Saturday, May 12, 2018

Centrobin Found to be Important in Sperm Development

Numerous, Successive, Slight Modifications

Proteins are a problem for theories of spontaneous origins for many reasons. They consist of dozens, or often hundreds, or even thousands of amino acids in a linear sequence, and while many different sequences will do the job, that number is tiny compared to the total number of sequences that are possible. It is a proverbial needle-in-the-haystack problem, far beyond the reach of blind searches. To make matters worse, many proteins are overlapping, with portions of their genes occupying the same region of DNA. The same set of mutations would have to result in not one, but two proteins, making the search problem that much more tricky. Furthermore, many proteins perform multiple functions. Random mutations somehow would have to find those very special proteins that can perform double duty in the cell. And finally, many proteins perform crucial roles within a complex environment. Without these proteins the cell sustains a significant fitness degradation. One protein that fits this description is centrobin, and now a new study shows it to be even more important than previously understood.

Centrobin is a massive protein of almost a thousand amino acids. Its importance in the division of animal cells has been known for more than ten years. An important player in animal cell division is the centrosome organelle which organizes the many microtubules—long tubes which are part of the cell’s cytoskeleton. Centrobin is one of the many proteins that helps the centrosome do its job. Centrobin depletion causes “strong disorganization of the microtubule network,” and impaired cell division.

Now, a new study shows just how important centrobin is in the development of the sperm tail. Without centrobin, the tail, or flagellum, development is “severely compromised.” And once the sperm is formed, centrobin is important for its structural integrity. As the paper concludes:

Our results underpin the multifunctional nature of [centrobin] that plays different roles in different cell types in Drosophila, and they identify [centrobin] as an essential component for C-tubule assembly and flagellum development in Drosophila spermatogenesis.

Clearly centrobin is an important protein. Without it such fundamental functions as cell division and organism reproduction are severely impaired.

And yet how did centrobin evolve?

Not only is centrobin a massive protein, but there are no obvious candidate intermediate structures. It is not as though we have that “long series of gradations in complexity” that Darwin called for:

Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.

Unfortunately, in the case of centrobin, we do not know of such a series. In fact, centrobin would seem to be a perfectly good example of precisely how Darwin said his theory could be falsified:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.  

Darwin could “find out no such case,” but he didn’t know about centrobin. Darwin required “a long series of gradations,” formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

With centrobin we are nowhere close to fulfilling these requirements. In other words, today’s science falsifies evolution. This, according to Darwin’s own words.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

168 comments:

  1. Another impressive protein is prestin, found (so far) only in the cell walls of the outer hair cells in the cochlea. Prestin performs instant electrostriction, like a quartz crystal, pushing and pulling the hairs at rates up to 40 KHz. Muscles use actin for contraction, but actin responds more chemically and much slower.

    Why was electrostriction needed in the OHCs? So they can directly emphasize or damp the incoming sound waves, to improve reception of 'interesting' sounds and decrease reception of 'boring' sounds. Something like a smart Dolby system.

    How would prestin evolve from actin? How would mutations know that an emphasizer capable of direct wave response would work better than a syllable-length emphasizer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice article. And this the story of just one protein. The curse of dimensionality strikes again. And again and again...

    Only superstitious fools believe in Darwinism. The dirt worshippers are both deceivers and morons by nature.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr, Hunter,
    Thank you for this article.
    Can you tell me if it is involved in the cell division of bacteria?
    If it is, does it have the same suite of functions?
    Polistra sees a similarity in prestin, a protein I admit I have never heard of, and I am wondering if there are a whole class of proteins that like those mentioned have no known antecedents?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius' favorite Creationist argument:

    "Science doesn't know everything, therefore science doesn't know anything!"

    As long as such banal nonsense still gets the Fundies spun up Cornelius will continue to use it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you know you don't know everything, then why are you dirt worshippers such insufferable know-it-all pompous asses? You have no clue as to how proteins could have evolved on their own and yet you know for certain they did.

      Jackasses, all of you. Unless you repent from your shit, you deserve what's coming to you.

      Delete
    2. LOL! See, told you Cornelius' empty rhetoric gets the Fundy nutters spun up! :D

      Delete
    3. Your persistent habit of continually referring to Christianity is telling. It says that you are obsessed with religion, which is Cornelius' main argument. You are not in this for the science. You are a deeply religious dirt worshipper and you use your pseudoscientific superstitions to attack a competing religion. It won't do you any good.

      Like Dawkins, you must have been abused as a child by some priest or other. So now you are suffering from an OCD-type mental illness.

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

      Delete
  5. Ghost rider, your argument is weak because you are using ignorance as a shield. If scientists don't know how their model can account for a certain observation as you yourself admit, then your high confidence in that model is unwarranted.

    The other problem with your position is aa scientists have been learning more and
    and more, questions such as in the OP are created instead of solved.

    You can't cling to a theory forever with the excuse that "just because a theory doesn't solve something now, doesn't mean it won't solve it soon". Especially if new problems keep coming up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If scientists don't know how their model can account for a certain observation as you yourself admit, then your high confidence in that model is unwarranted

      But the model does account for 99.9% of our observations. Because some details of event which happened 3.8 billion years ago remain unknown doesn't negate all we do know.

      When you come up with an explanation for observed physical phenomena better than ToE then you can replace ToE. Right now all you are offering is "MAGIC!!". No mechanisms, no time line, no predictive power, no way to be falsified. MAGIC! just won't cut it in the scientific world.

      Delete
    2. It seems to me that the criteria of (a) having predictive power and (b) being explainable by natural causes (which is what it seems you are getting at by "no mechanisms [and] no time line") are neither here nor there when it comes to truth. Whoever says the truth (whatever it may be) must fill those two qualities is just making a bald assertion with nothing but frail philosophy to back their claims.

      However, the fact is that the predictive power you speak of is indeed there. You just don't want to see it. Here's a prediction you can track: Intelligent Design predicts that questions such as the ones posed in this article will just keep coming up, and at greater and greater rates.

      Delete
  6. It’s always amusing to hear the materialists weakly misrepresent their critics arguments like this - "Science doesn't know everything, therefore science doesn't know anything!"

    Particularly when many modern biologists and geneticists are being humbled by the complexity they are finding, and admit that - “There’s so much of the genome that we don’t understand, probably like 99 percent of it”. One would think that a little more humility is in order.

    Moreover, if specialist scientists can conclude this, it seems rather arrogant that evolutionary biologists can claim to know how the genome originated or that it randomly evolved all these functions over time - with any certainty at all? The hubris at play here is incredible.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/genetics-leaves-central-dogma-and-junk-dna-in-the-rear-view-mirror/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least science is actively working to solve mysteries. Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science. ID-Creationism is completely flaccid religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines.

      Delete
    2. Your response makes no sense. There are plenty of practicing scientists who believe in ID and the reality of a creator. They scrupulously practice methodological naturalism on a daily basis.

      But this is NOT the question. Rather, it is the assumptions of philosophical naturalism that is the problem. These often run counter to what we know, and where the evidence points. One cannot assume a natural process which cannot be proven. But this is a regular feature, even a foundational assumption, of “historical science”. This is driven by faith, not fact.

