Wednesday, June 16, 2010

When Evidence for Evolution is Actually Evolution of Evidence

In 1951 the leading evolutionist George G. Simpson stated that there really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question, concluded Simpson, has been decisively answered in the affirmative. Simpson was by no means the first to make this high claim—even stronger statements were made in the nineteenth and even eighteenth centuries—but in the twentieth century this sentiment came to dominate the life sciences. It became more than merely broadly accepted, it became mandatory. This set up evolutionary theory as what Thomas Kuhn would call “normal science.” Evolution became the standard, the dominant paradigm, within which the life sciences operated. From high school biology exams to university tenure and funding applications, all must work under the umbrella of evolution. New research is not merely described in terms of evolution, the very data are interpreted according to evolution from the first measurement. If a new fossil form is discovered, it is described as a result of gradualism if it is similar to known forms. On the other hand, it is described as a result of punctuated equilibrium if it is unique. One way or another, evolution is the narrative. And while it may be that, in practice, science needs to work in this way, this overwhelming dominance means that, ironically, evolutionary studies often fail to provide evidence for evolution. This is because evolution is assumed in the very interpretation of the data. This logical technicality, however, often does not stop evolutionists from making high claims about the evidence.

The assumption that evolution is true is baked into evolutionary studies. The results are not theory-neutral, and it would be circular to use the results as evidence for evolution. Nonetheless, evolutionists often cite the conclusions of such studies as powerful and compelling evidence for evolution. There is an incestuous relationship between the research work and the apologetics ministries, and it needs to be expunged. The practice of evolutionists explaining to us that the evidence leaves no other choice is reminiscent of the government that investigates it own misdeeds or the corporation that appoints its own auditor. What is needed is an independent audit.

Consider, for example, the problem of how the eye evolved. It might seem, Darwin agreed, “absurd in the highest possible degree.” But with evolution taken as a fact, whether or not vision systems evolved is no longer in question—they did. The only question is how they have evolved. As evolutionists explain in one paper, although Darwin “anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for criticism,” the problem “has now almost become a historical curiosity” and “the question is now one of process rate rather than one of principle.” They estimate this rate using the usual heroic assumptions of evolutionary thought. They write:

The evolution of complex structures, however, involves modifications of a large number of separate quantitative characters, and in addition there may be discrete innovations and an unknown number of hidden but necessary phenotypic changes. These complications seem effectively to prevent evolution rate estimates for entire organs and other complex structures. An eye is unique in this respect because the structures necessary for image formation, although there may be several, are all typically quantitative in their nature, and can be treated as local modifications of pre-existing tissues. Taking a patch of pigmented light-sensitive epithelium as the starting point, we avoid the more inaccessible problem of photoreceptor cell evolution. Thus, if the objective is limited to finding the number of generations required for the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, then the problem becomes solvable.

This paper and its results do not serve as evidence for evolution; rather, they serve as evidence for the rate of the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, given that evolution occurred. Yet evolutionists cite this paper, and others like it, as powerful evidence that eye evolution is straightforward.

Another example of evolutionary heroics is the evolution of the cell’s intricate metabolic pathways which are constantly performing a wide variety of chemical gymnastics. For example, the Krebs cycle is a complicated and apparently optimal metabolic pathway that has been a problem for evolutionists to explain. One evolutionary study claimed to demonstrate the “opportunistic evolution of the Krebs cycle,” but what passed for a demonstration was really a series of speculations about what might have happened, with no actual details of the particulars. And again, the evolution of the pathway, one way or another, was assumed. The question was not if the pathway evolved, but rather how it evolved:

We have analyzed the Krebs cycle as a problem of chemical design to oxidize acetate yielding reduction equivalents to the respiratory chain to make ATP. Our analysis demonstrates that although there are several different chemical solutions to this problem, the design of this metabolic pathway as it occurs in living cells is the best chemical solution: It has the least possible number of steps and it also has the greatest ATP yielding. Study of the evolutionary possibilities of each one—taking the available material to build new pathways—demonstrates that the emergence of the Krebs cycle has been a typical case of opportunism in molecular evolution. Our analysis proves, therefore, that the role of opportunism in evolution has converted a problem of several possible chemical solutions into a single-solution problem, with the actual Krebs cycle demonstrated to be the best possible chemical design. Our results also allow us to derive the rules under which metabolic pathways emerged during the origin of life.

It is, in fact, typical for life science research to cast results in terms of evolution. And if the results don’t fit evolutionary theory very well, then they are described as informative. After all, we are learning more about how evolution really works. Here’s a representative example. Transcription factors are proteins that bind to DNA and influence which genes are used to synthesize new proteins. Counter to evolutionary expectations, where exactly along the DNA these transcription factors bind is not well conserved across different species. But a paper discussing such findings claims that it “reveals the evolutionary dynamics of transcription factor binding” and provides “insight into regulatory evolution.” This would be like seeing a ship disappear over the horizon and claiming to be learning more about how and why the earth is flat. Nonetheless, it is papers such as these to which evolutionists refer when they claim there is overwhelming research proving evolution. From the claims of the paper it certainly seems as though they are substantiating evolution. Religion drives science, and it matters.

78 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter: One way or another, evolution is the narrative.

    Part of evolutionary biology is reconstructing the history of life. Other aspects concern the mechanisms of evolution.

    Cornelius Hunter: The assumption that evolution is true is baked into evolutionary studies. The results are not theory-neutral, and it would be circular to use the results as evidence for evolution.

    The overarching hypothesis is the Theory of Evolution. A good scientific theory generates testable hypotheses and guides research. A great scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, spawns entire new fields of research. The Theory of Evolution is so strongly supported in its fundamentals that it is considered a scientific fact.

    Cornelius Hunter: , evolutionists often cite the conclusions of such studies as powerful and compelling evidence for evolution.

    Of course they do. They are testing hypotheses derived from the Theory of Evolution. When the results are contrary to theoretical expectations, then the theory may be subject to modification. That's how it works.

    Cornelius Hunter: What is needed is an independent audit.

    Go for it! What is your hypothesis, and how do you plan to test it?

    Cornelius Hunter: It might seem, Darwin agreed, “absurd in the highest possible degree.”

    Quote-mine. It's even used as an example of a quote-mine by Wikipedia. It was a rhetorical question, which Darwin answers. (Not to mention he said it "seems" absurd, not that it was absurd.)

    Cornelius Hunter: This paper and its results do not serve as evidence for evolution; rather, they serve as evidence for the rate of the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, given that evolution occurred.

    That's exactly how the scientific method works. Assume that the geometry of the eye evolved incrementally; then determine the individual steps required, and compare to various intermediate structures found in living things; then determine the rate at which those changes would have to occur, and compare it to known rates of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CH: "The assumption that evolution is true is baked into evolutionary studies. The results are not theory-neutral, and it would be circular to use the results as evidence for evolution. Nonetheless, evolutionists often cite the conclusions of such studies as powerful and compelling evidence for evolution. There is an incestuous relationship between the research work and the apologetics ministries, and it needs to be expunged. The practice of evolutionists explaining to us that the evidence leaves no other choice is reminiscent of the government that investigates it own misdeeds or the corporation that appoints its own auditor. What is needed is an independent audit.

