Wednesday, March 2, 2011

The Daffodil's Trumpet: A New Flower Part

The most common evidence for evolution are all the similarities between different species. Biology’s ubiquitous similarities are one of the reasons evolutionists say you can’t do research in the life sciences without evolution as your starting point. These similarities trace out evolutionary history, showing how different species are supposed to have evolved from each other. But what happens when biology reveals differences?

Botanists explain that flowers have four basic parts: sepals, petals, stamens and carpels. But new research shows that the daffodil’s trumpet is a fundamentally different thing. If similarities are such powerful evidence for evolution, then are differences such as the daffodil’s trumpet evidences against evolution? Of course not. As lead researcher, Oxford’s Professor Robert Scotland, explains:

The fascination for me has been because there are only four organs to most flowers, and because there’s so many different types of flowers and that basic system is highly conserved. The evolution of novelty within such a highly conserved but diverse system is interesting.

As this BBC video explains, the daffodil’s trumpet is an “example of evolution in action.” This reminds me of a debate I had with a professor who first claimed similarities between species were evidence for evolution, and then claimed differences between species were also evidence for evolution. I guess everything is evidence for evolution—that’s why it is true.

107 comments:

  1. CH,
    Trying to push the protein-peptide fiasco further down as quickly as possible, huh?

    not that this is much less silly. "If similarities are such powerful evidence for evolution, then are differences such as the daffodil’s trumpet evidences against evolution? "

    Sure, let's say that. so we have 4 pieces of evidence (conserved sepals, petals, stamens, carpels) in favor of evolution and one piece against (trumpets). Run the analysis and see whether evolution or not-evolution is more likely. let me know when your results are in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that the similarities between species is stronger evidence for design. The advantages of reusing past successful designs are fairly obvious. Examples of this can be seen all around us: in vehicles, buildings, software, tools, utensils, furniture, music, etc. Creating variations on existing themes is a hallmark of great design and great designers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Louis,
    "I think that the similarities between species is stronger evidence for design." So if every species was completely unique, with no similarities to any other species, would you say that this was evidence against design?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 4afb9302-32ec-11e0-becb-000bcdcb471e said...

    Sure, let's say that. so we have 4 pieces of evidence (conserved sepals, petals, stamens, carpels) in favor of evolution and one piece against (trumpets). Run the analysis and see whether evolution or not-evolution is more likely. let me know when your results are in.


    Even the trumpets are not evidence against evolution. All flowers still have the four basic pieces, including the daffodil. But the evidence shows daffodil specialized and evolved a newer fifth piece not found on other plants.

    The evolution paradigm covers the empirical evidence quite nicely. The ID one, not so much so.

    You're right about one thing: CH is so mortified by his protein-peptide screw up that he's posting garbage OP topics as fast as he can to make the boner disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Goodness-is an addition in the Daffodil really a 'difference' that shows some contradiction? This is some silly logic.

    Daffodils share sepals, petals, stamens, and carpils with other flowers. In fact, these develop together, as in other flowers, following similar developmental patterns, then the corona emerges.

    So, why would this novel flourish disprove common descent?

    Perhaps an example: Do Gaelic rounders and American baseball share common origins? Both feature a ball, bat, pitcher, four bases, and similar rules. Does the addition of a shortstop in baseball prove they have separate origins?

    Should be simple enough to answer.

    Or is the best explanation that they share common origins, but have since diversified?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cornelius:

    I guess everything is evidence for evolution

    Surely, there are differences and DIFFERENCES. For example, if we have two strains of E. coli that have identical genomes apart from one non-synonymous mutation, that would hardly count as evidence against evolution. On the other end of the scale, if a human was born with a horse's head... well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah the usual Darwieners are out quickly, spewing forth sophism as always, and being too blind to notice it because their minds are on hold.

    Seeing that the core claim of evolutionary theory is that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion, it isn't surprising to witness them persistently raging against logic, evidence and science -as we are accustomed to see here.

    "The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner." -(Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C.., "The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve," in "Evolution from Space," [1981], Paladin: London, 1983, reprint, pp.101-102)

    "The courts did a tremendously stupid and destructive thing back in the 1980s when they banned so-called "creation science." The impression was made loud and clear to tens of millions of parents and students: scientists are intellectual bullies and cowards, and science teachers are liars who censor arguments that don't fit their prejudices."

    Ain't it the truth!
    lol

    ReplyDelete
  8. 4afb9302-32ec-11e0-becb-000bcdcb471e:

    So if every species was completely unique, with no similarities to any other species, would you say that this was evidence against design?

    No. All I am saying is that the usual refrain among evolutionists that similarities between species are evidence for evolution is bogus.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hawks:

    ===
    Surely, there are differences and DIFFERENCES.
    ===

    So why is the daffodil trumpet an “example of evolution in action” ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. So why is the daffodil trumpet an “example of evolution in action” ?

    Typical Hunter. Don’t engage the science; argue about the rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi, Cornelius. I'm back. This seems like a great place for resuming our previous discussion on morphological evidence for common descent. Now you're charging against autapomorphies? Rich.

    Well, as you said, let's not cull the data. Will you put all the available evidence on the table? If you were serious about this, I would expect no less. You set that standard. Tetrapods or daffodils, I don't care. Lets do the detailed analysis.

    This reminds me of a debate I had with a professor who first claimed similarities between species were evidence for evolution, and then claimed differences between species were also evidence for evolution. I guess everything is evidence for evolution—that’s why it is true.

    You know what that reminds me of? "Magnetic field theory". Yep, that fairy tale about imaginary lines, so called "magnetic fields" rediating from magnetic "poles". Magnetists claim it can explain both attraction AND repulsion of magnets. Yes! if either your magnets attract or repel each other, magnetic field theory can explain it! What a piece of junk. I don't know a better solution, but this is clearly bogus.

    Damned magnets, HOW DO THEY WORK?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wrote:
    "So if every species was completely unique, with no similarities to any other species, would you say that this was evidence against design?"

    Louis wrote:
    "No. All I am saying is that the usual refrain among evolutionists that similarities between species are evidence for evolution is bogus. "

    Thank you for admitting that. You are saying that the argument is bogus bc the similarities could also be used as evidence for design. but now you have agreed that any given ratio of similarities or differences (or any data at all) could also be used as evidence for design. this makes design an unfalsifiable hypothesis that predicts everything and should be ignored. on the other hand, our hypothetical scenario of all dissimilar species would obviously falsify common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This reminds me of the reigning evoldolt, Richard Dawkins. He defines life as being very unlikely. However, everything must have happened by random chance. Does anybody see the contradiction? If evoldolts can live with this profound inconsistency to prop up their atheistic belief then they can believe anything. Thorton is a good case in point.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter said...

    This reminds me of the reigning evoldolt, Richard Dawkins. He defines life as being very unlikely. However, everything must have happened by random chance. Does anybody see the contradiction?


    You're still too stupid to understand the filtering effects of selection on the iterative reproductive process I see.

    Is 'selection' some sort of dirty word to Creationists and IDiots so they can never say it, or write it? Why else do you keep making such a pathetic and fundamental error?

    Did the waaaambulance we sent get to your place yet?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thorton,

    "You're still too stupid to understand the filtering effects of selection on the iterative reproductive process I see."

    Completely off topic. Selection doesn't create anything. You continually prove my point.

    "Did the waaaambulance we sent get to your place yet?"

