Wednesday, November 17, 2010

More Switches Than the Internet

Array tomography, yet another new biological imaging technology, is yielding early results. Click here, for example, to see a video rendition of a mouse cortex. Here’s how one writer described the new results:


The human brain is truly awesome. A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.

[…]

Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have spent the past few years engineering a new imaging model, which they call array tomography, in conjunction with novel computational software, to stitch together image slices into a three-dimensional image that can be rotated, penetrated and navigated.

[…]

They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study:

And as Smith explains:

One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor—with both memory-storage and information-processing elements—than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.

Evolutionists are certain, however, that all of this—and all the rest of biology by the way—just happened to arise on its own. They can’t explain how, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact. After all, any other explanation is not scientific and in any case chimpanzees and humans have way too much in common. Anyway the world is too evil and god never would have made all those beetles, so evolution must be true. With evolutionists, it's all about philosophy and theology. Religion drives science and it matters.

213 comments:

  1. Cornelius, you're getting further and further removed from reality with each pointless raving post.

    It's kind of sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius, you're getting closer and closer to reality with each wonderful poignant post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just wrote a lengthy post but the "internet" erased it. I hate the internet. Good post Cornelius.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry I shouldn't say I hate the internet. It is convenient in may ways. It's just frustrating at times.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Darwinian mechanism is at its core a binary OR (survive or not survive) via a random driver. Its simply logically insufficient as a mechanism to account for life except for acting on existing life to a varying and limited probabalistic degree. This should be obvious even to a Darwinian NS & RM monger by now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thorton , you're getting further and further removed from reality with each pointless raving post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When Darwinists have nothing more to say than the salient idiocies of Thornton et al., you know they're getting worried in face of the facts of life.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gary:

    "When Darwinists have nothing more to say than the salient idiocies of Thornton et al., you know they're getting worried in face of the facts of life."
    =======

    True, and while I can agree with this(especially in Thorton's case) as a result of personal experience and observation over the years, it should also likewise be admitted that such neanderthal behavior is also found many other religious groups who have been known to go to such extremes on occasion, even so far as to kill their opponents.

    It's just sad that what could otherwise be an important discussion turns into some childish adolescent poop throwing contest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. William Brookfield:

    "I just wrote a lengthy post but the "internet" erased it. I hate the internet. Good post Cornelius."
    =======

    You need to approach posting in this blogspot comments section as you would Public Speaking where you have a restrictive timeframe for which to deliver your material. In public speaking you need to only focus on a few main point and the same is true here. Too many points and you run overtime in your speech. Too many points elaborated on here and the program deletes your lengthy post automatically. Too many points also loose your audience.

    Focus on one or two, then create another post to add further material or points as you need. Even when you receive that error message that let's you know your post is "TOO LARGE", your post just still may still go through. However a second post immediately after that will often cause the program (for whatever unknown reason) to delete your previous post.

    Just make them smaller even if you have much material which ends up being in smaller posts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thorton said...
    Cornelius, you're getting further and further removed from reality with each pointless raving post.

    In what way was Cronelius removing himself from reality with this post?
    What exactly about the post did you react to?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmm, yes, there are lots of cells in the brain (and the rest of the body) and they all grow from a single egg. The result of this growth is complexity.

    Understanding how this happens is more about understanding how cells grow and divide than it is about evolution. Generating this type of complexity is not an insurmountable problem when you look at it in terms of cells replicating - in terms of computational modelling you can use relatively simple, local rules for cellular behaviour that will generate very complex structures.

    Highlighting the words 'like a microprocessor' just illustrates why scientists have to be wary of using analogies to human artifacts. People like Cornelius will try and argue that because you can draw weak analogies between human artifacts and biological ones it must mean they were designed. As far as we know, humans didn't design life, and the only observed example we have of any intelligence creating an 'information processing system' are humans making computers - which are radically different in their design than biological brains.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bill Bigge:

    "Understanding how this happens is more about understanding how cells grow and divide than it is about evolution."
    =====

    On this point Bill you are correct. Every scientific finding the past few years on the complexity and sophistication with what cells do, how they work and function with purpose and intended goals and massive amounts of resources to correct errors does not bode well for evolutionary explanations. Why ??? Because by it's religious nature, the original philosophical-ideological-metaphysical thought of evolution philosophers spews up images of blind undirected random luck forces with no goals, no direction, purpose or intent for any of the things it is given storytelling credit for accomplishing. Yes, there is quite a difference.
    ------

    Bill Bigge:

    "Generating this type of complexity is not an insurmountable problem when you look at it in terms of cells replicating - in terms of computational modelling you can use relatively simple, local rules for cellular behaviour that will generate very complex structures."
    ======

    The only complexity I can see is an evolutionist actually being honest and explaining with a straight face just how brilliantly sophisticated complex running molecular machines driven and guided by the most complex information storage compression mechanism ever known resulted from nothing more than blind undirected forces physics and chemcials. This is never touched upon. It's almost as if the very subject itself has some kind of Rabies or some morphed super-infectious version of the AIDS virus that can be contracted by a mere touch.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bill Bigge:

    "Highlighting the words 'like a microprocessor' just illustrates why scientists have to be wary of using analogies to human artifacts.
    =======

    I agree, I wish they would stop using words like "INFORMATION" and replace the usuage of such terms which denotes ordered intelligence to words like "FRACTALS" or "PATTERNS" since from almost every Evolutionist's mouth we are told there is no such thing as true information inside DNA. Such intelligent origined word/terms are misleading to the very nature of Evolutionist Doctrine/Dogma. Thanks for appreciating that. *thumbs up*
    -------

    Bill Bigge:

    "People like Cornelius will try and argue that because you can draw weak analogies between human artifacts and biological ones it must mean they were designed.
    =======

    Cornelius has said many times he is an "Impiricist", not a "Rationalist". He wants hard facts and evidence, not philosophy and metaphysics(religious Stories, fables, myths, etc).
    -------

    Bill Bigge:

    "As far as we know, humans didn't design life, and the only observed example we have of any intelligence creating an 'information processing system' are humans making computers - which are radically different in their design than biological brains."
    =======

    Again you are correct. The intelligently designed computer communications systems designed by human intelligence are a mere fraction of the sophistication and complexity of the communications systems found in the natural world which supposedly happened as a result of nothing more than blind pointlessness of undirected forces and chemcials all by themselves with no help from any intelligence with the exception of Richard Dawkin's aliens.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Eocene:"The only complexity I can see is an evolutionist actually being honest and explaining with a straight face just how brilliantly sophisticated complex running molecular machines driven and guided by the most complex information storage compression mechanism ever known resulted from nothing more than blind undirected forces physics and chemcials. This is never touched upon."
    ---------------------------------------

    Really? Apart from all those scientists researching biogenesis of course, but I guess they don't count and neither does any of their experimental work!

    ---------------------------------------
    "Again you are correct. The intelligently designed computer communications systems designed by human intelligence are a mere fraction of the sophistication and complexity of the communications systems found in the natural world..."
    ---------------------------------------

    The phrase irreducible complexity comes to mind doesn't it. If you knock out a few transistors from a computer it will have a critical affect on the computers operation, they are brittle, they need to be designed. If you knock out a few neurons or synapses the brain keeps working. Computers follow strict archetectural rules, brains are messy and approximate - every one is wired differently - yet they ususlly work fine.

    These types of messy, approximate systems are very ameanable to evolution because they can tolerate a large degree of variation during construction.

    ---------------------------------------
    "Cornelius has said many times he is an "Impiricist""
    ---------------------------------------

    Then he should start to pay attention to evidence and fact instead of making confused statements about things he doesn't seem to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The little bit of research that I've been involved with into the origin of self replicators isn't driven by religion, it is an attempt to establish if and how self replicating systems can occur naturally, and under what circumstances.

    You seem to claim that they can't, I prefer to try and find out if they can before making any definitive claims either way. We know a lot of things that indicate that it might be possible, but the unknowns are even greater which is why we do emperical research rather than armwaiving.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bill Bigge:

    "Really? Apart from all those scientists researching biogenesis of course, but I guess they don't count and neither does any of their experimental work!"
    =====

    I want hard facts and evidence, not conjectured RNA-World fables and myths found on YouTube!
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "The phrase irreducible complexity comes to mind doesn't it. If you knock out a few transistors from a computer it will have a critical affect on the computers operation, they are brittle, they need to be designed. If you knock out a few neurons or synapses the brain keeps working. Computers follow strict archetectural rules, brains are messy and approximate - every one is wired differently - yet they ususlly work fine."

    "These types of messy, approximate systems are very ameanable to evolution because they can tolerate a large degree of variation during construction."
    =====

    Ecological systems everywhere around the Earth are having major important componants knocked out all over the place and systems are failing. Science is directly responsible for this and has no concept that the fix has zero to do with a materialist "Fix-It-Pill" approach as it needs a spiritual one (people doing the right thing). I know, unacceptable.
    =====

    Bill Bigge:

    "Then he should start to pay attention to evidence and fact instead of making confused statements about things he doesn't seem to understand."
    =====

    Apparently you have an entirely different take on what a fact and evidence actually are. Opinions, gut feelings, assumptions, assertions, telling a make-believe story where gaps are everywhere and clear data is absent do NOT translate to a FACT.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bill Bigge:

    "The little bit of research that I've been involved with into the origin of self replicators isn't driven by religion, it is an attempt to establish if and how self replicating systems can occur naturally, and under what circumstances."
    ======

    I have no problem with that. Experiment and research away. However, you are taking the wrong approach. Actual life is not about inert chemcial reactions of some material substrate replicating crystaline patterns triggerd by some other chemcial catalyst. Life is the result of the information that drives it. So how does just one informational code(plans, instructions, blueprints, bytes, bits, ideas, algorithm file, etc) develope from nothing more than chemicals and physics ???
    =====

    Bill Bigge:

    "You seem to claim that they can't, I prefer to try and find out if they can before making any definitive claims either way. We know a lot of things that indicate that it might be possible, but the unknowns are even greater which is why we do emperical research rather than armwaiving."
    ======

    Ever see the scf-fi movie staring Jodi Foster called, "Contact" ??? They were looking for possible life from other worlds. Rather than using giant super-sophisticated Telescopes to find proof of life, they actually were looking for a "CODE/S". Why were they doing that Bill ???

    ReplyDelete
  18. You know what else these advanced imaging techniques are good for? Testing evolutionary hypotheses:

    Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium.

    "Comparison to the vertebrate pallium reveals that the annelid mushroom bodies develop from similar molecular coordinates within a conserved overall molecular brain topology and that their development involves conserved patterning mechanisms and produces conserved neuron types that existed already in the protostome-deuterostome ancestors. These data indicate deep homology of pallium and mushroom bodies and date back the origin of higher brain centers to prebilaterian times."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/20813265?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000%2Cf1000m

    ReplyDelete
  19. RobertC:

    "Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium."
    =======

    I've heard the mushroom story before. Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???

    Cauliflower

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I have no problem with that. Experiment and research away. However, you are taking the wrong approach. ... So how does just one informational code(plans, instructions, blueprints, bytes, bits, ideas, algorithm file, etc) develope from nothing more than chemicals and physics ??? "
    ----------------------------

    Bizzare statement - this is exactly the kind of thing we are investigating - so why is trying to establish under what circumstances the laws of physics and the resut of chemical interactions could produce self replicating systems the wrong approach to trying to understand if and how self replicating systems can be produced by nature?

    You seem to think that we need t understand where information comes from before we can understand how replicators form, the reverse is actually true, if we understand how replicators form, and subsiquently evolve in the biological sense, then we have identified the process by which this information was generated. Information is not an entity in its self, it is a property of matter, the measure of which is dependant on context - and on the formal definition of information that the observer is using when taking measurements.

    ----------------------------
    "Ever see the scf-fi movie staring Jodi Foster called, "Contact" ??? They were looking for possible life from other worlds. Rather than using giant super-sophisticated Telescopes to find proof of life, they actually were looking for a "CODE/S". Why were they doing that Bill ???"
    ----------------------------

    SETI look for anomalous radio and optical signals. They want to find signals that correlate with the types of radio signals that humans produce, but which aren't known to occur in nature (including the rest of biology). We know humans make radios and can transmit signals into space, we hypothesise that if any other intelligent life exists within the universe then it might also find out how to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ""Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium."
    =======
    Eocene:

    I've heard the mushroom story before. Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???"

    +++++++++++++++++

    I'm not sure if you are trying to make a joke here. Annelids are ringed worms. Mushroom bodies are a pair of neuronal structures in insects and arthropods, etc.

    http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/Flybrain/html/contrib/2000/crittenden/FIG1/fig1.html

    No one is arguing humans are descended from mushrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cornelius said:
    "Evolutionists are certain, however, that all of this—and all the rest of biology by the way—just happened to arise on its own. They can’t explain how, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact."

    Gene duplication, exaptation. But please continue with "Lalala, I can't hear you." At least you know the tune very well by now.

    Dr Hunter needs another math refresher, this time on the power of compound interest.

    2^40 is a little over a trillion. If you wanted to build a body with a trillion cells, the genetic instructions would need to include 40 "grow, then split" instructions. But 2^6 is more than 40, so the original "grow, then split" gene would only need to be duplicated 6 times over a billion of years of history to move from single celled creatures to trillion celled creatures.

    Of course, the scientist's analogy to a microprocessor is a stretch, but since it helps his storytelling, Dr Hunter is not going to call him on it. The Intel 4004, the first microprocessor, had about 2,300 transistors according to Wikipedia. That doesn't include memory.

    ReplyDelete
  23. RobertC

    "I'm not sure if you are trying to make a joke here. Annelids are ringed worms. Mushroom bodies are a pair of neuronal structures in insects and arthropods, etc.

    http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/Flybrain/html/contrib/2000/crittenden/FIG1/fig1.html

    No one is arguing humans are descended from mushrooms."
    ======

    The abstract you quoted referenced the word "PATTERNS" and that was the same subject I was discussing with Bill Bigge. Hence my reference to cauliflower which has a sort of Human brain pattern ??? If all it is , is patterns anyway, then why not cauliflower ???

    Mark Twain said "Cauliflower is Cabbage with an education"

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The abstract you quoted referenced the word "PATTERNS" and that was the same subject I was discussing with Bill Bigge. Hence my reference to cauliflower which has a sort of Human brain pattern ??? If all it is , is patterns anyway, then why not cauliflower ???"

    Rivers and streams look like blood vessels from a distance, does this imply that they were designed? I'm not sure why you think cauliflower heads look like brains though - is is because they are white?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eocene-

    I'm not sure how your response accounts for going from the comparative anatomy and molecular biology of worm brain structures (which happen to be called mushroom bodies) and the vertebrate pallium to:

    "Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???"

    The abstract I referenced cites patterning mechanisms, which you can look up yourself.

    Since were on the subject-from an ID perspective, the recognition of patterns is key.

    Suppose I argue human brains and cauliflower DO share common design. How would ID falsify this silly hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Researchers thought that they had simulated half a mouse brain on a BlueGene L Supercomputer back in 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6600965.stm


    If a synapse is now considered more complex than imagined, then this takes the level of complexity to a whole new level. Excellent article by CH. The synapses as storage and information processors certainly makes a lot of sense. Wow. So, we've seen comparisions of a single eukaryote cell being like a city and the brain liken to the world wide web. When King David (1000 BC) said that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" he was right on target.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gary said...

    When Darwinists have nothing more to say than the salient idiocies of Thornton et al., you know they're getting worried in face of the facts of life.


    LOL! Sure little yap dog. I'm sure the scientific community is just worried sick about Creationist clowns like you posting ignorance based rants on a backwater blog.

    Speaking of avoiding facts, when are you going to provide that disproof of evolution by using equations from statistical mechanics you promised us? You sure tucked tail and ran on that bit of empty bluster when called on it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ever see the scf-fi movie staring Jodi Foster called, "Contact" ??? They were looking for possible life from other worlds. Rather than using giant super-sophisticated Telescopes to find proof of life, they actually were looking for a "CODE/S". Why were they doing that Bill ???

    Wow. First mushroom bodies = cauliflower, then this. Yet another reason this board needs a *facepalm* smiley.

