence, as I've asked Cornelius, what evidence would you suggest that supports an alternate hypothesis?

      Delete


    19. Cornelius - no, not yet, I'm just checking out the playing field right now. If evidence is as important as you suggest, then there should be ample evidence in order to choose a different hypothesis from the experts in the field.

      Before I commit to doing the research on the rest of the blog in order to formulate a reasoned response, I want to see if your desire for evidence applies not only to evolution, but to your proposed alternative.

      Delete
    20. Curtis:

      Cornelius - no, not yet, I'm just checking out the playing field right now.

      Amazing how predictable these discussions are, right down to the phony game playing and false pretenses. And when confronted with the science they suddenly aren't so "interested in learning," as they said they were.

      Before I commit to doing the research on the rest of the blog in order to formulate a reasoned response, I want to see if your desire for evidence applies not only to evolution, but to your proposed alternative.

      You can drop the cheap act anytime now. You've already proven you're anti-science.

      Delete
    21. Curtis, my bad. I misread your post. Forensic science is one thing and reproducing life's history is another. I am OK with forensic science. The same sequence of DNA that pairs me with one of my parents would show that neither of us are related to chimps.


      There is bountiful evidence of changes in DNA altering phenotype, scientists say that all it takes is sufficient time scale in order to make more dramatic changes.


      Question-begging and special pleading. We see the phenotypic plasticity of species with dogs. But dogs are still dogs.

      Survival of the fittest and making of fittest are fine and dandy. But saying fitness can drive massive changes in body plan is crazy talk. To say fitness can drive the innovation of new body parts is madness.

      The fittest fish are still fish. And it appears there is a very wide variety of fit fish. The fittest clownfish isn't on its way to being a shark.

      The point being you don't have a testable mechanism capable of producing the transformations required. The human genome has been mapped. The chimp genome has been mapped. Allegedly there is about a 2% genetic difference between the two. And yet no one has been able to link that small genetic difference to the anatomical and physiological differences observed. Are those overwhelming majority of scientists that stupid or is it that there aren't any such links because the transformations never happened?

      As for fitness, well that is very fickle too. In the end it is all contingent serendipity and that isn't a mechanism I would want to bet the house on.

      Delete
    22. LOL. Curtis Henderson is a fake Christian, a closet dirt worshipper pretending to be a Christian. He's worse than spineless Nic.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    23. Louis, if you weren't such a sad example of a "Christian", you would be comical. I use quotes because I see absolutely zero evidence of anything resembling a follower of Christ. If you want me to leave you alone as you so colorfully expressed earlier, you should probably not address me in your posts.

      Louis, I follow Jesus Christ, and I accept the theory of evolution. There is nothing closet about my beliefs. I do not worship dirt, but I do worship the God that created it and all other things.

      Cornelius, I had hoped your role as host would involve a little more adult-like behavior than posters like Louis. Instead, it appears that your limit is about 3 posts before you resort to denigration. I find it interesting that when I check your commitment to evidence, your response is to belittle rather than to seriously engage. It's almost as though you don't want to provide an answer...

      Still waiting on the evidence for your alternate hypothesis.

      Joe, I appreciate your sincerity and willingness to conduct genuine dialog. You are committed to what you believe, which I respect, and you haven't yet stooped to unfair treatment of me simply because I do not share your views on the mechanism of God's creative work.

      Nic, I have the feeling that I would enjoy discussing these views with you.

      Although I do believe that the science of evolution is correct (though admittedly, there are legitimate questions), I am not beholden to it. I am beholden to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who died for me and for the sins of all humanity and was resurrected to offer those who would follow everlasting life with Him.

      Delete
    24. Henderson, you're a lying dirt worshipper pretending to be a Christian. You are a disciple of Satan. You're a filthy, demon-possessed swine trampling on the pearls of true believers.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

      Delete
    26. Curtis:

      Still waiting on the evidence for your alternate hypothesis.

      This same argument has been going on for 2,000 years. It is a very predictable, religious argument. It has nothing to do with science.

      You made two bogus claims. First, that minority theories should start out with lower prior probabilities, which is nothing more than theory protectionism. Second, that evolution is a compelling scientific theory, which is absurd.

      You asked for clarification on the problems with your claims. When I provided satisfactory answers it quickly became clear you actually had no interest in such clarifications. Zip. No engagement.

      In fact, this OP explains a fundamental process problem. The entire biological world, let alone a single species, is not going to evolve from random mutations + natural selection. You immediately encounter probabilities like 10^-800 in the most trivial of cases. Not surprisingly, the other evolutionists here had nothing but pathetic responses. It’s not going to happen—at least according to known science.

      This left you with a big yawn. Because it isn’t about science. It never was. And now you suddenly want to switch the topic to some “alternate hypothesis.” Without so much as a single intelligent response to the science, you think you can just set it all aside, and ignore it. Sorry, you have demonstrated no scientific ability at theory evaluation.

      Delete
    27. What grace do you impart to others Louis?

      Why do people insist on preaching the Bible to me? Is Paul my God? Was he addressing me? Or was he writing a personal letter to a Christian assembly in Ephesus?

      Are you accusing Jesus of imparting no grace when he called the Pharisees "hypocrites", "snakes", "tombs painted white on the outside but with all manner of filthiness on the inside?"

      Are you accusing Jesus of having no grace when he kicked the money changers out of the Temple and called them "thieves"?

      Of course, you are. Don't preach to me, goddammit.

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

      Delete
    29. I didn’t preach. Just quoted some scripture and asked you a question.

      Of course, you're preaching. You are giving me advice on righteousness by quoting Bible passages to me. You don't have any righteousness to give me. I don't have any to give you either. This is why I don't preach to you.

      What’s interesting is that you claim to have “special knowledge” from your reseach in occult physics (or whatever you call it) that one day you are you going to share with the world.

      I don't have any special knowledge. I am a researcher. I interpret certain occult texts. I have been wrong in my interpretations and I have had to retrace my steps on many occasions over the years. I may never release my full results. It's not my call. Someone else may do a better job. If you got a problem with the things that I write, it's obviously because they are not meant for you. I don't write for the world. I write only for the few believers wherever they may be.

      Do you think anybody is going to pay the slightest attention to you if you just carry on insulting everybody? Will that get you anywhere?

      I don't insult everybody. You are lying. I insult only those that I consider to be the enemy. I don't care if the whole world rejects my stuff. I write for just a few and they do contact me. Some have been follwing my work for many years. They don't preach to me.

      I don’t know if you are a Christian or not - it’s not my place to determine that (nor yours either actually, but doesn’t seem to stop you).

      To be a Christian is to have faith in God' That is all.

      I don’t know either if this is some elaborate game or strange “performance art”. Whatever it is I hope you are not as angry or bitter in real life as you come acorss here. And if you are hope you have others in your life who can help and support you.

      There you go again preaching to me. A Christian who is not mad at the world is not a true Christian. We are not of this world. We hate it. We're waiting as patiently as we can for the next one.

      Delete
    30. You made two bogus claims. First, that minority theories should start out with lower prior probabilities, which is nothing more than theory protectionism. Second, that evolution is a compelling scientific theory, which is absurd.

      You asked for clarification on the problems with your claims. When I provided satisfactory answers it quickly became clear you actually had no interest in such clarifications. Zip. No engagement.


      Cornelius I asked for you to demonstrate that your concern for evidence-based science is not applied selectively. The longer you dodge this demonstration, the more suspicious I become. I never said I was unwilling to read more, but the reading will require investment and I would like to see that my investment in reading and follow-up dialogue would be worthwhile. I can crank out requests rather quickly. I just want to see if you give more than lip-service to your requirement for evidence.

      Delete
    31. Perhaps I am wrong about my premise here that replacing a paradigm would require an viable alternative. As a historian of science, can you give me an example of a paradigm that has been discarded without a suitable replacement in recent scientific history?

      Delete
    32. Curtis,

      "No, I'm saying that the onus of proof would be on the minority position, not the majority."

      The onus of proof rests equally on both sides of the debate. The majority position carries no extra weight simply because it is a majority.

      Delete
    33. Curtis,

      "Perhaps I am wrong about my premise here that replacing a paradigm would require an viable alternative."

      You're right, you are wrong. If a paradigm can be demonstrated to be inadequate or actually false, no alternative paradigm need be forthcoming for the existing paradigm to be discarded.

      Delete
    34. Nic, I'm going to give this another shot since either I messed up my post or it simply hasn't been "approved".

      There is a real difference between majority opinion and expert majority opinion. Among a group of experts, majority opinion is more meaningful than among a group of amateurs.

      Also, do you know of any examples of scientific paradigms that have been discarded without a satisfactory replacement over the last 150 years or so? I can't think of any, but don't feel confident enough to say "there aren't any".

      Delete
    35. Curtis,

      What do you mean by "more meaningful"? Would that be like when the majority expert opinion ridiculed and ignored McClintock's work on jumping genes?

      As for scientific paradigms... they usually exist in competitive space except for evolution because it rides the coattails of observed and repeatable science and then bait and switches. To me it seems silly to continue working up a model that you know doesn't work and your question is probably a little irrelevant because the information that is learned to discount a current model would be used to immediately create a new model or modifying the existing one. For example, when studying torus-bearing pit membranes in plants there would be several models (root structure, arid environment, etc) to explain why the vascular cells of some plants would contain the structure while others would not. In the case of evolution, the information just keeps getting added into a hodgepodge because most of the story telling can't ever be falsified and the publication gets credence as long as it progresses the evolutionist agenda. Evolution has caused a critical issue in publication bias for researchers.