    Is this the best you can do? No wonder you are so scared of the truth getting out. But I wonder why are you so scared of the scientific truth? Please tell the world why you are publicly embarrassing yourself. What could be worth looking like a fool to the world?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peter Wadeck said...

    Thorton: "You're still too stupid to understand the filtering effects of selection on the iterative reproductive process I see."

    Completely off topic. Selection doesn't create anything. You continually prove my point.


    Random mutations by themselves don't create anything. Selection by itself doesn't create anything. But the iterative process of random mutations filtered by selection can and does create plenty. The process has been empirically observed in the lab and in the field.

    Seriously Peter, that's Biology 101. Why are you still so dense you can't grasp the most basic concepts?

    Is this the best you can do? No wonder you are so scared of the truth getting out. But I wonder why are you so scared of the scientific truth?

    I wasn't the cowardly wuss demanding opposing viewpoints be censored or banned. Go look in the mirror to see the jerk who did that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. RobertC said, "Perhaps an example: Do Gaelic rounders and American baseball share common origins? Both feature a ball, bat, pitcher, four bases, and similar rules. Does the addition of a shortstop in baseball prove they have separate origins?"

    ---

    No, they were both Designed were they not?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tedford the idiot said...

    RobertC said, "Perhaps an example: Do Gaelic rounders and American baseball share common origins? Both feature a ball, bat, pitcher, four bases, and similar rules. Does the addition of a shortstop in baseball prove they have separate origins?"

    ---

    No, they were both Designed were they not?


    Really? Who was the first person to design Gaelic rounders? Who was the first person to design baseball? When and where did the design happen?

    Abner Doubleday is given credit for the first to come up with a written set of rules for american baseball, but the basic stick & ball game called 'baseball' or 'rounders' was present in different versions long before him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Geoxus said ,"Magnetists claim it can explain both attraction AND repulsion of magnets. Yes! if either your magnets attract or repel each other, magnetic field theory can explain it! What a piece of junk. I don't know a better solution, but this is clearly bogus."

    ---

    Magnetic fields can be precisely measured, defined mathematically and predicted consistently and accurately. Two north oriented magnets are repulsed because they are being attracted by the opposite, southern oriented magnetic field. It is not an exception of attraction but a consequence of the same thing.

    ---

    Such is not the case with the theory of evolution and the daffodil’s trumpet. Evolution is imprecise in its explanations. They say things like, "The evolution of novelty within such a highly conserved but diverse system is interesting".

    "Interesting".

    Well, thank you. That settles it. What's next on the list of scientific inquiry?

    Magnetism is interesting in elementary school too, but the scientific theory has risen to more than "interesting", to a phenomenon that can be precisely measured, defined mathematically and predicted consistently and accurately.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thorton,

    "I wasn't the cowardly wuss demanding opposing viewpoints be censored or banned. Go look in the mirror to see the jerk who did that."

    You don't get it. You don't have a viewpoint. You do not have a coherent argument. You should be censored because your total lack of knowledge of this area and your persistent offensive remarks. I consider your posts anti-intellectual hate blogs. It is only because of CH's extremely Christian tolerance that he lets you persist. I disagree with that philosophy. If secularists can censor Christianity from the town hall, then Christians should be able to do the same with out them going "Waaaa Waaaa."


    .

    ReplyDelete
  22. RobertC said, "Perhaps an example: Do Gaelic rounders and American baseball share common origins? Both feature a ball, bat, pitcher, four bases, and similar rules. Does the addition of a shortstop in baseball prove they have separate origins?"

    "No, they were both Designed were they not?"

    So that answers the question, for you? The history of Rounders and Baseball is: They were designed.

    See what the design hypothesis does? It takes a potentially interesting investigation, and reduces it to 'designed.' Done. End of story.

    Or can you skip over agency, see the point of the question, and answer it? Does a later addition to baseball (regardless of agency) falsify the common origin of baseball and rounders?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thorton:" But the iterative process of random mutations filtered by selection can and does create plenty."

    How the iterative of two ramdom process can create anything?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Blas said...

    Thorton:" But the iterative process of random mutations filtered by selection can and does create plenty."

    How the iterative of two ramdom process can create anything?


    The selection part does not have a uniform probability distribution i.e. it isn't totally random.

    How do card players increase the value of their hand by discarding and drawing in draw poker?

    ReplyDelete
  25. RobertC said, "See what the design hypothesis does? It takes a potentially interesting investigation, and reduces it to 'designed.' Done. End of story."

    Huh? On the contrary, the story just gets started because we can research all the interesting people that designed and influenced this great sport.

    What a dead end it would be to research the orgins of baseball without accepting that people designed the game. Did a confluence of just the right events and chemicals came together on some dusty little mount in Hoboken, New Jersey? Of course no one would say that for baseball, but evolutionists day it for living organisms all time.

    So bringing in the analogy of baseball you have unintentionally supported the idea that novelty is designed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Peter Wadeck said...

    Thorton: "I wasn't the cowardly wuss demanding opposing viewpoints be censored or banned. Go look in the mirror to see the jerk who did that."

    You don't get it. You don't have a viewpoint. You do not have a coherent argument.


    Sure I have a viewpoint. My argument is that IDiots like you who try to push their religious anti-science crap into public schools are a threat to the scientific literacy of the whole country. As such, religiously based anti-science propaganda like CH continually posts here deserves to be countered with the actual scientific evidence.

    You should be censored because your total lack of knowledge of this area and your persistent offensive remarks.

    Funny, I've posted links and discussions of numerous scientific papers over the last year. I haven't seen you post on a single technical topic. Why is that Mr. Ignorance?

    I consider your posts anti-intellectual hate blogs.

    Of course you do. Incompetent IDiots like you who depend on empty rhetoric to try and push their position just can't stand when technically competent people call them on their bull. That's why they cry for censorship. Everything would be sooooo easy if the world just let you have your way unopposed, right?

    That waaambulance is standing by for you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Geoxus:

    ===
    Hi, Cornelius. I'm back.
    ===

    Well great. I was planning on responding to your last comment.


    ===
    This seems like a great place for resuming our previous discussion on morphological evidence for common descent. Now you're charging against autapomorphies? Rich.
    ===

    So a consistent motif in evolutionary thought is to make high claims, and then when questioned, instead of defending the claim, attack the interlocutor for a failed falsification attempt. Of course no such attempt was made.

    This is a sure sign of rationalism which views its axioms, and resulting theories, as true. Any questioning of the theory is tantamount to rejecting the axiom and therefore falsification.

    Meanwhile the interlocutor is nonplussed. The evolutionist made a bizarre claim, and now feels no need to defend it. Instead, a rhetorical victory is won with a straw man.

    In this case we have the daffodil trumpet. Evolutionists say if we just view biology through the lense of common descent and natural selection then everything falls into place. The theory is immediately compelling. A fact. But this is not true and the daffodil's trumpet is an example. There is no scientific basis for classifying the trumpet as an example of evolution in action. It's a ridiculous claim, but when you point that out you're "charging against autapomorphies."

    Evolutionists are simply unable to dispassionately work through the evidence in an objective manner. They make undefendable truth claims and blame anyone who questions them.


    ===
    You know what that reminds me of? "Magnetic field theory". Yep, that fairy tale about imaginary lines, so called "magnetic fields" rediating from magnetic "poles". Magnetists claim it can explain both attraction AND repulsion of magnets. Yes! if either your magnets attract or repel each other, magnetic field theory can explain it! What a piece of junk. I don't know a better solution, but this is clearly bogus.