    The inability to distinguish a science fiction movie from actual science research is yet another reason no one takes your IDC blithering seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bill Bigge:



    "Bizzare statement - this is exactly the kind of thing we are investigating - so why is trying to establish under what circumstances the laws of physics and the resut of chemical interactions could produce self replicating systems the wrong approach to trying to understand if and how self replicating systems can be produced by nature?
    ========

    The problem Bill is that imformation itself has nothing to do with any kind/type of material substrate.

    -Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and “Father of Modern Cybernetics”

    “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”

    Do you take this above understanding and FACT into account with your experimentation and development with regards your personal research ???

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bill Bigge:

    "You seem to think that we need to understand where information comes from before we can understand how replicators form, the reverse is actually true, if we understand how replicators form, and subsiquently evolve in the biological sense, then we have identified the process by which this information was generated.
    ======

    Maybe this is why I believe information has to come first before the material replicators.

    Francis Crick's "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology"

    The encoded information within DNA always controls the protein material, not the other way around. Even frustrated Crick eventually tried Panspermia logic. Why ??? A God was simply unacceptable which makes this issue a philosophical/idological one as opposed to anything to do with science.

    You say you are an expert of sorts with regard computers. In the ASCII code system, what is represented by all those 1's and 0's in their various orders ??? Do you think they represent only plastic housing, copper wiring, voltage, magnetism, glass, etc ??? Or does it represent rather the ideas, plans, schemes, blueprints, math calculations, etc of a mind ??? DNA works the same way. Proteins don't dictate information to the DNA anymore than plastic, copper or voltage dictate real information back to the computer's software.

    Ribosomes obey DNA and build structures based on those instructions received, not the other way around. That's actually the definition of an intelligent communications system. An encoder, transmitter/messenger and a decoder. Both start and end componants use a beforehand agreed upon language, otherwise the system breaks down. How could molecular machines(with all their own sophistication) magically morph without instructions to do so without the laws of the Central Dogma being enforced ???

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bill Bigge:

    "Information is not an entity in its self, it is a property of matter, the measure of which is dependant on context - and on the formal definition of information that the observer is using when taking measurements."
    ======

    Bill I never said information was an intelligent enity, that would be silly or at best some type of an materialist or animist religion. However all intelligent information we know the origin of comes from a mind. Just like any information you develope for your artificial life or robots comes directly from you. The robots do not develope some artificial intelligent life and then magically becomes self-aware. The information is not you, but it came from you.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Do you take this above understanding and FACT into account with your experimentation and development with regards your personal research ???"

    That is a statement, not a fact - show me some information that exists, but is not in the form of a contextual arrangement of matter or energy.

    How do you suggest I incorporate the idea of disembodied (substrate free) information into an experiment?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Neal, I'm just waiting on you to confirm that you understand the grouping in the previous thread so I can move on to my next (and last) point, and answer your other questions.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Bill I never said information was an intelligent enity, that would be silly or at best some type of an materialist or animist religion."

    I never said that you said that information was an intelligent entity, just that you appeared to claim that it existed independantly of matter, energy and context.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thorton:

    "The inability to distinguish a science fiction movie from actual science research is yet another reason no one takes your IDC blithering seriously."
    ======

    Funny indeed. You must have stumbled upon a mind slump as I have yet to see one of your usual cut n paste abstract specialties lately, just the usual uninformative snarks.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bill Bigge:
    You seem to think that we need to understand where information comes from before we can understand how replicators form, the reverse is actually true, if we understand how replicators form, and subsiquently evolve in the biological sense, then we have identified the process by which this information was generated.

    I think a number of us would agree that discovering the source of information in biology is probably the most important discovery science could make.

    Can matter somehow rearrange itself into "intelligent sequences" without the benefit of a pre-existing intelligence or can this be accomplished by relying strictly on natural laws and the interaction of matter?

    To discover that autonomous natural processes could generate information would be a monumental discovery indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "You say you are an expert of sorts with regard computers. In the ASCII code system, what is represented by all those 1's and 0's in their various orders ??? Do you think they represent only plastic housing, copper wiring, voltage, magnetism, glass, etc ??? Or does it represent rather the ideas, plans, schemes, blueprints, math calculations, etc of a mind ??? DNA works the same way. Proteins don't dictate information to the DNA anymore than plastic, copper or voltage dictate real information back to the computer's software."

    We build computers to do work for us, the information they contain, be it information entered by a human or information gathered by sensors, requires the physical archetecture of the computer for it to exist there.

    DNA works the same way - it is an arrangement of matter.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "I think a number of us would agree that discovering the source of information in biology is probably the most important discovery science could make."

    If you are talking about biogenesis then we are really talking about how chemical systems can produce replicators capable of descent with modification - basically replicators that make imperfect, but sometimes functional copies.

    If you are talking about biological evolution then "the source of information in biology" is an interaction of inperfect replicators in a complex environment - this has been known about since ..... Darwin!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Bill Bigge:

    "That is a statement, not a fact - show me some information that exists, but is not in the form of a contextual arrangement of matter or energy."
    ======

    Here's an example Bill. Are you ready ???

    Okay, now "THINK" about it. Now show us how your thoughts can originate by nothing more than chemicals and the undirected forces of physics without any help from you and that these thoughts then become just so information onto a material platform. It's a simple matter of chemicals and catalyst making crystal patterns and fractals, right Bill ???

    Again, "THINK" about it. Your thoughts only become material when you imput them into your computer or physically write them down with a pen on paper. Only then do they EVER become material.
    ------

    Bill Bigge:

    "How do you suggest I incorporate the idea of disembodied (substrate free) information into an experiment?"
    ======

    EXACTLY , I don't, this is not my problem Bill. It's yours. I could never prove what you hope to prove and I admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Can matter somehow rearrange itself into "intelligent sequences""

    I'm not sure what you mean by this - the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems? Adding the label intelligent to the product of a chemical process is confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Okay, now "THINK" about it."
    -------------------------

    Ok, I thought about it. It occurred to me when I was thinking that if I were in a brain scanner you would be able to observe me thinking about it - you could see the changing blood flow and electrical signals produced by my brain as I thought.

    -------------------------
    "Your thoughts only become material when you imput them into your computer or physically write them down with a pen on paper."
    -------------------------

    If that were true then you wouldn't be able to see my brain working when I thought about it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bill: "How do you suggest I incorporate the idea of disembodied (substrate free) information into an experiment?"
    ======

    Eocene: "EXACTLY , I don't, this is not my problem Bill. It's yours. I could never prove what you hope to prove and I admit it."

    It is your problem because you are making this claim - that information exists independantly of matter and energy. If you want me to incorporate this into my experiments then you need a theoretical framework. - some systematic description of how this information works when decoupled from matter, and how it interacts with matter.

    You are claiming it exists so go away and prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Bill Bigge:

    "DNA works the same way - it is an arrangement of matter."
    ======

    Bill, the encoded information etched and encryted into DNA and the protein molecules actually making the DNA are not the same. Anymore than your immaterial ideas inside of your personal secret thoughts in your head are not the same as them eventually being written down on paper.

    I usually get a debate about a snowflake being information becuase it's a pattern. Unfortunately for them, there is no H2O water molecule or group of water molecules encoded with instructions for the formation of any type of snowflake pattern. There is no information encryted in a group of water molecules which explain or defines themselves or contain a library of all the amazing countless Water Anomalies which most people know nothing about.

    Does that make sense ???

    ReplyDelete
  44. Doublee said...

    I think a number of us would agree that discovering the source of information in biology is probably the most important discovery science could make.

    Can matter somehow rearrange itself into "intelligent sequences" without the benefit of a pre-existing intelligence or can this be accomplished by relying strictly on natural laws and the interaction of matter?

    To discover that autonomous natural processes could generate information would be a monumental discovery indeed.


    Science already knows the source of information in biological entities. It comes from the environment. When you get a population of imperfect self-replicators competing for resources, selection pressure from the environment will determine which lives to pass on its genes and which dies. That interaction determines the information content of each subsequent generation, and can indeed produce new information.

    This is not new news. Science has known it for years. It's the basis of the whole science of genetic algorithms, where the iterative application of a few simple evolutionary processes can produce wonderfully complex designs chock-ful-o' new information.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bill Bigge:

    "I'm not sure what you mean by this - the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems? Adding the label intelligent to the product of a chemical process is confusing."
    ======

    No you don't understand that in biological life, it's a code of instructions that fascilitate replication otherwise evolution never gets off the ground. It's not about the material. In the RNA world of Viruses, they need a host cell with DNA to hijack/steal in order to replicate. How did the Fable/Myth RNA World ever function without that informational code ???

    Again, these are not my problems or beliefs, they are your side's alone. So experiment all you want.

    I've enjoyed this, but forgive me as i have got to go to a meeting just now and I'm rushed.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Science already knows the source of information in biological entities. It comes from the environment."

    Indeed, Dembski and Marks accidentally concede this in their paper.

    "Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper." from http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf

    So if fitness and selection are a source of information in a simulation, why aren't they in nature?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "there is no H2O water molecule or group of water molecules encoded with instructions for the formation of any type of snowflake pattern."

    The pattern arises due to the way water molecules behave under varying temperature and other environmental conditions. It is not much of a mystery, but there is plenty still to be understood.

    "Does that make sense ???"

    Yes, perfect sense - you don't understand how water can form ice crystals. What I don't understand is why you need to postulate some disembodied property called information to explain something that is explained by looking at how water behaves as temperature changes.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "No you don't understand that in biological life, it's a code of instructions that fascilitate replication otherwise evolution never gets off the ground. "

    No, it is the arrangement of matter and its subsiquent behaviour that allows for replication.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Bill Bigge said...

    Yes, perfect sense - you don't understand how water can form ice crystals. What I don't understand is why you need to postulate some disembodied property called information to explain something that is explained by looking at how water behaves as temperature changes.


    It makes perfect sense to an IDCer, as if fits right in with their "lets make up meaningless sciency-sounding gobbledygook to snow the laymen" campaign.

    Next we'll be hearing about "complex specified information", and "informational specified complexity", and "functional specified information", and "digital specified complex information", and whatever other meaningless buzzphrases the IDiots can dream up.

    ReplyDelete
  50. disembodied digital functional specified complex guided nonrandom algorithmic psuedoshannon information - DDFSCGNAP

    ReplyDelete
  51. When a transcription factor binds DNA, it’s not looking at the information stored; it’s searching for a complementary 3 dimensional structure. We could make a chemical compound with a 3 dimensional structure similar to that DNA sequence, and the transcription factor would bind it. That’s the principle behind inhibitors by the way.

    In other word, if we were to encode all the biological information of an organism using molecules other than nucleic acids, it would not give a living organism (even if all the “information” is present). Every protein that interacts with DNA is relying on its 3 dimensional structure.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Charles: "When a transcription factor binds DNA, it’s not looking at the information stored; it’s searching for a complementary 3 dimensional structure."

    Exactly, 'information' is defined and contained by the structure, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Bill Bigge:

    ===
    People like Cornelius will try and argue that because you can draw weak analogies between human artifacts and biological ones it must mean they were designed.
    ===

    So where did I say that? Of course I didn't, but this is how discussions go with evolutionists. They make non scientific, dogmatic claims. Evolution is an undeniable fact. And when questioned, and their claims are shown to be absurd, they start making things up.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Cornelius,
    "So where did I say that? Of course I didn't, but this is how discussions go with evolutionists."

    and this is different than you and your strawman version of "evolutionists" based on some quotations from Miller and GOuld? Please, save your hypocritical crocodile tears.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "And when questioned, and their claims are shown to be absurd.."

    yes, nothing like a dorm-room style analogy between the brain and the internet to show that a claim is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  56. nanobot74:

    ===
    and this is different than you and your strawman version of "evolutionists" based on some quotations from Miller and GOuld? Please, save your hypocritical crocodile tears.
    ===

    Yes, I suppose that Leibniz, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Wallace, Le Conte, de Beer, Grant, Mayr, Eldredge, Gould, Ayala, Miller, Coyne, Alexander, Simpson, Ridley, Williams, Futuyma, Ruse, Jones, ..., etc, virtually every textbook, the list goes on and on, all these are misrepresenting evolution. Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists. Reading the evolution genre and asking evolutionists to justify their claims is really just quote-mining. Asking evolutionists to make sense of the major themes in their own literature is really just creating strawmen arguments.

    So here's how it works. They literally make things up and ascribe them to you. But that's OK. When you ask about it, they ignore the question, and immediately claim your questions about what they *do* say (and say all the time, all through their literature), is nothing more than a strawman.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Bill bigge

    Why different materials wouldn't perform same functions? We can recognize function by what it is regardless of medium.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "They literally make things up and ascribe them to you."

    Ok, lets take something you DID say:

    "Clearly Darwin’s idea is mathematically tractable. That is, if fitness landscapes are relatively smooth and reasonably shaped, and if an initial population just happens to appear, and if biological variation just happens to arise and accumulate, and if populations do not resist such change, then of course species can evolve to new designs."

    So, I await proof that:

    1) Most (all) fitness landscapes are unreasonably shaped, or
    2) Life (a population) does not exist, or
    3) Biological variation does not arise and accumulate, or
    4) Adaptation is not possible

    Or is evolution tractable?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Cornelius: "So where did I say that? "

    It was implied in the way you highlighted the phrase "like a microprocessor" as should have been clear from the context of what I wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Eugen: "Why different materials wouldn't perform same functions? We can recognize function by what it is regardless of medium."

    Different materials don't function the same way but they can perform similar functions.

    I can recognize that a lake functions to support an ecosystem. Was the lake designed?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bill Bigge

    "No, it is the arrangement of matter and its subsiquent behaviour that allows for replication. "

    Would this help you understand Bill?


    http://www.physorg.com/news120920995.html

    "“He likens the process to building a house. Starting with basic materials such as bricks, wood, siding, stone and shingles, a construction team can build many different types of houses out of the same building blocks. In the Northwestern work, the DNA controls where the building blocks (the gold nanoparticles) are positioned in the final crystal structure, arranging the particles in a functional way. The DNA does all the heavy lifting so the researchers don’t have to.”


    It looks like these guys know what they’re talking about and designed synthesized DNA to do the major work for them. The key phrase in the article is "DNA controls" the process. From my limited knowledge of the subject, anything that controls anything needs some sort of programmer/programming


    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  62. Bill Bigge

    "Information is not an entity in its self, it is a property of matter"

    Really? Where are the material particles of information found? How do they interact with protons?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Bill

    I can recognize that a lake functions to support an ecosystem. Was the lake designed?


    I didn't mean lake function. More like lets say light switch function.

    Dang it I have to go, we'll continue…

    ReplyDelete
  64. Bill Bigge:

    ===
    It was implied in the way you highlighted the phrase "like a microprocessor" as should have been clear from the context of what I wrote.
    ===

    Whereas what I actually wrote was that evolutionists
    can’t explain how such structures (the brain and its synapses--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements) evolved, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact.

    You have injected your religion into science, made absurd claims, and now blame those who don't buy your claims which you can't defend.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Keepitreal said...

    It looks like these guys know what they’re talking about and designed synthesized DNA to do the major work for them. The key phrase in the article is "DNA controls" the process. From my limited knowledge of the subject, anything that controls anything needs some sort of programmer/programming.


    " From my limited knowledge of the subject" - there's the problem, right there.

    Adding a catalyst to a chemical reaction can control the speed of the reaction. Does that mean the catalyst needs needs some sort of programmer/programming to work?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Cornelius Hunter , I will give you a billion times a billion times a billion complex biological systems either known today or those we will find out about in the future for which we don't have any or a good explanation how they evolved. This number would essentially mean you if you post one system a day (that is a 24-hour period) you would not run out of systems till literally the hell freezes.

    But what gives?

    The problem is that your reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is generic. It is the same for every single of these billions of systems: They are complex. So essentially with every post you are not presenting a new argument, but simply repeating the argument that you can not evolve complex biological systems. But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved.

    So unless you have a reason that the individual system is different with respect to its evolvability from all the other systems you don't have a case.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Whereas what I actually wrote was that evolutionists can’t explain how such structures (the brain and its synapses--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements) evolved, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact.

    You have injected your religion into science, made absurd claims, and now blame those who don't buy your claims which you can't defend.


    Historians can't explain exactly what Lewis and Clark were doing every minute of every day in their epic 1804-06 expedition, but they're absolutely certain the journey is a fact.

    Do you also think historians have injected their religion into history and made absurd claims?

    If not, why the blatant hypocrisy?

    ReplyDelete
  68. an example for Keepitreal,

    '...anything that controls anything needs some sort of programmer/programming'

    A weakly acidic or basic buffer solution controls the pH of the solution even if a strong acid or base is added. There is no programme or programmer responsible for this, it is basic (no pun intended) chemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists."

    Their opinions on the facthood of evolution are duly noted, and irrelevant to the science of evolutionary biology. Science is done in labs and the field, not in armchairs.

    ReplyDelete
  70. second opinion:

    ===
    The problem is that your reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is generic. It is the same for every single of these billions of systems: They are complex.
    ===

    Need to elaborate on that a bit. My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one. And the same is true for evolutionists. The only thing we can imagine is speculative, hand-waving explanations.

    It is not controversial that speculative hand-waving, which is a reasonable thing to do sometimes, does not constitute facthood.

    But this isn't merely a problem in one or a few isolated cases. It is pervasive, as the examples illustrate.

    ReplyDelete
  71. second opinion:

    ===
    But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved.
    ===

    I didn't know that.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Hunter:

    Yes, I suppose that Leibniz, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Wallace, Le Conte, de Beer, Grant, Mayr, Eldredge, Gould, Ayala, Miller, Coyne, Alexander, Simpson, Ridley, Williams, Futuyma, Ruse, Jones, ..., etc, virtually every textbook, the list goes on and on, all these are misrepresenting evolution.

    (Emphasis added)

    When did Immanuel (I assume that's the Kant you meant) discuss (let alone misrepresent) evolution?

    Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists.

    No, let's leave in Kant, if you can make a case.

    (We'll deal with Leibniz another time...)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thorton says..
    “Adding a catalyst to a chemical reaction can control the speed of the reaction. Does that mean the catalyst needs needs some sort of programmer/programming to work?”


    That is true however if you read this
    < http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018>
    Leslie Orgel states..
    “The catalytic properties of enzymes are remarkable. They not only accelerate reaction rates by many orders of magnitude, but they also discriminate between potential substrates that differ very slightly in structure. Would one expect similar discrimination in the catalytic potential of peptides of length ten or less? The answer is clearly “no,” and it is this conclusion that ultimately undermines the peptide cycle theory.”

    Tell me Thorton, how do enzymes discriminate? What process or mechanism told those enzymes to discriminate upon?. How does random dumb luck, discriminate?

    Before the first quoted statement above by Mr. Orgel also states..
    ” Clearly, self-organization requires catalysis that is not only sufficiently efficient but also sufficiently sequence-specific.”

    So tell me Thorton, how do molecules and enzymes come together in a sequence-specific way, and what controls those identities to come together in the right way?. Magic?
    Or this article” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101004112156.htm”

    Newly Discovered DNA Repair Mechanism.

    So tell me Thorton, how does a non-telic process “repair” anything?

    In the field of computer science it takes an intelligent agent to repair code. So in biology and in all life, how do you explain repair mechanisms from the laws of chemistry and physics? I am very curious to see your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Pedant:

    ===
    Yes, I suppose that Leibniz, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Wallace, Le Conte, de Beer, Grant, Mayr, Eldredge, Gould, Ayala, Miller, Coyne, Alexander, Simpson, Ridley, Williams, Futuyma, Ruse, Jones, ..., etc, virtually every textbook, the list goes on and on, all these are misrepresenting evolution.

    (Emphasis added)

    When did Immanuel (I assume that's the Kant you meant) discuss (let alone misrepresent) evolution?
    ===

    I'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution. In fact, he was a significant contributor to evolutionary thinking. I discuss this in my book *Science's Blind Spot*. For a peek you can search for "kant" on this blog, and see those posts.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Cornelius,
    "My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one."

    so, a failure of your research skills and a failure of your imagination = a failure of evolutionary biology.

    Perhaps you can explain why you don't find these papers compelling (let me guess, it's bc they assume evolution is true and bc they push the problem off further back in time):

    Emes RD et al. Evolutionary expansion and anatomical specialization of synapse proteome complexity. Nat Neurosci. 2008 Jul;11(7):799-806.

    Ryan TJ, Grant SG. The origin and evolution of synapses. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Whereas what I actually wrote was that evolutionists
    can’t explain how such structures (the brain and its synapses--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements) evolved, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact.

    You have injected your religion into science, made absurd claims, and now blame those who don't buy your claims which you can't defend."
    ----------------------------

    I'm not sure how to respond - the level of your inability to understand the questions you are asking is overwhelming.

    What is is about the brain that you find so difficult - we have already talked about how complex structures can grow from simpler interacting units, there is lots of research into that and some good progress in understanding the details of how cells grow into bodies. The fact that the human brain is overwhelmingly complex is a matter of size as much as anything. Ants have relatively simple brains by comparison but they grow in the same way - ours just grow bigger.

    The question at issue is not the complexity of the brain, or anything else, but is about how things that grow can evolve to grow differently - again, lots of research and understanding (and observation) about how this works.

    Now please explain what my religion is, and how it is injected into science - you've made this claim but never provided a shred of evidence - you didn't even explain to me what my religion was!

    ReplyDelete
  77. "My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one."

    you reject the theory of evolution a-priori as religious dogma - of course you wouldn't find any explanation compelling!

    ReplyDelete
  78. "how do enzymes discriminate?"

    Based on the properties of their substrate-and complementing that with the size, shape, hydrophobicity and charge of their active site.

    "how does a non-telic process “repair” anything?"

    There are two strands to every DNA molecule. For example, UV damage causes bulky adducts. These are recognized by proteins as bulges in the double helix. The adducts are removed, and fixed by reading the non-broken strand, incorporating the properlybase paired nucleotides. Or not, if both sides are broken, or error-prone DNA repair is used. It is physics and chemistry, not C++.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "I'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution."

    It's what you wrote. If you aren't then who is?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Cornelius Hunter

    I will try to give an example: the Schrödinger equation describes all of chemistry 100 % accurate. Yet we can only solve it analytically for the hydrogen atom. 50 years ago we could apply and (numerically) solve it only to really small molecules due to lack of computing power. Nowadays computer power has grown immensely and methods have improved but there are still will always be cases that the equation fails. But that does not mean it is inaccurate or does not apply to all of chemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Keepitreal said...

    So tell me Thorton, how does a non-telic process “repair” anything?

    In the field of computer science it takes an intelligent agent to repair code. So in biology and in all life, how do you explain repair mechanisms from the laws of chemistry and physics? I am very curious to see your answer.


    RobertC has already answered your question, but I'll point out a similar description was provided in the very article you cited:

    Newly Discovered DNA Repair Mechanism

    You'd probably do better if you read more than just the title.

    As to why such a mechanism evolved in the first place, you need to understand that the repair processes are not 100% effective. What they do is effectively throttle the net mutation rate as to keep it at its optimum level - too little mutation means no variation to select from when the environment changes, too much mutation means lowered evolutionary fitness, less reproductive success across the whole population. In other words, the evidence shows that evolvabilty itself evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The scientific paper apparently forgot to include a snippet that "it evolved overtime by chance".

    I think I know the reason for this oddity; they could not "imagine" how the brain could have evolved.

    But fear not, the brain is not only complex but specified to perform many tasks, this includes "imagining" and "day dreaming".

    ReplyDelete
  83. Thorton:

    So how did organisms survive if they didn't have a system to control mutation rates?

    ReplyDelete
  84. "So how did organisms survive if they didn't have a system to control mutation rates?"

    The lack of DNA repair makes organisms less fit compared to ones with it, but is DNA repair is not generally essential in prokaryotes.

    Search the database of essential genes. How many prokaryotes require their DNA repair genes for survival? I get less than 25%

    http://tubic.tju.edu.cn/deg/

    Funny how all of you "know" things without bothering to google them. For example, Eocene should have googled mushroom bodies this morning before making arguments about humans not evolving from produce.

    Ironic, since the entire focus of this blog is the claim that incompleteness of science makes support of the prevailing theory a "religious belief."

    ReplyDelete
  85. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    So how did organisms survive if they didn't have a system to control mutation rates?


    The same way humans survived when they didn't have doctors, hospitals, and modern medicine.

    The earliest simple life forms who didn't yet have the genetic repair capability still reproduced and survived. Then the ones who evolved the rudimentary capability for repair survived better. They had the advantage.

    A major limiting factor in genome size is the effective per generation mutation rate. A repair capability that provides lower effective substitutions per nucleotide position per generation means bigger, more complex genomes are possible. Larger genomes permitted the evolution of more complex life forms with higher evolutionary fitness.

    ReplyDelete
  86. nanobot74:

    I wrote:
    ####
    My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one. And the same is true for evolutionists. The only thing we can imagine is speculative, hand-waving explanations.
    ####

    And the evolutionist responds:

    ===
    Cornelius,
    "My reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is I know of no compelling evolutionary explanation and I haven't been able to imagine one."

    so, a failure of your research skills and a failure of your imagination = a failure of evolutionary biology.
    ===

    No, my failure to figure out how evolution could have created all of biology does not constitute a failure of evolutionary biology. As I pointed out, but you omitted from your quote-mine, I also pointed out that evolutionists themselves also have failed to figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Bill Bigge:

    ===
    The fact that the human brain is overwhelmingly complex is a matter of size as much as anything.
    ===

    No, that is precisely what the 20th c. taught us, and the 21st is continuing to reveal. Biology is not a victory of quantity over quality. That was an evolutionary myth that has long since been busted. Cellular and molecular biology have revealed not mundane components that lead to higher function merely by virtue of accumulation. Rather, the closer we look, the more functionality and complexity we find.


    ===
    Now please explain what my religion is, ...
    ===

    Why is evolution a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Why is evolution a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact?"

    There effects are both observed.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Maybe I should extend my previous post to clarify. Descent with modification is basically the Schrödinger equation of evolutionary biology. Just because we can only solve that equation precisely in some cases (evolving bacteria) and approximately in some other cases, does not mean it is not applicable in the rest of the cases.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Bill Bigge:

    ====
    "Why is evolution a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact?"

    There effects are both observed.
    ====

    Can you give one or a few examples of observed effects of evolution that make it a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Bill Bigge:

    " . . the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems?
    =====

    No the real question is, can nothing more than chemcial reactions and physics create codes of purposeful instructive information for goal oriented replication ???
    ------

    ReplyDelete
  92. Bill Bigge:

    Adding the label intelligent to the product of a chemical process is confusing."
    ======

    Well that's the point Bill. So how will YOU in YOUR experiment detach your intelligence from the experiment to prove undirected with no purpose or intented biased goals to prove that nothing more than the undirected pointlessness of chance is the number one driver behind life as YOUR Dogma demands ???

    I don't believe anyone has argued that material processes are not involved. Why everything is material in our world. However, you believe luck and chance did it and I believe an intelligent designer manipulated chemcials and the powerful forces of physics to accomplish a purposed outcome. Every experiment that you undertake has your human intelligent fingerprints all over it and therefore is doomed to failure to prove your dogma of pointlessness. Any interference or imaginative interpretation on your part thereafter would always be biased and suspect.

    At best you could experiment as an Theistic Evolutionist by putting sterilized dirt in a jar with other sterilized chemicals and gases for an atomsphere, maybe wrap magnetics around the jar, ground them with a copper wire to a copper rods in (and this is important for powerful electrical conductivity) WET/DAMP Earth for an energy source. That would be intelligent imput at the beginning with no further imput afterwards with the exception of setting back and observing while twittling your thumbs.

    You'll have to have that experiment watched round the clock for generation after generation of human scientists (billions of years???) until your side proves the evolutionary wonders of life magically appearing as you've stated. In the mean time there should be rules of science allowing for no religious injection of storytelling by any side. Just pure unadulterated explanations of how things are observed working and making practical applications for the benefit of humankind. Can you imagine how far good healthy science would go if such an approach were actually undertaken, what the benefits would be to mankind ???

    ReplyDelete
  93. Bill Bigge quoting Cornelius and accusing:

    Cornelius replying to Pedant:
    "I'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution."

    Bill Bigge's unimformed accusation:
    "It's what you wrote. If you aren't then who is?"
    ======

    No Bill, he didn't write that, but why stop there and make a correction when you believe you're on a roll ???

    Pedant actually stated:
    "When did Immanuel (I assume that's the Kant you meant) discuss (LET ALONE MISREPRESENT) evolution?"

    ReplyDelete
  94. RobertC:

    "Funny how all of you "know" things without bothering to google them. For example, Eocene should have googled mushroom bodies this morning before making arguments about humans not evolving from produce."
    =======

    Funny you can't see the purpose of an absurd illustration and my literal reference to caulifower to spotlight typical materialist penchant for mere shallow observation coupled with insertion of some deep imaginative fable and attaching the word FACT to it.

    Seriously tho, Google humans more related to fungus than plants are related to fungus. This world just gets further and further into the proverbial toilette when it's geniuses come up with actual debates about imaginative trivial twaddle.

    Nice try!!! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  95. Thorton's years of experience working for Walt Disney said:

    "The earliest simple life forms who didn't yet have the genetic repair capability still reproduced and survived. Then the ones who evolved the rudimentary capability for repair survived better. They had the advantage."
    ======

    It just did!!! It just does!!! Because evolution did it!!!

    How do you come up with this stuff ??? Which YouTube animation video did you download this from ???

    Amazing, it just did!!!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Hunter:

    I'm not the one claiming Kant misrepresented evolution. In fact, he was a significant contributor to evolutionary thinking. I discuss this in my book *Science's Blind Spot*. For a peek you can search for "kant" on this blog, and see those posts.

    Previously, you said:

    Just toss out virtually every major evolutionist, they're not *really* evolutionists.

    I sense an equivocation here: Kant was “a significant contributor to evolutionary thinking” is made equal to ‘Kant was a *really* major evolutionist.’

    So Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) contributed precisely what to Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory? A preference for secondary causes over direct intervention by the Abrahamic god in every passing event? By that criterion, you should include Thomas Aquinas in your pantheon of *really* major evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Second opinion said:

    "Cornelius Hunter , I will give you a billion times a billion times a billion complex biological systems either known today or those we will find out about in the future for which we don't have any or a good explanation how they evolved. This number would essentially mean you if you post one system a day (that is a 24-hour period) you would not run out of systems till literally the hell freezes.

    But what gives?

    The problem is that your reason for objecting to the fact that these systems have evolved is generic. It is the same for every single of these billions of systems: They are complex. So essentially with every post you are not presenting a new argument, but simply repeating the argument that you can not evolve complex biological systems."

    Wow! So there is no evidence of complexity that could ever convince you that chance could not have accidentally created it! Amazing! Absolutely amazing!

    You hit the nail on the head. The problems for Darwin are numerous and far reaching. Can you say with a straight face cross your heart and hope to die type of honesty that you actually believe that your own brain is the product of nothing more than chance evolutionary processes?

    Blind chance, lucky and EXTREMELY rare(if they exist at all)beneficial mutations, natural selection working once life is created, random chemical processes, etc etc are an adequate explanation for our brains? This is SCIENCE?! This is wishing upon a star type day dreaming. There is NO evidence for this!

    2nd O:
    "But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved."

    I'm sorry, but you are living in a dream world. Darwin did no such thing. Showing that there are different types of eyes in living creatures has nothing to do with evolution unless you already believe in evolution to start with. These eyes appear out of order in the fossil record and in different unrelated species. Who is to say the Designer didn't create these creatures with different types of eyes? How in the world do you think the wiring from the eye to the brain evolved by chance? Who wrote the software for the eye? Who designed the blueprint for the creation of the eye? Blind chance, purposeless and directionless chemical reactions, and 1 in a trillion lucky mutations that improved the fitness of the organ a little bit each time? Please, if you want us to believe this, we need some evidence. I don't have enough faith to believe in trillions of timely miracles like you.
    If you really believe Darwin solved the problem of the eye, you are like the ostrich with it's head under the sand afraid to read the critique of those who aren't quite as convinced.

    2nd Op:
    "So unless you have a reason that the individual system is different with respect to its evolvability from all the other systems you don't have a case."

    On the contrary, he has a strong case because of the problems facing Darwin in countless numbers of cases. The evidence against Darwinism is stacking up. At some point, it will need to be addressed. Today's article is just one good illustration of that. One thing is clear - the brain is beyond the Edge of Evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  98. 2nd O:
    "But Darwin settled that issue by demonstrating that is plausible that a highly complex system as the eye has evolved."

    I'm sorry, but you are living in a dream world. Darwin did no such thing. Showing that there are different types of eyes in living creatures has nothing to do with evolution unless you already believe in evolution to start with. These eyes appear out of order in the fossil record and in different unrelated species. Who is to say the Designer didn't create these creatures with different types of eyes? How in the world do you think the wiring from the eye to the brain evolved by chance? Who wrote the software for the eye? Who designed the blueprint for the new molecular machines and proteins needed to create the eye? Blind chance, purposeless and directionless chemical reactions, and 1 in a trillion lucky mutations that improved the fitness of the organ a little bit each time? Please, if you want us to believe this, we need some evidence. I don't have enough faith to believe in trillions of timely chance miracles. That is irrational and unscientific. I think it makes much more sense to believe in an Intelligent Designer, but hey, who am I? I'm not a scientist limited by naturalism so it is kind of hard to ask people like me to jump into your little worldview box of naturalism when I am not constrained to do so? Why would I want to limit myself like that? When all of human experience points to a designer for information, micro-processors, internet, etc, I would be foolish to boldly proclaim my faith in natural forces since I am not bound by naturalism. How foolish! Evolutionists though, have no choice it seems. Their worldview demands it.

    If you really believe Darwin solved the problem of the eye, you are like the ostrich with it's head under the sand afraid to read the critique of those who aren't quite as convinced.

    2nd Op:
    "So unless you have a reason that the individual system is different with respect to its evolvability from all the other systems you don't have a case."

    On the contrary, he has a strong case because of the vast number of problems facing Darwin in many different areas. The evidence against Darwinism is stacking up. At some point, it will need to be addressed. Today's article is just one good illustration of that. One thing is clear - the brain is far beyond the Edge of Evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Oops. Looks like I posted twice. Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  100. tokyojim said...

    Wow! So there is no evidence of complexity that could ever convince you that chance could not have accidentally created it! Amazing! Absolutely amazing!


    It has been conclusively demonstrated that complex biological systems can be and are produced by evolutionary processes. So no, merely continuing to point out complexity isn't sufficient for your case. You need to actually produce external evidence of this Designer - the identity, the construction mechanisms used, the materials used, the time frame when this design supposedly happened, etc.

    You hit the nail on the head. The problems for Darwin are numerous and far reaching. Can you say with a straight face cross your heart and hope to die type of honesty that you actually believe that your own brain is the product of nothing more than chance evolutionary processes?

    Yes. Why don't you just cut to the chase and scream "I AIN'T RELATED TO NO DAMN MONKEY!!!' like all the other Creationists are thinking.

    Blind chance, lucky and EXTREMELY rare(if they exist at all)beneficial mutations, natural selection working once life is created, random chemical processes, etc etc are an adequate explanation for our brains? This is SCIENCE?! This is wishing upon a star type day dreaming. There is NO evidence for this!

    Yes, it's science. Yes, there is considerable evidence for it. Several papers have been presented in this thread already. A simple Google Scholar or PubMed search will turn up thousands more.

    Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Robert C

    These are recognized by proteins as bulges in the double helix. The adducts are removed, and fixed by reading the non-broken strand, incorporating the properlybase paired nucleotides. Or not, if both sides are broken, or error-prone DNA repair is used. It is physics and chemistry, not C++.



    Lets say potato runs into a bush and 10 seconds later runs out peeled. I really do not care how peeling function was done.There could be a leprechaun hiding in there with a peeler possibly . But I know for sure peeling function was done and I can recognize it as such.

    Speaking of bushes I like them trimmed.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Bill: " . . the real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems?
    =====
    Eocene: "No the real question is, can nothing more than chemcial reactions and physics create codes of purposeful instructive information for goal oriented replication ???"

    The real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems? If you can demonstrate that they can then you have demonstrated how the first living things could have arisen.

    Goal driven is not a criteria that is relevant to the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Derick and Zachriel,

    "{{dolphin, cat} fish}"

    I would render this as a nested hierarchy using an abbreviated Linnaean classification like this:

    Chordata(Mammals)

    You and Zachriel may want to study this article (written by an evolutionist by the way), that explains the use of hierarchies within biology. He shows that the view of the singular "hierarchy of nature" to be obviously false...

    http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf

    Back to the IPOD analogy:

    I did not examine your IPOD pictures too closely, but I apparently mistook your pictures of the Nano to be a Shuffle. Your breakdown of the differences between the Shuffle, Nano and Touch must have taken some time. But what's the point? I did not say that all the IPODS were the same. They have different model names for a reason! But they have enough similarities to be classified under the higher rank as IPODS.

    Here is the fully nested hierarchy for the IPOD Shuffle:

    IPOD(Shuffle(Gray,Blue,Green,Orange,Pink))

    To classify the other models in a similar fine-grained arrangement then the Nano has 7 colors and 2 memory options which equals 14 variaties. Classic has 2 colors. Touch has 1 color and 3 memory options. Each of these could be depicted as the Shuffle was above. Only showing the higher levels (to save space) the IPOD product line would look like this in a fully nested hierarchy:

    IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)

    There are obviously cases were designed products could be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy. Zachriel already agreed that this was obvious.

    Did the companies that designed the products that meet this criteria do so because they wanted to create an illusion that the products evolved on their own? That would be obsurd. It is equally obsurd to think that the Creator of life wanted to create an illusion of evolution. Evolutionists are only seeing what they want to see.

    It does not follow that biological classification is evidence for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "Well that's the point Bill. So how will YOU in YOUR experiment detach your intelligence from the experiment to prove undirected with no purpose or intented biased goals to prove that nothing more than the undirected pointlessness of chance is the number one driver behind life as YOUR Dogma demands ???"

    I wouldn't. I don't have a dogma that demands anything. I'm interested in the if and how of self replicating and evolving systems that operate within the laws of physics.

    Now are you planning to get around to telling me how I can incorporate your hypothesised disembodied information into experimental work?

    ReplyDelete
  105. "Can you give one or a few examples of observed effects of evolution that make it a fact?"

    The fossil record
    Genetics
    Ring Species
    Antibiotic resistance
    ...
    But I'm not going to give you an education in modern biology. For goodness sake man, you have a PhD, go to a library and read some science journals! - thats where the evidence has been documented in detail for over a centuary.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Tedford the idiot said...

    Here is the fully nested hierarchy for the IPOD Shuffle:

    IPOD(Shuffle(Gray,Blue,Green,Orange,Pink))

    To classify the other models in a similar fine-grained arrangement then the Nano has 7 colors and 2 memory options which equals 14 variaties. Classic has 2 colors. Touch has 1 color and 3 memory options. Each of these could be depicted as the Shuffle was above. Only showing the higher levels (to save space) the IPOD product line would look like this in a fully nested hierarchy:

    IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)

    There are obviously cases were designed products could be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy. Zachriel already agreed that this was obvious.


    Where are your calculations for phylogenetic best fit Tedford? Where is your consistency index?

    You haven't offered any objective criteria or reasons why your grouping is a 'best fit' hierarchy. You're basing the claim solely on your subjective personal opinion.

    FAIL again Tedford, not that anyone is surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Neal Tedford: There are obviously cases were designed products could be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy. Zachriel already agreed that this was obvious.

    Yes, but you have not shown the ability to distinguish the cases. It generally requires cherry-picking, which you have repeatedly done above.

    Neal Tedford: IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)

    What would happen if we examine the internals of the various models. Would we find that the same components cross between sets? In other words, would we find a mammalian heart in a frog?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Zachriel said, "Yes, but you have not shown the ability to distinguish the cases. It generally...

    ---

    ME: "Yes, but"... "Generally". You're waffling. Evolutionists certainly like to qualify everything they say.

    So, just consider those cases that are not "generally" "cherry-picking and just say "YES".

    You really should read the link: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf

    This evolutionist doesn't agree with your version of "singular" "objective nested hiearchy of life.

    What's the point? Evolution is neither falsified nor confirmed by biological classification.

    Zachriel said, "What would happen if we examine the internals of the various models. Would we find that the same components cross between sets? In other words, would we find a mammalian heart in a frog?"

    ---

    Me: Components within models are the same. Across models some components are the same, some modified, and other components only within the same model. Just like life.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Neal: They have different model names for a reason! But they have enough similarities to be classified under the higher rank as IPODS.

    Here is the fully nested hierarchy for the IPOD Shuffle:

    IPOD(Shuffle(Gray,Blue,Green,Orange,Pink))


    Neal, I don't know what amazes me more: Your complete and thorough ignorance on the subject of nested hierarchies, or your complete lack of awareness of your ignorance. iPod shuffles do not fit into a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of features because they only have one distinguishing feature: Color.

    Neal: To classify the other models in a similar fine-grained arrangement then the Nano has 7 colors and 2 memory options which equals 14 variaties. /.../ You illustrated a grouping of IPOD Nano's and so proved that designed objects can be arranged nicely into a group. (emphasis mine)

    What in the world are you talking about? Of course you can arrange objects nicely into groups. I can group dolphins, fish, and rocks as things you find in the in the ocean. I can group rocks, cats, and bicycles as things you find on the land. But we're not talking about making groups based on arbitrary criteria, we're taking about making best fit nested hierarchies based on a PANOPLY of traits. I gave you two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT groupings of iPod nanos, each based on a different trait. Which one is the 'best fit'? Should we group by color or capacity, and why?

    Neal: IPOD product line would look like this in a fully nested hierarchy:

    IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)


    Neal, you keep demonstrating over and over and over again that you don't understand what a nested hierarchy is. You can't even write one out correctly. Is the following:

    LIFE(clam, whale, fish, cat)

    a nested hierarchy? NO!

    Neal: Your breakdown of the differences between the Shuffle, Nano and Touch must have taken some time. But what's the point?

    It didn't take much time, Apple has a handy comparison grid on their site, with a thorough list of features. That's kind of my point: That was the easiest possible example, you still failed epically. It is exponentially easier to compare iPods than to do the research and field work required to compare organisms. And the point was to help show you how hopelessly ignorant you are about best fit nested hierarchies if you think that you can organize an iPod shuffle, nano, and touch into one.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Neal: Apparently you believe that all designed objects could NEVER be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy. Yes? No?

    Of course human designed objects could be created to adhere to a best fit nested hierarchy! No one has said anything different! I don't know how in the world you could have gathered that. A designer could create things any way they want. What Zachriel has been trying to explain to you is that intelligent designers aren't constrained by having to build things that fit a singular nested hierarchy, and they almost never do, for the simple reason that designers are free to mixand match features. There is almost no good reason to design things with such a constraint. That is precisely why iPods don't have a best fit nested hierarchy. The 2nd gen shuffle had a built-in clip, and the designers said: "Hey, that's a neat idea, let's move that over to the new nano as well." Apple has a lot of experience with multitouch displays from the iPhone and iPod touch; the designers said: "Hey, that's a neat idea, let's move that over the new nano as well." The last gen nano (and iPhone) had a camera on the opposite side of the screen. the designers said: "Hey, that's a neat idea, let's move that over to the new Touch as well." The iPhone has a gyroscope and retina display; the designers said "Hey, that's a neat idea, let's move them over to the new Touch as well." and so on and so forth.

    So of course designers could constrain their designs to still have a best-fit nested hierarchy; but there is pretty much never a good reason to do so, and plenty of reasons not to. However, evolution (if it happened) would be constrained in such a way, except for rare cases in which genetic material can be exchanged past species boundaries. Evolution couldn't take gills from a whale shark and put them in a whale; but a designer could. (and a sensible human designer probably would) Evolution couldn't take feathers from a bird and put them on a bat; a designer could. For that matter, evolution couldn't take the wings from a bird and put them on a bat; evolution would have to modify existing limbs to make wings from scratch again; bat's wings are much more similar to human arms than to any bird's wing.

    Neal: There are obviously cases were designed products could be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy.

    And yet, you haven't been able to name one yet. Whether it's because they're rare, you don't understand nested hierarchies, or a little of both is yet to be seen.

    Neal: Did the companies that designed the products that meet this criteria do so because they wanted to create an illusion that the products evolved on their own? That would be obsurd.

    First, you need to be able to name a company that does design products this way before we could discuss that.

    Neal: It is equally obsurd to think that the Creator of life wanted to create an illusion of evolution.

    Neal, I agree with you 100% on this.

    Neal: To continue to insist that designed products could NEVER be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy is complete nonsense.

    Neal, no one here ever said that no designed products could ever be arranged into a best fit nested hierarchy. Your misunderstanding of this simple point demonstrates how easily straw man arguments arise in a mind like yours. Some kinds of designed products can't be arranged in a single best fit nested hierarchy, like cars and iPods, because there is no reason for the designers to arbitrarily constrain themselves that way, and good reason not to.

    Neal, if you want to keep digging yourself deeper into the hole of stupidity on this topic, we'll keep tossing you shovels.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Derick, it is amazing how inconsistent you are. You completely ignored my continued references to variations in color, brain capacity, and facial features among similar groups of animals, yet you raise a big fuss over a minor memory option on a Shuffle or Nano. Do you not see the panoply of components (traits) that all the IPODS share?

    Somehow you are confused about what a nested hierarchy is. Do you understand the concept of containment? Venn diagrams? Have you read the evolutionist article that shows your points to be obviously false?

    http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  112. Tokyojim writes:
    "Blind chance, lucky and EXTREMELY rare(if they exist at all)beneficial mutations, natural selection working once life is created, random chemical processes, etc etc are an adequate explanation for our brains? This is SCIENCE?! This is wishing upon a star type day dreaming. There is NO evidence for this!"

    You forgot to add time. Lots of time.

    Some questions for you, Jim:

    Do you think evolution could explain a fly's brain, but not ours?

    Do you think evolution could explain the presence of Notch-Delta (and other signaling paths seen in neurons) in sponges, which don't have neurons?

    Do you think evolution could explain chemical signaling on the surface of single celled animals?

    In other words, where in this long chain of elaboration, gene duplication, exaptation, and complexification does your brain start to hurt, forcing you to say "No, that step is beyond the power of evolutionary processes!" The chemical receptors at the synapse are doing the same job as the receptors on the surface of E. coli. Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Pedant:

    ===
    So Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) contributed precisely what to Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory? A preference for secondary causes over direct intervention by the Abrahamic god in every passing event? By that criterion, you should include Thomas Aquinas in your pantheon of *really* major evolutionists.
    ===

    No, Kant did not argue for a preference for secondary causes, he argued for a mandate. This is an important distinction, and key to understanding evolutionary thought.

    Darwin's theory was the apex of a movement, but it rested on a foundation that was laid down in the previous centuries. Kant elucidated and amplified the metaphysical arguments mandating a purely secondary causation narrative, that had emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, both on the continent and in England.

    Like Hume, Kant collects and systemetizes the arguments. His cosmic evolution work presaged Laplace, and both of them used and expanded on Bernoulli's powerful random design null hypothesis proof for secondary causes, which would be so important in evolutionary thought.

    Darwin's speculation about how the eye or the bear could have evolved were not what made his theory compelling. It was compelling because it integrated science with this metaphysical mandate for naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "No, my failure to figure out how evolution could have created all of biology does not constitute a failure of evolutionary biology. As I pointed out, but you omitted from your quote-mine, I also pointed out that evolutionists themselves also have failed to figure it out. "

    Projection, thy name is Cornelius. You neglected to include the rest of my post, in which I pointed you to two recent empricial studies on brain evolution. TO jog your memory, I replicate the omitted portion of the post below.

    Perhaps you can explain why you don't find these papers compelling (let me guess, it's bc they assume evolution is true and bc they push the problem off further back in time):

    Emes RD et al. Evolutionary expansion and anatomical specialization of synapse proteome complexity. Nat Neurosci. 2008 Jul;11(7):799-806.

    Ryan TJ, Grant SG. The origin and evolution of synapses. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009

    ReplyDelete
  115. Neal: Derick, it is amazing how inconsistent you are. You completely ignored my continued references to variations in color, brain capacity, and facial features among similar groups of animals,

    To the contrary Neal, I said I'd gladly respond to your questions about variation in humans, as soon as you told me which two of these three group closest together in your iPod best fit nested hierarchy, and why, which I asked you first. You still haven't done so. I'm not ignoring your questions, but I've found that If I don't insist that you answer questions that I ask you first, that you'll ignore them.

    Neal: ...yet you raise a big fuss over a minor memory option on a Shuffle or Nano.

    Perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't categorize based on a panoply of features when there is only one distinguishing feature, as is the case with iPod shuffles. In the case of the nanos, I have several times now presented you with two completely different nested hierarchies, and you have yet to tell me which one is 'best fit'. And it isn't a 'minor' feature if it's one of only two distinguishing features.

    So to make the questions clear:

    1. Which two of these three group closest together in your iPod best fit nested hierarchy?

    2. With iPod nanos, which come in 7 colors and 2 capacities, do we group them by color or capacity, and why?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Bill Bigge:

    ======
    "Can you give one or a few examples of observed effects of evolution that make it a fact?"

    The fossil record
    Genetics
    Ring Species
    Antibiotic resistance
    ...
    But I'm not going to give you an education in modern biology. For goodness sake man, you have a PhD, go to a library and read some science journals! - thats where the evidence has been documented in detail for over a centuary.
    ======

    Actually I did exactly that. The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons. Evolutionists say the change must have happened so fast that it wasn't captured by the fossil record. So contrary to your claim that that is an observable that makes evolution a fact, it does no such thing. In fact, evolutionists still do not have an explanation for how such large-scale change comes about.

    Likewise genetics is not an observation of evolution. It reveals a resistance to change. And adaptation, such as the antibiotic resistance example you mention, are now understood to *not* be examples of evolution, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. Adaptation arises from sophisticated molecular mechanisms, not random perturbations as evolution thought.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Neal Tedford: Have you read the evolutionist article that shows your points to be obviously false?

    The article does no such thing. Rather, Knox is drawing a distinction between what he calls a fully nested hierarchy (e.g. extant species), a semi-nested hierarchy (e.g. all species, including nodal species), and a non-nested hierarchy (e.g. species genealogy).

    In any case, you are diverting. You pointed to iPods as an example of a best-fit nested hierarchy, and it turns out that you were wrong. When you extend your classification, the lack of a clear nesting becomes even more obvious.

    You need to grasp this simple point. Biological organisms fall into a pattern, a nested hierarchy, that is not the normal pattern of design.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Cornelius,
    "The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons. "
    the fossil record fits a nested hierarchy, matching the predicted Markov chain-like pattern expected of evolution. THe fast changes you talk about are species-level changes- the evolution of many major phenotypic novelties like the mammalian ear bone and feathers are well-documented in the fossil record.

    "Likewise genetics is not an observation of evolution. It reveals a resistance to change."
    Except when positive or purifying selection or drift occurs. otherwise you are right.

    "Adaptation arises from sophisticated molecular mechanisms, not random perturbations as evolution thought."

    except this statement runs contrary to the evidence, such as Lenski's e. coli experiment. a few cases of epigenetic inheritcance that disappear after a few generations aren't enough for Lamarck to KO Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Zachriel said, "In any case, you are diverting. You pointed to iPods as an example of a best-fit nested hierarchy, and it turns out that you were wrong."

    ---

    Not at all. You and Derick are being inconsistent in looking at the panoply of characteristics.


    From the Knox hierarchy article (Introduction): "Encountering references to ‘the hierarchy of nature’ is not uncommon in the
    biological literature (e.g. Griffiths, 1974; cf. de Queiroz, 1988). In some cases this
    is merely an evocative phrase, but in other cases it is intended as a stronger statement
    about the ontological (i.e. metaphysical) reality of nature. This strong statement
    asserts that a singular, monumental hierarchy exists; “that nature can be ordered
    in a single specifiable pattern which can be represented by a branching diagram or
    hierarchical classification” (Platnick, 1979). The singularity of the strong statement
    seems obviously false."

    ReplyDelete
  120. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  121. cornelius hunter said...

    Actually I did exactly that. The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons. Evolutionists say the change must have happened so fast that it wasn't captured by the fossil record. So contrary to your claim that that is an observable that makes evolution a fact, it does no such thing. In fact, evolutionists still do not have an explanation for how such large-scale change comes about.


    Interesting to see you change tactics CH, and go from your usual snide innuendo to posting outright blatant falsehoods.

    As you very well know, the fossil record is an incomplete sampling. For some lineages there are gaps and disconnects that make it seem like a sudden appearance, but for many others there are well document smooth transitional changes over time. You claiming that no such sequences exist because we don't have a record of all sequences is Creationist willful dishonesty at its worst.

    Some species in the fossil record are known from only a single discovered specimen. How long before you start crowing that such a find disproves evolution too because how could a lone animal without a mate reproduce and evolve?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Neal Not at all. You and Derick are being inconsistent in looking at the panoply of characteristics.

    How am I being inconsistent? Please explain in detail instead of just asserting it. My point is that there isn't a consistent way to organize all the models of iPods; that you can't make a single best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits of these particular objects.

    Neal, you still haven't answered my two very simple questions:

    1. Which two of these three should be grouped closest together in your best fit nested hierarchy?

    2. With iPod nanos, which come in 7 colors and 2 capacities, do we group them by color, or capacity, and why?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Hunter:

    No, Kant did not argue for a preference for secondary causes, he argued for a mandate.

    What does that mean ("mandate")? Please disambiguate. What did Kant say, where and when did he say it, and why, in the shadow of Galileo, Newton and other pioneering practitioners of methodological naturalism that preceded Kant, should it matter?

    As I recall, Thomas Aquinas and other medieval thinkers also argued that God’s intervention by way of miracles was not to be taken lightly, and explanations of events by secondary causes were routinely to be sought preferentially (to protect God’s dignity from error or deception).

    ReplyDelete
  124. Hunter:

    Darwin's speculation about how the eye or the bear could have evolved were not what made his theory compelling. It was compelling because it integrated science with this metaphysical mandate for naturalism.

    No, those particular speculations were not critical to the acceptance of his theory. Nor were any metaphysical notions. Those battles had been fought centuries earlier, as you yourself pointed out. His theory was accepted and stands as a landmark of scientific reasoning, because it has explanatory power.

    All one has to do to prove otherwise is provide a theory that does a better job of explaining the history of life’s diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Neal, since you seem to be having such a hard time answering these two questions, I'll simplify them as a multiple choice: (I'll even try to give you some subtle hints)

    1. Which two of these three should be grouped closest together in your best fit nested hierarchy, and why?

    (a) 1 and 2
    (b) 2 and 3
    (c) 1 and 3
    (d) None of the above, because you can't arrange iPods into best fit nested hierarchies because the designers are free to mix and match components and features, and in this case they did, making the creation a single objective best fit nested hierarchy impossible.

    2. With iPod nanos, which come in 7 colors and 2 capacities, do we group them by color, or capacity, and why?

    (a) We should group by color, that is the most important trait.
    (b) We should group by capacity, that is the most important trait.
    (c) Grouping by either color or capacity is completely arbitrary; You can't group based on a panoply of features when there are so few distinguishing features.


    And Neil, lest you accuse me of being 'inconsistent' or unfair, I wouldn't ask anything of you that I wouldn't happily answer myself:

    1. Name any three genera of vertebrate, and I'll be happy to tell you which 2 group closest together, and why.

    2. Name any fourteen animals, and I'll tell you if they group into a nested hierarchy, how we group them if they do, and why.

    I will gladly answer these two questions, after you answer mine.

    And Neal, I can toss you shovels as long as you can dig.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Dr Hunter, I wonder:

    How do you in your daily life distinguish God's miraculous intervention from secondary causes?

    Let's say, for example, that you suddenly experience a loss of vision in your left eye. It persists for several hours. Do you seek the attention of medical practitioners (students of secondary causes), or do you conclude that God has finally decided to show you who is boss, and start praying for His mercy?

    ReplyDelete
  127. tokyojim

    I was trying to argue that each time Cornelius Hunter presents a new complex system he is not presenting a new argument. But after reading his answer more carefully I realized that he is not even pretending to do so he is just rehashing the argument from complexity over and over again.

    Your statement “So there is no evidence of complexity that could ever convince you [me]” is correct. There is none. I'm not going into details because there are many more complexity post to come and there is no need to rush.

    ReplyDelete
  128. second opinion

    the devil is in details

    ReplyDelete
  129. Neal, I know it may seem like I'm giving a disproportionate amount of attention to this topic. There are others here who know evolutionary theory better than I do, there are others who know the ins and outs of best fit nested hierarchies better than I do, but I know product design, and design in general. When you mentioned iPods as an example of a product line that 'easily' falls into an objective, best fit nested hierarchy, I laughed out loud. They just simply don't. I've kept the conversation going really more for personal amusement than anything else. I have to admit, I'm fascinated by your tenacity. Instead of going "O.k. guys, maybe iPods aren't the best example, but the point still stands that a designer could create things in a nested hierarchy if they wanted," which we all would agree with, you keep belaboring the point. I'm not an educator by trade, but I've always considered myself fairly good at explaining things to people, especially if it's something simple, straightforward, and objective. I see this as a personal challenge; I will convince you that iPods (and most designed things, btw) can not be objectively categorized into a best fit nested hierarchy if it's the end of me. Now, you don't have to admit it. I don't need or even necessarily want you to publicly concede the point. Honestly, I just want you to stop making a fool of yourself (and kind of by extension, fellow Christians here) by continuing to fight tooth and nail against learning something. Heck, I'd be fine if you even took Cornelius' line that "sure, evolution may predict a nested hierarchy, but a nested hierarchy isn't what we find in nature." (That argument is still full of holes, but it's better than your current one.)

    continued below...

    ReplyDelete
  130. ...continued from above:

    So with that being said, I've got one more chart, that hopefully helps illustrate question two:

    2. With iPod nanos, which come in 7 colors and 2 capacities, do we group them by color, or capacity, and why?

    In other words, in this chart, which of two hierarchies is the 'correct' one? Which one is the objective 'best fit'? (I'm not aware of another way to group them by physical features; if there is, let me know.)

    And as always, If I'm wrong, then Zachriel, Thorton, Pedant, Second Opinion, or anyone else, please feel free to correct me.

    As a side note, I've actually been trying to think of designed product lines that do fall into a nested hierarchy. I can think of a few hypotheticals, but I haven't thought of any real world examples yet. Does anyone know of one?

    ReplyDelete
  131. "Actually I did exactly that. The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons. "

    As Thornton has pointed out, you are posting falsehoods - this is not what the evidence from paleontology or geology indicates.

    "Likewise genetics is not an observation of evolution. It reveals a resistance to change. "

    Again, your claim is contradicted by the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Bill Bigge:

    "The real question is can chemical interactions produce self replicating systems?"
    ======

    Replicating systems in biological life require a code Bill. A code with stored informationally encrypted intelligent data with deep detailed instructions for replication. Chemicals and mere blind forces of physics don't cut it. If you disagree, then prove that nothing more than chemicals and physics develope intelligent language for instructing on how replication is accomplished. Your playing dumb here on this wreaks of stubborn blind faithed religiosity.
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "If you can demonstrate that they can then you have demonstrated how the first living things could have arisen."
    =====

    But of course. Since I don't believe in blind undirected forces accomplishing intelligent organized outcomes, then it falls squarely on your shoulders to do so.
    -----

    Bill Bige:

    "Goal driven is not a criteria that is relevant to the problem."
    =====

    Really ??? So you have no purpose or goal in YOUR MIND with regards the experiment ??? Whether it accomplishes or fails at what you never intended, your faith in evolution remains intact ??? Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Bill Bigge:

    EOCENE:
    "So how will YOU in YOUR experiment detach your intelligence from the experiment to prove undirected with no purpose or intented biased goals to prove that nothing more than the undirected pointlessness of chance is the number one driver behind life as YOUR Dogma demands ???"

    BILL BIGGE:
    "I wouldn't. I don't have a dogma that demands anything."
    =====

    Absolutely untrue. You have as much religious faith in an unproven faith-based dogma as anyone else who goes to a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple, Shamman's Hut, whatever. Except you call your religious sanctuary a Laboratory. Look up the definition of the word/term FAITH Bill.

    FAITH

    1) confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
    (EXAMPLE: You have faith in Darwin, Dawkins, Dennet, Evolution, etc)

    2) belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
    (EXAMPLE: You have faith that Science(You) will eventually prove the presently unproven)

    URBAN DICTIONARY & FAITH

    1) Insubstantial, irrational belief.

    2) Noun. Belief not supported by evidence or reason, but assumption alone.

    3) The ability to believe in something in which there is no physical evidence even exists. This ability is found just below the left nipple.

    4) Glorified Ignorance

    5) Irrational belief in something despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Your insistance on a belief without actual facts/evidence continues to remain nothing more than Faith. Insisting evolution is true for no other reason than saying, "Because most scientists believe it", is really unscientific. Stubbornly looking the other way in the face of numerous falsifications to your beliefs makes your religious stance an Anti-Science platform.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Bill Bigge:

    "I'm interested in the if and how of self replicating and evolving systems that operate within the laws of physics."
    =====

    I'm interested in you proving that under the Laws of Physics and nothing more than all and any sterile material substrate, that such brilliant intelligent language with detailed instructions found in the most sophisticated information compression storage mechanism that even Humans cannot invent with all it's blueprints for constructing complex machinery, plans and directions for it's various uses, instructive guidance for it's developement and error control security systems, etc.

    By all means go for it.

    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "Now are you planning to get around to telling me how I can incorporate your hypothesised disembodied information into experimental work?"
    =====

    I'm not under obligation to do anything to help you prove your FAITH is a FACT. I've have already told you it is YOUR responsibility to intelligently prove to me such a dogma is true. Religious belief and ideas were around long before Darwin's Daddy got that twinkle in his eye. It's not like Atheism was around first and then someone invented religion and told YOU that your belief was wrong. If that was the case, then the burden would be on me. It's not.

    But you have all the freewill to try and prove it. However time is running out. So time is of the essence.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Pedant:

    "What does that mean ("mandate")? Please disambiguate."
    ======

    This is easy and you know why he uses it. Pretending ignorance on this only reveals you're backed into a corner.

    Mandate

    1) a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.

    2) a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.

    3) an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

    You get the idea and here are some examples.

    Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc have mandated that ONLY Sharia Law is legal. Any disagreement or trying to change with this mandate shall be dealt with harshly. (imprisionment, execution, etc)

    Third Reich: Hitler mandates that all Jews be rounded up, sent to concentration camps and exterminated. Any human rights protestors found trying to counter this official Mandate will be dealt with harshly. (imprisionment, execution, etc)

    Scientific Authority (Panel of Peers) especially in regards the subject of evolution. All scientific research dealing with areas of biology will proceed from the platform that Evolution is already a fact(whether proven or not) and therefore will proceed with any research based on this mandate, tho you may use such the terms as assertion, assumption, speculation, conjecture, guess, story or myth creation, etc to allude to the fact of Evolution.
    Any thinking outside the Mandated factual evolutionary box or questioning this most holy box will be dealt with harshly (such as expulsion from school, loss of Professorship or any other position held in academia and demonized before public media, if in an atheistic country where rules are harsher, death may be an option).

    See you knew what "Mandate" was all along and the how/why Cornelius Hunter uses it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Pedant:

    "His theory was accepted and stands as a landmark of scientific reasoning, because it has explanatory power."
    =====

    Hence, the Mandate.
    -----

    Pedant:

    "All one has to do to prove otherwise is provide a theory that does a better job of explaining the history of life’s diversity."
    =====

    But that's the problem. It does NOT explain life's great diversity. The ONLY thing we have is FACTOID Storytelling. And this much praised "landmark scientific thinking" is presently bastarding our planet's diverse ecosystems everywhere globally and they have not got clue one as to how to reverse this trend they themselves started in the first place.

    FACTOID

    FACTOID: something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised esp. to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Derick Childress said to Neal Tedford:

    I have to admit, I'm fascinated by your tenacity.

    Going by the history of Tedford’s comments on this blog, including his strong denials of common descent, his tenacity makes sense. If he were to concede even the most trivial point to his opponents, who knows where that might lead? In the worst-case scenario, he might start to question his faith, a possibly fatal step towards eternal damnation.

    Contrast that with the open-mindedness you display by repeatedly asking to be corrected and proved wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Cornelius: "Actually I did exactly that. The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons. "

    Bill:As Thornton has pointed out, you are posting falsehoods - this is not what the evidence from paleontology or geology indicates.

    In what way is this falsehood?
    Isn't it common knowledge that the fossil records shows species appearing suddenly and remaining unchanged for a long time (Socalled Punctuated equilibrium, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium)?

    (From Wikipedia:) The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.

    You MIGHT try to explain it away by claiming that the lack of gradualism is du to an imperfect fossil record, like Darwin did, or like Thornton does further up in this thread. So MAYBE we would find SOME KIND of gradualism IF we had a complete fossil record, but the fossil record as it exists today does not showany evidence of this. And even if we did find this gradualism, the fossil record undeniable shows that species can be around for "eons" without any change.

    So, again, what exacly is the falsehood that you claim Cornelius is posting? This is a little unclear to me...


    Cornelius:"Likewise genetics is not an observation of evolution. It reveals a resistance to change. "

    Bill: Again, your claim is contradicted by the evidence.

    Can you be more specific about what evidence you are referring to?

    Also, which is the ONE evidence that, in your opinion, shows that randomness and natural selection over time will create "machinery" with complexity beyond human comprehension. And please don't just come back with the old "all the evidence shows this"; give me the ONE and best evidence of them all in your opinion! Give me the one evidence that proves this as a "scientific fact" beyond any doubt...

    ReplyDelete
  139. Eocene: "The problem Bill is that imformation itself has nothing to do with any kind/type of material substrate. "

    ....

    Bill: "How do you suggest I incorporate the idea of disembodied (substrate free) information into an experiment?"

    ....

    Eocene: "I'm not under obligation to do anything to help you prove your FAITH is a FACT. I've have already told you it is YOUR responsibility to intelligently prove to me such a dogma is true. "

    To sum up. You claim that information exists independantly of matter, I ask for evidence, and a way of incorporating this substrate free information into experiments - (one way might be to explain how this type of information interacts with matter, and give some experimental evidence of this happening.) You reply by telling me that this is my dogma and, that it is up to me to prove that your claim about information is true.

    I think you may have misunderstood how this whole science thing works.

    Eocene: "No the real question is, can nothing more than chemcial reactions and physics create codes of purposeful instructive information for goal oriented replication ???"

    Bill: "Goal driven is not a criteria that is relevant to the problem."

    Eocene: "Really ??? So you have no purpose or goal in YOUR MIND with regards the experiment ??? Whether it accomplishes or fails at what you never intended, your faith in evolution remains intact ??? Nice."

    You said "Goal orientated replication" - Why do we need to demonstrate that chemical replicators have goals? Why is that useful?

    Eocene: "It's not like Atheism was around first and then someone invented religion and told YOU that your belief was wrong. If that was the case, then the burden would be on me. It's not. "

    I'm not an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  140. dalahimself said...

    In what way is this falsehood?
    Isn't it common knowledge that the fossil records shows species appearing suddenly and remaining unchanged for a long time (Socalled Punctuated equilibrium,


    SOME fossil lineages exhibit Punk Eek, not ALL fossil lineages.

    You MIGHT try to explain it away by claiming that the lack of gradualism is du to an imperfect fossil record, like Darwin did, or like Thornton does further up in this thread. So MAYBE we would find SOME KIND of gradualism IF we had a complete fossil record, but the fossil record as it exists today does not show any evidence of this.

    Spoken from pure ignorance. Here are just a few of the many known smooth transitional series

    Radiolarians

    Pliocene Snails

    forams (fossil plankton)

    Eocoelia

    And even if we did find this gradualism, the fossil record undeniable shows that species can be around for "eons" without any change.

    Nothing in evolutionary theory posits a constant rate of change for all lineages across all locations and times. It depends upon the rate of change of the environment.

    So, again, what exacly is the falsehood that you claim Cornelius is posting? This is a little unclear to me...

    The falsehood is that CH claimed he did a thorough search of the technical literature and found no smooth transitional series, where a simple Google search turns up dozens immediately. So either CH has amnesia or is being willfully dishonest.

    Which do you think it is?

    ReplyDelete
  141. dalahimself: "You MIGHT try to explain it away by claiming that the lack of gradualism is du to an imperfect fossil record, like Darwin did, or like Thornton does further up in this thread."

    Paleontoligists don't just look at found fossils, they also look at why things get fossilised - this leads to an understanding of why there are gaps. When this is combined with other elements of evolutionary theory it is sucesfully used to predict where transitional forms might be found.

    "Can you be more specific about what evidence you are referring to?

    Also, which is the ONE evidence that, in your opinion, shows that randomness and natural selection over time will create "machinery" with complexity beyond human comprehension."


    If you want an intro to evidence supporting evolutionary theory then start here. Then move on to the numerous cellular biology, genetics, paleontology and other related scientific journals where all the evidence is documented in detail. I'm not going to waste days walking you through it - I have a job with deadlines to meet, explaining it to you is a hobby I do in my spare time. If you want evidence that nature can produce things beyind human comprehension then that is a different question - the whole point of science is to try and comprehend nature.

    Scientific theories supported by one piece of evidence are weak. The reason evolution is a strong theory is because of the multiple overlapping lines of evidence. Asking for only one piece is a handy way of avoiding having to deal with the large body of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  142. dalahimself said...

    Also, which is the ONE evidence that, in your opinion, shows that randomness and natural selection over time will create "machinery" with complexity beyond human comprehension. And please don't just come back with the old "all the evidence shows this"; give me the ONE and best evidence of them all in your opinion! Give me the one evidence that proves this as a "scientific fact" beyond any doubt...


    There is no ONE best piece of evidence for ToE. The strength of the theory is found from the fit of millions of pieces of evidence into one consilient and cohesive whole.

    I bet jigsaw puzzles must confuse you no end, if you demand to see the ONE piece that clearly shows the whole entire picture.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Derick Childress said to Neal Tedford:

    "I have to admit, I'm fascinated by your tenacity."

    and

    Pedant response to Derick:

    "Contrast that with the open-mindedness you display by repeatedly asking to be corrected and proved wrong."
    =====

    The really sad thing here is that most Theistic Evolutionists don't even realize they are even looked upon by pure Atheistic Darwinists as nothing more than a useful IDiot for furthering the propaganda campaigns around the world.
    -----

    Pedant:

    "If he were to concede even the most trivial point to his opponents, who knows where that might lead? In the worst-case scenario, he might start to question his faith, a possibly fatal step towards eternal damnation."
    =====

    I won't claim or presume to know what Neal believes as I can assure you that he and I would be at odds with many biblical things, but I'm sure he would agree with me here on this scripture. You yourself have reveal what these discussions truthfully boil down to, "opponents" vrs other "opponents". So it's a sort of popularity contest of sorts which would explain Derick's allegiance. Hence for me anyway, this scripture sums up perfectly.

    Matthew 16:26 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

    (26) "What will it benefit a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his Soul(life)?"

    ReplyDelete
  144. Bill bigge:

    "To sum up. You claim that information exists independantly of matter, I ask for evidence, and a way of incorporating this substrate free information into experiments "
    =====

    Once again I already gave you an example to understand a simple example to illustrate the point that even a child would get. I told you to THINK about it. You obviously knew what I meant , but predictably skirted around the edges of true rational logic using a "What Is Truth?" arguement about what is "immaterial thought". The problem continues to be your problem with the experiemnt and that is the point.
    -----

    Bille Bigge:

    "(one way might be to explain how this type of information interacts with matter, and give some experimental evidence of this happening.)"
    =====

    Wow, this is Kindergarten stuff. Bill, first think(immaterial) about something, then take an ink pen and write those thoughts down on paper(material). That's about as grade school experimenting as you're going to get.
    *eyes rolling*
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "I think you may have misunderstood how this whole science thing works."
    =====

    Really. Science is about physical and naturalistic proofs. You have done neither and neither has the Darwin gang without telling predictable myths and fables found only in a parallel universe of some online gaming site.
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "You said "Goal orientated replication" - Why do we need to demonstrate that chemical replicators have goals? Why is that useful?"
    =====

    Because chemicals reacting to a catalyst making crytal-like patterns are not LIFE, Bill. We are talking about LIFE Bill, not some unilateral agenda to appease atheists so they'll promise to be your friend. The genetic codes do have goals for renewal and replication, but they also have at their disposal a bounty of error correction mechanisms and other resources to prevent birth defects. These were all present at the very beginning. Why ??? Because if not, then life never gets of the ground billions of years ago, let alone continuing to the present from last year. Once again you are proving this is more about religious faith, than science. Thanks for illustrating that for us.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Also, which is the ONE evidence that, in your opinion, shows that randomness and natural selection over time will create "machinery" with complexity beyond human comprehension.

    Bill:If you want an intro to evidence supporting evolutionary theory then start here.

    I don't want an intro to the "evidence"; I have seen plenty of it. I just want to know which piece of the evidence is the most convincing in your opinion.

    Thorton: There is no ONE best piece of evidence for ToE. The strength of the theory is found from the fit of millions of pieces of evidence into one consilient and cohesive whole.

    So there is not one piece of evidence which is convincing by itself?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Zachriel: In any case, you are diverting. You pointed to iPods as an example of a best-fit nested hierarchy, and it turns out that you were wrong.

    Neal Tedford: You and Derick are being inconsistent in looking at the panoply of characteristics.

    Indeed, you never refer to characteristics. You just make claim and then don't bother to support them. Meanwhile Derick Childress has consistently referred to characteristics in order to attempt to classify objects.

    Neal Tedford: From the Knox hierarchy article (Introduction): "Encountering references to ‘the hierarchy of nature’

    No one has claimed a "hierarchy of nature". For instance, organisms within sexually reproducing populations don't form a hierarchy based on traits.

    Try to classify Derick Childress's examples, and please do refer to the traits involved.

    ReplyDelete
  147. dalahimself said...

    Thorton: There is no ONE best piece of evidence for ToE. The strength of the theory is found from the fit of millions of pieces of evidence into one consilient and cohesive whole.

    So there is not one piece of evidence which is convincing by itself?


    The only 'best' one piece of evidence IS that fact that all the independently derived data fit into a single logically consistent and cross-corroborating explanation.

    In science you can't just look at one datum in a vacuum and draw overarching conclusions. It's another basic point that Creationists just can't seem to grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Thorton Said :

    "Historians can't explain exactly what Lewis and Clark were doing every minute of every day in their epic 1804-06 expedition, but they're absolutely certain the journey is a fact.

    Do you also think historians have injected their religion into history and made absurd claims?

    If not, why the blatant hypocrisy? "

    Good Question.But can you tell us how historians know the journey is a fact ?

    ReplyDelete
  149. deadlock said...

    Good Question.But can you tell us how historians know the journey is a fact ?


    Because there is enough physical evidence (i.e artifacts from the locations they visited, remnants of their campsites, their logs, multiple independent historical accounts of the trek) to conclusively demonstrate that the trip actually took place.

    In the same way there are ample lines of physical evidence to conclusively demonstrate that evolution - descent over deep time - took place.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Bill Bigge:

    ===
    you reject the theory of evolution a-priori as religious dogma - of course you wouldn't find any explanation compelling!
    ===

    No I'm not a positivist. I don't reject evolution because of its metaphysics.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Bill Bigge:

    ===
    "Actually I did exactly that. The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons. "

    As Thornton has pointed out, you are posting falsehoods - this is not what the evidence from paleontology or geology indicates.
    ===

    No, I'm not the one posting falsehoods. Of course this what the evidence from paleontology indicates. It is not controversial. Beyond speculation, evolution does not have an explanation for large-scale changes. That is not controversial.


    ===
    "Likewise genetics is not an observation of evolution. It reveals a resistance to change. "

    Again, your claim is contradicted by the evidence.
    ===

    No, your claim is contradicted by the evidence. Again, this is not controversial for geneticists. You cited genetics as an example of an observable effect of evolution that makes it a fact. That is not true. Genetics is not such an example.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Ah, I see Cornelius has sunk to deploying the always effective and never silly "No U!" argument. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Cornelius,
    CH: "The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons.."

    Thorton: "Here are just a few of the many known smooth transitional series
    Radiolarians
    Pliocene Snails
    forams (fossil plankton)
    Eocoelia"

    CH:"Of course this {news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons} is what the evidence from paleontology indicates. It is not controversial."

    Cornelius, at this point you appear to be simply ignoring data and/or lying.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Cornelius Hunter said...

    No I'm not a positivist. I don't reject evolution because of its metaphysics.


    Right CH. You're not really a closet Creationist who teaches at an ultra-conservative evangelical Christian college, is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, and who makes weekly ranting posts filled with blatant falsehoods concerning the ToE. You just play one on the web.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Thorton said

    ========
    Because there is enough physical evidence (i.e artifacts from the locations they visited, remnants of their campsites, their logs, multiple independent historical accounts of the trek) to conclusively demonstrate that the trip actually took place.

    In the same way there are ample lines of physical evidence to conclusively demonstrate that evolution - descent over deep time - took place.

    =========

    That´s where you are wrong.

    You dont have witnesses of evolution.So, you dont have multiple independent historical accounts about it.

    The only physical evidences you can use are the Fossil Record and homology.But there are several problems with them.

    The Fossil Record:

    1 - Cambrian Explosion
    2 - Stasis instead of gradual changing
    3 - Lack of transitional fossils

    Homology :

    1 - It Can be explained by common design
    2 - It´s impossible to say if a trait is homologous or analogous, as many scientists are admitting:

    "I believe the topic of convergence is important for two main reasons. One is widely acknowledged, if as often subject to procrustean procedures of accommodation. It concerns phylogeny, with the obvious circularity of two questions: do we trust our phylogeny and thereby define convergence (which everyone does), or do we trust our characters to be convergent (for whatever reason) and define our phylogeny? As phylogeny depends on characters, the two questions are inseparable. ... Even so, no phylogeny is free of its convergences, and it is often the case that a biologist believes a phylogeny because in his or her view certain convergences would be too incredible to be true. ...

    During my time in the libraries I have been particularly struck by the adjectives that accompany descriptions of evolutionary convergence. Words like, 'remarkable', 'striking', 'extraordinary', or even 'astonishing' and 'uncanny' are common place...the frequency of adjectival surprise associated with descriptions of convergence suggests there is almost a feeling of unease in these similarities. Indeed, I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders.

    (Simon Conway Morris, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, pp. 127-128 (Cambridge University Press, 2003).)"


    "Cladistics can run into difficulties in its application because not all character states are necessarily homologous. Certain resemblances are convergent -- that is, the result of independent evolution. We cannot always detect these convergences immediately, and their presence may contradict other similarities, "true homologies" yet to be recognized. Thus, we are obliged to assume at first that, for each character, similar states are homologous, despite knowing that there may be convergence among them.

    (Guillaume Lecointre & Hervé Le Guyader, The Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic Classification, p. 16 (Harvard University Press, 2006).) "

    "Given the difficulties associated with alignment and with the establishing the conditions of consistency and convergence, it is clear that molecular phylogenies should not be accepted uncritically as accurate representations of the degree of relatedness between organisms.
    (Rudolph Raff, Charles R. Marshall, and James M. Turbeville, "Using DNA sequences to unravel the Cambrian radiation of the animal phyla," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 25:351-375 (1994).) "

    ReplyDelete
  156. deadlock said...

    That´s where you are wrong.

    You dont have witnesses of evolution.So, you dont have multiple independent historical accounts about it.


    Science don't need eyewitnesses. The physical evidence is conclusive.

