Wednesday, April 18, 2018

The Dinosaur “Explosion”

As Though They Were Planted There

In the famed Cambrian Explosion most of today’s animal phyla appeared abruptly in the geological strata. How could a process driven by blind, random mutations produce such a plethora of new species? Evolutionist Steve Jones has speculated that the Cambrian Explosion was caused by some crucial change in DNA. “Might a great burst of genetic creativity have driven a Cambrian Genesis and given birth to the modern world?” [1] What explanations such as this do not address is the problem of how evolution overcame such astronomical entropic barriers. Rolling a dice, no matter how creatively, is not going to design a spaceship.

The Cambrian Explosion is not the only example of the abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record, and the other examples are no less easy for evolution to explain. Nor has the old saw, that it’s the fossil record’s fault, fared well. There was once a time when evolutionists could appeal to gaps in the fossil record to explain why the species appear to arise abruptly, but no more. There has just been too much paleontology work, such as a new international study on dinosaurs published this week, confirming exactly what the strata have been showing all along: new forms really did arise abruptly.

The new study narrows the dating of the rise of dinosaurs in the fossil record. It confirms that many dinosaur species appeared in an “explosion” or what “we term the ‘dinosaur diversification event (DDE)’.” It was an “explosive increase in dinosaurian abundance in terrestrial ecosystems.” As the press release explains,

First there were no dinosaur tracks, and then there were many. This marks the moment of their explosion, and the rock successions in the Dolomites are well dated. Comparison with rock successions in Argentina and Brazil, here the first extensive skeletons of dinosaurs occur, show the explosion happened at the same time there as well.

As lead author Dr Massimo Bernardi at the University of Bristol explains, “it’s amazing how clear cut the change from ‘no dinosaurs’ to ‘all dinosaurs’ was.

There just isn’t enough time, and it is another example of a failed prediction of the theory of evolution.

1. Steve Jones, Darwin’s Ghost, p. 206, Random House, New York, 2000.

h/t: The genius.

174 comments:

  1. You may want to break with tradition and try actually reading a science paper before attacking it. It this case the early dino diversification took 3 to 4 million years.

    From the paper

    In a relatively brief interval of about 3-4 myr (around early/late Carnian), dinosaurs shifted from near or complete absence (0% in the Cassian Dolomite/Val Sabbia Sandstone association of Julian age) to notable presence (ca. 40% of the Heiligkreuz-Travenanzes formations association of early Tuvalian age), to ecological dominance (>90% of the Dolomia Principale association of late Tuvalian and Norian age)

    Of course you'll offer no alternate explanation for the dates or the data. I suppose your Designer was incompetent and took 3-4 million years just to POOF some dinosaurs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny how the pooferists always accuse others of being pooferists. Dirt worshippers are condemned to go around happily worshipping dirt while ignoring the 500-pound gorilla in their little echo chamber: the curse of dimensionality kills Darwinism dead. You people are worse than a cargo cult. Stupid as dirt.

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

      Delete
    2. ghosty's position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes so dinosaurs are out.

      And 3-4 million years is much too short of time for blind and mindless processes to produce that diversity

      Delete
    3. Still no ID-Creationist explanation for why the diversification described took 3-4 million years. :)

      Delete
    4. It was obviously one of several terraforming experiments conducted early in the history of life on earth by an advanced civilization, you dirt worshipping dope.

      Delete
    5. Still no ID-Creationist explanation for why the diversification described took 3-4 million years.

      Question-begging.

      Delete
    6. Question-begging

      Cowardly explanation avoiding.

      Delete
    7. OK- the diversification didn't take 3-4 million years. The dating scheme used is based on untestable assumptions.

      And you still don't have any explanation for the physical evidence so please stop with your cowardly burden-shifting TARD.

      Delete
    8. the diversification didn't take 3-4 million years.

      How did you determine that Joke? And how did you determine the time it supposedly did take?

      Like always you're full of YEC BS and 100% lacking in scientific evidence.

      Delete
    9. Oh my. I told you how I determined that in the part you cut off.

      How do you determine anything, timmy? Do you read the code that flows from Uranus?

      Like always you are full of evo BS and 100% lacking in everything but being an ignorant troll.

      Delete
    10. Ghostrider,

      "Still no ID-Creationist explanation for why the diversification described took 3-4 million years. :)"

      Who says it did? How was it determined it took 4 million years?

      Delete
    11. The paper linked to in the OP provides the dates. Dating of different strata by radiometric means has been successfully done for the better part of a century.

      Delete
    12. The paper the OP links to has the data. Radiometric dating has been accurately giving ages for geologic strata for the better part of a century.

      I answered this before but for some reason it didn't get posted.

      Delete
    13. The paper in the OP cannot validate those dates. The dates in the paper are based on untestable assumptions.

      Delete
  2. Joe, how do you know 3-4 million years is much too short? And would it be too short for a process in which a Creator established the parameters the process would work in?

    Cornelius, what are your thoughts on the Cambrian explosion? Do you believe it is entirely imaginary? Your dedication to writing about what you don't believe is commendable, but I haven't been able to deduce what you DO believe. Again, do you have any scientific evidence for a more plausible hypothesis for current life diversity than evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do I know> Because I read the literature- waiting for TWO mutations.

      That pertains to undirected evolution, ie evolution by means of natural selection and drift.

      And no, it does not pertain to evolution by means of intelligent design.

      Delete
    2. Joke: "And no, it does not pertain to evolution by means of intelligent design."

      Oh, you mean Creationism.

      Delete
    3. Curtis, the Cambrian explosion is a tempest in a tea pot. IDists make it sound like it was an instantaneous event, ignoring the fact that it lasted around 100 million years.

      Delete
    4. Hi William, you would probably disagree with my perception, but my ideas fall closest in line with the TE/EC (theistic evolution/evolutionary creation) perspective. Since I do believe in a Creator (but not a 6,000 year old earth), arguments about mathematical probability of protein evolution or the time required for the Cambrian explosion hold little sway for me. What do you think of the possibility of a Creator beyond our limited abilities to detect?

      Delete
    5. Curtis, Why do you believe in evolution? I understand that the scientific problems with evolution are not problems for your TE/EC position, as you have described and as is obvious from the literature. But aside from the negation of many of the problems, why do you believe it?

      Delete
    6. Dirt worshipper:
      Curtis, the Cambrian explosion is a tempest in a tea pot. IDists make it sound like it was an instantaneous event, ignoring the fact that it lasted around 100 million years.

      LOL. What an idiot. It would not matter if it were 100 quintillion years. Learn the true meaning of the curse of dimensionality before you lick that dirt. Morons.

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

      Delete
    7. Louis, what hypothesis do you believe the evidence supports regarding the current diversity of life on earth?

      Delete
    8. Only a loser on an agenda would conflate evolution by means of intelligent design with creationism. Enter willie.

