tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7871436528637433048..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New York Times: No Fair Talking ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78453929625420587632013-10-03T19:39:25.123-07:002013-10-03T19:39:25.123-07:00Ritchie
We can celebrate our robotness by saying ...Ritchie<br /><br />We can celebrate our robotness by saying <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cShYbLkhBc" rel="nofollow">domo arigato</a> Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30809290754449339102013-10-03T18:05:29.014-07:002013-10-03T18:05:29.014-07:00"Well, first we have to ask, "deleteriou..."Well, first we have to ask, "deleterious to whom?""<br /><br />We don't, actually. We can ask, rather, deleterious to what? Any single mutation would be deleterious to the structure of the HAR1F gene. More specifically, many of the mutations that have happened would, of necessity, destroy the shape of the RNA gene. The only way that the shape of the RNA gene remains useful is if multiple simultaneous mutations happen at once. <br /><br />If you can demonstrate that the HAR1F is unnecessary to great apes, then my hypothesis would surely be falsified.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31139556375938379772013-10-03T17:44:49.568-07:002013-10-03T17:44:49.568-07:00Eugen
Motor in "living matter" is not s...Eugen<br /><br /><b>Motor in "living matter" is not simple.</b><br /><br />True - they are complex. But so what? Evolution can create complex systems. Why should motors be impossible?<br /><br /><b>There is no "living matter" anyway-life is a chemical process driven by nano machines. Accept it-you are an atheist robot.</b><br /><br />In a way, yes that is true. But do not be fooled into thinking that is a determinist statement. The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76147366855031618512013-10-03T17:38:41.984-07:002013-10-03T17:38:41.984-07:00bFast -
If mutations are not showing up in a sys...bFast - <br /><br /><b>If mutations are not showing up in a system, its because every mutation that has been tried has been rejected by natural selection.</b><br /><br />That is true. But it does not mean that it will always remain so for every species for all time.<br /><br />Every genome is different, and constantly evolving. And - a crucial point that you seem to be missing - terms such as 'deleterious', 'beneficial' and even 'neutral' are all <i>relative</i>.<br /><br />Would any change to the HAR1F gene be deleterious? Well, first we have to ask, "deleterious to whom?" There is no such thing as a gene element that will never be able to be improved by any species. Again, genes do not work in a vacuum.<br /><br />Yet your argument is built upon the premise that any change to this gene is utterly impossible. And that is ridiculous. <br /><br />There is nothing at all puzzling about a new species putting a formerly ultra-conserved gene through a period of rapid mutation. Because this is all that happened in the case of the HAR1F gene in early humans.<br /><br />And, just as an aside, that line from Darwin that you quote is a common Creationist quote-mine. You would do well to put the words back into context. I think you might find some good advice relevant to you.<br /><br />"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. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.<br /><br />We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobitis the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, the whole or part of an organ, which had previously performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus by insensible steps greatly change its nature. Many plants are known which regularly produce at the same time differently constructed flowers; and if such plants were to produce one kind alone, a great change would be effected with comparative suddenness in the character of the species. It is, however, probable that the two sorts of flowers borne by the same plant were originally differentiated by finely graduated steps, which may still be followed in some few cases.<br /><br /> Again, two distinct organs, or the same organ under two very different forms, may simultaneously perform in the same individual the same function, and this is an extremely important means of transition..."<br /><br />http://www.bartleby.com/11/6005.htmlRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35408664953432098892013-10-03T17:01:04.779-07:002013-10-03T17:01:04.779-07:00"Or maybe easy to understand considering his ..."Or maybe easy to understand considering his considerable scientific ignorance." What is perfectly clear is that one of us has considerable scientific ignorance. It is clear that one of us totally doesn't understand what is meant by Darwin's statement, ""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."bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20704425084173828092013-10-03T16:11:05.506-07:002013-10-03T16:11:05.506-07:00Scott: Any modus ponens argument can be transforme...Scott: Any modus ponens argument can be transformed into a modus tollens argument. This means all of the positive evidence referenced here represents criticism of the theory. <br /><br />J: But:<br /><br />1) You don't claim you can remember,<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) You don't claim the LNC is valid.<br /><br />Thus, you've said nothing that isn't a bald-faced pontification, per your epistemology.<br /><br />Scott: Is asking for specifics too much a to him to handle?<br /><br />J: Scott, he's handled it by implication over and over. Cladistics has no known correspondence to the effects of historical mutations (blindly assuming mutations have occurred, of course, right?). And phenotypes are unpredictable at the level that would be relevant to rejecting SA non-arbitrarily. IOW, even BY the standard inductive approach in logic textbooks that describe what constitutes "positive" evidence, there is precisely ZERO of that kind of evidence for naturalistic UCA. IOW, everyone here who believes in both naturalistic UCA and the standard view of "positive" evidence are absolutely WRONG that there is "positive" evidence for naturalistic UCA. What more does CH need to be warranted in saying what he says? What has he said that is "self-evidently" false (per consensus human intuition) or rationally invalid per logic textbooks? Nothing, Scott. The fact that there are atheists who hate the fact that the atheist epistemology can't account for the KNOWABLE validity of reason or any particular belief (including whether there is even another mind "out there," let alone a "scientific" one, whatever that would be) is not CH's problem.<br /><br />You have yet to define your terms, Scott, in terms of your epistemology (which is not the one that conventional definitions arose from). CH is not a mind-reader.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77203370107549298312013-10-03T13:59:58.989-07:002013-10-03T13:59:58.989-07:00bFast the Genius Programmer. Still to lazy to rea...bFast the Genius Programmer. Still to lazy to read up on and learn about the topic he's butchering.<br /><br />The term HAR stands for Human Accelerated Regions. These are areas of the genome that have noticeable differences between humans and chimps, and between humans and most other vertebrates.<br /><br />Genes located in the HAR1 region are highly conserved across all species because they control neocortex development in embryonic brain growth. The HAR1F mutations which are unique to humans alter mRNAs which change the sequence timing of this early brain development. The critical HAR functions of brain development are still conserved in humans, only the timing is changed. It's one of the things that makes us human.<br /><br />Why Mr. Genius Programmer thinks this is a problem for evolution is hard to understand. Or maybe easy to understand considering his considerable scientific ignorance.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31929808782489520612013-10-03T12:28:17.337-07:002013-10-03T12:28:17.337-07:00Thorton,
"Well, everyone's entitled to t...Thorton,<br /><br />"Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion."<br /><br />That's true, as long as such an opinion does not take hold and become the majority opinion, or become the opinion of someone wielding absolute power.<br /><br />It's only the PR seekers,..."<br /><br />And there are lots of them in every camp.<br /><br />"This stink about the hybrid icing is going to be interesting."<br /><br />I'm for having one or the other. Either the way it was or no touch icing. This hybrid nonsense will only lead to confusion and probably a few weird plays. Some guy will turn away assuming a whistle and turn the puck over with embarrassing results.<br /><br />"Something is rotten in Bettmanville. Again."<br /><br />Some things will never change.<br /><br />Leafs did great in their first two games. Four games in six nights, three on the road and they win 3 out of 4, though only two give them points.<br /><br />Hope I can see the Sharks and Canucks tonight. It will depend on what network is carrying the game. If it's TSN I will be able to see it.<br /><br />Didn't take Roy long to get fined, did it? Six seconds left in the game and you're leading 6-1, and you go crazy over a missed tripping call? Me thinks the man needs help.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31938963135755392352013-10-03T12:12:58.743-07:002013-10-03T12:12:58.743-07:00Again, Cornelius claimed that objections raised in...Again, Cornelius claimed that objections raised in these articles represented theory protectionism according to philosophers. <br /><br />But what's objectionable here is "creation-science gang ... sharing its ideas with the audiences least intellectually prepared to evaluate them", rather than actual biologists. <br /><br />Furthermore, I quoted an example of theory protectionism from an actual, specific philosopher, which said nothing about monkeying with high school text books and was compatible with non-ad hoc changes to evolutionary theory. <br /><br />So, I'll repeat my question to CH....<br /><br /><i>IOW, exactly which philosophers are you referring to and what is/was their relevance to the field of science? Please be specific.</i><br /><br />Is asking for specifics too much a to him to handle?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33620916001828560062013-10-03T12:02:55.518-07:002013-10-03T12:02:55.518-07:00Jeff: There's no one on this forum that has ag...Jeff: There's no one on this forum that has agreed with your view that there is no such thing as positive evidence.<br /><br />Except, that's not the issue in question, Jeff.<br /><br />Any modus ponens argument can be transformed into a modus tollens argument. This means all of the positive evidence referenced here represents criticism of the theory. <br /><br />Again, disagreeing with someone about how knowledge grows isn't the same thing as disagreeing on whether there is knowledge. So, this is yet another attempt to distract from the substance of my comment. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35641596223963216732013-10-03T11:31:51.527-07:002013-10-03T11:31:51.527-07:00Motor in "living matter" is not simple. ...Motor in "living matter" is not simple. There is no "living matter" anyway-life is a chemical process driven by nano machines. Accept it-you are an atheist robot.<br />Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42415309147742870462013-10-03T11:15:12.599-07:002013-10-03T11:15:12.599-07:00"It means 'this gene has not changed in a..."It means 'this gene has not changed in a long time'. It does NOT mean 'this gene cannot change'"<br /><br />This statement is not consistent with the theory. In your post about the ecoli study, you pointed out that neutral mutations happen. According to the theory neutral mutations happen. If mutations don't happen, its because they are not neutral. (In fact, deleterious mutations do happen, but deleterious mutations are sopped up by natural selection quite readily.)<br /><br />If mutations are not showing up in a system, its because every mutation that has been tried has been rejected by natural selection. Failure to understand this, in my opinion, is a blatant failure to understand the theory.<br />bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64494084527700938242013-10-03T10:47:26.852-07:002013-10-03T10:47:26.852-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37217141400427379842013-10-03T10:29:14.550-07:002013-10-03T10:29:14.550-07:00Think about it this way: the term 'ultra conse...Think about it this way: the term 'ultra conserved' is an after-the-fact assessment. It means 'this gene has not changed in a long time'. It does NOT mean 'this gene cannot change'. Do you see the difference?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35406766980545012522013-10-03T10:25:16.832-07:002013-10-03T10:25:16.832-07:00bFast
Ho! Stop the presses! Two neutral mutations...bFast<br /><br /><b>Ho! Stop the presses! Two neutral mutations got together to make a beneficial mutation! Irreducible complexity solved!</b><br /><br />Well it is certainly something relevant and important to bare in mind, isn't it? Your sarcasm aside, it truly does go at least part of the way to explaining it.<br /><br /><b>How do I know that all eight of these mutations would be deleterious you ask? (Of course you do because you cannot read the obvious picture of the rna gene that results.) The ultimate proof is that the gene is ultra-conserved over a very wide swath of creatures. All of these creatures (mammals, at least, probably all land vertebrates, possibly all vertebrates) have been taking periodic mutations in the HAR1F. Every time they have flushed these mutations -- BECAUSE EVERY MUTATION HAS BEEN DELETERIOUS!</b><br /><br />Yes, because gene has been used for it's ORIGINAL FUNCTION. But when the function of the gene changes, it is subject to different selection pressures. What is deleterious under one set of selection pressures is not deleterious under another set.<br /><br />Genes do not operate in a vacuum. They are all part of a very complex and interconnected whole. Changes to one gene have all sorts of knock-on effects further down the line. There is nothing at all unusual or puzzling about a specific ultra-conserved gene suddenly undergoing rapid mutation.<br /><br />Really, you talk as if you think the HAR1F gene is set in stone - unchangeable no what the host organism or selection pressures. That is simply not the case. The HAR1F gene itself does not have the objective property of being 'ultra-conserved'. That is a fallacy.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71800958575930596972013-10-03T10:24:13.484-07:002013-10-03T10:24:13.484-07:00bFast
Yup, I would get laughed out the door. I wo...<i>bFast<br /><br />Yup, I would get laughed out the door. I would, because the geneticists that would analyze my claim would be as religiously blind as you are.</i><br /><br />LOL! Double darn, another scientifically illiterate Creationist who has <b>conclusively disproven evolution!</b> but is too afraid to publish his work for scientists to check and verify.<br /><br />We average about one of these self-proclaimed geniuses a week around here it seems.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65018091253662605222013-10-03T10:16:32.303-07:002013-10-03T10:16:32.303-07:00"The only caveat is when (not if) you get lau..."The only caveat is when (not if) you get laughed out the door you have to publish your rejection letter here."<br /><br />Yup, I would get laughed out the door. I would, because the geneticists that would analyze my claim would be as religiously blind as you are.<br />bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50781070408822150912013-10-03T10:06:35.601-07:002013-10-03T10:06:35.601-07:00bFast
Ho! Stop the presses! Two neutral mutations...<i>bFast<br /><br />Ho! Stop the presses! Two neutral mutations got together to make a beneficial mutation! Irreducible complexity solved!</i><br /><br />Yet that's exactly what the empirical data shows. But do keep arguing from your ignorance based personal incredulity. It will make all that nasty evidence you can't explain go away, honest.<br /><br /><i>While it might be possible to re-loop the HAR1F without all 18 mutations happening simultaneously, it would take about 8. (It would take the number of mutations involved in the contact area.) However, here's the kicker -- until the point of transformation happened, these mutations would be deleterious.</i><br /><br /><b>"WHAT GOOD IS HALF AN EYE???"</b><br /><br />Simpleton programmer here still stuck in the "all or nothing mode". He hasn't figured out that intermediate stages in evolution don't have to provide 100% of extant functionality, or even the same type of functionality to be selected. That's what you get when an ignoramus speculates about topics on which he is clueless.<br /><br /><i>How do I know that all eight of these mutations would be deleterious you ask? (Of course you do because you cannot read the obvious picture of the rna gene that results.) The ultimate proof is that the gene is ultra-conserved over a very wide swath of creatures. All of these creatures (mammals, at least, probably all land vertebrates, possibly all vertebrates) have been taking periodic mutations in the HAR1F. Every time they have flushed these mutations -- BECAUSE EVERY MUTATION HAS BEEN DELETERIOUS!</i><br /><br />Why don't you write up this devastating disproof of evolution and submit to an appropriate scientific journal like <i>Nature</i> or <i>Genetics</i>? You'll be world famous in no time! I'll even pay for the postage. The only caveat is when (not if) you get laughed out the door you have to publish your rejection letter here. Deal?<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86734380207376285462013-10-03T09:33:01.672-07:002013-10-03T09:33:01.672-07:00"and crucially it is an ability that required..."and crucially it is an ability that required not a single mutation, but two! Neither conferred any benefit alone"<br /><br />Ho! Stop the presses! Two neutral mutations got together to make a beneficial mutation! Irreducible complexity solved!<br /><br />This is like the guy trying to walk on water. He put on snowshoes and ran. Running really fast he was able to to make two steps before getting wet. <br /><br />Lets look at the facts here. Single mutations leading to benefit -- many! Couplets (where one half of the couplet is not deleterious), 1. The ratio of a 1 mutation benefit to a 2 mutation benefit is VERY LARGE! If so, a 3 mutation benefit is ever that much harder to obtain than a 2 mutation benefit. That is simple logic.<br /><br />While it might be possible to re-loop the HAR1F without all 18 mutations happening simultaneously, it would take about 8. (It would take the number of mutations involved in the contact area.) However, here's the kicker -- until the point of transformation happened, these mutations would be deleterious.<br /><br />So lets see where we are at. We know that two non-deleterious mutations producing a benefical result is possible. How 'bout 8 mutations each of which is deleterious outside of the set? Oh yea, no big deal -- deep time, all that.<br /><br />How do I know that all eight of these mutations would be deleterious you ask? (Of course you do because you cannot read the obvious picture of the rna gene that results.) The ultimate proof is that the gene is ultra-conserved over a very wide swath of creatures. All of these creatures (mammals, at least, probably all land vertebrates, possibly all vertebrates) have been taking periodic mutations in the HAR1F. Every time they have flushed these mutations -- BECAUSE EVERY MUTATION HAS BEEN DELETERIOUS! (I know, you'll point to the 3 nucleotides that wander, there are 3 nulceotides in this gene that are not conserved -- honest.)<br /><br />Summary: Ultra-conserved means all mutations are deleterious. (Lets not point out those pesky ultra-conserved regions that have been knocked out of organisms with no apparent detriment to the organism. The fact that this is inconceivable within the neo-Darwinian model is beside the point.)<br />bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3603777356997683392013-10-03T09:32:42.491-07:002013-10-03T09:32:42.491-07:00bFast
Thorton, I have been discussing 18 non-cong...<i>bFast<br /><br />Thorton, I have been discussing 18 non-congruent point mutations. Do you think I haven't seen them listed out? </i><br /><br />LOL! Yes, I think you haven't seen them listed out. Go ahead and provide them here.<br /><br /><i>The question is not, what are the mutations, the question is which came first. More accurately, the challenge is that non of them could possibly have come first.</i><br /><br />Why not? You keep asserting the same thing but you keep forgetting to provide any evidence.<br /><br /><i> I challenge simply that the HAR1F is such an example.</i><br /><br />Another assertion without any evidence. Still waiting for you to explain why the evolutionary history of the HAR group as shown in the Pollard paper is wrong, and what your "correct" alternate explanation is. <br /><br /><i>Darwin claimed that falsification required a situation that could not be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications.</i><br /><br />Yep. You still haven't provided any evidence of such a situation. Science on the other hand has provided both known mechanisms for the genetic changes and a plausible evolutionary history that agrees with the empirical data. You lose.<br /><br /><i>As a programmer, the 3D model makes perfect sense to me. </i><br /><br />As a simpleton scientifically ignorant programmer I'm sure it does. To scientists who actually study and understand the topic, not so much.<br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48282880685158692402013-10-03T08:04:39.895-07:002013-10-03T08:04:39.895-07:00bFast -
As far as your link goes, well, I haven&...bFast - <br /><br /><b>As far as your link goes, well, I haven't had time to peruse the entire thing. Please enlighten me as to what real improvements to ecoli were made in their 50,000 generations. Did any of the ecoli develop a new organ?</b><br /><br />In a nutshell, the 12 groups each increased measurably in fitness - and each following its own evolutionary path; that is, each developing its own series of successive mutations. And every single generation (there have been over 50,000 by now) had a sample taken and frozen so we can see exactly what mutations occurred and when.<br /><br />On its own an impressive result. But there was an extra finding which is particularly relevant to our discussion here. One group changed radically and developed the ability to digest citrate - an ability unheard of in E.Coli before - and crucially it is an ability that required not a single mutation, but two! Neither conferred any benefit alone, but together, they give the E.Coli this huge advantage.<br /><br />You see, mutations are not always simply beneficial or harmful to the organism's survival chances. Some are neutral. And in such mutations may not necessarily be weeded out by natural selection (conversely they may not necessarily thrive in the gene pool either). But occasionally neutral mutations do combine to produce a result that is of great benefit (or detriment). They will produce functions which appear 'irreducibly complex', which is exactly what happened in Lenski's study.<br /><br />Now, to bring us back around to the HAR1F, the claim you made is that these 18 point mutations must have all occurred simultaneously. But that is flat wrong. There is no reason to think they must have, or did, occur simultaneously.<br /><br />Certainly 18 base pair changes in 6 million years is a lot compared to only 2 base pair changes in the 300 million years previously. But there is nothing puzzling about this either. Since humans split from chimpanzees, the HAR1F gene apparently took on a new function, and when this occurs it is perfectly normal for the rate of mutation in the gene to rise dramatically - in simple terms the gene mutates to fit its new role.<br /><br /><b>Get from chimp to human mutational event by mutational event -- I dare yea.</b><br /><br />You're correct that we do not know precisely in which order the mutations occurred, But so what? There are any number of combinations they <i>might</i> have occurred in. <br /><br />But you are labouring under the assumption that ANY sequence of changes is impossible. "More accurately, the challenge is that non of them could possibly have come first."<br /><br />Why could none of them have come first? What exactly makes you think all 18 base pair changes MUST have been completely simultaneous?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90599334962706887182013-10-03T06:15:04.300-07:002013-10-03T06:15:04.300-07:00Eugen
Can you recognize all the basic components ...<i>Eugen<br /><br />Can you recognize all the basic components any motor should have? Do you really think motors evolve?</i><br /><br />Human produced ones, no.<br /><br />The simple molecular ones we find in living matter? Yes, until you or someone comes up with some positive evidence they were consciously "Designed".<br /><br />You just don't get that personal incredulity isn't a winning argument. Not today, not tomorrow, ever.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73100790686837106792013-10-03T04:35:33.936-07:002013-10-03T04:35:33.936-07:00Thorton
one molecule motor
Can you recognize al...Thorton<br /><br /><a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/94891-nanobots-rejoice-electric-motor-made-from-just-one-molecule-18-atoms" rel="nofollow">one molecule motor</a> <br /><br />Can you recognize all the basic components any motor should have? Do you really think motors evolve?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18750903047089628732013-10-02T22:23:40.620-07:002013-10-02T22:23:40.620-07:00Thorton, "The mutations are listed in the Sup...Thorton, "The mutations are listed in the Supplemental Notes S3."<br /><br />Thorton, I have been discussing 18 non-congruent point mutations. Do you think I haven't seen them listed out? The question is not, what are the mutations, the question is which came first. More accurately, the challenge is that non of them could possibly have come first.<br /><br />"You simpletons are the first to scream "I DEMAND INFINITE DETAIL""<br />You insult your prophet who said, "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." If the test of the truth of Darwin's theory is "numerous, successive, slight modifications", then examining situations that cannot be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications is justified. I challenge simply that the HAR1F is such an example.<br /><br />"BTW, you forgot to provide your explanation for the HAR genetic data and how the HAR1F gene got here." <br /><br />Darwin claimed that falsification required a situation that could not be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Unlike you, he seemed to believe that falsification was possible even if another theory was not available to replace it.<br /><br />"I though you programmers knew everything, way more than mere geneticists." Are you claiming to be a geneticist? If so, then you prove the depths to which geneticists lack knowledge. You stare at the "machine code" of the DNA, at the 3D structure of the RNA that it produces, and you fail to understand it. As a programmer, the 3D model makes perfect sense to me. It also is perfectly clear that you are not going to get the necessary realignment with a single realistic mutational event.<br />bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5127214987228945102013-10-02T21:15:00.021-07:002013-10-02T21:15:00.021-07:00bFast
I read your link. 'Seems to want me to ...<i>bFast<br /><br />I read your link. 'Seems to want me to pay to read the entire article. Please save me the hassle, and define the sequence of mutational events for the 18 mutations. Oh yea, bet its not in there. The article says, hey, humans are different from chimps in 18 non contiguous point, but PROVIDES NO PATHWAY as to how those mutations took place. </i><br /><br /><b>"I DEMAND INFINITE DETAIL!!!!"</b><br /><br />I thought you wanted to be a scientist? The mutations are listed in the Supplemental Notes S3. Get off your lazy ass, go to the library and read the paper.<br /><br />You simpletons are the first to scream "I DEMAND INFINITE DETAIL" but dead last in trying to educate yourself.<br /><br />BTW, you forgot to provide <b>your</b> explanation for the HAR genetic data and how the HAR1F gene got here. Well? I though you programmers knew everything, way more than mere geneticists.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com