Saturday, April 28, 2018

Rewrite the Textbooks (Again), Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up

There You Go Again

Why are evolutionists always wrong? And why are they always so sure of themselves? With the inexorable march of science, the predictions of evolution, which evolutionists were certain of, just keep on turning out false. This week’s failure is the much celebrated notion that the eukaryote’s power plant—the mitochondria—shares a common ancestor with the alphaproteobacteria. A long time ago, as the story goes, that bacterial common ancestor merged with an early eukaryote cell. And these two entities, as luck would have it, just happened to need each other. Evolution had just happened to create that early bacterium, and that early eukaryote, in such a way that they needed, and greatly benefited from, each other. And, as luck would have it again, these two entities worked together. The bacterium would just happen to produce the chemical energy needed by the eukaryote, and the eukaryote would just happen to provide needed supplies. It paved the way for multicellular life with all of its fantastic designs. There was only one problem: the story turned out to be false.

The story that mitochondria evolved from the alphaproteobacteria lineage has been told with great conviction. Consider the Michael Gray 2012 paper which boldly begins with the unambiguous truth claim that “Viewed through the lens of the genome it contains, the mitochondrion is of unquestioned bacterial ancestry, originating from within the bacterial phylum α-Proteobacteria (Alphaproteobacteria).

There was no question about it. Gray was following classic evolutionary thinking: similarities mandate common origin. That is the common descent model. Evolutionists say that once one looks at biology through the lens of common descent everything falls into place.

Except that it doesn’t.

Over and over evolutionists have to rewrite their theory. Similarities once thought to have arisen from a common ancestor turn out to contradict the common descent model. Evolutionists are left having to say the similarities must have arisen independently.

And big differences, once thought to show up only in distant species, keep on showing up in allied species.

Biology, it turns out, is full of one-offs, special cases, and anomalies. The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work.

Now, a new paper out this week has shown that the mitochondria and alphaproteobacteria don’t line up the way originally thought. That “unquestioned bacterial ancestry” turns out to be, err, wrong.

The paper finds that mitochondria did not evolve from the currently hypothesized alphaproteobacterial ancestor, or from “any other currently recognized alphaproteobacterial lineage.”

The paper does, however, make a rather startling claim. The authors write:

our analyses indicate that mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage that branched off before the divergence of all sampled alphaproteobacteria.

Mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage, predating the alphaproteobacteria?

That is a startling claim because, well, simply put there is no evidence for it. The lack of evidence is exceeded only by the evolutionist’s confidence. Note the wording: “indicate.”

The evolutionist’s analyses indicate this new truth.

How can the evolutionists be so sure of themselves in the absence of literally any evidence?

The answer is, because they are evolutionists. They are completely certain that evolution is true. And since evolution must be true, the mitochondria had to have evolved from somewhere. And the same is true for the alphaproteobacteria. They must have evolved from somewhere.

And in both cases, that somewhere must be the earlier proteobacterial lineage. There are no other good evolutionary candidates.

Fortunately this new claim cannot be tested (and therefore cannot be falsified), because the “proteobacterial lineage” is nothing more than an evolutionary construct. Evolutionists can search for possible extant species for hints of a common ancestor with the mitochondria, but failure to find anything can always be ascribed to extinction of the common ancestor.

This is where evolutionary theory often ends up: failures ultimately lead to unfalsifiable truth claims. Because heaven forbid we should question the theory itself.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

117 comments:

  1. The link to the new paper is broken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A long time ago, in a galaxy that is far away,stuff happened that was impossible because they violated the laws of science. Sounds like a miracle. How the miracle happened no one knows. How the laws of science were broken, no one knows that either. Evolutionists will continue to invent fables about how things were millions and billions of years ago with no one observing, no experiments that are reproducible concerning anything that happened more than 100,000 years ago, with unknown factors that make measurements a huge guessing game. Point: the age of the earth has advanced 129,000 years EVERY year for the last 200 years. Science and logic are against evolution.

      Delete
    2. Science and logic are against evolution.

      You are very confused.

      First, the age of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact life on Earth has evolved and diversified over time through common descent.

      Second, the age of the Earth hasn't changed except for the trivial getting one day older every day. What has changed is humans discovered new ways to scientifically estimate a minimum age for the planet. That minimum age has gotten older as our knowledge increased. Right now we know the Earth's minimum age is 4.54 billion years +/- 1%.

      Before the moron starts his usual stupidity, there is ZERO evidence God POOFED the Earth into existence 6000 years ago but used 4.54 billion year old rocks.

      Delete
    3. No, timmy, YOU are confused, and ignorant and angry because of it.

      The age of the earth depends on how it was formed. That you are too stupid to understand that is your problem, not ours.

      But yes there isn't any evidence the earth is only 6,000 years old. We agree. The Bible doesn't even say that.

      Delete
    4. The evil little shit knows very well that only a very small percentage of Christians take the first few chapters of Genesis literally. But he loves wrestling with that strawman. Besides, Genesis never said that Yahweh poofed anything into existence.

      The only religious morons who are claiming poofery are the Darwinists. New species are poofed into existence one tiny little piece at a time. Talk about a cult of boneheaded morons.

      Delete
    5. By the way, talking about poofery, the biggest pooferist of them all was that little con artist in the wheelchair, the one who died not too long ago. He believed the entire universe poofed itself into existence. The little crackpot even believed in the possibility of time travel!

      It's incredible what dishonest materialists can get away with in this world of lies and cowards. And yet all the Darwinist and materialist dirt monkeys worshipped the little lying jackass as a god of science.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    6. The evil little shit knows very well that only a very small percentage of Christians take the first few chapters of Genesis literally.

      Better talk to your fellow moron Joke. He's the one claiming the Earth is young and all scientific evidence supports Biblical baraminology.

      Delete
    7. timmy is clearly a troll. I never said nor implied the earth is 6,000 years old.

      What I have always is you have to know how the earth was formed before you can try to determines its age.

      And timmy supported my claim that science and experiments support limited descent with modification.

      timmy Horton, pathetic little imp

      Delete
  2. A long time ago, as the story goes, that bacterial common ancestor merged with an early eukaryote cell.

    Is that right? I ask because I have read that the origin of eukaryotes started with endosymbiosis- two bacteria, one engulfed the other, kept it and that was the birth of mitochondria and chloroplasts.

    However, we also have the following:
    Can evolution make things less complicated?:
    Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

    Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.

    “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, here we go again. "Since science doesn't know everything that means science doesn't know anything". And of course no Creationist explanation for the observed data, ever.

    Sure is a lazy man's way of arguing for his religion. Or a man who knows he's wrong and is just telling the other illiterate Creos what they want to hear.

    OK, we will now hear chubby Joke start screaming his usual one-liner stupidity "YOUR SIDE CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS!! and "THERE IS NO THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!". Take it away Joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dirt worshipper: And of course no Creationist explanation for the observed data, ever.

      Idiot. The explanation is that it was designed by advanced minds.

      Delete
    2. Map out: “Idiot. The explanation is that it was designed by advanced minds.“

      How? AutoCAD? Drafting pens and slide rules? Penciled on the back of a Hooter’s napkin (I hear god is a boob man). And after the design was finalized, how was it realized?

      “POOF”

      Delete
    3. willie is confused. We don't need to know how before we can determine something was intelligently designed.

      Delete
    4. Joke: “willie is confused. We don't need to know how before we can determine something was intelligently designed.

      Maybe you don’t. But the rest of the world does. We are curious like that

      Delete
    5. No one does, loser. We don't even know how some artifacts were produced and yet they are still artifacts.

      The who and how come AFTER design is determined to exist. Clearly you are not an investigator and you don't have any clue.

      Delete
    6. Joke: “No one does, loser. We don't even know how some artifacts were produced and yet they are still artifacts.”
      Not knowing for certain how something was made I’d not the same as not having a good hypothesis about it, or having other indications of the possible manufacture technique (tool marks, casting seems, etc.)

      “The who and how come AFTER design is determined to exist.”
      No, the who and how is what confirms that something was designed. But regardless, you and others have been claiming for years that design in biology has been detected. Yet there has been absolutely no hypotheses developed and tested about the designer or the mechanisms used. The reason is obvious to all. Once they admit that god-did-it, they are admitting what we all know, that ID is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

      Delete
    7. The who and how come AFTER design is determined to exist.

      LOL! Here we go again. Joke has been screaming for years "design" in life has already been detected at least 13 years ago as the IDiots claimed in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Yet in the following 13 years not a single IDiot has provided a single experiment to further ID research.

      Joke doesn't think things through at all when he makes these sort of stupid claims. Just open his mouth and lets fly.

      Delete
    8. timmy, no one uses unguided evolution for anything. At least ID concepts are being used in the form of genetic algorithms which use telic processes to solve the problems they were designed to solve

      Delete
    9. willie,

      Clearly you are ignorant of science

      No, the who and how is what confirms that something was designed.

      So that would mean many artifacts are not confirmed. And that proves that you are an imbecile.