      IDists make it sound like it was an instantaneous event,

      That is a lie

      ignoring the fact that it lasted around 100 million years.

      And that is your ignorance talking. The entire Cambrian period was less than 60 million years. The explosion was less than half of that.

      Delete
    9. The entire Cambrian period was less than 60 million years. The explosion was less than half of that.

      Why did it take your Intelligent Designer 30 million years to make a few dozen simple animal body plans?

      How did life get from those original simple animals 500+ million years ago in the Cambrian explosion to the extant species now?

      Delete
    10. How do I know> Because I read the literature- waiting for TWO mutations.

      Er Joe that's how long it tales if you pre-specify the exact result you want to occur. Evolution didn't have to pre-specify the exact working proteins we have today.

      Sad that you're so uneducated you don't understand that simple concept.

      Delete
    11. Er ghosty, it has nothing to do with pre-specify and everything to do with two specific mutations occurring. And it is a given that it takes more than two specific mutations to produce the diversity of dinosaurs.

      No one had to pre-specify anything. But it does take specific mutations to produce the proteins that we have today.

      Yes it is sad that you're so uneducated that you cannot think and cannot understand that simple concept.

      Delete
    12. Why did it take your Intelligent Designer 30 million years to make a few dozen simple animal body plans?

      Math isn't your strong suit and the timeline refers to your position.

      Delete
    13. Why did I know Joke would dodge the questions and continue to blither his YEC nonsense? :)

      Delete
    14. Why did I know ghosty would ignore everything and try to shift the burden?

      Delete
    15. Why did it take your Intelligent Designer 30 million years to make a few dozen simple animal body plans?

      Question-begging. Only your ignorance sez it took 30 million years

      How did life get from those original simple animals 500+ million years ago in the Cambrian explosion to the extant species now?

      Intelligent Design.

      It's a given that natural selection and drift could not have done it. And thanks to genetic algorithms we understand the power of evolution by means of telic processes.

      Delete
    16. There goes Joke, dodging the questions again with his stock non-answer "MAGIC!", er, I mean "THE DESIGNER DIDIT!!" :D

      Delete
    17. The resident dirt worshipper spewed:
      Why did it take your Intelligent Designer 30 million years to make a few dozen simple animal body plans?

      The only motivation dirt worshippers have for promoting their brain-dead pseudoscience is their hatred for a powerful designer, i.e., their hatred for the concept of a powerful God. It's all about religion as Hunter keeps demonstrating over and over. Their hatred makes them stupid as dirt.

      For the honest truth seeker: Intelligent designers are not all-knowing, all-powerful entities, moron. They would not be designers if they knew it all. Design is a trial-and-error process. Terraforming a planet is not something that happens in an instant. Not even the Gods are immune to the curse of dimensionality. Certain experiments have to run their course before results can be properly evaluated. Besides, if you have an eternity to live, 100 million years is a blink of an eye. Also, it's not as if planet earth was the only thing the designers were busy with. The universe is huge.

      I spit on dirt worshippers. All of them.

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

      Delete
    18. OK so ghosty choked on the waiting for two mutations paper. That is typical- evos have to ignore reality.

      Delete
    19. LOL! That would be the paper in which the authors state

      "In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

      Nice own goal Joke. Maybe you should stick to arguing baraminology and how CO2 can't trap heat unless "all the CO2 molecules point the same way". :D

      Delete
    20. OK so ghosty continues to choke on the paper.

      Maybe you should just shut up seeing that you have nothing but lies and quote-mines.

      CO2 cannot act as a blanket unless the all of the re-emitted energy is focused back towards earth. And even then that re-emitted energy is limited in range. So it really doesn't help you. The energy all gets swept away well before reaching the earth- winds and convection currents.

      Delete
    21. BWAHAHAHA!!

      Now Joke think the Earth's atmosphere isn't part of the Earth.

      Where does the energy which is "swept away by winds and convection currents" get swept TO Joke? The same place your Noah's Flood waters were swept to? :D

      Delete
    22. LoL! The earth's SURFACE is what radiates the IR. The claim is that the CO2 re-emits back to the SURFACE.

      The ATMOSPHERE easily dissipates the energy emitted by the CO2. The CO2 is surrounded by thousands of air molecules, ie nitrogen and O2. It's emissions can't even heat up its surroundings

      Delete
    23. Joke: ”And that is your ignorance talking. The entire Cambrian period was less than 60 million years. The explosion was less than half of that.”
      You are ignoring the complex body plans that are found in Ediacara. They started well before the Cambrian

      Delete
    24. Joe, why did you chicken out and flee from your discussions at ATBC? Too embarrassed to be called out on all your scientific ignorance?

      Delete
    25. pokey:
      You are ignoring the complex body plans that are found in Ediacara.

      You don't have a mechanism capable of producing what is seen in the Ediacara

      Delete
    26. ghosty- There isn't any science to discuss over in your swamp. You clowns don't have a clue.

      Why do you run away every time you are asked to support evolutionism? Why is it that you are an ignorant jerk?

      Delete
    27. I especially liked his claim that a less dense solid would not float in its more dense liquid. That might have surpassed his frequency = wavelength claim in stupid claim of the decade.

      Delete
    28. Wow, what a dork you are, pokey.

      The stupid claim of the decade belongs to you- a molecular code that converts water into ice.

      BTW it is float on, not in. My claim is it is suspended in the liquid. And I never just claimed frequency = wavelength. But I did support the claim the two are interchangeable in certain contexts. It isn't my fault that you are a willfully ignorant troll

      Delete
    29. Ah Joke, those goal posts must be heavy.

      It started with you stating that water is unique in that it’s solid form floats on its liquid form. When it was pointed out that there were numerous other elements and compounds, you made the claim that solid plutonium was less dense than its liquid form and would not float in it. Anything that is less dense, floats.

      You then posted an elimentary school lesson about floatation and suspension. And got the lesson wrong.

      If something is less dense, it floats. If it is more dense, it sinks. Your elimentary school lesson about suspension involves putting an egg in a glass with salt brine on the bottom and fresh water on the top. It was “suspended” in the glass because it was more dense that fresh water (sank) and less dense than the salt brine (floated). Being as dense as you are, I would recommend avoiding all bodies of water.

      Delete
    30. Face it Joke, you'll always be a coward. You'll never debate science on a site that's not pro-Creationist and heavily moderated because you know your Creationist idiocy will get royally reamed. :)

      Delete
    31. ghosty- your projection is duly noted. You never debate science because you don't even know what science is. You are just an ignorant troll.

      Delete
    32. pokey, you are a mental midget.

      It started with you stating that water is unique in that it’s solid form floats on its liquid form.

      That is a lie.

      When it was pointed out that there were numerous other elements

      What? Very few have that property- not numerous.

      Anything that is less dense, floats.