    Good grief. Modern scientific researchers don't include sections on 'verifiying evolution' for the same reason modern aircraft wing designers don't include evidence of Bernoulli's principle. That work has already been done and confirmed hundreds of times over.

    Science progresses by building on what has already been established. The occurrence of evolution is a fact has already been established. Discovering the fine details of some specific evolutionary steps does not require scientists to 'reinvent the wheel'.

    I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a more clueless view of how science actually operates CH, and that's saying something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "And while it may be that, in practice, science needs to work in this way [the very data being interpreted according to evolution],"

    I think this clause contains two important concessions. First it acknowledges that evolutionary biology is not any different from any other branch of science. Secondly it admits that in science data is always interpreted in the face of the state-of-the-art theory. Science can't work any other way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another great post CH.
    Evolutionists never get their intrinsic logical fallacies. I think its because either their minds are on HOLD or the cognitive dissonance created by such inherent contradictions (as riddle their "science") prevent them from "getting it".

    Once again, you've hit the nail on the head.
    One must assume Darwinism to be true to, a priori, before one can even postulate the things they constantly come out with.

    Amazing that this poor excuse for a theory still exists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Once again:

    Theory:
    A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis. - http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm

    a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;- http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory

    compared to:

    "The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

    Obviously some of them are smarter than the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How many parts of the Theory of Evolution, as the first commenter states, have been disproven? Has anyone here commenting actually read OOS? Some misinformed scientists concluding that something is fact, doesn't make it true. It just makes it easier.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gary wrote:
    "One must assume Darwinism to be true to, a priori, before one can even postulate the things they constantly come out with."

    Yeah, silly stuff like the acquired immune system (if Darwinian evolution is stupid, why did God choose a real-time Darwinian mechanism of genetic variation, random wrt fitness, and selection?) and replacing it in leukemic children by bone marrow transplantation, saving so many lives.

    Creation/ID hypotheses have done so much more in biomedical science, eh, Gary?

    Can you name one?

    ReplyDelete
  8. George G. Simpson says it is no longer necessary to collect and study fossils to determine if evolution is a fact.

    That is true only if the theory of evolution explains the observation that animal morphology has changed over time. And who can argue with that?

    If the theory of evolution is claimed to be the explanation for how that change took place, then it is an overreach to assign the status of theory to evolution. It is still in the hypothesis stage.

    If the theory of evolution is a mechanistic theory -- that is, it explains how the morphological changes took place -- then, it seems to me the theory is not quite there yet.

    One case in point is the constant use in the literature of the phrase "the evolution of the eye." The problem for me is the fact that the eye is part of a visual system, and science should be talking about the evolution of the visual system. By focusing on the evolution of the eye, science is avoiding what really needs to be explained.

    Another case: I have read -- although quite some time ago -- that science has yet to come up with any plausible step-by-step description of any major evolutionary transitions. Isn't this what the theory of evolution is supposed to explain?

    And a third case: The evolutionary algorithms I am aware of seem to suggest that evolution by random variation and natural selection can't work. Here is my stumbling block (and it may be a mere misunderstanding):

    Can natural selection actually be programmed into a computer? In nature, some random variation occurs and depending on unknown or otherwise not easily quantifiable environmental parameters, a variation that provides a survival advantage is "selected." Can the variation even be codified in a computer in a biologically meaningful way?

    In a computer, the "animal substitutes" are grossly oversimplified. Even granting that, in order to get the algorithm to work a conscious selection factor has to be programmed in. There is no conscious selection factor in nature. But, you say the evolutionary algorithm would not work without it. Exactly my point.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Smokey, "Creation/ID hypotheses have done so much more in biomedical science, eh..."

    So do evolutionists do a lot of biomedical work before, during or after they keep telling themselves that what they see was not designed??? How does this mantra help them to complete their medical research? Wouldn't all biomedical research have been completed without the carrying this Darwinian burden?

    Take another Darwinian burden... junk DNA... has this great evolutionary expectation actually helped, hurt or been passive in identifying functions of the so-called junk DNA?

    All the practical bio science research and inventions would have done just fine, thank you, without Darwinism.... probably better.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Neal evaded in a lame attempt to deceive:
    "So do evolutionists do a lot of biomedical work before, during or after they keep telling themselves that what they see was not designed???"

    Neal, there's no wall between them. Every biomedical researcher who has cloned a gene (like me) gets an opportunity to test modern evolutionary theory for her/himself.

    Are you bright enough to guess how? I guess that you're not.

    "How does this mantra help them to complete their medical research? "

    When did you stop beating your wife, Neal? Your loaded question is deliberately dishonest. I offered two clear examples and you are running away from them.

    "Wouldn't all biomedical research have been completed without the carrying this Darwinian burden? "

    You tell me, Neal! Don't be shy! Get specific!

    The ball's in your court. Immunology and bone marrow transplantation. You have all the answers, you just need to show a step-by-step path to get to them without any recourse to what we know about evolution.

    You won't even try, because you don't have the slightest bit of faith in your position. You know that it's a fraud.

    "Take another Darwinian burden... junk DNA... has this great evolutionary expectation actually helped, hurt or been passive in identifying functions of the so-called junk DNA?"

    Uh, Neal, who has done all the research that identifies functions of (a tiny fraction of the) DNA tentatively classified as "junk"? Bill Dembski? Cornelius Hunter?

    Why are you dishonestly pretending that "junk DNA" is all accounted for?

    "All the practical bio science research and inventions would have done just fine, thank you, without Darwinism.... probably better."

    You're lying and you know it. If you really believed that, you would explain the adaptive immune system and bone marrow transplantation. If anyone in your movement believed it, they'd be doing that research instead of blogging and writing books aimed at deceiving ignorant laypeople like you.

    So where are all these researchers? Show me a single creationist or ID biotech company, Neal! If we're suffering under all these alleged "Darwinist burdens," shouldn't you be able to compete against allegedly unenlightened intellectuals like us?

    What's your excuse?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why was evolution necessary to understand immunology? I'm just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey Neal, why did you cut and run from the other thread when you got called on this?

    Neal Tedford: "The platypus seems to have co-opted many features that were NOT in its lineage."

    Which features Neal, and where is your evidence they came NOT from the platypus lineage?

    You're just another IDCer who is long on empty bluster but totally lacking in evidence and a spine. You're another fine example of Ignoramus cowardus maximi

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wrote:
    "Yeah, silly stuff like the acquired immune system (if Darwinian evolution is stupid, why did God choose a real-time Darwinian mechanism of genetic variation, random wrt fitness, and selection?) and replacing it in leukemic children by bone marrow transplantation, saving so many lives."

    Nat asked:
    "Why was evolution necessary to understand immunology? I'm just asking."

    If you're "just asking," why don't you ask something about what I actually wrote?

    Clearly you understand neither evolution nor immunology, so you're one data point consistent with the proposition.

    How long does it take to evolve a new, highly specific, functional protein binding site using nothing but genetic variation and selection, Nat?

    Would you bet your house on your answer?

