tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3930947385157461635..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: A Sound of Thunder: Another Fundamental FailureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24292804084296209302010-04-12T13:07:52.420-07:002010-04-12T13:07:52.420-07:00Cornelius: "No, this is not part of evolution...Cornelius: "No, this is not part of evolutionary theory. Please see..."<br /><br />It would be more convincing if you provided an external source rather than your own assertions. In other words, who also shares your assertion?<br /><br />Besides, it is surprisingly easy to find papers that contradict your assertion, e.g.,<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5919/1347TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41050758156813109092010-04-12T12:39:06.763-07:002010-04-12T12:39:06.763-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68082814657487220032010-04-12T08:43:52.983-07:002010-04-12T08:43:52.983-07:00Timcol62:
=====
Cornelius: ""the non ev...Timcol62:<br /><br />=====<br />Cornelius: ""the non evolutionary concept of environmental pressures inducing biological change"<br /><br />My response is the same as Uno above, which is basically "huh"? Like others I thought environmental pressure was a standard and accepted part of evolutionary theory. So this is a very surprising stateemnt.<br />=====<br /><br /><br />No, this is not part of evolutionary theory. Please see:<br /><br /><br />http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variationCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1558160145982410512010-04-12T08:32:43.445-07:002010-04-12T08:32:43.445-07:00Cornelius: ""the non evolutionary concep...Cornelius: ""the non evolutionary concept of environmental pressures inducing biological change"<br /><br />My response is the same as Uno above, which is basically "huh"? Like others I thought environmental pressure was a standard and accepted part of evolutionary theory. So this is a very surprising stateemnt. <br /><br />But looks like Cornelius has moved on to new posts (his strategy appears to be that if you throw enough stuff at the wall, maybe some of it will stick) - so is unlikely to answer this. But maybe he'll surprise us.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34692744070484999262010-04-10T16:30:20.692-07:002010-04-10T16:30:20.692-07:00Cornelius:
"What I can't wrap my head a...Cornelius: <br /><br />"What I can't wrap my head around is why you think that I think it disproves evolution. Did I write that? No. Have I say that somewhere else? No. Did I say that about some other falsified prediction? No.<br /><br />Why is it that evolutionists consistently make false attributions?"<br /><br />Because when you're advocating the suppression of dissent of opinion on non-testable hypotheses (as most ID opponents do), you need to give the impression you actually know what you're talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22114316708619489152010-04-09T15:31:14.639-07:002010-04-09T15:31:14.639-07:00I understand that yuo can mate different breeds of...I understand that yuo can mate different breeds of dogs together, including a chihuaha and a great dane if you can manage the mechanics, and after few genrations you get a dog that looks like a coyote. Unless I am mistaken this is the origin of pariah dogs, dingoes, Canaan dogs, etc, feral dogs that live near human settlements and interbreed.laugh out loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10625004850193376526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83895072723604631102010-04-09T15:17:02.196-07:002010-04-09T15:17:02.196-07:00Robert:
====
Maybe instead of "but I can'...Robert:<br /><br />====<br />Maybe instead of "but I can't wrap my head around how you think it disproves evolution" should have said "but I can't wrap my head around how you think it disproves a fundamental prediction of evolution"<br />====<br /><br /><br />The state of denial of evolutionists is amazing. That this disproves a fundamental prediction of evolution is not even controversial. The predictions were made, and the evidence indicates otherwise. Only by creative reinterpretation of the obvious evidence can evolutionists maintain their denial.<br /><br />====<br />Sorry if these two statements are on opposite sides of an undefined line in the sand<br />====<br /><br />Undefined line? Robert, what you are doing here is typical of evolutionists. Evolution may not be predictable, but evolutionists are quite predictable. When one points out the scientific failures of evolution, evolutionists seem to respond, over and over, with the same strawman arguments.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40806088410836934362010-04-09T14:54:24.053-07:002010-04-09T14:54:24.053-07:00Robert wrote:
Small dogs have a mutation in IGF-1...Robert wrote:<br /><br /><i>Small dogs have a mutation in IGF-1. Less growth factor, less growth. These, and other changes are revealed by comparative genomics. And we keep getting told mutations don't do anything. Curious.</i><br /><br />I disagree, of course. The key word here is <b>random</b>. Think about it. A mutation in IGF-1 is not a *random* mutation. Why? Because a determined and patient animal breeder can repeat the breeding of chihuahuas from wolves over and over without difficulty. So it is obvious that variations in the IGF-1 gene is not random. The IGF-1 gene is certainly pre-programmed to vary from one canine specimen to the next, as is also the case in human beings. This is probably true of many genes. The breeder simply exploits this natural variability. Most genes will remain the same, however, for millions of years. Some organisms don't change at all for tens of millions of years.<br /><br />If mutations were truly random across the board, as Darwinists insist, you would see a lot more variations in every other genes and you would be able to turn a wolf into an egg-laying, venomous, cold-blooded, winged and feathered marsupial using selective breeding alone. I can tell you that it's not going to happen.<br /><br />Furthermore, it is not far-fetched to suppose that given enough generations, one can obtain wolves from chihuahuas by exploiting the variability in those genes that are designed from the beginning to vary.<br /><br />In fact, I remember reading a recent story about someone in Russia succeeding in breeding very tame foxes that acted more like domesticated dogs. When the tame foxes are placed back in the wild, they revert back to being wild after a few generations.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81378050252257853432010-04-09T14:10:25.175-07:002010-04-09T14:10:25.175-07:00Cornelius,
You stated:
"Regardless of how e...Cornelius,<br /><br />You stated:<br /><br />"Regardless of how evolution’s repeatability is explained, it falsifies a fundamental prediction of evolution."<br /><br />Maybe instead of "but I can't wrap my head around how you think it disproves evolution" should have said "but I can't wrap my head around how you think it disproves a fundamental prediction of evolution"<br /><br />Sorry if these two statements are on opposite sides of an undefined line in the sand, but with your lack of advocacy, your readers might be left with little to guide them away from such misunderstandings. <br /><br />Frank,<br /><br />It is a departure from reductionism. I do not consider consciousness of living things to be part of this discussion. I'm not arguing they consciously adapt-merely that the constraints at a systems level force common solutions to common problems.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38782142113824536802010-04-09T13:59:13.907-07:002010-04-09T13:59:13.907-07:00Robert, "the predictably of (emergent?) syste...Robert, "the predictably of (emergent?) systems processes under related pressure" is a departure from strict physicalism when it concerns the consciousness of living things.Franck Barfetyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12507695437618511434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27259252189754731742010-04-09T11:56:18.058-07:002010-04-09T11:56:18.058-07:00Robert:
"but I can't wrap my head around...Robert:<br /><br />"but I can't wrap my head around how you think it disproves evolution"<br /><br />What I can't wrap my head around is why you think that I think it disproves evolution. Did I write that? No. Have I say that somewhere else? No. Did I say that about some other falsified prediction? No.<br /><br />Why is it that evolutionists consistently make false attributions?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5814910585073390632010-04-09T09:59:18.178-07:002010-04-09T09:59:18.178-07:00Louis-
"What I would like to know is what ro...Louis-<br /><br />"What I would like to know is what role did random mutations play in obtaining a chihuahua from a wolf? Apparently none."<br />Actually, the precise opposite is true. <br /><br />Small dogs have a mutation in IGF-1. Less growth factor, less growth. These, and other changes are revealed by comparative genomics. And we keep getting told mutations don't do anything. Curious. <br /><br />http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000310<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5821/112<br /><br />As for the post, the "non evolutionary concept of environmental pressures inducing biological change" is where this all hinges. Selection is now not part of natural selection? Are you surprised populations adapt in similar ways under similar environmental pressure? (Convergent evolution much)? This is why homoplasy, in related populations, makes a strong argument for common descent. Similar genome, similar developmental processes, under pressure, yield similar results. More elegantly stated here:<br />doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.11.010<br /><br />Conway's proposal that evolution might be predictable is interesting, but I can't wrap my head around how you think it disproves evolution. Like him, Rainey and others have seen constraints on evolution-such that under pressure, certain traits inevitably evolve, but only taking a few paths. But no magic, no design. This is just the added selection of making evolution work at a systems level.<br /><br />http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/rainey/phenotypic_diversity.shtml<br /><br /><br />I suppose then, that the real question for you design types is whether the tape replays itself on the molecular level. After all, Conway isn't suggesting ID* or front-loading, merely the predictably of (emergent?) systems processes under related pressure. (Unless ID/Creationism decides the designer only intends outcomes, but doesn't care about paths. This basically is theistic evolution then, no?)<br /><br />For the frogs, I'd be curious if these populations really evolved the same way at the genomic level, or whether their phenotypes just look similar. <br /><br />In any case, random mutations (duplications, rearrangements, bacterial hedging) create genetic diversity, which when subjected to similar environmental conditions produce phenotypically similar results. <br /><br />Not terribly heretical. <br /><br />*"misappropriation by the proponents of the scientific fiction referred to as ‘intelligent design"<br />http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1537/133.fullRobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33083584910244747262010-04-09T09:29:59.382-07:002010-04-09T09:29:59.382-07:00Canines have always been canines.
The evolutionary...Canines have always been canines.<br />The evolutionary barrier appears to be at the taxonomic family level (or very near). Variations occur abundantly but never outside the original family.<br /><br />There is no evidence, anywhere, that any taxonomic family has ever evolved into another very different family.<br /><br />The chihuahua? It is still a dog.<br /><br />Deliberate breeding of dogs by humans over many thousands of years tells us the above in no uncertain terms. <br /><br />You will never get anything but a dog from a dog. You may, as we have through selective breeding, get all sorts of sizes and shapes - but they will always be dogs and not bats or cows. <br />Every attempt at inter-family breeding results in deformities, sterile singularities or nothing at all.<br /><br />Yet we're supposed to believe that mindless nature, without trying and by mere mutations (bugs in DNA code) + selection has created, from some unknown and unknowable yet perfectly fit LUCA, all estimated 13 million plus species on earth!<br /><br />Amazing credulity is required to swallow such inane codswallop.<br /><br />It looks designed because it is. This is far more scientifically credible and logical than the Darwinian fairy tales.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91640032139971857352010-04-09T06:45:45.652-07:002010-04-09T06:45:45.652-07:00Savain: "The genetic material in the chihuahu...Savain: "The genetic material in the chihuahua has been in the canine species from the beginning" Got any proof for this huge statement?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14434055548292353344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14755826782763409452010-04-09T03:42:43.883-07:002010-04-09T03:42:43.883-07:00What I would like to know is what role did random ...What I would like to know is what role did random mutations play in obtaining a chihuahua from a wolf? Apparently none. Selection without mutation can produce extreme evolution, natural or not. The genetic material in the chihuahua has been in the canine species from the beginning. A lot of what is passed as proof of Darwinian evolution is bogus.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46755283459349989502010-04-09T01:54:42.235-07:002010-04-09T01:54:42.235-07:00"the non evolutionary concept of environmenta..."the non evolutionary concept of environmental pressures inducing biological change"<br /><br />Huh? Isn't environmental pressure the basis of natural selection??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com