Sunday, March 4, 2012

ARMAN’s Novel Genes and Unique tRNA Editing

As we have explained many times, being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought to create such a wonder. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought. So today’s falsification, though it falsifies one of evolution’s most treasured predictions, will be no different. Once again, evolutionists have great news.

According to evolutionists, one of the most powerful evidences for their notion that the world just happened to arise somehow on its own, is the underlying unity of biology’s fundamental biochemistry. From information storage in the DNA macromolecule to basic metabolism, the same designs are found across biology’s wide spectrum. As Niles Eldredge put it:

The basic notion that life has evolved passes its severest test with flying colors: the underlying chemical uniformity of life, and the myriad patterns of special similarities shared by smaller groups of more closely related organisms, all point to a grand pattern of descent with modification.

Likewise, Christian de Duve triumphantly declared:

Life is one. This fact, implicitly recognized by the use of a single word to encompass objects as different as trees, mushrooms, fish, and humans, has now been established beyond doubt. Each advance in the resolving power of our tools, from the hesitant beginnings of microscopy little more than three centuries ago to the incisive techniques of molecular biology, has further strengthened the view that all extant living organisms are constructed of the same materials, function according to the same principles, and, indeed, are actually related. All are descendants of a single ancestral form of life. This fact is now established thanks to the comparative sequencing of proteins and nucleic acids.

“The essential macromolecules of life,” explained philosopher Michael Ruse, “speak no less eloquently about the past than does any other level of the biological world.”

And exactly why is it that similarities at the molecular level mandate evolution. Why is it that a conserved DNA code must have arisen spontaneously? Evolutionists cannot explain how the DNA code arose on its own, but they are certain that it must have because it is conserved across the species.

Yes we know, such reasoning does not come from science, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. We can only address one fallacy at a time and the fallacy we are addressing here is not evolution’s hypocritical foundation of metaphysics, nor its illogical affirming of the consequent. Here we are addressing evolution’s failure on modus tollens. Or we might say, its denial of denying the consequent.

Simply and classically put, if P Implies Q, then Not Q Implies Not P. Or in plain English, if a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction turns out to be false, then the theory has a problem. It’s that simple.

To be sure, some predictions are soft and of less consequence. They are more like suggestions than predictions, and if they are found to be false then only minor adjustments are required. But if I insist my theory is confirmed by the success of a prediction, then the failure of that prediction spells trouble for my theory. I cannot claim victory if the prediction works while suffering no consequences when the prediction fails. I can’t have my cake and eat it too.

Not so with evolution. As we saw above the universal DNA code and conserved molecular machinery in all life was claimed to be proof texts for evolution. With such high accolades, one might think that counter indications would pose major problems for evolutionists. Not at all, for this is no ordinary theory.

When the DNA replication apparatus—a rather fundamental biochemical process—was found to be significantly different across different species, evolutionists didn’t miss a beat. Those different versions of DNA replication, we were told, probably evolved independently. Or maybe they diverged. Anyway they evolved, that was for certain.

Another interesting example is the archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic nanoorganism, or ARMAN, found in microbial mats in the drainage of the acidic northern California mine owned by Ted Arman.

Referred to as enigmatic, the ARMAN species are morphologically unique. They are only a few hundred nanometers across—about a third the size of common bacteria—and some are found strangely attached (actually impaled by a protruding needle) to a nearby larger microbe in apparently some sort of symbiotic or parasitic relationship.

On the inside of this example of lineage-specific biology, the ARMAN species have about two orders of magnitude fewer ribosomes than common bacteria. And their genes don’t map nicely to other organisms. About a fifth of their genes are similar to bacterial genes, and a few of these have never been found except in bacteria. Meanwhile about a third of the ARMAN genes appear to be unique, with no known cousin genes in other species.

Some of the ARMAN species also have some unique molecular machinery. Specifically, they have a unique protein enzyme that edits newly transcribed genes that will become tRNA molecules. tRNA molecules have a three nucleotide reader on one end, and when charged have an amino acid attached to the other end. The type of amino acid corresponds to the type of reader at the other end, and the ribosome uses the tRNAs when translating a messenger RNA molecule according to the genetic code, to construct a protein.

The editing of tRNA genes is one of those fundamental molecular processes hailed by the evolutionists above which were supposed to “point to a grand pattern of descent with modification.” But when we look closely, what we actually find are violations of the pattern. A couple of the ARMAN species, for instance, suddenly show up with their own unique solution.

And if confirming evidence proves evolution, then contradictory evidence must harm evolution, right? Wrong. The first rule one learns for evolution is that all observations are supporting evidence. As the evolutionists concluded, the new finding “represents a new example of the coevolution of tRNA and their processing enzymes.”

You see the “underlying chemical uniformity of life,” such as it is, was never a proof text for evolution because it was never required by evolution. Different DNA codes, one off molecular machines, alternate DNA replication architectures, lineage-specific transcription regulation, unique epigenetic codes, and so forth, will never harm evolution. Contradictory scientific evidence does no damage because evolution never was about following the evidence. It was about interpreting the evidence through a particular theological lens. And like any good lens, this theological lens is transparent to those looking through it.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

56 comments:

  1. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts...

    The whole opening paragraph (and much of what follows) is basically Cornelius outlining that he is totally unfamiliar with how science works.

    As has been explained to him ad infinitum, science is a process of discovery. Science is constantly creating new data and adjusts its views as new evidence comes in - that is the great strength of science. But Cornelius sees this as a flaw - if new evidence comes in which you did not predict then your theory is WRONG and if you just change your theory enough to accommodate the evidence then you are simply squirming to make your theory unfalsifiable.

    It's a tactic Cornelius is rather infamous for - point to a new discovery and then claim that since ToE did not predict it, it has therefore falsified it. If he doesn't already understand why this is fallacous he probably never will.

    According to evolutionists, one of the most powerful evidences for their notion that the world just happened to arise somehow on its own...

    The world evolved? How many times do you need this explaining - ToE is a theory of BIOLOGY! It is limited to the natural, living world only. It explains how living creatures change over time. That's it. It says absolutely nothing at all about planets, universes, or any non-living thing. Come on Cornelius, this is absolutely elementary stuff.

    And if that was some clumsy wording by which you meant 'the NATURAL world' ie, living things, then the question of how it arose is abiogenesis, which is a different, though closely related, theory. ToE does not make any claims on how life arose. It only make claims on how it develops.

    And exactly why is it that similarities at the molecular level mandate evolution.

    It doesn't mandate evolution, but it is evidence which evolution can explain. (And on a totally unrelated note, ID can't. Just thought I'd mention that.)

    Why is it that a conserved DNA code must have arisen spontaneously?

    Spontaneously? You mean, 'by entirely naturalistic means'? That is just an assumption which EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY MUST MAKE. Stop criticising ToE for behaving scientifically.

    As we saw above the universal DNA code and conserved molecular machinery in all life was claimed to be proof texts for evolution.

    Neither source you quoted made that explicit claim. The truth of evolution does not hang upon a single piece of evidence; it is clear through the convergence of mountains of evidence across many scientific fields.

    It's as though you're trying to say "Historians insist WW2 was real on the basis of THIS single photograph" so that you can then cast doubt on the photograph's authenticity and thus imply WW2 never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those different versions of DNA replication, we were told, probably evolved independently. Or maybe they diverged. Anyway they evolved, that was for certain.

    And what reason do we have to doubt this, since such a theory invokes only mechanisms which have been scientifically identified and demonstrated?

    The only reason you doubt it is because it contradicts your religious beliefs that a magic sky-Daddy poofed such things into existence, and your on-going crusade to have this treated as an equally valid scientific (ha ha) proposition.

    Referred to as enigmatic, the ARMAN species are morphologically unique...

    Every species on Earth is morphologically unique. There is nothing even remotely surprising about this. ToE was made to explain precisely HOW this came to be.

    Nor is there anything at all in the ARMAN which suggests it does not share common ancestry with every other life form on Earth. We can place them within the phylum Euryarchaeota, within the domain Archaea, so they aren't even a new phylum. Yes they have some fascinating and unique characteristics, but the same can be said for every species on Earth, and there is no reason to suppose these features couldn't have evolved (unless you can provide any?).

    In short, this casts no doubt whatsoever on the validity of ToE, though no doubt you will champion this as 'damning evidence' and later refer back to it as irrefutable proof that ToE has been falsified...

    ReplyDelete
  3. You, Cornelius, are great!
    Keep doing (good) science and publishing for us

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Dr. Hunter, This is along the same line:

    ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent - Paul Nelson - video - short version
    http://vimeo.com/17135166/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Evolution theory does not rest on evidence, but only as a logically compelling argument in the minds of its devotees. It must be true according to their logic, so whatever is found can be imagined as evidence. They confuse their rationalism with actual evidence.

    Evolutionary predictions have fudge factors built in that are bigger than the HMS Titanic.

    Evolution answers to all things, but explains nothing.

    Evolutionists are unable/unwilling to directly answer two questions:

    1. What specific finding would evolutionists allow to falsify evolution?

    2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for special creation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal -

      Evolution theory does not rest on evidence...

      Well that's just utter rubbish:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      1. What specific finding would evolutionists allow to falsify evolution?

      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for special creation

      That's your problem, not ours. You have to work out what would count as evidence there.

      Delete
    2. Ritchie, Theobald should not have set the bar for falsification so broadly. Mermaids and centaurs? Seriously?

      How about the sea squirt?

      Evolution falsified. Done. End of discussion.

      Delete
    3. Neal Tedford: "Evolutionists are unable/unwilling to directly answer two questions:

      1. What specific finding would evolutionists allow to falsify evolution?

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for special creation."


      Neal, you are either lying or ignorant, as usual. We answer number 1 all the time.
      I know you're familiar with the quote attributed to J.B.S. Haldane, as it's been mentioned on this blog many, many times: What would falsify evolution? A rabbit skeleton in the precambrian. One could spend an entire day listing things that would falsify evolution: Mermaids, centaurs, primates in triassic rock, birds with mammary glands and gills, etc.

      As for #2, well, that's your job, because first, you'd have to makes some predictions about what we should expect to find if and only if creation were true. Here we return to mermaids and centaurs - If we found them, well, a Creator could mix and match designs as he wished. If we don't, no problem, he didn't want to violate an overall pattern that forms a nested hierarchy for some reason. If we find flawlessly functioning mechanisms - well that's evidence for a designer, right?, And, if we find crude, does-the-job-but-just-barely mechanisms, then that's evidence for a designer who's work was ruined by a talking snake tricking a woman into eating an apple, right? You must make some falsifiable predictions, then we'll talk. That being said, As Darwin pointed out If you could find an organ, or organism, that could not possibly have evolved in a stepwise fashion, that would falsify the theory of evolution, it would not automatically be evidence for a supernatural creator. Magic does not win by default; you would still need positive evidence for a supernatural designer.

      So Neal, I'm going to turn the tables back on you:

      1. What specific finding would falsify ID?

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for common ancestry?

      Let's see if you can answer the very questions that you accuse us of not answering.

      Delete
    4. Neal: "Ritchie, Theobald should not have set the bar for falsification so broadly. Mermaids and centaurs? Seriously?"

      I had written my reply before I read Ritchie's or the talk origins article, funny on how we converged on mermaids and centaurs. I must have heard that example elsewhere. But Neal, you asked us what would falsify evolution. Why is "finding mermaids or centaurs" not an acceptable answer?

      I would like to add, after seeing Ritchie's link, an additional answer to #2: Repeatedly seeing animals created ex nihilo.

      Delete
    5. I have time for #1 first, I'll reply to the rest later.

      "A rabbit skeleton in the precambrian. One could spend an entire day listing things that would falsify evolution: Mermaids, centaurs, primates in triassic rock, birds with mammary glands and gills, etc"

      --

      Your examples illustrate how evolutionists draw targets around their findings after the fact. Plenty of animals exist that combine either morphology or genetic traits.

      Mermaids.

      I do not believe that a mermaid finding would be allowed to falsify evolution. Evolutionists would add another just so story to the existing to say that a group of isolated island people grew fins in response to selection pressures. After all whales are said to come from land mammals, right?

      Why would mermiads falsify evolution, but not other existing life, such a the platypus that shares bird chromosones?

      again, according to Theobald a fish should not have cusp teeth... this would be contradictory to evolution. Theobald didn't do his research well enough before he drew he his target on this one. Some fish do have cusp teeth.

      What Theobald and other evolutionists have done is already accommodate what they know to exist. When they predict out further than their knowledge base of what exists in nature, they are often wrong. He was apparently not aware of fish with cusp teeth. That is, when they can't draw a target beforehand, they get messed up.

      But if all else fails there are such terms as convergence available for evolutionists to use at will.

      Mix matches of genes are being identified throughout the mosiac of life (not just bacteria). Sea squirts and humans and many other examples abound.

      Delete
    6. Neal Tedford: "I do not believe that a mermaid finding would be allowed to falsify evolution."

      It doesn't matter what you think would or would not falsify evolution, you asked us what we think would. And ZING go the goal posts: You ask us what would convince us the theory of evolution was false, and when we give you several examples, you just shrug and say "Naawwww, that wudunt convince ya!" What contemptible idiocy. You don't get to decide what other people find convincing just because you find it inconvenient to your argument. You even claimed that the question had never been answered. Imagine if someone said: "Neal, what would it take to convince you that I have a blue M&M in my hand?" and you replied: "Well, you cold open up your hand and show me." Imagine how ignorant you'd think the other person were if their response was "Nah, I don't believe that you'd be convinced even by that."

      Neal Tedford: "Why would mermiads falsify evolution, but not other existing life, such a the platypus that shares bird chromosones?"

      Please, please, please, please, please tell me that you think that a platypus has 'bird chromosomes' because it has a bill-like snout. Please. Give me an early Christmas present.

      Neal Tedford: "again, according to Theobald a fish should not have cusp teeth"

      *citation needed. (as usual)

      I've discovered that when asking you clear, concise questions, I have to number the times I ask before you even attempt to answer. In this case, they're just the inverse of question that you expected us to answer. You usually make it into the mid-forties. Let's try this again.

      For the second time:

      1. What specific finding would falsify ID?

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for common ancestry?

      Delete
    7. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6568-platypus-sex-is-xxxxxrated.html

      My point is that whatever is found can be accommodated. It is convenient (and safe) to say a Mermaid would falsify evolution. But, even if a mermaid were found, do you really believe that evolutionists would not attempt to make it fit? Of course they would. After all, it is the job of "science" to prop up evolution up no matter what. Worst case they say that it's a mystery, but evolution is not based on one mystery because of the mountain of ..."

      First they would say that they are "shocked", then... well, you know.

      Delete
    8. You could have said, Volkswagons just as well as Mermaids. But, seriously, do you not know WHY Mermaids would be a problem for evolution, when greater feats have long been attributed to evolution?

      Delete
    9. Neal Tedford: "You could have said, Volkswagons just as well as Mermaids."

      Volkswagens falsify evolution? Sometimes I can't tell if I'm conversing with a fellow human being, or a cat is jumping on your keyboard.

      Neal Tedford: "After all, it is the job of "science" to prop up evolution up no matter what."

      I always wondered what science was for. Now I know. It doesn't take any work to make people like you look stupid. We just let you talk long enough and you do it yourself.


      Neal Tedford "My point is that whatever is found can be accommodated. "

      And we refuted your point by providing examples of things that if found, could not be accommodated!

      For the third time:

      1. What specific finding would falsify ID?

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for common ancestry?

      Delete
    10. You gave a list but you are drawing your targets after the fact. What you appear to be copying from Theobald is that evolution does not expect mixing and matching.

      True in your specific examples, but clearly wrong if you are looking for examples in the real world. Why ignore real world examples of mixing traits and genes?

      You're cherry picking, while ignoring data that you don't want to talk about. Cherry picking evidence can give an illusion of support to anything.

      Does Theobald consider evolution falsified if one species is found that contradicts his no mixing of traits falsification? Two, ten, hundred, 50%? Again evolution lacks precision in defining the point of falsification. It has fudge factors built in that are bigger than the HMS Titanic.

      I do not believe for one minute that the discovery of Mermaids would cause evolutionists to throw up their hands and say, "this falsifies evolution as a theory and we need to find a different theory."

      Delete
    11. Neal Tedford: "I do not believe for one minute that the discovery of Mermaids would cause evolutionists to throw up their hands and say, "this falsifies evolution as a theory and we need to find a different theory."

      I do not believe for one minute that showing you that I have a blue M&M in my hand would convince you that I have a blue M&M in my hand. No matter what you say otherwise.

      If you're not going to believe our answer to the question, then why bother asking the question? Since you seem to get stuck on minutiae, what about the other examples? One example would be my answer to both 1 & 2: Consistent observations of new species poofing into existence from time to time.

      Neal: "Why ignore real world examples of mixing traits and genes?"

      First of all, you've never been able to demonstrate that you understand what "convergent" means. Bats have limbs adapted for flight, birds have limbs adapted for flight. This is not 'mixing and matching' in the same way that human-designed objects exhibit that property. Bat forelimbs are structurally more similar to other mammal forelimbs than they are to bird forelimbs.

      And Neal, I answered your questions immediately, the first post after you asked them. Why can't you do the same? I hope the irony isn't lost on you that you don't seem to be able to answer the very question about your position that you accuse us of not being able to answer about ours.

      For the fourth time:

      1. What specific finding would falsify ID?

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for common ancestry?

      If we get ten, I'll throw in a bonus question.

      Delete
    12. "I do not believe for one minute that showing you that I have a blue M&M in my hand would convince you that I have a blue M&M in my hand. No matter what you say otherwise."

      Did you say red?

      -


      Evolution has strongly advanced scenarios where whales evolved from land mammals, dinosaurs to birds, bacteria to princes, but what I believe you are saying is that discovering a mermaid would cause evolutionists to throw up the white flag and renounce their theory.

      Delete
    13. Neal Tedford: "Evolution has strongly advanced scenarios where whales evolved from land mammals, dinosaurs to birds, bacteria to princes, but what I believe you are saying is that discovering a mermaid would cause evolutionists to throw up the white flag and renounce their theory."

      YES. At least one would, because a mermaid, which is 50% Species A, and 50% species B from an entirely different Class, is not something that can have evolved in a Darwinian fashion. But as I pointed out before, you get hung up on minutiae easily, so let's drop this example, not because it wouldn't convince me that evolution were false, but because you don't seem to understand WHY it would convince me that evolution was false, and move on to the example of a new species poofing into existence from time to time.

      I have answered your simple question. Why won't you answer mine?

      For the sixthtime:

      1. What specific finding would falsify ID?

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for common ancestry?

      Delete
    14. Derick Childress:

      I know you're familiar with the quote attributed to J.B.S. Haldane, as it's been mentioned on this blog many, many times: What would falsify evolution? A rabbit skeleton in the precambrian. One could spend an entire day listing things that would falsify evolution: Mermaids, centaurs, primates in triassic rock, birds with mammary glands and gills, etc.

      This would falsify evolution, and would also falsify Darwin's Theory of Evolution. But what would falsify Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but not falsify evolution?

      That, I think, is the more important question.

      Delete
  6. OT: Dr Hunter, you should find this very interesting:

    Sound and Fury in the Microbiology Lab - Catherine Mary - March 2, 2012
    Excerpt: At 59, Didier Raoult is the most productive and influential microbiologist in France, leading a team of 200 scientists and students at the University of Aix-Marseille. He has discovered or co-discovered dozens of new bacteria, and in 2003, he stunned colleagues with a virus of record size, dubbed Mimivirus, the first member of a family that sheds an intriguing new light on the evolution of viruses and the tree of life. Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006. Scientists at Raoult's lab say they wouldn't want to work anywhere else. Yet Raoult is also known for his enmities and his disdain for those who disagree with him.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1033.summary

    ReplyDelete
  7. CH: Simply and classically put, if P Implies Q, then Not Q Implies Not P. Or in plain English, if a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction turns out to be false, then the theory has a problem. It’s that simple.

    So, you're an instrumentalist, in that scientific theories do not actually represent reality, but exist merely as "instruments" to predict what we'll experience?

    For example, I predict that an individual traveled using a bicycle from point A to point B based on a number of factors about the individuals lack of a valid drivers license, having seen the individual on a bicycle in the past, noticing said bicycle is missing, etc. As such, I predict this individual would take two hours to make the trip.

    However, there could be a number of parallel, yet unrelated factors that could impact the actual time of the trip. For example, it could be that the specific route taken is mostly downhill, so the individual would arrive much sooner, or the route is mostly up hill, so they ended up arriving much later. Or, it could there was a bridge that was out due to construction that day, etc, which required the individual to take a significantly longer route.

    In other words, predictions of scientific theories are not prophecy, in that they can take into account an infinite number of parallel yet unrelated factors that would impact what we experience. Nor do we never learn anything new that might impact the prediction without changing the underlying expiation behind the theory itself.

    To return to my analogy, you seem to think we should still evaluate the theory of whether the man traveled by bicycled based on the prediction made *before* we found out the bridge he would have taken was closed, rather than taking this new information into account.

    How does this make sense? How is this even reasonable?

    Again, it's as if you think scientific theories do not actually represent reality, but exist as merely "instruments" to predict what we'll experience.

    BTW, this sort of argument is precisely why I asked…

    …what is your position on the role of empirical observations in science? Please be specific.

    In the previous thread.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Scott, if evolution is compared to bicycles, the problem would not be a bridge that closed, but never having seen a bicycle in the history of the mankind.

    Evolution has never been observed. Ever. That life exists on Mars is as factual as the claim that evolution is factual.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Neal,

    Analogies are never perfect representations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be analogies.

    I'm using things like bicycles, bridges, etc. because we agree they exist and would have an impact on how long the man took to bicycle to his destination. That is, we take them seriously as representing reality.

    However, Cornelius appears to be ignoring the impact new discoveries would have on predictions that Darwin made 150 years ago, since he expect the predictions he made to still hold.

    Again, it's unclear how this is a reasonable or rational expectation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scott, I'm saying that you have zero evidence for evolution. My analogy is that there is as much evidence for evolution as there is for life on Mars. They used to speculate from millions of miles away about how there appear to be canals on Mars that could be evidence of an advanced civilization. The landers put that to rest. Evolutionists speculate from millions of years away how fossils appear to have evolved.

    The microscope put that to rest, but evolutionists resist the advancement of modern biology by holding unto their steamboat era notions of biology.

    This is not about fine tuning a good theory, but about not finding any evidence at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal Tedford: "Scott, I'm saying that you have zero evidence for evolution. // This is not about fine tuning a good theory, but about not finding any evidence at all."

      Neal, I'm curious. Why do you think so many people accept evolution, if there's not anyevidence? I mean, I wouldn't say that there's no evidence for Christianity. Merely that there is no evidence that I personally find convincing. Saying that there is no evidence for something is essentially the same thing as saying there is no reason to believe it. Then why do so many people believe it? Specifically, why do so many scientifically literate Christians accept evolution? Essentially all Christian biologists and paleontologists?

      Why is that, if there's no evidence?

      Delete
    2. Same answer as to why millions of people used to believe in geocentricity but evolution is undergirded by an unwavering religious concept.

      Delete
    3. Neal Tedford: "Same answer as to why millions of people used to believe in geocentricity but evolution is undergirded by an unwavering religious concept."

      I'm not sure you know what "religious" means. Westerners used to accept geo-centricity for two primary reasons: It seems intuitive, and that's what the Bible teaches. Evolution is neither intuitive nor taught in the Bible, so saying that people accept evolution for the "same reason" is atrociously absurd, even for you.

      Neal, Google "Psychological Projection." It is you yourself who is guided by an unwavering religious concept, so you attribute that motive to everyone who disagrees with you, even the ones who hold no religious beliefs. It's sad to watch.

      Your inability to answer the very same questions about your position that you demand we answer of ours demonstrates this.

      And your answer makes no sense when applied to the specific instance I asked you about: Why do so some Christians, and for that matter, adherents of every religion, accept evolution? What is this as-yet-unnamed "unwavering religious concept" that is shared amongst Christians, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, deists, Jews, Buddhists, etc.?"


      For the fifth time:

      1. What specific finding would falsify ID?

      2. What specific finding in nature could be discovered that would provide compelling evidence for common ancestry?

      Delete
    4. "that's what the Bible teaches"

      Which bible was that?

      Delete
    5. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia005061.html

      1. Many findings. If chemical and biological evolution is true, ID is falsified.
      2. Ah, the question you refuse to answer, but for me is simple. I hear a lot of hot air coming from Darwinists but no substance.

      How about a single observed example of unbounded and directional biological change? How about a fossil record that shows gradual evolution from bottom to top, not the sudden appearance of phyla. How about the Darwinian tree of life being accurately confirmed by genetic sequencing, rather than contradicting that model? How about a detailed explanation of the pathway as to how the bacterial flagellum evolved? Etc.

      Delete
    6. Neal Tedford: "Which bible was that?"


      Oh, you know, the one that says "the world stands firm, never to be moved," "The wold is established; it shall never be moved" (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1 - 96:10), the one that makes many references to the 'pillars' and 'foundations' of the world, (2 Samuel 22:16, Psalms 18:15) in phrases like "Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. (Psalms 102:25) and "When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth," (Proverbs 8:27-29) as well as: Psalms 104:5
"Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken." Job 9:6
"who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble."
      [Notice, that those two verses directly contradict each other]
      1 Samuel 2:8 "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world."

      …the one that depicts a flat earth where, if you could just find a mountain high enough, you could see all the kingdoms of the world, (Matthew 4:8)

      …and that depicts the sky as a solid object, hard as a mirror (Job 37:18) and firm enough to hold up the water above (which presumably makes the sky blue) (Genesis 1:6-9)
      …the Bible that describes a sun that not only moves, but changes it's rate of movement: The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. (Ecclesiastes 1:5) and a sun/earth relationship where if you want a longer day, you stop the sun from moving across the sky, not the earth. (Joshua 10:12-13.)

      Y'know, the same Bible you preach from, and probably haven't read the whole way through.

      If you know the slightest thing about history, (which you usually don't) you know that geocentricity was the teaching of the church for centuries. Hazard to guess where they got that idea? A fortune cookie? Nope. Magic 8-Ball? Nope. They got it from the Bible, from those verses above, and many others. (the above is by no means an exhaustive list.)

      The Bible so clearly portrays a geocentric universe that some Christians still hold to it: http://www.geocentricity.com/ http://www.geocentricbible.com/ http://theflatearthsociety.org

      (Except for Christians like you, who toss aside the authority of scripture in leu of a secular "heliocentric" model, undoubtedly driven by a "unwavering religious concept," whatever that is.)

      Delete
    7. Doesn't the theory of relativity say that evey point in the uninverse can be considered the center? So a geocentric uninverse is just as accurate as a heliocentric one.

      Delete
    8. Adn Job 26:7 says "He suspends the Earth from nothing.

      Delete
    9. And Job 37:18 uses an unusual term for heavens. The usual term in the original Hebrew is "Shomayim." In Job 37 it says Sochak. the context is referring to atmospheirc phenomenon. So this term might mean atmosphere, not heaven. Comparing it to a mirror is interesting, since the atmosphere does reflect and refract light like a mirror.

      Delete
    10. natschuster: "Doesn't the theory of relativity say that evey point in the uninverse can be considered the center? So a geocentric uninverse is just as accurate as a heliocentric one"

      Nat, try this next time you get a speeding ticket:

      "Well Officer, doesn't the theory of relativity say that evey point in the uninverse can be considered the center? So it's just as accurate to say that the school zone was speeding past me at 80 miles an hour."

      It is truly sad that you are a teacher. I mourn for those kids.

      Delete
    11. natschuster: "Adn Job 26:7 says "He suspends the Earth from nothing."

      And like a chronic gambler or a charlatan pretending to be psychic, you love talking about the hits and ignoring the misses. What about those other dozen or so verses? Does one verse that isn't idiotic cancel out 30 that are? Is that what inerrant and infallible has come to mean?

      natschuster: "Comparing [the sky] to a mirror is interesting, since the atmosphere does reflect and refract light like a mirror.

      Interesting and wrong. The ancient people in that part of the world thought the sky was a solid dome covering the earth, and this view is portrayed throughout the bible, especially in the verse you just mentioned: "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?". The 'atmosphere' is not as hard as bronze nat.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Neal: Scott, I'm saying that you have zero evidence for evolution.

      Let me guess, we have no evidence because we haven't observed the predictions darwin made over 150 years ago, before we had even discovered DNA?

      Neal: My analogy is that there is as much evidence for evolution as there is for life on Mars. They used to speculate from millions of miles away about how there appear to be canals on Mars that could be evidence of an advanced civilization.

      You seem to be confused as to the role empirical observations play in science.

      Clearly, we cannot go back in time to observe what happened in the distant past. That "evolutionists" think this is even possible represents the sort of absurd straw man propagated by creationists. However, we can create theories about how things *were* in the distant past, in reality, that would have necessary consequences for the current state of the biosphere, this very moment, which we could empirically test using observations.

      For example, one such state of the current system is the order of that life appears in (least to most complex, vs most to least) or if the most complex forms appeared at the same time as the least complex.

      If the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created via a process of conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, this would have *necessary* consequences in that the most complex forms of life could NOT have appeared simultaneously with the least complex. In addition, this would have the necessary consequence of life appearing the order of least complex to the most complex. This is because it's impossible to build something until the knowledge necessary to build it is first created. If it was, it was essentially created by "magic".

      In other words, evolutionary theory posits a theory of how things *are*, in reality, which has *necessary* consequences for the current state of the system (biosphere), this very moment, which we can empirically test.

      And when we test the state of the system, is this not what we observe? Are these not empirical observations?

      On the other hand, an abstract designer or supernatural, all knowing, all powerful designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, would have no necessary consequences in regards to the simultaneous created of both the least complex and most complex forms of life or any particular order in which they appeared.

      So, unlike evolutionary theory, there can be no corresponding *necessary* consequences for the current state of the system (biosphere) this very moment, which we can empirically test.

      As such, your claim that there is zero evidence for evolutionary theory is false. This is because you were confused as to the role empirical observations play in science. In other words, you had this role backwards.

      As Karl Popper put it, "The objectify of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectivly tested."

      Delete
    14. Derek

      The Hebrew word used in the passage n Job 37 is Chazak, which means strong, not hard.

      Delete
    15. Dereck:

      Samuel II 22 ad Psalms 18 are referring to the splitting of the Red sea. So it mat very well mean that the bases of the continents that, where normally covered by water where exposed. Samuel 1 2 uses a similar terminology for Earth "Tevel" so it might be referring to the same thing. The usual term for Earth is the Bible is Eretz.

      Delete
    16. Nat,

      What's your explanation as to why an all knowing, all powerful being would choose to reveal itself to the Israelites?

      Given all of the cultures and locations, why would they be selected?

      Since we estimate that human beings with brains of essentially the same structure as ours have existed for over 100,000 years, why would this being choose to reveal itself then, and not some earlier or later time?

      But, before you reply...

      Why is this a better explanation than the Israelites merely believing their tribal God was the one true God, who picked them in particular, during their lifetimes?

      Delete
    17. Derick:

      Job 9:6 uses the term "eretz,"land. If it meant to say the whole world, it would have said "Ha'aretz," the land.

      Psalm 93.1 and 96.1 use the term "Temot" for moving or shaking. Job 9.6 uses the term "Poletz." Psalm might refer to a more permanent kind of shaking while Job refers to an earthquake.

      Delete
    18. Scott:

      This is really getting off topic, but I'll attempt an answer. It looks like the ancient Israelites chose God, so God reciprocated.

      And maybe God did reveal himself to the cavemen. They just couldn't write it down. Or maybe some of those enigmatic cave drawings are really records of divine revelations. Or maybe the cave men didn't have souls. They were just very clever apes. Or maybe the world is only ~6000 years old.

      Delete
    19. Nat: It looks like the ancient Israelites chose God, so God reciprocated.

      Those are possibilities, not an explanation.

      Nor did you tell us why your non-explanation is better explanation than the Israelites merely believed their tribal God was the one true God, who picked them in particular, during their lifetime.

      Then again, this comes as no surprise, I didn't actually expect you to provide either of those things.

      Delete
    20. Scott:

      They are possible explanations.

      Delete
    21. Now it seems you've having difficulty differentiating between a mere possibility and an explanation.

      Do you really not know the difference, or is this just more of the same?

      Delete
    22. I was always under the impression that an explanation was a reason why something happened. A possibility is something that might have happened. They are two different concepts but they are not mutually exclusive. So I don't see why the things I suggested don't qualify as possible explanations.

      Delete
  11. Neal -

    Evolution has never been observed. Ever.
    ...
    Scott, I'm saying that you have zero evidence for evolution.


    Wrong and wrong. It has been directly observed...

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    ...and there is tonnes of evidence for it.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    You are just doing the Creationist trick of "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE!! LA LA LA...."

    If you actually FOLLOWED the links I was giving you you would see the evidence.

    But I'll bet money that you won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read Theobald years ago and several times since. His formation of arguments tends toward shallowness, outright inaccurates (fish teeth) and strawman arguments. Is this the best you can do?

      Delete
    2. So you're not going to do anything towards actually showing WHERE any of this evidence is untrue, then? You're just going to dismiss it all because you don't like it and go on insisting there isn't any?

      Delete
  12. I understand that the platypus also has reptile DNA that is connected to the poisn spur it has on its leg. The echidna has a four headed penis that functions like the hemipenis of snakes and lizards. That's freaky. Then there are some waterfowl that have a penis, also. Then there are some birds that feed their babies crop milk, similar to mammalian milk. There's lot's of this chimerical stuff. So there does seem to be a lot of overlap in the nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Some snakes have placentas, similar to mammals and some sharks. Mermaids are beginning to sound easy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. nat -

    Let me paint you a picture. Imagine an animal - let's just say a lizard. Easy enough to picture. Now this lizard is the common ancestor mammals share with reptiles (and through them, birds). Well call this lizard CA1. With me so far?

    Now, this lizard reproduces - one group branching off down the reptile-bird route, and the other getting more mammalian (yes this is more a poetic illustration than a literal one. I hope you're still following).

    Now follow the mammal-like group. They keep reproducing, evolving and changing, and finally they are the first mammals. Now THIS group starts to split - one to become the very oldest branch on the mammalian tree (we'll call this group G1), and the other group to go on to produce all other mammals (G2).

    Now imagine that G1 reaches the present day represented by only two living species, while all the other mammals in the world were descendants of G2. Can you see that the descendants of G1 could have features in common with the reptiles and birds which they do not with the G2 mammals? Can you see that the G2 mammals might have lost such features after they split with the G1 mammals?

    Think that through because I really want you to make sense of that in your head.

    This is, in fact, the case. The 'G1 mammals' are in fact called monotremes, and they are today represented only by the platypus and the echidna. They are the oldest branch of mammals and as such could well share characteristics with birds and reptiles which other mammals do not share.

    It is no issue at all if CA1 had a trait which is passed on to reptiles and birds, and to only some of the mammals. That is not a challenge to evolution. The problem only comes if an animal was found that both had features which arose in two groups only AFTER they had split. Nipples only developed in G2 after they split with G1. Whilst feathers developed uniquely in birds. So, no creature would have both nipples and feathers. Do you see?

    As for crop milk and reptilian placentas, they show signs do developing independently of the mammalian versions. They may perform a similar function but are simply not the same.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bords are closer to crocodiles than to lizards. But crocodiles don't have penises but some birds do. And mammals are desceded from synapsids. Lizards are diapsids. They are closer to birds and crocodiles, than to mammals. But they have hemipenises. Crocs don't. It's all very confusing.

    And something as complex and unlkely as a placenta evolved in sharks, snakes and mammals.

    ReplyDelete
  16. nat -

    Bords are closer to crocodiles than to lizards. But crocodiles don't have penises but some birds do.

    Bird penises are structurally different to mammalian penises. In birds it is an erectile expansion of the cloacal wall. Also it is inflated to erection by lymph, not blood.

    You see this is an example of convergent evolution - very similar features arising in very distantly lineages. Another example would be wings. Insects, birds and bats all have wings. But no-one is suggesting this is because they shared winged ancestors. Instead, wings evolved independently in each. Though they serve the same function and are superficially the same feature, there are significant differences which reveals their independent origins and development.

    And something as complex and unlkely as a placenta evolved in sharks, snakes and mammals.

    Again, convergent evolution. In sharks and snakes the placenta links the foetus to a free-floating yolk rather than a specific uterus lining.

    And I have to ask why you think placenta is unlikely. The foetuses of most tetrapods are either directly attached to their yolksac (it may even be internal) or are attached to it via a placenta. Whether they grow in eggs or inside their mothers' body, placentas are not at all uncommon.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is interesting:

    ^ Blackburn, D. G. and Flemming, A. F. (2011), Invasive implantation and intimate placental associations in a placentotrophic african lizard, Trachylepis ivensi (scincidae) Journal of Morphology. doi: 10.1002/jmor.11011

    ReplyDelete
  18. Interesting indeed. But still nothing really more than convergence.

    Firstly, many skinks incubate their eggs internally and give birth to live young (45%, according to wiki) some of whom, such as Tiliqua and Corucia, have developed placental incubation. So the emergence of placentas is not new or surprising.

    What is different about Trachylepis ivensi(i) is that it so closely resembles the mammalian way of feotal development (unlike the other reptilian live-young-bearers, the embryo fully implants itself in the wall of the oviduct).

    However, should this be so unlikely? Vertibrates have evolved live birth no fewer than 132 times - 98 of which have occurred among the reptiles:

    http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/2/313

    Is it really so surprising that with so many different ways of serving essentially the same function, one should resemble our own so very much?

    ReplyDelete