      We eventually felt good that most of the torus-bearing species were a result of climate, but if more species were to be found with the membrane then that paradigm may be dropped but there are already ideas/models in the pipeline to jump to. It's probably been rare that a researcher would be at a complete dead end. Oh if only their school knew... lol.

      Delete
    36. Are you saying that if an alleged scientific theory is falsified we should still use it and teach it as if it hasn't been refuted?

      Delete
    37. What do you mean by "more meaningful"? Would that be like when the majority expert opinion ridiculed and ignored McClintock's work on jumping genes?

      Hi Chuck, what I wrote earlier was in response to the claim that majority and minority opinion should be equally weighed. I agree that in a philosophical argument, neither should be given preference. However, I would maintain that EXPERT majority opinion should be and is given preferential treatment.

      You raise a solid point regarding McClintock's work, the same could be said for Prusiner and his bold (at the time) claims about prions. However, I never claimed that minority opinion should be ignored, I stated that minority opinion requires strong evidence to be taken seriously. McClinktock and Prusiner provided that strong evidence and the paradigms were overturned.

      Evolution has caused a critical issue in publication bias for researchers.

      This may be true, but I am less than convinced. I don't recall having seen anything in journals like Bio-Complexity doing anything to advance a hypothesis - only research attempting to demonstrate the improbability of evolution. There shouldn't be any publication bias there to prevent an alternative hypothesis. AiG tends to write a lot, but often based on drawing conclusions from other papers, or done in silico. It would be interesting to see what "wet" research could be done.

      It's probably been rare that a researcher would be at a complete dead end. Oh if only their school knew... lol.

      Hahaha! Yes, that would be quite the problem!

      Delete
    38. Are you saying that if an alleged scientific theory is falsified we should still use it and teach it as if it hasn't been refuted?

      Let's take this a step at a time, Joe. I'm pretty sure you don't yet buy that there is a theory of evolution. Maybe concede that point and then we can move on to whether or not it has been falsified. Caveat - hypotheses can be falsified, it takes falsification of a great number of hypotheses to hypothetically falsify a theory.

      Delete
    39. Curtis- You cannot find a scientific theory of evolution so shut up already. It's like you have some sort of sickness.

      Delete
    40. Curtis,

      "There is a real difference between majority opinion and expert majority opinion."

      No, there isn't. Majority opinions are never the arbiters of truth whether they are held by 'experts' or by 'amateurs.' Where did you come up with that illogical gem?

      "Also, do you know of any examples of scientific paradigms that have been discarded without a satisfactory replacement over the last 150 years or so?"

      Wow, two illogical gems in one post. Well done.

      It is totally irrelevant whether or not there has ever been a time in scientific history where a paradigm has been abandoned without another paradigm taking its place. If a paradigm is found to be inadequate or in fact false, it is to be abandoned whether another paradigm is available or not to replace it. If the existing paradigm is false what would be the purpose of continuing its existence? So you can simply say there is a paradigm in place? That's utter nonsense. It is certainly not science.

      Delete
  11. Joey,

    "And yet I quoted geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti who says the same thing."

    And yet I somehow missed that post, my apologies. That makes two people.

    "There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution"- Giuseppe Sermonti,

    That settles it then. There is no scientific theory of evolution.

    Maybe you and Giuseppe should get together and produce the research supporting your claims. You could at least look forward to a Nobel Prize.

    To be clear, I do not think the theory of evolution is sound science or even logical science but to claim it has no scientific aspects to it at all is simply palpable nonsense.

    "The fact that no one can find it is that resource, Nic. You can't find it. You don't even know who the author was. You don't know anything about it."

    https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

    This does not qualify as a reference, why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, I cannot prove that something does not exist. That you guys are even asking me too proves that you don't have a clue.

      Link to the actual scientific theory. Someone talking about it as if it exists doesn't count. Britannica must have referenced the actual scientific theory, right? Do they say who the author was?

      For example a scientific theory has to tell us how to test its claims. So how can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process? What does the alleged scientific theory of evolution have to say about that?

      Does it tell us how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by those same processes?

      Or is testing for allele frequency change the best it has?

      What about testing the claim that prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes? Does it offer up anything there?

      Delete
  12. Joe,

    "Look, I cannot prove that something does not exist."

    You can't? I can, it's easy.

    "Do they say who the author was?"

    Why don't you read it for yourself?

    "For example a scientific theory has to tell us how to test its claims."

