tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5831120641587110472..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Ken Miller and Chromosome FusionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6281703612604088942012-07-23T08:25:15.869-07:002012-07-23T08:25:15.869-07:00bornagain77: the clear implications of the second ...<b>bornagain77</b>: <i>the clear implications of the second law contradicts Darwinian evolution.</i><br /><br />Then you shouldn't have any problems showing how the second law of thermodynamics contradicts neo-Darwinism. <br /><br />(Note to selves: Avoid trying to 'school' oleg in physics.)Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65146285482962283842012-07-23T01:38:36.291-07:002012-07-23T01:38:36.291-07:00Louis: Of course not. Otherwise it would falsify e...Louis: <i>Of course not. Otherwise it would falsify evolution. Right? Science by decree. We say crap is true, therefore it is.</i><br /><br />Yes, the discovery of the role of drift falsfied Darwin's theory. Evolutionary theory is being falsfied all the time. That's how science progresses.<br /><br />That is why evolutionary theory is so much vaster than it was in Darwin's day. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, Louis - decent hardworking scientists are way ahead of you, and have been, it seems, for several decades.<br /><br /><i>Please do not dismiss perfectly good science as "bovine excrement" until you at least understand the science.<br /><br />No thanks. I'm not particularly interested in gaining a thorough understanding of bovine excrement.</i><br /><br />I think this is what is known as self-pwnage.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69053003868482299942012-07-23T01:27:46.306-07:002012-07-23T01:27:46.306-07:00Louis As expected, the 'possibles' and the...Louis <i>As expected, the 'possibles' and the 'coulds' are liberally mixed into this pseudoscientific sauce.<br /><br />An entire species changed its chromosome count. Why? Because it could.<br /><br />The 46-chromosomers completely displaced the 48-chromosomers. Why? Because they could.<br /><br />The 46-chromosomers completely out-copulated the 48-chromosomers. Why? You got it. Because they could.<br /><br />Wow. The science in all this is intense. LOL.</i><br /><br />The problem here, Louis, appears to be that you don't understand enough biology to make sense of what I'm saying.<br /><br />Let's take a simpler example. Let's say that you have a novel mutation. You almost certainly have a great many, but we will call this one L. For Louis.<br /><br />Nobody in the world has ever had this sequence before you. L does nothing, however, has no effect on you at all.<br /><br />But you have several children, and half of them inherit L.<br /><br />They have children, and half of those inherit L.<br /><br />Many future generations go by. Your line flourishes, because you are a fine man, and you have good genes. Some of your descendents marry each other, and some of their children have LL (inheriting L from both parents).<br /><br />Now, L does nothing - is neither harmful nor beneficial. What happens to it? Well, there is a sporting chance, if the population is smallish, that it will die out completely. there is also a sporting chance that eventually everyone in the population will have two copies of L, especially, if, as I said, you are a fine figure of a man, and your descendents tend to be particularly virile.<br /><br />Let's say that the second thing happens - there comes a generation when everyone has two copies of LL. We say that L has "fixated" in the population<br /><br />We do not say that the non-L bearers have "gone extinct". They are no more "extinct" than the L bearers of the past, i.e. are merely dead. They have left lots of descendents in the population, it's just that all their descendents are also Louis's.<br /><br />It's not that the non-L bearers were out-copulated. They've been copulating just fine. It's just that they've been copulating with L bearers, and it's just turned out that their L bearing children have outnumbered the non-L bearing children.<br /><br />This is all standard population genetics.<br /><br />Now, substitute a fused chromosome for L. Add in the interesting factor that fused chromosome bearers whill be rather more fertile when mated with othe fused chromosome bearers than when mated with non-fused-chromosome bearers.<br /><br />This means that while initially, being a fused-chromosome bearer was slightly deleterious in itself (although may well have been compensated by the otherwise excellent genes borne by the original fused-chromosome bearer), as the fused-chromosome is propagated through the population, it <i>it becomes less deleterious</i> because the environment has changed, simply by virtue of their now being more fused-chromosome bearers, with whom mating is more fecund.<br /><br />Yet again you have dismissed the science without understanding it. Understand first, then criticise. Doing it the other way round makes you look a bit silly.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34106143030955598502012-07-22T21:55:35.653-07:002012-07-22T21:55:35.653-07:00A Masters in excrement, minor in bovineA Masters in excrement, minor in bovinevelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38128436974670814812012-07-22T19:15:39.581-07:002012-07-22T19:15:39.581-07:00excuse me Thornton,
