I know I shouldn't pick on David Klinghoffer and the other IDiots at Evolution News & Views but, believe it or not, this is the best the IDiots have to offer. I just can't resist posting this quotation from his latest post at: The Stubbornness of Their Ignorance.
Forget for a moment about who, Darwinists or Design advocates, is actually right. If you took a sample of ID folks and a sample of Darwin people, specifically those who have felt confident enough in their views to write about them for publication, and then quizzed each group about what arguments their opponents offer, there's no question that those from the ID community would know better what their opposites in the debate say.Wrong!
Just look at ENV as a convenient illustration. We strive to keep up with toughest challenges, such as they are, from evolutionists. Now look at the competing Darwin blogs. Guys like PZ Myers & Co. concentrate their fire on naïve young-earth creationists. Jerry Coyne and his colleagues in the Darwin-defending business are careful to stay unaware of the very serious challenges to Darwinism from ID.
As it turns out, most of us know more about Intelligent Design Creationism than the average IDiot. As for evolution, I've yet to meet an IDiot who even comes close to understanding it, although Michael Behe and Michael Denton come pretty close.
Klinghoffer and his friends are deluding themselves if they think we don't know what they are saying and they are even more delusional if they think they understand evolution. We've proven time and time again that they don't.
Are we surprised? No, because the one thing all IDiots have in common is the God delusion—the biggest one of all.
Klinghoffer and Luskin (the most common authors on ENV) mostly serve as examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteLarry, you're certainly right about evolutionists knowing more about what the IDiots say (or understand), compared to the IDiots knowing what evolutionists say (or understand). I think though that's there's another message in this.
ReplyDeleteWhat do the IDiots actually say? What specifics do they say about ID? What is there for evolutionists to understand about what IDiots say about ID? Whenever the IDiots are asked for specifics they either ignore the requests or go off on some rambling tangent of inane, irrelevant, usually already refuted gobbledegook. And they ALWAYS dodge the biggest questions of all. WHO is the designer, how did the designer design things, where did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, what exactly is designed and what isn't, and exactly how can that be determined? And of course, WHO designed the designer?
What IDiots "say" is just a bunch of non-scientific crap that is totally based on their religious beliefs. How they can possibly believe that they're fooling anyone besides other godbots is beyond me.
In the one area where I have paid close attention, the discrepancy between what ID types understand and what evolutionary biologists understand is massive. And it's not in the direction that Klinghoffer says.
ReplyDeleteA whole bunch of people have disputed Dembski's arguments:
1. Many people have argued that he didn't get his information theory right.
2. Elsberry and Shallit found a self-contradiction in his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information.
3. I pointed out that even if you accepted that "law", it is formulated in a way that could not be used to argue that natural selection cannot explain the level of adaptation we see (which is how Dembski wants to use it).
4. About 7 people pointed out that Dembski's No Free Lunch argument assumes a totally unrealistic relationship between genotypes and fitnesses.
And that is not to even get into the criticisms of Dembski and Marks's "Search for a Search" argument.
So what is the response of Dembski and other ID advocates? Nothing! They have made no detailed replies that deal with these points. But they do keep making assertions that assume that Dembski is correct:
1. They keep saying that the observation of Complex Specified Information proves that Design is present.
2. They keep saying that it is (somehow) known that natural selection cannot build information into the genome.
All of that depends on Dembski's long-demolished arguments. Critics of ID have taken Dembski's arguments seriously, and in detail, and pointed out fatal flaws. And in response, ID types have done nothing but repeat Dembski's assertions.
As Larry notes, this is not a comparison that makes them look good, or even serious. And Klinghoffer's failure to admit what has gone on does not make him look good.
Oops, I should have clarified in the first paragraph that the "area" that I was talking about was the arguments of William Dembski. I hope people figured that out.
DeleteAnd Joseph Felsenstein's explanation for the complex information found in the genome is....? Natural selection: the magic wand that explains everything that is inexplicable.
DeleteNever mind that JF cannot provide any evidence for his belief, he nonetheless cherishes it as a self-evident truth.
One can't mention "cdesign proponentsists" too often.
ReplyDeleteThis coming from the crew that still can't seem to grasp the simple point Dawkins' "weasel" program made after all these years and countless explanations.
ReplyDeleteTheory of evolution is proofed so incredibily wrong that in 50 years it will be remembered as the biggest joke in the history of science.
ReplyDeleteDimwits like Mr. gammaburster have been warbling this tune for 150 years and the Theory of Evolution is still here. It will still be here 50 years from now, long after idiocies like ID have followed Palay's watch to the dustbin of history. I most like the comment by Neil Tyson, ID is a theory of ignorance.
Gammaburster is a Dutch troll well known for his lack of knowledge and obstinate refusal to listen. He's an adept of Peter Borger 'pluribara', the only person ever to take PB serious.
ReplyDeleteYawn.
ReplyDeleteNo, Larry does not understand the argument of the intelligent design hypothesis because he deludes himself into thinking that the current paradigm somehow explains everything. Here is why an ID "approach" and "inference" is necessary, if not an actual mechanism:
ReplyDelete1. Explaining the origin of life and the origin of genomes.
2. Explaining the greatly specific sequence motifs encoded in DNA.
3. Explaining the highly organized and coordinated development of a complex multicellular organism from a fertilized egg.
I haven't read anything which comes close to explaining these problems by mainstream scientists. Maybe life is not based on accidence or trial & error after all?
Oh, you're not even trying. What about the avian lung, and the flagellum, and whales, and bats, and penguins, and transposons, and the genetic code, and the cytoskeleton, and the eukaryotic cell, and ... see that over there? Designed! And this? Designed! And that and that and that and that and ... everywhere you deem the 'inference' necessary (... if not an actual mechanism ...) why, it fits perfectly!
DeleteYes, Allan, all of those features are the product of design. The question is not whether there is a design but whether the designing was achieved from the bottom-up by a blind watchmaker or from the top-down by a higher intelligence.
DeleteAnyway, I will eat my shoes if Larry can answer my 3 points.
Yes, Allan, all of those features are the product of design
DeleteAnd you know that how?
Because they exhibit function and operation as part of a complex and integrated system.
DeleteAtheistoclast,
DeletePicture a remote oceanic island, that has a variety of organisms living on it and around it. It's a system, an eco-system, a complex, integrated eco-system. Was/is it designed?
Atheistoclast,
DeleteI was hoping that you would answer my question but apparently the question is too challenging. Since the question relates to complexity, integration, interrelationships, systems, and whether stochastic or designed events and/or processes are involved I would think that you would jump at the chance to defend the belief and assertion that complex, integrated systems can only come about by intelligent design.
It's not too late for you to respond.
I cannot see how people totally ignore the possibility that life might be designed.
ReplyDeleteBecause there is no evidence for it.
No evidence that intelligence can exist without a biological substrate, and no evidence that the things that some people think evidence design actually did come from intentional design. Eliminating Explanation A would still not make Explanation B true.
Yes, that is how SETI operates. If an EM signal received from outer space cannot be explained in terms of natural phenomena then either there must be either an artificial cause or there exists some unknown natural process.
ReplyDeleteyou can show that something is best explained as a result of intelligence by excluding a natural cause.
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be Dembski's Explanatory Filter, and it remains bollocks. Since when was intelligence unnatural? That's the first thing you have to demonstrate - intelligence that is NOT the neural activity of a biological being (or, conceivably, a model neural network designed by such). Inventing magic causes may help you get over your personal difficulties with the current theory and your perceptions of its limitations of production, but you want this accepted as a paradigm. Dream on.
If there is a knife sticking out of someone's back, the pathologist may prefer the hypothesis that a human being stuck it there to that where it just materialised in situ, or that where a ghost did it.
