tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6691493112648188621..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Peak Fallacy: A Follow-Up on Nature Paper Proving A = AUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44038740648916783162011-07-20T14:47:43.150-07:002011-07-20T14:47:43.150-07:00Tedford the Idiot said...
Scott said, "I...<i>Tedford the Idiot said...<br /><br /> Scott said, "Instead, our current best explanation as to why we haven't observed a flying squirrel fly to the the height of an eagle is that flying squirrels lack the necessarily propulsion and flight control to do so."<br /><br /> --<br /><br /> ...and our current best explanation as to why we haven't observed origin of life or large change evolution is that natural processes alone lack the necessarily mechanisms to do so. </i><br /><br />No idiot. The reason why we haven't observed origin of life or large change evolution in real time is because such events take way longer, millions of years, for them to happen. <br /><br />The mechanisms have been empirically observed to work, have been demonstrated to be sufficient, and there is 150+ years of positive evidence the same mechanisms have been working for the last 3 billion years.<br /><br /><i>Bottom line.</i><br /><br />Real bottom line is you're a scientifically ignorant blowhard with a religious agenda to push. At least your relentless stupidity is entertaining.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8045910897162432912011-07-20T13:58:53.457-07:002011-07-20T13:58:53.457-07:00Scott said, "Instead, our current best explan...Scott said, "Instead, our current best explanation as to why we haven't observed a flying squirrel fly to the the height of an eagle is that flying squirrels lack the necessarily propulsion and flight control to do so."<br /><br />--<br /><br />...and our current best explanation as to why we haven't observed origin of life or large change evolution is that natural processes alone lack the necessarily mechanisms to do so. Bottom line.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10322307933389340132011-07-20T13:51:53.920-07:002011-07-20T13:51:53.920-07:00Tedford the Idiot said...
Now its your turn. ...<i>Tedford the Idiot said...<br /><br /> Now its your turn. Since you insist on getting a bit silly on the turtle on the fence post illustration. </i><br /><br />LOL! Keep squirming Tedford, it's hilarious! Simple fact is, you made a dumb claim (turtles can't climb) based on your own ignorance and had it come back to bite you on the butt. It's same combination of scientific ignorance and arrogance you exhibit in pretty much every one of your posts. Remember how you thought 'Mitochondrial Eve' data meant there was only one woman alive in the past?<br /><br />The Tedford the Idiot formula seems to be <br /><br />Woeful ignorance + ignoring scientific evidence + no reasoning ability + Fundy Creationist beliefs = GAWDDIDIT.<br /><br /><i>Show me a video of a turtle climbing unto a fence post. </i><br /><br />Show us a video of GAWD poofing animal 'kinds' into existence. Show us a video of Noah's Flood.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69708524074815929802011-07-20T13:13:01.342-07:002011-07-20T13:13:01.342-07:00Derick, let's close out the discussion on the ...Derick, let's close out the discussion on the old earth theologians. After a closer look, I feel it is not substantiated that Christian theologians were "old earth" creationists. Some did not hold to a literal 24 hour 6 day creation, but that can't be taken by default to mean they were old earth creationists either. So, I'll retract that. <br /><br />I take all views (old and young earth) with a grain of salt. It seems that many in both camps are convinced beyond a doubt. What I see, is that the Bible doesn't give a date of creation, so why force it into a dogma? The important thing for me is to see that the universe had a beginning and the evidence points to a Creator just as the Bible says.<br /><br />Now its your turn. Since you insist on getting a bit silly on the turtle on the fence post illustration. Show me a video of a turtle climbing unto a fence post. While canoeing I've seen plenty of turtles on rocks, branches, fallen trees, logs, and stumps. Of course, a fence and post could be constructed to accommodate turtles, but my simple illustration was dealing with real life. I actually had a wooden horse fence in mind, but kept the description brief. But in true evolutionary form you must bet on incomplete evidence (snapping turtles climbing a chain link fence = climbing onto a fence post with a bit of imagination). One must imagine it, rather than see it in reality. <br /><br />The evolutionary formula seems to be:<br /><br />Incomplete evidence + imagination + theology = confirmation of evolution as a settled fact<br /><br /><br />Regarding sea squirts, you said, "The short answer is that I'm not an expert on sea squirts, so I'm still researching this. "<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-genes-putting-theory-before.