No Reason?
It would be a full time job to track down, monitor and document the scientific misrepresentations in the evolution literature. From textbooks and articles to websites, videos, popular books and the rest, the evolution literature is a continual stream of exaggerations and misrepresentations of the scientific evidence. Here is an example regarding the genetic code from the Public Broadcasting Service website:Biologically and chemically, there is no reason why this particular genetic code, rather than any of millions or billions of others, should exist, scientists assert. Yet every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal. The only scientific explanation for this situation is that the genetic code was the result of a single historic accident. That is, this code was the one carried by the single ancestor of life and all of its descendents, including us.
No reason for this particular genetic code? That is absurd. Thirty years ago it was shown to be an optimal code. Since then studies have shown a variety of unique characteristics, such as error-correction, of the genetic code.
In fact evolutionists have no scientific, credible explanation for how the code spontaneously arose. And yet leading evolutionists misguide people with the nonsensical and laughable claim that the genetic code is powerful evidence of evolution.
Religion drives science and it matters.
-----
Ed: Final link changed
Do you have an english version (or just an english explanation!) of that "optimal code" paper?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have the PDF (in French) and a Google translate of the text if you want it? How can I send it to you?
DeleteI assume you speak French, btw, because how else could you make such a claim that this was an "optimal code" without actually reading and understanding the paper? Right? It's not like you just saw a single-line translated abstract and quoted it without looking into it? Right?
DeleteAlso, I've just done five seconds of research into the "knockdown evidence" claim, and I can see that it comes from Greatest Show On Earth. I read it a few years ago, and I don't recall that being an argument in the book .. are you sure he wasn't making an argument from homology?
ReplyDeleteFrom the last line of that article:
Delete"This textual proof of the common ancestry of all living things is "knockdown evidence" of evolution" - yup, argument from homology, not an argument from (near) universality of the code itself. I blame the journalist.
And while I'm going on a comment spree, I should point out that "universal genetic code" is referring to DNA - A's, C's, G's and T's - while the "optimal code" paper is referring to the codon translation table (RNA => Amino Acid). They're not actually the same thing ... so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
DeleteSorry, but the argument that homologous DNA sequences are "knockdown" evidence for evolution is even worse, if that were possible. Furthermore, the silly argument that the genetic code is strong evidence for evolution is ubiquitous. You can easily find examples online, such as the PBS page cited in the OP! Here are some others:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution19.asp
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/biology/biology/principles-of-evolution/evidence-for-evolution
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
That's icky. I agree, it doesn't prove common descent (when opposed by creation). It should go on a "do not use" list.
DeleteIt does imply pretty strongly though that there was only one abiogenesis event (or at least one *surviving* abiogenesis event), but you have to show common descent by other means.
And by "genetic code", I was thinking not of the codon translation, but of the actual storage mechanism of the nucleotides. That is, we have DNA, which is supposedly optimal compared to RNA as well as "HNA, CeNA, TNA, GNA, LNA and PNA".
DeleteGlenn:
DeleteIt should go on a "do not use" list.
Which raises the question: What then should be used as evidence? [Hint: you will run into the same problems over and over]. You see Glenn, you just opened the door. Once you see how these evidences don't work, then it all falls apart. Yes evolution is a fact, but not from the science.
"Yes evolution is a fact, but not from the science."
DeletePlease explain :)
By the way, I maintain that the shared similarities and differences in the non-functional DNA between organisms is the best evidence of common descent that you will see. These patterns are not explicable by any sorry of special creation scenario.
Delete*sort
DeleteAtheists always demand peer reviewed literature so I gladly post these two papers: "The Origin & Evolution of the Genetic Code: the Universal Enigma" which admits there is no coherent theory on the code's origin and this one is even better "The WOW Signal of the Terrestrial Genetic Code" which concludes that the genetic code fits all criteria to be considered an intelligent signal irreducible to natural origin. Suddenly they abandon the peer reviewed literature like the plague.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791
I certainly don't abandon the peer-reviewed literature, I just don't assume that everything that has been peer-reviewed is necessarily correct. For example, in a hilarious quote from the first of your papers above:
Delete" ... it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes ..."
.. directly contradicts Cornelius' claim that we already have the optimal code. So you guys can fight amongst yourselves on that one.
And your second article is pay-per-view. I can't comment on it without reading it. I do find it slightly odd that an article of that sort is published in Icarus - doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong though, just odd.
By the way, I have no problem at all with a paper that "admits there is no coherent theory on the code's origin".
DeleteWhy do you consider this a problem?
Here's a link to a free version of the paper The WOW Signal of the Terrestrial Genetic Code.
Deletehttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739.pdf
Okay, I consider myself a relatively smart cookie. I've read through this once, and at the end, I still couldn't tell you any more than what I knew at the start.