    ReplyDelete
  14. So please explain what you meant. I understood you to mean that understanding the immne sysem requires accepting evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nat,

    Your understanding is willfully bad. Why don't you learn about immunology for yourself, and try answering my question?

    If you're that ignorant about immunology, why would you spew sweeping conclusions about all of biology?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nat, don't waste your time with Smokey. He is only here to put down others insulting our lack of knowledge and saying that statements we made are due to our own dishonesty and willful ignorance. He provides no useful information. He says we don't answer questions but when we ask a question he only answers it with a question or an insult. I'm going to stop reading his posts. At least other evolutionists here aren't (insert vulgar word here). But I guess if creationism has its fundamental crazy-eyed Christians, then evolution does too.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Smokey,

    "Neal, there's no wall between them. Every biomedical researcher who has cloned a gene (like me) gets an opportunity to test modern evolutionary theory for her/himself".

    You cloned a gene? Seriously dude... Cool!

    But... it sounds like Intelligence was needed to do the cloning. If you include nearly everything in biology, including adaption and the kitchen sink in the Big Tent of Evolution then you can say that some of evolution is supported. But it is Common Descent that is generates the most controversy because it is highly speculative and is a burden and brain drain on real science.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neal Tedford said...

    But it is Common Descent that is generates the most controversy because it is highly speculative and is a burden and brain drain on real science.


    There is absolutely zero controversy in the scientific community - NONE - over the established fact of common descent.

    There is a very small manufactured political one raised by scientifically ignorant goobers on religious grounds because the scientific reality of common descent doesn't mesh with their narrow literal Biblical interpretations.

    Still waiting for you to address those platypus claims too Neal. Any chance you'll man up and support what you said?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thorton,

    "There is absolutely zero controversy in the scientific community - NONE - over the established fact of common descent"

    This is not accurate. First, there are many scientists who are skeptical of common descent. Dr Hunter being one of them.

    Second, evolutionists conveniently exclude scientists from the "community" who are skeptical.

    It is taboo in the scientific community to question the common descent dogma. Common descent usually ends up being muddled up into all the rest of evolutionary theory, so that if you question common descent it is like you are automatically skeptical of adapation, dog breeding, and growing big tomatoes.

    Big Money and big careers, etc are at stake and rocking the boat is dangerous to the establishment.

    Evolution is like the Global warming fairy tale. It was "settled science" (before it wasn't) and those that opposed it were held in contempt exactly like those that are skeptical of evolution. The similarities are uncanny. Global warming is the scientific scam of the century, but Darwinism is the scientific scam of the millenium.

    I have a hypothesis that Darwinism is the godfather of a kind of "science" that is more interested in arriving at the "right" conclusions rather than following the right methodology.

    This mentality has led scientists to embrace wrong conclusions is other fields, i.e. global warming by playing with the evidence and not looking at the evidence that contradicts their theory (previous warming periods, etc). Arrogance, big money, big names and repudiations... the parallels to evolution are incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Neal Tedford said...

    Thorton,

    "There is absolutely zero controversy in the scientific community - NONE - over the established fact of common descent"

    This is not accurate. First, there are many scientists who are skeptical of common descent. Dr Hunter being one of them.


    Dr Hunter is expressing his personal incredulity based solely on his religious views. Neither his personal incredulity nor yours changes the fact there is zero controversy in the scientific community - NONE - over the established fact of common descent.

    Second, evolutionists conveniently exclude scientists from the "community" who are skeptical.

    A common unsupported lie from the IDC crowd. Simple fact is, if you guys had some science that works better than ToE people would use it. But you don't.

    It is taboo in the scientific community to question the common descent dogma. Common descent usually ends up being muddled up into all the rest of evolutionary theory, so that if you question common descent it is like you are automatically skeptical of adapation, dog breeding, and growing big tomatoes.

    Pure unadulterated horsecrap. Tell me Neal, why are potential human vaccines tested on rhesus monkeys and not chickens or fish?

    Big Money and big careers, etc are at stake and rocking the boat is dangerous to the establishment.

    Blah blah blah I was EXPELLED!! blah blah...yeah Neal, we've heard all the whiny excuses before for why you guys produce no results. The Templeton Foundation a few years back offered a huge cash grant for any research proposal supporting ID, but they didn't get a single application. Why is that Neal?

    (snip the rest of the rhetorical blithering)

    When you guys can do something besides whine and beat your gums, like producing some actual positive evidence for your position, science will listen. Until then you're just the freaks in the sideshow.

    Oh, and I figured you'd be too cowardly to address your stupid claims on the platypus. Thanks for the confirmation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal Tedford: First, there are many scientists who are skeptical of common descent. Dr Hunter being one of them.

    Is his name Steve Hunter?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Me:
    "Neal, there's no wall between them. Every biomedical researcher who has cloned a gene (like me) gets an opportunity to test modern evolutionary theory for her/himself".

    Neal: "You cloned a gene? Seriously dude… Cool!"

    More than one, so I'm even cooler than that.

    "But... it sounds like Intelligence was needed to do the cloning."

    But…I didn't say that the cloning itself was the test, dude.

    "...But it is Common Descent that is generates the most controversy because it is highly speculative and is a burden and brain drain on real science."

    LMAO, Neal. common descent is precisely what I've tested when I compare and contrast any new sequence to the database. It's about the ddifferences, so please don't lie and claim that it's simple similarity.

    The ignorance of the freely-available sequence data (and the freely-available analytical tools) by you evolution denialists is just amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal lied:
    "This is not accurate. First, there are many scientists who are skeptical of common descent. Dr Hunter being one of them. "

    Dr. Hunter isn't a scientist.

    "Second, evolutionists conveniently exclude scientists from the "community" who are skeptical."

    IDers have their own community and money, so they don't have any excuse for not producing their own data.

    "It is taboo in the scientific community to question the common descent dogma."

    Gee, were those who found horizontal gene transfer ostracized?

    "Common descent usually ends up being muddled up into all the rest of evolutionary theory,…"

    Neal, you're just lying. You've never read a paper from the primary scientific literature, have you?

    "... so that if you question common descent it is like you are automatically skeptical of adapation, dog breeding, and growing big tomatoes."

    Examples, then. What about your examples from the platypus?

    "Big Money and big careers, etc are at stake and rocking the boat is dangerous to the establishment."

    Big money?

    Doug Axe's salary from the DI is larger than mine. AFAIK, he has yet to do a single experiment since taking a job with them. There's no evidence that he intends to, either.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thorton,

    "Tell me Neal, why are potential human vaccines tested on rhesus monkeys and not chickens or fish?"

    That proves evolution? Things are similar so they evolved from a common ancestor? Period. That's what makes it settled science. Close the box and close our minds because that is the only explanation. Don't include contrary evidence against evolution because those are small details that will eventually be worked out over the next hill. Unfortunately, that's an assumption based on the philosophy of scientfic materialism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Smokey,

    Louis Pasteur wasn't a scientist either because he did not buy into Darwinism? Right?

    One is allowed to question how things evolved, but not IF they evolved. Funny that they are still working on how things evolved when evolution is settled. Funny that new fossil finds are headlined with the hype that it could be the missing link. Apparently the other missing links weren't, but the new one will be. LOL

    The intelligent design community does produce research, evolutionists just dismiss it, just like they dismiss the creditials of those that disagree with them.