    No it doesn't. All it needs to do is provide a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon. Those doing research into the validity of the theory can determine what tests they may deem necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic, you are wasting your time trying to educate Joe. He still thinks that frequency = wavelength.

      Delete
    2. willie, your continued quote-mine just proves that you are an ignorant coward

      Delete
    3. Joe,

      "willie, your continued quote-mine,..."

      Your continual whining about 'quote mining' is beyond tiresome. Only juveniles whine about 'quote mining.' It's simply a childish excuse to avoid addressing the argument.

      Delete
    4. Shut up, Nic. Only juveniles quote-mine and only cowards try to say it is OK to do so.

      You don't have an argument to address. Willie has never had an argument to address. Grow up already.

      Delete
    5. Joe,

      "Shut up, Nic. Only juveniles quote-mine and only cowards try to say it is OK to do so."

      My, aren't we mature.

      By providing a portion of a quote for reference while responding to the entire quote in context is not 'quote mining.'
      A mature adult would realise and understand this fact. So quit your childish whining and face the fact you simply cannot handle the argument.

      You would gain some insight, grow in knowledge and receive some credibility from others if you would give up this erroneous belief you have that you are more informed and more intelligent than any one else.

      Delete
    6. By providing a portion of a quote for reference while responding to the entire quote in context is not 'quote mining.'

      That isn't what happened. The quote is taken out of context as the rest of what I said proves. A mature adult would understand that fact.

      You would gain some insight, grow in knowledge and receive some credibility from others if you would give up this erroneous belief you have that you are more informed and more intelligent than any one else.

      Spoken like a jealous child.

      Delete
    7. Joe,

      "That isn't what happened."

      That is exactly what happened. That is what I always do, provide a portion of a quote to reference to what I am responding. If you are too dim to catch on, do not blame me.

      "Spoken like a jealous child."

      Joe, I am anything but a jealous individual. If, however, I was prone to jealousy I cannot express how low you would rate on the scale of that of which I would be jealous.

      Delete
    8. William,

      "Nic, you are wasting your time trying to educate Joe."

      You know me, I'm a glutton for punishment and stubborn too. :)

      Delete
    9. Nic, You have issues. Wilie was the one quote-mining me. You quote-mined me in another thread.

      You are just a clueless dolt who can't even follow along. Unless of course you are just another one of willie's socks. That would explain quite a bit...

      Delete
    10. Nic, you are wasting your time trying to educate Joe.

      Neither one of you has the ability or knowledge to educate anyone. So that would be a problem.

      Delete
    11. Joke: “Neither one of you has the ability or knowledge to educate anyone. So that would be a problem.“

      Then I have been fooling my employers for over thirty years. Btw, how hard is it to educate a toaster?

      Delete
    12. Teaching people how not to act just by being yourself really doesn't count. willie is still upset that someone threw out the toaster user's manual. It can't figure out how the bread goes in.

      Delete
  13. Refuting Nic is too easy:

    What is Science?:

    Make an observation or observations.
    Ask questions about the observations and gather information.

    Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.

    Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.

    Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.

    Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."


    AND:

    The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.

    What is a Scientific Theory?.

    Strange how references always support my claims...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good hypotheses are indeed testable. For a scientific idea to be elevated to the level of "theory", there are a great many supported hypotheses behind it. It may not be directly testable.

      Joe, do you have even a hypothesis regarding life as we see it to replace the theory of evolution that you dispute?

      Delete
    2. First tell me what this alleged theory of evolution has so I will know what you will accept and then we can compare.

      So how can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process?

      How can we test the claim that any prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes by means of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process?

      What is the evidence for such things? What are the testable hypotheses?

      Delete
    3. Joe, here are a few of the hypotheses that collectively support evolution:

      1. In a population, more individuals are born than can survive to reproduction age.

      2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.

      3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to their environment have a greater likelihood of survival to an age of reproduction (thus passing their alleles on to progeny).

      4. Over time, inheritance of suitable alleles can result in altered phenotype.

      5. Over time, segments of populations can become reproductively isolated.

      6. Isolation of these segments can accelerate phenotypic variation.

      7. Accumulated variation can lead to further isolation and speciation.

      These are just a few I could crank out in about 5 minutes of consideration.

      Let me add something very important regarding my view of evolution. I believe it is God's tool, so I do not believe anything about the process is blind or mindless, thus removing a large portion of your objection.

      Delete
    4. Now will you tell me about your hypothesis regarding variety of life we see today that is held to the same standard of evidence you use for evolution?

      Delete
    5. Holy crap, Curtis. Tat is why I asked for the scientific theory of evolution. Not one of your points supports the claim that evolution proceeds via blind and mindless processes, as Darwin and the Neo-Darwinists proposed. All of your points support the concept of limited descent with modification.