      Or is submerged yet suspended

      You then posted an elimentary (sic)school lesson about floatation and suspension.

      And you choked on it.

      It was “suspended” in the glass

      Exactly.

      I bet the same would happen to solid plutonium and liquid plutonium. I dare you to prove me wrong

      Look, moron, you think there is a molecular code that converts water into ice. YOU think that when an em wave hits water it somehow increases the wavelength.

      Delete
    33. So, does ice float in water or is it suspended?

      Delete
    34. Your brain would float on water. It would float in the air if it was attached to such a dirt bag.

      Is the ice totally submerged? Or is it on top of the water? Or are you ignorant of what a dictionary is and does?

      Delete
    35. So, does it float or is it suspended? Simple question for a simple person.

      Delete
    36. If you would just answer my questions your question would be answered.

      Try it

      Delete
    37. Let me remind you:

      How many solids are less dense than their liquid form? How many solids could float on their liquid form- in great big chunks?

      And, to be clear, you were talking about ice and water. So, obviously you believe that ice floats on water but other solids that are less dense than their liquid forms don’t.

      You should reread your elimentary school physics lesson. Maybe, if you use your brain, you will be able to advance to high school level physics. Then you might learn that frequency does not equal wavelength.

      Delete
    38. pokey:
      So, obviously you believe that ice floats on water but other solids that are less dense than their liquid forms don’t.

      And? Did you ever do that with plutonium? No, you have not. Has anyone? no, they have not.

      The difference in density between ice and water is about 8%- water is about 8% more dense than water. And most of it is submerged.

      Liquid plutonium is only about 2.5% more dense than solid plutonium.

      Clearly there is a difference.

      Perhaps you need to take a physics course, pokey. You think that water turns into ice via some molecular code and that when an em wave hits water the wavelength increases.

      Also take an English course as you are ignorant of the language. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable in certain contexts- just as my reference demonstrated.

      Your quote-mining ignorance is not an argument.

      Delete
    39. William,

      "Curtis, the Cambrian explosion is a tempest in a tea pot. IDists make it sound like it was an instantaneous event, ignoring the fact that it lasted around 100 million years."

      Hey, William, it's been a while. Hope you and the family are well.

      I would be interested in knowing how they, whoever they are, know it took 100 million years for the Cambrian explosion to play out? How exactly do they measure the time?

      Delete
    40. Hi Nic. Life is great. Just got back from spending a day in the Munich beer gardens.

      It is my understanding that dating is based on a combination of radio-isotope ratios and sedimentary layers.

      Delete
    41. Joke: "And? Did you ever do that with plutonium? No, you have not. Has anyone? no, they have not."

      Why would they want to? They know the density of solid plutonium. They know the density of liquid plutonium. They know that the solid is less dense than the liquid. They know that anything that is less dense than the liquid they are in, they will float. Elementary school physics.

      "Liquid plutonium is only about 2.5% more dense than solid plutonium."

      So? It won't ported as high above the liquid as ice will. That doesn't mean that it doesn't float.

      Stick with Frequency = Wavelength. It's better to be known to be stupid about one thing than two.

      Delete
    42. "Liquid plutonium is only about 2.5% more dense than solid plutonium."

      So?

      It won't be floating on top. It will be submerged.

      You think that water turns into ice via some molecular code and that when an em wave hits water the wavelength increases.

      Also take an English course as you are ignorant of the language. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable in certain contexts- just as my reference demonstrated.

      Your quote-mining ignorance is not an argument.


      You are known to be stupid on everything, pokey. That is why you run from science discussions

      Delete
    43. It is my understanding that dating is based on a combination of radio-isotope ratios and sedimentary layers.

      The entire Cambrian period was less than 60 million years. So the Cambrian explosion did not play out over 100 million years.

      The Ediacaran organisms do not resemble the Cambrian's - there aren't any fossil links to the Cambrian explosion, which took less than 20 million years. That may seem like a long time but given sexual reproduction the odds of getting the right mutations, even if they could deliver the results, would push the boundaries of time past their limit.

      There just isn't enough time in the universe to pull it off especially given what we know about genetics, the rarity of beneficial mutations and the total lack of evidence that mutations can accumulate in such a way to do the job required.

      Delete
    44. Joke: ""Liquid plutonium is only about 2.5% more dense than solid plutonium."

      Me: "So? "

      "It won't be floating on top. It will be submerged."

      Submerged means that it is entirely under water. Anything that is less dense than the liquid will have some portion of the solid extending above the liquid. Intelligent people call that "floating".

      Delete
    45. Submerged means that it is entirely under water.

      Plutonium, not water. The 2.5% is only near the melting point and that decreases as the liquid gets hotter.

      You drop it in and it will melt before it has a chance to get back to the top, if it even could.

      Delete
    46. Joke: "Plutonium, not water. The 2.5% is only near the melting point and that decreases as the liquid gets hotter.

      You drop it in and it will melt before it has a chance to get back to the top, if it even could."


      What I find amusing is that we have let Joke rant on about solid plutonium being less dense than liquid plutonium for days, and refusing to admit that if this were so, it would float. Not once has he noticed that his original claim that solid plutonium is 2.5% less dense than liquid plutonium was actually wrong. Solid plutonium is 19,840 kg/m3. Liquid plutonium is 16,623 kg/m3. In short, solid plutonium is almost 20% more dense than liquid plutonium and would sink. But it has certainly been fun watching Joke spin his plutonium powered wheels.

      Delete
    47. plutonium:

      Unlike most materials, plutonium increases in density when it melts, by 2.5%, but the liquid metal exhibits a linear decrease in density with temperature.[6] Near the melting point, the liquid plutonium has very high viscosity and surface tension compared to other metals.[7]

      Delete
    48. Solid plutonium is 19,840 kg/m3. Liquid plutonium is 16,623 kg/m3. In short, solid plutonium is almost 20% more dense than liquid plutonium and would sink.

      Just a reminder that willie is the one who initially said that liquid plutonium is more dense than solid plutonium. Now it is changing its mind

      Delete
    49. Joke: ”Just a reminder that willie is the one who initially said that liquid plutonium is more dense than solid plutonium. Now it is changing its mind.”
      Actually I didn’t. I provided a list of elements and compounds, but plutonium wasn’t in that list.

      Delete
    50. Your list:

      silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, bismuth, plutonium, bismuth, acetic acid.

      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=14310#entry264640


      Loser

      Delete
    51. You stand as a joke to humanity

      Delete
    52. Joke: ”You stand as a joke to humanity.”

      I wouldn’t want to steal your nom de plume.

      Delete
    53. You have earned it, pokey the joke

      Delete
    54. Don't worry. They'll only ever be one person as stupid as Joke Gallien.

      Delete
    55. Whatever, timmy. I can easily kick your but in a scientific debate.

      Delete
    56. William,

      Good to hear life is treating you well.