      When ID scientists point out the impossibility of many macro theories, they are mocked and derided because they do not provide some other natural process or mechanism that will produce the desired result. But right there is the problem …. The assumption is that there IS a natural mechanism. That’s a philosophical assumption. I have no idea why so many can’t see it for what it is. Or maybe, the alternative is just too frightening.

      Delete
    3. One cannot assume a natural process which cannot be proven.

      But we can and do accept natural processes like evolution which can be empirically observed to work and produce results as advertised.

      When ID scientists point out the impossibility of many macro theories, they are mocked and derided because they do not provide some other natural process or mechanism that will produce the desired result.

      No, they are mocked and derided for their stupidity and complete lack of evidence for their claim natural evolutionary processes which produced the variations in life we see are impossible.

      Delete
    4. Never debate a dirt worshipper. Never assume that you can change a dirt worshipper's mind. Always bash them and ridicule them. Show the jackasses nothing but contempt and disrespect.

      Delete
    5. Misrepresentation seems to be par for the course for the defenders of Darwinism ... a convenient way to evade what are clearly significant problems. In short, the TOE basically relies upon huge extrapolations ... that are by their very nature, unable to be proved.

      Delete
    6. Science doesn't "prove" things KBH. Science provide positive supporting evidence. Right now every last bit of positive evidence we have supports evolutionary theory. When you ID-Creationists provide your next piece of positive evidence it will be the first.

      Delete
    7. There isn't any positive supporting evidence for evolutionism, timmy. You don't even know how to test its claims- no one does.

      Delete
    8. When I read Ghostrider's responses, the word 'pettifogging' comes to mind.

      Delete
    9. When I read the words of ID-Creationists the words "scientifically illiterate morons" comes to mind.

      Delete
    10. When I read the words of brain-dead dirt worshippers, the words "gutless superstitious ass kissers" come to mind.

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. GR
    "When you come up with an explanation for observed physical phenomena better than ToE then you can replace ToE. Right now all you are offering is "MAGIC!!". No mechanisms, no time line, no predictive power, no way to be falsified. MAGIC! just won't cut it in the scientific world."

    The best explanation is design. Evolution requires new genetic information and design is the only known source.

    Blind and unguided generation of genetic information will not cut it in the scientific world. Thats why the blind and unguided guys had to regroup at the Royal Society meeting in 2016.

    At the end of the day no one has come up with a better explanation then design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best explanation is design.

      Merely saying "design" has the identical explanatory power as saying "MAGIC!". NONE.

      Evolution requires new genetic information and design is the only known source.

      Bill how many times are you going to tell this same lie? You've been corrected all over the web too many times to count. Every individual in every generation has genetic variations not present in either parent. That's new genetic information. The new information retained in the gene pool is that which is fixed by selection and drift.

      It's IDiots like you who have been vomiting up the same already refuted garbage for years which give ID-Creationism the dirt low reputation it has.

      Delete
    2. Merely saying "natural selection" has the explanatory power as saying "MAGIC"! NONE.

      timmy's position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. And it has to be given starting populations of prokaryotes.

      Delete
  9. GR
    "When ID scientists point out the impossibility of many macro theories, they are mocked and derided because they do not provide some other natural process or mechanism that will produce the desired result."

    Design is a known natural mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Design is a known natural mechanism." Excellent insight!

      Delete
    2. "Design" is not a mechanism for the physical implementation of anything. It's the ID-Creationist way of cowardly trying to disguise the fact they have nothing scientific to offer.

      Delete
    3. Michelangelo drew plenty of designs that he never manufactured because there were no “mechanisms” available to do so. Without a mechanism to realize the design, ID is just an un-kept promise.

      Delete
    4. Without a mechanism to realize the design, ID is just an un-kept promise.

      So SETI is not valid?

      Delete
    5. LOL. This will hurt, I'm sure. I just love the way you turn the dirt worshippers' own weapons against them, Cornelius. I love seeing them squirm like worms on a hot tin roof.

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

      Delete
    6. Anyone who can read and understand a dictionary knows that design is a mechanism

      Delete
    7. Cornelius: "So SETI is not valid?"
      I think that SETI is a pipe dream, but it proposes a mechanism. It is based on the assumption that other advanced civilizations will discover electromagnetism and radio waves. All ID has is the proposed design with no proposed mechanism for realizing this design.

      Delete
    8. Joke: "Anyone who can read and understand a dictionary knows that design is a mechanism."
      So those letters and words on the paper, or on the computer screen, got there with no mechanism? Maybe you should stick with proving that frequency = wavelength.

      Delete
    9. willie:
      So those letters and words on the paper, or on the computer screen, got there with no mechanism?

      Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. Design is a mechanism. Those letters and words on paper or on the computer screen got there by design.

      Maybe you should stick with proving that frequency = wavelength.

      See, you are too stupid to understand that also. You are pathetic, willie

      Delete
    10. All ID has is the proposed design with no proposed mechanism for realizing this design.

      Design is a mechanism. Genetic engineering is a mechanism. Genetic algorithms use telic processes as a mechanism.

      willie's ignorance, while amusing, just proves it is ignorant.

      Delete
    11. A specific mechanism is not needed for a design inference. But don't tell that to the dirt worshippers. The jackasses can't hear reason because they all got their pointy little heads up their arses.

      Delete
    12. And their "specific mechanism", natural selection, is short on the specifics.

      Delete
    13. Joke: "Design is a mechanism."
      You have a hard time reading for comprehension. I am asking for the mechanism to realize the design. How do you go from the design to the structure? In ID's case, all we are given is "POOF".

      Delete
    14. design:
      b : a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment); also : the process of preparing this

      It's design all the way down. You realize the object's design by following a plan, ie another design.

      Design can be a noun and a verb, willie

      Delete
    15. but it proposes a mechanism. It is based on the assumption that other advanced civilizations will discover electromagnetism and radio waves. All ID has is the proposed design with no proposed mechanism for realizing this design.

      A very rare quad own-goal. Let's count the ways:

      1. The hypothesis of common descent is non scientific because it has "no proposed mechanism for realizing this design."

      2. ID is science (in spite of your assertion), because it has proposed mechanisms "for realizing this design."

      3. Creationism is scientific because it has a "proposed mechanism for realizing this design."

      4. Given your demarcation criterion and reasoning (whether valid or not), your position is not vulnerable to the science. No matter what the evidence says, the other guys are "not scientific." The religion drives the science (and it matters).

      Delete
    16. Cornelius: ”A very rare quad own-goal. Let's count the ways:”
      Yet none of your “ways” are remotely related to my response to your question. Tangent, thy name is Cornelius.

      Delete
    17. Heh. I see Joke is back to chanting his usual mindless ID-Creation stupidity "Design is a mechanism!"

      I can see Joke now:

      "How do we build this bridge when we have no materials, no way to put I-beams and concrete in place if we had them?"

      "DESIGN!!"

      How do we construct this tunnel through the mountain with no digging equipment, no blasting equipment, no way to prop up the hole from collapse?"

      DESIGN!!

      "How do we build an aircraft when we have no metal or wood, no engine, no tools or dies of any kind?"

