tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7002897690461221814..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New DNA Damage Repair Mechanism Must Have Arisen EarlyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2490794940340409522020-10-29T21:13:21.568-07:002020-10-29T21:13:21.568-07:00Its very good I read your blog. I liked it very mu...Its very good I read your blog. I liked it very much. Would you like to visit on my blog?<br /><a href="https://www.disasterrestorations.com.au/flood-damage-restoration-in-darwin/" rel="nofollow">flood damage restoration in Darwin</a><br />instgrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243885954115732840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54443056865474348652020-10-29T21:12:40.461-07:002020-10-29T21:12:40.461-07:00Its very good I read your blog. I liked it very mu...Its very good I read your blog. I liked it very much. Would you like to visit on my blog?<br /><a href="https://www.disasterrestorations.com.au/flood-damage-restoration-in-darwin/" rel="nofollow">flood damage restoration in Darwin</a><br />instgrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243885954115732840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53711409276086894312010-05-02T14:35:46.674-07:002010-05-02T14:35:46.674-07:00natschuster -
If you'll forgive me, with all ...natschuster -<br /><br />If you'll forgive me, with all due respect, I'm still not convinced you understadn what nested hierarchies are and how they work.<br /><br />I strongly recommend you watch this:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ev-2jN6MRU<br /><br />It is short, but very informative.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51744765628848287312010-05-02T13:58:46.589-07:002010-05-02T13:58:46.589-07:00natschuster -
But hwy couldn't the mice evo...natschuster - <br /><br /><b><br />But hwy couldn't the mice evolve into a whole variety of species that don't form a clear hierarchy? One species could evolve into hundreds.<br /></b><br /><br />How can evolution operate without forming hierarchies?<br /><br />You have a population. An individual within that population has a mutation that is passed on and is the basis of a new species. That is how new species are formed. So new clades are formed 'within' old ones. And viola, you have nested hierarchies.<br /><br />That's just how evolution works.<br /><br />How could new species POSSIBLY arise without forming nested hierarchies?<br /><br /><b><br />The Cambrian fauna don't seem to form a clear hierarchy.<br /></b><br /><br />We are hampered with a lack of evidence before the Cambrian Exlposion. But rest assured the Cambrian life formed nested hierarchies. We're just not necessarily sure what they were.<br /><br />"And why couldn't the mice in the example above evolve into something catlike, and something doglike, and something beaverlike for example?"<br /><br />Theoretically they could. Eventually. But it would take long time, and a chain of many advantageous mutation. And every time a new advantageous mutation occurred, it would spawn a new clade - NESTED WITHIN an old one.<br /><br />Let's say it takes 100 mutations to get from mouse to cat. That's a nested hierarchy of 100 clades. Now probably not every clade in the sequence would be represented by the time cats emerged - some would have gone extinct. Nevertheless, by the time cats emerged there would probably be many surviving creatures from along that chain of 100 clades - species which historically fit INSIDE each other like a Russian doll. In other words, they form a nested hierchy.<br /><br /><b><br />Or why didn't other reptiles evolve hair and mammary glands, for example, and keep the reptilian jaws?<br /></b><br /><br />Some reptiles did evolve hair and mammary glands. They became mammals. It just so happened that in that particular line, they also evolved the mammalian inner ear - losing the reptilian jaw as a consequence.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43961981696288715962010-05-02T07:52:33.114-07:002010-05-02T07:52:33.114-07:00The Cambrian fauna don't seem to form a clear ...The Cambrian fauna don't seem to form a clear hierarchy. And life had been around for 3 billion years. Why couldn't life have continues that way for another ~500,000,000 years?<br /><br />And why couldn't the mice in the example above evolve into something catlike, and something doglike, and something beaverlike for example? This would make the hierarchies harder to detect. Or why didn't other reptiles evolve hair and mammary glands, for example, and keep the reptilian jaws?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71274935313951556782010-05-02T07:35:58.862-07:002010-05-02T07:35:58.862-07:00But hwy couldn't the mice evolve into a whole ...But hwy couldn't the mice evolve into a whole variety of species that don't form a clear hierarchy? One species could evolve into hundreds.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58888491594441916112010-05-02T05:53:24.460-07:002010-05-02T05:53:24.460-07:00natschuster -