    Damned magnets, HOW DO THEY WORK?
    ===

    So evolutionists make religious claims that mandate their theory which otherwise encounters myriad empirical contradictions. And when questioned, they insist you are questioning all of science, and compare their metaphysical theory with empirical, scientific theories, such as gravity, magnetism, etc. They are obvlivious to their own claims.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Neal, clearly you can't get past the analogy, which had nothing to do with design.

    So-back to the original question: 2 organisms share 4 features (A,B,C,D) present in their last common ancestor. One has added a new feature, E.

    How does the presence of E falsify the conservation of ABCD, and the hypothesis of common ancestry?

    No one seems able to answer this question.

    ReplyDelete
  29. By the way Hunter, is there a paper that accompanies the BBC news clip?

    It is curious to attack a scientist for concluding daffodil coronas have evolved, and wholly omitting the data for its evolution, pretending as though this statement is plucked from the ether.

    I suppose it is convenient, though.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thorton,

    "Of course you do. Incompetent IDiots like you who depend on empty rhetoric to try and push their position just can't stand when technically competent people call them on their bull. That's why they cry for censorship. Everything would be sooooo easy if the world just let you have your way unopposed, right?"

    You have to be kidding right - you - technically competent. You can't understand evolution, let alone CH's deep, rational analysis.

    I am only asking for censorship of people like you who don't understand the subject, and most importantly, don't want to understand. You are here only to troll. Trolls are censored from most sites. CH is much more understanding that any evolutionist blogger would be.

    All you have is an unscientific axe to grind. That is not a contribution. I asked you to say specifically what your illogical motivation is. You hide like a coward behind your pseudo-scientific empty rants. Don't be a baby. Tells us what you're beef is with Christians who belief that God created.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  31. RObertC,
    " So-back to the original question: 2 organisms share 4 features (A,B,C,D) present in their last common ancestor. One has added a new feature, E.

    How does the presence of E falsify the conservation of ABCD, and the hypothesis of common ancestry?"

    It obviously doesn't, and in fact is an example of exactly what Darwin proposed: conservation of traits with the slow accumulation of new ones. If CH wants to argue that dissimilar traits argue against evolution, he's welcome to, but even then the similarities outweigh the dissimilarities by 4 to 1.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Peter,
    "..let alone CH's deep, rational analysis."
    as deep and rational as his understanding of proteins vs peptides?

    ReplyDelete
  33. CH:
    I guess everything is evidence for evolution—that’s why it is true.

    Well I guess it is rather unfortunate (for some) that the available evidence does support evolution rather strongly. That might possibly be because it's true. However, one could easily imagine all kinds of evidence that would render it false.

    For example, what if the fossil record were a complete jumble, where any fossil could be found in any strata in absolutely no discernible order? You know, something you might expect to see if for example, all life was created at once, instantaneously (give or take a few days)?

    Or, what if every species of organism had a completely unique genetic code, based on totally different molecules? Such evidence might lead one to hypothesize that each species had been specially created, independent of each other.

    Or, what if we found some ancient scrolls, thousands of years old, and in them was spelled out the complete genetic code of every species on earth, along with instructions on how to build each one, and along side those scrolls was another scroll labelled "Lab Notes by Yahweh", which included time-stamped entries such as "Time 0 + 5 days + 3 hrs, 21 min, 2 sec: Built me a mouse and it was good".

    Those are just a few examples of evidence that I think would effectively quash evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What ever your name is,

    "as deep and rational as his understanding of proteins vs peptides?"

    If a peptide binds with a protein then it is part of the protein. God, I can't believe you guys are so dense.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  35. Peter Wadeck said...

    Thorton: "Of course you do. Incompetent IDiots like you who depend on empty rhetoric to try and push their position just can't stand when technically competent people call them on their bull. That's why they cry for censorship. Everything would be sooooo easy if the world just let you have your way unopposed, right?"

    You have to be kidding right - you - technically competent. You can't understand evolution, let alone CH's deep, rational analysis.


    BWAHAHAHAHA!! "deep, rational analysis" - like mistaking proteins and peptides. And you're the ignoramus who doesn't even understand how natural selection operates. You own me a can of monitor cleaner!

    I am only asking for censorship of people like you who understand the subject, and who make me look like an incompetent boob in the process.

    Fixed it for you Peter.

    All you have is an unscientific axe to grind. That is not a contribution. I asked you to say specifically what your illogical motivation is. You hide like a coward behind your pseudo-scientific empty rants. Don't be a baby. Tells us what you're beef is with Christians who belief that God created.

    I guess we'll have to add reading comprehension to the growing list of things you're incompetent at. What part of this

    Me: "My argument is that IDiots like you who try to push their religious anti-science crap into public schools are a threat to the scientific literacy of the whole country. As such, religiously based anti-science propaganda like CH continually posts here deserves to be countered with the actual scientific evidence."

    ...didn't you understand?

    I don't care even a little what your personal beliefs are. Worship the FSM if it makes you happy. But when you IDiots try to sneak that crap into public science classes, you'll get the crap kicked out of you every time, just like you did in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

    Capisce?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Peter,
    "If a peptide binds with a protein then it is part of the protein. God, I can't believe you guys are so dense."

    But before it binds to the protein, it is called a peptide. CH referred to the peptide as a protein, and then invented a whole narrative (now deleted) based around the idea of two proteins. so who's the dense one?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Norm Olsen:

    Or, what if we found some ancient scrolls, thousands of years old, and in them was spelled out the complete genetic code of every species on earth, along with instructions on how to build each one, and along side those scrolls was another scroll labelled "Lab Notes by Yahweh", which included time-stamped entries such as "Time 0 + 5 days + 3 hrs, 21 min, 2 sec: Built me a mouse and it was good".

    None of this has anything to do with falsifiability. To be falsifiable, a theory must provide an experiment or a set of doable experiments that can contradict the theory. Waiting for archaeologists to find something buried in the ground is not a scientific experiment. Sorry. Certainly not in the Popperian sense of falsifiability.

    That being said, you may be asking for more than you can chew. What if I told you that the secret of the brain's operation is coded metaphorically in a couple of ancient scriptural texts, the books of Revelation and Zechariah to be exact? Indeed, this is the hypothesis behind Animal, a project to create a program that learns to play chess just like we do, through trial and error from scratch. The theory of intelligence used in Animal is derived directly from my interpretation of the ancient metaphors.

    But that is not all. What if I told you that the books of Revelation and Ezekiel explain physics at the particle level? What if I told you that, according to Ezekiel, the electron is not an elementary particle as is currently believed, but a composite particle that consists of four elementary sub-particles with 1/4 the charge of the electron? What if I told you that recent studies confirm the existence of particles with 1/4 fractional charge? Read The Cherubim Model of Particle Physics if you're interested in the amazing future of physics in this century.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Whatever your name is,

    "But before it binds to the protein, it is called a peptide. CH referred to the peptide as a protein, and then invented a whole narrative (now deleted) based around the idea of two proteins. so who's the dense one?"

    So what. Every person makes mistakes, they are often included in published research paper. The general point he is making is still true, that evolution can not explain the complexity of life. Otherwise scientists would not be looking for aliens and meteors to explain the origin of life. They would have demonstrated it in a lab.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  39. Louis Savain said...

    None of this has anything to do with falsifiability. To be falsifiable, a theory must provide an experiment or a set of doable experiments that can contradict the theory. Waiting for archaeologists to find something buried in the ground is not a scientific experiment. Sorry. Certainly not in the Popperian sense of falsifiability.


    Here's how to falsify the current ToE.

    Collect data on every fossil specimen known, including its location and estimated age. From that data build a best fit phylogenetic tree showing relationships.

    Collect genetic data from every extant species. From that data build a second best fit phylogenetic tree showing relationships.

    Compare the two trees. If they demonstrate an extremely high degree of correlation, that is positive evidence for the current ToE. If they correlate poorly or not at all, then the current ToE is falsified.

    Anyone can do the experiment, and indeed it already has been done. Guess what the results were?

    Don't confuse not falsifiable with not falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Peter,
    "So what. Every person makes mistakes.."
    of course. but this is a high-school level mistake made by someone who got a PhD studying proteins. and someone with no training in evolutionary biology who claims to know it better than the pros. yet he can't even correctly interpret a paper in his own field.

    btw, it looks like you're a little confused too.

    "The general point he is making is still true, that evolution can not explain the complexity of life. Otherwise scientists would not be looking for aliens and meteors to explain the origin of life."

    why would scientists be looking for an explanation for the origin of life to explain biological complexity? or are you just waving your hands furiously? those are two completely different topics, much more so than proteins and peptides.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Peter Wadeck said...

    The general point he is making is still true, that evolution can not explain the complexity of life. Otherwise scientists would not be looking for aliens and meteors to explain the origin of life. They would have demonstrated it in a lab


    Your ignorance is showing again Peter. The current Theory of Evolution does an excellent job explaining the complexity and history of life on the planet over the last 3+ billion years. The origin of life is a different topic known as Abiogenesis, and is currently being actively researched in hundreds of labs all over the world.

    Here's a big list of all the active research being done on ID:

    [..................]

    I bet you're an expert on it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. RobertC said "So-back to the original question: 2 organisms share 4 features (A,B,C,D) present in their last common ancestor. One has added a new feature, E."

    That's a good question.

    The trumpet on the daffodil is considered a distinct organ that is not related to the sepals, petals, stamens and carpels of the flower.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-12598054

    So let's take your "E" then as the trumpet in this example.


    The common ancestry problem with this and other so called "novelties" is that there is no evidence for a common ancestor. Are these novelties the supposed result of saltation events?

    You said, "One has added a new feature, E." You make it sound like the flower went down to its local dealership and bought a trumpet kit.

    Out of time more later

    ReplyDelete
  43. GUID: why would scientists be looking for an explanation for the origin of life to explain biological complexity? or are you just waving your hands furiously? those are two completely different topics, much more so than proteins and peptides.

    And excellent question, which leads to an observation: Apparently, the difference between abiogenesis and evolution is irrelevant to whatever problem Peter is actually trying to solve.

    In other words, Peter objection indicates he's not trying to explain the biological complexity we observe - he's trying to explain how the biological complexity we observe fits into his particular theodicy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Louis Savain:
    Waiting for archaeologists to find something buried in the ground is not a scientific experiment. Sorry.

    Don't be sorry; I never said it was an experiment. I simply suggested that if such a thing were to occur (finding God's lab book), it would provide pretty good evidence that evolution was wrong.

    What if I told you that the secret of the brain's operation is coded metaphorically in a couple of ancient scriptural texts, the books of Revelation and Zechariah to be exact?

    I'd probably say something like "Oh, um, ... reaaaalllly. That's soooo interesting".

    What if I told you that the books of Revelation and Ezekiel explain physics at the particle level?

    Well, I might respond by saying "Oh gee, look at the time, I really must be going!".

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thornton:

    Compare the two trees. If they demonstrate an extremely high degree of correlation, that is positive evidence for the current ToE. If they correlate poorly or not at all, then the current ToE is falsified.

    Well, the finding of a high degree of correlations is also evidence for intelligent design, a theory that contradicts the ToE. Good designers are adept are reusing past successful designs.

    You know, this has been argued many times by myself and others. I don't know why evolutionists keep insisting that similarities between species is evidence for evolution and not design. This argument is getting rather old and boring. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thorton:"How do card players increase the value of their hand by discarding and drawing in draw poker?"

    Because they discard following a plan. They know where they want to arrive.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Louis Savain

    "The advantages of reusing past successful designs are fairly obvious."

    Are you suggesting the designer is not omniscient? Because an omniscient designer would not need to tests his design

    ReplyDelete
  48. Louis Savain said...

    Thornton: Compare the two trees. If they demonstrate an extremely high degree of correlation, that is positive evidence for the current ToE. If they correlate poorly or not at all, then the current ToE is falsified.

    Well, the finding of a high degree of correlations is also evidence for intelligent design, a theory that contradicts the ToE. Good designers are adept are reusing past successful designs.


    The question was not "what is evidence for design". The question was "what would falsify the current ToE". Why are you moving the goalposts?

    You know, this has been argued many times by myself and others. I don't know why evolutionists keep insisting that similarities between species is evidence for evolution and not design. This argument is getting rather old and boring. Sorry.

    Do you agree now that the current ToE is indeed falsifiable and therefore qualifies as science?

    Please describe for me an experiment that would falsify Intelligent Design.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Blas said...

    Thorton:"How do card players increase the value of their hand by discarding and drawing in draw poker?"

    Because they discard following a plan. They know where they want to arrive.


    Another rocket powered goalpost. Your original question was "how can two random processes create things" and the answer was "selection is not random".

    Do you understand why natural selection does not have a uniform probability distribution, and why it matters? Can you explain it back to me in your own words?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Norm Olsen:"For example, what if the fossil record were a complete jumble, where any fossil could be found in any strata in absolutely no discernible order? You know, something you might expect to see if for example, all life was created at once, instantaneously (give or take a few days)?"

    Are you sure the fossils are found in order, in discernible strata? Or the fossil record is adjusted to the teory?
    Someday a good scientist will review the fossil record without preconception and we will see many "planet epicycles".

    ReplyDelete
  51. Louis Savain:
    I don't know why evolutionists keep insisting that similarities between species is evidence for evolution and not design. This argument is getting rather old and boring. Sorry.

    Don't be sorry. The problem with the design hypothesis is that we know nothing about the abilities or intentions of the designer. Thus, both similarities between species or differences between species can be cited as being consistent with design. I.e. similarities might exist because the designer used a common template and differences might exist where the designer started from scratch.

    Until ID advocates are willing to suggest what the designer can and cannot do, there is no way to falsify ID.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thornton:

    Do you agree now that the current ToE is indeed falsifiable and therefore qualifies as science?

    Certainly. I also agree that it has already been falsified by the fossil record. But I am not willing to go into this here.

    Please describe for me an experiment that would falsify Intelligent Design.

    Personally I don't think that ID is a theory in need of falsification. I think ID is a logical interpretation (i.e., a conclusion) based on our observations. And by this, I mean that it is an interpretation based on Behe's notion of irreducibility applied to known biological structures.

    Let me add that I have excellent reasons to believe that this entire debate will be resolved in the not too distant future in ID's favor. Why? Because amazing scientific breakthroughs are about to be unleashed into the world soon that will turn the cart around, so to speak. What makes them amazing is that they will originate from sources that the evolutionist and atheist lobby consider to be anathema to their belief system, ancient Judaeo-Christian occult texts. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  53. second opinion:

    re you suggesting the designer is not omniscient?

    Absolutely.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hunter:

    Evolutionists say if we just view biology through the lense of common descent and natural selection then everything falls into place.