      DESIGN!!

      Joke, still the world's dumbest YEC.

      Delete
    18. Cornelius: "The religion drives the science (and it matters).”

      Does it matter? And to whom? A huge portion (billions) of the world’s population struggles to eke out an existence. What matters to them is finding their next meal. I don’t think matters of evolution, ID and creationism are very important to them. Interesting though this is, I don’t think in the big scheme of things much of this really matters. And those who are theistic or atheistic decide usually have made their minds up long before they think about ID or evolution.

      Delete
    19. Only complete morons deny that design is a mechanism. And only desperate morons spew the pap that ghosty posts.

      Delete
    20. Let's drop off Joke in the middle of the desert with the blueprints for a house but no building materials, no tools, no electric power, no water. Tell us Joke how the complete construction of the house is achieved from just the design on the blueprint.

      Joke, still the world's dumbest angry YEC. :D

      Delete
    21. Wow, ghosty, does your straw man keep you warm at night?

      Design includes everything you ignorant twit. There are the plans but also the materials and how to assemble them and properly assembling them.

      It is all part of the design, moron.

      Delete
    22. This just keeps getting better and better.

      According to Joke, you don't start looking for the how until you have detected the design. But also according to Joke, the how is the design. But, don't ask Joke how the design was realized because that come until after the design is detected. This complicated logic is hurting my brain.

      Delete
    23. According to Joe, you don't start looking for the how until you have detected the design.

      That is according to anyone who has ever been a successful investigator. Why would you try to figure out how someone designed something that you don't even know required a designer?

      But also according to Joe, the how is the design.

      Design includes the how. It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of the meanings of words.

      This complicated logic is hurting my brain.

      That is only because you are a twisted and ignorant fool who doesn't understand how to conduct science. And English clearly isn't your native language

      Delete
    24. Joke, are you aware that when you quote someone it is dishonest and unethical to change the quotes?

      Delete
    25. I have no idea what you are talking about.

      Correcting a childish spelling error is always appropriate. However your childish spelling errors prove that you are dishonest and unethical.

      Delete
    26. Design includes everything you ignorant twit. There are the plans but also the materials and how to assemble them and properly assembling them

      Then show us how the Designer gathered the raw materials and physically manipulated them with tools according to instructions to get the assembly desired.

      Unless ID-Creationism has no mechanisms for manufacturing, which is what everyone has pointed out to you all along.

      Delete
    27. Then show us how the Designer gathered the raw materials and physically manipulated them with tools according to instructions to get the assembly desired.

      Or what? You will throw another belligerent tantrum that exposes your ignorance?

      Intelligent Design is a known mechanism for manufacturing, timmy. Your ignorance and belligerence will never alter that fact.

      On the other hand your position is all about the how and yet you and yours are totally clueless in that respect.


      ID has a scientific methodology for determining whether or not intelligent design exists. And that alone is by far more than your position has.

      Delete
    28. LOL! Joke is such a scream. I've never seen a clown stick his foot in his mouth with such regularity. Joke is well known on many C/E boards as the dumbest Creationist alive. :)

      Delete
    29. timmy the belligerent ignoramus strikes again.

      Delete
  10. mechanism:
    b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result

    deign:
    b : a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment); also : the process of preparing this

    plan:
    a : a method for achieving an end

    ReplyDelete
  11. According to ghostie engineers and architects are magicians.

    According to ghostie forensics and archaeology deal with magic and magicians.

    What else would you expect from someone, ghostie, who is too stupid to understand a dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joke: "According to ghostie engineers and architects are magicians."
    If they are capable of erecting a building without the trades, then yes, they are magicians. This happening would be as probable as a tornado going through a junk yard and resulting in a 747.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they are capable of erecting a building without the trades, then yes, they are magicians.

      You can't even follow along, willie. That is sad.

      Engineers and architects, willie.

      ghostie is saying that even qualified trades-people use magic.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of your posts should be censored as you don't have anything to say, you are a complete ignoramus and a pathological liar.

      Delete
    2. LOL! Good ol' Joke Gallien, everyone's favorite angry and ignorant YEC. The clueless clown who thinks wavelength=frequency, who thinks heat=temperature, who thinks CO2 can't trap Earth's heat because "all the molecules don't point the same way" :D

      Yes folks, Joke really was dumb enough to claim that. Oh, and all scientific evidence supports baraminology too.

      Delete
    3. Wow, timmy thinks that tree rings, poop and urine are codes. And CO2 doesn't trap heat. frequency and wavelength are interchangeable in certain contexts

      And timmy has supported the claim of limited descent with modification. It definitely cannot find support for anything else.

      ghosty is just a clueless loser

      Delete
  14. "Let's drop off Joke in the middle of the desert with the blueprints for a house but no building materials, no tools, no electric power, no water. Tell us Joke how the complete construction of the house is achieved from just the design on the blueprint.

    Joke, still the world's dumbest angry YEC. :D"
    A better question would be, where did the blueprint come from?
    The mechanism for the creation of the design is the creator.
    Even if you had all the materials at hand (the wood, the stone, and other things required to build the house) if Joe isn't there with the blueprints no matter how long you wait the house won't make itself (which is what evolution would have you believe).

    In the context of evolution, the mechanism (or lack thereof) is a convincing arguement that the house would indeed be able to build itself over time with a very serious handicap, no design (aka plan). Even if we had a mechanism (different people walk by and make a small addition to the house) without a shared plan you'll end up with a sub-optimal house that no one will want to live in. You'll also have to consider the number of people that won't recognize it's supposed (take note of that word supposed) to be a house and they'll take materials away from it instead of building onto it.

    Long time reader of your blog, glad to finally enter into the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A better question would be, where did the blueprint come from?

      Humans produced it.

      which is what evolution would have you believe

      Evolution does have well known mechanisms for creating new variations in life. It has imperfect replication to produce new genetic information. It has selection and drift to ensure beneficial (or neutral) new information is added to the gene pool. Those processes have been empirically verified to work and are responsible for all the myriad variations of life we see.

      As opposed to a house with blueprints, evolution has no pre-planned forms it is seeking to manufacture. Evolution tends to keep whatever it can kludge together that works no matter how bizarre it looks.

      Everyone on the planet with an IQ over 50 knows ID-Creationism is just religious apologetics. Theoretically it could take a scientific approach but right now all the IDC leaders are much more interested in religious propaganda than science.

      Delete
    2. You forget, I said I am a long time reader and yet you address me as if I had no idea what the comments section is like!

      "Humans produced it."
      And the humans are indeed intelligent no?

      "Evolution does have well known mechanisms for creating new variations in life..."
      i.e. mutation, in the analogy I illustrate the detriments of such a mechanism.

      "As opposed to a house with blueprints, evolution has no pre-planned forms it is seeking to manufacture. Evolution tends to keep whatever it can kludge together that works no matter how bizarre it looks."

      Evolution doesn't seek to manufacture anything. With respect to nature, bizarre is a human interpretation which "nature" cares nothing about. Evolution is in part an attempt to explain why things are they way they are, and often times in it's attempt it applies retrospective logic to achieve an end.

      Delete
    3. Evolution does have well known mechanisms for creating new variations in life.

      You ae just equivocating. Natural selection may be able to produce a change in allele frequency within a population but nothing more.

      It has imperfect replication to produce new genetic information.

      It's about the ORIGIN of information. The origin of that replication process.


      You don't have a mechanism capable of producing life. Given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.


      You have nothing but belligerence, equivocation, lies and bluffs- and anger issues

      Delete
    4. And the humans are indeed intelligent no?

      Most are to some degree. Then you have the scientifically illiterate morons like angry YEC Joke Gallien.

      Joke has been screaming his same idiotic ID-Creationist one-liners for almost two decades now. That (and getting banned from sites for making physical threats and posting porn) are all he knows.

      i.e. mutation, in the analogy I illustrate the detriments of such a mechanism.

      Mutations alone would be detrimental. Mutations with the feedback provided by selection and carried forward as heritable traits has been working for over 3.8 billion years.

      Delete
    5. There isn't any evidence that mutations and natural selection can do anything beyond merely changing allele frequencies within a population. There is no way to test the claim it can do anything more than that.

      Natural selection is impotent with respect to universal common descent.

      Delete
  15. There isn't any evidence that mutations and natural selection can do anything beyond merely changing allele frequencies within a population.

    Joke fails again.

    Evolved Electrophysiological Soft Robots

    There's a clear demonstration of the power of mutations + selection feedback to produce new features and new functions.

    Cue the world's dumbest YEC screaming "but but but that modeled evolution on a COMPUTER!! That means it was DESIGNED!!"

    Wait for it. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Evolved Electrophysiological Soft Robots

      There's a clear demonstration of the power of mutations + selection feedback to produce new features and new functions."

      Ah, yes. This example of an AI learning to run using a culmination/tissue of bones and muscles.

      Ignoring the fact that the program was designed, let's take a look at the actual nature of the AI "evolving".

      You start off with a designed creature. Your creature starts off with no AI except for the random expansion and contraction of muscles. If there is no success parameter, the muscle oscillations will stay random. With we "plan" for the creature to move to the right, we can program the AI to remember and keep any trials that move the creature farther to the right. Every time the AI succeeds it keeps the success and adds another random muscle oscillation.

      While this does appear to be working evolution, there is a planed end the creature is trying to achieve and the creature is programed to know what that end goal is.

      How does this compare with natural evolution?
      The proposed success parameter for natural selection is the "ability to reproduce". Any mutations that occur that achieve this goal are selected for and the less "fit" creatures die off, leaving only the forms that we see today.
      The first problem, who/what determined that reproduction was the success parameter? In the case of the theory of evolution, humans did. "Nature" doesn't give an iota whether a creature lives or dies.
      Second problem, incremental/partial mutations that do not provide a direct/instantaneous will not be selected for. I now this isn't a realistic example but consider an ape that has evolved only part of a tail. His stub of a tail doesn't provide any extra balance and therefore does not help him survive or reproduce more. So he won't be selected for. A better example is adaption in animals. The variable expression of genes affected by a change in environment doesn't help a creature survive in the environment it is currently and therefore would not be selected for.
      Third problem, beneficial mutations are extremely, extremely, extremely rare. In the example of the AI there very easily could've been a program that prefered certain mutations that had been postulated to help the AI learn to run. In nature there is no such program and hence mutations are completely random with respect to the fitness of the creature. Even when a "beneficial" mutation does occur, hundreds of detrimental have already happened setting your creature back more steps that it makes "forward".

      Delete
    2. Ignoring the fact that the program was designed,

      Ah, the bog standard ID-Creationist excuse when the power of mutations + selection feedback is demonstrated.

      The first problem, who/what determined that reproduction was the success parameter?

      The program merely emulated what is empirically observed in nature

      incremental/partial mutations that do not provide a direct/instantaneous will not be selected for.

      But they can still be incorporated into the genome through the process of neutral drift. Go look it up.

      beneficial mutations are extremely, extremely, extremely rare.

      Mutations are only beneficial, natural, or deleterious WRT the local environment. When the environment is very stable beneficial mutations will be rare because the population is already well adapted and close to maximum reproductive fitness. However when the environment changes there will be many more chances for a change to be beneficial. That's what drives speciation in the real world.

      Delete
    3. The program just handed out reproduction, ie the exact specified complexity that requires an explanation.

      There isn't any evidence that what we observe in biology is due to blind and mindless processes.

      Intelligent Design is OK with evolution by means of intelligent design.

      Beneficial is relative and even the fittest bacteria is still a bacteria.

      Delete
  16. Umm, moron, the debate is about what evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce. Your willful ignorance and cowardly belligerence, while amusing, are meaningless.

    Genetic algorithms utilize telic processes to produce solutions. They do not use evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And your linked example also does not use evolution by means of blind and mindless processes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Exactly as predicted Joke sticks his foot in his mouth with "the program was DESIGNED so the results don't count!

      Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
    2. Umm, your prediction does not match what I said. Clearly you are just desperate for attention.

      Delete
  17. Notice how ghostrider, as with all evolutionists, equivocates.

    Any and all evidence for "evolution" is also evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, ie natural selection, drift and any other non-telic process.

    Evolutionists cannot understand that evolution by means of telic processes is still evolution. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes. It has nothing to do with the fact genetic algorithms are also intelligently designed. It has everything to do with the fact GA's are search heuristics using information to actively search for and find targets/ solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. The goal is reached via telic processes.

    But then again evolutionists tend to think that what a computer programmer says about natural selection means more than what Ernst Mayr and evolutionary biologists have to say about it. The programmers try to claim that GA's, using telic processes, mimic natural selection and yet the evolutionary experts all say that natural selection is purely non-telic.

    Pathetic, really.

    ReplyDelete
  18. GR: "Cue the world's dumbest YEC screaming "but but but that modeled evolution on a COMPUTER!! That means it was DESIGNED!!""

    Joke: "Genetic algorithms utilize telic processes to produce solutions. They do not use evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And your linked example also does not use evolution by means of blind and mindless processes."

    Just like clockwork.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong again, willie:

      It has nothing to do with the fact genetic algorithms are also intelligently designed.

      Delete
  19. Just like clockwork.

    After almost 20 years of the same blithering Creationist stupidity Joke is extremely predictable.

    Who else is dumb enough to claim if NOAA writes a computer program to model hurricanes, that is evidence real hurricanes are Designed. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GE: ”Who else is dumb enough to claim if NOAA writes a computer program to model hurricanes, that is evidence real hurricanes are Designed. :)”

      You mean their not?

      Delete
  20. "Ah, the bog standard ID-Creationist excuse when the power of mutations + selection feedback is demonstrated."

    Natural selection does not provide feedback. It merely propagates organisms which are more "fit". It does not tell mutations, "ok, this time you need to make this change to make the organism more fit!"

    Natural selection does very well explain why (for example) mammals with brown fur live in this environment while mammals of the same species with black fur do not live in the same environment.

    "However when the environment changes there will be many more chances for a change to be beneficial. That's what drives speciation in the real world."

