The continued confusion of Casey Luskin

| 118 Comments

In other words, the flagellar machine itself indicates that it did not arise by a random and unguided process like Darwinian evolution, but rather arose by a non-random and intelligently directed process such as intelligent design.

Source: Evolution News Blog, Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 1)

Let’s carefully analyze this statement. What is intelligent design? It is the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. In other words, that which remains when science cannot explain how something arose via processes of regularity and chance. In other words, Luskin basically describes the definition of design. However, in order to reach a true design inference, one has to take the step towards agency. It is in that step where ID fails miserably, and even though ID proponents like Dembski warned about confusing design with agency, Luskin seems to not have gotten the memo.

Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, “even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency” (TDI, 227, my emphasis).

Source: Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory, The American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611

As Elsberry has shown, given Dembski’s logic, natural selection matches his definition of an intelligent designer. Once again we notice how ID fails to distinguish between apparent and actual design.

And since ID refuses to propose positive hypotheses, it is thus doomed to be unable to deal with the issue of apparent versus actual design in any scientifically relevant manner.

Now I understand why ID takes a ‘principled’ stance on avoiding to identify its designer

Dembski explains:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

And that is why Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous.

Just ask yourself, how does ID explain the bacterial flagella? It doesn’t. And since science has provided scientific pathways, ID needs to show that these explanations fail their explanatory filter before they can infer ‘design’. Merely claiming that science’s explanation is insufficient, does not resolve the issue.

To recap, ID uses a very minimal definition of ‘design’ which does not even address the issue of agence, as Del Ratzsch points out

“I do not wish to play down or denigrate what Dembski has done. There is much of value in the Design Inference. But I think that some aspects of even the limited task Dembski set for himself still remains to be tamed.” “That Dembski is not employing the robust, standard, agency-derived conception of design that most of his supporters and many of his critics have assumed seems clear.

Del Ratzsch Nature design and science

In other words, the real reason ID refuses to identify its designer is because it lacks the tools to infer ‘agency’, all ID can claim is ‘design’ but that’s just admitting that science has not found an explanation. Remember that complexity is just the negative base to logarithm of the probability that the system arose via a particular natural pathway. So if a natural, intelligently designed, pathway can be found, the probability will be close to one and the complexity will disappear, countering the design inference. It thus seems self evident that the concept of design as defined by ID is one or more of the following

1. The empty set 2. Our ignorance 3. The supernatural

In addition to these equivocations on terminology, ID also uses such words as ‘unguided’. But what does unguided mean in the case of evolution where selective processes as well as boundary conditions and other constraints do in fact ‘guide’ the processes. To argue that evolutionary processes are random and unguided may be rhetorically powerful but hardly principled.

Now remember what Dembski said about intelligently directed processes

The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities.

But directed contingency is exactly the outcome of evolutionary processes. Once again, the step from detecting design to inferring agency falls short of its promises.

And this is why ID fails, scientifically to be relevant, it just has redefined design to be our ignorance and hopes that its supporters will fail to see the flaws and jump to a principled inference of a Designer, which we all know is the Christian God. To devout Christians such a jump is almost intuitive and thus they may not notice the scientific flaws.

Once you understand the logical flaws underlying the ID argument, any claims that ID does not identify the designer are true and are also why ID remains scientifically irrelevant. Thus any initiatives to have ID taught in school are founded on other reasons or motivations than scientific ones. And thus we return to the Wedge document which outlines the true motives of introducing ID into public schools.

Teach the controversy I say.

And anytime you hear that ID has made a particular prediction, you know now that it cannot be founded on the principle of the explanatory filter and thus ID has to appeal to secondary sources for its so called predictions. Most of the time, these secondary sources are found to be religious in nature. Such as the claim that ID predicted that Junk DNA would have some function. This is a ‘prediction’ which cannot logically follow from ID first principles and thus has to have a secondary source. This source is quickly identified as Christianity; the idea that a Creator would not create wastefully.

118 Comments

A question arises for IDolators based upon this strongly logical analysis. When the “design inference” and “complexity” negate one another, then what’s left?

I personally can’t see anything remaining but the conclusion that “intelligent design” is a rhetorical device. Is there something I’m missing in the product of this negation?

(Note: quotes are used above because the terms are used in an idosynchratic manner)

And yet, the Discovery Institute continues to react with great aghast whenever someone points out that Intelligent Design isn’t science.

PvM, your logic is powerful, but I suspect it may be too subtle for our regular trolls. Prepare to be quote-mined.

When the “design inference” and “complexity” negate one another, then what’s left?

“The Logos theology of the Gospel of John restated in the idiom of Information Theory.”

Nigel D:

PvM, your logic is powerful, but I suspect it may be too subtle for our regular trolls. Prepare to be quote-mined.

I’d love to be quote mined. What better opportunity than that to show the vacuity of the opponent’s arguments?

PvM: I… love… the opponent’s arguments

“Your logic was impeccable, Captain, we are in grave danger.”

I’d.. love… better… arguments.

This is fun!!!

All Science So Far!!!

I’d..love…better..opponents

by creationist rules you /are/ allowed to insert words of your own choice, but that’s only if you’re playing in Easy mode, and is disallowed in tournament quote mining. However skilled players can achieve almost the same result with the square brackets. which ruleset are we playing here?

science cannot explain how something arose via processes of regularity and chance.

PvM once again author a post criticizing the very core of evilutionism.

[Hah! My pub-jack beats quote-mining and word insertion every time. *And* I get an extra afterlife.]

PvM Wrote:

Just ask yourself, how does ID explain the bacterial flagella? It doesn’t.

Not only does ID refuse to explain it in terms of a rough, testable outline of how the first one might have formed, they refuse to even say approximately when the first flagellum appeared, or whether the organism that possessed it was a direct descentant of a flagellum-free organism or arose by abiogenesis (Behe at least indirectly admits the former). In fact, I have yet to see an IDer give a straight answer as to whether the first flagellum was indeed the product of a design actuation event.

Hmmm, No predictions from ID,,scientifically vacuous? Is that really right or is to proud to admit evolution is empirically bankrupt?,,,HMMMM,,,I think you guys may find the following a little uncomfortable.

Edge of Evolution I found to be amazing. It presented a case history of a eukaryote (P.falciparum) that has replicated billions of trillions of times within a span of a few decades. More importantly this is one of the most well studied organisms in biology due to its huge toll on human lives. In the last decade we’ve gone beyond phenotype analysis of the bug and have completely sequenced its genotype. This represents the largest test of evolution that we can hope to observe. The result of random mutation + natural selection being given billions of trillions of opportunities to generate significant novel biological complexity was essentially nil. Except for biochemically (but medically important) trivial changes in genotype the bug went exactly nowhere. It’s still the same old P.falciparum as its great grandparents billions of trillions of generations removed. It neither progressed nor regressed in an evolutionary sense.