DeleteIf it makes sense to you, then please have a crack at explaining at least one of the signals.
In terms of the impact it has had in the literature, it has been cited three times: once by the author himself, and it appears the other two have either been self-published and/or did not pass peer-review.
There is a fine line between genius and insanity, and I don't know where these guys sit.
One of the signals was an alien saying "hello". How did you miss that? :)
DeleteDue to its implications though, it is no wonder that nobody has cited this paper. Evidence for Panspermia could very easily be interpreted as evidence for Intelligent Design. :) No evolutionist is going to touch that paper with a ten foot pole. I'm really surprised it was published, but the paper was reviewed by experts including the Editor in Chief, P. D Nicholson, of Icarus and the peer reviewers suggested revision and I'm sure this reputable journal would not publish nonsense. In fact, here is what one of the authors of the 'Universal Enigma' paper had to say in reference to this paper:
"The genetic code has more regularities than it is usually thought (or can be accounted for by random forces), and in this I agree with the authors of the paper. The existing theories do not explain the overall level of code non-randomness (whatever it might mean). I do not buy the authors’ hypothesis of non-terrestrial code origin; at the same time I cannot suggest a better one, hence I will abstain from further discussion on these issues." -- Artem Novozhilov
"How did you miss that? :)"
DeleteNice one :D
"No evolutionist is going to touch that paper with a ten foot pole."
I think my experience tends to be the exact opposite. When someone publishes a claim that subtly implies ID or straight out contradicts evolution, I often see a rush of people to go out and try to refute the claim.
The difference with this one I think is that no one (at least, no plebs on the internet) really understands the paper, so while there is a bit of a kerfuffle, I haven't seen a systematic take-down of the claim.
I think I agree with that quote from this Artem Novozhilov guy - I think it's a polite way of saying the paper didn't demonstrate what the authors say it demonstrates.
By the way, Phillip Nicholson is an astronomer, and if he was tasked with reviewing this paper, then I'm not as surprised today as I was yesterday that this passed peer-review. Like I said above, I found it odd that it was published in Icarus and not a journal more closely aligned with biology and/or bioinformatics (or even mathematics!).
"Suddenly they abandon the peer reviewed literature like the plague."
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely why it is demonstrated why "they" are in the discussion for metaphysical or philosophical reasons. Their "agenda" leads their so called science. So their "science" is reduced to philosophical wimperings of a pathetic and deceitful rendition of even a pseudoscience. There is no "mistake of science" here. It is in my opinion a twisted and subversive rendition of information with intent to force fit a philosophical preference in the guise of real science and for unscientific purposes.
See my comments above.
DeleteCornelius: "Yes evolution is a fact, but not from the science."
ReplyDeleteGlenn: "Please explain :)"
I won't speak for Cornelius, but evolution can be a fact regardless of the science, just as Intelligent Design is a fact regardless whether one chooses to dub it "science" or not.
One of the problems, IMO, with the ID community is that some spend too much time trying to get the scientific community to grant that ID is science. That makes no difference to me.
Personally, I'm in agreement with the folks at the Discovery Institute who believe that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. However, whether there is or should be a demarcation point beyond which our journey leaves the realm of science and enters another realm is of little concern to me. It is the truth at the end of the journey that matters to me, not the appellation we assign to the means by which it is apprehended.
Please tell me how evolution can be a fact regardless of the science. Is it just your instinct that it's true? Gut-feeling? God revealed it to you? How can you make an objective argument to someone else without resorting to the science underpinning it?
DeleteI'm also in violent agreement with the folks at DI that say we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. The evidence clearly points to all life on earth sharing a common ancestor. We can argue all day long about whether this happened under a Darwinian paradigm or due to some sort of Intelligent Design, but common descent itself is well beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously I have fairly strong beliefs about how it happened (Darwinian natural selection), but I'm not able to demonstrate this as easily as I am able to demonstrate common descent.
Glenn,
Delete"The evidence clearly points to all life on earth sharing a common ancestor."
It does? In what ways exactly?
Read my comment to Robert Byers below.
DeleteGlenn,
Delete"You can't attribute those differences to design, because those differences don't affect function."
That, my friend, is a fallacious and fatal assumption.
Wish to try again? In what way does the evidence clearly point to all life on Earth sharing a common ancestor?
"That, my friend, is a fallacious and fatal assumption."
DeleteAre you saying your designer had a design goal that WASN'T related to function? What was it then? Aesthetics? Does one particular DNA sequence look "prettier" than others?
You're grasping at straws if you're trying to suggest that design is completely unrelated to function.
In what way are you inferring design in DNA if you're not looking at function? Would really love to know.
Glenn,
Delete"You're grasping at straws if you're trying to suggest that design is completely unrelated to function."
Where did I make such a suggestion?
"In what way are you inferring design in DNA if you're not looking at function? Would really love to know."
Where did I make that inference? You're very quick in assuming what I am thinking.
You're assuming we understand the entire functional nature of DNA. One would think with the rapidly changing landscape of DNA knowledge you would be careful not to assume too much. Apparently not.
You have still not answered the question, you've simply tossed out assumptions. Want to try one more time?
Tossing out "assumptions"? You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. The only assumption I made was that you would actually read the study I posted.
DeleteThe electron transport chain is one of the most heavily studied systems in biology, and the Cytochrome C molecule itself has also been heavily studied, right down to its fine structure: determining which amino acid does what, and why it folds the way it does. Cytochrome C works the same way in all eukaryotes, and the fact that it's tightly encapsulated by the mitochondria - you would be stretching credulity to suggest that a single silent change in amino acid sequence INSIDE the mitochondria somehow has implications OUTSIDE the mitochondria.
So, when I asked if you were suggesting that aesthetics was a design goal in DNA, I had _ASSUMED_ that you had read and comprehended the study. Clearly not. The authors of the study have tested quite thoroughly for function and worked out what is functional and what is not. If your design inference is resting on the hope that one day we'll discover some function in these residues (yup, the same ones that have been shown empirically to have no function) then you are on incredibly shaky ground.
Glenn,
Delete"You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means."
I keep using it because you keep presenting assumptions apparently with the belief they constitute valid arguments.
So, I am left to assume you have no answer.
"The authors of the study have tested quite thoroughly for function and worked out what is functional and what is not."
Just a few years ago evolutionists were stating emphatically that the overwhelming majority of the genome was functionless junk. That was simply a fact. How did that turn out? How is that continuing to play out?
But yet it appears you're still willing to accept whatever they put forth in regards to what is functional and what is not.
Tell me, what would it take for you to doubt their claims? The simple fact they have been proven wrong repeatedly seems to not be enough.
You know that an "assumption" is a claim made without basis, right?
DeleteI've explained the basis for my claim: it's a fairly straight-forward empirical test of the function of various Cytochrome C sequences. Not an assumption. Empirical science.
And yes, the whole "Junk DNA" thing was an assumption that turned out to be not-so-true. You know why it's called an assumption? BECAUSE NO ONE TESTED IT. You know why this Cytochrome C study is NOT an assumption? BECAUSE THEY TESTED IT. See how that works? :)
"What would it take for you to doubt their claims?"
Do you think I just sit here and accept whatever "they" say, without investigating it myself? Is that what YOU do? Have you actually read and comprehended the paper? You seem to be throwing around the same old sound bites without realising that they don't actually apply.
"But yet it appears you're still willing to accept whatever they put forth in regards to what is functional and what is not."
YES, BECAUSE THEY TESTED IT! Very simple, they induced mutations in the Cytochrome C sequence, and tested whether it could still function. Do you think there is a better way of working out whether a particular amino acid is functional or not? If so, I'd like to hear it .. tell me the flaws in their methodology. What would you do differently?
Glenn,
Delete"You know that an "assumption" is a claim made without basis, right?"
An assumption is any assertion of something as being a fact without proof of its accuracy. Assumptions are usually based on some measure of knowledge. In the case of 'junk DNA' assumptions were made on a lack of knowledge. No function was known, therefore there was no function. That is exactly the argument you are still making.
"Do you think I just sit here and accept whatever "they" say, without investigating it myself?"
I don't know, why don't you tell me?
"YES, BECAUSE THEY TESTED IT!"
And they determined they could not find a function. And as they know they exhausted ALL possibilities and because they have COMPLETE knowledge of the subject, they correctly concluded there was no function. Can you comprehend the flaw in the logic?
"What would you do differently?"
Limit the claims to what the evidence actually yields, which is no function is known at this point. For, in fact, that is all they can conclude. Any claim to there being no function at all is an assumption. An assumption you seem very willing to accept as a fact.
"No function was known, therefore there was no function. That is exactly the argument you are still making."
DeleteNope.
Junk DNA = no function known, no investigation into function, therefore no function. Bad science, bad reasoning.
CytC = function of molecule known, vast knowledge of electron transport system, vast knowledge of interaction between mitochondria and the rest of the cell, empirical testing of whether specific mutations cause a change in function. Good science.
"Can you comprehend the flaw in the logic?"
I think you're under the misapprehension that science is an exercise in _deductive_ reasoning. It's not. Every theory is provisional - you can't prove a theory to be correct, you just have to do everything you can to prove it wrong. You can't rule out that tomorrow you'll let go of a ball and, instead of falling to the ground, it will float off into space. But good luck with that, because your entire design inference rests on it.
Glenn,
Delete"Junk DNA = no function known, no investigation into function, therefore no function. Bad science, bad reasoning."