      "It is my understanding that dating is based on a combination of radio-isotope ratios and sedimentary layers."

      But how do they determine dates from these factors?

      Delete
    57. But how do they determine dates from these factors?

      Like this.

      Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective

      Formatting of the web page seems a bit wonky but hopefully still readable.

      Delete
    58. Right- the method requires that all crystals that were part of the original space debris that made up the earth to have been melted and then reformed.

      If any crystals survived then the dating method doesn't give the age of the earth, just the crystal.

      Delete
    59. Ghostrider,

      And what do all the many techniques have in common regards their processes?

      Delete
    60. And what do all the many techniques have in common regards their processes?

      The common point is they've all been scientifically verified 100x over. :)

      Delete
    61. Ghostrider,

      "The common point is they've all been scientifically verified 100x over. :)"

      That's not the answer I was looking for but that's fine.

      How exactly did they independently confirm their results? :)

      Delete
  3. Glad you asked, Cornelius. I will be very happy to answer your question, but I'm hoping you'll answer mine first (since I've been asking for a couple of months). Is your position on the diversity of life we see today "I don't know how it happened, but I don't believe it is due to evolution", or do you have scientific evidence that you believe better supports a different hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curtis:

      You asked me that question after requesting empirical evidence that is not consistent with evolution. When I provided the evidence, you switched the topic. It has since become clear that your views are not vulnerable to the empirical, scientific, evidence. And yet at other times you appeal to the empirical evidence for confirmation of your views. For instance, you raised several icons of evolution that have long since been demolished. This sort of confirmation bias is rampant in evolutionary thought. As I have explained, I am happy to discuss alternate views, but not before the science is acknowledged and understood. Evolutionists always want to obviate the empirical evidence, and switch the topic to discussions of alternatives, because this what has always motivated Epicureanism. That is why I asked you why you believe in evolution, because the answer isn't science.

      Delete
    2. I did ask for evidence that was inconsistent with evolution. And the evidence you supplied was absolutely not - at least, not according to the authors of the papers you referenced, and not to me.

      I have asked for your evidence that supports a better hypothesis for a month prior to the hiatus of the blog.

      Basically, you supply evidence that you feel contradicts evolution. What you do not supply is any sort of evidence that supports any alternative.

      My question has been consistent for months, but maybe has not been clear. What hypothesis regarding the diversity of life as we currently see it do you feel is better-supported by available evidence?

      I'd be happy to continue the conversation about what "icons" I provided, but I'd really like to read what you have to say about my main question first.

      Delete
    3. Curtis:

      Your main questions were, first:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/02/this-didnt-evolve-few-mutations-at-time.html?showComment=1519688552633#c3282466987335228038

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

      To which I answered:

      ===================
      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.
      ===================

      And second:

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

      To which I answered:

      ===================
      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.
      ===================

      At that point the discussion broke down. I rhetorically asked “Does your non response to my answer to your question indicate concurrence?”

      continued ...

      Delete
    4. Of course the answer “no,” which you confirmed with this non denial denial: “no, not yet, I'm just checking out the playing field right now.”

      To which I replied: “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.”

      There was no way you were going to enter into that discussion. There was no way you were going to answer me, and explain why the evidence is not a problem for evolution. And there certainly was no way you were going to agree that the evidence is a problem for evolution—even though it is.

      You asked for evidence, I provided it, and you suddenly weren’t so “interested in learning” about the question that you had asked.

      You quickly and predictably switched topics “the alternative”: “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.”

      At that point your game playing was transparent. Anyone can read that and see right through it. You are only fooling yourself. Amazingly, since then you have insisted I answer your questions, as though they have some legitimacy.

      You did, in a later discussion, provide what you believe are demonstrable evidences of Darwinian Evolution:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-unauthorized-answers-to-jerry.html?showComment=1523626039464#c6167338455172434525

      You provided the usual icons of evolution that have been thoroughly demolished. I took the trouble to address just one of them: antibiotic resistance. I gave you a set of detailed answers:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-unauthorized-answers-to-jerry.html?showComment=1523684126966#c1450009270696417654

      To which you tediously responded:

      I’m still unclear on why this would be evidence against evolution. If populations circumnavigate environmental barriers […] by a more direct response to the barrier, it appears as though the result is the same - the population adapts to the barrier with change over time.

      Utterly astonishing. But this is the what evolutionists say. What evolutionists have denied and viciously fought against for centuries is (now that the evidence can no longer be denied), just another part of evolution. Evolution’s random mutations just create complex adaptive mechanisms, even though there is no reason for it.

      Only religion can do this.

      Delete
    5. There was no way you were going to enter into that discussion. There was no way you were going to answer me, and explain why the evidence is not a problem for evolution. And there certainly was no way you were going to agree that the evidence is a problem for evolution—even though it is.

      You asked for evidence, I provided it, and you suddenly weren’t so “interested in learning” about the question that you had asked.


      The reason I'm still here is because I truly do want to understand your viewpoint, yet you are reticent to discuss what you DO believe. You only want to discuss what you DON'T believe. I have asked repeatedly since the first day I posted on the blog, and you have yet to offer any sort of response. You claim my "game" is transparent. I am not playing a game. I'm trying to pry an answer out of you, which you are (for reasons I can only speculate upon) unwilling to divulge. Come on, Cornelius, I'm not asking for your social security number! Just give me a few sentences about what you DO believe. I promise to debate the scientific merits of our points of contention after that. I just don't understand what your ultimate goal is other than convincing people that evolution as a theory should be discarded in favor of... oh wait, that's right... you won't comment on that part.

      Delete
    6. I truly do want to understand your viewpoint, yet you are reticent to discuss what you DO believe. You only want to discuss what you DON'T believe.

      This is a false dichotomy that evolutionists use.


      I have asked repeatedly since the first day I posted on the blog, and you have yet to offer any sort of response.

      I have responded several times, but it always breaks down. Then you blame me.


      You claim my "game" is transparent. I am not playing a game.

      Quote: “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.”


      I'm trying to pry an answer out of you, which you are (for reasons I can only speculate upon) unwilling to divulge. Come on, Cornelius, I'm not asking for your social security number! Just give me a few sentences about what you DO believe.

      I have not been unwilling to divulge anything. In fact I’ve attempted to engage several times, and look what happened. I’ve written extensively about my views in my books and this blog. And no, it doesn’t boil down to “a few sentences.” You have to have a grasp of the science, which you have made clear is not of interest to you.


      I promise to debate the scientific merits of our points of contention after that.

      It’s too late for that. You have already demonstrated that you won’t do that. You rejected what is clear. How will you consider that which is subtle?

      Delete
  4. I have not been unwilling to divulge anything. In fact I’ve attempted to engage several times, and look what happened.