I meant,,,
No I wrote that t...excuse me Thornton,<br /><br />I meant,,,<br /><br />No I wrote that the <b>clear implications</b> of the second law contradicts <b>Darwinian evolution</b>.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56626106747406231522012-07-22T18:43:58.704-07:002012-07-22T18:43:58.704-07:00Liddle, I am not going to ask you what flavor of &...Liddle, I am not going to ask you what flavor of "evolution" we are talking about hear. We all know without going down another dozen rabbit trails. <br /><br />I know enough biology, biochemisty, genetic science etc. to recognize how incomplete your knowledge of living organisms and systems must be. Your arguments on this blog are trivial and actually specious much of the time. Actual empirical evidence in the sciences continue to demonstrate how bankrupt the traditional theory of evolution is.<br /><br />"and thinking that all you need is half a brain is asking for trouble." Seems to me having a full brain may cause problems at times as well. Apparently there are some reasonably intelligent people who are extremely gullible.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86483172736125238302012-07-22T18:31:29.059-07:002012-07-22T18:31:29.059-07:00batspit77
No I wrote that the clear implications ...<i>batspit77<br /><br />No I wrote that the clear implications of the second law contradicts the second law.</i><br /><br />Wow batspit77. Amazingly, you figured out a way to make your blithering incoherence be even <b>more</b> incoherent.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19032027076673512432012-07-22T18:22:43.302-07:002012-07-22T18:22:43.302-07:00"Clear implications" of the second law? ..."Clear implications" of the second law? Could you be a little more specific? What are they? Can you obtain them from the standard formulations of the 2nd law?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20880675607891556942012-07-22T18:18:29.265-07:002012-07-22T18:18:29.265-07:00No I wrote that the clear implications of the seco...No I wrote that the <b>clear implications</b> of the second law contradicts the second law. For you to hold that biology is somehow immune to the universal effects of entropy is a VERY extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary evidence (such as real time proof of Darwinian evolution!). This is not hard to understand and would stop ID dead in its tracks as far as rigorous empirical science is concerned. You simply have ZERO empirical evidence and are playing silly games because you know you can't defend from empirics! But such is the disconnect from reality we have come to expect from atheists!<br /><br />Since you will not provide proof, nor be honest with the proof provided to you, and will only play silly games just to avoid the clear implications of the second law, This is my last post to you on the subject. The last ad hominem insulting Christian theists is all yours.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63623418156167676112012-07-22T17:58:54.825-07:002012-07-22T17:58:54.825-07:00Louis Savain
Where is the science in this pile of...<i>Louis Savain<br /><br />Where is the science in this pile of crap? Having 47 chromosome does not give an individual an evolutionary advantage over the rest of the population. The extant apes are proof that having 48 normal chromosomes works fine. Gorillas and chimps are powerful beasts.</i><br /><br />If 24 pairs of chromosomes works just fine, what is your explanation for why the Magic Designed gave humans only 23 pairs including the fused ones? I thought your "intelligent" Designers reused what worked and didn't reinvent the wheel. Why did we get the fused set?<br /><br />Have you ever looked at the chromosome count for equines? Horses have 64 chromosomes, donkeys have 62 chromosomes, while different zebra species have between 44 and 32 chromosomes. Why is that Louis? <br /><br />Do you have a supportable ID explanation for the observed widely different chromosome numbers?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2465947296888468062012-07-22T17:14:23.348-07:002012-07-22T17:14:23.348-07:00ba77: No oleq, you are the one making the extraord...ba77: <i>No oleq, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that biology is somehow immune to the effects of entropy. i.e. <b>you actually have to show empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution</b>!!!</i> <br /><br />The sound of goal posts swooshing by! <br /><br />I have not made any claims, ba77. You <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/ken-miller-and-chromosome-fusion.html?showComment=1342969221762#c6929740821022261977" rel="nofollow">have</a>. You wrote that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts neo-Darwinism. It doesn't. No accepted formulation of the second law even mentions evolution. Therefore the burden is on you to establish the problem for neo-Darwinism. <br /><br />I don't have to establish anything until you make the connection between the 2nd law and neo-Darwinism. So far you haven't. You have pasted a bazillion irrelevant quotes, mentioned "genetic entropy" and black holes, but nothing whatsoever that links the 2nd law and neo-Darwinism. That's the breathtaking inanity we have come to expect from creationists.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6057375458311574142012-07-22T16:26:05.267-07:002012-07-22T16:26:05.267-07:00No oleq, you are the one making the extraordinary ...No oleq, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that biology is somehow immune to the effects of entropy. i.e. you actually have to show empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution!!!<br /><br />Good luck with that!<br /><br />Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit<br /><br />You laugh at the beliefs of YECs and yet you are the one who believes that the stunning levels of integrated complexity we find in life, that our best computer engineers and programmers can only dream of imitating, happens all by undirected random processes. I would laugh at the insanity of your delusional belief, but it is too sad for me for I realize you actually are a human, and thus reflects very badly on me that a fellow human could be so delusional as to believe such tripe!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58119128328505286442012-07-22T15:46:00.491-07:002012-07-22T15:46:00.491-07:00ba77, if you link to another YEC site I am going t...ba77, if you link to another YEC site I am going to die of laughter and you will win by default. No fair.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73380960555306734882012-07-22T15:38:42.493-07:002012-07-22T15:38:42.493-07:00How well do you know mainstream science, Louis, to...How well do you know mainstream science, Louis, to make such grand pronouncements? What's your scientific expertise?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30528661970372533412012-07-22T15:36:01.837-07:002012-07-22T15:36:01.837-07:00ba77: Okie Dokie please show me your exact empiric...ba77: <i>Okie Dokie please show me your exact empirical evidence that entropy, in the form of Genetic Entropy is not true</i> <br /><br />First, you need to explain what "genetic entropy" is and how it is related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. No copying and pasting. Use your own words. Show all your work. :)oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63885794138434488382012-07-22T15:32:55.281-07:002012-07-22T15:32:55.281-07:00Genetic drift, my foot. There is no reason other t...Genetic drift, my foot. There is no reason other than the usual speculative BS that the 48-chromosome humans disappeared from the earth.<br /><br /><i>So declare mainstream science to be crap without understanding it. Ho hum.</i><br /><br />Mainstream science has always been full of crap. What else is new?Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31544966994941374682012-07-22T15:21:08.099-07:002012-07-22T15:21:08.099-07:00"ba77: oleq, you are the one making the extra..."ba77: oleq, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that the second law does not hold for biology!<br /><br />I am not." <br /><br />and round you go chasing your tail,, Okie Dokie please show me your exact <b>empirical evidence</b> that entropy, in the form of Genetic Entropy is not true and that evolution , as in overcoming that cliff wall of slightly detrimental mutations, is true. I've already listed several cites for my side, convincing proof for your side that entropy does not hold for biology would look something like perhaps a single functional protein being generated by purely material processes (for a bare minimum start as to establishing your basis in science!)!<br /><br />notes:<br /><br />Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis - Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.<br />Excerpt: A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.<br />http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html<br /><br />Good luck with all that olegbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71493639575685387472012-07-22T15:05:51.302-07:002012-07-22T15:05:51.302-07:00Louis: Of course not. Otherwise it would falsify e...Louis: <i>Of course not. Otherwise it would falsify evolution. Right? Science by decree. We say crap is true, therefore it is.</i> <br /><br />You didn't understand what Liz was referring to. Genetic drift. <br /><br /><i>No thanks. I'm not particularly interested in gaining a thorough understanding of bovine excrement.</i> <br /><br />So declare mainstream science to be crap without understanding it. Ho hum.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7044003820295573892012-07-22T15:02:09.818-07:002012-07-22T15:02:09.818-07:00Liddle:
A novel DNA feature does not have to be a...Liddle:<br /><br /><i>A novel DNA feature does not have to be advantageous to go to fixation in a population.</i><br /><br />Of course not. Otherwise it would falsify evolution. Right? Science by decree. We say crap is true, therefore it is.<br /><br /><i>Please do not dismiss perfectly good science as "bovine excrement" until you at least understand the science.</i><br /><br />No thanks. I'm not particularly interested in gaining a thorough understanding of bovine excrement.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91676728300081390272012-07-22T14:54:07.921-07:002012-07-22T14:54:07.921-07:00Me:
We're talking about the humans who suppos...Me:<br /><br /><i>We're talking about the humans who supposedly descended from the common ancestor of both chimps and humans. Those humans had 48 chromosomes just like the chimps and the gorillas. </i><br /><br />Liddle:<br /><br /><i>How do you know? It's possible that the fusion happened a substantial while after the divergence, and that a second divergence occurred, one with the 48 chromosomes, and one with the 46, the first going extinct. But possible not - the fused chromosome could simply have gone to fixation within the one lineage.</i><br /><br />As expected, the 'possibles' and the 'coulds' are liberally mixed into this pseudoscientific sauce.<br /><br />An entire species changed its chromosome count. Why? Because it could.<br /><br />The 46-chromosomers completely displaced the 48-chromosomers. Why? Because they could.<br /><br />The 46-chromosomers completely out-copulated the 48-chromosomers. Why? You got it. Because they could.<br /><br />Wow. The science in all this is intense. LOL.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49929904651218363372012-07-22T14:53:06.291-07:002012-07-22T14:53:06.291-07:00ba77: oleq, you are the one making the extraordina...ba77: <i>oleq, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that the second law does not hold for biology! </i> <br /><br />I am not. <br /><br />ba77: <i>Everyone of us is growing old and dying due to the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations in our cells. This is a undeniable fact. Everyone can see the effects of entropy intimately because we are each personally living through the effects of entropy on own material bodies. </i> <br /><br />This has nothing to do with entropy. <br /><br />ba77: <i>Your denial of this plain 'common sense' fact that is painfully apparent to the majority of common sense Americans who don't buy your Darwinian hogwash, is clear evidence of the levels of denial, and imagination, that neo-Darwinists will resort just so as to protect their atheism.</i> <br /><br />"Common sense" does not equal science. Decay of biological material has nothing to do with entropy. It's a popular misconception. <br /><br />So we're back to Square 1. You can't get from the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the impossibility of neo-Darwinism in a logical way. There is simply no path. You have to invoke a silly caricature of the 2nd law in order to do that. So garbage in, garbage out. <br /><br />And stop calling me "oleq."oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90772840196414064772012-07-22T14:28:44.970-07:002012-07-22T14:28:44.970-07:00oleq, you are the one making the extraordinary cla...oleq, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that the second law does not hold for biology! The plain fact is that you have provided ZERO empirical evidence that entropy does not hold for biology whereas I provided many links and cites pointing out that genomes are in a long slow process of degeneration just exactly as would be expected if the law did hold! Moreover, This following comment of yours is simply ludicrous:<br /><br />"Furthermore, it is silly to appeal to "your own eyes" on questions like a change in entropy."<br /><br />Everyone of us is growing old and dying due to the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations in our cells. This is a undeniable fact. Everyone can see the effects of entropy intimately because we are each personally living through the effects of entropy on own material bodies. Your denial of this plain 'common sense' fact that is painfully apparent to the majority of common sense Americans who don't buy your Darwinian hogwash, is clear evidence of the levels of denial, and imagination, that neo-Darwinists will resort just so as to protect their atheism. Clue for you, the answer to this inescapable 'death dilemma' that entropy presents personally to each of us is behind door #1 oleq!<br /><br />John 10:9<br />I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. <br /><br />John 11:26<br />and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"<br /><br />Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video)<br />http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNXbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11991614769251381402012-07-22T14:24:25.212-07:002012-07-22T14:24:25.212-07:00bpragmatic, you don't seem to know much about ...bpragmatic, you don't seem to know much about evolutionary science.<br /><br />I suggest you learn something about it before you pass judgement on it.<br /><br />You need to have more than half a brain to understand this stuff, and thinking that all you need is half a brain is asking for trouble.<br /><br />It's not difficult, but it does require study, and a willingness to learn.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84420468236838546622012-07-22T14:21:24.383-07:002012-07-22T14:21:24.383-07:00In any case, even if the fused chromosome had prov...In any case, even if the fused chromosome had proved advantageous, your question amounts to "why are there still monkeys?"Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18406691496099263142012-07-22T14:19:35.513-07:002012-07-22T14:19:35.513-07:00Louis, you need to update your knowledge of evolut...Louis, you need to update your knowledge of evolutionary theory.<br /><br />A novel DNA feature does not have to be advantageous to go to fixation in a population.<br /><br />It can even neutral, or even slightly deleterious and still do so. <br /><br />Or it can be linked to a feature that does confer an advantage.<br /><br />Please do not dismiss perfectly good science as "bovine excrement" until you at least understand the science.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.com