    The arrogant and circle the wagons tone of evolutionists is that of a community that knows it is in trouble.

    What specific evidence do you have from your work with cloning that common descent is a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Abandoning his previous lies, Neal lied some more:
    "Louis Pasteur wasn't a scientist either because he did not buy into Darwinism? Right?"

    Wrong. He was a scientist because he DID SCIENCE. He constructed testable hypotheses and tested them empirically. Dr. Hunter does not DO SCIENCE. He does neither because he has no faith in his position.

    Science isn't English lit crit, Neal.

    Your statement is absurd because there are plenty of active scientists who study non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution.

    "One is allowed to question how things evolved, but not IF they evolved. Funny that they are still working on how things evolved when evolution is settled."

    What's funny is the ratio of your arrogance to your ignorance. You didn't even know that analyzing a new sequence provides an independent test of descent with modification.

    "Funny that new fossil finds are headlined with the hype that it could be the missing link."

    No, what's pathetic is the level of science literacy in the US. What's pathetic is the desperate clinging of evolution denialists to secondary, tertiary, and quaternary sources. Real scientists produce the primary sources.

    "The intelligent design community does produce research, evolutionists just dismiss it, just like they dismiss the creditials of those that disagree with them."

    Lies. Point me to the research if you think you're right. Research in this context means new data.

    "The arrogant and circle the wagons tone of evolutionists is that of a community that knows it is in trouble."

    Yet we embrace non-Darwinian evolution, and you probably can't even name a non-Darwinian mechanism.

    "What specific evidence do you have from your work with cloning that common descent is a fact?"

    The results have the potential to falsify nested hierarchies drawn over huge distances—crossing phyla. They don't, but you're afraid to look.

    ReplyDelete

  27. Neal Tedford said...

    Thorton,

    "Tell me Neal, why are potential human vaccines tested on rhesus monkeys and not chickens or fish?"

    That proves evolution? Things are similar so they evolved from a common ancestor? Period. That's what makes it settled science. Close the box and close our minds because that is the only explanation. Don't include contrary evidence against evolution because those are small details that will eventually be worked out over the next hill. Unfortunately, that's an assumption based on the philosophy of scientfic materialism.


    You didn't answer the question Neal. Try again.

    Why are potential human vaccines tested on rhesus monkeys and not chickens or fish?"

    ReplyDelete
  28. Neal, you have quite an aversion to answering simple questions.

    Gee, were those who found horizontal gene transfer ostracized?

    You've never read a paper from the primary scientific literature, have you?

    Examples, then. What about your examples from the platypus?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Smokey,

    "You didn't even know that analyzing a new sequence provides an independent test of descent with modification."

    The heart of the problem as skeptics see it always been that the modification actually observed is chicken feed compared with the modifications necessary to establish common descent. You guys take a little non-controversial observed modification and add a lot of time and huge amounts of assumptions and you say that common descent is a fact.

    Have you observed new organs coming from these modifications you have observed?

    I have always wondered what gives you confidence in making this extrapolation? I've asked this of evolutionists many times before and never received an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Zachriel says: That's exactly how the scientific method works. Assume that the geometry of the eye evolved incrementally; then determine the individual steps required, and compare to various intermediate structures found in living things; then determine the rate at which those changes would have to occur, and compare it to known rates of evolution.

    What I would like to see in regards to vision is a multi-volume work, say 30 volumes, detailing every random mutation and every natural selection involving every step: structural, biochemical, intracellular, everything. This accounting of every PROVEN detail and the evidence for RMNS mechanics behind each of these details would I think take up many volumes and convince me you guys know what you're talking about. There's a report showing how you true believers talk about vision in the context of RMNS, showing you have to resort to "maladaptation" or "bad design, if it were designed" meaning "thus, it wasn't designed". This is what people like the eminent logician Kenneth R. Miller say. Well here's the link to a discussion of you guys' approach to "science" ("That's exactly how the scientific method works."): http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm

    The multi volume work for which I wait will surely go into detail as to how monaural vision just happens to lead to the construction of a whole new system to become Binaural, and when this second system becomes function at the very end then presto! It is Selected just like magic, er I mean just naturally. I'll will wait for this 30 or so volume work to be your grand finale, winning you your war. Then your obsession with these discussion boards will end and you guys can rest.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thorton,

    FYI--- Flu vaccine is usually grown in fertilized chicken eggs.

    ReplyDelete
  32. MSEE,

    Great post. A detailed account of the developmental pathways to the eye is what is needed to answer the skeptic. Perhaps they could add another 30 volumes to tell us how it was repeated again, and again and again.

    I saw a video of Richard Dawkins explaining to a class of students how the eye evolved. He used a box and couple parts to prove his point. Evolutionists were angry at me for not being statisfied with this great demonstration. Apparently one only needs imagination to fill in the millions of trivial details. Better yet, evolutionists leave it to the skeptic to prove that it couldn't happen. To all the evolutionists out there, we will. The storm is coming.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So it means that unless we know every single details, it's forbidden to draw conclusions?

    P.S.: Growing a vaccine is not the same thing as testing it.

    P.S.S.: There's a nice site (www.pubmed.org) were you can find primary literature on many subjects. You could probably find interesting data on the evolution of the eye if you gave it a serious try.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Whoops-- should have said monocular/ binocular instead of monaural/binaural. While I'm at it you guys could win your war with a multi-volume set on all of the proven microsteps in the origination of binaural hearing. That maybe would win a lot of people to your materialist's cause.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Charles, "So it means that unless we know every single details, it's forbidden to draw conclusions?"

    Every single detail would certainly be the idea if the conclusion is demanded to be "settled science", no skeptism allowed, and funded with taxpayer money and taught as a fact.

    But it seems baby steps is even a stretch for documenting the details of so-called eye evolution. Perhaps they could start with an ancient animal from the Cambrian explosion and show us how the trilobite got its complex eyes? The innumerable multitude of ancestors leading up to the trilobite eye must fill volumes of Darwinian literature.

    ReplyDelete
  36. MSEE said...

    What I would like to see in regards to vision is a multi-volume work, say 30 volumes, detailing every random mutation and every natural selection involving every step: structural, biochemical, intracellular, everything. This accounting of every PROVEN detail and the evidence for RMNS mechanics behind each of these details would I think take up many volumes and convince me you guys know what you're talking about.


    You claim to be working on an advance degree. What I would like to see to check your qualifications is a multi-volume work, say 30 volumes, detailing every last minute of time you spent in formal school classes since kindergarten. I want to know every sentence you were taught, see every quiz or test you ever took, look at every last entry in your notebooks. Just providing your year end grades or yearbook photos isn't good enough. If you can't show me every last minute detail I'll assume you are a completely ignorant chowderhead who never took a day of school in his life.

    Isn't that a fair thing to ask, since you are demanding the same? If not, why not?

    BTW, I noticed you had no more comments on how RMNS has no use after I showed you the NASA Evolvable Systems Group data. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Neal Tedford : The heart of the problem as skeptics see it always been that the modification actually observed is chicken feed compared with the modifications necessary to establish common descent.

    Observed rates of evolution are much faster than the historical transitions. Rates of evolution have been observed in the thousands of darwins.

    Neal Tedford : You guys take a little non-controversial observed modification and add a lot of time and huge amounts of assumptions and you say that common descent is a fact.

    Common Descent is supported independently of the mechanisms of evolution. The primary evidence is found in the nested hierarchy of morphology, genomics, biogeography, and fossils in time.

    Neal Tedford : Have you observed new organs coming from these modifications you have observed?

    We wouldn't expect to do so in the short time spans available to human scientists. Indeed, it takes a great deal of patience to directly observe evolution, especially in a natural context.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Neal Tedford said...

    The heart of the problem as skeptics see it always been that the modification actually observed is chicken feed compared with the modifications necessary to establish common descent. You guys take a little non-controversial observed modification and add a lot of time and huge amounts of assumptions and you say that common descent is a fact.


    Neal, here is a recent genetic study the of canid genome and the resultant phylogenetic tree.

    Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog

    "Abstract: Here we report a high-quality draft genome sequence of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris), together with a dense map of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across breeds. The dog is of particular interest because it provides important evolutionary information and because existing breeds show great phenotypic diversity for morphological, physiological and behavioural traits. We use sequence comparison with the primate and rodent lineages to shed light on the structure and evolution of genomes and genes. Notably, the majority of the most highly conserved non-coding sequences in mammalian genomes are clustered near a small subset of genes with important roles in development. Analysis of SNPs reveals long-range haplotypes across the entire dog genome, and defines the nature of genetic diversity within and across breeds. The current SNP map now makes it possible for genome-wide association studies to identify genes responsible for diseases and traits, with important consequences for human and companion animal health."

    Here is resulting comparative phylogeny

    Phylogeny of canid species
    Caption: The phylogenetic tree is based on approx15 kb of exon and intron sequence (see text). Branch colours identify the red-fox-like clade (red), the South American clade (green), the wolf-like clade (blue) and the grey and island fox clade (orange). The tree shown was constructed using maximum parsimony as the optimality criterion and is the single most parsimonious tree. Bootstrap values and bayesian posterior probability values are listed above and below the internodes, respectively; dashes indicate bootstrap values below 50% or bayesian posterior probability values below 95%. Horizontal bars indicate indels, with the number of indels shown in parentheses if greater than one. Underlined species names are represented with corresponding illustrations."

    Please explain where and how the researchers in this paper got their results wrong.

    Have you observed new organs coming from these modifications you have observed?

    Yes, science has. Here is a study where a mutation led to the formation of a functional two-chambered heart from a previously one-chambered one. This provides fascinating insight into the possible evolutionary pathways for our four chambered heart.

    Evolutionary origins of the vertebrate heart: Specification of the cardiac lineage in Ciona intestinalis

    When will you ever learn that arguing from your personal ignorance doesn't make the existing evidence go away?

    ReplyDelete
  39. MSEE: What I would like to see in regards to vision is a multi-volume work, say 30 volumes, detailing every random mutation and every natural selection involving every step: structural, biochemical, intracellular, everything.

    More than likely, you can't even trace your own lineage back a few thousand years, much less all the various mutations and genetic recombinations that occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Neal Tedford said...

    But it seems baby steps is even a stretch for documenting the details of so-called eye evolution. Perhaps they could start with an ancient animal from the Cambrian explosion and show us how the trilobite got its complex eyes? The innumerable multitude of ancestors leading up to the trilobite eye must fill volumes of Darwinian literature.


    My word but you're a willfully ignorant knob.

    Assembly of the cnidarian camera-type eye from vertebrate-like components

    "Abstract: Animal eyes are morphologically diverse. Their assembly, however, always relies on the same basic principle, i.e., photoreceptors located in the vicinity of dark shielding pigment. Cnidaria as the likely sister group to the Bilateria are the earliest branching phylum with a well developed visual system. Here, we show that camera-type eyes of the cubozoan jellyfish, Tripedalia cystophora, use genetic building blocks typical of vertebrate eyes, namely, a ciliary phototransduction cascade and melanogenic pathway. Our findings indicative of parallelism provide an insight into eye evolution. Combined, the available data favor the possibility that vertebrate and cubozoan eyes arose by independent recruitment of orthologous genes during evolution. "

    How many times are you going to make the same stupid claim "science doesn't know everything so therefore it doesn't know anything!" ?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I wrote:
    "You didn't even know that analyzing a new sequence provides an independent test of descent with modification."

    Neal, unable to understand written English, fabricated reality again:
    "The heart of the problem as skeptics see it always been that the modification actually observed is chicken feed compared with the modifications necessary to establish common descent."

    Neal, instead of falsely portraying what I said as part of your limited repertoire of preprogrammed hooey, reread what I wrote word by word:

    Analyzing a new sequence provides an independent test of descent with modification.

    Read before responding. It's a test with a new sequence that no human has ever seen before. Evolutionary theory makes a PREDICTION. I am TESTING THAT PREDICTION.

    Simple. No assumptions, no extrapolations. My question for you is, can you even state that prediction without all of your usual ranting? I predict that you can't. You are incapable of a simple dialog about a simple point.

    "You guys take a little non-controversial observed modification and add a lot of time and huge amounts of assumptions and you say that common descent is a fact."

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote, Neal.

    "Have you observed new organs coming from these modifications you have observed?"

    Huh? I am testing a prediction of evolutionary theory with a novel sequence. Try to keep up.

    "I have always wondered what gives you confidence in making this extrapolation?"

    What extrapolation, Neal? I'm testing a prediction, not making an extrapolation.

    "I've asked this of evolutionists many times before and never received an answer."

    That could be because you are incoherent.

    What prediction does modern evolutionary theory make about a novel sequence, Neal? No value judgments, no extrapolations, no organs.

    ReplyDelete
  42. MSEE wrote:
    "What I would like to see in regards to vision is a multi-volume work, say 30 volumes, detailing every random mutation and every natural selection involving every step: structural, biochemical, intracellular, everything."

    You wouldn't read it. You'd just move the goalposts again. Moreover, there's already far more than that that's been published, and you've read none of it.

    Remember how Behe was embarrassed at the Dover trial? And he used to be a real scientist who published new data!

    This accounting of every PROVEN detail…"

    ReplyDelete
  43. Neal lied:
    "But it seems baby steps is even a stretch for documenting the details of so-called eye evolution. "

    You've never read a single paper from the primary scientific literature about the details of eye function or evolution, have you?

    Was crystallin designed from scratch to be clear, for example?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thorton:
    "You didn't answer the question Neal. Try again. Why are potential human vaccines tested on rhesus monkeys and not chickens or fish?"

    Neal's dodging:
    "Thorton, FYI--- Flu vaccine is usually grown in fertilized chicken eggs."

    Charles:
    "P.S.: Growing a vaccine is not the same thing as testing it."

    No response from Neal, of course.

    Come on, Neal. You're not that dim that you'd conflate growing a vaccine with testing it, are you?

    And what about your claim about the platypus?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thornton: "What I would like to see to check your qualifications is a multi-volume work, say 30 volumes, detailing every last minute of time you spent in formal school.

    Pretty funny. Hey here's a real time saver for you: Examine the mathematical logic I use in my writing and form a professional opinion. If you aren't a mathematician/ physicist/ engineer, you may have to show such to somebody qualified. Otherwise pretty ridiculous argument.

    BTW, I noticed you had no more comments on how RMNS has no use after I showed you the NASA Evolvable Systems Group data. Why is that?

    I had no more comments because I read no more posts. I'm not particularly drawn to spending huge amounts of time here. You guys are the ones with the tar-baby obsession with these threads. You keep coming back to try to prove how ignorant us skeptics are and how brilliant your nineteenth century demigod-icon is. That you can't just be happy in your own rightness and satisfied that we're ignorant is pretty amusing.

    Beyond that I'll see if I can dig up your post on that. Since I am a believer in evolution, directed mutation, and in some scenarios RMNS, you may not be convincing me of something I don't believe.

    ReplyDelete
  46. MSEE said...

    Thornton: "What I would like to see to check your qualifications is a multi-volume work, say 30 volumes, detailing every last minute of time you spent in formal school.

    Pretty funny. Hey here's a real time saver for you: Examine the mathematical logic I use in my writing and form a professional opinion. If you aren't a mathematician/ physicist/ engineer, you may have to show such to somebody qualified. Otherwise pretty ridiculous argument.


    Why is it ridiculous? It's the same level of detail you demanded. Suppose I answered the same way you did: "sorry, I can't show you any evidence for eye evolution because you're not qualified to judge". Then I'd sound just as arrogant and clueless as you do. BTW, I did post a recent paper on evidence for eye evolution. You want to read it and tell me what the researchers got wrong?

    "BTW, I noticed you had no more comments on how RMNS has no use after I showed you the NASA Evolvable Systems Group data. Why is that?"

    I had no more comments because I read no more posts. I'm not particularly drawn to spending huge amounts of time here. You guys are the ones with the tar-baby obsession with these threads. You keep coming back to try to prove how ignorant us skeptics are and how brilliant your nineteenth century demigod-icon is. That you can't just be happy in your own rightness and satisfied that we're ignorant is pretty amusing.


    You have demonstrated that you are pretty ignorant on the biological sciences. You're also a pretty ignorant engineering student if you've never heard of genetic algorithms and don't understand how they work.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Smokey "You wouldn't read it. You'd just move the goalposts again. Moreover, there's already far more than that that's been published, and you've read none of it."

    I'm well aware of the overwhelming mass of literature in the various branches of the life sciences since my master's studies (bioengineering) and thesis were concerning cardiovascular mechanics, including the function of myocardium and its innervation. For you to say that the literature on eye function, morphology, and various types of intracellular organization, does what I expressed above is laughable. I have read enough in the life sciences to know how this literature pays homage to Darwinian evolution. Such references are invariably marked by the phrases "just may have been" "could be" etc. There is typically no reference to how these evolutionary musings will ever be proven with direct evidence. You can just pick one of the musings, say from 30 years ago. Then try as you might, nobody has contributed anything since then to answer the specific evolutionary musing in the subsequent 30 years. Such is science, that brilliant researchers are constrained by "normal science" to sing the praises of the materialist saint from the nineteenth century. And the whole thing about the inverted retina is just a joke. You guys still can't admit that the ID community predicted many years ago that the inverted retina would be seen to have spectacular functional advantages over the "Kenneth Miller Ideal" retina. Again I direct you to this link to see what I mean: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm

    ReplyDelete
  48. MSEE said...

    I'm well aware of the overwhelming mass of literature in the various branches of the life sciences since my master's studies (bioengineering) and thesis were concerning cardiovascular mechanics, including the function of myocardium and its innervation. For you to say that the literature on eye function, morphology, and various types of intracellular organization, does what I expressed above is laughable.


    Then you also know your ridiculous demand to see every last mutation and every last selection step in every generation for events that happen hundreds of millions of years ago is worse than laughable. It's downright brain-damaged stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thornton: "You have demonstrated that you are pretty ignorant on the biological sciences."

    You have demonstrated an obsession with the thread, the word "ignorant" and its "proper" application on this thread.

    I don't work in the life sciences and am not an expert in any of them. However almost all of my coursework for my master's was in the life sciences, as was my thesis. Read my last post addressing Smokey's points, for more detail. The exceptions were 2 graduate level statistics courses, very useful in biomedical engineering and the life sciences in general. In fact the well known Walpole & Myers statistics book is on my table right now as I occasionally have to refer to it for the work I'm doing.

    OK I'm waiting -- what'll be your next blast on the word ignorant --- have at it friend, be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. MSEE said...

    I don't work in the life sciences and am not an expert in any of them.


    But that doesn't stop you from making incredibly stupid claims and hand waving away the work of professional science researchers in the life sciences who are experts.

    You willing to read that paper on camera-type eye genetic components and tell me what the researchers got wrong? Or are you too busy patting yourself on the back for being such a forward thinking genius?

    ReplyDelete
  51. MSEE (MS in Electronic Engineering I presume) knows how to do basic analysis like Fourier transforms and has an introductory stats textbook on his desk, and in his mind this apparently puts him on an equal footing with evolutionary biologists. Most evolutionary biologists who work on the theory/modeling side have a PhD in maths or physics in addition to years of studying the biology they try to understand, so please don't think your skills are so impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Although the authors of the paper (on eye evolution) claim that "the question is now one of process rate rather than one of principle", they are nonetheless testing evolution. The reason is simple: if the rate had been SLOW (say requiring billions of years), this would amount to evidence against evolution. Converesly, a higher rate would count as evidence for evolution.

    Contrary to what Cornelius might think, the above test does not assume that evolution is true.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Troy says: "MSEE (MS in Electronic Engineering I presume) knows how to do basic analysis like Fourier transforms and has an introductory stats textbook on his desk, and in his mind this apparently puts him on an equal footing with evolutionary biologists. Most evolutionary biologists who work on the theory/modeling side have a PhD in maths or physics in addition to years of studying the biology they try to understand, so please don't think your skills are so impressive.

    Typical argumentation from you guys. It always seems to come back to something like: "you don't know s___". And this particular one wants to speculate "and in his mind..." after throwing out the Fourier transform terminology? What does the FT have to do with any of this? Unless -- oh, OK friend we'll be sure to get that you're really up on the field I'm in, we're impressed, if that's what you need. I mean you guys just can't get over the arguing from authority because your position is so precarious, and there are plenty of Ph.D's who know it.

    So far as R. Dawkins and his peers having doctorates or even much coursework in the hard sciences or math give me a break. I think it likely most of them could not get through Walpole and Myers, it's an upper division text with the full calculus sequence prerequisite. My citing this book obviously has nothing to do with claiming a particular expertise in the life sciences, so truly weird seeing someone making an issue of my using this book in my thesis work having nothing to do with the life sciences.

    BTW I don't know of any school in the U.S. that awards an MS in electronic engineering. Maybe Troy is from another continent.

    ReplyDelete
  54. MSEE:

    I mean you guys just can't get over the arguing from authority because your position is so precarious, and there are plenty of Ph.D's who know it.

    How many is "plenty"?

    Name 10, and we'll check out their contributions to science.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And, by the way, MSEE, I trust that those Ph.D's are not authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  56. MSEE said...

    So far as R. Dawkins and his peers having doctorates or even much coursework in the hard sciences or math give me a break. I think it likely most of them could not get through Walpole and Myers, it's an upper division text with the full calculus sequence prerequisite. My citing this book obviously has nothing to do with claiming a particular expertise in the life sciences, so truly weird seeing someone making an issue of my using this book in my thesis work having nothing to do with the life sciences.


    Then why did you bring the book up at all? You come across as an arrogant young jerk, crowing because you just graduated and having this goofy idea that proficiency in one area somehow makes you an expert in other unrelated areas.

    I've posted numerous scientific papers here outlining evidence for evolution and common descent, three in this thread alone. You won't touch them with a ten foot pole, but you'll play the attention whore and tell us what a genius engineer you are. Not very impressive, ya know?

    ReplyDelete
  57. MSEE brags:

    "So far as R. Dawkins and his peers having doctorates or even much coursework in the hard sciences or math give me a break. I think it likely most of them could not get through Walpole and Myers, it's an upper division text with the full calculus sequence prerequisite."

    Bwahaha. W&M is an introductory text that doesn't go beyond high school calculus. You obviously have no idea of the mathematical sophistication it takes to understand the models of modern evolutionary theory. Here's a little hint: one of the architects of the "Modern Synthesis" (not so modern anymore) of evolutionary theory, R.A. Fisher, pretty much invented frequentist statistics. Did you get around to the F-test already? Guess what the F stands for.

    ReplyDelete
  58. By the way, I'd like to thank Cornelius Hunter for his policy of allowing free debate on his blog. It's quite telling that Dr Hunter's identical blogs on UD attract far fewer comments; the reason being, of course, that UD actively discourages debate. Clive, you're a coward and a liar! You will go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  59. MSEE:
    "I'm well aware of the overwhelming mass of literature in the various branches of the life sciences since my master's studies (bioengineering) and thesis were concerning cardiovascular mechanics, including the function of myocardium and its innervation."

    Thesis? Was any of your thesis publishable in the primary scientific literature?

    "For you to say that the literature on eye function, morphology, and various types of intracellular organization, does what I expressed above is laughable."

    Really? Then cite 10 papers from the primary literature on eye function, morphology, and intracellular organization that you've read and understood.

    "I have read enough in the life sciences to know how this literature pays homage to Darwinian evolution."

    I doubt it. We'll see if you can point to 10 papers.

    "Such references are invariably marked by the phrases "just may have been" "could be" etc. There is typically no reference to how these evolutionary musings will ever be proven with direct evidence."

    You've already flunked scientific epistemology 101. Nothing in science is ever considered to be formally proven, every conclusion is provisional. But pick the papers and we'll see. Mostly we'll see that you won't pick any papers.

    "You can just pick one of the musings, say from 30 years ago. Then try as you might, nobody has contributed anything since then to answer the specific evolutionary musing in the subsequent 30 years."

    You haven't tried. For example, what contributions have alleged nobodies (at least relative to Your Highness) made to understand the evolution of the crystallins?

    "Such is science, that brilliant researchers are constrained by "normal science" to sing the praises of the materialist saint from the nineteenth century."

    What about the ones who discover and study non-Darwinian mechanisms? Doesn't that demonstrate that your premise is false?

    "And the whole thing about the inverted retina is just a joke. You guys still can't admit that the ID community predicted many years ago that the inverted retina would be seen to have spectacular functional advantages over the "Kenneth Miller Ideal" retina."

    "Would be seen to have advantages" isn't a scientific prediction, you goof. Scientific predictions are about empirical findings, not how we interpret them. Such is real science.

    "Again I direct you to this link…"

    Direct us to 10 papers from the primary literature on eye function, morphology, and intracellular organization that you've read and understood. Preferably ones with plenty of math.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Troy says: "MSEE brags"

    Bragging about what? Me telling you that its not very likley people in evolutionary "science" have much interest in higher mathematics? How is that bragging? I'll tell you what. I've never ever heard of anyone getting a Ph.D. in engineering, hard sciences or math and then deciding to go into a field that has contributed nothing to modern life, or science. To say that many of them do is a bunch of bluster. And I've never heard of calculus described as "high school calculus" ---more bluster. Nobody considers calculus a typical high school subject even though most high schools offer it to the advanced college bound. The prep school from which I graduated is in the top 4 in the south and when I was there offered 2 semesters and the 1st semester was analytic geometry.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thornton says: Then why did you bring the book up at all?

    Well if you ask a question about what I say, you should read what I say before asking. I will synopsize : Someone "accuses"
    me of being "ignorant" of biology. Maybe it was you, I don't have time to re-read your posts. I reply my specialization in grad school was in bioengineering, with all coursework life sciences related, (taught in my department e.g. Guyton's "Human Physiology"). The only 2 exceptions being 2 statistics courses, one upper division and one graduate level. As an ASIDE I MENTION ONE OF THE TEXTS IS ON MY TABLE.
    You come across as an arrogant young jerk, crowing because you just graduated and ...

    This for me mentioning that one of the books is in use by me right now? You are getting out of control and it shows as it always does by you guys witnessing the majority of this country disrespecting your fairy tale paradigm.

    having this goofy idea that proficiency in one area somehow makes you an expert in other unrelated areas.

    The alternative is the truly goofy idea that in order for me to have a correct opinion on a science or pseudoscience, I have to get an advanced degree in such. You're telling me I would have to get a degree in something falling out of favor in order to laugh at it. Truly goofy.

    I've posted numerous scientific papers here outlining evidence for evolution and common descent, three in this thread alone.

    In this thread I mention the interest I have in the "evolution" of vision. I mention monocular vs. binocular vision. Did you cite papers that have this one nailed? Which creature had monocular vision which started growing binocular vision? When was this animal discovered? You never address how this funtional structure just happens to be selected. You're more interested in name-calling i.e. "arrogant young jerk". Ever notice on these threads that is people in your camp that just can't resist the pejoratives? Every time? I mean one could comment for days on the level of maturity here.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hi, MSEE,

    Do you have that list of Ph.D's who know that modern evolutionary theory is a bluff?

    ReplyDelete
  63. MSEE:

    "Bragging about what? Me telling you that its not very likley people in evolutionary "science" have much interest in higher mathematics? How is that bragging? I'll tell you what. I've never ever heard of anyone getting a Ph.D. in engineering, hard sciences or math and then deciding to go into a field that has contributed nothing to modern life, or science. To say that many of them do is a bunch of bluster."

    That you have never heard of such people demonstrates your ignorance.

    I have heard of people with a PhD in maths or science that decided to go into a field that has contributed nothing to modern life [sic], or science. Dr Dembski comes to mind. So does Dr Hunter, and so does Dr Behe. All of them losers who couldn't hack it in real science.