"If evolution could produce a ...natschuster -<br /><br />"If evolution could produce a reptile that nurses, then it could have produced all life so that it does not fall into neat hierarchies."<br /><br />????<br /><br />Huh? That's a thoroughly bizarre assertion. That's like saying 'If gravity could have kept a second moon in orbit around Earth, then it could function without pulling things down.' It's just a totally nonsensical non-sequiter.<br /><br />Again, I can only conclude you don't understand evolution, nested hierarchies or both.<br /><br />Let's try a thought experiment. Iimagine an island populated by just a species of mouse (and stuff for them to eat). There they are all happily living away. Random mutation necessitates that some babies born will have mutations. Most will hinder the individual's chances of survival, so they will die. But just every so often one will be born whose mutation is advantageous. That one will likely go on to survive and reproduce and thus pass on its mutation.<br /><br />Now from the very moment that first mutant was born we have a nested hierarchy. In time, perhaps the new mice with the mutation will form their own species. We then have two species of mouse on the island - one of which arouse from the other. So the new species is a clade within the island-mouse clade; a clade NESTED WITHIN a clade; a nested hierarchy.<br /><br />That is precisely how evolution operates. The only way I could see evolution NOT producing a nested hierarchy is if a new species always entirely killed off the parent species. Which would mean there was only ever one species of life on the planet.<br /><br />Which would be weird. And is clearly not how the world is.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5730325329763564822010-05-02T04:38:52.557-07:002010-05-02T04:38:52.557-07:00abimer,
Thanks for the URL and the tip about Goog...abimer,<br /><br />Thanks for the URL and the tip about Google Scholar.<br /><br />I see nothing in the Penny et al. paper that supports Dr Hunter's claim. Do you? Dr Hunter?<br /><br />Rather, I see a robust rejoinder to Popper's skepticism about the falsifiability of <i>evolutionary hypotheses</i>.<br /><br />Incidentally, I am grateful to Dr Hunter for bringing Penny's scholarship to my attention. Penny's Web site:<br /><br />http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/index.htm<br /><br />is a treasure-trove of information about evolution.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19886039519396295162010-05-01T19:59:08.163-07:002010-05-01T19:59:08.163-07:00Ritchie:
If evolution could produce a reptile tha...Ritchie:<br /><br />If evolution could produce a reptile that nurses, then it could have produced all life so that it does not fall into neat hierachies. I'm not convinced that evolution predicts or requires nested hierarchies. Since we happen to have nested hierarchies, we can say that evolution explains them. If we didn't see nested hierarchies, then we coudl also say that evolution explains that.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16498189919473772832010-05-01T18:47:11.320-07:002010-05-01T18:47:11.320-07:00Ritchie:
"I think your problem is that you s...Ritchie:<br /><br />"I think your problem is that you start out with the assumption (and that is the right word) that there is a God/intelligent designer, "<br /><br />No, not at all. Unfortunately, your reading that in is a typical canard.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50821570171273257582010-05-01T17:01:39.262-07:002010-05-01T17:01:39.262-07:00David:
The Penny et al. 1982 Nature paper is avai...David:<br /><br />The Penny et al. 1982 Nature paper is available online here:<br /><br />http://www.stanford.edu/~joelv/teaching/249/penny%20etal%20testing%20evolution%20using%20five%20protein%20sequences.pdf<br /><br />Google Scholar often brings up links to journal articles that are hosted on the author's personal or university website for those who don't have database access.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8294948721433996262010-05-01T14:22:52.524-07:002010-05-01T14:22:52.524-07:00Cornelius -
Point taken. No offense meant.
Evo...Cornelius - <br /><br />Point taken. No offense meant.<br /><br /><b><br />Evolutionary thought is based on metaphysical premises and I'm the one who is out of line.<br /></b><br /><br />My point is that evolutionary thought is not based on those metaphysical premises.<br /><br />The only premise evolutionary thought is based on is that we cannot invoke supernatural agents/forces to account for natural phenomenon - the same premise every other theory in science is based on.<br /><br />You can very easily explain the theory of evolution without once mentioning God, an intelligent designer, or what they would or would not create. It simply does not need to enter into it at all.<br /><br />I think your problem is that you start out with the assumption (and that is the right word) that there is a God/intelligent designer, and then feel it is every competing theory's job to disprove your beliefs before replacing them with alternatives.<br /><br />But that is not how science works. By making observations and performing experiments, we collect data. Hypotheses are then formed which explain the data. Hypotheses, which must never assume supernatural forces or agents. <br /><br />It is not scientific to invoke the supernatural to account for the movement of the plants, it is not scientific to invoke the supernatural to explain illnesses and their cures, and it is not scientific to invoke the supernatural to explain the diversity and history of nature.<br /><br />The theory of evolution behaves no differently in this regard to any other scientific theory. You only think it does because it clashes with your pre-existing religious (again, the right word) beliefs.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28528576521511132822010-05-01T12:43:36.707-07:002010-05-01T12:43:36.707-07:00Ritchie:
First, please keep the language civil. A...Ritchie:<br /><br />First, please keep the language civil. Acronyms don't get a free pass.<br /><br />Second:<br /><br />"Merely because you seem rather distracted by the concept that evolutions insist God would not create the world as it is."<br /><br />"Distracted ...". That's an interesting way to put it. Evolutionary thought is based on metaphysical premises and I'm the one who is out of line.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53950658944367073982010-05-01T12:35:18.493-07:002010-05-01T12:35:18.493-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84913733501025724952010-05-01T10:30:06.373-07:002010-05-01T10:30:06.373-07:00Funny how most Darwinists don't understand the...Funny how most Darwinists don't understand their own theory.<br />We see this all the time here with commentators like RobertC, Ritchie et al.<br /><br />Even funnier the way they swallow elephants yet sift out fleas.<br /><br />"Scientists are complaining that the new Dinosaur movie shows dinosaurs with lemurs, who didn't evolve for another million years. They're afraid the movie will give kids a mistaken impression. <br />What about the fact that the dinosaurs are singing and dancing?" -Jay Leno <br /><br />That pretty much describes how Darwinians "reason".Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26627142894097488752010-05-01T10:27:12.639-07:002010-05-01T10:27:12.639-07:00Ritchie:
===
If you want to hear an evolutionist ...Ritchie:<br /><br />===<br />If you want to hear an evolutionist say it is POSSIBLE that a God exists and that, assuming he does, it is POSSIBLE that he would have created the world the way it is,<br />===<br /><br />Why would I want to hear that?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28330166652377968262010-05-01T04:51:50.364-07:002010-05-01T04:51:50.364-07:00Dr Hunter,
Thank you for your response:
David Pe...Dr Hunter,<br /><br />Thank you for your response:<br /><br /><i>David Penny and co workers said that rapid evolution could be used to explain loss of phylogenetic signal. <br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/david-penny-religion-can-be-subtle.html</i><br /><br />They may have said that, but their paper is lodged behind a pay-wall. Can you provide more documentation? Their abstract says only:<br /><br /><b>The theory of evolution predicts that similar phylogenetic trees should be obtained from different sets of character data. We have tested this prediction using sequence data for 5 proteins from 11 species. Our results are consistent with the theory of evolution.</b><br /><br />Hunter:<br /><br /><i>As for multiple OOL events, that too has been suggested, but not as commonly. I don't have a good reference for you though. Sorry about that.</i><br /><br />Thank you for your honesty. May I score that as “bluff called?”Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4972982213668354792010-05-01T03:23:33.570-07:002010-05-01T03:23:33.570-07:00Cornelius -
If you want to hear an evolutionist ...Cornelius - <br /><br />If you want to hear an evolutionist say it is POSSIBLE that a God exists and that, assuming he does, it is POSSIBLE that he would have created the cworld the way it is, then I for one will gladly admit that.<br /><br />And by doing so I have not undermined the theory of evolution in the slightest.<br /><br />Invoking a God to explain natural phenomenon is still not scientific.<br /><br />And the theory of evolution remains the best explanation of the evidence.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61428040878833627462010-05-01T03:18:41.985-07:002010-05-01T03:18:41.985-07:00Cornelius -
"No, the argument is that god *...Cornelius - <br /><br />"No, the argument is that god *wouldn't* do it that way."<br /><br />The problem with that is that the assertion itself presupposes the existence of such a God.<br /><br />We have ne evidence of a God. Therefore it is unscientific to invoke one to explain natural phenomenon.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88336600969872660402010-04-30T20:40:40.780-07:002010-04-30T20:40:40.780-07:00Ritchie:
===
Or how about 'that there is abso...Ritchie:<br /><br />===<br />Or how about 'that there is absolutely no evidence to show that there is a God or designer who would do it that way,<br />===<br /><br />Here are some examples of this metaphysical argument. <br /><br />"The several subordinate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost endless cycles. If species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification." --Darwin<br /><br />"If species are separately created there is no reason why they should be created in large groups of fundamentally similar structure." -- G. Carter<br /><br />"Could the single artisan, who has no one but himself from whom to steal designs, possibly be the explanation for why the Creator fashioned life in a hierarchical fashion—why, for example, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds all share the same limb structure?"--N. EldredgeCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6392445597899802622010-04-30T20:30:50.206-07:002010-04-30T20:30:50.206-07:00Ritchie:
===
Or how about 'that there is abso...Ritchie:<br /><br />===<br />Or how about 'that there is absolutely no evidence to show that there is a God or designer who would do it that way, <br />===<br /><br />No, the argument is that god *wouldn't* do it that way.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15254092874374405122010-04-30T20:26:44.024-07:002010-04-30T20:26:44.024-07:00Cornelius -
Of course the real story behind the...Cornelius - <br /><br /><b><br />Of course the real story behind the nested prediction is that evolutionary thinking states that God would not do it that way <br /></b><br /><br />Or how about 'that there is absolutely no evidence to show that there is a God or designer who would do it that way, or any objective reason other than blind religious faith to believe such a being exists.'?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63493781475374585092010-04-30T19:54:59.191-07:002010-04-30T19:54:59.191-07:00Ritchie:
"Surely this is not the sort of wor...Ritchie:<br /><br />"Surely this is not the sort of world evolution could account for?"<br /><br />Your narrative here is not a description of evolution in general, but kind of the clean, textbook version. To understand how evolution has a wider scope of explanations, it would help to consider that evolutionists resort to all kinds of explanations to describe the real world we observe. In particular, consider that temporarily rapid evolution is used liberally by evolutionists, and it will erase the nested hierarchy pattern. So yes, evolution very much does have the tools to explain a world without a nested hierarchy. <br /><br />In fact, our world does not reveal a nested hierarchy. We might say there is a partial nested hierarchy, in the sense that that pattern does show up quite a bit. But there are important deviations (deviations greater than mere biological noise).<br /><br />So if evolution predicts a strict nested hierarchy, then if is false, end of story. But of course that's not the end of the story. As usual, the prediction is not really a hard prediction. It is a soft prediction. Evolution can explain a wide range of outcomes. And there's no doubt they could explain a world where the nested hierarchy was apparent to a lesser degree than our world, or even altogether absent. The explanations have already been developed and used.<br /><br />Of course the real story behind the nested prediction is that evolutionary thinking states that God would not do it that way (ie, use the nested pattern, even partially).Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76156549673537151412010-04-30T19:12:52.469-07:002010-04-30T19:12:52.469-07:00Cornelius -
I'll happily admit I'm proba...Cornelius - <br /><br />I'll happily admit I'm probably being thick on this one, but I still don't see.<br /><br />Indulge me in a thought experiment. Imagine we have a species. Lets say mice-like rodents. We plonk them down on an island free from animals but with some plants and food, etc.<br /><br />Over time we might see selection pressures changing certin groups of mice. For example, ones which live near rivers might adapt features to help them them cope with the water - webbed feet and thick thur, perhaps. Another group, say ones who live in hot open plains might develop other features - thin fur and long legs to raise their bodies a little from the hot ground.<br /><br />Whatever the case, if we put a single species in a variety of environments, we might well expect splinter groups of that species to adapt slightly to their specific environment.<br /><br />And viola; we have nested hierarchies. The aquatic mice are a clade nested within the whole mouse clade. The 'hot plains' mice and another clade within the whole mouse clade.<br /><br />If I try to imagine an alien world without nested hierarchies, I can only image the sort of world ID would create - where totally unrelated creatures lived in their ecological niche and no other - and shared no features with each other.<br /><br />Surely this is not the sort of world evolution could account for? However, it is also not the sort of world we live in.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71949472743488158672010-04-30T18:52:44.639-07:002010-04-30T18:52:44.639-07:00natschuster -
"IF some of the Cambrian spec...natschuster - <br /><br />"IF some of the Cambrian species survived and produced offspring that survived until today, we might see a greater variety of body forms. This would make it harder to arrainge them into a hierarchy."<br /><br />I'm not totally sure I know what you're saying.<br /><br />Consider this - small mammals lived in the shadow of the dinosaurs for tens of millions of years. Then could never get a foothold because the dinosaurs dominated pretty much every terrestrial ecosystem above a certain size. Then, suddenly, the dinsouars were gone and the surviving mammals had a chance to bloom and 'explode' in variety and body plan to take advantage of the empty niches left by the dinosaurs.<br /><br />My point? Well, with a clean slate experimental new body types compete for supremacy and the most sucessful ones go on to bloom in variety and dominate, thus stifling the development of others. It has happened several times - the slate is effectively wiped clean after huge mass extinctions which decimate ecosystems, such as the one which killed the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to bloom, or indeed the Permian-Triassic extinction which allowed the dinosaurs to come through.<br /><br />Nor do I find this a difficult concept to apply to the Cambrian seas - the oceans are teeming with new experimental life forms. The most successful ones dominate, blossoming in rich variety and stifling the development of other, less sucessful ones, which may well go extinct.<br /><br />I don't understand your objection to this. Nor do I understand why you seem to think that nested hierarchies would be less likely if different or more Cambrian species had survived until today.<br /><br />Unless perhaps you misunderstand the term nested hierarchies...? When we talk about them we are just talking about clades; that is, a single ancestor and all its descendants. So, for example. mammals are a clade. Rodents are also a clade NESTED WITHIN the mammal clade. Mice are another clade NESTED WITHIN the rodent clade. Doormice are then a clade NESTED WITHI|N the mouse clade, etc.<br /><br />"And if evolution can turn a bacteria into a blue whale, it is very powerful."<br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br />"Why can't it produce organisms that don't clusture into clear hierarchies?"<br /><br />The question is odd. It is simply the way evolution functions.<br /><br />"Why couldn't it produce something with a reptilian jaw that nurses its young, for example?"<br /><br />In theory it COULD. It just hasn't. There are many things evolution COULD POTENTIALLY produce - an almost infinite number of things, in fact. But being as there has only been a finite number of species, there will be a great many things evolution has not produced.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com