      My points:

      1- Living organisms were designed

      2- They were designed with the ability to adapt to their changing environments

      3- Genetic entropy exists meaning errors do creep in

      4- Too many errors and the organism is no longer viable.

      Delete
    6. Curtis,

      I think you are arguing from the bait and switch mechanism. Only religious extremist would refute several of your points but you have been indoctrinated to believe some of those extrapolate to molecules to man evolution. Primarily numbers 5,6,and 7 appear to only prep a person for the extrapolated belief system. Those specific points also struggle with maintaining consistency, expert majority agreement, and is much of the problem with defining species. For example,

      #5 - reproduction isolation - there are instances where researchers have identified a new species because it was reproductively isolated but they find out that reproduction is not always the best barrier as many of those so-called "new" species would begin mating again if they were exposed to pressures such as in the environment or in the lab. Remember, "scientist have egos. They like to name things." - Dr. Jack Horner.

      #6 acceleration of phenotype. It sounds like this is getting into rates of evolution which is a mess of a topic but overall there are hypotheses about isolation playing a part in explaining stasis in the fossil record mainly pertaining to ideas behind punctuated equilibrium and gradualism.

      #7 - Boom there it is! More time, more isolation, more mutations. Now, the rest of what they dish is more palatable.

      The following is taken from answersingenesis, even they believe in evolution but not the tree of life but rather the orchard of life:


      Natural selection is a readily observed, experimentally verified scientific fact that requires no historical speculation, and as such, our Creation Museum has an exhibit that explains it. We agree that natural selection can lead to new species within a kind as it reduces the genetic information in a population, resulting in sexual incompatibility where there previously was none.


      The atheistic community and evolutionist community has done a wonderful job of labeling religion as anti-scientific and hijacking the consensus that they are the smartest in the room. This prevents reasonable people from finding information because they would have you believe any information from creation.com or AiG or this blog would be instantly discredited. The funny thing is that if one objectively searches the internet they will find that most creationists such as people like Dr. Hunter or Dr. Jay Wile are the free-thinkers and retain much better scientific principles than most researchers I read.

      Delete
    7. Joey,

      "Refuting Nic is too easy:"

      If it is so easy, why were you unable to do it. Not one word of what you clipped and pasted refutes anything I said.

      Delete
    8. What? It all refuted you, Nic. Your desperation, while amusing, is meaningless to me.

      Delete
    9. Joe,

      "What?"

      Specifically?

      Delete
    10. All scientific theories have to make testable claims. Einstein said exactly how to test his and provided an equation to do so.

      Delete
    11. Joe,

      "All scientific theories have to make testable claims."

      that is not what you said, Joe. As a reminder: Joe: "For example a scientific theory has to tell us how to test its claims."

      Constructing a testable theory is not the same as the theory telling HOW the testing must be done.

      Do you want to try again?

      Delete
    12. There cannot be a testable theory without saying how to test it.

      Einstein said exactly how to test his and provided an equation to do so.

      Delete
    13. I will note that Nic has never even tried to supports its claim:

      All it needs to do is provide a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon. Those doing research into the validity of the theory can determine what tests they may deem necessary.

      No references, nothing.

      Delete
    14. Joe,

      "No references, nothing."

      If you want references how about common sense and logic, will those do?

      Delete
    15. Common sense and logic say that scientific theories say how they can be tested and potentially falsified.

      According to the references scientific theories ride on the shoulders of the testable hypotheses that precede them.

      There isn't anything that supports you, except you. Why is that?

      Delete
  14. All of your points support the concept of limited descent with modification.

    My points:

    1- Living organisms were designed

    2- They were designed with the ability to adapt to their changing environments

    3- Genetic entropy exists meaning errors do creep in

    4- Too many errors and the organism is no longer viable.


    The one problem I have with these observations is the "limited" part. Is there some hypothetical point at which DNA polymerase simply stops making errors, or at which environmental mutagens no longer induce mutations? I know of no reason to state that there are biological limitations to these processes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know of no reason to state that there are biological limitations to these processes.

      Just all experiments and observations, of course. Again the onus is on you to support you claim and you cannot.

      Delete
    2. I said "I know of no reason to state that there are biological limitations to these processes", referring to induced mutations and DNA polymerase errors.

      Your response was "Just all experiments and observations, of course. Again the onus is on you to support you claim and you cannot."

      Let me get this straight... you want me to supply evidence that there is not a limit? You want evidence that something doesn't exist? You know that isn't how evidence works, right?

      Delete
    3. By your comment "Just all experiments and observations, of course", am I to imply that there is a trove of evidence supporting physical baramins? I'm pretty sure that isn't the case...

      Delete
    4. Curtis, I want to support your claim. If you are saying fish can evolve into tetrapods the you need to provide the evidence.

      Everything we have observed says that like reproduces like- humans produce humans, bacteria produce bacteria, etc.