    I must have missed the answers you supplied regarding what you DO believe... about 23 times... I’ve given up on any sort of evidence that supports it because it is painfully obvious that you will not or can not. Your steadfast refusal to supply anything of the sort has beaten me down to a very simple question with no qualifiers. What do you believe is the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see today? Come now, Cornelius, just answer the question. There is no need for subtlety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, since you are so earnestly seeking the truth, let's start. First things, first: Your Epicureanism is contradictory to the biblical position, which you say you believe in. You have an internal contradiction which cannot persist. It's one or the other.

      Delete
    2. I’ll be happy to discuss this with you further. But what does my Epicureanism have to do with what you believe is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today?

      Delete
    3. If you understood the contradiction you wouldn't be asking that question. Which is why I asked you about the science, and I asked you why you believe in evolution. Both of which you resisted.

      Delete
    4. My contention is that what I believe shouldn't have an impact on what you believe. And you won't say what you believe, you just repetitiously avoid the question I've been asking for months. You won't answer and somehow still pretend that you have tried. Just for kicks, let's try it again and see what happens:

      What do you believe is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today? (Again, I've given up on asking for evidence to support it, although I certainly think Ghostrider has hit the nail on the head in your case)

      Delete
    5. The best explanation for the diversity of life we see today is evolution by means of intelligent design. The tough question is what was/ were the starting point(s)?

      Delete
    6. The best explanation for the diversity of life we see today is evolution by means of intelligent design. The tough question is what was/ were the starting point(s)?

      Thank you, Joe. Cornelius, do you agree with Joe here?

      Delete
    7. The best explanation for the diversity of life we see today is evolution by means of intelligent design. The tough question is what was/ were the starting point(s)?

      Cornelius, I'm still hoping to read your thoughts on Joe's comment from yesterday.

      Delete
    8. While we wait:

      My contention is that what I believe shouldn't have an impact on what you believe.

      It cuts to the heart of the discussion, as in what you accept to be true and the reasoning, or lack thereof, behind it.

      The problem with your question is we don't know but we can eliminate those mechanisms that have been tested and failed- like natural selection and drift-> neither has been shown to be able to produce any more than mere limited change within populations.

      We don't even know what determines form, meaning we don't know what determines what type of organism will develop beyond the obvious-> human babies are born after a successful mating between a male and female human, ie every offspring is the same type of organism as its parents.

      So without that knowledge how can we test the claim that over time all of the different types of organisms evolved from some unknown populations of prokaryotes? Did prokaryotic genetics determine prokaryotic body plan or is it all one inseparable package?

      Until we know answering your question with any detail will be impossible.

      Delete
    9. The problem with your question is we don't know but we can eliminate those mechanisms that have been tested and failed- like natural selection and drift-> neither has been shown to be able to produce any more than mere limited change within populations.

      Until we know answering your question with any detail will be impossible.


      I appreciate your input, Joe. I just really want to see Cornelius confirm that you are both of like minds on this issue. I've asked and asked and asked, but he cannot seem to generate a straightforward response.

      Delete
    10. I appreciate your input, Joe. I just really want to see Cornelius confirm that you are both of like minds on this issue. I've asked and asked and asked, but he cannot seem to generate a straightforward response.

      As already pointed out, you'll never get a straight answer from a Creationist. Not from a YEC like Joke, not from Cornelius, certainly not from Louis the Fruit Loop.

      Their entire gig is attacking evolutionary theory because it contradicts their religious beliefs. They have NOTHING scientific to offer in its place.

      Delete
    11. Wait just a minute- ghosty is projecting as no one ever gets a straight answer from any evo. All evos can do is attack anyone pointing out the many deep flaws in their position. They will NEVER try to support anything their position claims. They will ALWAYs try to shift the burden.

      Evos don't even know what science entails

      Delete
  5. The reason I'm still here is because I truly do want to understand your viewpoint, yet you are reticent to discuss what you DO believe.

    You'll never get any ID-Creationist to provide their story for the physical evidence because they don't have one. They can't explain the geologic record, they can't explain the patterns in the fossil record, they can't explain the patterns in the genetic record. All they have is a magic POOF which they know is not scientific. So they scream and yell and fling poo at actual science while offering none of their own. I suppose it makes them feel better but obviously it's a non-starter in the real scientific community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ghosty:
      You'll never get any ID-Creationist to provide their story for the physical evidence because they don't have one.

      That's pure projection.

      How does ghosty's position explain anything? "It just happened"

      Delete
    2. Just like I said, there goes YEC Joke dodging the questions. He has no explanation for any of the physical evidence so he blusters and evades every time. All Creationists do.

      Delete
    3. YOU don't have anything to explain any living organisms. And given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

      So stop projecting your faults onto your opponents.

      Delete
    4. Joke the YEC runs from explaining the physical evidence in the OP paper once again.

      Don't worry Joke. All the other ID-Creationists have run from providing any explanation too.

      Delete
    5. And what is your explanation for the physical evidence?

      The best I can do is eliminate that which could not explain it- namely natural selection and drift

      Delete
  6. Curtís
    What I’d like to know, as you indicated that you’re a Christian is : At what point do you begin to believe the Bible? Reading that BioLogos rejects the Biblical account of Adam and Eve and since Jesus himself referenced Genesis that God in the beginning made them male and female, where do you stand?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for asking, Phillymike. I believe all of the Bible. I just don't think the first three chapters of Genesis are intended to be a literal account of the unfolding of creation. I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve among the rest of humanity that were chosen by God and imbued with the capability of interacting with Him at a spiritual level. I believe Adam and Eve were more likely spiritual, rather than biological, progenitors. They ushered in both the capability of spiritual interaction with God, but also the broken state of that interaction.

    Reading about what an entire group believes is likely going to lead to misconception. I am an individual, not BioLogos, and there are a great many TE/ECs that have no idea BioLogos (or ASA) even exist.

    I'd be happy to discuss this further. In my limited experience with the comments section of this blog, I'm guessing there isn't much of an emphasis on "sticking to the OP".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curtis,

      "I just don't think the first three chapters of Genesis are intended to be a literal account of the unfolding of creation."

      Then what are they intended to be?

      "I believe Adam and Eve were more likely spiritual, rather than biological, progenitors."

      Could you provide your exegesis to support that idea?

      Delete
    2. I believe Genesis 1 is intended to establish Elohim as THE Creator of all things. The Hebrews had just been released from 400+ years of Egyptian indoctrination and needed instruction to differentiate themselves from other neighboring people groups. I believe Genesis 2 goes on to establish the special relationship God (as Yahweh) offered to humanity. Figurative language is evidence in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis. In a literalistic reading of Genesis 2, God brings every single "bird of the air" and "beast of the field" to Adam to be named. But this is not physically possible. Genesis 2 also implies states "But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him". Clearly, this is also figurative since there would not be a bird or beast suitable to help Adam. Chapter 3 and the details of mankind's fall into sin also suggest figurative language. For example, a serpent could not have a conversation with Eve. Adam and Eve are given instructions to not eat the fruit (which I think is also metaphorical). Several versions of the Bible say that they will die on the day that they eat the fruit. They do not suffer physical death after their choice, but suffer a spiritual separation from God (or spiritual death). Later Biblical passages, such as Romans 5, indicate that sin entered the world through one man. Thus I believe that the choice of Adam and Eve introduced sin to the rest of humanity.

      That's the quick version, but I'd be happy to discuss it further.

      Delete
  8. Curtis
    Glad to see that BioLogos does believe in the resurrection. But they seem to have chosen to “walk in the counsel of the ungodly.... Psalm 1:1
    Accepting Evolution as true and bending the scriptures to try to fit in with the same.
    I’m very disappointed in Yancey and Keller.
    And to top it off the evidence and science is so against Macro evolution it’s ridiculous.
    No wonder they give ID such a hard time as they’re exposing them for swallowing a lie.
    So sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People like Thorton and WS were never the bad guys.

      Delete
    2. Phillymike I don't see your explanation for the dinosaur diversification data provided in the OP linked paper. I suppose you don't have one either, right?

      How did life get from the original body plans in the Cambrian through 5 major mass extinction events to the millions of extant species today without macroevolution? I've never seen a coherent answer from a Creationist on that one either.

      Delete
    3. Good evening, Cornelius. Have you given any further consideration to stating your opinion of the most plausible hypothesis regarding the development of life on the planet as we now see it?

      What do you think if Joe’s earlier comment?

      The best explanation for the diversity of life we see today is evolution by means of intelligent design. The tough question is what was/ were the starting point(s)?

      Delete
    4. Dirt worshipper: How did life get from the original body plans in the Cambrian through 5 major mass extinction events to the millions of extant species today without macroevolution? I've never seen a coherent answer from a Creationist on that one either.

      Are you stupid or something? The designers were obviously conducting large scale ecological experiments. Conducting experiments is what designers do. Intelligent design over time is necessarily bottom up whereby new classes of organisms consist of reusing previous classes and adding new ones, hence resulting is an evolution. All software engineers know this, except dirt worshippers apparently.

      Now go back to licking some more dirt. LOL

      Delete
    5. How did life get from the original body plans in the Cambrian through 5 major mass extinction events to the millions of extant species today without macroevolution?

      Intelligent Design. Your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the transformations required.

      Delete
    6. I see Joke is back to his usual moronic one-liner non explanations. Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
  9. Hi Phillymike. Theistic evolutionists (including the BioLogos leadership) do believe in the resurrection (unlike some prominent ID proponents). Christianity is meaningless without it. They also believe in a Creator.

    Although you seem to stand firmly behind ID, you must be aware that rather prominent figures in the movement (like Behe and Gauger) fully support common descent.

    I would argue that the main critique of ID science is that the work is entirely focused on discrediting evolution without any work toward supporting any hypothesis.

    What would you put forth as the most glaring evidence against macroevolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although you seem to stand firmly behind ID, you must be aware that rather prominent figures in the movement (like Behe and Gauger) fully support common descent.

      Yeah "God did it" is the mechanism.

      I would argue that the main critique of ID science is that the work is entirely focused on discrediting evolution without any work toward supporting any hypothesis.

      Nonsense. For one ID is not anti-evolution. For another irreducible complexity is support for the hypothesis just as tool marks are support for archaeology.

      And all of the evidence in "The Privileged Planet" supports ID.

      What would you put forth as the most glaring evidence against macroevolution?

      Total lack of a mechanism that can produce new body plans and new body parts.

      Delete
    2. Curtis,

      Dr. Behe is not saying that common decent is
      correct but that common decent is possible way that God could have done it. There are two things that need to be drawn out.

      1. There is no evidence for common decent that can be brought forward that does not first assume common decent. You can hypothesis that common decent is a possibility but you cannot say that there is evidence for it. We do not see common decent happening today.

      2. Common decent is not possible with small gradual changes. We know this from the number of changes to get from one species to another. Its a system engineering problem which biologists, including Dr. Behe, are not trained in. For example, take a water mammal. To go from a land mammal to a water mammal takes a huge number of changes. Nearly all of these changes have to happen at once for the water mammal to survive. The land mammal will essentially have to give birth to a water mammal. This is preposterous.

      So while you can say that God could have done it that way you have to embrace ideas that are not scientific to get there.

      Delete
    3. Sorry ADOTI but that's the dumbest pile of Creationist nonsense I've seen in some time.

      There is no evidence for common decent that can be brought forward that does not first assume common decent.

      Completely false. Common descent is not an assumption. It is an inference drawn from a huge amount of consilient scientific evidence, both fossil and genetic. Common descent started out as an hypothesis but it is so well supported now it is considered scientific fact.

      We do not see common decent happening today.

      So you didn't descend from your parents and they from their parents? Wow.

      Common decent is not possible with small gradual changes. We know this from the number of changes to get from one species to another. Its a system engineering problem which biologists, including Dr. Behe, are not trained in. For example, take a water mammal. To go from a land mammal to a water mammal takes a huge number of changes. Nearly all of these changes have to happen at once for the water mammal to survive. The land mammal will essentially have to give birth to a water mammal. This is preposterous

      What a ridiculous strawman. We can see extant creatures like otters and seals / sea lions which can exist in both land AND water. it isn't an "either or" situation.

      You may want to take a Biology 101 course because your understanding of actual evolution is atrocious.

      Delete
    4. Common descent is not an assumption.

      Yes, it is. No one can test it.

      We can see extant creatures like otters and seals / sea lions which can exist in both land AND water.

      And? You don't have a mechanism capable of producing those organisms.

      Delete
    5. Joke is a sad little YEC. Almost completely scientifically illiterate but has to knee jerk add some moronic comment after every post.

      Delete
    6. Ghostrider,

      Your missing my main point. The differences between a sea mammal and a land mammal are huge. List the differences between a sea otter and any fully land mammal of your choice. Then show me how to get from one to the other one small change at a time. Or, which of these differences are not needed for the sea mammal to survive.

      Delete
    7. What has to change to get from a fully terrestrial mammal to an otter? The coat slowly becomes more water resistant, the paws slowly become webbed and more paddle like. The body slowly becomes more streamlined for swimming. There's nothing slow stepwise processes generation by generation can't produce. Same goes for a terrestrial mammal into a seal, or a manatee. We even have fossils of a manatee ancestor, Pezosiren portelli, which had fully developed legs and feet.

      Sorry ADOTI but you're arguing solely from personal incredulity with no scientific reasons for the doubt.

      Delete
    8. tiny timmy with its usual cowardly projection

      Delete
    9. ADOTI I replied to you but my post didn’t appear again. Seems very hit or miss what gets through.

      Delete
    10. Unbelievable- timmy you don't have a mechanism capable of producing otters nor manatees.

      Slow stepwise processes cannot produce eukaryotes. It cannot produce metazoans. It cannot produce vision systems.

      Looks like timmy is arguing purely from personal incredulity with no science to supports its claims.

      Delete
    11. GR, ”There's nothing slow stepwise processes generation by generation can't produce.”
      I’m afraid that I have to disagree. Hundreds of generations of Joke’s lineage is still incapable of producing intelligence.

      Delete
    12. You're the Joke, willie.

      Nice own goal

      Delete
    13. Dirt worshipper pseudoscience: There's nothing slow stepwise processes generation by generation can't produce.

      This is pure bullshit, of course. Stochastic processes destroy everything they produce by virtue of being stochastic. Chaos breed chaos. Order does not rise from disorder via random processes. Darwinist evolution never gets started because inert dirt does not give birth to living organisms.

      Keep licking the dirt. LOL

      Delete
    14. It's the spiked Kool-Aid, Louis. They all partake of the spiked Kool-Aid

      Delete
    15. Nah, it's not any Kool-Aid. They are just a bunch of evil little shits.

      Delete
  10. Its not dinos suddenly appearing but instead how a deposition event simply placed these dino fossils together and not below the strata.
    The whole concept of deposition/fossils is the issue. In reality all dinos were killed in the first days of the great flood. Then deposited in great flows of pressurized water.
    i don;'t agree there is a group of creatures called dinosaurs. Its just kinds of creatures with some mutual like traits. just as wrongly they say there are reptiles or mammals.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Curtis
    “What would you put forth as the most glaring evidence against macroevolution?”

    The fact that there’s no evidence for macro evolution.

    What would you put forth as the best evidence for macroevolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. What would you put forth as the best evidence for macroevolution?


      The twin nested phlogenies of the fossil and genetic records. Two independent data sources which agree with each other greater than 99.9999%.

      I'll ask again the same question no one answered above:

      How did life get from the original body plans in the Cambrian 500+ million years ago through 5 major mass extinction events to the millions of extant species today without macroevolution?

      For the clueless morons like Joke: saying "Intelligent Design" is no more an explanation than saying "magic!".

      Delete
    2. The twin nested phlogenies of the fossil and genetic records.

      You don't know what a nested hierarchy is. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the transformations required.

      How did life get from the original body plans in the Cambrian 500+ million years ago through 5 major mass extinction events to the millions of extant species today without macroevolution?

      It definitely wasn't via natural selection, drift or any other stochastic process. There isn't even a way to test the claim that those processes could do it.

      Delete
    3. I see the clueless moron Joke has to pipe up again even with nothing to say. Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
    4. Nice projection, loser. What have you ever said that is supported by science? Not a thing

      Delete
    5. Shut up Chubs. The adults are talking.

      Delete
    6. timmy, you will never be an adult, loser. You will never post anything of substance. And you will always be a jerk

      Delete
  12. Phillymike, not only is there considerable evidence for evolution, we can actually see evolution in action when bacteria develop antibiotic resistance or insects develop pesticide resistance or viruses develop drug resistance. Those changes ARE evolution. The fact that evolution is observable suggests that what you call "macro evolution" is simply evolution over longer periods of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curtis

      Sorry but I’m not that gullible. Loss of function is not gaining any new information, which is required to build novel body plans.
      You should lay off the evolutionary propaganda and take time to think about what would be needed to bring about what the evolutionists say happened.
      “Too often evolutionists are, amazingly, not well studied on how the scientific evidence bears on their own theory. ”

      Delete
    2. Phillymike, what loss of function is involved in gaining antibiotic or pesticide resistance?

      Delete
    3. Loss of function is not gaining any new information, which is required to build novel body plans.

      We have significant scientific evidence bats evolved from non-flying mammals around 52 MYA. A major driver in bat evolution was mutations to the BMP2 gene which produced greatly elongated fingers and effectively produced wings from their front limbs.

      How is that a "loss of information"? Did the bats lose the ability to not fly? :)

      Delete
    4. ghosty:
      We have significant scientific evidence bats evolved from non-flying mammals around 52 MYA.

      There isn't any such evidence.

      A major driver in bat evolution was mutations to the BMP2 gene which produced greatly elongated fingers and effectively produced wings from their front limbs.

      If it took more than two mutations you don't have enough time. And it takes much more than elongated fingers to make a bat.

      Delete
    5. Yeah Joke, you already made a fool of yourself with your stupid misinterpretation of that paper. Tell us more how additional CO2 in the air actually lowers the Earth's temperature. :D

      Delete
    6. Shut up, loser. YOU choked on that paper. YOU don't know anything except how to be a belligerent jerk.

      Delete
    7. Hey timmy, tell us again how the LWR from CO2 heats up oxygen and nitrogen as if they are greenhouse gasses. Moron

      Delete
    8. JoeG, it is true that many mutations conferring antibiotic resistance affect relative fitness in environments lacking the antibiotic. But there are several examples in the literature of mutations that apparently do not have a negative effect on fitness.

      Enne VI, Livermore DM, Stephens P. Hall LM. Persistence of sulphonamide resistance in Escherichia coli in the UK despite national prescribing restriction. Lancet. 2001;357:1325–1328.

      Sundqvist M, Geli P, Andersson DI, Sjölund-Karlsson M, Runehagen A, Cars H, Abelson-Storby K, et al. Little evidence for reversibility of trimethoprim resistance after a drastic reduction in trimethoprim use. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2010;65:350–360.

      Arason V, Gunnlaugsson A, Sigurdsson J, Erlendsdottir H, Gudmundsson S. Kristinsson KG. Clonal spread of resistant Pneumococci despite diminished antimicrobial use. Microbial Drug Resistance. 2002;8:187–192.

      Generally, mutations conferring antibiotic resistance do come at some fitness cost, but this is unsurprising since rather dramatic metabolic changes are typically required to allow resistance. However, the existence of mutations conferring resistance without an apparent loss in fitness suggests that occasionally, mutations don't just break things. This observation is completely in line with what is predicted by evolution through natural selection.

      Delete
    9. Please link to the scientific theory of evolution so we can all read about this alleged prediction.

      Delete
    10. Joe, I'm not going to discuss pointless semantics. If you want to discuss science with me, I'll be happy to do that. There are enough arguments here already :-P

      Delete
    11. I am trying to discuss science. YOU brought up a prediction that is allegedly borne from natural selection. I wanted to see if that was real or made up.

      Delete
  13. Hmm... ok... but it kinda sounds like your argument is that evolution cannot possibly be true unless there is a precise definition in a peer-reviewed article somewhere.

    Evolution is hypothesized to work by generation of largely random mutations, some of which lead to better fitness and allow those genes to be passed on to progeny generations. It simply makes sense that if antibiotics target key biochemical processes in a cell, the mutations that allow survival in the presence of the antibiotics must also target those key biochemical processes and alter them in such a way that the antibiotics no longer prevent cell survival. Most of these mutations will reduce fitness compared to wild-type strains in environments lacking antibiotics, but some of of these mutations apparently do not.