      Look your position is all about the how and yet it has nothing. Not even a testable hypothesis. 150 + years of nothing- no scientific theory of evolution and no testable hypotheses pertaining to the proposed mechanisms.

      You don't know anything about science and you are ignorant of ID.

      Delete
    10. Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any determination about the who or how is by studying the design in question along with all relevant evidence.

      And it remains that all evoTARDs have to explain what we observe is sheer dumb luck. Only complete imbeciles call tat science

      Delete
    11. Which is it Joke? Has "design" in biological life been detected or not? If YES then when and by whom was it detected, and why hasn't there been any follow-up research done by the IDiots?

      If NO then what are you bellyaching about?

      Delete
    12. And it remains that all evoTARDs have to explain what we observe is sheer dumb luck. Only complete imbeciles call tat science

      Joke you're just the complete imbecile to think evolution proceeds by sheer dumb luck.

      Delete
    13. No, timmy- everything we observe is the result of sheer dumb luck- according to your position.

      Even Gould said that we are just a lucky accident

      Delete
    14. Yes design has been detected. And we are not on your asinine agenda.

      In over 150 years your position has nothing to show for it. Nothing. And no amount of your belligerence will ever change that.

      Delete
    15. By the way we don't even ask about the who and how until after design has been detected. So thank you willie and timmy for proving that you are a scientifically illiterate trolls

      Delete
    16. Yes design has been detected

      When and by whom was "design" of all biological life detected Joke? In what scientific journal was this amazing find published?

      Better yet, why have the IDiots not done one bit of follow up work?

      Delete
    17. Joke one minute: Yes design has been detected.

      Joke the next minute: we don't even ask about the who and how until after design has been detected.

      You just claimed "design" has already been detected. Why are no IDiots asking who and how about the Designer and the mechanisms used?

      Delete
    18. It started with the ancient Greeks, timmy. And now it is all over peer-review. Just look at ATP synthase. It matches the design criteria and no one has a clue as to how blind and mindless processes could produce it.

      Your position has nothing- no testable hypotheses for it nor a mechanism that can produce it.

      And focus on your position, loser. Over 150 years and there still isn't anything that supports it.

      Delete
    19. HAHAHAHA!! Joke caught in another of his big fat lies. Design in biological life hasn't been detected or reported in any science journal.

      Just as well for the IDiots. They wouldn't have the first idea how to investigate the who and how of their Creationist pipe dream. :)

      Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
    20. What a belligerent and ignorant troll you are, timmy. You wouldn't know what evidence was if it was sitting on your face and you are totally ignorant of science.

      Design has been detected thanks to the work in peer-reviewed journals. It fits the design criteria and timmy's side has nothing to explain it.

      Tat is why timmy is so upset- it has nothing but belligerence- no science and no evidence

      Delete
    21. Another Joke meltdown after getting caught in his lies. How typical. :)

      Delete
    22. Facts aren't lies, moron. Only cowardly losers, like you, think that they are.

      Delete
    23. GR, "When and by whom was "design" of all biological life detected Joke?"

      Joke: "It started with the ancient Greeks, timmy."

      Joke: "And focus on your position, loser. Over 150 years and there still isn't anything that supports it."

      Even if the last were true, which it isn't, our "position" is in its infancy compared to the 1400+ years since design was detected and still no attempt to determine who the designer is, what his nature is, what mechanisms he uses, etc. You guys really have to pull up your socks.

      Delete
    24. willie never heard of Epicurus. Your ignorance betrays you. Your position has had just as long and you still have nothing. Your position is all about the how and yet it cannot say how. You don't even have testable hypotheses for the how.

      You really need to pull your head out of your arse.

      Delete
    25. Joke: "willie never heard of Epicurus."

      I learn something new here every day. And I was always thought that Darwin was the one who proposed that "...all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce." [Wiki] Could you please provide the link where Epicurus proposed this? I would very much like to read it. Darwin may have to give up his priority on this theory.

      Delete
    26. Epicurus argued for materialism just as his opponents, Plato an Aristotle argued for telic processes.

      Grow up, willie

      Delete
    27. Joke: "Epicurus argued for materialism just as his opponents, Plato an Aristotle argued for telic processes."

      So? You claim that design was detected by the ancient greeks. What has been done since then to identify the designer and the mechanisms used by him to realize his designs? chirp-chirp-chirp.

      Darwinian evolution has only been around for 150 years and we have discovered numerous mechanisms that are consistent with his theory that play a role in evolution.

      Darwin-1 ID-0

      Delete
    28. And materialism was also determined by the ancient Greeks. What has been done since then to confirm that position? chirp-chirp-chirp

      No one has ever confirmed Darwin's claim that natural selection can produce design without a designer. There isn't even a methodology to do so. At least ID has a methodology to scientifically determine the existence of design.

      ID 1; evolutionism 0

      Loser

      Delete
    29. William,

      "No, the who and how is what confirms that something was designed."

      Why is it necessary to know 'who' and 'how' in order to confirm an object was designed?

      Hope you're recovered from the beer garden.:)

      Delete
    30. Hi Nic. You don’t have to know the who and how beyond all reasonable doubt. But you have to have some knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the designer, and some evidence of the mechanisms used. For example, we know with a high degree of certainty that humans designed and built the pyramids. And, because we know this, we can postulate how they quarried, transported and erected them. Add to this the fact that there are tool marks and other material associated with human construction, we can conclude that the pyramids were designed.

      But if you were presented with a series of hexagonal rock columns forming a step pattern, would this alone be sufficient to conclude design?

      Yes, I recovered well from the beer gardens. Just in time to hit the craft breweries in Colorado. Don’t tell Barry.

      Delete
    31. We know the designer's capabilities from what they left behind. And there are artifacts that exist that we don't know the who nor the how. And most of the time the who is just the general "humans did it".


      Delete
    32. Also everything we have learned about artifacts came from first determining design exists and then studying it and all relevant evidence. And we still don't know the "who" beyond the general "human".

      Nan Madol- design determined and we still don't know who nor how. That is how science works. Perhaps that is why willie is so confused.

      Delete
    33. Joke: “Nan Madol- design determined and we still don't know who nor how.“

      Nonsense. Humans. A few centuries ago. Or are you suggesting something different? Beavers, maybe? Woodpeckers? Ancient toaster repairmen?

      Delete
    34. Humans is not a who, moron. What a clueless loser you are, willie.

      Delete
    35. I think Joke is saying humans designed all biological life. It's hard to tell because Joke sticks his foot in his mouth so often. :)

      Delete
    36. And if saying humans did it is good enough than saying non-humans did it is also good enough.

      Thank you. Game over. You lose, again.

      Delete
    37. ghosty thinks that thighs are below the knees. It also thinks that poop is a code.

      No one listens to ghosty because it is a known pathological liar and imbecile

      Delete
    38. William,

      "And, because we know this, we can postulate how they quarried, transported and erected them."

      If we could not postulate those things would that be a reason to reject the idea the pyramids were designed?

      "But if you were presented with a series of hexagonal rock columns forming a step pattern, would this alone be sufficient to conclude design?"

      No, not necessarily. However the pyramids are much more complex than hexagonal stone columns and life infinitely more complex than pyramids. As such, it is a rather logical progression for one to go from hexagonal stone pillars not necessitating design to pyramids, due to greater complexity, necessitating design, to life, infinitely more complex than pyramids, also necessitating design.

      If the pyramid implies design over the hexagonal column, how much more does life imply design over the pyramid?

      Your secret is safe with me.:) Hope you had a great time in Colorado.

      Delete
    39. Nic: "If we could not postulate those things would that be a reason to reject the idea the pyramids were designed?"

      Not necessarily. Remember, we have the evidence of tool marks, tools, scrap materials, paintings, etc. But we don't have any of this with biological structures. If we did, the inference to design would be much stronger.

      "No, not necessarily. However the pyramids are much more complex than hexagonal stone columns and life infinitely more complex than pyramids."

      A snow flake is complex. Our weather patterns are extra,ely complex. Complexity is not a sure sign of design. A sharpened stick is designed but it is not complex.

      "If the pyramid implies design over the hexagonal column, how much more does life imply design over the pyramid?"

      It needs the supporting evidence that we have with the pyramids.

      Delete
    40. Irreducible complexity is a hallmark of ID and we see that in biology.

      ID has supporting evidence in physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology and geology.

      OTOH your position says it was all just sheer dumb luck that produced what we observe.

      Snow flakes are not complex. They are a simple pattern repeated.

      Delete
    41. ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

      1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

      2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

      3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

      4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

      There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.

      “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box”

      That is the positive case.

      willie, your turn. Tell us the methodology to test the claims of evolutionism and provide some testable hypotheses so we can compare.

      Delete
    42. Joke: “Irreducible complexity is a hallmark of ID and we see that in biology.”

      How’s that been working out for you? Maybe you should take it to court to get a ruling. Oh, yah. You already did.

      Delete
    43. Wow, could you be any more of an ignorant coward, willie? I doubt it but I am sure you will prove otherwise.

      Delete
    44. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

      Sorry Joke but your 3) is demonstrably false. For example we know how natural processes can form IC structures in biology through co-option of function and genetic scaffolding. Since 3) is false your whole ID-Creationist argument is worthless.

      Joke fails again. :D

      Delete
    45. or example we know how natural processes can form IC structures in biology through co-option of function and genetic scaffolding.

      Liar. Strange that there isn't anything in peer-review that supports your claim. So yes, you are sorry and pathetic

      Delete
    46. Joke: ”Wow, could you be any more of an ignorant coward, willie?”

      No. There is only room for one at the pinnacle of ignorant cowardice, and you are already there.

      Delete
    47. And yet here you are, more ignorant, cowardly and scientifically illiterate than I could ever be.

      Weird how I prove that you are an imbecile every day...

      Delete
  4. Original proposed ancestral lineages were based solely on morphological comparisons, fossil comparisons and fossil location in sedimentary deposits. It was the best that could be done with the tools available. Now with tools that allow for cost effective genetic and protein comparisons, and estimates of mutation rates, we are modifying the proposed lineages to better reflect the evidence. That is good science in action.

    On the other hand we have ID “science”. It started in the 60s as a spin off of fundamental Christianity as an attempt to lend scientific credibility to religious origin myths (scientific creationism). Following repeated failures to get it into the science class because of its clear links to religion, they rebranded themselves, did a find-and-replace in an earlier draft of Pandas And People, and Intelligent Design was born.

    The lesson to learn is that real scientists modify their theories in the light of new or contradictory evidence. Pseudoscience simply rebrands itself in light of public opinion, in spite of the evidence. If the public doesn’t accept our theory, let’s re-name it and distance ourselves from the previous name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Umm, willie, your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. And the best evidence for macro-evolution is absent a mechanism.

      ID has been around for millennia. You can try to change history but that only works on the ignorant.

      Intelligent Design was not borne out of "Of Pandas and people"- you have serious issues.

      Delete
    2. GR: ”OK, we will now hear chubby Joke start screaming his usual one-liner stupidity "YOUR SIDE CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS!!”

      Joke: “Umm, willie, your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.”

      GR, you must be clairvoyant.

      Joke: ”ID has been around for millennia.”
      I wise man told me that context matters. The attempt to claim that there is a scientific explanation for an intelligent agent responsible for life started with scientific creationism.

      Intelligent Design was not borne out of "Of Pandas and people"-“

      Of course it wasn’t. That strategy started before the final printing. Pandas and People was just the lame tool used to publicize it. As was Expelled and Priviledge Planet. Pandas and People was amusing because it’s earlier draft clearly showed that ID was just a rebranding of creationism.

      Delete
    3. Intelligent Design was not borne out of "Of Pandas and people"

      "cdesign proponentists"

      :D :D :D

      Delete
    4. Look, morons, your cowardly attempt to change history just exposes your desperation.

      Telic thoughts started with the ancient Greeks and maybe even before that.

      And no, "Of Pandas and People" did not show that ID was just a rebranding of creationism.

      Delete
    5. "Of Pandas and People" did not show that ID was just a rebranding of creationism.

      LOL! Baghdad Bob Joke revisionist history. :D

      Delete
    6. What? You are the one trying to revise history. The authors of the book were not Creationists.

      Delete
    7. The authors of the book were not Creationists.

      BWAHAHAHAHA!!

      Of course not Joke. That's why the original title of the book was "Creation Biology" later changed to "Biology and Creation". That's why the term "creationists" was replaced with "design proponents" over 30 times, because it wasn't written by Creationists.

      You keep finding new and different ways to make yourself look like a lying YEC fool. :D

      Delete
    8. Wow, that spewage is neither an argument nor a refutation.

      Do you have any evidence that any of the authors was a Creationist? No, you do not.

      And yes, people use what is available in ROUGH DRAFTS until they can come up with a better word/ term for the final work.

      Delete
    9. Joke: “What? You are the one trying to revise history. The authors of the book were not Creationists.“

      Of course not.

      ”Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist,...”

      Percival William Davis, also known as Bill Davis, is an American author, young earth creationist, and intelligent design proponent.“

      So, they are not creationists? Forgive me if I don’t believe you

      Delete
    10. Where did you get your information from?

      Dean Kenyon authored the preeminent book on abiogenesis " Biochemical Predestination". So clearly he was an evo at one time. That is until he took a closer look at the evidence

      Delete
    11. The authors of the book "Of Pandas and People" were scientists. Not that willie and timmy can understand that

      Delete
    12. The authors of the book "Of Pandas and People" were scientists.

      YEC Creation "scientists".

      Delete
    13. As opposed to your evoTARDs lying loser "scientists" who can't even find support for their position?

      Delete
  5. Original proposed ancestral lineages were based solely on morphological comparisons, fossil comparisons and fossil location in sedimentary deposits. It was the best that could be done with the tools available. Now with tools that allow for cost effective genetic and protein comparisons, and estimates of mutation rates, we are modifying the proposed lineages to better reflect the evidence. That is good science in action.

    Yep. It's always amazing to see Creationists wail and fling poo like howler monkeys whenever new scientific discoveries allow us better understanding of events which happened billions of years ago. STUPID SCIENTISTS ALWAYS CHANGING THEIR MINDS!! goes the screaming, not knowing or caring that's how all science progresses.

    Must be nice to take the lazy approach: base all your "science" on 2000 year folk stories which never change or improve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CR, ”Must be nice to take the lazy approach: base all your "science" on 2000 year folk stories which never change or improve.”

      That’s not fair. We stopped stoning homosexuals, didn’t we. That was an improvement. Rather than killing them we just jailed them, castrated them and fired them from their jobs because of old myths.

      Delete
    2. And still nothing that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

      What is your science, timmy?

      Delete
  6. I suppose at some point somebody is likely to ask Cornelius (again) if has an alternative hypothesis or theory. This has been asked many, many times before over the years, and usually Cornelius has not responded, or usually responds that the evidence against evolution speaks for itself.

    I've been following this blog for some time, and this also puzzled me at first. But I think the reason might be quite simple. I think you have to consider first who this blog is primarily written for - and that in my opinion is Christian believers. Furthermore I think it is directed at believers who perhaps struggle with how evolution in the scientific world is largely accepted, and how it could represent a threat to their faith.

    I think then that the mission of the blog is to simply cast "reasonable doubt" on evolution - not necessarily to provide an alternative hypothesis. This reasonable doubt is probably sufficient for most to discount evolution and that the diversity of life today was through a godless process. Some of course might be interested to understand more as to what the true mechanism was that God used - whether it is ID, creationism or some form of Theistic Evolution (TE). But I'm guessing that the vast majority are content to know that evolution has (according to Cornelius at least) major issues and should not be trusted - thus providing a bolster to people's faiths for those struggling with this issue. Based on the many Christians I have known most aren't that interested in biology or evolution, but do want a convenient "cognitive shortcut" to discount evolution as being an existentialist threat. And I think this blog provides it and as such probably does a good job of doing so.

    Based on this then, this blog should probably be viewed more as a Christian ministry rather than a scientific endeavor (I'm sure Cornelius would disagree here). After all I think if Cornelius was truly interested in engaging the mainstream scientific community in discussions about evolution, a blog like this is not likely to be effective. Of course this is just my opinion and observation and I don't want to speak with Cornelius, but I think viewing this blog from this perspective helps to explain why this is primarily an anti-evolution blog and not a pro-ID, pro-TE, or pro-Creationism blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose at some point somebody is likely to ask Cornelius (again) if has an alternative hypothesis or theory

      Alternative to what, exactly? There isn't any viable scientific alternative to Intelligent Design.

      Delete
    2. I think the main reason that he doesn’t tell us what he believes, as if anyone is in doubt, is so that he can claim to be impartial and non biased.

      Delete
    3. It doesn't matter what he believes. It is clear that you cannot support what you believe.

      Delete
  7. "Alternative to what, exactly? There isn't any viable scientific alternative to Intelligent Design."

    I've hardly ever seen Cornelius post about Intelligent Design on this blog. It's all about the failures of evolution, which while interesting I'd like to hear more about ID, because that's something that interests me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ID-Creationism is a political movement designed to get Biblical Creation back into public schools. It has never had anything to do with science.

      Ever since the IDiots got crushed at Kitzmiller v. Dover IDC has been on life support. The Discovery Institute is the only reason IDC hasn't vanished altogether. No one on the planet is doing any scientific work for IDC because IDC has no testable hypotheses. Even the DI's phony science journal Bio-Complexity can't manage more than 1 or 2 propaganda articles a year.

      Of course there still a few spittle spewing fanatics like fanboi Joke Gallien but they tend to be 100% scientifically illiterate and dumb as a sack of doorknobs to boot.

      Delete
    2. Wow, ID is not anti-evolution. Dr Hunter speaks of the failures of evolutionism- the untestable claim that life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes.

      If you want to know more about ID try reading the pro-ID literature.

      Delete
    3. What? Timmy is lying, again. There are testable hypotheses with respect to ID. What is missing are testable hypotheses for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

      No one knows how to test the claim and tat is why it isn't scientific.

      Delete
  8. “Religion drives science, and it matters.”
    Seems to me that Dr Hunter is pointing out that the evolutionists have a paradigm (which strongly resembles a religion) that doesn’t allow them to see that they are viewing all evidence through the lens of “ Evolution is the truth”, no matter how impossible the evidence indicates that it could happen).
    “When the paradigm effect is so strong that we are prevented from actually seeing what is under our very noses, we are said to be suffering from paradigm paralysis.”
    John C Harrison

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet every time we ask an ID-Creationist for their explanation for the empirical data in the fossil and genetic records they scuttle away. Just like you did from questions on the other thread. All we get are moronic non-answers like "da DESIGNER did it!!.

      Evolutionary theory has over 150 years of positive consilient evidence from dozens of different scientific fields. ID-Creationists only have "MAGIC!". ToE earned its position as arguably the best supported scientific theory of all time. It won't go away just because your religious beliefs feel threatened by it.

      Delete
    2. ghosty- your position cannot explain the fossil and genetic evidence.

      Evolutionism has over 150 years of BS. Its claims can't even be tested. It doesn't have any testable hypotheses with respect to its posited mechanisms.

      Delete
    3. “ID-Creationists only have "MAGIC!".”

      Lol! You know nothing about magicians or magic. Every magic trick takes laborious planning and practice. Even MAGIC takes Intelligent Design. Even magic isn’t just random unintelligent luck.

      Delete
    4. Ghost, could it be that a different paradigm simply asks different questions? Could it be that your paradigm paralysis is maintained by your determination to get answers to the old paradigm's questions?

      Delete
    5. could it be that a different paradigm simply asks different questions?

      The only question ID-Creationism asks is "what lies can we tell to get Christian Biblical Creationism sneaked back into public school science classrooms?".

      Delete
    6. You know nothing about magicians or magic

      That makes us even. You know nothing about science and evolutionary biology.

      Delete
    7. timmy the closet YEC doesn't know anything but how to lie and get all belligerent

      Delete
    8. Dirt monkey: ID-Creationists only have "MAGIC!

      This is rich coming from the brain-dead, demon-possessed moron who believes that life arose out of inert dirt, that humans are just meat robots and that the universe created itself.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    9. Joe:timmy the closet YEC doesn't know anything but how to lie and get all belligerent

      The dirt monkey is a closet young earth creationist? I suspected he was a closet homosexual but YEC too? LOL

      Delete
  9. Again, evolutionism doesn't offer up any way to test its claims. There aren't any testable hypotheses based on the proposed mechanisms. And even the best evidence for macro-evolution doesn't support the proposed mechanisms.

    Now I know that little timmy tunie will spew nonsensical and cowardly accusations but it is a given it will never offer up anything that challenges what I posted.

    Over 150 years and we don't even know what determines what type of organism will develop. Over 150 years and there still isn't a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes from populations prokaryotes.

    And there still isn't even a scientific theory of evolution. People may disagree with that but they cannot link to it. They cannot say who the author was. They cannot say when it was published nor what journal it was published in. All of which points to its non-existence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Joke falls back on his usual cowardly excuse "YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE!!" The fact is he has no evidence for his YEC beliefs which is why he always deflects and runs from questions. Always.

      Delete
    2. timmy the closet YEC- all mouth and nothing else.

      Delete
    3. And there still isn't even a scientific theory of evolution.

      Hey Joke, what's the subject of the textbook by Evolutionary Biologist Douglas Futuyma you claimed to have bought and are reading?

      Here's a hint:

      Evolution, 4th Edition

      "Extensively rewritten and reorganized, this new edition of Evolution--featuring a new coauthor: Mark Kirkpatrick (The University of Texas at Austin)--offers additional expertise in evolutionary genetics and genomics, the fastest-developing area of evolutionary biology. Directed toward an undergraduate audience, the text emphasizes the interplay between theory and empirical tests of hypotheses, thus acquainting students with the process of science. It addresses major themes--including the history of evolution, evolutionary processes, adaptation, and evolution as an explanatory framework--at levels of biological organization ranging from genomes to ecological communities."

      Joke just isn't very bright, or honest.

      Delete
    4. That isn't a scientific theory, timmy There isn't a scientific theory in the book, either.

      There can be a subject called "Evolution" but that doesn't mean there is a scientific theory of evolution.

      You are just a desperate and ignorant troll

      Delete
    5. LOL! Angry YEC Joke responds with his usual cowardly denial. "NUH-UH!!"

      The problem is the book was written for upper undergraduate science students but Joke has no science education at all, only took a class in Toaster Repair.

      Joke just isn't very bright, or honest.

      Delete
    6. What an ignorant loser you are, timmy. Only ignorant losers think that a textbook is a scientific theory.

      There isn't any reference to any scientific theory in the book. He doesn't even reference it for continued reading.

      It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to know what a scientific theory is. But then again you don't understand science.

      Delete
    7. Now I know that little timmy tunie will spew nonsensical and cowardly accusations but it is a given it will never offer up anything that challenges what I posted.

      And another prediction fulfilled.

      timmy the closet YEC never fails to disappoint.

      Delete
    8. Let's see a show of hands.

      Anyone else here agree with Joke there's no such thing as the theory of evolution?

      Delete
    9. I found the definition of the TOE:

      The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution makes cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except with it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)
      Leisola and Witt’s take-down of natural selection. It’s in Chapter 11, “The Chasm Widens.”

      Delete
    10. Wow PM that's approaching Joke's level of stupidy. Evolution is a process that moves populations towards local fitness maxima in their current environment. For some species that means big, for others it means small. For some it means fast, for some it means slow. For some it means gaining features like bats gained the ability to fly, for some it means losing features like flightless birds and blind cave fish.

      Only a real idiot would complain about evolution because every species on the planet doesn't look and act the same. Are you that real idiot?

      Delete
    11. There isn't a scientific theory of evolution.

      If anyone disagrees then it is up them to link to it, tell us who the author was, when it was published and what journal it was published in.

      If you cannot do that then it is clear that I am right.

      Thank you

      Delete
    12. There isn't a scientific theory of evolution.

      LOL! Joke it's hard to imagine how you could make yourself look more stupid than claiming ToE doesn't exist. Maybe try claiming the theory of gravity doesn't exist either.

      Delete
    13. timmy you are a cowardly loser. It is very telling that you cannot link to it, cannot say who the author was, when and where it was published.

      You are clearly just an ignorant and belligerent troll

      Delete
    14. LOL! You can't get a single person to agree with your "ToE doesn't exist" stupidity. Even Louis the fruit loop is giving your nonsense a wide berth. :D

      Delete
    15. Thank you, timmy, for proving there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.

      Thank you everyone.

      Delete
    16. There isn't a scientific theory of evolution.

      If anyone disagrees then it is up them to link to it, tell us who the author was, when it was published and what journal it was published in.

      If you cannot do that then it is clear that I am right.

      Thank you

      Delete
    17. LOL!!!

      Gotta love it when Joke has a meltdown and starts repeating himself while screaming in bold. :D :D :D

      Joke REALLY isn't very bright.

      Delete
    18. Thank you for proving that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution, timmy.

      And thank you for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant and belligerent troll

      Delete
  10. In Futuyma's textbook "Evolution" 3rd edition he says that polar bears have white fur. Unfortunately for him their fur is hollow translucent tubes that appear white due to the way the light reflects inside of that tube. Polar bears appear to be whiter when the Sun is higher.

    There isn't any reference to any scientific theory in the book. He doesn't even reference it for continued reading.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The entire universe was intelligently designed, from the lowly photons to the quarks and leptons. The curse of dimensionality makes the universe impossible otherwise. Not to mention the obvious fact that nothing physical can create itself.

    Brain-dead Darwinists, materialists and similar other miserable jackasses should print out Darwin's Origin crap, roll the pages up real tight and pack them up where the sun does not shine.

    ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  12. The article by Martijn et al, Nature 557 3 May 2018, presents evidence that mitochondria do not originate within the crown group alphaproteobacteria (as far as sampled), but constitutes a sister group to the alphaproteobacteria. That is, the crown group alphaproteobacteria and the mitochondrion share a common ancestor that can be described as an alphaproteobacterium.
    Not being able to understand the difference between crown group and total group, or not understanding what a sister group implies, gives no confidence in this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, they did not find evidence that mitochondria evolved from a sister group. Given the plethora of genomic data available today, they expected to be able to find the ancestor within the alphaproteobacteria. They got a negative result. Instead of simply reporting the negative result, they claimed they found evidence the mitochondria must have evolved from a "proteobacterial" lineage that branched off before the divergence of alphaproteobacteria. But that was theory-driven. There is no evidence they evolved from an earlier lineage. In fact, there is not even any evidence for such a sister group in the first place. It may be discovered in the future, but we're talking about today's science.

      Delete
    2. The evidence says mitochondria are the sister group to extant alphaproteobacteria, not 'evolved from a sister group'. Mitochondria are still sister to alphaproteobacteria, as they were in the very first phylogenies. That are the data.

      Delete