      Delete
    5. I know of no reason to state that there are biological limitations to these processes.

      There are absolutely limitations to the amount or errors and mutations the cell is willing to withstand and to specific areas. Not hypothetically. In fact, the cell goes to great lengths in order to ensure the effects of mutations are minimized.

      What exactly is your claim on the "limit" part? You seem to claim that there is no limit, but then can't provide evidence because no limit doesn't exist. I would say don't provide evidence. That sounds too stringent. Just provide a demonstration how a complex structure would come about from a simpler structure via mutations. That goes to show a more limitless nature than say sickle cell protecting from malaria. I am not sure if any structure has truly been demonstrated to come from its predecessor by series of mutations.

      I'm a little lost, but it is sounding more philosophical than scientific.

      Delete
    6. Variation in length and width of finch beaks does not explain the existence of the finch.

      Voles have been evolving 60 - 100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species and still remain voles. voles evolve into voles

      Lenski's bacteria give no indication of ever producing anything but more bacteria.

      The so called living fossils- organisms that look very, very similar to their long lost ancestors yet no doubt underwent genetic change.

      Delete
    7. There are absolutely limitations to the amount or errors and mutations the cell is willing to withstand and to specific areas. Not hypothetically. In fact, the cell goes to great lengths in order to ensure the effects of mutations are minimized.

      Chuck, there certainly are limits to how much a single cell (or single organism) can mutate and still be viable, but that's not how evolution hypothetically works. Evolution works at the population level over long periods of time. I'm pretty sure you know this, so why pose the argument based on a single cell?

      You're probably familiar with the lizard population on Pod Mrcaru that developed cecal valves in a small number of generations.


      Joe has mentioned Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. Yes, they are still bacteria, but a sub-population of his bacteria gained the ability to use citrate aerobically.

      What I am saying is that there is no observed limit to how much a population can mutate over time. You and Joe and Cornelius are well aware of changes that can take place in a population over time, but still believe that there is a limit somewhere that populations are unable to cross. I am saying that there is no evidence of any such limit.

      As a side note, arguments that "voles are still voles" and "bacteria are still bacteria" are highly myopic and fail to address claims of evolution. Joe, are you aware that bacteria are hypothesized to have been on the planet for about a billion years before the first eukaryotes? Somehow, Lenski's lab is supposed to generate a billion years of evolution in 30 years of laboratory observation? That's a rather poor argument.

      Delete
    8. Curtis, The fact remains that you don't have any evidence and throwing time at the problem isn't scientific.

      You don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.

      Delete
    9. My comment was in response to you apparently posing the argument at the cellular level by linking DNA polymerase errors and environmental mutagens as an underlying cause of the traits. You now seem to want to say that is not how evolution works and that evolution is limited only to discussions involving selecting traits in the population. At this point I feel like you are just talking circles with yourself.

      Another interesting note is that you continually mention long time requirements for evolution but then cite 2 examples of rapid evolution.

      My degree is in prokaryotes so I can't say much about the lizards. The E. coli I know already had the information to utilize citrate.

      I am still just not sure how those examples still demonstrate the boundless limit of DNA polymerase errors.

      Delete
    10. Joke: “Curtis, The fact remains that you don't have any evidence and throwing time at the problem isn't scientific.“

      But throwing time at plate tectonics and erosion, and the formation of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, and astrophysics, and rocket science, is scientific. Why is evolution excluded from this?

      Delete
    11. My comment was in response to you apparently posing the argument at the cellular level by linking DNA polymerase errors and environmental mutagens as an underlying cause of the traits. You now seem to want to say that is not how evolution works and that evolution is limited only to discussions involving selecting traits in the population. At this point I feel like you are just talking circles with yourself.

      Evolution begins at the DNA level. Yes, TOO MUCH change is bad for a single cell or a single organism. I have yet to see a limit to how much change a POPULATION can undergo by incrementally changing at the DNA level (ie a "baramin").

      Another interesting note is that you continually mention long time requirements for evolution but then cite 2 examples of rapid evolution.

      Small changes to phenotype can occur routinely, as you know. The examples I show are for some rather dramatic phenotypic changes. If I recall correctly, you asked for examples of developed structures. The metabolic capability of Lenski's bacteria is, I admit, a bit of a stretch, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Evolution of entirely new species, especially considerably different species, has to work on a much different time scale.

      What is puzzling to me is that Young Earth Creationists are starting to come around to accepting speciation, but still insist that speciation must occur within a baramin, without any evidence of baramin boundaries. I can't seem to get anyone at this blog to address this point.

      My degree is in prokaryotes so I can't say much about the lizards. The E. coli I know already had the information to utilize citrate.

      You are likely aware, then, of the contention made by some scientists that the aerobic citrate utilization generated a new "species" of bacteria. Since E. coli is often identified by biochemical properties, and it is categorized as "citrate negative", the altered metabolism can be argued as a speciation event. Of course, the meaning of "species" is rather nebulous for prokaryotes, so I don't find the argument particularly compelling, but the argument has been made.

      Delete
    12. I am still just not sure how those examples still demonstrate the boundless limit of DNA polymerase errors.

      Oops... forgot to address this directly.

      If you accept that DNA polymerase errors (and other sources of mutation) are sufficient to produce new species, then it doesn't make much sense (to me, anyway) to claim that those changes are limited to baramins - especially when there is not physical evidence of barriers that would define baramins.

      Delete
    13. But throwing time at plate tectonics and erosion, and the formation of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks...

      N one is claiming those processes can produce Stonehenges. No one is claiming those processes can produce functional machines. Everyone claims those processes produce the same thing we observe them producing just over a longer period of time. It's called "uniformitarianism".

      When applied to evolution is we apply what we observe and throw time at it we don't get new protein machines. We don't get new body plans. We don't get new body parts.

      Changing the beak of the finch will never account for the finch.

      Voles have been evolving 60 - 100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species and still remain voles.

      And those pesky living fossils don't help you at all.

      Delete
    14. Producing a new species that has the SAME body plan using the SAME body parts is very different from producing new species that has new body plans and new body parts.

      Delete
    15. And those pesky living fossils don't help you at all.

      Those "pesky living fossils" are examples of organisms that have not had selective pressure force them away from their particular niche. This is also a poor argument against evolution.

      Delete
    16. What? Living fossils have obviously changed genetically which means they have evolved which means they aren't an argument against evolution. Your untestable claim of selective pressure is nothing but question-begging and special pleading.

      Delete
    17. Just because genetic variation exists, it does not necessarily result in evolution. Selective pressure must also be applied. Examples of living fossils today - coelacanth, horseshoe crab, ginkgo trees, etc - frequently occupy the same niches their ancestors did. If your idea of the equation is "genetic variation = evolution", you are missing half of the equation "genetic variation + selective pressure = evolution". Sometimes, a lucky species simply lasts much longer than others before becoming extinct.

      P. S. Speaking of fossils, I can't remember if you addressed why you find the postulated series of transitional fossils from fish to tetrapod unconvincing - other than the fact that no one has observed it taking place.

      Delete
    18. Umm natural selection is an eliminative process. It doesn't have any goal beyond survival. Many different species occupy the same niches. Clownfish aren't evolving into reef sharks

      The reason I find any alleged fossil transitional series unconvincing is because of the lack of a mechanism capable of producing the transformations required. You don't have any idea if genetic change is sufficient. Unless of course you propose a more Larmarkian approach.

      Delete
    19. "What is puzzling to me is that Young Earth Creationists are starting to come around to accepting speciation, but still insist that speciation must occur within a baramin, without any evidence of baramin boundaries. I can't seem to get anyone at this blog to address this point."

      First, yourself admitted that the evidence of boundless limitations is non-existence so I am unsure why we are still discussing boundaries. I agree it is non-existence and that boundless limit is pure extrapolation and conjecture mixed with deep time in order to get the picture evolutionists want. So, much like the atheist I am not sure why I have to believe something with no evidence or unconvincing evidence. I am not sure why you would think that limits must be proven. Under a boundless scenario I really struggle to understand why proofreading and error correction systems are put into place even in the simplest, most mindless organisms. Everything in nature recognizes boundaries. It is found in terms such as homeostasis and topics such as koinophilia which attempts to resolve stasis issues. The stasis issue itself is an example of set boundaries in "baramins".

      I would have to disagree that speciation is something young earth creationists are "slowly" coming around to. To my knowledge their material has always cited belief in speciation. Of course, that can be demonstrated with operation science.

      Lastly, everything you say about the Lenski bacteria is a stretch.

      http://jb.asm.org/content/198/7/1022.full

      Delete
    20. Joke: "Everyone claims those processes produce the same thing we observe them producing just over a longer period of time."

      Really? Who has seen plate tectonics create a mountain? Who has seen a sedimentary rock form? Who has seen a fossil form? Who has seen the big bang? These are all about extrapolating what we see on a small time-scale across large periods of time. Just like evolution.

      Why do you insist on a higher burden of proof for evolution than you do for these other sciences.

      Delete
    21. "Everyone claims those processes produce the same thing we observe them producing just over a longer period of time."

      Really. No one is claiming those processes can produce Stonehenges. No one is claiming those processes can produce functional machines. Everyone claims those processes produce the same thing we observe them producing just over a longer period of time. It's called "uniformitarianism".

      When applied to evolution is we apply what we observe and throw time at it we don't get new protein machines. We don't get new body plans. We don't get new body parts.

      Changing the beak of the finch will never account for the finch.

      Voles have been evolving 60 - 100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species and still remain voles.

      And those pesky living fossils don't help you at all.



      Delete
    22. Curtis,

      "What is puzzling to me is that Young Earth Creationists are starting to come around to accepting speciation, but still insist that speciation must occur within a baramin, without any evidence of baramin boundaries. I can't seem to get anyone at this blog to address this point."

      Can you produce any evidence supporting the claim that what is equine can become non-equine?

      Delete
    23. Nic: “Can you produce any evidence supporting the claim that what is equine can become non-equine?“

      Of course not. what we see today is every animal’s most recent evolutionary existence. However, the fossil record of the horse is one of the most complete of all mammals. Starting with something that we would not classify as equine.

      Delete
    24. what about the evolution of the horse?

      It seems that the fossils are sparse, heavily interpreted under the Common Descent is true paradigm and found in different parts of the world.

      It is all question-begging, really.

      Delete
    25. William,

      "Who has seen plate tectonics create a mountain? Who has seen a sedimentary rock form? Who has seen a fossil form?"

      All these processes are active and can be observed as they occur. They can be demonstrated to occur. They can be measured in real time. Yes, they all involve extrapolation but the extrapolation is based on what is readily observed to be happening in real time. Descent from a common ancestor meets none of these standards. It is not observable, repeatable or demonstrable. All claims for common descent are based strictly on a narrative.

      Delete
  15. The funny thing is that if one objectively searches the internet they will find that most creationists such as people like Dr. Hunter or Dr. Jay Wile are the free-thinkers and retain much better scientific principles than most researchers I read.

    Cornelius must've been having a bad day, because that's certainly not what I experienced my first day here. After his contention that evidence contradicted the theory of evolution, I asked for evidence that he had that supported an alternate hypothesis.

    His reply included "You can drop the cheap act anytime now. You've already proven you're anti-science." Among the adjectives I would use to characterize his behavior, "free-thinking" would not be at the top of the list. Again, maybe it was just a bad day...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, guys, I'm trying to carry out conversation, but it is more difficult when my comments don't get approved. Is there some sort of "probationary period", or are all comments subject to approval? I can absolutely guarantee that I will not be the most inappropriate responder here! :-P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My posts aren't immediate. So, I assume all comments must be approved. It's pretty common on blog sites.

      In that case you may have missed some comments as this thread has gotten pretty long. I've had to go back a few times and catchup so you may have missed a reply from Dr. Hunter. I don't like speaking for anyone but I do feel like his comments addressed your issues of majority and evidence.

      You ask for evidence on a post that is already providing it. His entire blog consists of plenty of examples where observed patterns and processes are at odds with evolutionary thought. Dr. Hunter's words:

      "Broadly speaking, evolution lacks a plausible mechanism (process) and the phylogenies don’t fit the data (pattern). So the theory fails on both process and pattern. There are a multitude of examples of this. You can see some in this blog, for example. If you want a very quick example you can look at the OP above. 10^-800 isn’t going to happen. And that is conservative."

      We are not talking about why there are different types of pit vipers which you appear to be wanting to discuss. The post would be geared at why some early cell decided to evolve an action potential.

      Here is what I can offer on some of your other points as related to baramins and demonstrating millions of years.

      This mostly comes down to Louis Pasteur and the fast replication of bacteria. The first issue on limits is that today researchers utilize microorganisms in many different ways and one is that they grow really, really fast. So, under evolutionary studies we can expect to demonstrate years and years and generations and generations using certain species. There are larger organisms that produce fast generations and those are used as well. The point is that the "barriers" are already being pushed to the limits of what should equate in the simulation and there is a limit observed. However, these limits are considered non-existent when discussing early Earth. Why? A better discussion than just deciding who has evidence would be uniformitarianism and why does evolution get to use it when it suits itself.

      The next issue on limits would be biogenesis which is attributed to Pasteur and that is life comes from life. This is pretty solid science, so the theory of evolution going back far enough should incorporate some form of spontaneous generation which is just bad. Of course, the argument from the evolutionist is that abiogenesis doesn't have to do with evolution to which all I can say it is hard to get the definition of abiogenesis without using the word evolution: A google search reveals:

      "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."

      So, there's the bait and switch and the reason why evolutionists are not ready to claim abiogenesis research. They know the theory breaks down and describes species which is already not very well defined.

      Personally, I do believe they have tried to walk the theory backwards in an attempt to provide a 100% no-God required solution but when they are called out then suddenly abiogenesis isn't evolution and processes could have been different than what we observe today (uniformitarianism). They get you in the door with a good showing of why there are different color butterflies.

      Delete