    The article you posted states that "all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution." This statement is made because of the assumption that all mutations leading to antibiotic resistance result in reduced fitness in environments without the antibiotic. There are articles that I posted that show otherwise. The premise of the article seems to be in error, thus the major conclusion is also in error.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with evolution by means of intelligent design- as in organisms were designed to evolve and adapt.

      The article I posted says that in no way can the changes observed be taken and extrapolated into macro-evolution. Not one of the anti-biotic resistance events can be so extrapolated. And that was the best evidence for beneficial mutations.

      Delete
    2. Although I wouldn't say my conclusions align tightly with other ID proponents, I'm certainly not opposed to God as a Creator that either "stacked the deck" for evolution to turn out as He intended, or He might have "nudged" evolutionary processes toward His desired outcome. Our thoughts on the topic are truly not antithetical at all.

      The article makes the erroneous assumption that all mutations make organisms less fit for their environments. This is simply not the case. I'm not stating that evolution of antibiotic resistance is proof of "macro-evolution". I'm stating that evolution is observable and there isn't evidence of mechanistic limits (like cessation of any further mutation) to the process. It is a logical conclusion that accumulation of beneficial mutations can cause larger-scale changes over time.

      Delete
    3. The article makes the erroneous assumption that all mutations make organisms less fit for their environments.

      Nonsense. Clearly you have reading comprehension issues.

      The mutations that cause micro-evolution, what we observe, are to genes that are not responsible for body plans. The genes that are responsible for body plans, when altered, cause deformities and monstrosities.

      Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

      Different genes and different process.

      Delete
  14. Joe, this is a direct quote from the article you referenced:

    "all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding"

    The implication is that all mutations conferring antibiotic resistance result in "devolution". And this implication is false.

    Your ad hominems are adding nothing to what you claim is a scientific discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong! They are talking about "evolution" in the sense of Common Descent (otherwise known as universal common descent).

      Delete
  15. “I'm certainly not opposed to God as a Creator that either "stacked the deck" for evolution to turn out as He intended, or He might have "nudged" evolutionary processes toward His desired outcome.”

    “To get the first cell, you need DNA and you also need RNA and you need protein. You need DNA to make RNA to make protein, but you also need protein to make DNA. Coming up with that out of a process of random mutation and natural selection is just not possible.”
    Anne Gauger

    Curtis
    It sure would have needed quite a nudge.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Speaking for myself, I believe atheistic abiogenesis is much more problematic than atheistic evolution. However, Gauger's quote ignores research ignores the "RNA world" hypothesis and others. An argument could be made (but not by me) that the first cells were significantly different from the cells we see today. I think that the lack of progress in this area since abiogenesis research began about 70 years ago suggests that this "God of the gaps" argument might actually present a real gap in a purely naturalistic explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any evidence for any RNA world, just a need.

      Delete
    2. Joe, there's a difference between "there isn't any evidence" and "there isn't any evidence I find convincing". Cech and Altman won Nobel Prizes for their discoveries of catalytic RNA. These discoveries were deemed Nobel-worthy largely because they lent evidence to the RNA World hypothesis. I'm still not convinced by the evidence, but it is erroneous to say that the evidence doesn't exist.

      Delete
    3. There isn't any evidence for any RNA world. Period.

      Finding catalytic RNA is not evidence for a RNA world. Being able to produce RNA nucleotides is not evidence for a RNA world.

      Spiegelman's Monster and other experiments are evidence against it. Self-sustained replication of RNA's failed to produce anything beyond faster replication. And that was with designed RNA's that used designed RNA strands and only created one bond.

      Delete
    4. Joe, there's a difference between "there isn't any evidence" and "there isn't any evidence I find convincing".

      Just blanket denying any and all scientific evidence he can't explain is Joke's main tactic. That's why he constantly vomits out "there is no theory of evolution".

      Joke is an angry YEC who isn't very bright. Most gave up trying to get an informed adult discussion out of him decades ago.

      Delete
    5. You are a liar and loser, timmy. And there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. But then again you are just an ignorant troll

      Delete
    6. LOL! Funny there isn't a theory of evolution yet you spend hours a day, every day, impotently ranting against it.

      Joke is like the obnoxious little yap dog who barks at everyone then piddles on the rug. Most of us ignore him except to poke fun when he says something really stupid, which is quite often. :)

      Delete
    7. You are a moron, timmy- and a LIAR. I rail against evolutionism. I do not and never have railed against any scientific theory of evolution.

      Strange how you have to lie all of the time in order to score mental midget points.

      Delete
    8. I do not and never have railed against any scientific theory of evolution.

      HAH! Joke is the same knob who has claimed for years all scientific evidence supports baraminology, or Biblical "kinds". Now suddenly he supports ToE.

      In your own words what is the scientific theory of evolution Joke?

      Delete
    9. What? timmy you are pathetic.

      What I said was that the evidence supports limited descent with modification. You have been corrected on this many times and yet you choose to spew your lies. And I NEVER said anything about the evidence supporting the ToE.

      There isn't any scientific theory of evolution, moron. That is why I have never railed against it.

      Strange how you have to lie all of the time in order to score mental midget points.

      Delete
    10. In your own words what is the scientific theory of evolution Joe?

      Non-existent.

      Delete
    11. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Joke one minute "all scientific evidence supports baraminology"

      Joke the next minute "I never said anything againt the scientific theory of evolution"

      Joke the next minute: "The scientific theory of evolution doesn't exist".

      Then Joke wonders why everyone who reads his blithering thinks he's a clueless YEC idiot. :D

      Delete
    12. What a desperate little imp you are timmy.

      Do you really think that your pathetic lies mean something? Really?

      All scientific evidence supports limited descent with modification.

      And I never said anything against the scientific theory of evolution because there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.

      But thanks for proving that you are too stupid and pathetic to follow along.

      Everyone who reads this sees that you are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

      And they also see that no one can link to any scientific theory of evolution. No one can say who the author was, when it was published, or what journal published it.

      Delete
  17. And for the record- ghosty has argued for baraminology on this very blog:

    Thorton said:


    A cat is a member of the family Felidae. Its parents were Felidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Felidae.

    A dog is a member of the family Canidae. Its parents were Canidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I checked out your link from 6 years ago Joke. Looks like people were trying to correct your ignorance once again. You were arguing evolution is wrong because we don't see extant cats evolving onto extant dogs. I would say no one could possibly be that stupid but I've seen you in action before. :D

      Delete
    2. The ignorance is all yours, as usual.What you said proves that you are a closet YEC, timmy.

      Nice own goal.

      BTW there isn't anything in evolutionism that prevents a dog from evolving into a cat or vice versa

      Delete