    There you go, making stuff up again. It's a blooming scientific hypothesis. Everything doesn't automatically "fall into place," and no one claims that it does.

    The theory is immediately compelling. A fact.

    Apparently not immediately compelling. It requires some education. And, as your writings attest, it's always possible to deny facts.

    But this is not true and the daffodil's trumpet is an example.

    In what way? An example of what? Be specific. Provide a reference to the peer-reviewed publication reporting the research, so those of us with a modicum of training in science can evaluate the issues.

    There is no scientific basis for classifying the trumpet as an example of evolution in action. It's a ridiculous claim, but when you point that out you're "charging against autapomorphies."

    You may be right! But without knowing more about the evidence pertinent to the generation of this organelle - the daffodil trumpet - it would be premature and imprudent to make a judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cornelius Hunter:

    "So evolutionists make religious claims that mandate their theory which otherwise encounters myriad empirical contradictions. And when questioned, THEY INSIST YOU ARE QUESTIONING ALL SCIENCE, and compare their metaphysical theory with empirical, scientific theories, such as gravity, magnetism, etc. They are obvlivious to their own claims."
    ===

    Ah yes, the old "you're anti-science" ploy. Interestingly I'm finding this dishonest coward's way of defense being employed by Monsanto defending against opponants who don't want GMOs and Big-Pharma who attacks opponants against many of their drugs as being anti-science and it's actually stepping up with this cowardly tactic in other industries who employ scientists to peddle their wares.

    Who says evolution hasn't been a dangerous influence on science ???

    Oh yeah, have the religious evo-dogma pimping shills here.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Louis:

    "Let me add that I have excellent reasons to believe that this entire debate will be resolved in the not too distant future in ID's favor. Why? Because amazing scientific breakthroughs are about to be unleashed into the world soon that will turn the cart around, so to speak. What makes them amazing is that they will originate from sources that the evolutionist and atheist lobby consider to be anathema to their belief system, ancient Judaeo-Christian occult texts. Just saying."

    Hahaha. You're joking, right&?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Troy:
    Hahaha. You're joking, right?

    Did you read his comment here?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Cornelius:

    Well great. I was planning on responding to your last comment.

    Thanks!

    So a consistent motif in evolutionary thought is to make high claims, and then when questioned, instead of defending the claim, attack the interlocutor for a failed falsification attempt. Of course no such attempt was made.

    I don't understand. What was the "high claim"? Something I said? Something from the article?

    In this case we have the daffodil trumpet. Evolutionists say if we just view biology through the lense of common descent and natural selection then everything falls into place.

    Besides what Pedant already said, I'd like to remind you that evolutionary theory is A LOT more than CA and NS.

    So evolutionists make religious claims that mandate their theory which otherwise encounters myriad empirical contradictions. And when questioned, they insist you are questioning all of science, and compare their metaphysical theory with empirical, scientific theories, such as gravity, magnetism, etc. They are obvlivious to their own claims.

    OK, I was expecting to be self-obvious here. Cornelius, every single theory that aims to explain the diversity of life must be able to explain the similarities and differences between organisms. Evolutionary theory is not a single hypothesis, it is a set of hypotheses. Different hypotheses under different conditions explain similarities and differences separately. CA, NS under similar conditions, and genetic drift can account for different kinds of similarities. NS under divergent conditions, and GD can account for differences.

    Now, for your daffodil rant, all I can see is you highlighting a novel structure. Yes, it is interesting. Yes, it seems that things like this occur rarely. But... where is the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Troy:

    Hahaha. You're joking, right?

    Not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  60. btw, I'm still kind of busy, but I'll be checking regularly for your response. Sorry if I shall answer back a bit late.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Norm Olsen said...

    Troy:
    Hahaha. You're joking, right?

    Did you read his comment here?


    ZOMG he's discovered

    JEBONS!!

    .

    ReplyDelete
  62. Geoxus:

    ===
    I don't understand. What was the "high claim"? Something I said? Something from the article?
    ===


    From the OP: the daffodil’s trumpet is an “example of evolution in action.”

    Can you explain why that is not a high claim?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thorton

    ZOMG he's discovered

    I did not realize I was hiding. Still, I'm glad I am found.

    JEBONS!!

    Funny. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  64. Louis:

    "Let me add that I have excellent reasons to believe that this entire debate will be resolved in the not too distant future in ID's favor."
    ===

    I don't see this ever happening. While ID tries to claim neutrality, it can't. They still have the burden (as atheistic evolution does but fails) of proving origins by naturalistic explanations and that's not possible. Which god would be chosen and from what religious source would such info be drawn ??? If from a new age standpoint, then what aliens got the ball rolling ???

    Creationism has the same problem because it is impossible to explain step by step origins in the context of pure naturalistic explanations (of how the creator proceeded step by step) without an eye witnesses being present, assisting and able to show through "Scientific Method" experimentation how this happen and how any other intelligent humans can accomplish the same thing through the same exact replicatable experiment as laid out by that creationist scientist.

    Furthermore their own holy book , the Bible shows the impossiblity of knowing this from Job chapters 38- 41 and other passages elsewhere.

    Once again however, we don't get any replicatable experiment from the evolutionist side where we can show where undirected blind indifferent forces of nothing more than physics and chemcials built the original sophisticated informational systems that drive those brilliantly complex nano molecular machines to kick the wonderful guided evo ball rolling. Instead we get gray muddled fuzziness loaded with faith-based statement making and your labled unscientific if you don't take it on faith that they know what they are talking about.

    Scientists should remain neutral and start quickly developing strategies for rescuing what's left of the natural world which has suffered and degraded tremendously under thier inept mismanagement.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Eocene:

    ===
    I don't see this ever happening.
    ===

    Well I agree simply because evolutionists do not have the liberty to consider, genuinely, the falsification of their theory. Look at the evidence we already have. And they're claiming evolution is a rock solid fact.

    ReplyDelete
  66. From the OP: the daffodil’s trumpet is an “example of evolution in action.”

    Can you explain why that is not a high claim?


    When I saw what a hysterical fuss Hunter was making over that phrase, I studied the BBC article linked in the OP, and did not find that quotation therein. So I played the video, also linked in the OP, and did not hear those words from the lips of Professor Scotland, the lead scientist in the daffodil work. Instead, I heard those words spoken by the BBC narrator, who said (at about 50 seconds in), “the team argue it’s an example of evolution in action." High claim by the scientist or journalistic spin by the reporter?

    I’m looking forward to learning more details about this research. I bet it really is an example of evolution in action!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cornelius:

    From the OP: the daffodil’s trumpet is an “example of evolution in action.”

    Can you explain why that is not a high claim?


    Gee, Pedant's answering everything for me. It is OK though, as he does it well :)

    I found another high claim:

    The daffodil's trumpet makes it one of the most recognisable flowers in Britain

    Says who? Where is the evidence? I bet there is not a single paper about that, but it's right there, at the beginning of the video! We should complain to the BBC.

    On a side note, I wonder Cornelius, do you want a theory for the diversity of life that can't account for both differences and similarities? Or is it that you don't want a theory for the diversity of life to exist at all?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Sorry, Geoxus. I will try to restrain myself in future. (But it's hard to resist Hunter's big, fat, sugary choux à la crème.)

    ReplyDelete
  69. What ever,

    "why would scientists be looking for an explanation for the origin of life to explain biological complexity? or are you just waving your hands furiously? those are two completely different topics, much more so than proteins and peptides."

    I am glad you tacitly admit that scientists can not explain the origin of biological life. That is quite a quantum leap in your coming to grips with reality. Now for the next step. No, scientist can not explain the increase in complexity either. That has never been shown in an experiment either - always the same species with a degradation in capabilities as an adaptation.

    BTW, who says that protein folding did not occur in the first creatures? It must have, so this is just another example of the impossibility of creation sans God.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  70. Pedant: "High claim by the scientist or journalistic spin by the reporter?"

    Pedant:"I bet it really is an example of evolution in action!"

    This is the way teory of evolution became a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Blas:

    "Pedant: "High claim by the scientist or journalistic spin by the reporter?"

    Pedant:"I bet it really is an example of evolution in action!"

    This is the way theory of evolution became a fact."
    ===

    That ideologuing sock-puppet's last statement Blas is what you call a big fat FAITH statement.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Geoxus:

    This is an example of evolutionary thought in action. Similarities are said to be compelling evidence for evolution. The DNA similarities between chimps and humans, for instance, are said to be powerful proof of evolution. But here we have this one flower with its own unique part. No other relative has this part. Evolutionists do not have a sequence of mutations that just happens to create the new part. Yet what do evolutionists say about it? They say it is an example of evolution in action. It is the anti thesis of similarity. Evolution is a tautology. Whatever we find is an example of evolution. All data support evolution. There are no problems.

    So you ask evolutionists, why is it, exactly, that the daffodil's unique part, its trumpet, is an example of evolution in action? And the response is to throw out a canard:

    ===
    The daffodil's trumpet makes it one of the most recognisable flowers in Britain.

    Says who? Where is the evidence? I bet there is not a single paper about that, but it's right there, at the beginning of the video! We should complain to the BBC.
    ===

    Followed by yet another:

    ===
    On a side note, I wonder Cornelius, do you want a theory for the diversity of life that can't account for both differences and similarities? Or is it that you don't want a theory for the diversity of life to exist at all?
    ===

    This is what you get from evolutionists. They make non scientific--religious--claims, hypocritically criticize others for doing what they themselves do, misrepresent science, and when you question them about these things this is what you get. Non responsive canards trying to pin the blame on you. So you make absurd claims and lies, and it's really all my fault.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hunter:

    But here we have this one flower with its own unique part.

    Is it only "one" flower, or one of a number of related flowers in the genus Narcissus, of the family Amaryllidaceae?

    Is the part in question, the trumpet (more properly termed the corona) entirely unrelated to other parts in flowers that don't flaunt it?

    Is there a botanist in the house?

    ReplyDelete
  74. There is no substitute for research. I went back to the BBC story about this phenomenon, and found a clue in the words of Professor Robert Scotland:

    "All the floral groundplan is specified in floral development and then very late in the platform area there is a reawakening of some tissue that turns out to be the corona."

    "Reawakening." Sheer poetry. So, the corona has an anlage in the early embryo. The plot thickens. The question now becomes: Do other, more distantly related flowers also have that primordial mass of cells, or not ? If so, what becomes of them? If not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Peter said...

    I am glad you tacitly admit that scientists can not explain the origin of biological life. That is quite a quantum leap in your coming to grips with reality.


    There's nothing tacit about it. We know science hasn't figured out the origin of life yet. But the problem is being actively worked on, and there's no reason to believe it is unsolvable. Unless you're an IDiot and don't believe in doing any research.

    Now for the next step. No, scientist can not explain the increase in complexity either.

    Good lord but you're an ignorant boob. There is an entire science - Genetic Algorithms - that is based on the fact that iterative processes which use feedback filtered by selection can and do produce novel complex designs.

    Evolutionary Algorithms

    NASA uses GAs to produce analog circuit cards and RF antennas for spacecraft. And guess what boob - evolution is an iterative processes which use feedback filtered by selection, the end result of which is new species.

    That has never been shown in an experiment either

    The process of speciation is well documented

    Speciation in real time

    Evidence for speciation

    Why would you be so stupid as to expect to see a long term result that can take thousands to tens of thousands of years to complete happen in a lab in a few months?

    - always the same species with a degradation in capabilities as an adaptation.

    So when certain species of arctic fish evolved antifreeze proteins in their blood that allows them to live in below 32 deg F water without freezing, that was a degradation in their capability to die. Right?

    BTW, who says that protein folding did not occur in the first creatures? It must have, so this is just another example of the impossibility of creation sans God.

    How do you know it must have happened the same way we see today, and not as a simpler precursor? You're just full of empty blustering claims, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cornelius:
    So you ask evolutionists, why is it, exactly, that the daffodil's unique part, its trumpet, is an example of evolution in action?

    We already answered you. We don't know because we have not seen the actual research article. Sorry, I don't like defending or attacking things I'm completely ignorant about. But I'll tell you this: The trumpet is a product of evolution? Sure. Evolution is the process we know to produce such novelties, it is a reasonable explanation under the current paradigm. Is it an example of evolution in action? I don't know. I can interpret "in action" to mean that the daffodil trumpet is currently experiencing rapid and strong directional change. It could be the case, it could be not. Or it could mean something else. I don't know. How could I know? YOU GAVE US ONLY A HALF-PAGE PRESS NOTE AND A 1'34'' VIDEO. This is ridiculous.

    Followed by yet another [canard]:

    How can a question be a "canard"? In your very answer to my comment you complained again that biologists try to explain differences and similarities with evolution. It is very reasonable to ask if you think that a theory about the diversity of life should not explain both differences and similarities between organisms. Is it a wrong question? Why?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Thorton:
    And guess what boob - evolution is an iterative processes which use feedback filtered by selection, the end result of which is new species.

    Careful, Thorton. Selection does not necessarily cause speciation and speciation is not always caused by selection (in fact, it possibly rarely is).

    ReplyDelete
  78. Geoxus said...

    Thorton:
    And guess what boob - evolution is an iterative processes which use feedback filtered by selection, the end result of which is new species.

    Careful, Thorton. Selection does not necessarily cause speciation and speciation is not always caused by selection (in fact, it possibly rarely is).


    True dat, poor wording on my part. Should have said "the end result is the introduction of evolutionary variety."

    Don't know about your second half though - There are certainly types of speciation (i.e.peripatric) that are due at least partially to subgroups of a species finding a new niche and being subjected to different selection pressures. The difference of selection pressures then drives the diversity between the two groups.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The DNA similarities between chimps and humans, for instance, are said to be powerful proof of evolution.

    Strong supporting evidence for common ancestry, one of the hypotheses of evolutionary theory.

    Again, evolutionary theory is not a single hypothesis. It is a complex theoretical fabric made of several hypotheses. Different processes are postulated to explain different phenomena.

    Want to destroy evolutionary theory, Cornelius? Show that in fact all of Earth's organisms only share similarities and have no differences between them. That would still be good for common ancestry, but descent with modification goes down the toilet. Find a rabbit in the Cambrian. Descent with modification will be still good, but CA receives a mortal blow. Show that no biological feature can in fact be inherited. The whole theory collapses.

    Evolutionary theory cannot explain every single conceivable observation. But overall, it does a good work with actual observations.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thorton:
    Don't know about your second half though - There are certainly types of speciation (i.e.peripatric) that are due at least partially to subgroups of a species finding a new niche and being subjected to different selection pressures. The difference of selection pressures then drives the diversity between the two groups.

    Well, poor wording from me. I meant that is possible that NS is not always the predominant factor. You know, there are different opinions on the relative roles of genetic drift and NS. I'm not committed to any side on this, just wanted to point out the possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Trying to push the protein-peptide fiasco further down as quickly as possible, huh?

    I've seen many a post disappear entirely from other creationist sites for a lot less stupidity. One must admit that at least in this one narrow area CH has vastly more integrity than many, if not most of his peers. He may or may not actually admit to making a mistake, and he may try to distract us with a flood of new posts, but at least he leaves the original post in place so that people can come to their own conclusions about it.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I missed my dysfunctional "family".

    Specially Pedantski...here caught on video smelling daffodils

    ReplyDelete
  83. I sent an email to Professor Scotland, asking about issues raised by Dr Hunter in the OP. He graciously provided the following information:

    1. The paper reporting the research will be submitted next month.

    2. The phrase “new organ” was a journalist’s spin on the finding that the corona is not one of the usual four flower parts (sepal, petal, stamen and carpel). The corona is a modification of another existing part of the flower: the hypanthium; the platform on which the other four parts are attached.

    3. The phrase “evolution in action” was another description by a journalist and not one that Professor Scotland would have chosen.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Addendum:

    Having had my own words twisted by a reporter in a news story after an interview about my work, I'm not at all surprised by what happened in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Cornelius Hunter:

    "This reminds me of a debate I had with a professor who first claimed similarities between species were evidence for evolution, and then claimed differences between species were also evidence for evolution."
    ===

    Never underestimate the ability of an emotional passionately driven Ideologue to employ mystic/psychic abilities to turn a negative into a possitive for the founder of their faith Charlie Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Pedant:

    "The phrase “new organ” was a journalist’s spin on the finding that the corona is not one of the usual four flower parts (sepal, petal, stamen and carpel). The corona is a modification of another existing part of the flower: the hypanthium; the platform on which the other four parts are attached."
    ===

    So the good Professor made no attempt to contact the reporter and set the record straight ??? Nice.
    ---

    Pedant:

    "The phrase “evolution in action” was another description by a journalist and not one that Professor Scotland would have chosen."
    ===

    Very Good. Then what we should expect to see are the answers to such questions as these:

    1) Professor Robert Scottland ties the corona to a mutation (an evolutionary mistake, error, luck, magic) ???

    2) Professor Robert Scottland has found the actual ancestor (still present or fossil) of the Daffodil and can prove it beyond bolded statement or story fabrication and offer a scientific method created experiment by which anyone can replicate and arrive at those same exact conclusions ???

    3) Professor Robert Scottland shows everyone how the Daffodil's fith element produced better fitness ???

    4) Professor Robert Scottland will help all mankind better understanding just how the natural world actually works ???

    ReplyDelete
  87. Pedant:

    "Having had my own words twisted by a reporter in a news story after an interview about my work, I'm not at all surprised by what happened in this case.
    ===

    And so have I , but I actually get off my rear end and make a stink about it and get it corrected. Mr Craig Venter apparently had the same thing happen some time back with the cheerleading Evolutionary ideologuing reporter mouthing off about his success in creating "Artificial Life" which was nothing of the sort, but far be it from good'ol Craig to let it slide anyway since it helps the cause. Besides, he can always claim he never said that. It was the reporter's opinion.

    This is way too funny. Come on someone, booksmith me. I'm sure I mispelled something here. Oleg ??? Larry ???

    ReplyDelete
  88. Oh, Pedant, why do you have to get so facty?

    Now I can answer to Cornelius:

    So you ask evolutionists, why is it, exactly, that the daffodil's unique part, its trumpet, is an example of evolution in action?

    It isn't. The phrase was journalistic babble.

    Happy now?

    ReplyDelete
  89. And so have I , but I actually get off my rear end and make a stink about it and get it corrected.

    Your stinks are legendary.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Eocene,

    but far be it from good'ol Craig to let it slide anyway since it helps the cause

    What cause?

    Also, do you think we should all use our limited time to run behind reporters until they correct everything they report with exaggeration and/or erroneously? You might not have better things to do, but others are working. Science alone is a very busy business, I can only imagine what it must be if on top you are revolutionizing both science and technology at unprecedented pace.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I don't understand the fuss about the trumpet. It is not that novel. If you understand flower development you know that sepals, petals, and et cetera grow the same way as leaves. Many text books refer to these structures as modified leaves, they grow in "spirals" and all that stuff. You can have layers and layers of "spirals" for any of the "common" structures. So, one more structure is not that surprising even if this is "exclusive" or not to the daffodil. So, yes, it is an example of evolution in action. But I would have written "it is just another example of evolution in action."

    Is it interesting? Well, yes, because, apparently, nobody else had noticed that this was an "extra" structure, and we have had daffodils around for such a long time. Maybe plant anatomist, or even florists, should be a bit ashamed of themselves for not discovering this before. Is it important as evolutionary example? Nah, just one more. The important thing is that wherever evolution is mentioned Cornelius has to make a fuss even if evolution itself was not the important part of the report/news/whatever. In doing so, he had to either display true ignorance about plant development, or play the fool to insinuate that such "new" structures should be impossible for evolutionary processes. It is just rhetorics. Misguided religion drives his pseudoscience, and it sure matters.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Negative:

    "What cause?"
    ===

    The modern day Evo-Jihadist movement of world endoctrination.

    *eyes rolling*
    ---

    Negative:

    "Also, do you think we should all use our limited time to run behind reporters until they correct everything they report with exaggeration and/or erroneously? You might not have better things to do, but others are working. Science alone is a very busy business, I can only imagine what it must be if on top you are revolutionizing both science and technology at unprecedented pace."
    ===

    This is yet more of the same typical pot to kettle black and double standard if you're considered to be on the wrong side of the issue. Funny, I show up sporadically when I get free time (as I have not really commented on several of his blogs) , but your and other's presence is like the continued hovering flies to a carcass until it's finished off.

    I also don't have need of an endoctrination blog to preach the good word about the evils of Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, etc, etc, etc. You on the other hand have a couple blogs and one specifically dedicated to the evils of a Cornelius Hunter. Other Ideologues here have blogs dedicated to the extermination of preceived right-wingers(the usual left-winger enemies) and their ideas. Yet they'd replace these with yet other equally failed ideas, schemes, plans, etc and those imperfect men and women who also have no clue as to how and go about bringing solutions for what plagues and ails mankind. This is nothing more than an ill equiped offroad vehicle spinning it's wheels in the mire and dung of human imperfection.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Pedant:

    "Your stinks are legendary."
    ===

    This coming from the one who is usually by habit the first fly to land on the dogpile.

    Wonderful - LOL

    ReplyDelete
  94. Negatice:

    " . . . they grow in "spirals" and all that stuff."

    ""it is just another example of evolution in action."
    ===

    Such profound intellectual observation and all that stuff.
    ---

    Negative:

    "The important thing is that wherever evolution is mentioned Cornelius has to make a fuss even if evolution itself was not the important part of the report/news/whatever. In doing so, he had to either display true ignorance about plant development, or play the fool to insinuate that such "new" structures should be impossible for evolutionary processes."
    ===

    No what he refuses to do is be played for a fool with a story concocted in nothing more than the usual generalities from a preacher from the pulpit ranting and raving down condescendingly to a flock of kool-aid sucking cult members having their ears tickled with feel good assumptions which take no personal effort by the faithful to get off their rear ends to actually dig, scratch and study for themselves to see if these things are indeed profound truths.

    Religious clergy(Evolutionist's) and other's within the Ecclesiastical Hierachy(Evolutionary Bloggers) hate outside heretics who try and think for themselves

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

    ReplyDelete
  96. NE:

    I don't understand the fuss about the trumpet.

    It is something about psychology.

    NE:

    So, yes, it is an example of evolution in action.

    For the little we know, yes, if the "in action" qualifier is not meant as the corona is experiencing important change "right now".

    NE:

    Is it interesting? Well, yes, because, apparently, nobody else had noticed that this was an "extra" structure, and we have had daffodils around for such a long time.

    The report actually said it was an old debate, IIRC.

    ReplyDelete
  97. ...your and other's presence is like the continued hovering flies to a carcass until it's finished off.
    ...
    This coming from the one who is usually by habit the first fly to land on the dogpile.


    That's a bit excessive. Hunter's arguments and the comments of his partisans aren't that bad.

    ReplyDelete
  98. PEDANT:

    "That's a bit excessive. Hunter's arguments and the comments of his partisans aren't that bad."
    ===

    Ah yes, funny. Yet do didn't disappoint us. You're predictable as usual. You immediately became the first fly in the ointment up above in the next comments section. Fortunately it's dealing from a purely political ideological perspective. Something you excel in as opposed to anything with regards science. Go for it mate, sic em boy sic em !!!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hey Eocene,

    I see that you don't lose your temper easily.

    ;)

    I asked:
    What cause?

    You answered:
    The modern day Evo-Jihadist movement of world endoctrination.

    *eyes rolling*


    OK, can you explain to me, very slowly, because I am not that much of an intellectual as you have made note, how exactly having "artificial life" advances such a "cause"? I mean, artificial life equals evolution? I must be very slow indeed.

    Also, forgive me for not using as many long words as you would have wanted. Did you at least understand anything? Seems like not. Maybe your problem is the opposite and you would prefer a puppet show?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Negative:

    "Hey Eocene,

    I see that you don't lose your temper easily.
    ===

    Funny, more PolPot calling Kettle black. You keep going down this insult deadend road, yet when a mirror has been held up for you to peer at your own image, you turn completely around and forget what sort of person you see and proceed to go off to insult and flame Cornelius and anyone who doesn't have your worldview take on life and with a viciousness found only in your typical Mexican Drug Cartel.
    ---

    Negative:

    "OK, can you explain to me, very slowly, because I am not that much of an intellectual as you have made note, how exactly having "artificial life" advances such a "cause"? I mean, artificial life equals evolution?"
    ===

    Hmmmmmmm Artificial Life ??? Ah yes, you mean "Artificial Intelligence" and this would be the the Atheist's version of heaven. Having one's consciousness and brain downloaded into a super-computer.
    ---

    Negative:

    "Did you at least understand anything? Seems like not. Maybe your problem is the opposite and you would prefer a puppet show?"
    ===

    Oh I understand a hypocrite when I encounter one. Maybe you need anger management courses. Perhaps you can helps us here to identify who some of the regular users are who are employing the use of Sock-Puppets here as a strategy of deflection ???

    ReplyDelete
  101. Eocene,

    It would have been enough if you said you did not want to answer rather than write all that chain of angry stuff (quite revealing by the way). I guess you needed to vent a bit ... as usual.

    ;)

    Hope you feel better.

    Now excuse me but I have to go back and destroy the environment with my evolutionary science. Muahahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Negative:

    "Now excuse me but I have to go back and destroy the environment with my evolutionary science. Muahahahahaha!"
    ===

    Interesting, you're about as adulescent as Troy! The scary thing here is that you'd actually be in charge of teaching young people.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Negative:

    "Hope you feel better."
    ===

    Here you go Negative. This will help put into perspective what amoral no boundary Scientism is doing to our planet. Seriously, this has nothing to do with the present discussion, but is merely a side point to those whose faith is totally towards Scientism as mankind's only savior. Runs about 45 minutes and if there is no creator, then life on this planet doesn't have long and it's not me saying it. It comes from some of your gang. Now watch it and then try and make the usual excuses for their irresponsibilities driven by ignorance, greed and selfishness.

    ""The Disappearing Male"

    ReplyDelete
  104. Eocene,

    Perhaps the problem is not science, but that feeling of eternal life and availability of a saviour. I continue to be astounded that you blame science when Christians and hyper-conservatives are the very first in line against doing anything for the environment and for preserving resources. I remember warnings from the scientific community since my childhood. That was quite a time ago. Even then I do remember clearly who were against doing anything about it. It's been the same kind of people for as long as I have lived.

    Just ask your friend Neal if we should do anything against global warming. (This would be the right place where an argument starting with "what if you are wrong" is meaningful.)

    That there is no saviour makes these problems the more urgent and important. Only we can do something about it, and if we don't we are toast. You puzzle me Eocene. I cannot find an explanation for why would you be so blind and not see who opposes preserving our resources and the environment. I just can't. This is why I cannot but ridicule your nonsensical connection between evolution and the destruction of the environment. (I did not watch your linked stuff.)

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  105. Negative:

    "I continue to be astounded that you blame science when Christians and hyper-conservatives are the very first in line against doing anything for the environment and for preserving resources. I remember warnings from the scientific community since my childhood."
    ===

    You need to go back over and read what i have said in the past. Both sides are responsible and both share and equalled measure of guilt in this. The problem is that secularists excuse science's imperfections. You will actually find very few with any real genuine interest in the natural world other than using it as a tool for propaganda purpsoes.
    ---

    Negative:

    "Just ask your friend Neal if we should do anything against global warming. (This would be the right place where an argument starting with "what if you are wrong" is meaningful.)"
    ===

    Again Negative, go back over the archives and read what I've said, both sides are the mirror image of each other here. Neal refused to answer my question on the WWII holocaust and Christendom involvement. I highly doubt he considers me a friend. The right wing fundie stance on Global Warming is politics as is the left wing take. Truthfully neither side takes it seriously.

    BTW Global Warming , CO2s etc are only symtoms, which proves no one is really interested in the actual cause.
    ---

    I'm off to school, and will address your other erroneous point later.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Negative:

    "That there is no saviour makes these problems the more urgent and important."
    ===

    If indeed this were true, then it's even worse than you can imagine. There would be no hope on the horizon since the historical failure of mankind at Earth's custodialship and his incompetance at governing self speaks volumes. Hence with this in mind, any further discussion would be a waste of time.
    ---

    Negative:

    "Only we can do something about it, and if we don't we are toast."
    ===

    History provides proof this will NEVER take place.
    ---

    Negative:

    "You puzzle me Eocene. I cannot find an explanation for why would you be so blind and not see who opposes preserving our resources and the environment. I just can't."
    ===

    Try as you might to give your side some sort of higher moral ground apart from this world's religions(in particular this stupid ongoing political controversey of right vrs left), you fail. You're both running neck and neck in the global ruination making Derby and no matter who wins, our planet loses. Fortunately it will not be allowed to go that far.
    ---

    Negative:

    "This is why I cannot but ridicule your nonsensical connection between evolution and the destruction of the environment."
    ===

    Because evolutionary religious concepts wallow and thrive in an amoral world. They lend relief to a hardened conscience in that it provides a mind/heart soothing salve for what would otherwise ail an individual whose conscience was NOT trained properly from youth upwards.
    ---

    Negative:

    (I did not watch your linked stuff.)
    ===

    No need to apologize, right wing religious nuts don't give a Tinker's Damn anymore about Earth's environment than your side.

    ReplyDelete