All the negative reviews I’ve read of EoE nitpick at minutae while dodging the big picture. The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing. In contrast the ID deniers tell us over and over that the same evolutionary mechanism (RM+NS), in orders of magnitude fewer generations, turned a lizard into a lemur. Of course that’s a wholly imaginary story because the transformation of reptiles into mammals took hundreds of millions of years so can’t be confirmed by genotype observation. All we have is phenotype evidence based on fossils. Clearly *something* caused the transformation from reptile to mammal but I’ve yet to see any reasonable explanation for the observed failure of P.faciparum to evolve while somehow the same mechanism with fewer opportunities is imagined to have caused reptiles to evolve into mammals. Non sequitur!

Did you catch this part: The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted.

Seems like this is a direct prediction from Dembski’s work on Conservation of Information and Behe’s work on Irreducible Complexity…

Or did evolution somehow predict no evolution occurring?

I think I missed that prediction from the ever flexible theory of “can’t be falsified” evolution.

Huh, isn’t it bizarre that a parasite which is adapted to humans and mosquitos, neither of which has changed much over the last hundred years, hasn’t changed radically? Let’s see, it’s evolved quite enough to make several of our medicines inoperative, but because it’s still well-adapted to its hosts, that supposedly tells against evolution.

Botchedagain77, your ignorance is appalling, and keeping with the Halloween theme, really a bit scary (thanks to your desire to impose nonsense upon a free society).

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations …

By my calculations, if P. falciparum has one generation per second (surely a trifle excessive) a billion trillion generations would take 31,688,087,814,029 years. Perhaps you might like to revise your estimate of the age of the Earth?

bornagain77:

All the negative reviews I’ve read of EoE nitpick at minutae while dodging the big picture. The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing.

Are you saying that a testable hypothesis for ID is “no species change over the course of time” ? Is that what you are implying, ‘cause if it is then ID has been falsified, we all know this is not true. Or are you saying that ID predicts that only some species will not change over time? Then how does ID account for the species that do?

And where did you get the idea that evolution says that every species must change ? Rates of change vary, all the way down to 0

SunSpiker:

bornagain77:

All the negative reviews I’ve read of EoE nitpick at minutae while dodging the big picture. The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing.

Are you saying that a testable hypothesis for ID is “no species change over the course of time” ? Is that what you are implying, ‘cause if it is then ID has been falsified, we all know this is not true. Or are you saying that ID predicts that only some species will not change over time? Then how does ID account for the species that do?

And where did you get the idea that evolution says that every species must change ? Rates of change vary, all the way down to 0

SunSpiker:

bornagain77:

All the negative reviews I’ve read of EoE nitpick at minutae while dodging the big picture. The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing.

Are you saying that a testable hypothesis for ID is “no species change over the course of time” ? Is that what you are implying, ‘cause if it is then ID has been falsified, we all know this is not true. Or are you saying that ID predicts that only some species will not change over time? Then how does ID account for the species that do?

And where did you get the idea that evolution says that every species must change ? Rates of change vary, all the way down to 0

Excellent response. Of course, when looking more detail at the falciparum, it did evolve, just not to the extent the creationists believe it should have. What a crock indeed.

Widespread use of antimalarial agents can profoundly influence the evolution of the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Recent selective sweeps for drug-resistant genotypes may have restricted the genetic diversity of this parasite, resembling effects attributed in current debates1, 2, 3, 4 to a historic population bottleneck. Chloroquine-resistant (CQR) parasites were initially reported about 45 years ago from two foci in southeast Asia and South America5, but the number of CQR founder mutations and the impact of chlorquine on parasite genomes worldwide have been difficult to evaluate. Using 342 highly polymorphic microsatellite markers from a genetic map6, here we show that the level of genetic diversity varies substantially among different regions of the parasite genome, revealing extensive linkage disequilibrium surrounding the key CQR gene pfcrt7 and at least four CQR founder events. This disequilibrium and its decay rate in the pfcrt-flanking region are consistent with strong directional selective sweeps occurring over only approx20–80 sexual generations, especially a single resistant pfcrt haplotype spreading to very high frequencies throughout most of Asia and Africa. The presence of linkage disequilibrium provides a basis for mapping genes under drug selection in P. falciparum

It presented a case history of a eukaryote (P.falciparum) that has replicated billions of trillions of times within a span of a few decades.

The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations

“billions of trillions”? That would be more than 10^21. i.e. something “beyond the edge of evolution” would have happened more than 10 times.

If you’re going to plagarise someone else, DaveScot is not a wise choice. We laughed at his hyperbole the first time.

Bob

Sorry, I couldn’t resist pointing out that Casey made have tipped his hand a bit regarding who the designer is when he wrote: “the structures themselves have no way of directly telling us whether the designer is Yahweh, Buddha, Yoda, or some other type of intelligent agency.” I hate to speculate on Mr Luskin’s views on the Star Wars films but the idea of the intelligent designer being a puppet was just too funny to pass up.

Okay, you can go back to arguing with bornagain77, (s)he doesn’t seem to understand what natural selection and being well adapted to your environment really mean.

I find it fascianting that Bornagain77 posted 2 hr after my comment 133609, yet ignored it even though it was the last post, in plain view. I would have expected at least an attempt at denail of my claims. I see no reply to SunSpiker’s 133638 either.

bornagain77:

Edge of Evolution I found to be amazing. It presented a case history of a eukaryote (P.falciparum) that has replicated billions of trillions of times within a span of a few decades. More importantly this is one of the most well studied organisms in biology due to its huge toll on human lives. In the last decade we’ve gone beyond phenotype analysis of the bug and have completely sequenced its genotype. This represents the largest test of evolution that we can hope to observe. The result of random mutation + natural selection being given billions of trillions of opportunities to generate significant novel biological complexity was essentially nil. Except for biochemically (but medically important) trivial changes in genotype the bug went exactly nowhere. It’s still the same old P.falciparum as its great grandparents billions of trillions of generations removed. It neither progressed nor regressed in an evolutionary sense.

Is that really true?

I wonder what your thoughts are on the chitinase that this organism uses to enter the mosquito midgut. There’s something very special about it that isn’t seen in any other chitinase, but I’m not going to tell you what it is other than it suggests significant adaptation and that the genetic sequence that produces the enzyme can otherwise be matched against a series of other Apicomplexans’ chitinases such that gradual change generated by mutation can absolutely be noted.

In fact, while we’re on the subject — since I have recently become a fellow fan of the Gregarines due to some research I’ve embarked upon — I wonder what your opinion is on the four Eugregarine series that are found in Tenebrio molitor and that they occupy different stadia during the insect’s life cycle. As you’ve got such a strong opinion on the subject of Plasmodia, you must already have looked into these things for yourself as opposed to simply accepting uncritically the opinion of the author of a mass market book that hasn’t gone through any sort of peer review.

If not, can I interest you in some very nice swamp land in Florida, cheap?

Probably not going to be bornagain78:

Edge of Evolution I found to be amazing. It presented a case history of a eukaryote (P.falciparum)

… and in spite of that Behe is supposed to be an expert in biochemistry he doesn’t know that his promoted case lacks the IFT protein system he claims functioning cilium requires.

Truly amazing.

It’s still the same old P.falciparum as its great grandparents billions of trillions of generations removed.