The current theory of evolution is based upon the assumption that the 'knife in the back' is a result of mechanisms reasonably postulated to be in operation back before the origin of brains. Both sides rightly ignore the 'just materialised' hypothesis, but ID seems hell-bent on pushing the 'ghost did it' hypothesis. So produce a ghost.
The pathologist slowly peeled off his rubber gloves. The slit throat, the tyre tracks down the back, the traces of polonium in the liver - the conclusion was inescapable. "I conclude" he announced dramatically, "that the deceased died from natural causes."
Calling intelligence or purpose "magic" is just you trying to make it sound like rubbish for outsiders.
ReplyDeleteIntelligence and purpose are not magic. They demonstrably exist. But they are, in all known instances, bound to biological substrates (with some latitude attributable to AI). But if you invoke intelligent, purposive action in the actual 'creation' of those biological substrates, then like it or not you are appealing to causes that ... well, sound like rubbish for outsiders. Unless you are able to demonstrate such causes in action, OR provide a reliable heuristic for distinguishing their action, in which case the world will beat a path to your door.
Instead, you really need to believe in magic if you are willing to except Darwinian evolution.
There is nothing magic about the generation of variation and differential survival/reproduction, as far as I can tell.
I hope you agree with me that single cell organisms don't have neural systems, right?
I think you missed my point by many miles. Our only example of intelligent design resides in the works of nervous-system-possessing organisms. Therefore, prior to the origin of such organisms, there appears to be no source for the intelligence you consider essential.
Fixing a view pointmutations in excisting sequences is all that evolution can come up with.
And you know this how?
Chlorquine [...] HIV [...]
I fail to see the relevance of two specific evolutionary disease scenarios to the question of whether history has in fact progressed through purely 'natural' (non-intentional) means. The evolution and radiation of the mammals has progressed through many traceable steps - gene duplications, transpositions and translocations and inversions and so on. The actual change is largely testament to the developmental plasticity of the mammal form, rather than the cellular fundamentals, and is as likely dominated by stochastic mutation/drift as by 'positive' selective pressure. The availability of pathways for becoming a 'better disease', and the strength of the selective pressures pushing in that direction? Dunno. But you seem to be churning out the usual line that evolution is solely about 'RM + NS'. It isn't.
The 'inability' of Plasmodium to evolve a response to sickle cell/chloroquine is undoubtedly a complex story. Despite them, it still manages to infect a HUGE number of people every year, so the selective pressure posed by chloroquine and sickle cell appears hardly of a magnitude that would lead one to doubt the whole of evolutionary theory off the back of it. Outcomes depend upon the accessible fitness landscape. If things don't happen in a particular scenario, despite huge numbers buzzing against the glass, that only tells us something about that fitness landscape.
Exactly. Darwinian evolution, natural selection and adaptation, are a reality but do not even come close to explaining the origins of the important features of living organisms at the molecular and phenotypic level.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Darwinian evolution, natural selection and adaptation, are a reality but do not even come close to explaining the origins of the important features of living organisms at the molecular and phenotypic level.
ReplyDeleteWhat does, then? And be specific. I'm sick of hearing what doesn't. You have the floor.
Saying 'design' in that wand-wavy way you people do explains precisely bugger all. You might as well say 'cabbages', or 'ineffable Tuesdays'. Do you have a methodology for distinguishing those features that did arise by those 'Darwinian' (sic) mechanisms that you accept, versus those that arose by the mechanism you would place in opposition? Besides "I reckon", that is.
Defending Peter Borger? LOL
ReplyDeleteAllan, discussing anything about evolution with Gammaburster is a waste of time and effort. He's a known troll, active for years on other blogs. Gammaburster has never learned anything from any reply or explanation.
ReplyDelete@Atheistoclast or even Gammaburster,
ReplyDeleteWhy not take Allan Miller's challenge and tell how Intelligent Design WORKS?
How does an Intelligently Designed feature originate?
Is an Intelligently Designed feature present at the same point in time in all individuals of the population, or only in one and does it increase in frequency?
Or, how does directed mutation work? How does it know what to mutate to?
Allan, discussing anything about evolution with Gammaburster is a waste of time and effort.
ReplyDeleteIf I expected anyone's mind to change, then yes. Atheistoclast, too, has a vigour on other forums I can only marvel at. But I'm interested in the things that people think are 'too hard for evolution', so I like to pick at why. Maybe I'm just a troll too! :0)
Speaking of natural, what exactly is "natural"?
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to what you all think about the word "natural". For instance, is the death of an antelope by a lion natural? How about the death of a mosquito by a dragonfly? How about the death of a human by malaria? Does the age of the antelope, mosquito, or human matter as to whether their death is natural or not?
Is it natural for people to kill each other? Is it natural for some animals to kill people? Is it natural for people to kill animals? Is it natural for some viruses and bacteria to kill people and animals? Does the 'purpose' of the killing change whether it's natural or not? Is only the human perception of the 'purpose' what determines whether a killing is natural or not? Do we humans apply the same standard of 'purpose' or of what is 'natural' to animals, viruses, bacteria, etc., as we do to ourselves?
When an asteroid hits a planet and kills any or all life that is on that planet, is that a natural event? When a chimpanzee uses a weapon (e.g. a rock or stick) to attack and/or kill another animal, is that natural? When a bird builds a nest, is that natural, or artificial?
We humans like to use the word 'artificial' a lot, and that's the word a lot of IDiots use when they're pushing design, but it seems to me that natural and artificial are often both used in ways that don't really get to the nitty gritty. Where exactly is the line between natural and artificial?
Should we always base what's natural or artificial on what humans think and/or do, or should we include what some other organisms think and/or do, and if we do include some others, which ones? For example, should we consider the use of a weapon by a chimp as artificial but the building of a nest by a bird natural, or what? Should both of those things be considered natural, or artificial? What do you suppose the chimps and birds think about it?
Before anyone gave any credence to organisms other than humans it was pretty easy to just say that humans are the only organisms that do anything that is 'artificial', or at least 'intelligently artificial', such as the invention and use of tools, but now it's well known that other organisms design and use tools and that they build all kinds of structures (hives/nests/dams/burrows/etc.). Of course it has been known for ages that many organisms besides humans build things but most people, including at least some scientists, didn't, and many still don't, seem to think (or say) that the building of things by organisms other than humans is 'artificial'. Maybe I'm just not recalling it right now it but I don't remember seeing the word artificial being used to describe a bee hive, or a bird nest. And even if the word artificial is used to describe those things, is it the right word?
Are the urges and actions of bees or birds to build hives or nests natural, but the hives or nests themselves artificial? Is it a natural urge and action for a human to design and make/build a tool or a house? Is the product (the tool or the house) of the human urge and action natural or artificial? Should the tool or the house be called artificial even though they're the product of a natural urge and action?
What do you guys think?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@gammaburster
ReplyDeleteI am adding very pertinent questions that Gammaburster either is not willing or not able to answer. For once, please try to think about what Intelligent Design has to offer for an explanation, instead of making irrelevant remarks about non-existing worlds.
Why not take Allan Miller's challenge and tell how Intelligent Design WORKS?
How does an Intelligently Designed feature originate?
Is an Intelligently Designed feature present at the same point in time in all individuals of the population, or only in one and does it increase in frequency?
Or, how does directed mutation work? How does it know what to mutate to?
Please anwer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletegamma,
ReplyDeleteYour list displays a rather strong misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. The first and most important being that anything will be able to evolve provided a sufficient population. If that were so, no lineages would have disappeared. That besides:
1. Trillions and trillions of malaria parasites couldn't evolve around sickelcell.
How could they? For this to happen the malaria parasite would have to have close to no other way but survive around such thing. For that to be so the malaria parasite would have to find mostly hosts who suffer such anemia. That's far from being the case.
2. Billions of people couldn't evolve a real defence against malaria.
Billions? What kind of data are you reading? What proportion of the human population do you think are exposed to malaria? Why do you think that the human populations need more than sickle cell anemia to survive and reproduce regardless of malaria?
3. Millions of people couldn't evolve a real defence against HIV.
Well, this is indeed interesting, since there is plenty of articles and studies on people who are healthy carriers. A friend of mine works on such subjects. Could it be that these people are resistant to HIV? Also, for the population to be HIV resistant, most of the non-resistant would have to be infected and die before reproductive age. That's not the case, is it?
4. Trillions of HIV viruses with 10,000 higher mutation-rate than cells couldn't evolve around the absence of the CCR5 receptor.
Seems like you shot yourself in the foot. So, absence of CCR5 protects against HIV. There are other mutations that protect against HIV by the way. Also, why would HIV evolve around CCR5? HIV's populations survive all right in humans without such a mutation. Thus, the population cannot evolve around such a thing for the same reason the malaria parasite would not evolve around sickle cell anemia. You truly fail to understand evolution. You fail to understand two important ingredients: genetic background sufficient for a trait to evolve, and opportunity/pressure: the population should strongly depend on evolutionary changes for it to reproduce.
Now the question: will you even care to understand these two ingredients or just start another list of misinformed "problems" with evolution. Before you do just that (which is classic creationist bullshit), what about you notice that I clearly detected the problems with your reasoning and thus conclude, all by yourself, that you might be overly misinformed and thus have to understand before continuing. Ask yourself this: if you are misinformed about these, what else your might be misinformed about by the very same sources? You can ask yourself such a thing if you have a little bit of honesty and self-respect, which are rather lacking among creationists, more so among those with ID inclinations.
@gammaburster,
ReplyDeleteDon't waffle but answer my questions. Since you've refused twice to do so, you clearly do not understand what you are trying to defend.
Statements lacking logic.
I think that certain programs and features already excist in the genome and can be activated when needed. How come these programmes and features to exist if not needed before and what cue can activate them if the programmes were not needed before, so how can the right cue exist? And how is the cue transmitted when needed? All such is supposing what you (Gammaburster, not everybody or anybody 'you') need to show.
For me that points to an active search of the genome in excisting data. Not random mutation. It just takes to long. Don't forget that you can only select what is already present. Somewhat contradictory. Of course selection can only work on what is already present, but how can the genome search actively for what is not already present and has never been done before? How does the genome get the information to search actively, in what data, and how does the genome know what the right answer is?
You don't need selection pressure. Evolution just happens. If a feature pops up and gives a benefit, it will fixate sooner or later. If a feature gives a benefit, it might get fixed: that is called selection, usually. That is how selection contributes to evolution. Nobody ever explained that to you? ('you' being Gammaburster not the 'you' in the sentence stating 'selection pressure is not necessary').
gamma,
ReplyDeleteOf course selection pressure is not the whole thing> Seems like you failed to read "opportunity" in that sentence. Didn't you? For a benefit to start expanding you need enough of such a niche for it to expand into. And no, not all those resistant to HIV are CCR5 mutants. But even if they were, so what? It still shows that if HIV killed most of its victims and attacked them before reproductive age, we would have an evolved humanity with at least a mutant CCR5. Why do you fail to notice that? Again, HIV does not need to evolve as a population around such a feature. There may or may not be HIV mutants out there who do not care about CCR5 deletions, but the opportunity and good enough niche are not there.
So you believe that if the only way to survive is "evolve" something, that than once of a sudden the right mutations will pop up? That;s kind of strange
Do you misread on purpose? Where did I say that the mutations will pop up all of a sudden? I pointed to your main mistakes, I did not write a treatise of evolutionary theory. Given the proper conditions we will see the mutant alleles become prevalent. If not, then we will not see them. How hard is that to understand?
If nicholas white found mutant malaria parasites resistant to chloroquine then what's your problem? Who cares if it needed two mutations or one? It happened. So? Did an intelligent designer come and produce the double mutant? Can you see how you shoot yourself in the foot at all? You contradict your own problems with evolution time and again, and you can't notice it?
What will you misread now? I don't think that you are looking for any understanding. So, please continue showing how much of an idiot you have to be be in order to support ID. That makes the work of evidencing ID as creationism all the much easier. Since I do not expect you to now start reading with any intention to understand, I will just follow Peter's advice and leave you alone.
2. Yes billions. 300 to 500 million people every year is already a billion in 2 to 3 years.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's curious. The human population reached 7 billion kinda recently. I guess someone forgot to tell me that I got malaria.
3. That a virus can be dormant for years is no news at all. But the people who are actually resistent are all missing the CCR5 receptor which is still needed for HIV to bind.
Nor should it be news at all that if the virus does not infect you before reproductive age, then the next generation will be as resistant, or as good a recipient, for the virus as the previous generation. Nope, not all of those who resist the virus are CCR5 mutants. But again, can you see what's going on or not? You shot yourself in the foot. You showed that should HIV be much more of a problem, those with a CCR5 mutation would prevail and thus humans would evolve HIV resistance.
4. You don't need selection pressure. Evolution just happens. If a feature pops up and gives a benefit, it will fixate sooner or later
Good to see you come back to your senses and admit that evolution works. Then why are we arguing? Also, did I just say "pressure" or did I also say "opportunity"?
There was really no need to evolve mammals and reptiles out of bacteria. It just happened. Strong pressure is always looking for short term solutions like breaking genes.
"Always" is too strong a word gamma. Sure you want to be that much of an absolutist?
1. So you believe that if the only way to survive is "evolve" something, that than once of a sudden the right mutations will pop up?
As far as I remember, I did not say such a thing. Can you read at all? I pointed to your main problems. I did not write a treatise on evolution and population genetics.
What about chloroquine resistance ... 2 pointmutations at the same time had to come up
Since it happened, then who cares if it took two or one mutations? Evolution still happened. Another shoot to your own feet.
What makes you think that without a lot of pressure you can make all living mammals out of a mouse-kind of animal in a couple of million years? What kind of pressure would you suggest to push a mouse into lions, girafes, whales, deers, cats, pigs and so on?? It really doesn't fit the data.
The opportunities and pressure of lots of niches available after dinosaurs got almost completely extinct.
What will you misread now gamma? After all, misreading is creationist MO. Not surprised that an "advocate" of the ID version of creationism would rely on misreading and god-of-the-gaps arguments, even when your own arguments are contradictory. Keep at it. It makes it all too easy to show the religious motivation behind ID.
(I wrote perhaps too many answers. I did not know that "approval" was reinstated.)
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that scientists are really scared to think out of the box because of the social pressure.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that would explain Newton and Darwin and Galileo and Einstein and Bohr and Planck and ... pussies, the lot of 'em. That would also explain why science has not moved on one iota in 400 years ... oh, hang on ...
Nobody is 'scared'! Most just think it's a total waste of time looking for mechanisms such as the one you propose. Non-biological intelligence? What a hoot! Nonetheless, if you or some of your myriad colleagues can scare up enough money from the many rich religious people out there in the world, you can do your own research. You only have to open a chink and the light will flood out. 'Mainstream' science will be all over the field like a rash, if you come up with something worth looking at. But you don't. Instead, you focus on that tedious list of things whose evolutionary history may be vague, and say "evolution cannot explain these!", without any positive evidence for your alternative scenario whatsoever. And fight tooth and nail to discredit any work that does shed light on your hopeful gap, rationalising away the focus of the mainstream by invoking fear for tenure, or social pressure, or "Darwinism is a religion", or some other such bullshit.
I haven't time to address your scattergun 'concerns', but this sticks out as a classic misunderstanding:
It is really really unlikely that all living mammals all evolved out of some mouse-kind of animal and that random mutation/selection always came up with a parallel solution for sex organs for both male and female.
The very fact that mating must be successful keeps these organs compatible. But this does not freeze them. It is still possible to have stepwise, incremental amendment, from cloacal union to internal retention of the egg to penetrative sperm delivery. In the kingdom of the dickless, the feebly-endowed (by our standards) is king - if sperm have to swim up a canal, it saves them part of the trip, and gives them a head start if mating is competitive. Then, a deeper canal may be advantageous in the female. And both sons and daughters will carry both sets of genes - sex organs are made by autosomal genes.
As long as each step is relatively minor, there is absolutely nothing beyond your biological understanding that renders this stepwise complementarity "really really unlikely". Indeed, there is excellent evidence that sex arose in unicellular organisms, long before internal delivery became an issue.
Gammaburster said:
ReplyDeleteI cannot post anymore so I try it anonymous
@Peter,
same to you.
You are also don't understand what you are trying to defend. There was never done an observation that it is even in theory possible to build biological features through a Darwinian mechanism. Never, after all this years. It's purely based on believe. Believe that random mutation/selection came up with the most fantastic things. I give you a bright explanation why it doensn't fit the data and why it's so unlikely that it's probally not the mechanism to look for.
And as I mentioned before; I don't own a lab and mainstream scientist refuse to look in a different corner.
To answer your questions for the last time;
I already told you what could activate a program. Stress, like the need for food which was seen in bacteria. While exposed to a stressfull situation in this case the lack of food, certain parts in plasmids started to recombinate and found a solution to digest parts of nylon (not nylon). The genome doesn't now what the right answer is otherwise it didn't have to search. But look at it as a swiss knife. Certain things on that thing you never used. Maybe one day you run in to a problem while walking in the woods and check your knife if there's something that might help you. The features on the knife were already present but you just never needed them. In the future, I predict that they find features in parts of the DNA that they now call just junk but what turns out to be functional genes with by just recombining certain parts. When the day comes that scientists start to look for active mechanisms instead of a passive mechanisms like random mutation, they will discover more and more about HOW this kind of things works.
Remember the lizards at Pod Mcaru (Maybe it is written in an other way) Just 5 couples where put on that island and valves to digest certain food where developed in just a few generations. I predict that when they are done with the genetic research that nothing did evolve. The "valve program" that was already present became active because of the situation.
I don't know what you mean with that selection part. Selection always takes place. Pressure is not needed. Pressure only conservs certain features. Like bacteria which develop anti-biotics resistence; They don't need to. It just happens. Some bacteria can stand the anti-biotics and stay alive. Pressure is not the right word to use in this case. They don't fight. They just die or stay alive.
Another example of irrationality is the idea the evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. It does not, but not for the reasons given in an absurd article published in November 2008 “Entropy and evolution” by the American Journal of Physics. According to the article, the second law is not violated because the earth is not a closed system. This is nonsense because the earth is only open to the sun, which generally increases entropy. This article also produces a fake equation showing that evolution doesn’t violate the second law.
ReplyDeleteThe scientifically valid reason the second law is not violated is that the second law only applies to non-interacting particles. I’m trying to get the AJP to retract the article. My correspondence with the AJP is at
http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/
I'm really, really keen to find out HOW this intelligent designer interacts with his or her creatures in order to make the changes. Is s/he like some sort of Craig Venter character, cooking up wholly novel genetic sequences and releasing them into the wild? Do they then take over from the "unimproved" population gradually (eg by natural selection), or is it more akin to gene therapy, and the subject creatures are somehow all "innoculated" with the new genetics in a way that ensures they enter the germ line?
ReplyDeleteYou see without these answers, it's just bullshit. Could someone please answer this and not simply veer off into incredulity about "mice becoming whales".