    When the environment changes, organisms adapt. Adaption being a programmed response to changes in the environment.
    However, if an organism is unable to adapt, and the changes in the environment are detrimental and even fatal: natural selection will eliminated your organism before beneficial mutations can occur. Your own "mechanism" for evolution is fighting against evolution.

    Now let's be clear, variations within a species may very well be in part due to micro evolution. Micro evolution may cause some of the difference in the difference between a house cat and a tiger. However, natural selection is not a convincing "mechanism" for macro evolution. The morphing of one form into another. The change from fish to amphibian cannot be explained by natural selection.

    I put quotation marks around "mechanism" because natural selection does not incur new/more beneficial mutations.
    And if a changing environment is the mechanism for more mutations, you're also incurring more harmful mutations (still making steps backward) and most organisms don't respond to changes in the environment and those that don't will be selected against.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natural selection does not provide feedback.

      Of course it does in the form of higher reproductive chances for some of the different morphologies. That's Biology 101.

      When the environment changes, organisms adapt.

      And when the adaptation is great enough a new species is formed. That's macroevolution by definition. The classic example is terrestrial mammals adapting to become fully aquatic, such as manatees and dugongs.

      I put quotation marks around "mechanism" because natural selection does not incur new/more beneficial mutations.

      It doesn't increase the total number but a different environment will usually increase the percentage of those mutations which are beneficial to a species. Again this is Biology 101 which you can easily look up for yourself. A good analogy is climbing a mountain. If you are almost at the top (i.e. well adapted) there are very few paths to climb higher. If you then are moved to the middle of a mountain (i.e the environment changes) there are lots more ways to climb higher.

      Delete
    2. And when the adaptation is great enough a new species is formed.

      It matters if said adaptation arose via blind and mindless processes or telic processes.

      That's macroevolution by definition.

      Actually it isn't. For one speciation is ambiguous- too ambiguous to be used as some demarcation. That is why evolutionary biologists use body plans and body parts for defining macroevolution.

      The classic example is terrestrial mammals adapting to become fully aquatic, such as manatees and dugongs.

      The classic example without any scientific support. No one knows what genes were involved to pull off such a transformations. and on top of that no one knows if any amount of genetic change can pull it off.

      Delete
    3. Actually it isn't.

      Yes Joke, it is. Macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above species level.

      The classic example without any scientific support

      No support except for the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence.

      Of course all that info is easily found in the primary scientific literature, the last place the world's dumbest YEC would think to look. :D

      Delete
    4. Your own link says macroevolution is evolution on a large scale- as Jerry Coyne said in "WEIT":

      “MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution.

      Your alleged genetic evidence doesn't say what genes were involved to make the changes required. It doesn't even say how they determined the anatomical and physiological differences can be linked to the genetic differences observed.

      The alleged fossil evidence is just "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it." You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the changes required.

      Delete
    5. LOL! Exactly as predicted Joke ignores the scientific definition given, doesn't read the papers linked to, waves his hands and bawls NUH-UH! as loudly as his chubby cheeks allow.

      Your alleged genetic evidence doesn't say what genes were involved to make the changes required

      Try reading the paper you moron. Among the many genes with mutations identified are OPN1SW and OPN1LW for aquatic vision, SFTPF for an aquatic lung, FGF5 for hairlessness, SHH and HAND2 for hind limb loss, MB for oxygen storage, HOXD12 and HOXD13 for forelimb to flipper change, SLC2, TCM1, CDH23 for high frequency hearing, MMP20, ENAM, AMBN for teeth changes, TAS1R and TAS2R for taste buds, TRPC2, V1R, and OMP for loss of olfactory sense.

      Joke is also the laziest turd who won't read a science paper to save his ignorant life.

      The alleged fossil evidence is just...

      Joke the clown also hand waves away the abundant fossil evidence he can't explain.

      Joke is the most predictable dumb YEC on the planet.

      Delete
    6. What? YOU misquoted the definition YOU provided.

      YOU cannot make the case from those papers that YOU have never read.

      Among the many genes with mutations identified are OPN1SW and OPN1LW for aquatic vision, SFTPF for an aquatic lung, FGF5 for hairlessness, SHH and HAND2 for hind limb loss, MB for oxygen storage, HOXD12 and HOXD13 for forelimb to flipper change, SLC2, TCM1, CDH23 for high frequency hearing, MMP20, ENAM, AMBN for teeth changes, TAS1R and TAS2R for taste buds, TRPC2, V1R, and OMP for loss of olfactory sense.

      Right and you think that just by chance these specific genes were mutated just-so? And you do realize they are also speculating, right?


      They just found differences in similar genes and speculate those are what helped shape the differences.

      Where in the paper does it support the claim that blind and mindless processes did it?

      Fossils do not and never will support any mechanism. They cannot support natural selection.


      Just the sheer number of specific genes and mutations puts it all out of the reach of evolutionism, timmy. You are asking way too much of culled genetic accidents.

      Not that you even understand that or care about it.

      Delete
    7. YOU misquoted the definition YOU provided.

      Joke Gallien, big fat liar. The definition from Biology Online:

      Macroevolution: Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

      See that Chubs? Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of a species. Just as I correctly stated.

      Why you think you can get away with lying about things so easy to check shows just how stupid you really are.

      The rest of your post is your usual bluster about papers you didn't read and evidence you can't refute.

      Joke claims there's no genetic evidence, I provide genetic evidence, Joke chokes.

      Joke claims there's no fossil evidence, I provide fossil evidence,Joke chokes.

      Joke Gallien, the world's dumbest lying YEC, bar none.

      Delete
    8. The "evidence" provided by the fossil record is dubious at best and circular at worst.

      Cambrian Explosion *cough cough*

      Delete
    9. Cambrian Explosion *cough cough*

      Three billion years of fossilized life before the Cambrian Explosion *cough cough*

      One billion years of multicellular life before the Cambrian Explosion *cough cough*

      One hundred million years of complex multicellular life in the Ediacaran period before the Cambrian Explosion *cough cough*

      Twenty million years of preCambrian fossil life from the Chinese Maotianshan Shales before the Cambrian Explosion *cough cough*

      The IDiots will never discuss all the evidence for life before the Cambrian Explosion. Why is that?

      Delete
    10. Evolution happening on a large scale

      That is what I said and what you originally left out- just as I said.

      Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of a species

      On a large scale, meaning what Coyne referred to.

      The rest of my post proves that all you have is sheer dumb luck to even try to account for the specific changes required to the specific genes.


      Your "genetic evidence" is not evidence that cetaceans evolved from land animals. Your fossil evidence isn't either.

      Also, the definition:

      Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species,, the eg means for example. It is NOT the definition. The definition came before the example.

      Clueless, shameless and ignorant- that is all you need to know about timmy ghostrider Horton.

      Delete
    11. Three billion years of fossilized life before the Cambrian Explosion *cough cough*

      Nothing that can be linked to the organism in the Cambrian explosion.


      Evolutionists can't explain the life before the Cambrian. They have nothing to account for life. And given starting populations of prokaryotes they don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

      Why don't evolutionists ever want to discuss that?

      Delete
    12. Nothing that can be linked to the organism in the Cambrian explosion.

      Actually Joke some of the animals in the 20 MYA older Maotianshan Shales have been identified as ancestral to certain Burgess Shale finds - trilobites and early chordates in particular. Sure makes IDiot Stephen Meyer look like a blustering incompetent fool.

      Too bad you're such a willfully ignorant lump and get all your "science" from the professional liars at AIG and the DI. If you even had to look at an actual science paper both your brain cells would implode. :D

      Delete

    13. Evolutionists can't explain the life before the Cambrian


      OK Chubs, let's hear your ID-Creationist explanation for all the life which existed in the 3 billion years before the Cambrian Era.

      Now watch the fat fool waddle away without answering, just as he always does. :)

      Delete
    14. Actually Joe some of the animals in the 20 MYA older Maotianshan Shales have been identified as ancestral to certain Burgess Shale finds - trilobites and early chordates in particular.


      Some? How does that help you?

      let's hear your ID-Creationist explanation for all the life which existed in the 3 billion years before the Cambrian Era.

      Question-begging

      Delete
    15. Now watch the fat fool waddle away without answering, just as he always does. :)

      LOL! Did I call that or what? Joke waddles away from the questions exactly as he always does. Besides being the dumbest YEC in the world Joke dances whenever he's told.

      Delete
    16. Umm, I exposed your "questions" as the rantings of an ignoramus.

      Delete
    17. Umm, I exposed your "questions" as the rantings of an ignoramus.

      Yes Joke, it was pretty silly of me to think you'd stop being such a coward for a minute and actually provide your ID-Creation explanation for the observed fossil record. But you'll never stop being a craven POS. Lying and running from real science is all you know.

      Delete
    18. What? Your position cannot explain the fossil record, timmy. You don't even know what science is. Your position has to be given starting populations and even then you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

      You are a scientifically illiterate and belligerent infant, timmy

      Delete
    19. LOL! Poor chubby Joke. His ID-Creation claims are as impotent as he is. ID-Creation has no explanatory power, no predictive power, no physical mechanism for manufacture, no timeline, no way to be falsified.

      Joke can run his big mouth all day but his YEC Idiocy will never be science. Never. :D

      Delete
    20. IDists have said exactly what would falsify ID. We have also said exactly how to scientifically determine whether or not intelligent design exists.

      Now compare that with you who can only get all belligerent and stomp your feet.

      If ID doesn't have any explanatory power then the same goes for archaeology and forensics.

      Can anyone tell me what the explanatory power of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes has? I know it explains genetic diseases and deformities but is there anything else?

      Delete
  21. This is the fantasy story we are supposed to believe is science:

    Blind and mindless processes somehow produced eukaryotes from starting populations of prokaryotes.

    From there blind and mindless processes produced developmental genetic toolkits, including regulatory networks.

    And once that happened blind and mindless processes just tweaked a little here and a little there and BINGO! here we are.

    And the kicker is we have voles which have been allegedly evolving faster than the average vertebrate- 60-100 times faster- and guess what? They all still look pretty much the same.

    http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2006/060914DeWoodyVole.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joke continues to run from the genetic and fossil evidence for Cetacean evolution, falls back on chanting his same stupid IDiot propaganda one-liners.

      Joke Gallien, still the most scientifically ignorant YEC on the planet. :D

      Delete
    2. Actually the genetic evidence says that such a transformation is out of the reach of natural selection, drift and any other blind and mindless process.

      The fossil evidence says whatever someone wants it to. And seeing that your position can't even account for eukaryotes you have a long way to go to reach the level of science with respect to metazoans.

      Delete
    3. And the kicker is we have voles which have been allegedly evolving faster than the average vertebrate- 60-100 times faster- and guess what? They all still look pretty much the same.

      LOL! Joke wants to talk about voles. OK Joke, what is your ID-Creation explanation for the genetic data in this new 2018 paper?

      The Microtus voles: Resolving the phylogeny of one of the most speciose mammalian genera using genomics

      Abstract: Sequential rapid radiations pose some of the greatest difficulties in phylogenetics, especially when analysing only a small number of genetic markers. Given that most of the speciation events occur in quick succession at various points in time, this creates particular challenges in determining phylogenetic relationships, i.e. branching order and divergence times. With the development of high throughput sequencing, thousands of markers can now readily be used to tackle these issues. Microtus is a speciose genus currently composed of 65 species that evolved over the last 2 million years. Although it is a well-studied group, there is still phylogenetic uncertainty at various divergence levels. Building upon previous studies that generally used small numbers of mitochondrial and/or nuclear loci, in this genomic-scale study we used both mitochondrial and nuclear data to study the rapid radiation within Microtus, using partial mitogenomes and genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) on seven species representing five Microtus subgenera and the main biogeographic ranges where this group occurs. Both types of genome (mitochondrial and nuclear) generated similar tree topologies, with a basal split of the Nearctic (M. ochrogaster) and Holarctic (M. oeconomus) species, and then a subdivision of the five Palearctic species into two subgroups. These data support the occurrence of two European radiations, one North American radiation, and a later expansion of M. oeconomus from Asia to both Europe and North America. We further resolved the positioning of M. cabrerae as sister group of M. agrestis and refute the claim that M. cabrerae should be elevated to its own genus (Iberomys). Finally, the data support ongoing speciation events, especially within M. agrestis, with high levels of genetic divergence between the three Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) previously identified. Similar high levels of divergence were also found among ESUs within M. oeconomus and M. arvalis.

      Go ahead Joke, explain how this is evidence for vole "DESIGN!". :D

      Delete
    4. Actually the genetic evidence says that such a transformation is out of the reach of natural selection, drift and any other blind and mindless process.

      Joke still regurgitating his evidence-free ID-Creationist propaganda one-liners. Ho hum.

      Delete
    5. All timmy has are evidence-free evoTARD one-liners.

      And timmy, your position cannot account for voles. ID is OK with evolution by design, moron

      Delete
    6. Joke runs from the scientific evidence one again. His ID-Creation "POOF" can't explain the genetic patterns in vole species.

      Joke is the biggest YEC clown online.

      Delete
    7. What? Your position cannot explain voles. And evolution by design can easily explain the phylogenetic patterns

      Delete
    8. Joke do you ever think you'll stop being such a coward and running for scientific evidence you can't explain?

      Of course not. You'll be a scientifically ignorant coward as long as you live.

      Delete
    9. timmy, you are the coward making false accusations. You don't even know what science is.

      Do tell how evolution by means of blind and mindless processes explains voles when it can't even produce basic eukaryotes?

      Delete
    10. Another day, another round of Joke the cowardly YEC screaming "YOUR SIDE CAN'T EXPLAIN!" while providing zero ID-Creationist explanations of the same things he's bawling about.

      Joke Gallien, world's dumbest YEC lying hypocrite.

      Delete
    11. The facts, timmy. It is a fact that your position has nothing.

