Evolution is Making a List
Perhaps those capabilities predate birds altogether. As we know with evolution anything can happen, and evolutionists are now having to conclude that flight-ready bird brains were present in dinosaurs, before birds themselves evolved.
And while we’re on the subject of birds and bird brains, Alice Auersperg’s research is showing that Cockatoos can track and predict the emergence of temporally out of sight objects. Their abilities rival those of apes and young children.
Speaking of apes and humans, research out of Japan continues to reveal the importance of epigenetic differences. Their research suggests that DNA methylation changes “contribute to transcriptional and phenotypic diversification in hominid evolution.” In other words, evolution occurred via incredibly complex molecular “bar code” mechanisms which, themselves, must have been created by evolution. So evolution must have created the mechanisms which cause evolution to occur. That is what philosophers call a self-referential theory. (Other people just call it wrong).
But epigenetics is only one of many. Another conundrum is the genetic networks which, as McGill University’s Leon Glass explains, are so complex that researchers have been slow to unravel them. Yet everyone is certain they evolved.
One sure sign that a problem is not solved (and therefore not a fact) is when the answer continues to switch between alternatives. For origin of life researchers, those alternatives have included a warm little pond (as Darwin put it), deep sea hydrothermal vents, and outer space. Last year the ball went back into the warm little pond court, but now NASA’s Mike Russell just hit it back into the deep sea hydrothermal vent court. So what’s next? Look for a new comet soon that puts the ball back into outer space.
Of course none of these problems are very serious since it is certain that evolution is true. In fact, not only did evolution create all things, it also supplies right and wrong and the proper punishment to go along with it. As evolutionists at Michigan State University now explain, “We found evolution will punish you if you’re selfish and mean.” So evolution is not only true, it is also good. It’s making a list and checking it twice; it’s gonna find out who’s naughty and nice.
One sure sign that a problem is not solved (and therefore not a fact) is when the answer continues to switch between alternatives. For origin of life researchers, those alternatives have included a warm little pond (as Darwin put it), deep sea hydrothermal vents, and outer space.
ReplyDeleteStrawman. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that the mystery of the origins of life has been solved and the solution is now a fact.
Apart from creationists, of course.
Last year the ball went back into the warm little pond court, but now NASA’s Mike Russell just hit it back into the deep sea hydrothermal vent court. So what’s next? Look for a new comet soon that puts the ball back into outer space.
That's right. They're working to decide between a number of alternative hypotheses It's called scientific research.
What would you prefer? Pick one explanation out of a hat in a blind draw and declare that one the winner?
Ian:
DeleteStrawman. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that the mystery of the origins of life has been solved and the solution is now a fact. Apart from creationists, of course.
"For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells." [National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999) 6.]
Scientists "have found compelling evidence that life could have evolved into a DNA-based microbe in a series of steps" [Carl Zimmer, Evolution (New York: HarperCollins, 2001) 104.]
"Many lines of evidence help illuminate the origin of life: ancient fossils, radiometric dating, the phylogenetics and chemistry of modern organisms, and even experiments. However, since new evidence is constantly being discovered, hypotheses about how life originated may change or be modified. It's important to keep in mind that changes to these hypotheses are a normal part of the process of science and that they do not represent a change in the basis of evolutionary theory." [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml]
"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves ... It is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution." [Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece, Biology 6th ed. (San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002) 1175]
In answer to Ian's statement, CH provides four quotes that say exactly the same thing that Ian just said.
DeleteNobody does own goals as consistently and as flamboyantly as you CH!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRight, Moronton. The quotes demonstrate something more remarkable. Even though there is no known NATURALISTIC solution, they STILL think they KNOW there IS a naturalistic solution. IOW, they're as stupid as you are. And that's about as stupid as one can be.
DeleteLiar For Jesus Jeff
DeleteEven though there is no known NATURALISTIC solution, they STILL think they KNOW there IS a naturalistic solution.
How many non-NATURALISTIC solutions has science confirmed in the last 400 years, in any scientific areas?
Go ahead and list them for us LFJJ. Shouldn't take you too long.
JeffAugust 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM
DeleteRight, Moronton. The quotes demonstrate something more remarkable. Even though there is no known NATURALISTIC solution, they STILL think they KNOW there IS a naturalistic solution.
It's probably more accurate to say they are confident there is a natural solution on the grounds that, as Thorton is pointing out, such assumptions have worked out a lot better than assuming supernatural solutions - whatever that might mean.
Actually, sub-hypothesis after sub-hypothesis has failed, just as CH has documented. It's just that none of these failures could have ever falsified the mother hypothesis in the first place. Because the mother hypothesis is unfalsifiable in the same sense that SA is.
DeleteMoron: How many non-NATURALISTIC solutions has science confirmed in the last 400 years, in any scientific areas?