So you're argument is 'investigation is done and no function found, therefore no function in fact'.
"You can't rule out that tomorrow you'll let go of a ball and, instead of falling to the ground, it will float off into space. But good luck with that, because your entire design inference rests on it."
Oh, but you're entirely wrong. My design inference depends on an omnipotent God who brought into existence all things including the laws governing gravity. He is not subject to that law or any other natural law. As such, if he wishes to suspend that law and have the ball float off into space, that would constitute a miracle and would affect my design inference not one iota.
|Glenn,
DeletePS. Thank you for admitting evolutionists have been indulging in poor scientific practices for many decades. I appreciate your candidness.
"My design inference depends on an omnipotent God"
DeleteEntities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.
"PS. Thank you for admitting evolutionists have been indulging in poor scientific practices for many decades"
Thank you for your incredibly broad generalisation based on the extrapolation a single data point.
Good luck!
Glenn,
Delete"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."
I agree, there is no need of any entity beyond the Judeo-Christian God.
"Thank you for your incredibly broad generalisation based on the extrapolation a single data point."
You're welcome. However, poor scientific methodology by evolutionists is definitely not an isolated incident.
"Good luck!"
Sorry, Glenn, you may rely on luck, but I don't. I rely on logic, rational thought and sound critical thinking. Give them a try sometime.
Take care.
The thing I see evolutionists get wrong, sinverely misunderstand, is that the genetic code is not evidence for common descent just because of like genes scoring.
ReplyDeleteA creator would also make the genetic code a ONE model fits all.
So eyeballs give you a score and so mammals would all have the eyeball score in their gene codes. YET its not demanding that having the same eye gene code equals a common descent from a original eyeball single creature.
Evolutionists wrongly deny other options for like genes in biology.
I also suspect genes are really just memory things. So they can have hidden memories that allow sudden change as needed.
So Robert, let's go with your scenario. We all have a gene for making eyes, for example, and the designer put that gene into all the animals that needed eyes.
DeleteNow, let's go and get the actual DNA sequence for that eye gene from a bunch of different animals. What you'll find is that there will be differences (and similarities) between animals.
And now, what you'll find is that chimpanzees and humans will have the same groups of differences to the rest of the animals, carnivorans will have their own distinctive set of differences, and so on. Noe, imagine you could actually run an experiment where you get the eye gene, and test all the different versions of it in another animal. So, for example, does the human eye gene work just as well in a mouse? If it works fine, then you know that the differences between the human gene and the mouse gene don't affect function. So, how and why do they have the differences that they do? You can't attribute those differences to design, because those differences don't affect function.
Have a look at page 6 of this study:
http://www.jbc.org/content/261/7/3259.full.pdf
.. where it shows which mutations in a gene called Cytochrome C affected function and which ones didn't, and see how it matches to the natural variety of mutations across a broad range of species. How else could humans and chimpanzees (for example) have the same non-functional mutations if it is not due to common descent? Once you understand this study, you'll see why common descent is considered a fact.
And your "genes are just memory things" with "hidden memory"? That just sounds like a bunch of woo to me.
The thing I see evolutionists get wrong, sinverely misunderstand, is that the genetic code is not evidence for common descent just because of like genes scoring.
ReplyDeleteA creator would also make the genetic code a ONE model fits all.
So eyeballs give you a score and so mammals would all have the eyeball score in their gene codes. YET its not demanding that having the same eye gene code equals a common descent from a original eyeball single creature.
Evolutionists wrongly deny other options for like genes in biology.
I also suspect genes are really just memory things. So they can have hidden memories that allow sudden change as needed.
"I also suspect genes are really just memory things. So they can have hidden memories that allow sudden change as needed."
DeleteYou suspect? Based on what? Where's the scientific evidence for such a claim? And what is your scientific training that you base your "suspicions" on? Sounds like you just made this up.
Its not a scientific hypothesis but is the origin of hypothesis. A hunch!
DeleteTraining is irrelevant in hypothesis , or hunch, but only obeying the methodological rules called science.
Yes because i have concluded that memory is the essence , save for our soul thinking, for human thinking/body operations then its a good option that genes are just, like in computers, memory cells.
They have a memory of what they can do and so do it. yet would do different things if crossing thresholds of triggers, or malfunction.
The operation of genes is a memory operation in other words.
The creationist can then add that there are hidden memories in the genes and this is what is triggered to bring biological change.
So in people, after the flood, thresholds of need triggered changing colours and other details in bodies. like changes for like needs.
So people in africa and India likewise turned black etc and people in europe changed into white etc though not related biologically or rather from a single group . they changed independently.
speculation but on foundation.
I think possession of any small quantities should be decriminalized.
DeleteIf we needed further evidence that Robert is making stuff up, he's just provided it in spades. But one has to admire his imagination!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete