tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5301934277336874164..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Jonathan Wells illustrates zombie science by revisiting junk DNALarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger137125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14702806890323195052017-06-05T02:57:26.424-04:002017-06-05T02:57:26.424-04:00What Christine says is, of course, exactly right. ...What Christine says is, of course, exactly right. And while every person has the right to decide whether to draw particular inferences or not, to fail to draw them where they are this compelling -- and where the motive for failing to draw them is to preserve faith in a patently wrong system of beliefs about the natural world -- is, at a minimum, quite perverse. <br /><br />Where it leaves you is not at an alternative interpretation. For that, you'd need better inferences, and you haven't got 'em. Where it leaves you is at a place of willful, chosen ignorance. You may decline the inferences; but that doesn't obscure their correctness as far as anyone else is concerned. Puck Mendelssohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430866587419141153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87512930468205745052017-06-05T01:39:43.425-04:002017-06-05T01:39:43.425-04:00"Not biology. YES ITS INFERENCES but not scie..."Not biology. YES ITS INFERENCES but not science."<br /><br />All of science is inference from the evidence, Robert. Absolutely all of it. christine janishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14520766623263222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85398858497333123272017-06-04T23:48:19.958-04:002017-06-04T23:48:19.958-04:00PM
There are not these intermediates. there are ju...PM<br />There are not these intermediates. there are just snapshots of data points claimed to be in timelines where one can imagine a progression.'<br />anyways.<br />Evolutionism does draw inferences like crazy. Yet to do sop they can't ignore other options.<br />any fossil type can be seen as just showing diversity at certain place and time.<br />In fact there is never a reason to see evolving creatures/traits because one could always see a convergent evolution thing going on.<br />Its all guessing about connections. Even if evolution was true it still would be just guessing about connections. The connections were not fossilized. PE is all about this. They admit it and say AHA IT WAS TOO FAST, IN TOO SMALL NUMBERS, IN ISOLATED GEOGRAPHY.<br />Then you have the problem that geology is really leading the whole thing. Not biology. YES ITS INFERENCES but not science.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70338529908964289702017-06-04T16:51:26.498-04:002017-06-04T16:51:26.498-04:00I think Tiktaalik with a central horn on its snout...I think Tiktaalik with a central horn on its snout would be quite handsome. Puck Mendelssohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430866587419141153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25666903950324615502017-06-04T15:54:18.306-04:002017-06-04T15:54:18.306-04:00I'm sure it's just a miswording on your pa...I'm sure it's just a miswording on your part, <b>bwilson295</b> but, as written, your post above suggests that all beneficial alleles are fixed which, of course, is not true. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71355949360174503752017-06-04T15:45:34.229-04:002017-06-04T15:45:34.229-04:00Funny, then, that anyone with even a passing famil...<i>Funny, then, that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the evidence could name at least a dozen. What's your explanation for them, if not that they are intermediates?</i><br /><br />Robert's expecting Fishorhinos, close relatives of the Crocoduck.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74214583384202256402017-06-04T15:36:30.936-04:002017-06-04T15:36:30.936-04:00ThanksThanksGaryBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071208196536611667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79678501679123652952017-06-04T15:00:30.307-04:002017-06-04T15:00:30.307-04:00An allele is "fixed" in the population i...An allele is "fixed" in the population is its frequency becomes 100%; if all the individuals have that allele and only that allele. <br /><br />A new allele (formed from a mutation) starts out at 0% frequency. If it is beneficial or if it's very lucky, it will increase in frequency, eventually becoming fixed. That is evolution in action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19488807774478307732017-06-04T14:49:39.111-04:002017-06-04T14:49:39.111-04:00Slightly off topic
I hear a term used quite often...Slightly off topic<br /><br />I hear a term used quite often around here that I seem to be misunderstanding - alleles 'fixing' in a population. <br /><br />What is meant by fixation & how does it figure in to evolution?<br />GaryBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071208196536611667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87196301536909411192017-06-04T01:29:21.168-04:002017-06-04T01:29:21.168-04:00To be more specific: it is always possible, if one...To be more specific: it is always possible, if one wishes, to just decline assent to the idea that the world consists of anything other than unsortable factoids which exist in complete, unsystematized isolation from one another. It sounds like this is what you do; you think that by refusing assent to the idea that inferences can be drawn from patterns in nature, you construct some sort of alternative way of viewing these facts. <br /><br />But you really do not; you merely assert your right -- which is surely yours as a free person -- to neglect to draw inferences. And, perhaps, if the conclusions which are best drawn from the patterns in nature offend your religion, this is an easy way out. But you cannot really pretend, in so doing, that what you are engaged in is anything other than a very basic-level denialism: ungluing every fact from its context and neglecting to draw any reasonable inference, at all, from that fact, from that fact's neighbors, or from that fact's context. That's a point of view. But it's not science, nor is it, for obvious reasons, likely to compete effectively with science for those who ARE trying to draw sense out of observations, rather than to disaggregate all organized reality into chaos. Puck Mendelssohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430866587419141153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20342419558792811012017-06-04T00:29:51.294-04:002017-06-04T00:29:51.294-04:00"There isn't intermediates in any way fro..."There isn't intermediates in any way from fish to rhinos."<br /><br />Funny, then, that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the evidence could name at least a dozen. What's your explanation for them, if not that they are intermediates? <br />Puck Mendelssohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430866587419141153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78157047148555737182017-06-03T23:33:23.581-04:002017-06-03T23:33:23.581-04:00This was a little off the page but i still found i...This was a little off the page but i still found it.<br />There isn't intermediates in any way from fish to rhinos.<br />Thats the issue though.<br />PE was a last ditch to save the army.<br />They don't think there is these steps in biology body plans that have been shown to confirm it was as darwin said it should be.<br />Its only finished products that are found. PE is to explain why.<br />It doesn't but its existence helps creationism.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35469145095251337512017-06-03T11:23:49.389-04:002017-06-03T11:23:49.389-04:00"Your the first person who ever said there wa..."Your the first person who ever said there was new species created and a new official name." -- Sadly, no. I'm not the first person to report these. Others get credit for finding these great examples of sudden speciation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65617956360260714602017-06-03T00:03:40.958-04:002017-06-03T00:03:40.958-04:00I can accept it but question its reality. In fact ...I can accept it but question its reality. In fact its welcome. Creationists need change in biology to explain the change in bioloogy since the biblical flood. We need it for people and for critters.<br />YEC is not against selection in minor ways. I just still question it happens. i understand little has been seen to justify sciency names defining a new 'species". Your the first person who ever said there was new species created and a new official name.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87434620292725112782017-06-02T12:59:45.251-04:002017-06-02T12:59:45.251-04:00"Yet in reality its just a last ditch defence..."Yet in reality its just a last ditch defence to explain the lack of fossils showing the steps of a fish becoming a rhino."<br /><br />That most certainly took more than 5 - 10,000 years. And, of course, it didn't happen directly, But we actually have just about all of the intermediate stages between lobe-finned fish and large perissodactyl mammals, captured, as is the case with the entire fossil record, in a series of snapshots. There is just variation in how close together in time succeeding snapshots are.<br /><br />You seem to think that the fossil record should show continual, year to year change, like a time lapse movie. We're lucky to have any record, but that record most definitely shows change over time.christine janishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14520766623263222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30412840709792645992017-06-02T00:05:52.525-04:002017-06-02T00:05:52.525-04:00I didn't think you'd accept modern example...I didn't think you'd accept modern examples of observed speciation, Robert Byers, so I'm not disappointed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46312748216874862882017-06-01T22:15:45.057-04:002017-06-01T22:15:45.057-04:00Well if you got them, and they were named, I mean ...Well if you got them, and they were named, I mean it was witnessed and not just discovered and interpreted.<br />You mean actual new 'types" maintaining in nature their new population?! Then if so how did they come to be?<br />Was it natural selection on a mutation or ac random mutation that was selected on?<br />anyways.<br />I don't think there are species. I think its an error of classification.<br />All there is IS segregated populations that have changed, by whatever mechanism. So whether they can breed or not with other segregated populations or the parent population is irrelevant to nature/mechanism.<br />Human 'races" and horse types being my examples.<br />if they have changed so much they can't breed anymore its just a special case. Its irrelevant to nature/mechanism.<br />So does species exist? Hmmm. Its ruined because of the classification error.<br />Segregated populations maintaining unique biological organization is what exists in nature. Thats the right equation.<br /><br />By the way in Goulds study of (snails?) in the carricean he showed that there was great , great, diversity of types of snails that still could interbreed. yet denied species titles. yet segregated and looking different in important ways.<br />I suspect he suspected something was wrong here.<br />Anyways the concept of species is wrong. Creationists can't change yet however.<br /><br /> Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18872711026054997402017-06-01T22:04:22.750-04:002017-06-01T22:04:22.750-04:00CMJ. I meant 5-10 thousand years. Yes this short p...CMJ. I meant 5-10 thousand years. Yes this short period not being fossilized, also in geographically limited areas, is the justification for the fossil record not showing the steps. Plus the long periods with no steps whatsoever.<br />Yet in reality its just a last ditch defence to explain the lack of fossils showing the steps of a fish becoming a rhino.<br />they never will find these steps because they never existed.<br />Gould is not liked today because he proved the fossil record didn't show the millions of steps that should be there if evolution was true.<br />They created PE but I think modern evolutionists are shying away from it. I never hear pE brought up. I do it because it suits creationism.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53926600900368041362017-06-01T14:02:22.494-04:002017-06-01T14:02:22.494-04:00"It was not witnessed. unless you can name ne..."It was not witnessed. unless you can name new species recently created and named but i dopubt it." -- The plants Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus are examples. Also Primula kewensis. There are others.<br /><br />Usually the process is much slower. Usually we see one species, or we see distinct but similar species, or we see plants in an in-between state (like the spring-parsleys, above). Occasionally, the process of speciation is fast, as in those plants I mentioned.<br /><br />Of course, Robert Byers, you don't really believe there are species, so you won't believe speciation happens, even when it is observed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10620208098347384232017-06-01T06:57:03.940-04:002017-06-01T06:57:03.940-04:00You can't rationally in the same breath posit ...<i>You can't rationally in the same breath posit front loading for adaptability, yet deny that this is also compatible with evolution.</i><br /><br />I believe if you take the word "rationally" out of that sentence, you will have it precisely.<br /><br />It also doesn't get tx out of the simple math contradiction I noted at the beginning of this.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27212396309165876622017-06-01T06:54:08.701-04:002017-06-01T06:54:08.701-04:00A classic example is in the early Eocene of the Bi...<i>A classic example is in the early Eocene of the BigHorn Basin in Wyoming, where species of the condylarth Hyopsodus and the primate Notharctus basically grade into each other going up the strata.</i><br /><br />Yeah, but just 'cause they can't reproduce with each other doesn't make 'em different baramins.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62885665204449479662017-06-01T06:46:43.938-04:002017-06-01T06:46:43.938-04:00"The 'front-loading' is not about ins...<i>"The 'front-loading' is not about instructions to build other life forms. It is only about the ability to adapt, like Lenski's bacteria or cave species."</i><br /><br />That's nonsensical, since adaptability comes in most part from the accumulation of mutations. As in the copying errors made by DNA polymerase. This is not some sort of ability that has to be "designed into" life.<br />It also seems to concede that the landscape of not yet realized phenotypes is densely enough packed with functional variation, that we can basically expect life to be able to adapt to changing conditions. <br /><br />Both of those contradict the classical objections to evolution leveled by creationists, who say new complex organs, or biosystems, or new proteins, or new genes, or what have you, are all basically impossibly unlikely to evolve by mutation, drift and selection. You can't rationally in the same breath posit front loading for adaptability, yet deny that this is also compatible with evolution.Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15817799311243481272017-06-01T06:24:55.075-04:002017-06-01T06:24:55.075-04:00"I'm sure he would say your example was m..."I'm sure he would say your example was minor change ---"<br /><br />I'm sure he would --- that's precisely what the change from one species in a genus to another, related, species is all about. One can see something similar today in diversity of populations --- it's called "ring species". It's this minor change that isn't usually picked up in the fossil record, because of a combination of poor geological resolution and speciation usually being allopatric not sympatric.<br /><br />Can you reference where Gould said that such changes would take place in 5-10 years? The best resolution of time we have anywhere in the fossil record is in the area of thousands of years.christine janishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14520766623263222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37632315241539806072017-06-01T03:48:41.259-04:002017-06-01T03:48:41.259-04:00CMJ
Well your trying to say again that its a fossi...CMJ<br />Well your trying to say again that its a fossil record imperfection that is the problem. Gould insisted the record had no excuse. PE was invented to explain why the fossil record was right.<br />I'm sure he would say your example was minor change and not representing gradulaims claim, proof, of populations changing gradually. PE is all about segregated offshoot populations, geographically segregated also, in a short time, 5-10 years, doing all the evolving. IT is THAT TIMELINE that is not fossilized.<br /> (Yes its still a lack of transitional steps not being found but shhh)<br />All your example shows is a diversity one could find in living populations.<br /><br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67358025446432587222017-06-01T03:04:03.557-04:002017-06-01T03:04:03.557-04:00bwilson 295
i would say there is no difference bet...bwilson 295<br />i would say there is no difference between peoples "races" and these horse tyupes regardless of breeding copmpetence.<br />So there is no such thing as species in nature. there just is segregated populations, from a parent one, that under "whatever mechanism' have changed. Whether they can breed or not is irrelevant to nature/mechanism.<br />In fact , i suspect, this makes a creationist point that biological change has other(s) mechanisms. for example i'm confident 'races' of mankind did not come from evolving but was a instant reaction in a segregated population. <br />Anyways.<br />Your also saying that your studies diversity shows evolution. THEN you say it shows a prediction of evolution. Thats a different thing.<br />I still say your diversity does not show mutations being selected on, though not rejected by YEC in minor ways, but easily could come from other options.<br />It was not witnessed. unless you can name new species recently created and named but i dopubt it.<br /><br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.com