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41834807966473014882011-07-19T14:20:33.623-07:002011-07-19T14:20:33.623-07:00Neal Tedford: "Derick, yes, someone did manag...Neal Tedford: <i>"Derick, yes, someone did manage to mount a outboard motor on a van! You got me on that one!"</i><br /><br />Not that <i>one</i> Neal, but on essentially every example you put forth in that thread.<br /><br /><i>"Intelligent designers can be very creative."</i><br /><br />Yes they can. They can mix and match parts, destroying the ability to make anything even remotely resembling an objective nested hierarchy, like I showed with the iPod line. Intelligent Designers are usually not constrained such that their designs would fall into a hierarchical pattern, and most often don't<br /><br />"Both you and Zachriel were schooled in the fact that there does not exist within nature a unique and objective nested hierarchy"<br /><br />Funny. Schooled by the guy who claimed for months that iPods <i>could</i> be organized into an objective, best fit nested hierarchy? Even when shown dozens of times (using pretty pictures and charts, no less) that they couldn't?<br />I don't remember ever claiming that a perfect nested hierarchy could be reconstructed for all organisms. Could you provide a link to where I said that? I do remember saying that there was an <i>overall pattern.</i><br /><br /><i>"While you were looking back did you happen to recall that you were going to do some research on the sea squirt? How's that research coming along?"</i><br /><br />I don't ever recall making any claims regarding sea squirts. Refresh my memory by posting a link.<br /><br />And since we're trying to close out old conversations, I have been asking you about the names of those theologians for months now. Please answer that question, either by providing the names, or retracting the claim. (You don't even have to say "I was wrong when I made that statement," merely something like "That statement was unsubstantiated."<br /><br />Or you can squirm and evade. Actually, I'm just as amused by your rationalizations for saying stupid things as I am when you say stupid things in the first place.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91732955439736285192011-07-19T14:08:27.190-07:002011-07-19T14:08:27.190-07:00Neal: Scott, flying squirrels have been observed t...Neal: Scott, flying squirrels have been observed to glide from tree to tree. They can go airborne for short periods, so why not assume that they could fly to great heights with eagles?<br /><br />Neal, <br /><br />it's unclear that we can have a reasonable discussion on this topic without first addressing a number of assumptions which form the foundation of your approach to problem solving. <br /><br />In fact, it's not even clear that you're aware of these underlying assumptions or actually interested in solving problems in the first place. <br /><br />For example, your question is actually quite vague since it's unclear what you mean by 'assume' and 'observed.' Perhaps you mean to ask: could one justify the conclusion that flying squirrels can fly with eagles based on a series of past observations alone? <br /><br />If so, my response would be "No." This is due what is known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction" rel="nofollow">the problem of induction</a>. Specifically, Hume showed us that inductive reasoning is not a justifiable means to gaining knowledge. <br /><br />However, I'd note that this isn't just applicable to flying squirrels - it's applicable to all scientific claims, including that the earth exists in a heliocentric solar system, that objects follow laws of physics, etc. As such, the claim that we justify scientific conclusions based on inductive reassigning in science is actually a myth. <br /><br />Instead, we justify conclusions based on explanations. <br /><br />So, to return to your question, we lack an explanation as to how a flying squirrel would propel itself to the extent necessary to fly with eagles. Certainly, there could be some un-conceived explanation which might result in flying squirrels soaring to the heights of eagles on their own power in the future. Or it might have occurred in the past. But none exist at the moment. <br /><br />In other words, we lack a conceived explanation for how this would occur. <br /><br />Note that we haven't ruled this out with 100% certainty. Instead, our current best explanation as to why we haven't observed a flying squirrel fly to the the height of an eagle is that flying squirrels lack the necessarily propulsion and flight control to do so.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46450662946176758442011-07-19T14:01:34.950-07:002011-07-19T14:01:34.950-07:00Neal: "Derick, in your zeal to prove me wron...Neal: <i>"Derick, in your zeal to prove me wrong, you showed turtles climbing a chain link fence."</i><br /><br />Neal, do you not know how Google works? I showed that a simple search finds examples of not just turtles climbing chain link fences, but bricks, screen doors, plastic boxes, and various other objects. And I wasn't trying to 'prove you wrong', I was pointing out the erroneous way in which you ascribe agency; the flaws in your thinking that keep you from investigating alternate explanations for a given phenomena.<br /><br /> <i>"Not what I said. Read it again."</i><br /><br />Ok then. Let's all read it again. What you said was:<br /><br />Neal: <i>"Neal Tedford: "If I see a turtle on top of a <b>fence post</b> while I'm canoeing down a river on a nice sunny day, I assume someone put it there, <b>because I know the ability of turtles to climb.</b>" </i><br /><br />Apparently you didn't know that <b>turtles can climb fences.</b> Obviously, if a turtle could climb <i>over</i> a fence, it could climb <i>on to</i> a fence. (and juuuuust in case your objection was over something stupid like whether the fencepost was made out of metal or wood, I think that if turtles can climb up <a href="http://youtu.be/8hzPJxHbdFU" rel="nofollow">slippery, wet vertical rock walls,</a> <a href="http://vimeo.com/4485568" rel="nofollow">concrete posts,</a> and <a href="http://goo.gl/kpFkP" rel="nofollow">trees,</a> I don't think it's out of the question that one could manage an old wooden post.<br /><br />In other words, when you come across something unusual, instead of doing even the slightest amount of research or inquiry, you ascribe agency to it. <i>And then,</i> when it's pointed out to you that that's often a fallacious way of thinking, instead of conceding a simple point, you embarrass yourself by trying to squirm out of your own words.<br /><br />Your original comment, and the subsequent (unsuccessful) attempt to save face are perfect illustrations of the creationist mindset. Keep 'em coming.<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, if you see a turtle stuck on top of a piece of wood, climbing isn't the <a href="http://goo.gl/4IQ55" rel="nofollow">only explanation</a> either.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31249359447674794592011-07-19T13:36:53.164-07:002011-07-19T13:36:53.164-07:00Derick, yes, someone did manage to mount a outboar...Derick, yes, someone did manage to mount a outboard motor on a van! You got me on that one! Intelligent designers can be very creative.<br /><br />The ultimate point of that previous discussion was concerning nested hierarchies. Both you and Zachriel were schooled in the fact that there does not exist within nature a unique and objective nested hierarchy. While you were looking back did you happen to recall that you were going to do some research on the sea squirt? How's that research coming along?<br /><br />--<br /><br />Regarding this current discussion, as far as turtles climbing onto fence posts on their own accord I'm still waiting for your google search for that one. Your previous links were fun, but they failed the criteria I set.<br /><br />Your turn!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52624211797614055682011-07-19T13:08:24.152-07:002011-07-19T13:08:24.152-07:00Derick Childress said...
Thorton: "LOL! ...<i>Derick Childress said...<br /><br /> Thorton: "LOL! Another Tedford the Idiot OWN GOAL!"<br /><br /> Sometimes in the summer when all my favorite sitcoms are in reruns, I peruse through the archives here and read Neal's comments for amusement. My particular favorites are the ones where he uses the existence/nonexistence of things to make a point without an ounce of effort to see if those things exist or not.</i><br /><br />One of the things that makes Tedford so funny is that the blustering windbag has no idea just how clueless he is. A poster boy for Dunning-Kruger if ever there was one. Tedford just *knows* he's right with no training, no research - just blurts out whatever idiocy crosses his teeny Fundy mind that day.<br /><br />Like I said before - this blog is good for at least one FSTDT quote a week.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61298644110431389702011-07-19T13:00:32.916-07:002011-07-19T13:00:32.916-07:00Oh, and this one too.
....And what do you know, t...Oh, and <a href="http://goo.gl/k37B8" rel="nofollow">this one too.</a><br /><br />....And what do you know, that's the very same thread where you said:<br /><br />Neal Tedford: <i>"Old earth and Young earth interpretations of Genesis 1 both existed hundreds of years before Darwin."</i><br /><br />http://goo.gl/eeHuT<br /><br />Neal, that was <i>eight months ago</i> and I've been asking you ever since to either name those theologians who had an old earth interpretation of Genesis 1 in that period, or retract that claim. Which is it?Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57116463602072371722011-07-19T12:51:02.786-07:002011-07-19T12:51:02.786-07:00Thorton: "LOL! Another Tedford the Idiot OWN ...Thorton: "LOL! Another Tedford the Idiot OWN GOAL!"<br /><br />Sometimes in the summer when all my favorite sitcoms are in reruns, I peruse through the archives here and read Neal's comments for amusement. My particular favorites are the ones where he uses the existence/nonexistence of things to make a point without an ounce of effort to see if those things exist or not.<br /><br />One of my favorite threads: <a href="http://goo.gl/sPbfD" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://goo.gl/zhhSg" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />Neal, what a friend you have in Google.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78444686369169297622011-07-19T12:24:44.303-07:002011-07-19T12:24:44.303-07:00Derick, in your zeal to prove me wrong, you showed...Derick, in your zeal to prove me wrong, you showed turtles climbing a chain link fence. <br /><br />Not what I said. Read it again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70028577198657295162011-07-19T11:51:30.135-07:002011-07-19T11:51:30.135-07:00Neal Tedford: "Science is all about testing a...Neal Tedford: <i>"Science is all about testing assumptions and then ACCEPTING the results without bias."</i><br /><br />Oh, how I wish I could bottle and sell irony. I'd be a millionaire from Neal alone.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37142682821231828582011-07-19T11:50:07.044-07:002011-07-19T11:50:07.044-07:00Derick Childress said...
Neal Tedford: "...<i>Derick Childress said...<br /><br /> Neal Tedford: "If I see a turtle on top of a fence post while I'm canoeing down a river on a nice sunny day, I assume someone put it there, because I know the ability of turtles to climb." (emphasis mine)<br /><br /> Well, you don't know the ability of turtles to climb.<br /><br /> Snapping Turtle Climbs a Fence<br /><br /> Climbing Turtles<br /><br /> or if you want to get really specific;<br /><br /> Turtles Climbing fences<br /><br /> This is a perfect illustration of the creationist mindset: "If I can't immediately imagine an explanation for something, I assume an outside agency must have interfered; no matter how little I know about the subject or how sparsely I've researched it, if at all." (and believe me, it does not take long to type "turtle climbing" into a search bar)<br /><br /> Your statement would have been more accurately stated:<br /><br /> "If I see a turtle on top of a fence post while I'm canoeing down a river on a nice sunny day, I assume someone put it there, because I don't know how else it would have gotten up there, and I can't be bothered to spend 10 seconds investigating alternate explanations"</i><br /><br />LOL! Another Tedford the Idiot <b>OWN GOAL!</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22544518307707962982011-07-19T11:42:24.564-07:002011-07-19T11:42:24.564-07:00Neal Tedford: "If I see a turtle on top of a...Neal Tedford: <i>"If I see a turtle on top of a fence post while I'm canoeing down a river on a nice sunny day, <b>I assume someone put it there,</b> because I know the ability of turtles to climb."</i> (emphasis mine)<br /><br />Well, <b><i>you</i></b> don't know the ability of turtles to climb.<br /><br /><a href="http://youtu.be/zbhMtbTFSDs" rel="nofollow">Snapping Turtle Climbs a Fence</a><br /><br /><a href="http://goo.gl/aBTfU" rel="nofollow">Climbing Turtles</a><br /><br />or if you want to get really specific;<br /><br /><a href="http://goo.gl/tB8VZ" rel="nofollow">Turtles Climbing fences</a><br /><br />This is a perfect illustration of the creationist mindset: "If I can't immediately imagine an explanation for something, I assume an outside agency <i>must</i> have interfered; no matter how little I know about the subject or how sparsely I've researched it, if at all." (and believe me, it does <i>not</i> take long to type "turtle climbing" into a search bar)<br /><br />Your statement would have been more accurately stated:<br /><br /><i>"If I see a turtle on top of a fence post while I'm canoeing down a river on a nice sunny day, <b>I assume someone put it there,</b> because <b>I don't know how else it would have gotten up there, and I can't be bothered to spend 10 seconds investigating alternate explanations"</b></i>Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61115628138721213182011-07-19T10:45:20.003-07:002011-07-19T10:45:20.003-07:00Scott, flying squirrels have been observed to glid...Scott, flying squirrels have been observed to glide from tree to tree. They can go airborne for short periods, so why not assume that they could fly to great heights with eagles?<br /><br />Science is all about testing assumptions and then ACCEPTING the results without bias. So we run real time tests on flying squirrels and determine that their flying ability is limited to gliding short distances. <br /><br />Evolution is like this flying squirrel. When we see what evolution can do in real time observation, we see limited change. Period. Everything else is speculation. Evolutionists must bring in all the theological baggage to prop up their speculation. <br /><br />If I see a turtle on top of a fence post while I'm canoeing down a river on a nice sunny day, I assume someone put it there, because I know the ability of turtles to climb. We know the ability of proteins to evolve is greatly constrained. That's what we see. Everything else is speculation and assumption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76947645782404463772011-07-19T10:17:18.680-07:002011-07-19T10:17:18.680-07:00Cornelius Hunter seems to object to the claim that...Cornelius Hunter seems to object to the claim that the finding of the paper is evidence for common descent and I will try to clarify as far as I understand it what this objection might be.<br /><br />In the diffusion model common descent means that the diffusion started from a single point. In order to demonstrate that you can theoretically predict the distribution and then compare it to the experimental data. The distribution would be the sequence differences of the proteins. This is old stuff that has been done. What the guys in the paper did is that they calculated some kind of derivative of this distribution (the fluxes) and compared these. Now the question is how significant this is? <br /><br />Take for example data that fits to a function f(x) = x^2 reasonably well. Then the derivative of the data should fit to f(x) = 2x. But if we find that this is true is this really new evidence that the original function was correct?second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64295943256850564612011-07-19T08:48:31.004-07:002011-07-19T08:48:31.004-07:00Scott: "As such, Cornelius must be smuggling...Scott: "As such, Cornelius must be smuggling in some assumption in his argument, which he shares with his audience. "<br /><br />Absolutely. I've always been puzzled why CH is so quick to identify everybody elses metaphysical assumptions, yet cannot acknowledge the possibility of his own - even though he admits that he thinks it is more than probable that the Christian god is the "designer" (and has stated this on more than one occasion). For some reason he thinks he is immune to metaphysical influences, but has never explained how or why they would be so. I'd be interested to know by what process or mechanism he can be sure his own religious and metaphysical beliefs do not impact his science. Asserting it doesn't make it so. <br /><br />But CH seems curiously absent from these conversations nowadays; although he is regularly posting, but for some reason no longer chooses to respond to participate in the combox discussions.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69874517354836263032011-07-19T08:28:57.105-07:002011-07-19T08:28:57.105-07:00I wrote: Specifically, were does Cornelius put div...I wrote: Specifically, were does Cornelius put divine revelation on the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy?<br /><br />In case it's not clear... <br /><br />Since Cornelius' underlying objection is based on the fact that we cannot use induction to justify evolutionary theory, then he certainly cannot use induction to justify what is true revelation either. <br /><br />As such, Cornelius must be smuggling in some assumption in his argument, which he shares with his audience.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17364895404562414852011-07-19T08:14:35.584-07:002011-07-19T08:14:35.584-07:00While I'm glad Oleg is unpacking the details o...While I'm glad Oleg is unpacking the details of the paper, we can take a step back and put things into perspective. <br /><br />Cornelius' argument is really just a variant of the typical creationist objection against transitional fossils. We do not observe common ancestry in the relationship between fossils. We explain the very specific way fossils are related using common ancestry. <br /><br />To use an analogy, when someone admits a photograph into evidence, the photo isn't an observation of some event occurring. Instead, that the event depicted actually occurred is the best explanation for the existence of the photograph. <br /><br />However, given advances in digital imaging technology, it could be that the photograph was forged. Expert witness might be brought in to analyze the photograph for signs of tampering. Who had access to equipment necessary to perform such a forgery? Did they have the knowledge to use that equipment? What motive would they have? Etc. <br /><br />However, it could be that some yet to be discovered party with some yet to be discovered motive and some yet to be discovered new technology forged the photo in a way that is undetectable by the expert witness. For example, It could be that they used a supercomputer to re-dither the entire photo so it appeared seamless. Or perhaps thousands of frame of moving video. We'd be none the wiser. Nor can we rule this out with 100% certainty. <br /><br />We could say the same regarding eye witness testimony of clear and direct observations of events. Given advanced enough technology, such things could be forged as well by manipulating photons in real time or modifying the electrical impulses they are translated to before they reach the brain. It could be that some unknown party with some unknown motive and unknown technology actually performed such a forgery. We can't rule this out with 100% certainty either. However, given our current knowledge, our best explanation of such clear observations is that the event observed actually occurred. <br /><br />Yet this is exactly the sort of objection that Cornelius is making. <br /><br />Just as we do not observe common ancestry in relationship between fossils, we do not observe common ancestry in the particular relationship between proteins. His A = A is just a red-herring. Instead, the concussion of the paper is that common ancestry is the best explanation the particular relationships we observe. <br /><br />However, if all of biology was carefully and intentionally designed by a designer, then why do we observe the particular relationships found in the paper? Clearly, I can't be an accident since that's clearly counter to the core claim of ID. Nor is this particular pattern a necessarily outcome for an abstract designer who has not defined limitations. <br /><br />So, who is the forger? What is the motivation? How was the forgery performed? <br /><br />The best explanation we've heard from Cornelius is evolutionary thought is essentially supernatural collateral damage due to a supposed battle between cosmic good and evil that's supposedly ragging in our age. We've all been duped by forces of evil. But this hinges on the assumption that apocalyptic theodicy is true divine relation. <br /><br />How does Cornelius, or anyone else, know what represents true divine revelation, if anything? Specifically, were does Cornelius put divine revelation on the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38201780322637729362011-07-19T07:47:12.019-07:002011-07-19T07:47:12.019-07:00They have not yet reached complete equilibrium.
...They have not yet reached complete equilibrium. <br /><br />At the beginning of the diffusion process, all proteins are in the same state, so P_M is only nonzero for M=L. At the first step, there is only outflux from L to L-1. N_t/N_a is undefined for any distance. After L steps, all P_M are nonzero and you can defined the in and out fluxes. The in flux is still dwarfed by the out flux for any distance. <br /><br />After a long time, the numbers will equilibrate and the in and out fluxes will become equal. In the interim, as equilibrium is approached, you will have some distances where the in flux is still dominated by the out flux. <br /><br />When I have a chance, I will reproduce this numerically and post a figure.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16418727199609008002011-07-19T07:44:43.660-07:002011-07-19T07:44:43.660-07:00What we are witnessing here with evolutionary repl...What we are witnessing here with evolutionary replies is a prime example of not being able to see the forest because of the trees.<br /><br /><br />From the Sequence Space article, they say, "The need to maintain the structural and functional integrity of an evolving protein severely restricts the repertoire of acceptable amino-acid substitutions."<br /><br />Good observation!<br /><br />However, what makes this improbability, a certainty? .... Assuming evolution to be a fact. <br /><br />The article continues, "We formulate a computational approach to study the rate of divergence of distant protein sequences and measure this rate for ancient proteins, those that were present in the last universal common ancestor. We show that ancient proteins are still diverging from each other, indicating an ongoing expansion of the protein sequence universe. The slow rate of this divergence is imposed by the sparseness of functional protein sequences in sequence space and the ruggedness of the protein fitness landscape: approximately 98 per cent of sites cannot accept an amino-acid substitution at any given moment but a vast majority of all sites MAY EVENTUALLY be permitted to evolve when other, compensatory, changes occur. Thus, approximately 3.5 x 10(9) yr has not been enough to reach the limit of divergent evolution of proteins, and for most proteins the limit of sequence similarity imposed by common function may not exceed that of random sequences."<br /><br /><br />How do they know ancient proteins are still diverging from the last universal common ancestor? <br /><br />Because evolution is an ASSUMED fact and we have more proteins now than in some less complex organism that is assumed to be like the UNKNOWN last universal common ancestor.<br /><br />Why haven't we reached the limit of divergence? With evolution being an assumed fact, the slow rate of observed divergence is explained by neatly stowing it in the "need more time" evolutionary bucket.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26614327905563721862011-07-19T07:40:29.849-07:002011-07-19T07:40:29.849-07:00Of course it is. But my question was, how do you a...Of course it is. But my question was, how do you account for the fact that Nt<Na when D<15% for the nucleotides in fourfold-synonymous sites?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23429130458136577362011-07-19T07:30:16.162-07:002011-07-19T07:30:16.162-07:00In equilibrium, N_t=N_a for all distances.In equilibrium, N_t=N_a for <i>all</i> distances.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63826232337353380672011-07-19T07:22:26.693-07:002011-07-19T07:22:26.693-07:00I follow your calculations, Oleg (except I'm m...I follow your calculations, Oleg (except I'm missing a factor 1/N in your Nt and Na), but what do they predict about the D-value at which Nt=Na?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.com