DeleteJ: Apparently you have forgotten that about everything scientists have hypothesized over the last 400 years has already been discarded. Hypotheses are a dime a dozen. Hypotheses that imply lots of potentially falsifying observations that are simple enough to test and that continue to survive those tests are NOT. Naturalistic UCA is NOT such an hypothesis.
Jeff August 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM
DeleteActually, sub-hypothesis after sub-hypothesis has failed, just as CH has documented.
Of course, that is the nature of science. Failed explanations are discarded. Does that mean we are left with nothing that works? Of course not.
Hypotheses about the nature of electricity and magnetism and the relationship between the two work very well. If they didn't then neither would all the electronic devices that we take for granted today.
The hypothesis that some illnesses are caused by micro-organisms - the germ theory of disease - seems pretty healthy.
Hypotheses about the atomic nature of matter have come along nicely, even to the extent of leading us to elusive little beasties like the neutrino or Higgs boson. We wouldn't even have suspected their existence without the theory.
Hypotheses about the relative nature of matter and energy, space and time have given us a much better understanding of how the universe works. They also make the GPS satellites more accurate.
Generating hypotheses, testing them and junking the ones that don't work is what science does. It's how it progresses bit by bit. it's not a bug it's a feature.
Jeff August 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM
DeleteMoron: How many non-NATURALISTIC solutions has science confirmed in the last 400 years, in any scientific areas?
J: Apparently you have forgotten that about everything scientists have hypothesized over the last 400 years has already been discarded.
This reminded me of another example.
Epilepsy.
We have discarded supernatural hypotheses that the seizures are the result of possession by evil spirits in favor of the naturalistic hypothesis that they are a disorder of the electrical activity in the brain.
Is junking the evil spirits hypothesis just another failure of science?
I don't think so.
LOL! Good old Cornelius Goebbels. Every area of scientific inquiry is a "major problem" for evolution.
ReplyDeleteHow about it CH - can you name any scientific field anywhere that doesn't have unknowns and unanswered questions?
Are you mad at Gerbil Luskin for ruining your perfectly good lie about your association with the DI?
Ian said:
ReplyDelete"That's right. They're working to decide between a number of alternative hypotheses It's called scientific research."
Will intelligent design be included as one the alternative hypothesis?
If not, then it is NOT called scientific research.
"What would you prefer? Pick one explanation out of a hat in a blind draw and declare that one the winner?"
How about picking the one that best explains what is observed. Of course, that one would be the intelligent design hypothesis. But as just pointed out, you are not talking about real scientific research.
awstar
DeleteWill intelligent design be included as one the alternative hypothesis?
That depends on what ID is offering.
What is the testable hypothesis proposed by ID, and what observational results during the test would falsify the hypothesis?
Moron: What is the testable hypothesis proposed by ID, and what observational results during the test would falsify the hypothesis?
DeleteJ: What observational results would falsify naturalistic UCA? And please don't trot out the bogus "Cambrian rabbit" non-sense. Not only are there naturalistic UCA'ists on record denying the validity of that criteria as a falsification criteria, but even Zachriel finally admitted (after his original lying bluff) that it would only render it less plausible. And of course, he KNOWS it would still be MORE plausible than common design. Because like all morons, he doesn't reason--he doesn't need to; his sense of personal credulity is the equivalent of divine omniscience!
Liar for Jesus Jeff
DeleteWhat observational results would falsify naturalistic UCA?
The same ones I gave you the last half dozen times you asked.
Finding the phylogenies created from the fossil record and genetic record are widely discordant.
Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different species.
You'll ignore these answers too but at least the lurkers can see again how dishonest you are.
Moron, phylogenies aren't IMPLIED by fossils or molecules. That is an ASSUMPTION. What's the EVIDENCE for that assumption, moron?
DeleteIt's because of this that multiple forms of DNA does NOT contradict naturalistic UCA. That takes additional knowledge. What is that knowledge? YOu're an idiot. The truth of a single proposition only implies the falsehood of its negation--and NOTHING ELSE! What a moron.
awstar August 18, 2013 at 8:28 AM
Delete[...]
How about picking the one that best explains what is observed.
Which is what they're doing.
Of course, that one would be the intelligent design hypothesis.
Why "Of course"? What are your grounds for claiming EID is the best explanation. How did you decide between them?
As we've said before, what you want science to provide is a detailed explanation of how evolution occurred. What you're offering as an alternative is an intelligent designer. That's a 'who' not a 'how'. It's a speculation not a hypothesis.
Liar For Jesus Jeff
DeleteI'm a moron second to none!
Exactly as predicted, LFJJ again ignored the answers he was given and continued blithering his inane philosophical drivel.
He'll ask the same already answered question again later this week, guaranteed. Wait for it.
ID-SA and naturalistic UCA aren't falsifiable in the way a mathematical prediction can be, moron. You're just too stupid to realize that they're both in the same boat in that respect. Because you're an idiot that can't think for yourself.
DeleteJeff: Not only are there naturalistic UCA'ists on record denying the validity of that criteria as a falsification criteria, but even Zachriel finally admitted (after his original lying bluff) that it would only render it less plausible.
DeletePlease don't continue to misrepresent and mangle our position. The demonstrated existence Precambrian rabbit would, for all intents and purposes, falsify the current theory of evolution. However, nothing can be known with certainty, and the demonstration itself would be subject to falsification.
Thorton said: "What is the testable hypothesis proposed by ID, and what observational results during the test would falsify the hypothesis?"
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist on the ID hypothesis having to meet greater requirements to be considered a "scientific" hypothesis than evolution?
Here's a quote from someone from your own camp who disses your attempt to disqualify the hypothesis before the debate even begins.
"Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the theory of evolution." -- Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne
"Facts Are Not Everything in Science" 2008
awstar
DeleteWhy do you insist on the ID hypothesis having to meet greater requirements to be considered a "scientific" hypothesis than evolution?
I don't. ID gets the identical requirements as the evolutionary sciences and as all scientific disciplines.
If it can't be falsified it isn't science. That's how all science works.
If it can't be falsified it isn't science. That's how all science works.
DeleteThat's ironic.
If ID gets the "identical requirements" of evolution then in many cases imagining things about the past should be sufficient.
Although, I would note that all people need to do is create some organisms and see how much of their consciousness as living and intelligent beings is involved in the process.
They've already created the GloFish. Tinkering around the edges... but it's beginning to show how much intelligence and technology and energy goes into trying to create organisms and so forth. And it's not looking anything like a "blind watchmaker" or blind and ignorant processes.
In 1999, Dr. Zhiyuan Gong[2] and his colleagues at the National University of Singapore were working with a gene that encodes the green fluorescent protein (GFP), originally extracted from a jellyfish, that naturally produced bright green fluorescence. They inserted the gene into a zebrafish embryo, allowing it to integrate into the zebrafish's genome, which caused the fish to be brightly fluorescent under both natural white light and ultraviolet light. Their goal was to develop a fish that could detect pollution by selectively fluorescing in the presence of environmental toxins. The development of the constantly fluorescing fish was the first step in this process, and the National University of Singapore filed a patent application on this work.[3] Shortly thereafter, his team developed a line of red fluorescent zebra fish by adding a gene from a sea coral, and orange-yellow fluorescent zebra fish, by adding a variant of the jellyfish gene. Later, a team of researchers at the National Taiwan University, headed by Professor Huai-Jen Tsai (蔡懷禎), succeeded in creating a medaka (rice fish) with a fluorescent green color, which like the zebrafish is a model organism used in biology.
The scientists from NUS and businessmen Alan Blake and Richard Crockett from Yorktown Technologies, L.P., a company in Austin, Texas, met and a deal was signed whereby Yorktown obtained the worldwide rights to market the fluorescent zebrafish, which Yorktown subsequently branded as "GloFish". --Wikipedia
Thorton said "If it can't be falsified it isn't science. That's how all science works."
DeleteAnd if it is falsified, it isn't true. That's also how science works.
The theory of evolution REQUIRES that the law of biogenesis be broken, comfortably resting on an unfalsifiable (not to mention unobserved) premise that simply takes the origin of life for granted as some inexplicable anomaly.
But we're always promised that they'll figure it out someday...truly the mark of a scientific theory.
omG liek kewl
DeleteThe theory of evolution REQUIRES that the law of biogenesis be broken
There is no scientific "law of biogenesis". That was speculation by Louis Pasteur back in the mid-19th century regarding the possibility of spontaneous generation of fully formed animals. It has absolutely nothing to do with today's abiogenesis research.
If it's merely speculation then surely you have an example that refutes the law of biogenesis. You know, an instance where life spontaneously arises from non-living materials without the intervention of an intelligent agent.
DeleteWhich particular flavor of abiogenesis do you subscribe to, Thorton? Did life magically spring from thermal vents, comets, warm ponds or some fantastic combination of all three? Please provide a scientific, falsifiable answer.
omG liek kewl
DeleteIf it's merely speculation then surely you have an example that refutes the law of biogenesis.
What part of "There is no scientific "law of biogenesis"" didn't you understand?
Are viruses alive? How about prions?
Please support your answer.
While you're at it, please supply a single unambiguous definition of life that is universally accepted in the scientific community.
DeleteThat should keep you busy for at least a few decades.
I didn't understand the part where you made an unfalsifiable, unscientific truth claim that "There is no scientific 'law of biogenesis'" without supporting your assertion.
DeleteIt's irrelevant whether viruses or prions are alive, because in order for them to exist/reproduce, there must be a host cell for them to leech nutrients from. Therefore, viruses and prions are only alive when there is life already in existence.
As for defining "life," while I'm sure you hope it takes a few decades to answer your question so you can continue to avoid the questions I've posed to you (maybe you'll have gathered one example refuting the law of biogenesis by then), I don't see what's so challenging: Life can be considered anything that 1. has a genome, 2. is capable of reproduction, 3. produces ATP and 4. has metabolism.
Now if you'd like to maintain some intellectual dignity (probably not), answer my questions instead of dodging and bluffing. Otherwise, I'll take your silence as a concession that you know about as much as the god you worship (nothing).
omG liek kewl
DeleteI didn't understand the part where you made an unfalsifiable, unscientific truth claim that "There is no scientific 'law of biogenesis'" without supporting your assertion.
You made the assertion there was such a scientific law. I merely corrected you. It's up to you to support your claims.
Life can be considered anything that 1. has a genome, 2. is capable of reproduction, 3. produces ATP and 4. has metabolism.
Why should I accept your particular definition of 'life' when there are so many others out there?
There are organisms that exist without producing ATP but instead get it from other external sources.
A novel route for ATP acquisition by the remnant mitochondria of Encephalitozoon cuniculi
Tsaousis et al
Nature 453, 553-556 (22 May 2008)
Abstract: Mitochondria use transport proteins of the eukaryotic mitochondrial carrier family (MCF) to mediate the exchange of diverse substrates, including ATP, with the host cell cytosol. According to classical endosymbiosis theory, insertion of a host-nuclear-encoded MCF transporter into the protomitochondrion was the key step that allowed the host cell to harvest ATP from the enslaved endosymbiont. Notably the genome of the microsporidian Encephalitozoon cuniculi has lost all of its genes for MCF proteins2. This raises the question of how the recently discovered microsporidian remnant mitochondrion, called a mitosome, acquires ATP to support protein import and other predicted ATP-dependent activities. The E. cuniculi genome does contain four genes for an unrelated type of nucleotide transporter used by plastids and bacterial intracellular parasites, such as Rickettsia and Chlamydia, to import ATP from the cytosol of their eukaryotic host cells. The inference is that E. cuniculi also uses these proteins to steal ATP from its eukaryotic host to sustain its lifestyle as an obligate intracellular parasite. Here we show that, consistent with this hypothesis, all four E. cuniculi transporters can transport ATP, and three of them are expressed on the surface of the parasite when it is living inside host cells. The fourth transporter co-locates with mitochondrial Hsp70 to the E. cuniculi mitosome. Thus, uniquely among eukaryotes, the traditional relationship between mitochondrion and host has been subverted in E. cuniculi, by reductive evolution and analogous gene replacement. Instead of the mitosome providing the parasite cytosol with ATP, the parasite cytosol now seems to provide ATP for the organelle."
According to bpragmatic's narrow definition they are not alive. How does that work?
Let me see if I have this straight, Thorton: when Pasteur's principle that life only comes from life is evidenced by 150 years of verifiable observations, it's unsupported, but when Thorton's principle that life comes from non-living materials is evidenced by NOTHING (still waiting for one example), it's supported by science?
DeleteSo this is the "science" you tout so highly and attempt to bludgeon people with? Repeating ad nauseum a series of invented, unfalsifiable stories? How does that work?
As for your incredibly weak (and irrelevant) rebuttal about ATP production, whether an organism acquires ATP through a symbiotic relationship or through its own cellular machinery makes no difference, as both scenarios require LIFE to occur.
You might as well be arguing that rocks are alive, Thorton, as that's the only explanation that's going to save your flailing, flaccid theory of evolution. It's a fitting belief system for someone who worships dirt, anyhow.
bpragmatic's sockpuppet
DeleteLet me see if I have this straight, Thorton: when Pasteur's principle that life only comes from life is evidenced by 150 years of verifiable observations, it's unsupported, but when Thorton's principle that life comes from non-living materials is evidenced by NOTHING (still waiting for one example), it's supported by science?
LOL! Now you're gone from Pasteur's scientific law to Pasteur's principle. Let me know when you get to Pasteur's short term observation.
As for your incredibly weak (and irrelevant) rebuttal about ATP production, whether an organism acquires ATP through a symbiotic relationship or through its own cellular machinery makes no difference, as both scenarios require LIFE to occur
You still haven't provided a definition of life that is universally accepted by the scientific community. I'll ask again, why should I accept yours over the others that are out there?
Great job, Thorton, relying on semantics instead of science to refute your own points.
DeleteA principle is defined as a fundamental truth, while a law is a generalization based on observations of physical behavior. Since Pasteur's original statement that "Life comes only from life" is both fundamentally true and a physical behavior that can be generalized through observation, it turns out both terms are applicable. Let me know when you fail out of your English course and decide to start pursuing science again, so we can disregard the semantical minutiae and actually address the gaping maw of NOTHING at the heart of your arguments.
As far as defining life in a way that is universally accepted by the scientific community, do you even believe this is possible? If I have a doctorate in a scientific field and commit myself to disagreeing with a particular definition (whether for pride, spite or sheer rebellion), then I have successfully destroyed a universal scientific consensus by simply rejecting the truth. This rejection and consequent lack of consensus does NOTHING, however, to defeat what is true. It simply means that some people are too ignorant, dishonest or both to accept it.
Considering dancing around and denying the truth is one of your favorite pastimes, I don't expect you will accept any definition of "life" as it would permanently cripple your vapid life-came-from-nothing philosophy.
bpragmatic's sockpuppet
DeleteSince Pasteur's original statement that "Life comes only from life" is both fundamentally true
Sorry, you haven't established that.
and a physical behavior that can be generalized through observation
Wrong again. You can't generalize 4.5+ billion years of Earth's history with a few hundred years of observations. That would be like claiming plate tectonics is impossible because we've never observed Africa touching South America.
As you're becoming painfully aware, there is no clear demarcation point between life and non-life. Any definition you accept will be subjective, just as determining where orange stops and yellow begins on a color spectrum is subjective. That's why the Creationist argument "life can't come from non-life" is so vacuous.
Considering dancing around and denying the truth is one of your favorite pastimes
LOL! Sorry, but the scientific community doesn't recognize your Biblical based fantasies as DA TROOTH!!.
Thorton said, "Sorry you haven't established that."
DeleteAnd you haven't refuted it. Unfortunately, refuting the law of biogenesis is an absolute must for evolutionary theory to even get off the ground, but you're once again putting the cart in front of the horse, hinging everything on the unscientific, unfalsifiable premise that the universe/life came from nothing.
So you keep telling your stories (don't be embarrassed, it's intriguing to read the thoughts of someone who worships dirt) and I'll continue referencing an already established truth, agreed upon in every biology textbook, that life only comes from life.
Thorton said, "Wrong again. You can't generalize 4.5+ billion years of Earth's history with a few hundred years of observations. That would be like claiming plate tectonics is impossible because we've never observed Africa touching South America."
But you can generalize 4.5+ billion years of the Earth's history with ZERO OBSERVATIONS of life emerging from non-living materials made over the same period of time? Are you trying to embarrass yourself, or is your faith in Darwin just that great?
As you should already be painfully aware, virtually EVERY law of science is based on only a few hundred years of observations (a couple millenia, at most), so by this same measure you should reject ALL of science. After all, the laws of thermodynamics may have changed a million years ago, given the universes' tendency to go POOF, right?
Maybe compiling a few billion years of observations would be more palatable to ensure you're dead and gone when it's time to face the music (unfortunately for you, you'll still be facing the music).
bpragmatic's sockpuppet
DeleteUnfortunately, refuting the law of biogenesis is an absolute must for evolutionary theory to even get off the ground
LOL! Sorry but science doesn't have to refute "laws" that don't exist. Seems to me that evolutionary theory is already well "off the ground" and quite productive, so not sure what you're blithering about.
But you can generalize 4.5+ billion years of the Earth's history with ZERO OBSERVATIONS of life emerging from non-living materials made over the same period of time?
1. You still don't have any objective line of demarcation between life and non-life.
2. Abiogenesis is its own area of scientific investigation and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory only deals with what happens after we have imperfect self-replicators with heritable traits.
It's impossible to have a scientific discussion with a clueless Fundy who doesn't even understand the basics.
Thorton said, "LOL! Sorry but science doesn't have to refute "laws" that don't exist. Seems to me that evolutionary theory is already well "off the ground" and quite productive, so not sure what you're blithering about."
DeleteEvolutionary theory already "well off the ground" except for that whole "How'd it get off the ground?" part. Thorton continuing to argue for nothing by saying nothing.
Thorton said, "1. You still don't have any objective line of demarcation between life and non-life."
Yes, I do. You're just unwilling to acknowledge it (shocking).
Thorton said, "2. Abiogenesis is its own area of scientific investigation and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory only deals with what happens after we have imperfect self-replicators with heritable traits."
So this is what blind faith looks like.
Thorton said, "It's impossible to have a scientific discussion with a clueless Fundy who doesn't even understand the basics."
I agree wholeheartedly. The Church of Darwin and its religious faithful lack even the most basic understanding of cause/effect and logic, making it nearly impossible to discuss anything without them invoking time, chance, necessity or nothing (their ultimate trump card) to explain the origin of life or the universe itself.
The criteria I provided objectively demarcate what constitutes life. You haven't shown why they don't, you've merely asserted your opinion (the crux of all of your arguments).
DeleteBut if my criteria fail, does that mean life doesn't exist? If I can't necessarily identify what the line between life and non-life is, does that mean there is no line?
Wherever the line is, non-living materials must still cross it to form living organisms. Since you haven't provided a single byte of evidence indicating how this actually happens, instead relying on childish insults to supplement your anemic philosophy, I'll take your "Go back to your parents' liquor cabinet" as a "Leave me alone, I'm too incompetent to support my own arguments."
bpragmatic's sockpuppet
DeleteThe criteria I provided objectively demarcate what constitutes life.
Of course you didn't identify any objective line because one doesn't exist. The criteria you chose were completely subjective on your part, and I showed you an example that didn't fit.
Here's another subjective definition: “Life” is any chemical iteratively self-replicating system. Doesn't need ATP, doesn't need a genome.
you haven't provided a single byte of evidence indicating how this actually happens,
Which still doesn't matter since evolution is what happens after we get self-replication with variation. You'll need another stupid Creationist PRATT to disprove ToE I'm afraid. I'm sure you know plenty.
How long are you going to keep using your stupid sockpuppet name?
Thorton, I'm genuinely glad to be having this interaction with you because your words speak volumes about the vast and barren desert that is your worldview. And I say that with all the love in my heart, because you and I both know that God, however incomprensible to us, is a far more reasonable and complete explanation to our existence than anything you and your science pals can dream up in a test tube.
DeleteThorton said, "Of course you didn't identify any objective line because one doesn't exist. The criteria you chose were completely subjective on your part, and I showed you an example that didn't fit"
LOL
T: "Give me an objective definition of life."
"Here's your objective definition."
T: "That's not objective."
"Sure it is."
T: "No it isn't, because no objective definition exists."
WOW WHAT A TRAP
Did you hear that, world? All that science that Thorton was preaching about is really for nothing, because in the end there can be no objectivity. We are captives of our own subjective prisons we call the mind and nothing can be known and nothing can be true and nothing is the only thing there is. That pet rock you owned as a child may or may not be alive, we may never know, but we can always hope and put faith in Father Time, Darwin Christ and the Holy Spirt of Chance.
Thorton said, "Which still doesn't matter since evolution is what happens after we get self-replication with variation."
This gets another big LOL. Seriously, I can't help but smile.
It's as if you are a child gazing upon an airplane for the first time. You see the airplane in its natural environment, the air, and think to yourself "wow how did that thing get there, it must have just appeared in the clouds after a lot of time."
Thorton said, "How long are you going to keep using your stupid sockpuppet name?"
I'm no sockpuppet. Remember? =)
Aah, that's better bprag. The beginnings of another good night of drunk-post pointless rambling. I give you another two tequilas and you'll be your normal obscenity spewing self. Sadly your drunkenness doesn't make you any less stupid.
DeleteFinding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different species.
ReplyDeleteThen you'd say that there were multiple designers instead of the single Creator that biology generally shows evidence for.
Interesting that we already know that living and knowing designers can "specially create" organisms using existing DNA that fall outside of having their DNA created by universal "common descent." So that demonstrates experimentally and empirically that design is possible here and now, unlike the imaginary events in the past being used to prop up the idea of universal common descent.
mynym
DeleteThen you'd say that there were multiple designers instead of the single Creator that biology generally shows evidence for.
Which would falsify the current ToE, exactly as I said.
So that demonstrates experimentally and empirically that design is possible here and now
Oh dear, not another round of "humans design lawn sprinklers so that means rain clouds are designed too!". Haven't you guys figured out yet why that one gets laughed out of the room?
It's already known that rain clouds have been manipulated to come about by design before and so forth.
DeleteThe GloFish falsifies the current "theory of evolution" to the extent that it's been defined as common descent based on blind and ignorant mechanisms.
mynym
DeleteIt's already known that rain clouds have been manipulated to come about by design before and so forth.
OK, so there are people who haven't figured out yet why "humans design lawn sprinklers so that means rain clouds are designed too!" gets laughed out of the room.
Sad.
"I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the theory of evolution." -- Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne
ReplyDelete"Facts Are Not Everything in Science" 2008
Mainly because there is no rigorously specified theory of evolution that can be used to predict trajectories of adaptation in groups of organisms and so forth.
Like the symbolic Rorschach test of Masonry that Darwin and his dad were incorporated in, people can see what they will in "order out of chaos" creation myths. If promiscuity is observed then "order out of chaos" predicts it, if celibacy or monogamy is observed then evolution predicts that. If large families are observed then evolution predicts that, if abortion and small families can be observed then it predicts that. Not to mention that it supposedly "predicts" every single organisms in existence as an artifact of universal common descent, except those that it does not. And so forth.
There was never anything there in vast swaths of what passes for "the" theory of evolution in the first place. Because it's not as if Darwin or any evolutionist invented a mathematical language to specify natural selection as a supposed "force" governing biology like Newton specified a theory of gravity for physics.
mynym
DeleteMainly because there is no rigorously specified theory of evolution that can be used to predict trajectories of adaptation in groups of organisms and so forth.
You can't rigorously specify a process with stochastic components (i.e. unpredictable genetic variation, unpredictable changes to the environment) such as evolution has. You can only predict trends given certain narrow inputs, like insular dwarfism occurring in populations trapped on islands.
You might as well complain there's no rigorously specified theory that will let you predict a specific sequence of roulette rolls at a casino.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletenynym
DeleteBecause it's not as if Darwin or any evolutionist invented a mathematical language to specify natural selection as a supposed "force" governing biology like Newton specified a theory of gravity for physics.
You're about 50 years behind the times. There is an entire branch of science, Population Genetics, that does just that.
Fixed bad link
In other words, evolution occurred via incredibly complex molecular “bar code” mechanisms which, themselves, must have been created by evolution. So evolution must have created the mechanisms which cause evolution to occur. That is what philosophers call a self-referential theory. (Other people just call it wrong).
ReplyDeleteIt makes one wonder how anyone can take the evolutionary myth seriously in light of all the evidence against it.
National Velour
DeleteIt makes one wonder how anyone can take the evolutionary myth seriously in light of all the evidence against it.
No one should take seriously the half-baked cockamamie strawman version of evolution that CH pitches to the scientific illiterati here.
Who needs CH's summaries of half-baked cockamamie strawmen when we have Thorton to pitch his infallible theory evolution to us?
DeleteYou know, the version where the universe explodes from NOTHING, arranges itself in an orderly way through lots of TIME and CHANCE, and then, by NECESSITY, yields intelligent, conscious life.
You know, the scientific version.
"It makes one wonder how anyone can take the evolutionary myth seriously in light of all the evidence against it."
DeleteYeah, it's much better to take seriously the fairy tales about a magical, all powerful, all knowing, genocidal yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost-angels-etc., or some other batch of ridiculous, impossible, religious myths.
Anyone who believes that religious beliefs/myths make more sense or have more supportive evidence than evolutionary theory and the science that supports it should be committed to an asylum.
Unlike what keeps being proclaimed, there is no smooth evolution of intelligence between bacteria and humans.
ReplyDeleteIntelligent doves are one more exceptions :-)
Lovely greetings from Germany
Liebe Grüße aus Deutschland
Lothars Sohn - Lothar's son
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
You might as well complain there's no rigorously specified theory that will let you predict a specific sequence of roulette rolls at a casino.
ReplyDeleteWell, I would complain about that if charlatans were claiming to have "predicted" the outcome of every single roll of the dice in a casino.
If you don't have the knowledge, then don't claim it.
mynym
DeleteWell, I would complain about that if charlatans were claiming to have "predicted" the outcome of every single roll of the dice in a casino.
If you don't have the knowledge, then don't claim it.
Who in evolutionary biology ever claimed to have predicted every single genetic mutation ahead of time?
You're making zero sense here.
Because it's not as if Darwin or any evolutionist invented a mathematical language to specify natural selection as a supposed "force" governing biology like Newton specified a theory of gravity for physics.
ReplyDeleteYou're about 50 years behind the times.
There's probably nothing that you can't imagine a mythology of progress for.
No. You're behind the times. Natural selection not only isn't the equivalent of a "force" governing biology, it's usually just a retrospective truism.
There is an entire branch of science, Population Genetics, that does just that.
Given that experimental and empirical evidence indicates that cells use genes like tools and not the other way around, it would seem that your focus is off. Get with the times... why are you so primitive? Etc. Use your own simplistic scripts to describe yourself.
Unlike what keeps being proclaimed...
ReplyDeleteImagine that.
CH: Perhaps those capabilities predate birds altogether. As we know with evolution anything can happen, and evolutionists are now having to conclude that flight-ready bird brains were present in dinosaurs, before birds themselves evolved.
ReplyDeleteYou're familiar with the term "unintended circumstances", right? As I pointed out to Jeff in another thread..
Unintended consequences results in knowledge can be applicable to problems that knowledge did not evolve to solve.
When we guess conjecture X solves problem Y, it could also be the case that conjecture X solves problem Z. IOW, the fact that X is a conjectured solution means we not only do *not* know it solves X but that do not know it will *not* solve Z as well.
Have you never solved a problem you didn't intend to solve?
Again, when we start out knowing that solutions themselves start out as conjectures, this explains why solutions emerge that also solve other, significantly different problems. In the case of evolution, conjectures are random to *any* problem to solve.
An example of this is this TED video on the evolution of the brain.
CH: One sure sign that a problem is not solved (and therefore not a fact) is when the answer continues to switch between alternatives. For origin of life researchers, those alternatives have included a warm little pond (as Darwin put it), deep sea hydrothermal vents, and outer space.
First, abiogenesis isn't evolutionary theory. As someone who supposedly teaches biology at the college level, conflating abiogenesis with evolutionary theory either represents gross incompetence on your part or you have some other underlying reason for doing so.
Then again, you keep using the term "evolutionist" as a catch all for theories that that just so happen to conflict with specific theological commitments. In particular, commitments that just so happen to conflict with the Biola doctrinal statement.
That's quite a coincidence, don't you think?
IOW, how else do you explain you having continually conflating these two particular theories? What else do you expect us to conclude?
Second, Abiogenesis is a proposed solution to a problem that would work in space, in the ocean, etc. That's because chemicals exist in all of these locations and are thought to react in the same way regardless of where they are. This is in the same sense that the idea that someone moved by walking works if you're in a heavy suit underwater, on the earth's surface, on the moon, on Mars, etc.
Again, the evolved behavior of walking solved problems that it didn't "intend" to solve - walking on the moon, on the ocean floor, etc.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that chemicals react the same in all environments.
DeleteRather, I'm pointing out that we do not think chemistry "works" differently if it's on the surface of the earth, in a comet, on the ocean floor of some other planet, etc. In fact, the explanation that things in the universe are actually exoplanets that have specific conditions includes the idea that chemistry works the same on other planets.
Of course, we can't observe this any more than we can observe that gravity acts as a uniform law of nature everywhere in the universe. And, yet, gravity is a fundamental part of a great many explanations.
cornelius said:
ReplyDelete"And while we’re on the subject of birds and bird brains, Alice Auersperg’s research is showing that Cockatoos can track and predict the emergence of temporally out of sight objects. Their abilities rival those of apes and young children."
So much for humans being special and exceptional. You're arguing against your own creationist dogma, cornelius.
Hey Muhammad, Have you considered talking to thorton directly? He is probably going to be looking for another source of revenue soon. Since real science has been demonstrating his misbegotten philosophy to be nothing more than conjecture, it seems the jerk-wads that are actually paying this dipwad to maintain a prescence here are likely to pull the funding to him very soon. He will need to replace that lost cash going forward.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, proceed cautiously. He is well known to push hypothetical, undemostrated assertions well beyond what an intelligent agent would accept as relevant support to his wishfull thinking and unsupported speculations. After all, that is what his heros have gotten by with for decades. And he thinks he can continue the speculative bantor by proclaiminb irrelavent tripe. What do you expect? The internet is available to even the most stupid people on the planet, including t.
"Drunk ignorant Fundy Creationist who forgot his sockpuppet spotted."
ReplyDeleteAs you wish, non-scientific speculator. Continue your exercise of freedom of speach. You are obviously free to continue to spew nonsense as long as you want. Others are obviously free to realize your undemonstrated proclomations are nothing more than wishfull thinking on your part.
I will raise the question again. Can you please point to a scientific study that demonstrates that nde processes were responsible for the development of a bacterial flagellum? Thornton, please put down your bottle for a moment and pull an answer from your "great resources" that you apparently have at your disposal. We are all waiting for your unbiased display of a demonstation of the nde explanation for the trivial development a measly bacterial flagellum. Please, put me to shame, oh great know it all.
bpragmatic
ReplyDeleteAs you wish, non-scientific speculator. Continue your exercise of freedom of speach.
Free speach?
You need another catchy name for your next sockpuppet. Maybe something in Latin like "Littleus Dickus" or "Ferrous Cranus".
Hello Thorton. Let me change the spelling of a word to what, I think, is what you believe to be the "correct" spelling that is, really, debaitaible (ha ha ha). (see below).You know what was meant. The "meaning" was clear. Your expression of condescention is based on your ability to junxtapose different spelling for the same or significantly similar "meanings". Ha, kind of reminds one of the brilliant design of the codon complex related to selection of amino acids to form funtioning protein folds. But, hey, let me not digress. Man, I gotta get back to my parents liquor cab. But before I do, I beseach you (ha ha ha) please answer the question regarding the science without bringing sematics into the discussion.
DeletebpragmaticAugust 21, 2013 at 10:59 PM
"Drunk ignorant Fundy Creationist who forgot his sockpuppet spotted."
As you wish, non-scientific speculator. Continue your exercise of freedom of speech. You are obviously free to continue to spew nonsense as long as you want. Others are obviously free to realize your undemonstrated proclomations are nothing more than wishfull thinking on your part.
I will raise the question again. Can you please point to a scientific study that demonstrates that nde processes were responsible for the development of a bacterial flagellum? Thornton, please put down your bottle for a moment and pull an answer from your "great resources" that you apparently have at your disposal. We are all waiting for your unbiased display of a demonstation of the nde explanation for the trivial development a measly bacterial flagellum. Please, put me to shame, oh great know it all.
"Rectum Cranus Insertus" would be a nice name for your next sockpuppet too.
DeleteLet us know what you decide.
saleem,
ReplyDeletePlease attempt to contact Thorton directly with a more emphatic personal approach on this. I think his social life is severly lacking. He could really benefit by adding some social diversity to his schedule. And that it is all free is really good too. The nde boneheads who have been paying him to hang around here could possibly decide stop paying him for his drivel.
Let us encourage Thorton to consider "getting out a little bit more".