      And it is also a fact that evolution by design can easily explain the phylogenetic patterns

      Delete
  22. I just want to know why new life doesn't spring out of my jar of tomato sauce considering all of the components for life in mixed in there.
    Slight sarcasm but that hasn't changed the fact that one: spontaneous life has never been observed and the changing of one form into another form (i.e. fish to amphibian) has not been observed.
    One has to wonder why macro evolution has stopped working.
    Not to mention a new organ hasn't been evolved in any study.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hyrum,

      Creation.com just did a nice writeup on Leeuwenhoek. It was their featured article yesterday.

      I didn't realize much of his work discussed spontaneous generation and as he would call it, life from corruption or putrefaction.

      I think some of their citations would be interesting to read and one I already looked up and found a freely available copy.

      Delete
  23. the changing of one form into another form (i.e. fish to amphibian) has not been observed.

    We haven't seen it in real time because the process can take millions of years to change enough to be obvious. We have plenty of evidence macroevolution has occurred over such time scales in the past.

    One has to wonder why macro evolution has stopped working. Not to mention a new organ hasn't been evolved in any study.

    Evolution hasn't stopped working, it just happen too slowly for you to notice. Do you accept the theory of plate tectonics? We can measure continental drift of a few mm a year using GPS but when did you ever see S. America touching Africa?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We haven't seen it in real time because the process can take millions of years to change enough to be obvious.

      No one knows how long it would take and throwing time at a problem isn't scientific.

      We have plenty of evidence macroevolution has occurred over such time scales in the past.

      You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.


      And only a desperate fool would try to compare plate tectonics to evolutionism. No one is saying that plate tectonics transforms the earth into different types of planet.


      Delete

    2. No one knows how long it would take


      Actually we do know Joke. You mean your ignorant lardbutt doesn't know

      You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

      Joke ignores the evidence, spits out his inane one-lines right on schedule.

      No one is saying that plate tectonics transforms the earth into different types of planet.

      LOL! Joke can't understand a simple analogy. That's what passes for "science" at the Joke Gallien Moron ID-Creationist Club.

      Delete
    3. Joke: "No one knows how long it would take and throwing time at a problem isn't scientific."
      So cosmology, plate tectonics, relativity, and numerous other fields are not scientific? But I understand your confusion. After all you think that meters = 1/time.

      Delete
    4. Geez, willie, stop moving the goalposts like a little whiny coward.

      Delete
    5. Actually we do know Joe

      Liar

      You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

      Joe ignores the evidence

      Liar- what I said is the truth. Your position does NOT have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

      Joe can't understand a simple analogy


      Liar, your "analogy" was pure stupidity.

      Delete
    6. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

      They evolved between 1.6 and 2.1 billion years ago. What is your ID-Creationism mechanism for manufacturing eukaryotes? "POOF" again?

      Joke is all bluster, no answers.

      your "analogy" was pure stupidity.

      You mean you were too stupid to get a simple analogy.

      Joke Gallien, the world's dumbest YEC. :D

      Delete
    7. Joke, "Geez, willie, stop moving the goalposts like a little whiny coward."

      Who's moving goalposts. You said that throwing time at a problem isn't scientific. Yet that is exactly what is done in other scientific fields. So, either you are wrong or things like plate tectonics are not scientific.

      Delete
    8. They evolved between 1.6 and 2.1 billion years ago.

      You don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes from prokaryotes. So what did they evolve from and how?

      You have nothing, timmy

      Delete
    9. You said that throwing time at a problem isn't scientific.

      In the context of biology and macroevolution.

      Yet that is exactly what is done in other scientific fields

      Not in the same way.

      So, either you are wrong or things like plate tectonics are not scientific.

      Or you are just a desperate moron who doesn't understand context.

      Delete
    10. Joke: ”Not in the same way.”

      In exactly the same way. We can see small movements in the earth’s crust and small amounts of uplift. We extrapolate this over thousands of years to postulate mountain formation.

      We can and have seen significant but small changes in population phenotype over small periods of time and extrapolate these over billions of years to postulate larger changes.

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

      Evolution is a mechanism. All you Creationists have is a magic POOF!

      That's why you're laughingstocks in the actual scientific community.

      Delete
    12. In the context of biology and macroevolution.

      Tell us again Joke how the world is only 6000 years old but made of 4.5 billion year old materials. That was on the stupidest thing to come out of your moron brain ever. :D

      Delete
    13. GR: ”That was on the stupidest thing to come out of your moron brain ever.”

      I disagree. Frequency = Wavelength was more stupid

      Delete
    14. I never said the earth is 6000 years old. Clearly you are just a desperate liar

      Evolution is a mechanism.

      No moron. Evolution is not a mechanism. Natural selection is the alleged mechanism that can produce the appearance of design. Yet no one has been able to show such a thing

      And intelligent design is a known mechanism that can produce real design

      Delete
    15. willie:
      In exactly the same way.

      Not even close. Distances are one thing. Evolutionism requires much more than just growing bigger or smaller.

      You need a mechanism capable of producing new body plans and new body parts. Yet you don't even have a mechanism for producing eukaryotes.

      Delete
    16. Frequency = Wavelength

      As proven the two are interchangeable under certain contexts. It isn't my fault that you are willfully ignorant, willie.


      Does anyone disagree that any wave can be identified by its wavelength or its frequency? Anyone?

      Delete
    17. Evolution is not a mechanism.

      If Design is a mechanism then evolution is a mechanism too.

      Can't have it both ways Chubs.

      Delete
    18. I disagree. Frequency = Wavelength was more stupid

      Joke's "heat = temperature" was up there too. And "CO2 doesn't trap heat" was another Joke gem.


      Delete
    19. Joke: ”As proven the two are interchangeable under certain contexts.”

      They are not interchangeable under any circumstances. That is basic algebra.

      Delete
    20. If Design is a mechanism then evolution is a mechanism too.

      That doesn't follow. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution. Telic processes are a mechanism of evolution. Descent with modification is a mechanism of evolution.


      Evolution as a mechanism of evolution doesn't say anything especially given that the debate is whether or not evolution proceeds via telic or non-telic processes. It is just a cowardly equivocation and attempt at a distraction.

      Design is a mechanism by definition. And it is a mechanism in both the noun and verb tenses. Houses are designed and they are built per the designed specifications and instructions.

      Delete
    21. And I never said that heat = temperature. Never.

      And I have proven frequency and wavelength are interchangeable under certain contexts.

      Does anyone disagree that any wave can be identified by its wavelength or its frequency? Anyone?

      If you do not disagree then it is clear that the two words are interchangeable especially given the context was the wavelengths vs frequencies of the infrared species absorbed and emitted by CO2.


      Now willie will complain about the word "species" but in this context it is obvious the word refers to "type" and type would refer to the individual wavelength/ frequency.

      Delete
    22. HAH! Here we see Joke's compulsive lying streak. You did indeed claim wavelength=frequency, heat=temperature, and atmospheric CO2 doesn't trap heat. Then when a dozen people called you on the stupidity you weaseled and squirmed and tried to backpedal as fast as those chubby legs will go.

      Face it Joke, you'll never be anything but an ignorant YEC blowhard and a clown to people who understand science.

      Delete
    23. Design is a mechanism by definition. And it is a mechanism in both the noun and verb tenses. Houses are designed and they are built per the designed specifications and instructions

      Sure thing IDiot. The walls are made out of "Design." "Design" is used to move the materials to the construction site. "Design" is used to cut lumber and drive nails. "Design" is used as a circuit junction box. "Design" is used for water pipes and when you turn on the faucet "Design" comes out.

      I would say you couldn't be a bigger moron if you tried but I've learned not to underestimate your capability for stupidity.

      Delete
    24. timmy, clearly you are a moron. Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it.

      I provided the definitions that support my claim that design is a mechanism. It is my fault tat you are too stupid to be able to read for comprehension.

      Delete
    25. You did indeed claim wavelength=frequency, heat=temperature, and atmospheric CO2 doesn't trap heat.

      I never claimed that heat = temperature- NEVER. You are clearly a pathetic imp.

      It is true that frequency and wavelength are interchangeable under certain contexts. And it is also true that CO2 does not trap heat

      Delete
    26. LOL! Keep showing everyone how scientifically illiterate you are Joke. You're the best one-man clown circus on the web!

      Delete
    27. Devastating refutation. How can I ever recover from such nonsense and lies?

      Delete
  24. Tell us again Joke how the world is only 6000 years old but made of 4.5 billion year old materials.

    I never made that claim. However even the people saying the earth is 4.5x billion years old require materials that are much older than that.

    What timmy is willfully ignorant of is in order to get the 4.5x billion years for the age of the earth it takes a huge untestable assumption-> that all debris and their crystals would have had to have been melted and then reformed. Otherwise all they did was put a date stamp on the materials and not the earth.


    So it is actually very stupid to think that the earth of 4.5x billion years was made up of brand new materials. Enter timmy Horton, moron

    ReplyDelete
  25. A mechanism is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

    Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

    A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

    Therefor design is a mechanism.

    It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

    As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joke is still to stupid to know the difference between the design - the creation of the plan - and the physical implementation of the design.

      "Design" isn't the physical implementation moron, no matter how much you make the same stupid claim.

      ID-Creationism found the perfect spokesperson in Joke Gallien. As stupid and ignorant as they come, completely unable to learn, bases his whole "argument" on screaming the same nonsense ad nauseum which running away from all scientific evidence.

      Delete
    2. What? Design is also the physical implementation, you ignorant troll. For example you can build something by design or willy-nilly

      Delete
    3. Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

      Construction is the physical implementation. How do you think houses are made, timmy? Do you think they do it all by design or do people just start grabbing materials and putting it wherever?

      Delete
    4. Joke still to stupid to know waving a blueprint in the air won't make nails hammer themselves or concrete pour itself.

      What started grabbing materials and assembling them to manufacture the first ID-Creation "kinds"? Joke has no answer, only babyish mewling.

      Joke really isn't very bright.

      Delete
    5. Wow, timmy is a totally ignorant troll. Creating, fashioning and executing a plan is not waving blueprints around. Constructing a house according to a plan is not waving blueprints around.


      timmy's life as a bathroom attendant is not a refutation of facts.

      Delete
    6. life as a bathroom attendant is not a refutation of facts.

      Someone has to dispose of the pieces of Joke Gallien after people forget to flush.

      Delete
    7. That's right, timmy eats what people don't flush.

      Delete
    8. Wow, Joke says he eats himself. Not surprising he has more chins than IQ points.

      Delete
    9. Wow, devastating. How will I ever recover from timmy's infantile responses?

      At least I can read and understand a dictionary. timmy owes when it comes to IQ

      Delete
    10. Joke: ”Wow, devastating. How will I ever recover from timmy's infantile responses?”

      Damn! Why didn’t you warn me to turn off my irony meter? Those things aren’t cheap.

      Delete
    11. Umm, willie, you aren't anyone to talk seeing that my responses are directly correlated to your infantile posts. You and yours always start with the lies and attacks because you cannot deal with the facts and the science.

      So that also makes you a hypocrite.

      Delete
  26. GR
    "Everyone on the planet with an IQ over 50 knows ID-Creationism is just religious apologetics. Theoretically it could take a scientific approach but right now all the IDC leaders are much more interested in religious propaganda than science."

    All you are making are assertions. You don't have any evidence that genetic information can be generated without design intelligence.

    Your position is just political rhetoric without substance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't have any evidence that genetic information can be generated without design intelligence.

      Yes Bill, we do. You've had it explained to you dozens of times on C/E boards all over the web, including here just above. Why you choose to continually lie about it is a matter for your psychiatrist to resolve.

      Delete
    2. No timmy, you do not. You have to be given starting information and reproduction.

      You've had it explained to you and your sad socks dozens of times on boards all over the web, including here, above.

      Delete
    3. Hey, Joke the world's dumbest YEC is back!

      Shouldn't you be off telling the world heat = temperature and that CO2 can't trap heat unless "all the molecules point the right way"? Or maybe your idiocy about how if you shone a laser in a random direction from a floating rowboat it would never point towards the water, only away from Earth?

      That got added to the Joke big list of things so stupid they make educated people do a double take. :D

      Delete
    4. Wow, more infantile drivel and lies from timmy.

      timmy cannot support its claim about evolutionism and information. So attack with an infantile response and lies.


      timmy cannot read and understand a dictionary so it attacks with an infantile response and lies.

      I never said that heat = temperature.

      It is a fact that CO2 does not trap heat.

      And again, I can shine a laser light in a random direction and make sure that it never points towards the earth. All I have to do is point it up, hold it over my head and wave it around, making sure that it never passes the vertical

      And timmy, you and yours are not educated people. Anyone who thinks that differing accumulations of genetic accidents produced the diversity of life is not educated. And that is you and your ilk.

      Delete
    5. LOL! Figures a moron who thinks heat=temperature is too stupid to know what random means.

      Delete
    6. So you think that heat=temperature, eh, timmy. You definitely don't know what random means.

      Delete
    7. It is a fact that CO2 does not trap heat.

      It is a fact Joke Gallien is too stupid to understand basic physics that even relatively bright 5th graders know.

      How CO2 Traps Heat

      "This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas."

      This clown would deny water is wet if he thought it would help his YEC cause. What a tool.

      Delete
    8. From the link:

      For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons.


      90%? Really? It's closer to 99% than 90%.


      5th graders know better, timmy.

      Delete
  27. Thank you for the reference that proves CO2 does not trap heat. CO2 absorbs and instantly releases the heat. And it only absorbs 8% of what the earth radiates- only 3 different wavelengths.

    92% of the radiation from the earth is invisible to CO2. Not much of a trap there.

    Catch and instantly release; 8%; and a mere 410 parts per million. It traps about as much heat as a rough-framed house- (no walls and no roof)


    Cloud cover helps trap heat. But not CO2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joke really is a scientifically illiterate moron's moron.

      Scientists witness CO2 trapping heat

      From the article:

      "Scientists have witnessed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere above the United States, showing human-made climate change 'in the wild' for the first time.

      A new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators.

      They say it confirms the science of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide"

      The 2015 Nature paper

      Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

      The most prestigious science journal on the planet publishes empirical evidence CO2 traps heat.

      Dirt ignorant YEC clown goes "NUH-UH!"

      Who to believe? :)

      Delete