    The only physical evidences you can use are the Fossil Record and homology.But there are several problems with them.

    The Fossil Record:

    1 - Cambrian Explosion
    2 - Stasis instead of gradual changing
    3 - Lack of transitional fossils

    Homology :

    1 - It Can be explained by common design
    2 - It´s impossible to say if a trait is homologous or analogous, as many scientists are admitting:


    Oh please, not another repeat of the same old Creationist PRATTs.

    1. The Cambrian 'explosion' was not immediate but took place over some 50 millions of years. There is ample evidence of Precambrian multi-cellular life. See the Ediacaran biota.

    2. We just went over this above. Evolution does not predict nor require a constant rate of morphological change. Some lineages show gradual change, some show punk eek.

    3. THERE IS NO LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SEQUENCES. That's one of the stupidest and easily rebutted bits of Creationist idiocy going.

    A few selected transitional fossils

    1A. 'Common design' explains absolutely nothing because any possible discovery can be hand-waved away with "it was designed to look like it evolved."

    2B. Wouldn't be a creationist post without a couple of quote-mined quotes. I've never understood why Creationists think an out-of-context quote somehow trumps 150+ years of positive empirical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  157. nanobot74:

    ===
    Cornelius, at this point you appear to be simply ignoring data and/or lying.
    ===

    No, I'm not lying. Even evolutionists agree they don't have a rigorous explanation for how new forms arise without precursors. The Cambrian Explosion is a good example.

    ReplyDelete
  158. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Thorton:

    ===
    Cornelius Hunter said...

    "No I'm not a positivist. I don't reject evolution because of its metaphysics. "

    Right CH. You're not really a closet Creationist ...
    ===

    You've outdone yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Cornelius,
    "No, I'm not lying. Even evolutionists agree they don't have a rigorous explanation for how new forms arise without precursors.The Cambrian Explosion is a good example."

    Wow, lying, and then completely changing the subject to cover up the fact that you were lying. What you just said above is not the same as "The fossil record shows news forms appearing abruptly and then showing little change for eons." This statement is contradicted by the numerous transitional fossil series, some of which have now been pointed out to you numerous times.Are you going to address this or keep doing the Gish Gallop?

    ReplyDelete
  161. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Thorton:

    ===
    Cornelius Hunter said...

    "No I'm not a positivist. I don't reject evolution because of its metaphysics. "

    Right CH. You're not really a closet Creationist ...
    ===

    You've outdone yourself.


    LOL! Maybe, but I've still got a ways to go to catch the genius who got caught trying to pass off a flipped drawing of a thylacine as a mammalian wolf, and who claimed that in winning Kitzmiller v. Dover the evolutionists had to lose their very souls.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Thorton:

    ===
    LOL! Maybe, but I've still got a ways to go to catch the genius who got caught trying to pass off a flipped drawing of a thylacine as a mammalian wolf
    ===

    So you also deny convergence? What next ...

    ReplyDelete
  163. Pedant:

    ===
    No, Kant did not argue for a preference for secondary causes, he argued for a mandate.

    What does that mean ("mandate")? Please disambiguate. What did Kant say, where and when did he say it, and why, in the shadow of Galileo, Newton and other pioneering practitioners of methodological naturalism that preceded Kant, should it matter?
    ===

    Please see my earlier comments on where to go to read more on Kant.

    ===
    As I recall, Thomas Aquinas and other medieval thinkers also argued that God’s intervention by way of miracles was not to be taken lightly, and explanations of events by secondary causes were routinely to be sought preferentially (to protect God’s dignity from error or deception).
    ===

    I wouldn't draw those connections because they are more tenuous than the ones that are so obvious but sure, that could be yet another theological influence.


    ===
    His theory was accepted and stands as a landmark of scientific reasoning, because it has explanatory power. All one has to do to prove otherwise is provide a theory that does a better job of explaining the history of life’s diversity.
    ===

    Catch-22.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Eocene: "Once again I already gave you an example to understand a simple example to illustrate the point that even a child would get. I told you to THINK about it.
    ...
    first think(immaterial) about something, then take an ink pen and write those thoughts down on paper(material)."


    Defining thought as immaterial is not evidence. When I think, there is electrical and chemical activity going on in my brain (material). This is something we can observe. When I write it down I'm converting the dynamic pattern of electrical activity in my brain into static patterns of ink on paper.

    Bill: "(one way might be to explain how this type of information interacts with matter, and give some experimental evidence of this happening.)"

    Eocene: "first think(immaterial) about something, then take an ink pen and write those thoughts down on paper(material). That's about as grade school experimenting as you're going to get."

    Stating that thinking is an immaterial process, when we know that physical brains are required for thought and physical damage affects the ability to think, doesn't explain anything. If I am to incorporate substrate free information into an experiment I need to know how it interacts with matter - what is the mechanism by which it affects neurons and synapses, what parameters govern those interactions?

    Eocene: "Wow, this is Kindergarten stuff."

    Then let me paint you a picture:
    -------------------
    Eocene: "Aeroplanes require lift to fly, lift is an imaterial process, experiments with flight are incomplete unless you incorporate imaterial lift into your experiments"

    Bill: "Isn't lift the behaviour we observe when aerofoils operate in a fluid medium. How does your idea of imaterial lift work - what is the mechanism by which it interacts with matter - how can I incorporate it into my experiment"

    Eocene answers: "LOOK at the aeroplane (material). it FLIES (immaterial)"

    -------------------
    Bill: "Why do we need to demonstrate that chemical replicators have goals? Why is that useful?"

    Eocene: "Because chemicals reacting to a catalyst making crytal-like patterns are not LIFE, Bill."

    Then tell me why it is necessary or useful to include 'having goals' in the definition of life?

    Eocene: "The genetic codes do have goals for renewal and replication, but they also have at their disposal a bounty of error correction mechanisms and other resources to prevent birth defects. These were all present at the very beginning. Why ??? Because if not, then life never gets of the ground billions of years ago, let alone continuing to the present from last year."

    Goals? All I see that is required is behaviour - replication with error - goals are something we infer when we look at it. Does the water in the river have the ocean as its goal?

    Error correction was present at the very beginning? How do you know that - a replicator that makes 1000 copies, of which only two are viable enough to make more copies, is still a replicator and will lead to population growth. Replicators that make fewer critical replication errors will produce more viable copies - Selection 1.01

    ReplyDelete
  165. Hunter:

    Please see my earlier comments on where to go to read more on Kant.

    I have read your previous writings on Kant, and it seems that you and I agree that he was a strong advocate of secondary causation as the first line of attack on empirical problems.

    My point is that Kant was in no position to "mandate" anything, and his influence on the subsequent history of science is not clearly greater than the abiding influence of many other philosophers, including such ancients as Abelard of Bath, Robert Grosseteste, and Thomas Aquinas.

    I wouldn't draw those connections because they are more tenuous than the ones that are so obvious but sure, that could be yet another theological influence.

    On the contrary, viewing such connections as tenuous is rather subjective and possibly unscholarly: You might consider painting a broader historical brush in making the case that “Religion drives science and it matters.”

    That is, if it’s the exclusive focus on secondary causes that makes science “religious” in your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Hunter:

    Catch-22.

    Why be clear when you can be inscrutable?

    ReplyDelete
  167. The way I undersatnd the problem with the fossil record is the lack pf species-to-species change. The famous transitional fossils are transitions between major groups. Species-to-species change is still pretty much absent. New species just show up, exist for a while, then go extinct. And many of the famous transtional species are not really considered the real ancestors becuase of the details of their anatomy, or the timing is off. Evolution means one species changes into another. That's what missing.

    ReplyDelete
  168. natschuster:

    "And many of the famous transtional species are not really considered the real ancestors becuase of the details of their anatomy, or the timing is off."
    ======

    Or how about many of the newest findings of what used to be considered transitional fossils has actually been found to be nothing more than infantile or even teenage adolescent offspring of the full grown adults found. Doesn't really matter though, since such a set back is of no consequence since evolution is a mandated factoid.

    FACTOID :
    A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition

    a piece of unreliable information believed to be true because of the way it is presented or repeated in print

    something resembling a fact; unverified (often invented) information that is given credibility because it appeared in print

    something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised esp. to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

    a piece of unreliable information believed to be true because of the way it is presented or repeated in print

    "Factoids ... that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority." [N. Mailer, "Marilyn," 1973]

    And I love Larry Tanner's Urban Dictionary number 4 reference of what a factoid is. You just can't make this up.

    URBAN DICTIONARY = FACTOID(Evolution???):
    "A fact so awesome that it have to be true and used to embellish a story.
    Checking for authenticity is not required."

    ReplyDelete
  169. Oh please, not another repeat of the same old evolutionists wishful thinking strawman pseudo science

    ======================================================
    1. The Cambrian 'explosion' was not immediate but took place over some 50 millions of years.
    =====================================================

    Thorton, I´ll tell you a secret: "50 millions of years are immediate in evolution and geology.

    =================================================================
    There is ample evidence of Precambrian multi-cellular life. See the Ediacaran biota.
    ================================================================

    It´s a strawman.I never said there weren´t multi-celular life before Cambrian.

    ========================================================
    2. We just went over this above. Evolution does not predict nor require a constant rate of morphological change. Some lineages show gradual change, some show punk eek.
    ========================================================

    Exactly the opposite.Evolution predicts everything.It predicts that some organisms will change fast and some will change slow.There is no space to falsification.That happens because evolution is only a collection of Post Hocs.But you can change that showing to us what are the mechanisms which make some organisms change fast and some change slow, despite of mutation rate being constant.


    =========================================================
    3. THERE IS NO LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SEQUENCES. That's one of the stupidest and easily rebutted bits of Creationist idiocy going.
    ==========================================================

    First, Your link admits that Fish-Tetrapod are not really transitional.Call them "late-surviving relics", It´s a expected Post Hoc from an evolutionist.

    It´s really amazing how evolutionists surf on their imagination.All your transitional examples are all fully formed species.Only evolutionist´s fantasy about homology can see transitional traits in those species.Do you remember Coelacanth ? It was one of the transitional fossils between fish and tetrapod.After its discovery in 1939, it was really clear how silly were the speculations evolutionists made about their fossils.Archeopteryx were a fully formed bird, how can the primitive ones come after it ?



    =============================
    1A. 'Common design' explains absolutely nothing because any possible discovery can be hand-waved away with "it was designed to look like it evolved."
    =============================

    It was designed to look like it evolved ? I really dont know what you mean with that.What is Convergence ? A trick, evolution used to cheat us ? For us to think two creatures had a common ancestor but they had not ?

    Common design means reusable components.We see it everywhere : computers, cars, software.Do you think that all those things evolved?


    =================================
    2B. Wouldn't be a creationist post without a couple of quote-mined quotes. I've never understood why Creationists think an out-of-context quote somehow trumps 150+ years of positive empirical evidence.
    ==================================

    I would like to know how my quotes are out of context.Ups ! excuse me I´ll take your word for it.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Bill Bigge:

    "Goals? All I see that is required is behaviour - replication with error - goals are something we infer when we look at it."
    =====

    We have 100% inference that intelligent information(codes) originate with an intelligent mind. We have 0% inference that blind undirected forces without purpose or intent evolution ever develope intelligent information (codes).
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "Then tell me why it is necessary or useful to include 'having goals' in the definition of life?"
    =====

    The good Reverend Richard Dawkins insisted that all raw animalistic passionate selfish life is only driven to survive and spread it's selfish DNA at any and all cost. If this isn't a goal enough explanation for you, then consult your own holyman on the matter.
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "Error correction was present at the very beginning? How do you know that ?"
    =====

    Take all the correction mechanisms away from all present seen and unseen life and watch it all fail and go extinct. No blind robotic replicating mechanism is going to keep it going unless it has an imprinted purposed goal for doing so.
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "Defining thought as immaterial is not evidence. When I think, there is electrical and chemical activity going on in my brain (material). This is something we can observe."
    =====

    Show me a photograph of your thoughts Bill or I won't believe they exist. Show me a photograph of Gravity Bill or else I conclude it doesn't really exist. Show me a photograph of the wind Bill or I'll conclude your just blowing smoke that wind really does exist.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Deadlock:
    "All your transitional examples are all fully formed species."

    "50 millions of years are immediate in evolution and geology. "

    "Exactly the opposite.Evolution predicts everything."


    Yes, this is correct, all species are actual or potential transitions between other species. If you are expecting transitional species to look somehow different than other species then you don't understand what the term means.

    50,000,000 years is a very long time.

    Evolution doesn't predict everything.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Bill Bigge:

    "If I am to incorporate substrate free information into an experiment I need to know how it interacts with matter - what is the mechanism by which it affects neurons and synapses, what parameters govern those interactions?"
    ======

    I've already informed you. You're the materialist, you tell me. If you find this impossible then do the sterile dirt in jar routine and get back to me when life appears. Any computer simulation you set up will always prove rigged goal purposed intelligent design. I'd go with the watching dirt idea Bill if I were to prove blind undirected forces.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Bill Bigge:

    "Evolution doesn't predict everything."
    ======

    Wow, this goes contary to what most of the posting evolutionists on this blog and around the Net have said. They have often start off with a "Evolution predicts . . " intro.

    Seriously, Google it!!!

    ReplyDelete
  174. Eocene: "We have 100% inference that intelligent information(codes) originate with an intelligent mind. We have 0% inference that blind undirected forces without purpose or intent evolution ever develope intelligent information (codes)."

    I see you are still having problems with this idea of information. We have zero evidence that information exists independantly of matter or energy. We also can be pretty sure that the only intelligent creatures we know exist didn't create life.

    Eocene: "The good Reverend Richard Dawkins insisted that all raw animalistic passionate selfish life is only driven to survive and spread it's selfish DNA at any and all cost. If this isn't a goal enough explanation for you, then consult your own holyman on the matter."

    Again, you are confused - Does DNA have a will or is replication with selection a feedback process that generates better replication? Also, when did Dawkins become a member of the clergy?

    Eocene: "Take all the correction mechanisms away from all present seen and unseen life and watch it all fail and go extinct."

    Go on then ... I assume you will back up your claim with some experimental evidence!

    Eocene: "No blind robotic replicating mechanism is going to keep it going unless it has an imprinted purposed goal for doing so."

    Why? Why does this goal need to be imposed by another entity (and what gave that entity goals?)

    Eocene: "Show me a photograph of your thoughts Bill or I won't believe they exist. Show me a photograph of Gravity Bill or else I conclude it doesn't really exist. Show me a photograph of the wind Bill or I'll conclude your just blowing smoke that wind really does exist. "

    That is a really confused statement. I want you to provide the following:

    1 Empirical evidence that information can exist without a substrate like matter or energy.
    2 A theoretical framework describing how this type of information interacts with matter (it doesn't have to be perfect, I just want something I can use to do experimental work on this information)

    ReplyDelete
  175. Bill:"Evolution doesn't predict everything."


    Eocene: "Wow, this goes contary to what most of the posting evolutionists on this blog and around the Net have said. They have often start off with a "Evolution predicts . . " intro."

    Yes, there are a lot of predictions that come out of the theory - It is very useful when a theory does that. Now show me why it predicts everything or why some people stating that it makes some specific predictions means that it predicts everything

    ReplyDelete
  176. Bill:"Evolution doesn't predict everything."

    Eocene: "Wow, this goes contary to what most of the posting evolutionists on this blog and around the Net have said. They have often start off with a "Evolution predicts . . " intro."

    Yes, there are a lot of predictions that come out of the theory - It is very useful when a theory does that. Now show me why it predicts everything

    Eocene: "I've already informed you. You're the materialist, you tell me."

    You claim that immaterial information exists, I ask for evidence, you tell me that I must provide evidence because you believe I am a materialist.

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  177. deadlock said...

    Thorton, I´ll tell you a secret: "50 millions of years are immediate in evolution and geology.


    Not to scientists they aren't, but I bet no one ever mistook you for a scientist.

    It´s a strawman.I never said there weren´t multi-celular life before Cambrian.

    Then the Cambrian explosion isn't a problem for ToE. Glad we cleared that up.

    Your link admits that Fish-Tetrapod are not really transitional.

    No, the article didn't say that at all. I see you were too lazy to read the provided explanation of what 'transitional fossil' means. Why do Creationists always demand to see a 'transitional' half-giraffe half-rutabaga?

    It was designed to look like it evolved ? I really dont know what you mean with that.

    Just what I said. 'common design' is a hand-waving excuse that explains nothing. Tell us, what would a non-designed animal look like?

    I would like to know how my quotes are out of context.

    Try reading the source material instead of blindly regurgitating claims you get from Creationist websites.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Bill Bigge:

    "I see you are still having problems with this idea of information. We have zero evidence that information exists independantly of matter or energy. We also can be pretty sure that the only intelligent creatures we know exist didn't create life."
    ====

    PERFECT, then show us how sterile material dirt accomplished this informational code invention. We're all eyes.
    ----

    Bill Bigge:

    "Again, you are confused - Does DNA have a will or is replication with selection a feedback process that generates better replication?
    ====

    To lisyen to evolutionists talk about evolution and natural selction, you'd certainly think so. Have your read up on most of their metaphysical storytellings ???
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "Also, when did Dawkins become a member of the clergy?"
    =====

    The man has a driving need for being a leader in a preaching movement using nothing more than faith based statements to promote his claims.
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "Why? Why does this goal need to be imposed by another entity."
    =====

    Go for it Bill. Show us how sterile dirt creates goals.
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "That is a really confused statement. I want you to provide the following:"
    =====

    Not so fast. First you show me a photo of (1) your thoughts, (2) Gravity and finally a photo of (3) the Wind. Then I'll answer your question.
    -----

    Bill Bigge:

    "You claim that immaterial information exists, I ask for evidence, you tell me that I must provide evidence because you believe I am a materialist.

    Why?"
    =====

    Again show me any one of those photos and I'll tell you. *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  179. "PERFECT, then show us how sterile material dirt accomplished this informational code invention. We're all eyes."

    There are a large number of active research projects investigating how chemical replicators can arise. We don't understand the mechanics yet so you will have to wait. As for generating an informational code ... if we demonstrate that chemistry and the laws of physics can generate replicators will that suffice - I suspect not!.

    "Go for it Bill. Show us how sterile dirt creates goals."

    Why do I need to do that?

    "Not so fast. First you show me a photo of (1) your thoughts, (2) Gravity and finally a photo of (3) the Wind. Then I'll answer your question."

    Should I take that statement to mean that you believe that gravity or wind are immaterial unless they can be photographed. What about electrons, or mass?

    Will a brain scan, a photo of an apple and a flag do?

    You claimed that immaterial information exists, provided no evidence, and demanded that I incorporate it into my research. Stop evading, explain how I do this and why it is up to me to prove your claims?

    ReplyDelete
  180. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  181. natschuster said...

    The way I undersatnd the problem with the fossil record is the lack pf species-to-species change.


    And once again it's your woeful misunderstanding that is the problem.

    The famous transitional fossils are transitions between major groups. Species-to-species change is still pretty much absent. New species just show up, exist for a while, then go extinct.

    That's because the sampling size of the fossil record is way too small to capture such fine graduations as individual species transitions.

    If you were randomly sampling a string of numbers from 1 to 1000 and were only allowed 10 samples, the chances of you getting a continuous run (say 7,8,9,10,11) are almost nonexistent.

    And many of the famous transtional species are not really considered the real ancestors becuase of the details of their anatomy, or the timing is off.

    Sigh. A fossil doesn't have to be a direct ancestor of others to be considered a transitional form nat. That's your ignorance showing again.

    Evolution means one species changes into another. That's what missing.

    Evidence that speciation occurred is not missing. We don't need to sample every last animal to determine the occurrence.

    ReplyDelete
  182. But I understand that the majortiy of modern genuses have been found as fossils. So that would indicate that the fossil record is a fairly accurate record of what actually happened. So if the fossil record doesn't show species to species change, then that means that it didn't happen. And the fact that the real ancestors are missing from the fossil record, they tend to find only side branches with the transitional condition that became extinct, means that they don't exist.

    And if there are from two to ten million species that exist now, and millions more that are extinct, and each one was the result of species to species change, that means that there a lot of evolution happened. I, for one, would expect to see more evidence in the fossil record than the three dozen or so questionable examples listed.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Bill Bigge:

    "There are a large number of active research projects investigating how chemical replicators can arise. We don't understand the mechanics yet so you will have to wait."
    ======

    I actually love this. You know what this above statement is called ??? It's called "FAITH", hence it's every equal of anything else that's religious.

    "Science can't prove life came from non-living sterile dirt but numerous experiments are now being conducted to explain how and one day I know they will prove it".

    Thanks for illustrating that for us Bill.
    ------

    Bill Bigge:

    "As for generating an informational code ... if we demonstrate that chemistry and the laws of physics can generate replicators will that suffice - I suspect not!."
    ======

    LOL, Could you expound more on replicator ??? A code for replication is not the same as some stupid blind chemcial reaction in a test tube. You clearly don't want to get this.
    ------

    Bill Bigge:

    "You claimed that immaterial information exists, provided no evidence, and demanded that I incorporate it into my research. Stop evading, explain how I do this and why it is up to me to prove your claims?"
    ======

    Yes I did and you didn't like it. It's called the thoughts and ideas of the mind (not the same as material machinery of the brain) that work independently of the brain machinery, otherwise we'd be robots and robots Bill apparently are your only expertise ??? Could that be the problem ???

    It amazes me how strict Materialists will invoke immaterial concepts all the time to explain their materialist ideas like the words "nature" and "natural" which actually can mean anything since when backed into a corner definition shell games are the weapons of choice.

    Bill, are natural laws material or immaterial ??? Who controls your brain Bill, is it you or nature ??? Who or what is using your brain right now to argue material vrs immaterial concepts Bill, is it your consciousness or nothing more than molecules bouncing around in your skull, and if it's you, but instead nothing more than electricity and material wiring how could they even know what they are saying? ( Hurry Bill, the Jeopardy Tune is playing while YOU """THINK""" about it )

    ReplyDelete
  184. natschuster:

    "I, for one, would expect to see more evidence in the fossil record than the three dozen or so questionable examples listed."
    ======

    Never under estimate the ability of a skilled craftsman with a top of the line power saw and a creative story telling Soothsayer to take a pathetic fragmented excuse for an unidentified fossil and create a mythological universe of an ancient world usually found only in a Harry Potter film.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Nat,
    "But I understand that the majortiy of modern genuses have been found as fossils."

    this is incorrect on many levels. First, it is not true-exactly how many genera of bacteria have been found fossilized, for example? are you referring specifically to vertebrates? if so, i'd like to see your reference. Second, even if it were true, it would not support your point that we should see the majority of species-species transitions in the fossil record. If the majority of modern species, not genera (which contain many species), had been found fossilized, you might have a limited point. THird, using modern genera as a comparison point leads to a biased view of the likelihood of fossilization. Older fossils are much less likely to be found due to the "recycling" of the earth's crust.

    ReplyDelete
  186. natschuster said...

    But I understand that the majortiy of modern genuses have been found as fossils. So that would indicate that the fossil record is a fairly accurate record of what actually happened.


    It is, to the level of granularity we get from the incomplete record.

    So if the fossil record doesn't show species to species change, then that means that it didn't happen. And the fact that the real ancestors are missing from the fossil record, they tend to find only side branches with the transitional condition that became extinct, means that they don't exist

    See nat, it's when you say incredibly stupid things like that it's hard to believe you're not just trolling. Can you provide a record of every last one of your ancestors for every generation going back 2000 years? if not, should we assume they didn't exist? Absence of evidence, especially with the minute sampling size of the fossil record, is not evidence of absence.

    And if there are from two to ten million species that exist now, and millions more that are extinct, and each one was the result of species to species change, that means that there a lot of evolution happened.

    Yes, it did.

    I, for one, would expect to see more evidence in the fossil record than the three dozen or so questionable examples listed.

    There is more available. Those particular transitional lineages are usually presented because they have large amounts of evidence and are easily understood by laymen. You'll have to start reading the primary scientific literature to see the details of the rest.

    In the mean time, it is still completely unrealistic to expect your number of specimens knowing what we do about the rarity of fossil preservation and discovery. Science isn't constrained by your ignorance based beliefs of what ought to be found.

    ReplyDelete
  187. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Holy comments batman! To use Thomas Friedman's metaphor what a lot of entangled olive trees!

    ReplyDelete
  189. But fossils aren't rare. There are entire rock strata full of fossils going all the way back to the Cambrian. So I'm not sure how much of a factor recycling of the Earth's crust is. And if a signifant percentage of species gets preserved then IMHO,they provide an accurate picture of what really happened. Then if species to species change is what really happened why don't we see it in the fossil record.

    My ancestors remains aren't all that common. But fossils are. Big difference.

    What I'm hearing sounds like apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  190. nat,

    "But fossils aren't rare"

    If there ever was one, there is now officially no reason to ever take you seriously again.

    ReplyDelete
  191. natschuster said...

    But fossils aren't rare. There are entire rock strata full of fossils going all the way back to the Cambrian.


    One clueless statement after another. Fossils are extremely rare compared to the total number of individual animals that were once alive, and even rarer yet are complete, articulated fossils that preserve enough detail to assign them unambiguously to a specific species.

    Maybe it would help you if you realized that 'species' is a human construct used for classification purposes. Two groups are generally thought of as different species if they no longer exchange genetic material, either due to behavioral differences, physical isolation, or genetic non-interfertility. With extant species there are typically thousand to millions of individual animals to observe, and you easily determine if two groups qualify as different species.

    With the fossil record all you get in most cases are isolated ones or twos of any groups, with none of the other information. Typically for two fossils to be assigned to different species there must be a significant morphological difference between them. Most times it is impossible to tell if two similar fossils are different species or just individual variations in the same species.

    I'll say this again in the forlorn hope it will get through your cast iron skull:

    The sample size of the fossil record doesn't provide enough granularity for the level of detail you are demanding.

    My ancestors remains aren't all that common. But fossils are. Big difference.

    It's quality, not quantity nat. Finding a million or so specimens of the same species of animal in a catastrophe-caused bone bed doesn't tell you anything about the species immediately before of after them.

    What I'm hearing sounds like apologetics.

    I don't think you're hearing a single thing people are telling you. People who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you do. You've got your ignorance based pre-conceived false notions, and you aren't interested in seeing them corrected. Not even a little.

    ReplyDelete
  192. nanobot74


    I understand that it is estimated that there are
    100,000,000 fossil specimins being studied in museums around the world. There are rock strata made entirely of fossils. That doesn't sound like fossils are very rare to me.

    ReplyDelete
  193. And I know that people with PhDs who believe in evolution have to come up with things like punctuated equilibrium in order to explain why the fossil record does not show species to species change, which is evolution. That sounds like an apologetic. So is saying that the fossil record is too incomplete. Either way, the proof for evolution, which is species to species change is not there.

    And don't scientists define new species based on single specimins all rhe time?

    ReplyDelete
  194. Nat,
    "I understand that it is estimated that there are
    100,000,000 fossil specmins being studied in museums around the world."
    Even if this is true, how do you think it compares with the number of organisms that have ever existed? And how many of those 100,000,000 are from separate species?

    "And I know that people with PhDs who believe in evolution have to come up with things like punctuated equilibrium in order to explain why the fossil record does not show species to species change, which is evolution."

    THe fossil record does show species to species transitions, as has been pointed out to you. PE explains a limited subset of the fossil record (mainly the subset Gould was studying), and fits within known and observed mechanisms of speciation.

    ReplyDelete
  195. natschuster said...

    I understand that it is estimated that there are 100,000,000 fossil specimins being studied in museums around the world. There are rock strata made entirely of fossils. That doesn't sound like fossils are very rare to me.

    And I know that people with PhDs who believe in evolution have to come up with things like punctuated equilibrium in order to explain why the fossil record does not show species to species change, which is evolution. That sounds like an apologetic. So is saying that the fossil record is too incomplete. Either way, the proof for evolution, which is species to species change is not there.


    This, in spades.

    I don't think you're hearing a single thing people are telling you. People who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you do. You've got your ignorance based pre-conceived false notions, and you aren't interested in seeing them corrected. Not even a little.

    ReplyDelete
  196. natschuster: But fossils aren't rare.

    Which is why no one ever finds new fossil organisms?

    Some fossils are common in the sense that nearly anyone can find some common fossils and confirm part of the geological succession. But saying that fossils are common is not the same thing as saying that every organism has left fossils. Some fossils are exceedingly rare. Some organisms rarely leave fossils, either because of their structure or their environment.

    For instance, can you find a fossil of the common sparrow?

    Natschuster: I understand that it is estimated that there are
    100,000,000 fossil specimins being studied in museums around the world. There are rock strata made entirely of fossils. That doesn't sound like fossils are very rare to me.


    Compared to the number of organisms that have ever lived, it's is a miniscule number. That's not even close to the number of mice in Hunan province today.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Eocene: "... Who or what is using your brain right now to argue material vrs immaterial concepts Bill, is it your consciousness or nothing more than molecules bouncing around in your skull, and if it's you, but instead nothing more than electricity and material wiring how could they even know what they are saying? ( Hurry Bill, the Jeopardy Tune is playing while YOU """THINK""" about it ) "

    I think this just highlights your total confusion about this complex and difficult topic. You are stating your belief that 'you' are an imaterial being controlling some material body, then claiming that if 'you' are actually a material being in totality then you don't really exist. You don't believe that 'you' can be located anywhere inside your body so you look elsewhere, and if this elsewhere doesn't exist then neither do you. Your last sentence is just a way of asking 'How could a machine think?' - it is an interesting question, another one that science is in the process of answering.

    I'm afraid I don't see much point continuing this conversation, I have zero faith in your ability to understand the science or philosophical foundations required to have a meaningful debate on these topics.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Eocene: "I actually love this. You know what this above statement is called ??? It's called "FAITH", hence it's every equal of anything else that's religious. "

    Nope. Research into evolution indicates common ancestors to all life today. Current knowledge of chemistry indicates that chemical replicators could form under the right circumstances. We have an hypothesis - that, under certain conditions, replicators can form. We are testing that hypothesis. I don't know if we will succeed, it is a question to be answered and which is best investigated with the scientific method.

    Eocene: "LOL, Could you expound more on replicator ??? A code for replication is not the same as some stupid blind chemcial reaction in a test tube. You clearly don't want to get this."

    A replicator is a replicator. If you establish how mollecules can form systems that generate copies of themselves then you have established how self replicating systems can form. You can then look at them and categorise elements of their construction as a code, if you like.

    ReplyDelete
  199. Bill "You claimed that immaterial information exists, provided no evidence, and demanded that I incorporate it into my research. Stop evading, explain how I do this and why it is up to me to prove your claims?"

    Eocene: "Yes I did and you didn't like it. It's called the thoughts and ideas of the mind (not the same as material machinery of the brain) that work independently of the brain machinery, ..."

    I have no objection to the idea of this imaterial information, I just want you to provide evidence for its existance and some formal description of its properties - like how it interacts with matter. Without that it is just some idea you have, nothing more, and not something you can incorporate into experimental work.

    As I have already pointed out, your claim that thinking is evidence of its existance is actually just a statement without evidence - you believe that thoughts are imaterial - that belief of yours is not evidence.

    I don't believe that thoughts are material but I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

    Eocene: "... otherwise we'd be robots and robots Bill apparently are your only expertise ??? Could that be the problem ???"

    We can make machines that learn from experience and solve reasonably complex problems. If imaterial information exists, can interact with matter and is required for 'thought', then we ought to be able to make machines that use it to think. If it doesn't then we ought to be able to make machines that think. If you define thought as immaterial then it may turn out that thought is impossible - at least according to your definition - if I define 'flying' as sustained passage through the air without propulsion or lift, then flying is impossible and birds must be doing something else. Defining your terms is very important in science and philosophy.

    Robotics and Artificial Intelligence are my specialty, my education in this field has coverd evolution, neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy of mind, and artificial life, and many other topics.

    ReplyDelete
  200. Ok, not sure why those three posts came out in the wrong order - the first post of the three above should have been the last ...

    ReplyDelete