Neither you nor DaveScot can distinguish between replication of individuals and of generations. How are you two supposed to understand the first thing of biology?

And one may worry what else about sexual replication creationists don’t (want to) understand. Perhaps no more bornagain. [Sorry, it is your inappropriate handle - I couldn’t help myself. :-P]

Btw, where did you get the impression that functional traits need to change, except from your own strawman of the great chain of being? The flagella and cilia of our own cells is still the same old functional trait as its great grandparents many generations removed.

If you happen to find some sperm in some indefinite future, you can take a look under the microscope. [I’m sure the biologists here can help you with a fixation and perhaps staining technique for the view if it happens to be non-trivial.]

Torbjörn Larsson, OM:

If you happen to find some sperm in some indefinite future, you can take a look under the microscope.

Thanks for that image so early in my morning.

“Oh look… someone left some sperm lying around!”

Talk about bad housekeeping.

Once again, Bornagain77 aka Bond James Bond is displaying his ignorance and lack of rational thought for all the world to see.

Bornagain77 Wrote:

Hmmm, No predictions from ID,

Yes, that’s right, it makes no predictions.

Proving this wrong would be easy: supply me with a specific predition based on ID theory.

The fact that you’ve never done this suggests that you cannot.

,scientifically vacuous?

Yes, meaning ID has no scientific content. It is purely speculation, and not particularly logical speculation at that. Its only support comes from arguments from ignorance, arguments from personal incredulity, ill-informed and illogical attacks on modern evolutionary theory (MET) and non-sequiturs.

Again, proving this wrong would be easy: what is the scientific “theory” of ID?

Is that really right

Yes it is.

If you disagree, I have supplied two ways in which you can prove it wrong.

or is to proud to admit evolution is empirically bankrupt?,,,HMMMM,,

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Sometimes you crack me up.

MET is supported by more evidence than you can conceive of. There are more papers published in the scientific literature that, directly or indirectly, report evidence that supports MET than you’ve had hot dinners.

MET is as empirically healthy as it is possible for a scientific theory to be.

,I think you guys may find the following a little uncomfortable.

I’m quaking in my stylish-yet-affordable boots.

Edge of Evolution I found to be amazing.

Of this I have no doubt. I’m sure that anything comfirming your world view would amaze you, no matter how irrelevant to reality.

It presented a case history of a eukaryote (P.falciparum) that has replicated billions of trillions of times within a span of a few decades.

Oh, for goodness’ sake, just think about what you are saying, dimwit!

“Billions of trillions” is, as has been pointed out by others above, at least 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times (I chose 4 hexillion as opposed to 1 hexillion to be able to justify the plural for both “billions” and “trillions”). In a “few decades” (I’ll assume 5 decades for the purposes of illustration), that means more than 2 trillion generations per second.

This is quite clearly utterly ludicrous.

Don’t you know that the life cycle of P. falciparum requires stages in different hosts? Didn’t Behe mention that in his book?

If he did, you obviously weren’t paying it much attention.

If he didn’t, then he should have, because it is relevant.

More importantly this

More importantly than what? You haven’t made a point yet.

is one of the most well studied organisms in biology due to its huge toll on human lives.

It’s less studied than E. coli. Or zebrafish, mice, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, rats, frogs, chickens, Drosophila melanogaster, Arabidopsis thaliana, humans and several other organisms. What criteria do you use to claim it is “one of the most studied” organisms in biology?

In the last decade we’ve gone beyond phenotype analysis of the bug and have completely sequenced its genotype.

Big deal, we have scores or hundreds of genome sequences by now (unless you count viruses, in which case we have thousands).

This represents the largest test of evolution that we can hope to observe.

On what do you base this claim?

The largest tests of evolution have already happened: observation of natural selection in progress; discovery of the mechanism of inheritance; discovery of the mechanisms by which variation spontaneously arises; discovery of transitional forms in the fossil record.

The result of random mutation + natural selection being given billions of trillions of opportunities to generate significant novel biological complexity was essentially nil.

This is nonsense. Your numbers are way off.

In 50 years, P. falciparum might pass through 1000 generations (assuming an average of 20 per year, which I think may be a bit generous).

In that time, it has diversified into distinct sub-types. There are different mechanisms of resistance to the drugs we use.

Except for biochemically (but medically important) trivial changes in genotype the bug went exactly nowhere.

Who are you to decide what is or isn’t a trivial change? Some of those changes are significant biochemically as well as medically. What do you think the basis of anti-malarial therapy is? (Hint: it is biochemical).

How does this compare with the amount of change you would expect to see in less than 1000 generations?

Why would you expect to see a parasite evolving significantly faster than its hosts anyway? What benefit is there for a successful parasite to kill off its hosts?

It’s still the same old P.falciparum as its great grandparents

Not by any reasonable set of definitions, it isn’t.

billions of trillions of generations removed. It neither progressed nor regressed in an evolutionary sense.

MET makes no mention of “progress” or “regression”. It deals with ancestral and derived features, speciation and the mechanisms whereby they arise. What do you mean by these two new terms?

All the negative reviews I’ve read of EoE nitpick at minutae while dodging the big picture.

Except that they don’t. Behe’s core assumptions are wrong. He ignores (or tries to dismiss as “trivial”) relevant data, and his logic is faulty. Where are the minutiae in this set of criticisms?

If we were criticising his punctuation, then I could accept your assertion. That would be nit-picking at minutiae. All of the criticisms I have read of EoE deal with Behe’s core arguments, his faulty logic, his baseless dismissal of crucial data and his faulty premises.

The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing.

This is a lie.

Not only are your figures (and hence expectations) hopelessly off, but ID proponents have made no such predictions.

Of course, if I’m wrong, proving that would be easy. Supply the reference in which the prediction was published.

In contrast the ID deniers tell us over and over that the same evolutionary mechanism (RM+NS), in orders of magnitude fewer generations, turned a lizard into a lemur.

Strawman!

Not only is the exact number of generations not particularly relevant (what matters is the action of selection pressure, because sometimes, in the absence of selection pressure, an organism’s morphology will remain mostly unchanged for several hundred thousand generations), but your initial figures were so far off that the comparison is actually the other way around.

Additionally, your portrayal of the claims of MET are wrong. Go to Talk Origins and read up on vertebrate evolution.

You claim that lemurs arose from modern lizards. That is plain wrong.

The ancestral genera that gave rise to class Mammalia bore features that resemble the identifying features of both reptiles and mammals. Thus, it possessed very much a set of ancestral features, as opposed to derived features. It would have resembled a modern lizard no more than it resembles a modern lemur.

Of course that’s a wholly imaginary story

Supported by more evidence than you could understand.

because the transformation of reptiles into mammals

Same strawman. The ancestral organisms would have been transitional between primitive bony fish (their ancestors) and reptiles and mammals (their descendents).

took hundreds of millions of years

Where do you get this figure from?

It may have occurred over about 100 million years (part of the Permian and most of the Triassic), but that is still a huge amount of time.

so can’t be confirmed by genotype observation.

Aside from the fact that the descendents of those species (modern reptiles, birds and mammals) all have certain sets of genes in common, some of which are not shared by fish.

All we have is phenotype evidence based on fossils.

Which, in and of itself, is actually pretty convincing. Were you trying to make a point?

Clearly *something* caused the transformation from reptile to mammal

Yes, simply the fact that certain variations conferred an advantage. This is known as natural selection.

but I’ve yet to see any reasonable explanation for the observed failure of P.faciparum to evolve

This is not an observation, it is your claim, and it is wrong.

while somehow the same mechanism with fewer opportunities

Or, in fact, many hundred thousand times as many opportunities, because your figures were wrong.

is imagined to have caused reptiles to evolve into mammals. Non sequitur!

Haha! How very amusing that you accuse MET of logical flaws, but didn’t do something as simple as checking the figures on which your entire blather is based.

Did you catch this part: The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted.

Yes, I caught this part. It is the biggest lie of all.

No ID “theorist” (and there’s an oxymoron for you!) has ever made a specific prediction using the published tools of ID.

Seems like this is a direct prediction from Dembski’s work on Conservation of Information and Behe’s work on Irreducible Complexity…

Or possibly a complete fabrication.

Of course, proving me wrong weould be easy. Just supply the reference to the published prediction.

Or did evolution somehow predict no evolution occurring?

Now you are showing a severe lack of understanding of that which you attempt to criticise. MET allows for the rate of evolution to change in response to changing selection pressures. In fact, MET requires that the rate of evolution changes in response to changing environment and so forth.

Over 1000 generations, I would not expect to see large changes in a parasite that has a significantly shorter generation time than one of its required hosts. 50 years is barely 2 human generations. Humans will hardly change at all in that time. The only selection pressure on Plasmodium is that which we have applied by chemotherapy (such as chloroquinone). And, oh, look, it has evolved several differing levels and mechanisms of CQ resistance. Exactly as predicted from first principles by MET.

I think I missed that prediction from the ever flexible theory of “can’t be falsified” evolution.

Probably because you weren’t paying attention. Or didn’t understand. Or dismissed it because it did not fit your world view.

Bornagain77, your scholarship is abysmal. You logic is poor. Your lack of understanding of that which you criticise (MET) is unforgivable. Go away and learn some biology.

You guys ought to write a new children’s book!

I’ll take this last quote from Nigel; . And, oh, look, it has evolved several differing levels and mechanisms of CQ resistance. Exactly as predicted from first principles by MET…

Hmm,,, it broke something to develop resistance,,,but hey its evolution baby,,,You better come up with some complexity boy!

Well isn’t this sweet…Another fairy tale example of how evolution can explain anything!!! Will your new book be in the children’s section Nigel?

A theory that can explain everything and be falsified by nothing, is not a scientific theory..It is mere conjecture from the imagination of men!

You see evolution where you want to see it, in the suggestive evidence of genetic similarities and fossil similarities, and don’t see any evidence against it in the hard empirical evidence we now have, This is because you have already decided what the evidence must say prior to investigation and that evolution must be true!,,,but in all actuality, when push came to shove and evolution was given the opportunity to demonstrate its almighty power to develop complexity in reality,,,what did hard science find,,,Zilch-Nada-Zero complexity being developed.…This is not just an anomaly for malaria and HIV, this is a pervasive phenomena throughout all mutational studies conducted on all life-forms (adaptations (such as antifreeze ) occurs when some preexisting system gets broke!),,,YET THE VERY BEDROCK of evolutionary theory states that fantastic complexity generation is common and happening all the time in all life forms .…Think about it,,,Look at all the amazing diversity of life around you! It is truly AWESOME!.…Yet despite absolutely no hard “observed” scientific proof of complexity being generated,,,you go into the shadows of your imagination to develop a “Evolution will not happen when we are looking for it to happen theory”… Oh how fortunate, you now got a theory that explains why we find no evidence for the theory!!!.…It would be absolutely funny if it weren’t for the fact that you are de^ad serious, de^ad wrong and most likely spiritually de^ad in your soul.

WAKE UP!

this following song is just for you!

Evanesence - Wake Me Up Inside

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/172595

Please pay close attention to the lyric that says:

I’ve been living a lie!! …I’ve been living a lie!!!

ID will predict that all adaptations from a parent species to a sub-species,or breed, will come at a loss of genetic diversity (and thus a loss of meaningful specified information) from parent species, and will also predict that the genetic diversity found in the entire range of sub-species will not exceed the genetic diversity found in the parent species. This also conforms to the foundational principle for biology of Genetic Entropy.

Confirmation in this study: Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.

“We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”

And confirmation in this study:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cg[…]/90/1/71.pdf

of special note: Some sequences found in dogs were identical to those in wolves… The sequence divergence within (breeds of) dogs was surprisingly large: the mean sequence divergence in dogs 2.06 + or - 0.07% was almost identical to the 2.10 + or - 0.04% (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (notice that sequence divergence is slightly smaller for dogs than for wolves)

Thus, Coupled with the diverse morphology of domesticated dogs and known hazards of dog breeding, this evidence strongly indicates “front loaded adaptations” for sub-species at a loss of information from parent species. Thus, this is genetic confirmation of the principle of Genetic Entropy for dogs from the parent species of wolves!

As well I would like to point out.

Low levels of genetic variation were detected in both subspecies, .…. Is the decline of desert bighorn sheep from infectious disease the result of low MHC … http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v[…]801016a.html I can’t open the article (no subscription), but the description is clear, loss of diversity within subspecies, or breed, of sheep.

I was hoping to find better studies for the genetic diversity of parent and sub-species (breeds) of sheep, but at least this one study is conforming to the pattern of Genetic Entropy I’ve found so far in humans and dogs,,,

As well, this other study I found seems to indicate that the closer a sub-species is to a parent species the more robust it is and the more resistant to the problems of inbreeding. (A ID prediction from the theistic perspective!) http://www.sciencedaily.com/release[…]09103157.htm of particular note: A Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon (sheep) population, bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents. This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time.

“What is amazing is that mo^dels of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we’ve found that it has been maintained,” said Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta.

As well I found this study: Evidence of three maternal lineages in near eastern sheep supporting multiple domestication events.

of special note: Research including samples of the different mouflon subspecies is necessary for a better understanding of the origin of domestic sheep. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar[…]rtid=1559946 When they get the genetic studies done of sheep sub-species,,,My money is riding on loss of genetic diversity for each sub-species when compared to the parent species,,as well as compatable genetic diversity when the entire range of sub-species is compared to parent species.…

This pattern should hold for all sub-speciation (breeding) events,,,Thus, conforming to Genetic Entropy.

I’m still looking for proof of evolution but alas,,,the genetic evidence I find shows loss of information in each verifiable case of sub-speciation (breeding).… Dang,,maybe you guys can find solid evidence?

How about maize can we find the information being generated there? Maize molecular diversity is roughly 2- to 5-fold higher than that of other domesticated grass crops (1). Tenaillon et al. (2) reported that in 25 maize individuals, one nucleotide every 28 base pairs is polymorphic, and overall nucleotide diversity is almost 1.3%. That study, the largest examination of random maize loci, found almost no evidence of selection in 21 genes along chromosome 1. Maize’s closest wild relative, Z. mays ssp. parviglumis (a teosinte), often has levels of nucleotide diversity that surpass 2%

How about this? Less genetic diversity for maize than for its parent species teosinte?

Shoot maybe you guys can just show me a new origination of a species?

“Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) … every decade.” Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)

Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.” R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) “The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared.” from page 32 “Acquiring Genomes” Lynn Margulis.

Many times, naturalists parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species ( Horse & Donkey; Grizzly Bear & Polar Bear; Various Insects etc.. etc..) as stunning proof of evolution. Yet, the hard evidence of exhaustive experimentation indicates that the information for variation was already “programmed” into the parent species’s genetic code and the sub-species, or what is sometimes known as the pure breed, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species. This fact is made especially clear in mans extensive breeding history of domesticated dogs and pure bred horses. Thus, even though a sub-species, or a pure breed, may sometimes be demonstrated to become reproductively isolated, it still has reached a wall in which its possibilities for variation are severely limited in its genetic code when compared to its parent species variability. In fact, from the best evidence we have so far, reproductive isolation is due to the fact that genetic information is being lost, not gained, in the genes of the pure breed or sub-species (genetic entropy). Indeed, the lack of genetic variability in major food crops, such as corn, is a major concern facing scientists today since the genetic variability, that is found in the parent species, gives greater protection from a disease wiping out the entire crop. Even in the differences of human races we find that the younger races (Chinese, Europeans, American Indians, etc.. etc..) are losing genetic information for skin color when compared to the original race of humans that is thought to have migrated out of east Africa some 50,000 years ago. This fact is totally contrary to what we would expect to find if the variation found in the sub-species were truly wrought by random mutations in the DNA generating novel information for variability! And this result is to be totally expected if the parent species were indeed created with a certain amount of flexibility for adaptation to differing environments already programmed in its genetic code! Yet, naturalists conveniently ignore the hard conclusive fact that the variation in the sub-species or pure breed is severely limited when it is compared to the much larger variability that is found in the parent species.

How about that loss of information for skin color in humans? “ Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (dark brown to nearly black). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete do^min^ance. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from the father and one from the mother. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in a great variety of different skin tones.

Even if it was just a simple case of the efficiency of one melanin in the skin of people, I would still hold that it demonstrated less information for the younger descended races from Africans,and thus still conformed to genetic entropy…But as the case stands my inference to subtractive color mixing is strong and my case for the Genetic Entropy of skin color in younger human races is bolstered all the more!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed[…]bcol.html#c1

need I bring up the fossil record?

There is never a transition between ANY of the different hominid species no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found.

“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990

How about mutation rates: Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)! Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

I’m still looking guys but it ain’t looking good for your beloved theory!

BA77, BJB, Philip Cunningham or whatever you call yourself:

In what way did that last rant address any of the criticisms made of your previous post? All it did was emphasize how little substance there is to what you write. You would have done better to have kept quiet.

BA77 agrees with Behe that changes in the genome of P. falciparum just don’t happen in gazillions of generations. Then in his latest post he invokes Genetic Entropy, which is the notion that all of our genomes are rapidly changing for the worse. Why this doesn’t happen to P. falciparum is a question that only he can answer.

But I predict that he will ignore this mystery, and maybe even run away, as he did on Behe’s Amazon blog just a few days ago.

BA77, you keep referring to ID theory and its predictions. I do not believe any such theory exists. If it does not exist, your references to it are at best ignorant and ill-informed and at worst dishonest and deceptive. If it does, I’ve yet to see it.

Could you please cite or link to a scientific theory of ID? If you cannot do this, I can’t see why we should waste any time responding to your commentary.

bornagain77 Wrote:

I’ll say it again, you guys are letting your preconceived philosophical bias of materialism blind you to what is really going on in biology! Some of you guys may get paid to do research but I assure you that you are not true scientists!

Whew; this character’s posts are some of the sickest stuff I’ve seen on PT. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about research and science making a claim like this in front of the whole world? This guy is a born loser, and his religion (whatever it is) has greatly exacerbated it.

you will not listen

Says the troll that repeats his lie that evolution claims a 100 % “detrimental rate” in the face of biologists and quotes from biologists laying out that it does not.

Sure, go ahead and claim that scientists lie about their science, public science which can be checked by anyone. Let us see if such transparent falsifications gets you any more believers into the IDC fold.

SunSpiker asked: Can you elaborate on what you think is required to prove evolution true. What sort of evidence, data,experiments etc. would be required?

Dr. Behe in his book “Edge of Evolution” clearly lays out what is expected for evolution to be proven true.

To conclusively prove evolution true it is necessary to actually “observe” complexity being built up by the RM/NS step by step scenario in the real world…

As I posted earlier, the best chance for RM/NS to prove its almighty power was in the studies of Malaria and HIV (because of their tremendous populations and high mutation rates), Yet the chance to prove evolution true was a dismal failure in trying to generate the complexity required to prove evolution true…

I really recommend reading Behe’s book if you have not.

I also recommend for you to read the major attempts at refutation of Behe’s book and Behe’s defence of his assertions in his book on his amazon blog… It’s really entertaining to see him so effortlessly defend his book from the best attacks his high profile enemies can muster.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGR[…]orType=after

To conclusively prove evolution true it is necessary to actually “observe” complexity being built up by the RM/NS step by step scenario in the real world…

Already done. Next?

I also recommend for you to read the major attempts at refutation of Behe’s book and Behe’s defence of his assertions in his book on his amazon blog… It’s really entertaining to see him so effortlessly defend his book from the best attacks his high profile enemies can muster.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGR[…]orType=after

Yes, please do read that thread, and all of the other recent threads on Behe’s Amazon blog. Even though the main page says that comments are closed, if you click on one of the posts that Behe has written to “effortlessly defend” his tripe, you can see the comments, or leave a comment. You will discover that BA77’s alter ego, Phil Cunningham, has been shown to be a plagiarist, and that he has twice “effortlessly” fled from the flak that he attracts there.

Or read the interview with Behe on the California Literature Review, where BA77 also left with his vestigial tail between his legs. Good entertainment, for certain.

In fact, it was on the Amazon site where he first dodged the question that I have been reposting here. Here ‘tis again.

If you say that “Genetic Entropy is a principle in biology” the onus is on you to prove it. I am a biologist; I say it is not true. To bolster my case, I just searched the Web of Science for that term. I found one (1) citation, out of the millions of citations accessible from there. Here it is - “Genetic entropy-constrained vector quantizer design algorithm”, Hwang WJ, Hong SL, Source: OPTICAL ENGINEERING 38 (2): 233-239 FEB 1999. Not biology at all, but engineering. Your turn - supply EVIDENCE for your bald-faced assertion that “Genetic Entropy holds as a principle in biology”. If you can’t do that, please retract the statement.

So, BA, do you have the character to support your statement, or retract it like an honest discussant would? Or will you continue to bloviate and obfuscate in the name of your deity?

ID predicts the latter.

I also recommend for you to read the major attempts at refutation of Behe’s book and Behe’s defence of his assertions in his book on his amazon blog…

Yes, pretty pathetic at best, Behe surely could have done a better job than that. Amazon readers were quickly to demolish Behe’s ‘rebuttals’ Anyone in particular you would like to discuss in more detail or can you only quote mine and cut and paste?

bornagain77:

SunSpiker asked: Can you elaborate on what you think is required to prove evolution true. What sort of evidence, data,experiments etc. would be required?

Dr. Behe in his book “Edge of Evolution” clearly lays out what is expected for evolution to be proven true.

Please demonstrate how saying that, because Plasmodium falciparum does not evolve, and was specifically designed to cause a miserable, painful death, can explain the observed diversity of life.

Stanton:

bornagain77:

SunSpiker asked: Can you elaborate on what you think is required to prove evolution true. What sort of evidence, data,experiments etc. would be required?

Dr. Behe in his book “Edge of Evolution” clearly lays out what is expected for evolution to be proven true.

Please demonstrate how saying that, because Plasmodium falciparum does not evolve, and was specifically designed to cause a miserable, painful death, can explain the observed diversity of life.

There was some sin it was meant to punish, although it is uncertain which one. Think about all of the times you masturbated. Any one of them could have been the reason our Lord and Savior created this organism to show hos love.

They have not found any.

BULL SHIT

ever heard of polyploidy, idiot?

go grease more poles.

Pole Greaser,

Bornagain77 kept evading the questions, so I’ll try with you.

1. Do you agree with Behe that life on earth has a 4-billion year history?

2. Do you agree with Behe that modern humans share common ancestors with most or all other species?

3. When was the last design actuation event in the lineage that led to modern humans? I’m not asking about the origin of the information, which Behe suggests might have been at the origin of the universe or before, but when it was inserted in a living cell.

4. Did the event in #3 produce life from nonliving matter, or just an in-vivo non-evolutionary genetic change?

Bornagain77,

Since I rephrased the questions, you are welcome to try again.

Evolutionists are asked time and time again for a real world example of anything that increases in information without the aid of intelligent design. They have not found any. Applying the Helmholtz free energy theorem to questions of genetic entropy proves this to be impossible, so they never will!

Present your case and explain why there exist so many counter examples?

PvM:

Evolutionists are asked time and time again for a real world example of anything that increases in information without the aid of intelligent design. They have not found any. Applying the Helmholtz free energy theorem to questions of genetic entropy proves this to be impossible, so they never will!

Present your case and explain why there exist so many counter examples?

Do you honestly expect a moron who’s imitating a twit, who answered a question to explain why a loving God would design Plasmodium falciparum specifically to cause an excruciatingly painful death in humans, and how would that explain the diversity of life on this planet is that He hates masturbation can provide actual counter examples?

You should to switch to decaf.

bornagain77:

SunSpiker asked: Can you elaborate on what you think is required to prove evolution true. What sort of evidence, data,experiments etc. would be required?

Dr. Behe in his book “Edge of Evolution” clearly lays out what is expected for evolution to be proven true.

To conclusively prove evolution true it is necessary to actually “observe” complexity being built up by the RM/NS step by step scenario in the real world…

As I posted earlier, the best chance for RM/NS to prove its almighty power was in the studies of Malaria and HIV (because of their tremendous populations and high mutation rates), Yet the chance to prove evolution true was a dismal failure in trying to generate the complexity required to prove evolution true…

I really recommend reading Behe’s book if you have not.

I also recommend for you to read the major attempts at refutation of Behe’s book and Behe’s defence of his assertions in his book on his amazon blog… It’s really entertaining to see him so effortlessly defend his book from the best attacks his high profile enemies can muster.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGR[…]orType=after

So Behe as actually done this already. Wow this HUGE! This is like proving Newton was wrong about gravity! There must be at least a Nobel prize in it for him. Does he realize what he has accomplished? He must let the scientific world know about this . When do you expect him to publish these groundbreaking results ? I’d love to see this in Science or Nature.

I know that BA77 simply ignores any and all counter-arguments to his blather, but I will continue to stick my oar in with deconstructing his comments for the benefit of any innocent bystanders who may think he might have something vaguely resembling a point.

Bornagain77 Wrote:

Albatrossity said:Why this doesn’t happen to P. falciparum is a question that only he can answer.

Yes, Albatrossity was addressing the contradictory claims by Behe (and, indirectly, yourself) that the genome of P. falciparum supposedly maintained a constant level of diversity, but that genomes in general always suffered a loss of diversity.

I’ll Let DaveScot answer that

This is another argument from authority. What makes you think anyone here would actually believe that Dave Scot has any idea what he is talking about?

… Yet P.falciparum clearly didn’t melt down but rather demonstrated an amazing ability to keep its genome perfectly intact. How?

Actually, it’s not amazing.

For one thing, which you have still not admitted, the figures you were using for the number of generations were way off. By a ludicrously large margin.

In no more than 1000 generations, we have no reason to expect a parasite to undergo significant evolutionary change, expecially when one considers that one of its main hosts has only passed through 2 generations in the same span of time.

Your failure to acknowledge this point renders all your subsequent arm-waving totally pointless. However, even if your numbers were correct, I am sure that your subsequent logic is still faulty.

Let’s have a look:

After thinking about it for a while I believe I found the answer - the widely given rate of eukaryote replication errors is correct.

Wow. When there is *how much* evidence that it wasn’t?

(Of course, I’m being ironic here. But, seriously, why make the point about replication error rates when there isn’t any reason to doubt the figures?)

If P.falciparum individuals get an average DNA copy error rate of one in one billion nucleotides then it follows that approximately 97% of all replications result in a perfect copy of the parent genome. That’s accurate enough to keep a genome that size intact.

This does not follow.

If only 97% of replications are exact copies, then 3% of each generation won’t have exact copies. You seem to be assuming that those without exact copies all die. Yet, not only is this assumption tacit rather than explicit, you have no justification to make it.

What if most of those 3% have neutral mutations? The genome won’t be “intact” by any meaningful measure, yet the organisms will still effectively compete with those that do have an “intact” genome.

What if even a tiny proportion of those 3% have beneficial mutations?

Also, given that the population comprises many individuals, some of which are certain to possess different alleles for certain genes, and many of which are certain to possess single-nucleotide polymorphisms, how do you define “the” genome in the first place?

An enviromental catastrophe such as an ice age which lowers temperatures even at the equator below the minimum of ~60F in which P.falciparum can survive would cause it to become extinct

But, if its genome contains enough diversity, maybe a few of those organisms will be able to survive in the cooler climes. Since all other P. falciparum would die out, it doesn’t matter how slowly the few survivors replicate, since there will be no competition for their ecological niche.

while genetic meltdown will not.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Mammals however, with an average genome size 100 times that of P.falciparum, would have an average of 3 replication errors in each individual. Thus mammalian genomes would indeed be subject to genetic decay over a large number of generations

But, really, what impact will those “errors” have?

Doesn’t the typical mammalian genome already contain much diversity?

If errors are occuring during replication, this will generate new diversity. Sure, some of those mutations will be deleterious, but many will be neutral, and a few may be immediately beneficial.

So how does an increase in genetic diversity lead to “genetic decay”?

which handily explains why the average length of time between emergence to extinction for mammals and other multicelled organisms with similar genome sizes is about 10 million years if the fossil and geological evidence paints an accurate picture of the past.

What? This is a huge leap from your premise to your conclusion. You have left gaps in your logic big enough to drive a bus through.

How is it that the accumulation of mutations is “bad”? What is “genetic decay”, and what does it really mean in terms of its impact on the organisms that are suffering from it? If you are correct and all organisms are undergoing “genetic decay”, then how come life is more diverse now than it was 3 billion years ago? What physical mechanism causes organisms to go extinct as a consequence of “genetic decay”?

You really are not explaining anything, you know.

I DO believe the fossil and geological records present us with an incontrovertible picture of progressive phenotype evolution that occured over a period of billions of years.

Well, that’s a relief. At least that’s one piece of evidence you have chosen not to deny.

Now, how do you reconcile that with such things as the comparability of fossil anatomies with the anatomies of modern organisms, and with the geographical distribution data (both fossil and modern), and yet maintain a denial of MET?

I don’t disbelieve common ancestry and phenotype evolution by descent with modification - I question the assertion that random mutation is the ultimate source of modification which drove phylogenetic diversification.

Which is pretty much Behe’s main thesis on EoE.

However, Behe’s support of his thesis in EoE has been discussed elsewhere and is universally regarded by professional scientists as poor. I shan’t go into this here and now.

Random mutation (RM) is a source of genetic diversity. This has been demonstrated and I could demonstrate it to you in a few simple experiments. You say you doubt that RM alone can account for the diversity we find.

Well, that’s fine, because MET does not claim that RM alone is responsible for the diversity of organisms we find. The diversity arising through RM is acted upon by natural selection (NS) within the context of the prevailing conditions for all organisms at the time they are responding to the selection pressure. The environmental conditions (whether competition for food, or evasion of predators, or competition for mates, or competition for nesting sites, or coping with a low temperature, or coping with a wide range of temperature, or whatever) feed back into the organisms by means of NS.

It is this combination of RM + NS + environmental change that has led to most of the diversity that we find. There are other important mechanisms in MET, but NS is usually the most important.

bornagain77:

A theory that can explain everything and be falsified by nothing, is not a scientific theory..It is mere conjecture from the imagination of men!

The Theory of (Supernatural) Intelligent Design fits this description. Irony meter pegs.

Although Bornagain77 did not answer my question directly, I saw that the answer appered elsewhere, so that’s better than nothing:

I DO believe the fossil and geological records present us with an incontrovertible picture of progressive phenotype evolution that occured over a period of billions of years. I don’t disbelieve common ancestry and phenotype evolution by descent with modification - I question the assertion that random mutation is the ultimate source of modification which drove phylogenetic diversification.

So if ID is truly scientific, Bornagain77 must at least as seriously question the far more radical claims of classic creationists, both the OEC variety that denies common descent, and the YEC variety that denies that and practically everything else in mainstream science. In that case we should expect YEC and OEC blogs to be full of Bornagain77’s criticisms.

Frank J:

Although Bornagain77 did not answer my question directly, I saw that the answer appered elsewhere, so that’s better than nothing:

I DO believe the fossil and geological records present us with an incontrovertible picture of progressive phenotype evolution that occured over a period of billions of years. I don’t disbelieve common ancestry and phenotype evolution by descent with modification - I question the assertion that random mutation is the ultimate source of modification which drove phylogenetic diversification.

So if ID is truly scientific, Bornagain77 must at least as seriously question the far more radical claims of classic creationists, both the OEC variety that denies common descent, and the YEC variety that denies that and practically everything else in mainstream science. In that case we should expect YEC and OEC blogs to be full of Bornagain77’s criticisms.

So, how does “genetic meltdown” and “genetic entropy” explain why we see trends like in brontotheres, where we see small, dog-sized species becoming larger and transitioning into elephant-sized species?

Stanton Wrote:

So, how does “genetic meltdown” and “genetic entropy” explain why we see trends like in brontotheres, where we see small, dog-sized species becoming larger and transitioning into elephant-sized species?

Simple: they don’t.

You may notice from my comments on BA77’s witless blather that I am convinced that “genetic entropy” and “genetic decay” are a smoke screen. What they are screening is most likely an argument from personal incredulity, which would explain why BA77 throws his toys out of the pram when we don’t accept his arguments.

Bornagain77 Wrote:

Dang you guys,,,it keeps getting more painful for evolution,,,Function for Psuedogenes?

This has been addressed before.

THe thing that you really seem unable to grasp is that evolution will take anything that can provide an organism with an advantage to survival or reproduction. This is a very adaptationist view, and overlooks the role that genetic drift has to play, but it is still an important concept.

James D. Watson, writing on the 50th anniversary of his (and Francis Crick’s) discovery of the helical structure of the DNA molecule, commented as follows:

‘The most humbling aspect of the Human Genome Project so far has been the realization that we know remarkably little about what the vast majority of human genes do.’13

Yes, this is true. You seem not to have understood that, while it is easy enough to look at a genome sequence and identify the genes (more specifically, Open Reading Frames or ORFs, which are those sequences that possess both a “start” codon and a “stop” codon within the same reading frame and have a sensible number of bases between the two), it is another thing entirely to then connect those genes with specific fene product functions.

The genome should be making far more proteins than have been identified and characterised thus far. But it is this latter aspect that is both more challenging and more exciting.

Now if the foregoing is true of genes, how much more so of pseudogenes!

Erm … do you know what a pseudogene is, at all?

At very least, pseudogenes have not been fairly and objectively analyzed: ‘An extensive and fast-increasing literature does not justify a sharp division between genes and pseudogenes that would place pseudogenes in the class of genomic “junk” DNA that lacks function and is not subject to natural selection.’14

First, for the benefit of other readers, I will make it clear that the words you quote in this paragraph are taken, not from Woodmarappe’s actual text (to which you linked), but from a quote in Woodmarappe’s text of another article published elsewhere.

So, did you follow Woodmarappe’s reference and actually look at the primary source, or did you accept his quote-mining? Because I am fairly sure, based on past experience, that he would have deliberately missed the main points rasied by the article he cites.

While I do not currently have access to a decent library (and therefore cannot chase down that reference even if I could justify wasting my employer’s time in this way), I expect that what the article cited discusses is something that scientists do all the time: re-examining long-held assumptions, comparing them to new evidence and questioning the assumptions.

Maybe you should title this blog the continued confusion of evolutionary theory!

Or maybe you should actually, y’know, go and learn some biology. Learn enough that you can go to the primary literature and see for yourself what the latest research and thinking actually is, and what it actually means. Maybe you could make a real attempt to understand the issues, instead of simply pretending that you do.

I certainly wouldn’t trust Woodmarappe to give a true interpretation of any primary literature - he is too obviously working to his own agenda, seeking support for his preconceived notions without making any genuine attempt to understand.

Thus He has years of extensive work with plant genetics, and thus, if he says no new information is being created in plants through polyploid mutation, I believe him.

BA77: It is interesting that you capitalized ‘He’ (Sanford, who you always describe as the inventor of the ‘Gene Gun’, holder of xx patents, etc). That possibly explains why you believe him in the face of the evidence. BTW, I am sure the commentators here have many years of extensive experience in genetics (not just plant genetics). As you revere authority, you might want to consider that the totality of the contributors here is far more authoritative than a lone geneticist whose ideas are ridiculed by his colleagues.

Polyploidy just doubles the number of chromosomes.

wrong again. what the fuck do you think happens after you successfully get recombination within the doubled, or quadrupled, or more, chromosomes?

have you ever even bothered to read a paper on polyploidy? new plant species being produced all the time by it.

seriously, it’s something you can easily google up.

but then, you’re an idiot, so I don’t expect you to even be able to accomplish that.

fuck, I swear this place is becoming WAY to tolerant of even the most ridiculous repeated arguments.

it would be so much more productive to substitute these idiotic posts with simply the numbered reference to the ICC and a link to talkorigins.

complete waste of time to even bother.

Since all incrases in information require intelligent design. There must have been information from some intelligence that lead to humans. Where and when are religious questions that science can’t answer.

Says the guy who says that Plasmodium falciparum was designed to cause a painful death in children in Africa because God hates masturbation in Christians who live primarily in Europe and the United States.

Ichthyic:

Polyploidy just doubles the number of chromosomes.

wrong again. what the fuck do you think happens after you successfully get recombination within the doubled, or quadrupled, or more, chromosomes?

Mea culpa, I admit polyploidy can multiply the number of chromosomes by numbers other than two

have you ever even bothered to read a paper on polyploidy? new plant species being produced all the time by it.

A new plant species has the same amount of information or less than the species from which it descended. The Bahrmin is still the same. It’s not you’ve turned a rutabaga into a kangaroo or something like that.

seriously, it’s something you can easily google up.

but then, you’re an idiot, so I don’t expect you to even be able to accomplish that.

fuck, I swear this place is becoming WAY to tolerant of even the most ridiculous repeated arguments.

it would be so much more productive to substitute these idiotic posts with simply the numbered reference to the ICC and a link to talkorigins.

complete waste of time to even bother.

Why all the obscenity? Don’t you know Jesus loves you?

Stanton:

Since all incrases in information require intelligent design. There must have been information from some intelligence that lead to humans. Where and when are religious questions that science can’t answer.

Says the guy who says that Plasmodium falciparum was designed to cause a painful death in children in Africa because God hates masturbation in Christians who live primarily in Europe and the United States.

I don’t see any contradiction there… that answer certainly wasn’t science.

Seriously, I seen Pole Greaser’s previous posts. He is a parody. He shows us a HONEST creationist, who says what he believes regardless of how it makes him look. While his opinions (or “opinions”) may be repulsive.

To all people who are offended by his posts: Are you really saying you prefer them when they are dishonest?

Polegreaser lies:

A new plant species has the same amount of information or less than the species from which it descended. The Bahrmin is still the same. It’s not you’ve turned a rutabaga into a kangaroo or something like that.

When a new plant species arises from polyploidy, it no longer has the same amount of “information.” If you had actually bothered to read our posts rather than wallow in your stupidity, you would notice that I already gave an example of speciation through poylploidy. No one but a bigoted moron like yourself would expect a kangaroo to emerge from a rutabaga seed. But that, and mentioning of the useless “Baramin” concept is to be expected of a moronic idiot imitating a brainless bigot.

Polegreaser lies:

Why all the obscenity? Don’t you know Jesus loves you?

From your behavior, absolutely not. Your sole purpose is to antagonize, not to discuss anything, at all. Why would Jesus love us if He created a horrible disease to kill children in the tropics in a horrible manner in order to punish Christians who allegedly masturbate in temperate climates?

To all people who are offended by his posts: Are you really saying you prefer them when they are dishonest?

Marek 14, we would much prefer if these morons were not deliberately antagonistic. However, when dealing with fanatical idiots, this is just an idle pipe dream.

Pole Greaser Wrote:

No, I do not agree with Behe on this one. As a member of the Whore of Babylon Behe actually believes in the religion of evolutionism, but I digress, I thought this board was meant to discuss science and not religion.

You get several things wrong here, Pole Greaser:

(1) Whatever your personal opinion of the Vatican, you have no basis for being so offensive about it.

(2) Behe is a Christian. And an IDiot, but if you wish to talk about religion, he is a Christian.

(3) You are the one who brought up the topic of religion here, not anyone else.

(4) You describe “evolutionism” as a religion, but this is a lie.

When confronted with an actual question about the supposed science of ID, you are unable to answer, but instead make a rather feeble attempt to evade it:

Pole Greaser Wrote:

Since all incrases in information require intelligent design.

What is the basis for this claim?

Come on, support it with real evidence.

By the way, how do you define “information”, and how would you go about measuring it?

There must have been information from some intelligence that lead to humans.

You have not even tried to demonstrate this. It is an unfounded assertion.

Where and when are religious questions that science can’t answer.

Thus illustrating the scientific uselessness of ID. Science does not shy away from questions. If you knew anything about science you would know this. Science is all about asking questions and seeking answers. Answers that can be confirmed by comparison to reality.

Since they require intelligent design, they are ipso factor non-evolutionary

Not only does this fail to answer the question, it actually contains no information at all. You have not shown that anything “requires intelligent design”. Quite the opposite, in fact: you have wriggled around to avoid participating in a scientific discourse.

How do you define “intelligent”?

How do you define “design”?

Since “intelligent design” is so important to you, I am sure you have thought about what it might mean in a purely scientific context.

Pole Greaser Wrote:

Mea culpa, I admit polyploidy can multiply the number of chromosomes by numbers other than two

But you deliberately avoid Ichthyic’s main point. I’ll make it even simpler for you:

What about recombination?

A new plant species has the same amount of information or less than the species from which it descended.

This is utter nonsense. You plainly have no idea what you are talking about.

The information content of a biological species depends on 2 things:

(1) How you define the term “information”.

(2) The genetic diversity within the species. Since genetic diversity will almost always increase with time (if nothing else, due to the accumulation of neutral mutations), there is nothing to prevent information content increasing.

The Bahrmin is still the same.

Which means nothing.

It’s not you’ve turned a rutabaga into a kangaroo or something like that.

Actually, yes it is. A new speciation event is exactly the same as a kangaroo or a rutabaga evolving from its ancestral species, but on a smaller scale.

Incidentally, you are repeating another creationist lie here. One modern species cannot turn into another modern species from a vastly different taxon, because they are both equally derived. The selection pressure simply does not exist to drive such a change. The intermediate forms have been out-competed and are thus extinct.

Evolution works by the accumulation of derived characteristics. If you do not know what this means, I suggest you go and learn some actual biology, and learn about the scientific theory that you so harshly, and ignorantly, criticise.

Cleanup cycle finished.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 31, 2007 12:16 PM.

Message to Behe: You may very well be an evolutionist was the previous entry in this blog.

Creating A Truth is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter