tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1047822515786489865..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Genome of a Microbial Eukaryote: You Can't Make This Stuff UpUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20611999384084521142010-03-24T05:18:08.749-07:002010-03-24T05:18:08.749-07:00nanobot74:
"for example, fish and dolphins bo...nanobot74:<br /><i>"for example, fish and dolphins both have a torpedo shape that reduces drag in water."</i><br /><br />Not all fish have a torpedo shape.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20379340436213223492010-03-24T04:28:22.365-07:002010-03-24T04:28:22.365-07:00Zachriel:
"Nevertheless, the evidence support...Zachriel:<br /><i>"Nevertheless, the evidence supports common descent from a single ancestral population."</i><br /><br />There isn't any such evidence.<br /><br />As I said before the "evidence" for Common Descent can be used to support alternative scenarios.<br /><br />You just hand-wave that fact away.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50410120470787542922010-03-24T04:26:36.738-07:002010-03-24T04:26:36.738-07:00Zachriel:
"The nested hierarchy is strongly s...Zachriel:<br /><i>"The nested hierarchy is strongly supported across most taxa, and leads to specific empirical predictions that have been repeatedly verified."</i><br /><br />Descent with modification doesn't expect a nested hierarchy.<br /><br />A nested hierarchy argues against descent with modification.<br /><br />IOW Zachriel proves he doesn't know what he is talking about.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>"Humans and hummingbirds share a common ancestor."</i><br /><br />There isn't any way to test that premise so how can it be part of science?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63164857584419890002010-03-23T15:30:15.158-07:002010-03-23T15:30:15.158-07:00#John1453: Well, that might be true, except that i...<b>#John1453</b>: <i>Well, that might be true, except that it's now irrelevent as biologists have given up on constructing an accurate or realistic tree of any kind.</i><br /><br />That is simply incorrect. Phylogenetics is a very active area of research. Entire journals, research staffs, and the lastest in information technology are involved in resolving phylogenetic trees. It is because of this intense effort that inconsistencies have been found at the root of the tree of life. The most plausible explanation is an early epoch where horizontal mechanisms were more important than vertical inheritance, and where the notion of a distinct organism may not be valid. Nevertheless, the evidence supports common descent from a single ancestral population. <br /><br /><b>#John1453</b>: <i>Hence, the statement means "exceptions test the rule". That is, exceptions are problematic and test the adequacy of the rule to explain the extant data.</i><br /><br />Yes, that is the usual scientific sense. And endogenous retroviruses are an exception that tests and validates the rule.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17526836921170937582010-03-23T13:17:24.713-07:002010-03-23T13:17:24.713-07:00Z wrote, "The exceptions help prove the rule....Z wrote, "The exceptions help prove the rule."<br /><br />It would be useful if Z actually understood that statement and used it correctly. That aphorism originated at a time when "prove" meant, among other things, "test". Such a meaning is now archaic which is why many people misuse that aphorism.<br /><br />Hence, the statement means "exceptions <i><b>test</b></i> the rule". That is, exceptions are problematic and test the adequacy of the rule to explain the extant data.<br /><br />regards,<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8766788392162593712010-03-23T13:14:04.556-07:002010-03-23T13:14:04.556-07:00Charles said, "Once reliables trees are avail...Charles said, "Once reliables trees are available (using genetic and phenotypic datas), we can then start searching for the exceptions."<br /><br />Well, that might be true, except that it's now irrelevent as biologists have given up on constructing an accurate or realistic tree of any kind.<br /><br />regards,<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54360751697228831892010-03-23T11:47:16.347-07:002010-03-23T11:47:16.347-07:00Blas: The question remains, similarity in genes an...<b>Blas</b>: <i>The question remains, similarity in genes and bodies are prove of common ancestor or common ancestor is the most likely explanation of the similarities in some cases?</i><br /><br />The nested hierarchy applies to morphology, genomics, embryonics and fossils in time. That there are exceptions doesn't change the fact that there is an overall pattern. The exceptions help prove the rule. <br /><br />For instance, endogenous retroviruses, being virus DNA, violate the overall nested hierarchy. But they form their own <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif" rel="nofollow">nested hierarchy</a> consistent with an insertion into the existing hierarchy. And this is consistent with the observed mechanism of retroviruses.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62732264597147570892010-03-23T11:33:29.420-07:002010-03-23T11:33:29.420-07:00Blas:
A common ancestor is the best explanation f...Blas:<br /><br />A common ancestor is the best explanation for the genes and bodies similarities in the majority of cases (at least in multicellular eucaryotes). Every new species that get it's genome fully sequenced reconfirm this (unless you are aware of specific article demonstrating this is not the case). <br /><br />Once reliables trees are available (using genetic and phenotypic datas), we can then start searching for the exceptions.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08434149812251973198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40866014463640534252010-03-23T10:23:49.604-07:002010-03-23T10:23:49.604-07:00"would you say that this shape is the result ..."would you say that this shape is the result of convergence or because dolphins and fish share a recent common ancestor?"<br /><br />"The other case would be where we find that all the species in a specific lineage share the same gene"<br /><br />The question remains, similarity in genes and bodies are prove of common ancestor or common ancestor is the most likely explanation of the similarities in some cases?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16815056262092391042010-03-23T08:29:49.857-07:002010-03-23T08:29:49.857-07:00Blas:
You might find this article interesting:
ht...Blas:<br /><br />You might find this article interesting:<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19942614<br /><br />It is a good example of how we can distinguish between a gene that was present in a common ancestor or the convergent evolution of a gene. <br /><br />"Although the presence of SL trans-splicing in hydrozoan cnidarians, hexactinellid sponges, and ctenophores might suggest that it was present at the base of the Metazoa, the patchy distribution that is evident at higher resolution suggests that SL trans-splicing has evolved repeatedly among metazoan lineages. In agreement with this scenario, we discuss evidence that SL precursor RNAs can readily evolve from ubiquitous small nuclear RNAs that are used for conventional splicing".<br /><br />The other case would be where we find that all the species in a specific lineage share the same gene, and that the sequence aligment fits in the phylogenic tree. In this case, the most likely explanation is common ancestry.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08434149812251973198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5397108052990354122010-03-23T08:26:25.814-07:002010-03-23T08:26:25.814-07:00Blas,
if you look at a single gene in isolation, i...Blas,<br />if you look at a single gene in isolation, it is difficult to distinguish between convergence and common descent. however, if you look at the big picture, it becomes much easier. for example, fish and dolphins both have a torpedo shape that reduces drag in water. now, would you say that this shape is the result of convergence or because dolphins and fish share a recent common ancestor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36782764796592103162010-03-23T07:23:20.136-07:002010-03-23T07:23:20.136-07:00"There is no serious scientific doubt of desc..."There is no serious scientific doubt of descent with modifications. Humans and hummingbirds share a common ancestor."<br /><br />May be true, but are similar genes a prove of common ancestor? yes or no.<br />If yes, why? When we have similar genes between animals without common ancestor.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21366162078704573912010-03-23T06:53:54.551-07:002010-03-23T06:53:54.551-07:00Blas: If you accept similar genetic mutation in sp...<b>Blas</b>: <i>If you accept similar genetic mutation in species not related, you have to eliminate genetic similarities as prove of common ancestor. You cannot keep both.</i><br /><br />You have to look at the body of the evidence. The nested hierarchy is strongly supported across most taxa, and leads to specific empirical predictions that have been repeatedly verified. That's why a scientist can venture out into the wilderness and come back with novel organisms with a predicted range of features. Convergence often proves the rule, and Darwin discusses this all the way back in 1859. <br /><br />There is no serious scientific doubt of descent with modifications. Humans and hummingbirds share a common ancestor.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87614736756065645772010-03-23T04:15:05.962-07:002010-03-23T04:15:05.962-07:00Zachirel
"As they start with very similar pro...Zachirel<br />"As they start with very similar proteins and are selected for similar functions, it's not so surprising. It depends on the available channels leading to increased capability. Consider the simple case of convergence in the hydrodynamics of fish and dolphins."<br /><br />If you accept similar genetic mutation in species not related, you have to eliminate genetic similarities as prove of common ancestor. You cannot keep both.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1679342387156634112010-03-23T03:59:07.436-07:002010-03-23T03:59:07.436-07:00amile,
It is obvious that the only evidence for I...amile,<br /><br />It is obvious that the only evidence for ID you will accept is to meet and observe the designer(s) in action.<br /><br />IOW you ain't interested in science.<br /><br />If you were then all you would have to do to stop ID is to step up and substantiate the claims of your position.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11216425940886051372010-03-23T00:12:07.928-07:002010-03-23T00:12:07.928-07:00"If evolution is true, then not only are our ..."If evolution is true, then not only are our minds nothing more than the product of unguided natural processes (evolutionists don't say that and you know it)"<br /><br />What guided mechanisms are evolutionist positing?Upright BiPedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17988889401426789414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49592364883221089942010-03-22T19:51:14.661-07:002010-03-22T19:51:14.661-07:00amile:
So, you falsely criticized me as taking &q...amile:<br /><br />So, you falsely criticized me as taking "a position on the basis of faith" and trying "any and every mechanism to undermine real science." You then were unable to come up with any support for your accusations. And now this quote:<br /><br />=====<br />"Turning popular opinion on its head, Hunter convincingly argues that scientists who oppose intelligent design do so for theological reasons, not empirically based arguments."<br />=====<br /><br />So you make the theological arguments, and I'm the one who is taking a faith position?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68998081238672966142010-03-22T18:56:53.171-07:002010-03-22T18:56:53.171-07:00CH - "Turning popular opinion on its head, Hu...CH - "Turning popular opinion on its head, Hunter convincingly argues that scientists who oppose intelligent design do so for theological reasons, not empirically based arguments." but oh, someone else said that, so perhaps you just don't like evolution and do not believe in ID, but some other way we got here - in trying to find out what you believe, I found this "Here evolution aligns itself with radical skepticism. Nothing can be known to be true. If evolution is true, then not only are our minds nothing more than the product of unguided natural processes (evolutionists don't say that and you know it), but those very processes inbred a certain degree of falsehood. The evolutionist’s claim that evolution is a fact is self-refuting, for it leads to the conclusion that they cannot know that evolution is a fact." - Andrew Marvell would have been proud of you ! - the fact that you deliberately (PhD after all) misinterpreted Rivers' words is sad.<br /><br />THE 2005 decision in the Evolution debate - Dover Area School.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554380193446495718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27714298349977597712010-03-22T18:13:33.373-07:002010-03-22T18:13:33.373-07:00Thought Provoker,
please note I said "uncert...Thought Provoker,<br /> please note I said "uncertain" particle so as to point out that there really is no solid particle as many people unfamiliar with quantum mechanics believe.,,, Yet it still does not negate the theistic principle elucidated by the "quantum information wave collapse" to its "uncertain" particles being centered on a conscious observer. In fact That it would defy time space consideration at even the uncertain "particle level is actually to be expected from a theistic viewpoint.<br /> I explain my thoughts on quantum mechanics in detail in the first part of the paper here; where you may find the answers to the other questions you asked:<br /><br />http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69203415832956174262010-03-22T17:58:07.691-07:002010-03-22T17:58:07.691-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84789299880189147972010-03-22T17:14:04.798-07:002010-03-22T17:14:04.798-07:00Zachriel:
As the evidence of biological evolution ...<b>Zachriel:</b><br /><i>As the evidence of biological evolution includes the patterns of historical descent, by saying it isn't relevant, you create a strawman of the position you reject.</i><br /><br />I am not necessarily rejecting the evolution hypothesis. I am just not ready to accept it until it can be demonstrated that blind, undirected processes can be shown to be a better explanation. You and I have been down that "demonstration road" before, and I see nothing to be gained from going down that road again.Doubleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09894977171356099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78726444960345785662010-03-22T17:12:36.043-07:002010-03-22T17:12:36.043-07:00Hi BornAgain77,
You might be interested in this p...Hi BornAgain77,<br /><br />You might be interested in this paper I found...<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1001/1001.3080.pdf<br /><br />It is quite readable and presents a convincing explanation as to how quantum wavefunctions can have all of the properties of particles, including "mass".<br /><br />I just have to smile whenever I get accused of being a materialist by an ID proponent.<br /><br />To me, it is often the ID proponent who believes solid matter and randomness actually exists.<br /><br />I get arguments from the other side too.<br /><br />Both sides accuse the other of not considering alternatives because, for the most part, both sides aren't, in fact, considering alternatives.<br /><br />If you don't mind some questions...<br /><br />1. Do you embrace that idea that quantum wavefunctions collapse into solid matter, or is everything always a wavefunction to you? (I hold that everything is always a wavefunction)<br /><br />2. Do you believe non-deterministic quantum effects are random? Would you accept the possibility a designer's hand is at the controls?<br /><br />3. Would you agree that if life is quantum-based, it would go a long way to explaining how Common Descent and Natural Selection are possible because "Random Mutation" isn't random?Thought Provokerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288695859490482820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71922778063937460552010-03-22T16:32:33.905-07:002010-03-22T16:32:33.905-07:00amile,, and exactly what is your definition of rea...amile,, and exactly what is your definition of reality?<br /><br />Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has called people who believe in God delusional. Yet, people who are delusional resolutely deny reality. Then the truth is that materialists, such as Richard Dawkins, are the ones who are delusional, in the purest sense of the word, since quantum mechanics has revealed, in no uncertain terms, that reality is a “consciousness centered” reality that precedes the 3 dimensional “material” reality in the first place. i.e. It is impossible for a 3 dimensional material reality to independently give rise to that which it is absolutely dependent on for its own reality in the first place. Consciousness must, of logical necessity, originally arise from the “infinite transcendent information realm” revealed by Quantum Mechanics.<br /><br />Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement – video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579<br /><br />So amile please explain why materialists continue to insist, after Aspect’s falsification of hidden variables, that consciousness arises from a 3-D material basis when “uncertain” 3-D material particles do not even collapse from the “quantum information waves” in the first place until a conscious observer is present. Please explain how in the world something can give rise to that which is a necessary condition for its own reality in the first place.<br /><br />Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:<br />Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80052305918393077242010-03-22T16:30:02.561-07:002010-03-22T16:30:02.561-07:00amile:
======
I must have missed something - if y...amile:<br /><br />======<br />I must have missed something - if you are promoting ID design, <br />======<br /><br />Huh? ID was not even in the discussion.<br /><br />======<br />I assume that you believe that there is an intelligent designer involved .... in the absence of any evidence that such a "being" exists .... other than through misrepresenting reality - having looked you up on the web, I see that I am wasting my time having a "debate" - the federal court's 2005 evaluation of the Discovery Institute says it all.<br />======<br /><br />Debate? You falsely criticized me as taking "a position on the basis of faith" and trying "any and every mechanism to undermine real science." You then were unable to come up with any support for your accusations. So you know resort to some unnamed 2005 court decision. Am I in some court decision that I don't know about?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43786760229739405732010-03-22T16:03:10.182-07:002010-03-22T16:03:10.182-07:00CH - I must have missed something - if you are pro...CH - I must have missed something - if you are promoting ID design, I assume that you believe that there is an intelligent designer involved .... in the absence of any evidence that such a "being" exists .... other than through misrepresenting reality - having looked you up on the web, I see that I am wasting my time having a "debate" - the federal court's 2005 evaluation of the Discovery Institute says it all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554380193446495718noreply@blogger.com