    I also know plenty of people with a PhD in maths or physics or engineering that went into evolutionary biology and made major contributions to science. Such as Robert May and John Maynard Smith. Google them.

    The snotty little engineering student continues:

    "And I've never heard of calculus described as "high school calculus" ---more bluster. Nobody considers calculus a typical high school subject even though most high schools offer it to the advanced college bound. The prep school from which I graduated is in the top 4 in the south and when I was there offered 2 semesters and the 1st semester was analytic geometry. "

    You know, "I have never heard of" is not a good way to enter a discussion about a subject you haven't studied very well. Where I come from vector calculus is in high school. But then I'm from old Europe. I'm not too surprised that you didn't get calculus in high school in the southern US. Having said that, I have worked at the UT at Austin, an excellent center of learning and science, an island in a sea of ignorance.

    What is the most advanced theorem in your basic statistics text?

    ReplyDelete
  64. MSEE:
    "Bragging about what? Me telling you that its not very likley people in evolutionary "science" have much interest in higher mathematics?"

    Aside from the fact that a major branch of evolutionary biology, population biology, is largely based on mathematics, I'm wondering why you are specifying evolutionary biology.

    Do you think that the rest of biology (genetics, cell biology, neuroscience, physiology, pharmacology) is populated with evolution denialists, or evolution doubters, or even people who are indifferent?

    "How is that bragging?"

    Because you don't know what you are talking about.

    How about if you consider this paper?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682556/

    Does it have enough math for your tastes?

    Troy:
    "Dr Dembski comes to mind. So does Dr Hunter, and so does Dr Behe. All of them losers who couldn't hack it in real science."

    In fairness to Behe, we should note that he used to be a staid biochemist who did make real contributions to the primary literature. Of course, when he embraced ID, his productivity fell to zero and has been there ever since.

    Also, consistent with Behe's former status as a productive scientist who generates new data, he accepts common descent unlike the others.

    ReplyDelete
  65. MSEE tried the straw man fallacy because he's afraid to discuss any evidence:
    "The alternative is the truly goofy idea that in order for me to have a correct opinion on a science or pseudoscience, I have to get an advanced degree in such. You're telling me I would have to get a degree in something falling out of favor in order to laugh at it. Truly goofy."

    Absolutely, but no one has expressed that idea. For you to have an INFORMED opinion on the science, you have to make yourself familiar with the relevant evidence.

    Not what anyone says about it, but with the actual evidence. Are you intellectually capable of distinguishing between those things?

    No advanced degree is needed. Note that Dr. Hunter has an advanced degree, but all of his posts are about what people say, not about the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  66. True, Smokey. It seems that Behe did make some contributions to science until about 1995, according to Web of Science. Even a paper in PNAS with 80-odd citations. Way below par for a tenured professor in his field, but still. After 1995 it went all down hill. Is that when he "saw the light"?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Thorton: having this goofy idea that proficiency in one area somehow makes you an expert in other unrelated areas.

    MSEE: The alternative is the truly goofy idea that in order for me to have a correct opinion on a science or pseudoscience, I have to get an advanced degree in such.


    No, the alternative is to demonstrate at least a bit of competence in the subject, something you have failed at miserably. Your sum contributions so far are to make an incredibly stupid demand to see every last step in a process that happened hundreds of millions years ago, and to brag about what a well educated genius you are.

    Sorry, that kind of bluster may work well with your fellow IDiots but it doesn't cut the muster in the real scientific world.

    You still refuse to discuss any of the papers I've posted, or tell me why the scientific conclusions in them are wrong. You insist of clinging to the same stupid canard that if science doesn't hold your hand and explain everything then it doesn't know anything. There are lots of things science is still investigating - binocular vision for example is closely tied with the evolution of bilateral symmetry - but that doesn't somehow negate all that is known.

    All in all, the phrase "arrogant young jerk" seems to be a most appropriate description.

    ReplyDelete
  68. diaper boy:
    There is absolutely zero controversy in the scientific community - NONE - over the established fact of common descent.

    There isn't any way to objectively test the premise of Universal Common Descent.

    Therefor it isn't science.

    Heck you clowns can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    So instead of ignorantly attacking ID the better idea would be to actually try to support your position.

    ReplyDelete
  69. David, you'll find more than 10 skeptics of Darwinism on http://www.discovery.org/ website. Lot's of PhD's in that group. But, of course, your next post will somehow disparage the site or those listed.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Platypus,

    Apparently chromosomal sex determination is a combination of mammals and birds in the Platypus. Ten chromosomes form chains during the cell division that make sperm or eggs. The chromosomes at one end of the chromosome chain are similar to mammalian sex chromosomes and the other end has characteristics of bird sex chromosomes.

    The platypus X1 chromosome has 11 genes found on all mammalian X chromosomes and the X5 carries a gene called DMRT1, which is also found on the Z chromosome in birds.

    I did not see a bird in the lineage of the monotreme you linked to. I'm sure one can be drawn into history if evolutionists thought it would make the story line sound better.

    Also, the Platypus bill has a highly tuned receptor that picks up very weak electric fields of shrimp and worms. The bill skin has 100,000 innervated mechanoreceptors and electroreceptors. What ancestor had this ability? A fish? Another example of evolution developing independent functions over again?

    From all the fuss from evolutionists about the Platypus perhaps it warrants a lot more attention. I've seemed to have struck a nerve. Here's a creature with genes and/or features of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish.

    Mosaic creatures are not a good selling point for evolutionists. Trying to fit monotremes into a so-called nested hiearchy is contrived and like putting a square peg in a round hole... you can do it with a hammer while ignoring the contrary evidence. Monotremes appear in the fossil record as monotremes and little has changed except for some degeneration in size and trivial aspects. I guess that confirms that all of life descended from a warm little pond that was struck by lightning according to evolutionists.





    .

    ReplyDelete
  71. Neal Tedford: you'll find more than 10 skeptics of Darwinism on http://www.discovery.org/ website.

    How many are named Steve?

    Of note is the ambiguity of the signing statement.

    We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

    Lots of evolutionary biologists are skeptical of such a simplistic reduction of evolutionary processes. Gee whiz, Larry Moran is a skeptic of "Darwinism"!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Neal Tedford said...

    Platypus,

    Apparently chromosomal sex determination is a combination of mammals and birds in the Platypus.


    No it isn't you idiot. That particular bit of stupidity is dealt with here.

    Why did you post that particular bit of tard in two separate threads? Were you that proud of it?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Neal wrote:
    "Ten chromosomes form chains during the cell division that make sperm or eggs."

    Chains, Neal? How can you discuss this intelligently when you employ a lower-than-junior-high-level vocabulary?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Smokey,

    There aren't any intelligent discussions when you are involved...

    ReplyDelete
  75. Haha. Joe G is so dumb he doesn't even know it. What happened Joe, didn't get any oxygen for half an hour when your poor mother delivered you?

    ReplyDelete
  76. troy,

    Your mommy is calling- it is time for your diaper change....

    ReplyDelete
  77. Weird, because I am without clothes next to your mother. What she told me about you during pillow-talk, man...

    ReplyDelete
  78. My mother died in 1984 you sick freak...

    ReplyDelete