I think there's some serious attempts to do science among ID proponents but I also think it's bad science. It's fun, informative, and challenging to debate real science with knowledgeable, informed members of the ID community.
However, that same community embraces many, many advocates who are not knowledgeable about evolution and not informed about how science works. They are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination but they pretend to be scientific. Many of them are Young Earth Creationists who seriously think that the universe was created pretty much as it is only 6000 years ago. While it's true that every ID proponent is a creationist (i.e believes in the existence of a supernatural creator) there are some versions of creationism that are more irrational than others.
The theistic evolution version of creationism rejects the views of their anti-science YEC friends but Intelligent Design Creationism embraces all comers as long as they are vehemently opposed to materialism and evolution. That's fine, but then ID can't claim to be scientific. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you try to act like scientists, in which case you have to oppose the kooks and YECs in your movement, or you admit that you are a religious and social movement, in which case you stop pretending to be a science.
I hope that the knowledgeable, informed, members of the ID community will abandon the ridiculous path they've taken where they try to make a scientific case for ID knowing full well that the majority of their supporters disagree strongly with their premises (e.g. common descent). That's an untenable position.
We've seen recently that some ID proponents are attempting to do this. I'm thinking of Jonathan McLatchie and Vincent Torley right now but there are others. How is it working out? Look at the Torley post on Uncommon Descent where he's trying to explain evolution to IDiots: Human and chimp DNA: They really are about 98% similar. It's an uphill battle. The kooks are accusing him of becoming a Darwinist.
But that's exactly what the ID community needs to do in order to gain credibility. They need to shed the kooks and the IDiots who make them look silly. When they do that, they may find that more of us are willing to have a serious discussion about science.
Klinghoffer posts on Evolution News & Views (sic)—a site that doesn't allow comments. His latest post is a classic example of the problems that the ID movement faces: Here's Why We Answer Some of Our Less Cogent Critics.
As you can see, he avoids the issue I raised in favor of an ad hominem attack. Wouldn't it be nice to see a scientific debate between Michael Behe and David Klinghoffer on the meaning of evolution? Not going to happen as long as ID is primarily a religious movement.
1. Casey Luskin can't decide how old the universe is but he leans toward Young Earth Creationism. Yet he's a leading spokesman for the "science" of intelligent design.
405 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 405 Newer› Newest»Ed wrote :
You behave like an obnoxious fool
Yep. Because i defend solid and good science, and rational inferences upon the scientific evidence we see in nature, i am a obnoxious fool... LOL...
Remind you that Romans 1.20 - 22 belongs and is addressed to people like you which ignore the obvious, in order to keep their No-God required wishful thinking..... maybe you should consider Douglas Grahams quote:
the fool tries to defend what he does not believe with the enthusiasm of a believer.
"solid and good science" LMFAO.
The science of talking snakes, pigeons impregnating virgins and Jeebus walking on the water?
bye bye all.
Please don't anyone laugh at the Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man or Nutcracker Man. Please keep a serious look on your face when they tell you that evolutionary scientists exposed them. And as soon as an evolutionary scientist exposes a problem with evolution, guess what??? The EvoFairy taps him with her wand and he is sud..den..ly--you guessed--a CREATIONIST!
Meanwhile, at UD, Kairosfocus is on the case. He rebuts Larry with the usual insane mishmash of colourful pictures, block diagrams, exploded views of Ambassadeur fishing reels, screenshots from his personal computer, quotes mined from famous (and less famous) people and FIASCO propaganda. No human on earth can possibly respond all that stuff! Checkmate!
I forgot the link
Ah, and "respond to all that stuff". Edit button wanted.
In my opinion he is only helping to make Christians look stupid. And this is totally out of line:
(What kind of matches do you think you were playing with when Christians were routinely characterised as ignorant or stupid or insane or wicked? When, a religious upbringing was portrayed as the equivalent to child abuse? When, Christians are routinely portrayed as right-wing, Christo-fascist would be theocrats and potential terrorists? Do we even remember the consequence — literally for centuries — of Nero’s false accusation that Christians were guilty of criminal, treasonous arson against Rome on the night of July 18, 64 AD? And, more, much more? Or, have we forgotten that the lessons of history were paid for in blood and tears, so that those who refuse to heed them doom themselves to pay the same price over and over again?)
We stand warned.
Now, my reply — slightly enhanced:
You know religion has lost the war when religious apologists go to extreme lengths to sound sciency while accusing actual scientists of being "religious".
And this:
Further to all this, there is a sea change of context.
Innocent blood now cries up from the ground at Umpqua, only to be brushed aside. But those who have laboured long and hard, those who have aided and abetted, those who have actively enabled, those who have been passive or indifferent in the face of the creation of an atmosphere of undue hostility to and polarisation against Christians and the Christian heritage of our civilisation, must now face the consequences.
For, when madmen are distilling shoot on sight from the toxic atmosphere, it is a sign and wake up call for all decent people.
And, a terrible portent for our civilisation:
I see that my posts have been deleted. Somebody else pointed out that Professor Moran is deleting comments. Us skeptics of chance evolution have been much more courteous than the Professors supporters whom have no substance and only angry rhetoric.
It is a shame for the censorship because I actually respect Professor Moran more than many other Evolutionists. He is honest enough to admit that Macro is not just lots of Micro. And while he is dogmatic in his chance position , he does seem to support academic freedom.
Now...The work of non darwinists like Professor Shapiro does not support common descent because looking for built in responses to the environment does not provide a mechanism for the information to accumulate to go from one type of organism to another.
Not only that but the fossil record is discontinuous, discontinuity is what you would expect if common descent is false. Where there is discontinuity then there cannot be support for common descent, Evolution should be continuous but we see creatures appearing suddenly and fully formed and a non continuous fossil record just as if common descent is a fairy story.
Also it does not make sense that we do not see animals in the living world in any state of transition, somehow animals that are meant to have originated at different time periods even millions of years later than others are all fully formed, Nature should be in a constant state of flux but strangely, animals from different time periods are all mysteriously fully formed and not in transition to anything else.
The idea of Creatures evolving rapidly so that no trace is left behind does not support common descent because built in responses do not show how information could accumulate for common descent to occur.
Neo Darwinism is dead as admitted by the third way group of evolutionists and other evolutionists like the late Lynn Marguilis.
Evolutionists are split from top to bottom, In crisis without a theory.
Now....I am not against the idea that the designer used common descent in principle, but it appears from the discontinuous fossil record and that from the living world, we see no evidence of the state of flux we would expect to see in nature.
So I have to stick to the idea that has empirical support and is observed and testable that is that there is no mechanism for common descent and that creatures reproduce after their type, that the designer did not design creatures to go beyond their type has the most support, If something was found within the organisms that allowed that to occur and it was empirically demonstrated that one type could give rise to a different type of life then I could support the idea that is how the design was carried out but the evidence shows that the designer did not create organisms that way.
So we have to just accept that the designer did not build organisms to go beyond their type.
The law of biogenesis shows us that life could not have originated naturally therefore design trumps chance. We are now investigating whether the designer included common descent in his plan but the evidence we can see does not support the common descent position.
Jack Jones if you do not have a testable theoretical model to explain how "intelligent cause" works then there is no testable model for ID.
If you were to successfully have Darwinian theory thrown of science then there would be zero coherent theories, ID theory would not be left standing.
"with the law of biogenesis destroying any natural origin of life and because they hate the idea "
The law of biogenesis is witnessed every day for how nature operates. That life only comes from previous life is witnessed in hospitals all over the world every day and witnessed by those filming animals in nature.
You deny known empiricism when it comes to how nature operates and believe in a fairy tale dude.
Maybe you believe that you came from lightning striking a rock, hahahaha
Now.....Atheists/leftists tend to be anti science, they support post modernism and transgenderism and the pathology of homosexuality etc so it is not a surprise when another one of them like you denies what is empirically demonstrated and observed to occur for how nature operates since humans have been on earth.
hahahahahaha.
The law of biogenesis is tested regularly in nature and is never violated in nature therefore we know life could not have originated naturally by chance.
Design trumps chance.
For the modern "law of biogenesis" see:
The wacky history of cell theory - Lauren Royal-Woods
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OpBylwH9DU
El777,
"well, yeah, i prefer see Larry taking that decision, and kicking me out. That will tell a lot about his democratic attitude... and the strength of his world view ...... LOL..... "
Please don't pull the Galileo gambit and pretend you are being persecuted. That's pathetic, even for you. Especially when ID creationist don't allow comments at all or routinely boot any folks who dissent from their superstitions.
If you argue honestly and try to contribute to the scientific conversation, you can post all you want. Dr. Moran is very lenient in this regard.
Try posting a positive argument for ID creationism. Just one.
Jack,
Because life arises from life because organisms procreate or replicate says nothing whatsoever about the origins of life. The fact that life in the complexity we know it today must procreate and/or replicate to continue says nothing whatsoever about any rules governing the origin of life.
Your problem is that you have not one single shred of evidence that precludes a natural pathway for the origin of life. Not a one.
ID creationists have hid their god in the gap of the origin of life for centuries, and now you think you can say that it is scientifically proven that life could not have arisen naturally, without magic help? No, Jack, the best you can say here is that you don't know how life on Earth appeared.
jack jones, I can't find your answers to these questions that I asked you above:
Is it the biblical 'God' that you believe is the creator of life?
What is your definition of "life"? What, exactly, is it that establishes that something is "life" (alive)? In other words, what are the essential ingredients/processes in or of things that can be described as "life" (alive)?
And since paul nelson won't answer them, maybe you will answer these questions:
If living organisms can only come from (be caused by) living organisms, and living organisms came from (were caused by) your chosen, so-called 'God', then your 'God' must be a living organism and it must have come from (been caused by) a previous living organism, which must have come from (been caused by) a previous living organism, "extending back to the first living things", but wait, if the "Law of Biogenesis" is always true, as you assert, there could not be any such thing as the first living thing(s). The 'first' living thing(s) would have had to come from previous living thing(s). So, what living thing(s) did your 'living God' come from?
You believe that your chosen, so-called 'God' is an exception to the "Law of Biogenesis" (and whatever else that you conveniently want to except), right? How about all the other so-called 'Gods' that have ever been dreamed up? Do they get a pass too or are they subject to the "Law of Biogenesis"?
I was reading it with dismay. Where was the exploded diagram of the fishing reel? Then, at last, many pages in, there it was. You don't know that it is a real kairosfocus post unless the fishing reel is there.
Sorry, I disagree. Predictions should about data that are not yet known. Most usually this is about future events, but predictions can also be made about data that are not yet known but which concern events that have already happened (this is sometimes called retrodiction) (for example, what we should be able to find if an asteroid impact caused the extinction at the end of the Permian). Theories certainly need to account for already known data, but this is postdiction (also hindcasting, backtesting, or retrodiction in another sense of the word).
It is usually good to check an hypothesis against new data rather than the data that suggested the hypothesis in the first place, in part because it is possible to overfit a model to already known data. On the other hand, new data is susceptible to being interpreted or biased toward a particular outcome, while old data already in the literature necessarily avoids that problem.
What's Nutcracker Man? Is this a Tchaikovsky reference?
Jack, you wrote:
"Atheists/leftists tend to be anti science, they support post modernism and transgenderism and the pathology of homosexuality"
Pathology even, wow. What's next Jack, gays rape kids? Or is raping of kids the exclusive domain of those men dedicated to god?
If homosexuality exists, and it's clear it does, it can only be part of gods nature, because god is omnipotent and all knowing. It can't be a mistake or pathology, or else god isn't omnipotent, isn't a perfect designer and knows not all and therefore can't be a god.
If a person falls in love with another person and they happen to be of the same gender, goddidit Jack. It's design Jack, it's the same hormones. There are no 'gay love' hormones Jack.
The law of biogenesis is tested regularly in nature and is never violated in nature therefore we know life could not have originated naturally by chance.
Are you sure? I seem to recall it happening twice in the lab where DNA replacement (once by donor, once by synthetic DNA) lead to a different bacteria being produced from a progenitor cell.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5838/632.abstract.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5838/632.abstract.html
And kudos to Gary Gaulin for stepping up to the challenge in the post.
If people want to deny known chemistry and believe life arose spontaneously in nature then they are welcome to believe that.
Scientists wouldn't need to spend loads of money and use lots of design, expensive equipment and intervention trying to create life if organisms originated in nature from lifeless chemicals by dumb luck. They would just let nature take care of it.
The person that believes that life had to come from a source that is not under natural law is believing consistently with known chemistry and the known law of Biogenesis.
Those that have faith that life arose spontaneously are rejecting known chemistry and the known law of biogenesis and their views are in disharmony with how nature is known to operate.
The burden of proof is thus on them as they have nothing but special pleading with their rejection of known chemistry and known scientific law.
The chance believers faith is not in harmony with how nature is known to operate so their appeal to nature is contradictory.
It shows that it really is just about emotion for the chance believers.
Special pleading? Let's see... you've been told time and again that there's no such thing as a law of biogenesis, but who is guilty of special pleading?
Tell me Jack, if ALL life comes from preexisting life, is it turtles all the way down?
Where do you shoehorn your gawd if all life must come from preexisting life without special pleading?
So you first use a straw man to pretend that we must agree with a "law of biogenesis", to then claim that abiogenesis contradicts that so we must be wrong, and finally you add some special pleading to claim that gawd created life out of non-life, breaking your own law of biogenesis
Why are you creatards unable to argue without using a crap load of fallacies?
" you've been told time and again that there's no such thing as a law of biogenesis,"
Oh I know chance believers such as yourself deny that in nature, life is only witnessed to come from previous life. I know chance believers keep denying how nature operates.
You can deny and deny and deny again because the scientific evidence shows your faith of life originating by chance in nature is contrary to how nature operates. You can keep going into denial for emotional reasons.
You can deny all you want and you can engage in your special pleading.
The law of Biogenesis trumps your chance faith. You are more than welcome to deny what is witnessed every day for how nature operates and has been witnessed since humans have been on earth.
Now...I expect you to deny known scientific fact and I expect you to continue to deny because it trumps your chance faith which you hold to emotional reasons.
Life will only be witnessed to come from previous life for how nature operates and you will continue to deny reality because it clashes with your chance faith. it won't make your chance faith anymore consistent with how nature is observed to operate.
Design trumps chance.
Can't you read? If you believe in a law of biogenesis, then no gods could have created life, Jackass
jack jones, one of the sure fire ways to show that you're an ignorant creationist crackpot is to use the "fully formed" argument, but since you've done so I have more questions (you still haven't answered my other ones).
First, I'll repeat these questions:
What is your definition of "life"? What, exactly, is it that establishes that something is "life" (alive)? In other words, what are the essential ingredients/processes in or of things that can be described as "life" (alive)?
And now, what do you mean by "fully formed"? Describe fully formed "life" versus not fully formed "life". What do you mean by "type"? How many types are there? Are types the same as 'created kinds'? How do you differentiate types? What features/traits/parts/behaviors/abilities, etc., must "creatures" have in common to be a member of the same type? What features/traits/parts/behaviors/abilities, etc., must "creatures" not have in common to be a different type? How about "life" that isn't a creature, such as plants and fungi? Are archaea/archaeabacteria and bacteria/eubacteria "life" and are they "creatures"? What "type" are they? Are viruses "life" and are they "creatures"? What "type" are they? Are humans "creatures"? What "type" are they?
ElShamah777,
Are you stupid enough that you don't notice the irony in your refusal to notice that you're doing nothing but arguments from ignorance? All you do is try and convince everybody that because one single molecule might not have been the first self-replicator, therefore there was mo self-replicator, therefore "God." Life is too complex (the immune system, whatever other systems you have brought as if any of that meant anything), and therefore "God." Each and every one.
Then you claim that there's a third "premise," namely that "intelligent causes" can do the kind of stuff that "materialistic causes" can't. Well, sorry, but that doesn't help. It is still an argument from ignorance and an abysmal philosophical catastrophe.
I don't know if it's worth explaining, you never read the answers, all you do is come back and fill another bunch of comments with more crap about how complex life is, quote-mines, and such bullshit. But here it goes: all the intelligences we know about are physical. So there's no meaningful possible contrast between "intelligent causes" and "materialistic causes." Given what we do know about "intelligent causes," if you think that's an answer, then you don't think that there was a beginning of life. You should expect that either life was always there, in the form of those intelligent "causes," or that those "intelligences" evolved and arose somewhere else. but how if not by "material causes"? Since all the intelligences we know about are physical, then you should be looking for evidence of those supposed designers, their tools, etc. But instead, you regale us with fantasies about gods, which don't follow from any of the shit you present.
Naturalism of the gaps? What a stupid idea. Nature is something we live around us all the time. "Gods" are fantasies. there's no comparison. We cannot but work with what we have. So, if life has not always existed, there must have been an origin of life, and looking for fantasies to explain it helps nobody understand anything.
Your arguments are a philosophical and an intellectual failure. Mere gods-of-the-gaps fallacies. Arguments from ignorance through and through.
Now please, don't post another thousand comments. Think!
Nutcracker Man falls under the Many Designer Hypothesis. In this instance the Designer was none other than the Sugar Plum Fairy.
"Intelligent Design" creationism - no tent is too big!
"Can't you read?"
Your reasoning is fallacious
"If you believe in a law of biogenesis"
It's as sure a fact of nature as there can be. It is witnessed every day.
"then no gods could have created life"
This is where you are showing your learning difficulties and lack of understanding.
It is precisely because of the natural law of biogenesis that you have to go outside of nature for how life originated.
The supernatural is by definition above natural law and not governed by it. If it were governed by natural law then it wouldn't be supernatural.
"Jackass"
When you have such learning difficulties like some other chance believers then you really should be more humble.
We know nature is governed by the law of biogenesis, so to appeal to nature as you do is to contradict how nature operates.
Thus we have to go to beyond nature for how life originated.
The person that believes in a supernatural origin is fully consistent with the evidence. The person that believes in a supernatural cause does so because the law of biogenesis shows that life cannot originate naturally.
Your faith in appealing to nature while rejecting how nature operates shows you to be in contradiction.
You need to make up your mind on just what you believe.
You chance believers appeal to nature while rejecting natural law.
You need to get your act together.
@ElShamah777
You are wasting your time trying to educate photosynthesis, these chance believers are showing learning difficulties but that dummy might be the dumbest of the lot.
hahaha
Hi Jack
"Maybe the problem is in our misunderstanding about what ‘life’ is."
This is a very astute statement. We are trying to predict things we don't yet really understand.
The question I am trying to surface is are we using the right methods. We have appeared to have strayed from the scientific method. Has that taken the science of its track?
"The person that believes in a supernatural origin is fully consistent with the evidence. The person that believes in a supernatural cause does so because the law of biogenesis shows that life cannot originate naturally."
According to you, then, any creation ex nihilo story suffices as an explanation for the origin of life. How do you choose the correct story? What if you are wrong? How do you know?
Actually, biogenesis necessarily implies that life has always existed, divine creation ex-nihilo is an obvious violation of his own law.
Jackass still can't notice the obvious problem and thinks that because gawd is supposed to be supernatural, he can break all the laws he wants... but of course we're the ones who's reasoning is fallacious and the ones doing special pleading. Yeah, right
We have appeared to have strayed from the scientific method
Seriously Bill?
@Paul Nelson
"Professor Moran would never tell his U of Toronto students to worry about the appearance of cells in a culture dish they have autoclaved and kept under sterile conditions."
Exactly. Good Point Mr Nelson.
“Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” Biology a search for order in complexity- Moore and Slusher.
Life cannot originate by natural processes thus it had to occur from a source that is not governed by natural law.
Design trumps Chance.
"Biology a search for order in complexity- Moore and Slusher."
That would be this book, published by Christian Liberty Press:
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Search-Complexity-SECOND-EDITION/dp/B00390E98M
And we're supposed to be impressed by that?
jack, even though you keep running away from my questions, I have another one for you:
Is it your belief that the 'God' of the christian bible is the supernatural source (i.e. designer-creator) of life?
Dazz "Actually, biogenesis necessarily implies that life has always existed"
You are showing your lack of understanding again.
The law of Biogenesis implies that life was Created so that life only comes from previous life.
Now... the idea that life could come from non living matter by chance is against known Chemistry and because it does not happen and because we know as far as nature is known to operate that it comes from previous life then we can infer that it was created originally and did not arise naturally.
You can reject known chemistry with your faith in life arising by chance in nature but it is not based on reason or evidence but emotion.
"Jackass"
So says Dazz the Spaz.
"still can't notice the obvious problem"
The obvious problem is your learning difficulties plus your fear.
"and thinks that because gawd is supposed to be supernatural"
Your use of the term gawd, indicates your fear, This is about your fears and may be contributing to your learning problems.
Well you believe the stupidity of nature originating itself. hahaha
"he can break all the laws he wants"
A supernatural source Creating a natural law is not breaking it. But you believe natural law is broken by nature.
You really are Dazz The Spaz.
hahahahaha
"but of course we're the ones who's reasoning is fallacious"
You certainly are.
"and the ones doing special pleading."
You certainly are.
" Yeah, right"
Good to see that you realize it. You may have learning difficulties but even a slow learner like you might be able to learn.
hahaha
It must puzzle the scientists that ordinary layman can look at what they are saying and know it's nothing but bullshit.
I want to know what you dummasses are going to do when it finally comes out that the scientists have been lying about evolution to keep from losing their jobs and that the creationists have been right all along? I can just see you now, face-palming, slamming your head into the table, and threatening suicide. Oh you don't think so? Well that's because you fail to face the facts and refuse to believe what the paleontologists say about the evidence. You think that yelling "quote mine" makes it all go away, but it doesn't. And so you're in for a big shock when it comes. One of the key factors for years now that should be tipping your off is the fact that in ALL public debates creationists win and evotards like you lose.
"The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate." -- Dr. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 241
"The law of Biogenesis implies that life was Created so that life only comes from previous life."
No Jack, "biogenesis" "implies" that if you see an organism it came from a previous organism very much like the one you're seeing (Note that very similar doesn't mean identical). So what this means for abiogenesis, is that life must have started simpler, that life could not have started with something as complex as what we see today. That we are better off thinking of a progression, rather than about an E. coli, a fly, a mouse, or a human, sprouting overnight with no progenitors in the early Earth.
So, again, there's nothing in "biogenesis" precluding life to have a beginning. It just precludes the sudden appearance of something like modern life overnight as a first life form.
I was really trying to get you to realize this on your own. That's why I was asking you what was really tested when they came up with this "law." But you just won't think about what we explain. You have a favourite misinformed argument, and you don't want to think because then you are left with no arguments.
But there you have it.
"Now... the idea that life could come from non living matter by chance is against known Chemistry"
Sure. This is why scientists working on the origin of life do not propose such a thing. (You really have problems with reading comprehension, don't you?)
So, any insistence on your part on any of your bullshit can be safely considered imbecility and/or dishonesty. But it's your choice if you will either learn or insist.
Isn't that strange, Max. The creationists win "hundreds" of debates, yet still cannot come up with a single piece of publishable evidence to support their position. Debates mean diddly squat. Put up or shut up.
What's really puzzling to scientists is that after decade upon decade of data supporting evolutionary theory from many scientific disciplines, anyone could look at that and say that "evolutionists have been lying to save their jobs". The level of fact denial and self delusion required to make that statement is astounding.
Scientists don't debate ID creationists for the same reason that geologists don't debate flat Earthers. Their refusal to do so does not lend any credibility to the idea of a flat Earth. Creationists have been predicting the demise of evolutionary theory any day now for over a hundred years. Unfortunately, the wishful thinking you use to maintain your creationist myths won't change reality.
What is really sad is that is the only prediction ID creationism makes. Even if evolutionary theory was all wrong, this would not provide one single shred of evidence to support creationist fantasies. ID creationism has never put forth a positive argument for ID creationism, or made scientifically testable hypotheses emanating from some ID creationist theoretical construct. You're all about bashing evolution.
This gets back to the original point of Dr. Moran's post that touched off the blizzard of logical fallacies and obfuscation of this thread:
if ID creationism wants to be taken seriously as a scientific alternative, it must produce some positive empirical evidence in its favor. So far you have none.
Max,
Do you seriously think that the truth and falsehood of anything can be decided by debates? Are you truly unaware that debates are about rhetorical display, not about the veracity of the point being defended?
I mean, if you were some little kid I would understand why you think that way, but an adult? Shouldn't you rather think that checking the facts is a much better way to inform yourself?
In a debate people can sprout as much bullshit as they wish, as long as they do it in a way that pleases the audience. That done, they might "win." So what? Should I go back to thinking that the planet is flat because someone debated such point so masterfully that the other "side" was left speechless at some deeply ignorant point that would require going back to kindergarten before it would be answered, and the audience perceiving that as a win for the flat earther? Of course not.
What leaves me perplexed is how someone as deeply ignorant as yourself can imagine that she has better understanding of science than a scientist. What leaves me perplexed is that someone as ignorant as yourself would be so arrogant about her assessment of something she so obviously doesn't understand. What leaves me speechless is that someone as ignorant as yourself would think that my job depends on evolutionary theory.
Get down of what you think it's a high horse. It's not a high horse, it's just a pile of crap. Learn to be a tad humble and try and learn instead. After you get properly informed tell me again how much my job depends on evolutionary theory, and how much what you know about science makes my position indefensible and your current position anything other than a fairy-tale worldview.
Bye-bye you little piece of arrogantly ignorant shit.
My irony-meter exploded.
I have discovered the Law of Night and Day. It says every day is preceded by a night and every night by a day in a 24-hour cycle. The Law has been confirmed empirically by billions of humans worldwide (at latitudes up to 66° north or south) over thousands of years. It follows there was no first day and no first night, therefore both the Earth and the Sun must be infinitely old.
This guy is deserving of nothing but a laugh. If he really believes what he just wrote, including the condescending attitude with which it was stated, he's not worth arguing with.
But no one's ever found a transitional form from day to night!!!11!11one
Dawn is just the same kind as day and dusk is of the same kind as night. Day and night are always fully formed! There's no naturalistic explanation for day-to-night, only an intelligent agent can explain it!
How do you know there was day and night billions of years ago? Were you there? huh? huh? a few years of night and day is just micro-night-and-day-ism. There's no evidence for macro-night-and-day-ism!!
You Night-and-day-ists will burn in hell. Repent!!!!!111!!11!1!
"There is no law of biogenesis that disproves the natural origin of life."
Of course you cannot prove this as many scientists have tried to do. So the Law of Biogenesis stands whether you like it or not.
It seems that the evolution believers are adept and obfuscating the laws of science so they can justify their belief that monkeys turned into humans.
Chris B, "Scientists don't debate ID creationists for the same reason that geologists don't debate flat Earthers."
Nice try but you are a creation denier. You are now all upset because I told the truth. The so called scientists who support evolution debate people like Kent Hovind and he humiliates them. The reason they lose the debates is because there is no evolution and never will be any evolution. They are at a supreme disadvantage.
All the theories of evolution (speculations) have been debunked and now they are looking for a new theory and can't come up with one.
Now it's time for all the Kent Hovind ad hominems. hahahahahaha
Don't disappoint me, let's hear all the whining and crying and name calling.
I see, so to investigate whether "monkeys turned into humans", we need to first have a detailed account of the Origin Of Life?
And I suppose in order to investigate plate tectonics we need to first figure out where the universe came from.
Bizarre.
"Isn't that strange, Max. The creationists win "hundreds" of debates, yet still cannot come up with a single piece of publishable evidence to support their position. Debates mean diddly squat. Put up or shut up."
Can you at least come up with something other than a logical fallacy?
"The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate." -- Dr. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 241
"Do you seriously think that the truth and falsehood of anything can be decided by debates?"
That's funny since your side loses all the debates suddenly debates are irrelevant. But if your side was winning the debates they would be empirical scientific evidence. Funny how you guys work. hahahahaaa
"What leaves me perplexed is how someone as deeply ignorant as yourself can imagine that she has better understanding of science than a scientist."
Oh you are perplexed? I am perplexed how someone who is a scientist can come up with such idiotic ideas like dinos turning into birds and a ton load of you idiots just fall right in behind him and make complete fools of yourselves yipping and yapping about how scientific that is when even a 5 year old isn't stupid enough to fall for that crap.
And of course when anyone questions your nonsense this is the sort of response that we get. "Bye-bye you little piece of arrogantly ignorant shit."
HAR HAR HAR so much for science.
Little Johnny: Mommy, the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!
1st Evo scientist: Dam he doesn't know a thing about tailoring.
2nd Evo scientist: Tell that retard to shut up. 99.99% of evo scientists see the Emperor's new clothes.
1st Evo scientist: Yeah, somebody has been letting that kid read bronze age books.
2nd Evo scientist: They just need to keep that kid's religion out of tailoring. Don't they know it's a specialized science and few can understand it?
HAR HAR HAR HAR
"So what this means for abiogenesis, is that life must have started simpler, that life “
What the law of biogenesis shows is that as far as nature operates, life only comes from previous life.
“So, again, there's nothing in "biogenesis" precluding life to have a beginning.”
The way nature operates precludes life originating naturally. You are entitled to hold to your faith of a living organism originating from non living matter but we see that chemistry does not operate that way.
if chemistry did operate like that then we wouldn't need scientists with lots of intelligence and interference and expensive equipment working hard to create a living organism from non living matter.
There are millions of dead animals on earth at one time with their bodies a perfect reservoir of chemicals needed to get a living organism. Biochemicals in close proximity but they don't rearrange and come back to life, If they cannot come to life in a friendly environment, then it cannot happen at all. A living organism is not going to originate from non living matter by dumb chance. You are welcome to have faith in it. But your faith is inconsistent with known chemistry.
“You have a favourite misinformed argument,”
Your denialism does not entail anything other than you are in denial.
“ and you don't want to think”
From the guy that believes in life originating by dumb chance.
hahaha
“because then you are left with no arguments.”
The law of Biogenesis is more than an argument, It is observed every day. You have no argument because known chemistry does not operate according to your chance faith. You will never see a living organism originating from non living matter by dumb chance. You reject how nature operates and yet you appeal to nature. You are a walking talking contradiction.
“Sure. This is why scientists working on the origin of life do not propose such a thing. (You really have problems with reading comprehension, don't you?)”
Scientists working in the lab trying to create a living organism is intelligence and design. You really do have learning problems, don’t you?
Now…… I suppose that if they put a dumbshit like you in a lab trying to create a living organism and you succeeded then we could discount that as a living organism coming from intelligence, You are close enough to that dumb level.
Hahahaha
Or maybe Dazz the spaz or one of the other dumb chance worshippers posting here., hahaha
“So, any insistence on your part on any of your bullshit”
Truth is bullshit to a dumbshit like you.
“can be safely considered imbecility and/or dishonesty.”
This from the dummy that believes life originated by dumb chance.
hahahahaha
“But it's your choice if you will either learn or insist.”
Oh I am learning what dummies that you and your chance worshippers are.
You all failed dude.
Known Chemistry does not support your dumb chance faith. All you have is special pleading of chemistry acting differently in the past. Hahahahaha
You dumb chance worshippers are defeated by the law of biogenesis
You can double down and keep on showing your stupidity but you people are stuck denying scientific laws to stick to your dumb chance faith.
You lost. Thanks for Playing.
"In my years working with Leigh Van Valen (1985-1997 as a PhD student, 1997 to his death, in 2010, as a friend) I heard Leigh give precise and nuanced analyses of data from a variety of perspectives: his own (always sui generis); on other mornings, that of an orthodox neo-Darwinian; on other mornings, that of a structuralist. "
You are not the only person here who knew Leigh Van Valen well. The fact that he enjoyed playing devil's advocate does not mean that he supported your creationist views.
It is precisely because of the natural law...that you have to go outside of nature
Of course, how perfectly logical!
I want to know what you dummasses are going to do
I nominate for the Irony Hall of Fame this man, who in the process of insulting others for supposed stupidity demonstrates he does not know how to spell "dumbass."
"Also it does not make sense that we do not see animals in the living world in any state of transition,"
How do you know? Do you have precognition of the future?
Jack "the idiot" Jones,
It was your choice to either read for comprehension this time, or give us yet another example of the dishonesty and imbecility that it takes to insist on your quoting, time and again, a "law" that you don't understand. Same with your constant quoting of "chance." I can only try this many times. The benefit of the doubt is wasted on idiots life yourself.
Jack Jones: "It is precisely because of the natural law of biogenesis that you have to go outside of nature for how life originated."
Philosophical naturalism is a belief system, not science. Only adherents feel they need it. The Theory of Intelligent Design that I defend has none.
ID proponents should not be feeding the enemy by giving credibility to the natural/supernatural dichotomy. The best you will get is a philosophical argument that is equally out of bounds for you too.
Jack Jones: "The supernatural is by definition above natural law and not governed by it. If it were governed by natural law then it wouldn't be supernatural."
In science something either exists, or it does not, with no in-between world. There is just the known and the still unknown.
Science is made of scientific theories that explain how things work or happened. If you don't have a scientifically testable model and theory to explain how "intelligent cause" works then you have no evidence that such a theory is even possible. But I do. And because of the way science works the only scientific path you now have is to help develop that, and that's a whole lot better of an option than really having no scientific theory at all.
Click on my name above for the model, theory, and other fun science projects for you to enjoy.
Max,
"Nice try but you are a creation denier."
Terrible try. You're the one using ad hominems. I don't deny creationism. I reject it as a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on planet Earth because there is zero evidence to support it.
Pointing out the failures of ID creationism is not "whining". You really need to stop projecting the inadequacies and frustrations of your delusional religious beliefs onto real science. Evolutionary theory has decades of empirical data to back it up, and continues adding to this body of knowledge while ID creationism has yet to offer a single shred of evidence to support its claims.
BTW, evolutionary theory doesn't claim that dinosaurs turned into birds. Things magically turning onto other things is the realm of religious superstition, not science.
judmarc, "he does not know how to spell "dumbass.""
Hey dummass, you're the only dummass that is so stupid as to nominate yourself as the spellcheck nanny for slang words and then fall flat on your idiot face. Before you go about correcting someone's spelling you should at least Google the word so that you don't look like a complete idiot.
Here is what you would have found.
dummass has the following definition
The word dummass is used in Slang meaning idiot
So there you go DUMMASS HAR HAR HAR
Clearly, Jack wants to know where the crocoducks are.
Chris B, "What's really puzzling to scientists is that after decade upon decade of data supporting evolutionary theory from many scientific disciplines"
Well let's try genetics: GOD DUN IT! Read this retard:
ENGINEERED BY GENIUS BEYOND GENIUS
Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled The Biologist, that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and J (the scientist). We join the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures? everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.
YOU JUST LOST THE DEBATE
Guys,
Max has quite an infantile mind. I would not try too much to talk to "him." I suspect that the mind goes with the age. Maybe not. Maybe it's immaturity out of stupidity, but still not worth trying to explain something to such a feeble mind, and not even funny to ridicule. Others are more convincingly adults, even if stupid. This one I have my doubts.
Chris B, "I don't deny creationism. I reject it as a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on planet Earth because there is zero evidence to support it."
Unfortunately for you the fossils prove you wrong. Here's what paleontologists have found.
HERE ARE THE FACTS AS APPROVED BY EVOLUTION SCIENTISTS
All of the animals:
1. Suddenly appeared
2. Exploded everywhere
3. Were fully formed
4. No transitions
5. No gradualism
6. No change (stasis)
7. No sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type
THERE IS NO EVOLUTION. PERIOD
THE PROOF: "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates." -James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December, 1975, p. 673.
This is backed by Gould, Patterson, Eldredge, etc. etc.
"Pointing out the failures of ID creationism is not "whining"."
So more whining is not whining? hahahahaa Now tell us what failures you pointed out as I seem unable to find any.
"You really need to stop projecting the inadequacies and frustrations of your delusional religious beliefs onto real science."
As my religion does not forbid a belief in evolution you can burn that strawman and stop your whining. I know when you have nothing because you evotards always pull out the religion card. The fact that you do this proves that
1. You have no argument.
2. You are a coward with no argument.
3. You are just a whiner with no argument.
"Evolutionary theory has decades of empirical data to back it up"
This is what is called "the-evidence-is-overwhelming" rhetorical trick. Such a bold statement may sway the weak-minded, but it proves nothing. Talk is cheap, as they say. Chris B, please share with us some of this "empirical data".
"and continues adding to this body of knowledge while ID creationism has yet to offer a single shred of evidence to support its claims."
FAIL As your own paleontologists are the ones who provided evidence for creation. Oh so sad. Your own are going to take you down. They are getting tired of having to lie to keep evolution going for retards like you who can't think for themselves.
"BTW, evolutionary theory doesn't claim that dinosaurs turned into birds. Things magically turning onto other things is the realm of religious superstition, not science."
Oh you are embarrassed about your own theory so here you are denying it. hahahahahaaa listen closely dummass. Dr. Weisenburg, evolution 'scientist' said, "Given enough time you can turn anything into anything. Yeah, it's true. It's true. Alright, I have proof, it's proven. You have the fossil record, shows all of the steps."
So there you go you lied about evo theory not claiming that dinos turned into birds.
You really need to get your head in the game ya dummy.
Now tell us again about dinos turning into birds. HAR HAR HAR HAR
Meanwhile, at Uncommon Descent, an even more extraordinary event. PaV posted on a recent miracle in Argentina, involving a wet communion wafer turning into the blood of Christ. It seems that PaV thinks that this shows that DNA of one species can turn into DNA or another during evolution.
That's a bit unusual (the post, not the wafer), but the response is extraordinary. The UD regulars are very unhappy about this post -- it might lead people to the incorrect conclusion that the UD site is not about science. Although there are a few comments by skeptics there, the comments are mostly the UD regulars bashing each other over the alleged miracle.
Next, perhaps one of them will post on how old the Earth is, and they can argue about that. Long overdue.
The discussion on Uncommon Descent is interesting and informative. Some of the people complaining about PaV's post [Did the DNA change Randomly or by Design?] weren't really upset about the miracle. They were upset that it was a ROMAN CATHOLIC miracle!
The are convinced of the existence of an intelligent designer but they reject the idea that it could be the Roman Catholic version.
Nevertheless, there are a few encouraging signs that the attempt to appease Young Earth Creationists and religious fanatics is causing problems within the movement.
Max,
I'm curious about your interpretation of the Cambrian Explosion. The data shows that it took place about 500 million years ago and lasted about 20 million years. Do you accept that data?
This is important because if you don't believe in an old Earth then it means that you can't possibly believe that the Cambrian Explosion is a real event that needs explaining.
I'd also like to know what you think about the claim that all of the animals suddenly appeared at once. Do you understand that the Cambrian fossils represent animals that lived in the sea and swam in the ocean or crawled around on the sea floor?
Do you think there were any mammals among these fossils? How about birds, were they part of "all the animals" that suddenly appeared? Were there any fossils of honey bees or spiders?
Please try and answer these questions so I can understand your position.
Max, you poor deluded fool, you lost the debate long ago. None of the "facts" you present are true. If you can't answer Larry's questions above about the Cambrian "explosion", you need to read some real science instead of creationist drivel to find out the facts.
In the meantime, you have ZERO evidence for creationism. Reality can be hard, Max. Try it sometime.
I'm done feeding this troll.
Turns out that Max meant Australopithecus (or Paranthropus) boisei. He seems to think it was some kind of hoax or error. And of course it was initially announced as a human ancestor, which it isn't. I'm also not sure why Peking Man is on his list, except that it appears on a Jack Chick list of problem fossils.
Jack-
Biogenesis is the observation that each life comes from a previous life. This is a perfectly natural origin for each existing life.
To say that this demands a ’supernatural’ origin for the first life does not follow.
You have mistaken a possible conclusion with the only conclusion.
It appears that what actually happened is you have mistaken a naked assumption for a logical conclusion.
Are there any possible conclusions to be drawn from the observed biogenesis other than what you have presented?
Heh. Nice use of sarcasm. Oh, you meant it ...
Hey jack, why are you afraid to answer the questions that I have asked you?
Hi Dazz
The method used by Darwin for his overall theory of natural selection is not the "scientific method" but "inference to the best explanation". This is also the method used by the ID group. The paper you gave me uses the scientific method but only to support common decent the mechanism(s) were left unknown. The question, which is unresolved in my mind, it what role should "inference to the best explanation" play in science. Does it push science to hasty conclusions?
"Not only that but the fossil record is discontinuous, discontinuity is what you would expect if common descent is false."
Discontinuity in the fossil record is what you would expect if the geological record is discontinuous. Do you have evidence that the geological record is continuous everywhere on earth?
"Thanks for playing."
No, thank you, Joe G, for the entertainment. Predictable, but entertaining.
Bill,
Darwin used the scientific method. You might have the wrong ideas about what scientific method means.
Darwin collected observations and ideas from several sources in constructing his "long argument." That's part of how science works. You collect data and try and make sense of the data. Then you wonder if the sense you're giving to it would comport with further data, etc, and collect more and notice that such stuff also seems to follow this/those hypotheses (science is not just about single hypotheses, you might have several). Of course, evolution is a huge thing, so Darwin might have proposed many many things. Anyway, it's perfectly normal and scientific to start with data, hypotheses, further data, and then allow the field to develop by giving it s push proposing several more hypotheses, and maybe avenues to try and test those hypotheses. I doubt that Darwin thought that this hypotheses were final and complete.
But science is not about a single recipe. Anyway, I don't know what "inference to the best explanation" might mean, and how that contrasts with the scientific method(s). I do understand, though, that the ID is not about a best explanation, since they want the explanation to include a huge gap. An unexplained and mysterious "intelligent designer," with no clues as to actually identifying such "designer," or what this "designer" might be, how it might work, what tools it might use, etc. Not only that, their approach, when they do try a "designer inference" (mostly they try and argue that evolution is mostly or completely false), is scientifically and philosophically flawed (to use a decent term). It's incoherent.
So, no. They are not about best inference. "Best" is the least thing they want to try. They might be about pretending that it's best inference though.
Geocentrism also needs to clean up its act if it expects to be taken seriously, by the way.
Hi Photosynthesis
Here is the Scientific method
.Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw ae Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Inference to the best explanation does not require rigorous testing like the scientific method. Darwin was not able test natural selection and that is why he used the inference solution. If you like I can forward documentation of his explanation for using inference. As documented in forward versions of Origins he had to convince people that the theory was solid despite his using a more relaxed method. I have no conclusion on the merits of this at this point but think this discussion needs to be very careful if we want to evaluate the situation in a balanced way. I agree with you that best is hard to measure and thats why the scientific method is preferred if you can formulate a testable hypothesis.
Bill,
Again, you seem a bit confused about the scientific method(s) Darwin made lots of observations, and learned about such things as population growth and what would happen if all the offspring survived. He put lots of data together as he started to realize that maybe the little offspring that made it to adulthood is not just random/lucky ones. That the offspring surviving to adulthood could be a subpopulation having better characteristics to survive than the ones that did't make it must have gotten into his mind somehow, but it did not stop there. Science does not start with some random question, it normally starts with observations of some phenomena. With evolution is somewhat complex phenomena to observe and put the puzzle together. Imagine, it's not just "maybe the few who survive are not random," but also "maybe as characteristics accumulate we get different species." "Maybe this way new species evolve." "Maybe life is connected by common ancestry." Those are many hypotheses Bill. Not just one. That took thinking about what the implications of the non-random survival of the offspring to the point of reproduction. But that was not it. He put together more and more data from more and more sources to test those hypotheses. It's science through and through. His experiments consisted on further data collection, on further avenues to test the hypotheses. There's nothing "light," let alone "scientifically light," about Darwin's presentation of evolution and of natural selection. He analyzed many sources of data. The reason it took him forever to present his ideas was precisely that he wanted to have a very solid case. He called his big book a summary Bill. We rarely write such enormous books and amounts of data when we write scientific articles today.
There's nothing in your list that is missing in Darwin's work. That he presented such a wealth of data within a single book doesn't mean that he drew a conclusion out of thin air.
It gets even more bizarre. Don't ask an ID-proponent which designer designed the whole works, because the answer is that there's no need to know which designer it was, just that it was designed. Uh huh.
So it boils down to this: scientists are required to present an exact play by play description, preferably with every single mutation described exactly when it happened, from the OOL to humans. Or else goddidit.
But ID proponents only need to say the 'D' word, and that's it.
If this was a court room, the defense would have to provide an exact minute by minute description of the shoplifters life from the moment of conception to the court room.
While the DA would only need to say 'hedidit, fry him' , without providing one shred of evidence the person is guilty, for the shoplifter to be sent to the chair.
Hi Photosynthesis
Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I will get you documentation on Darwin's methods. I do not believe that what Darwin did was not Scientific because he was able to get "inference to the best explanation" accepted as valid inquiry for historical sciences. The big difference with the scientific method is it requires developing a valid cause based on repeatable testing. If we do not understand this history clearly and in detail we will not have a clear understanding of the issues. Lets agree to disagree at this point and we can take it up later. I want to look at this issue in more detail and respond later.
Hi Photosynthesis
Here is a link to inference to the best hypothesis.cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/best-explanation.pdf
I will send more later.
Yes, in the scientific arena the "best explanation" wins. Very good:
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/best-explanation.pdf
As you must know by now the premise of the "theory of intelligent design" is quote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Now where is your "best explanation" for how the said "intelligent cause" works?
After you provide a link to your testable model and theory we'll compare it to mine. And may the best theory win!
Hi Gary
So under these rules how is" best explanation" measured?
JJ: "Also it does not make sense that we do not see animals in the living world in any state of transition, . . ."
And yet we do see populations in a state of transition between being one species and two. That's a common problem for people (like me) trying to classify organisms.
Hi Bill, since a theory is a testable explanation for how something works or happened: the best explanation will best explain to scientists how to model how intelligent cause works and what happened during events such as the Cambrian Explosion, and without needing to resort to (as in Darwinian evolutionary theory) a "natural selection" based explanation.
After having a testable explanation it is possible to compete for which theory (ID evolutionary theory or Darwinian evolutionary theory) best explains how "evolution" works and how to model the process. That gets measured by which one scientists find most useful in their science work and may depend on which area of science the theory is being used for. I'm not sure about paleontology but the ID theory I defend is way more useful in cognitive science than generalizations that cannot explain how intelligence and intelligent cause/causation works (and predicts a biological "singularity" type event of some kind is possible).
The first step is to develop a testable theory with at least as much explanatory power as the (Darwinian) "natural selection" based explanations. Without that the only thing you have are arguments against another theory and when properly legally challenged will result in another trial that ID will lose, just like in Dover.
"The first step is to develop a testable theory with at least as much explanatory power as the (Darwinian) "natural selection" based explanations."
gary, the first step for you and other IDiot-creationists is to show that you aren't all theocratic/autocratic lunatics, but it's too late for that. Oh well, it's hopeless then.
I'm sure that won't stop you IDCs so here are some 'steps' for you to take: You will have to show that "intelligence"/"intelligent cause/causation" is responsible for the origin and occurrence of, well, everything everywhere, including the diversification of organisms during the Cambrian and at every other time. You'll have to show that "cognitive science" is applicable to the origin and diversification of organisms and everything else everywhere since 'Intelligent Design' is pushed as the cause and explanation for the origin/existence/occurrence (design-creation-guidance) of everything everywhere, except, conveniently, for some or all of the bad stuff of course (LOL).
You'll have to formulate testable hypotheses and actually test them. You'll have to support your claims with positive evidence, not bald assertions. You'll have to stop spewing the same old IDiotic claims that have been refuted over and over again. You IDCs will have to stop relying on your malicious, self-righteous bashing of scientists, evolution, natural selection, evolutionary theory, Darwin, 'Darwinists'. 'Darwinism', 'Neo-Darwinism', 'Darwinian theory', atheists, evolutionists, materialists, etc., and you'll have to put together enough positive, scientific evidence, hypotheses, details, research, tests, experiments, predictions, publications, etc., to legitimately call 'ID' a scientific theory or any other scientific label. You IDCs will have to be honest, and open to questions and criticism, including legitimate peer review of your claims. You'll have to convince at least a majority of scientists in all relevant fields that your claims are the best explanation for whatever you IDCs claim.
Those are some of the 'steps' you IDiot-creationists will have to take if you want 'ID' to be taken seriously as anything other than a theocratic/autocratic agenda to ruin education, ruin science, and rule (ruin) the world.
The whole truth, I am only responsible for explaining how a computer model (ID Lab) it's theory of operation that explain how intelligent cause works.
All religious expectations including yours are out of bounds of science to demand from me. I would become both a fool and hypocrite by even going there.
The theory that others represent are entirely their own, and are not my responsibility to defend. It would be like me expecting you to prove that Ken Ham's evolutionary theory is true before evolutionary theory can be accepted as science. It's inherently absurd to expect that sort of thing from me.
There is a very simple logic at work here. Once you understand it you'll understand why the very real "power of science" has you in checkmate. The theory that I represent has made it so ID already won, with just that alone.
Hi Gary
"The whole truth, I am only responsible for explaining how a computer model (ID Lab) it's theory of operation that explain how intelligent cause works."
Are you prepared to show a testable hypothesis how intelligent cause orders sequences inside DNA?
A quick question, Bill Cole:
Do believe the existence of undirected gravity has been demonstrated by the "scientific method", as you understand it?
Hi lutesuite
I am not sure how you define "undirected gravity" however I do believe that mass has been demonstrated to curve space-time by the scientific method.
I don't see how the definition of "undirected gravity" is any less clear than that of "undirected evolution." Have you provided a definition of the latter term?
How do you know that the curvature of space time was not directed? It seems to me that the demonstration of undirected gravity is stuck at the 3rd step of your version of the scientific method, just as undirected evolution is.
The ID model I developed is the only one with a logical construct that is scientifically complete enough to also model the intelligent process ordering sequences inside DNA.
Traditional Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms are oversimplifications that make it seem like such a thing is scientifically impossible.
Is the curvature of space-time sufficient to explain the rings of Saturn? What evidence do you have that it was undirected gravity what formed those rings billions of years ago?
is scientifically complete enough to also model the intelligent process ordering sequences inside DNA
Gaulin, it's OK if you want to believe whatever you want about your "model" and it's predictive power, or lack thereof, but the fact that you still believe someone's gonna buy it after all this time really speaks volumes about your incredible stupidity.
I honestly thought you were at least a tad bit smarter than Postardo, just enough to realize that your nonsense will never pass for science or even apologist level propaganda.
Will you eventually come to terms with the fact that nobody gives a rat's ass for that thing you call "theory" and the rest of your self aggrandizing BS?
How many more times do you need to spam the web with your shit to finally realize that it's no use?
I can honestly say that I write award winning software. The models do well in a forum of my peers. And religious/political activists in ID forums who have a religious agenda requiring them to ignore or trash it have already proved that they are not acting in the best interest of science.
I have nothing else to say to Dazz, who I hope will be civil enough to not derail the discussion by plastering this thread with insults.
How about you address Bill's query then? Enlighten us. How does your model help explain DNA? I mean anything about it: the structure, it's components, the replication process, whatever you want.
Sorry Gary, I don't really know what your "peers" might be, but, having developed software myself, and having seen the "foundational" ideas for your software, you're making a fool out of yourself. You need to be much more self-critical and humble. The ideas might sound amazing, self-evident, and clear to you. That doesn't mean that they are.
If your "peers" put funny faces when you explain, it doesn't mean they agree, or that they are amazed at your intelligence, it means they don't get it. Unfortunately, lots of people in our society tends to think that if an idea is too strange to understand, it means that the guy with the ideas is a genius. Your 'peers' might be falling for that fallacious way of thinking. What I think is quite the opposite. If the self-declared genius has infantile, but convoluted, foundations to whatever project he's pursuing, then the person is not that smart.
So my advice, if you want it at all, is for you to be tremendously self-critical. To check your supposed foundations very carefully, and then to go step by step, to avoid making a fool out of yourself. Stop pretending to be a misunderstood genius. You're very far from that. If you were, you would be able to explain clearly and elegantly your ideas. You aren't.
So, mission number one: make sure that you can explain this shit cleanly.
No. I have no interest in helping you beyond this. there's too many self-proclaimed geniuses out there, and my mission in life is not to help them realize it. I can point to the way, but I won't work with you on what's evidently nonsensical. I would be wasting my time. The whole self-awareness work is your responsibility. Not mine.
I already addressed Bill's query. Suggesting that I did not is just another creepy insult.
Photosynthesis said: but, having developed software myself
Show me the cognitive models you have developed.
I already addressed Bill's query
No, you didn't. I guess you think that claiming there's some sort of "molecular intelligence" that explains everything at the molecular level is an explanation.
It isn't. It doesn't tell us anything about why DNA is how it is. Why we share so much of it with other species, etc...
You're an utter failure Gaulin, deal with it
Dazz: It isn't. It doesn't tell us anything about why DNA is how it is. Why we share so much of it with other species, etc...
Then you are obviously a hopeless nitwit who did not even bother to study the theory I gave you. At this point I have to consider you a troll, and not respond at all to your defamatory garbage.
"What the law of biogenesis shows is that as far as nature operates, life only comes from previous life."
What the law of divine-noncreation shows is that, as far as nature operates, nothing is ever created by divine beings.
Both laws are based on the same inference from the observed operation of nature (we don't see life springing into existence, but we don't see it divinely created either). Any argument you could possibly erect to reject one must necessarily apply to the other.
There you go, that's your "law" royally fucked right there.
Sorry Gary, but your illiteracy is showing if you didn't understand that I have no intentions of entertaining you on your delusions of grandeur. Again, I'm just pointing to your need to become aware of your own limitations. I'm not here to educate you. I don't care if you prefer to remain self-deluded. I went as far as I'm willing to go in explaining your main problem (your lack of self-awareness).
If you prefer to stay unaware of your limitations, that's your problem. But don't act surprised if we find your "insights" to be mere stupidity. You have nobody to blame but yourself. You're not a Galileo, you're just a clown.
"The whole truth, I am only responsible for explaining how a computer model (ID Lab) it's theory of operation that explain how intelligent cause works."
"The theory that others represent are entirely their own, and are not my responsibility to defend."
If your so-called 'ID theory' so independent, why do you depend on and defend the discotoot's definition(s)/version(s) of so-called 'ID theory'? Why do you depend on and defend YEC sal cordova's definition/version of it?
"All religious expectations including yours are out of bounds of science to demand from me. I would become both a fool and hypocrite by even going there."
gary, you, not I, support the discotoot's theocratic/autocratic/dominionist agenda. You're a liar for pretending that you're not religious and a fool for expecting anyone to believe you. And you're a moron for trying to portray me as religious.
"There is a very simple logic at work here. Once you understand it you'll understand why the very real "power of science" has you in checkmate. The theory that I represent has made it so ID already won, with just that alone."
Yeah, gary, you're a legendary scientist and ID already won, but only in your own, deranged mind. I'm curious, what did ID already 'win', and which definition/version of it 'won'?
Happy Anniversary, Gary! A thread was started on the forum at the Panda's Thumb on this day in 2012. After 519 pages, 15 thousand comments and 540 thousand views, you are no closer to explaining your "theory" than you were on Day 1.
Legend has it, I believe that P.A.M. Dirac wrote his PhD thesis on a single sheet of A4 paper. You need to learn to be a tad more concise, Gary.
Anyway, here's to another year of Totally Useless Bafflegab.
As expected: Photosynthesis has no cognitive models to share. Their pretending to have useful experience was a bluff.
The other Bill only has insults based on ignorance.
In a legal challenge against this theory their side would find itself in trouble for trying to use the legal system to further harass one of their victims. Their not even knowing how the model works makes it easy to prove that they are only acting stupid, in order to get others to act stupid along with them.
I do not like being called a liar. And in this case winning looks and sounds like this: Rachel Platten - Fight Song (Official Video)
Dazz Lutesuite
I am not sure what you mean by undirected gravity. Gravity is spacetime curvature due to the presence of energy (matter). Gravity is the result matter(energy) is the cause as verified in the eclipse experiment. As far as evolution goes you have diversity and change over time. That is the result. What is the cause? Thats what were all discussing here. Personally I have no idea what the final cause is. Can you guys come up with a testable hypothesis?
I am not sure what you mean by undirected gravity
The same as undirected evolution. You brought that up. What do you mean by undirected evolution?
As far as evolution goes you have diversity and change over time. That is the result. What is the cause?
Descent with modification, through random mutation, selection, drift.
Quit your evasions, Bill Cole. You understand "undirected gravity" just as well as you understand "undirected evolution." If you won't provide a definition of the latter, why are you owed one for the former?
The "cause" of evolution is far better understood than that of gravity. There are no major holes in evolutionary theory in terms of understanding the phenomena we observe. OTOH, there remains no model of gravity that can be reconciled with quantum mechanics. If either theory can be said to be in "crisis", it is the theory of gravity, not of evolultion.
Hi Lutesuite
I am not trying to be evasive. I honestly don't know or have not thought of the definition of either undirected gravity or undirected evolution. I used undirected evolution just as a place holder in a discussion point.
"The "cause" of evolution is far better understood than that of gravity".
As far as this statement goes I agree regarding quantum gravity but not for the effects that Einstein was trying to model and measure. Einstein came up with a solid hypothesis and was able to create a mathematical model and measure it. I agree that evolution has done this with the Lenski experiment which showed in specie adaption but not yet to show large scale evolutionary changes. BTW I am off line until tomorrow...take care.
Bill, you keep ignoring us, pretending nobody has already addressed the "large scale" evolutionary changes you talk about. How about the molecular clock and all the math involved there? Are those mathematical models inferior to gravitational models for some reason? Those models put our latest common ancestor with chimps at some 13M years ago IIRC, so that means that large scale changes are well within the capabilities of the known mechanisms. What are you demanding as evidence that those mechanisms produced "large scale" evolutionary changes? The analogy with gravity is perfectly valid, because we know full well that gravity is a good explanation for the formation of all known celestial bodies, even if we've never directly observed one single "large scale" gravitational event or any of those celestial bodies formed by accretion... obviously.
So if you "believe" gravity is a good explanation for the formation of the Solar System, there's no reason to doubt evolution and it's known mechanisms are a good explanation for macro evolutionary changes.
I should add: whether "natural selection" is "directed" or "undirected" is irrelevant to the theory that does not have or need any selection generalizations at all. It is best to not waste time with the red-herrings that some from the anti-ID camp use to change the subject to something scientifically useless.
Dazz hit the nail on the head, Bill Cole. You're being most disingenuous.
In your analogy between evolution and gravity, the experimental observation of the bending of space and time corresponds to the observation in Lenski's experiment of a novel adaptive trait arising as a result of random non-directed mutations.
The "large scale changes" in the analogy are, respectively, a) the formation of planeta, solar systems, galaxies, black holes, etc, and b) speciation and other macroevolutionary changes.
In both cases the evidence to support the position that the directly observed phenomena are sufficient to explain the "large scale changes" is overwhelming. Yet you only accept one of them. Why is that?
Rather than give you the chance to continue your prevarication, I'll tell you why: Because gravity is not a threat to your religious beliefs the way that evolution is. The gravity does not reveal the first chapter of your favourite book of fables and myths to be no more than that, rather than an accurate historical document. And that just gives you a great big sad.
So you come here pretending to have studied evolution in depth with no preconceptions or religious prejudices. I call bullshit on that. You're not fooling anyone.
Bill-
Experimental results require an inference to best explanation. It’s less obvious in some cases because the premises behind the inferences are so ingrained we ignore them. But if you look at the evidence from CERN for the Higgs, you will find that it is because separate teams of researchers independently came to the same inference that the discovery was announced.
The value of an experiment is often determined by its repeatability and the ability of the experimenter to control precisely every input into the system under test.
Compare the level of control at CERN vs. the level of control in fossil hunting.
They really aren’t the same.
The ‘best inference’ can be questionable when the connections get long and tenuous, but it is the level of control over the experiments that would adjudicate the various positions that makes some science more experimentally based. The less control over the experiments one has the more one would have to rely on consensus for guidance.
Jack Jackson :The value of an experiment is often determined by its repeatability and the ability of the experimenter to control precisely every input into the system under test.
For that reason I only write theory allowing full control over all necessary variables required for 100% repeatable experiments. Let me know if you care to test that.
Geez Gaulin, you're such an attention whore. Nobody cares about your dumb not-a-theory. Deal with it
To be more precise: I develop computer models (requiring a theory of operation to explain how it works and what the model can be used for) allowing full control over all necessary variables required for 100% repeatable experiments.
And I'm serious about your testing the model and its associated theory. I would not mind helping you get started with your own experiments.
Oh, so now you're claiming that your so-called 'theory' would not only prevail in a "legal challenge" but the opposing party would "find itself in trouble for trying to use the legal system to further harass one of their victims". What's stopping you from taking it to court, gary? Don't you want to be famous? Aren't you anxious to 'win'? Don't you want to show a judge and the rest of the world that you're a victim of harassment? Don't you want to see your opponents get in trouble?
Hey gary, maybe you could get YEC joey g to team up with you since he's an expert in 'ID theory' and law (LMAO!) and could help you 'win', and since you're also an expert in 'ID theory' and law (LMAO!) you could help him 'win' his legal challenge of the teaching of evolutionary theory to his kids in their school (that he still hasn't pursued). It would be a 'win' 'win'! I'm sure that you could also get your buddies slimy sal and casey luskin to join you and then you'd have even more 'ID' star power to help you 'win'. So what are you waiting for?
gary, I don't watch the videos you link to, and if you don't like being called a liar don't pretend and lie. Supporting/associating with chronic liars (the discotooters and other IDCs) doesn't do your reputation any good either.
gary said:
"As expected: Photosynthesis has no cognitive models to share."
Why should he (or anyone else)? You, gary, are the one pushing the "cognitive models" crap as though its supposed to mean something relevant to the origin of life and its diversity and whatever else you feel like applying it to.
Bill Cole said;
"The big difference with the scientific method is it requires developing a valid cause based on repeatable testing."
Not all science is done in labs. A great deal of science is done in the 'wild' where many or all things are not repeated or repeatable (at least not exactly) but that does not necessarily mean that observing/documenting them is not using a or "the" scientific method. Many 'scientific' observations are documented and compared, but not repeated. And while "developing a valid cause" (You actually mean 'the ultimate, original cause', don't you?) for something is often desirable, it may or may not be necessary or possible even though a or "the" scientific method is used.
Bill Cole might already know that, given that his exemplar of his version of the scientific method is Einstein's hypotheses of the bending of space/time by gravity. That was confirmed by observation of the behavior of starlight during a solar eclipse, not exactly the kind of thing that can be replicated at will at the bench of your lab.
Then again, it's hard to know given Bill Cole's dishonesty and hypocrisy. Just another example of this is his admission that, after spouting on about his hypothesis of "directed evolution" he finally admits that he has not even thought about the definition of the term. So while he disparages evolution for being stuck at the 3rd stage of Bill Cole's personal version of the scientific method, his own hypothesis is still at Stage 1, having not even made it to the "Do Background Research" stage. Unless he considers reading his Bible to be background research.
Mutation and natural selection generalizations can never explain how a cognitive process such as "intelligent cause" works. It's like pounding on a screw with a hammer while swearing at it for not coming off, then after giving up give a pompous talk about what an expert you are at fixing cars. Then some of the people who are supposed to be representing ID theory say that's because it's an irremovable act of God that proves that the Bible is true. Then when I arrive with a screwdriver I find out that only celebrity experts with .edu email addresses from accepted academic institutions are allowed in the work area.
Using the wrong tool for the job has led to a sad comedy. But the good news is that using the right one has led to a new understanding of what "life" is and why it's something you and others are unable to define but we know it when we see it. We are very good at detecting another intelligence by its life-like behavior, which is noticeably differently from what is not intelligent behavior, regardless of how tiny it is.
Cognitive based origin theory easily enough puts "intelligent cause" into scientific context, while eliminating the generalizations upon generalizations that can forever fought over that explain nothing at all about how to model the multilevel process that accounts for the origin of the intelligence we are consciously aware of right now. If you cannot explain at least that much about how intelligence causes the creation of biodiversity then your generalization based opinions that are not even for modeling "intelligence" cannot be taken seriously, they are just sad.
I was going to write some award winning software to simulate Gary "pounding on a screw" Gaulin but then I realized that there are already enough versions of Solitaire and Candy Crush Saga floating around out there.
In a way ID and conventional evolution are both right - because they are the same thing. Evolution (natural selection of random copying errors) is often considered to be the definition of an unintelligent process. But as many have pointed out the results appear to be intelligent. So the first question one should ask is, what exactly is "intelligence"? Most AI experts and neuroscientists now believe the mechanism of artificial, human and animal intelligence is learning, largely mediated by changing strengths of neural (or neuron-like) connections (or their mathematical equivalent). This is a machine-like operation rather like replication (indeed the new AI is now called "machine learning"). This type of learning is not remembering isolated facts ("the capital of Japan is Tokyo") but forming concepts (distillates and regularities of rich statistical data, eg "capital", "Japan"), in a local mechanical way, comparable to base copying. True, in one sense errors seem to drive evolution, but since errors are inevitable that's an almost meaningless statement. Far more important is the lack of errors: the (necessary for large genomes) very high degree of accuracy of base-copying (~ approaching 1 in 10^-10 mistakes). Basically the same thing is true in machine learning - connections have to be strengthened in an extremely accurate way (see syndar.org for more info). As far as I can see evolution and neural/machine intelligence are the same process, implemented in different substrates. Perhaps biologists and IDers are 2 bald men squabbling over a comb.
Interesting point, Paul Adams. However, your description of "intelligence" is not at all what the ID creationists are talking about. They mean Jesus or some other god deliberately intervening to cause new lifeforms to come into being, thru immaterial supernatural means.
Hi Dazz
Do you believe the molecular clock is a cause of large scale evolutionary change? Can you think about a testable hypothesis around the molecular clock?
Paul Adams observes: Perhaps biologists and IDers are 2 bald men squabbling over a comb.
LOL! You sure got that right!!
Thankfully I have a full head of hair and around a dozen combs.
Yes "machine intelligence" models (i.e. my ID Labs) are certainly all the rage in AI. It's like a whole new cognitive science based religion of some kind came exploding of the long awaited technological singularity, to help make the wait fun so-far.
For all I know, the molecular clock is not a mechanism, it's a testable hypothesis based on known mutation rates. It shows that macro-evolutionary changes are well within the capabilities of random mutation/fixation.
So what?
When in the middle of a science epic like this why skimp on the melodrama that kinda writes itself anyway?
The way I now see it: If UD finds a way to pull Jesus from a hat then all the better!
lutesuite
The "cause" of evolution is far better understood than that of gravity. There are no major holes in evolutionary theory in terms of understanding the phenomena we observe. OTOH, there remains no model of gravity that can be reconciled with quantum mechanics. If either theory can be said to be in "crisis", it is the theory of gravity, not of evolultion.
This is selling evolution not critically evaluating it. Dude, you are the pot calling the kettle black. If you want to have an engaged interesting discussion I am all in and am willing to accept where ever this discussion leads. Are you ready to accept where this discussion leads?
Hi Dazz
The problem is the sequential space inside the genome. There is no way that known mutation rates can work through all this space. If you remember a discussion I had with Larry and others around alternative splicing and the titan protein we learned that there are 2500 amino acids more on the human titan then the chimp titan. Thats 20^2500 possible combinations or essentially infinity. For this to occur through mutation the genome had to work through most the combinations and come up with an extension that is compatible with the prior sequences. Mutation is a very unlikely candidate for the mechanism. Maybe the spliceosome is a candidate.
If you want to have an engaged interesting discussion I am all in and am willing to accept where ever this discussion leads.
Don't lie. You are only willing to accept a discussion that leads to the conclusion that your personal favorite god created humans directly. And you are willing to commit whatever mental contortions or acts of intellectual dishonesty that are necessary in order to make it seem that this is the case.
The problem is the sequential space inside the genome. There is no way that known mutation rates can work through all this space.
So you think it is necessary that this happen in order for evolution to occur? Thanks for confirming, if there was any remaining doubt, that you haven't a clue about how evolution occurs.
Has this already brought to your attention:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/01/whats-difference-between-human-and.html
If not, have a read and let us know what error you think Larry made with his calculations there. If you cannot find any errors, then are you "willing to accept where ever this discussion leads", and admit that there is no problem explaining the occurrence of macroevolutionary change as resulting from the processes of random mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection? I'm betting you won't, but lets see if you surprise me.
lutesuite: are you "willing to accept where ever this discussion leads", and admit that there is no problem explaining the occurrence of macroevolutionary change as resulting from the processes of random mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection?
Are you willing to accept that does not explain how "intelligent cause" works therefore it's an off-topic diversion away from what ID theory is premised to explain?
Bill, you mean the TTN gene? what if we try a BLAST run and see where that gets us? Are you ready to accept where this discussion leads?
Here is the result... 99% match between the human and the chimp TTN gene
Hi Dazz
Assuming that is true. How many amino acid sequences do you have to work through if random change like neutral theory is used?
Hi Lutesuite
I have no reason to doubt Larry's calculations. Do you believe that Larry's argument supports the generation of new genes that are unique to humans? There is almost infinite sequential space to work through with these changes. How can 50 million changes even make a dent in this problem?
Wait a minute, I think I'm going to need some of the pros to chime in. Where did you get the idea that the chimp protein is significantly smaller that the human one Bill?
I think I run the BLAST against a fragment of the chimp's TTN.
I think this is the complete match, still a 99% match
I have no reason to doubt Larry's calculations. Do you believe that Larry's argument supports the generation of new genes that are unique to humans? There is almost infinite sequential space to work through with these changes. How can 50 million changes even make a dent in this problem?
That you would even ask that question indicates you did not understand Larry's article. Why do you believe it is necessary to work thru the "sequential space" to generate those mutations?
Let me try put this in terms you can understand. The odds of any particular set of numbers coming up in the Powerball lottery are 1 in 175,223,510. Now does this mean that whenever a set of numbers is drawn, is it necessary to first "work thru" every single one of those 175,223,510 combinations? If that were the case, a number would almost never be drawn. It would just take too much time. But a number is drawn every week.
How could that be, Bill Cole? Please explain, using the same assumptions you are using in your argument against evolution. Or, if you find it easier, simply admit that those assumptions are incorrect, and need to be abandoned. You said you are "willing to accept where ever this discussion leads". Here's your chance to prove you actually meant that.
@Bill Cole:
Assuming that is true. How many amino acid sequences do you have to work through if random change like neutral theory is used?
Your question is nonsense. It indicates you do not understand neutral theory. If you insist that you do, please summarize how that difference in the human and chimp genomes would have arisen, according to modern evolutionary theory. Don't worry about whether you agree with the theory. Just demonstrate how you understand it.
Are you willing to accept that does not explain how "intelligent cause" works therefore it's an off-topic diversion away from what ID theory is premised to explain?
Gee, Gary. I'd love to answer your question. Unfortunately, I don't speak Creotard Gibberish, so your post is unintelligible to me. Maybe try writing it in English?
Let me try put this in terms you can understand. The odds of any particular set of numbers coming up in the Powerball lottery are 1 in 175,223,510. Now does this mean that whenever a set of numbers is drawn, is it necessary to first "work thru" every single one of those 175,223,510 combinations? If that were the case, a number would almost never be drawn. It would just take too much time. But a number is drawn every week.
So for the lottery there are 1.7 x 10^8 possibilities for 1% difference between titan there are 20^3000 possibilities. Just to put this into perspective if you take all the atoms in the known universe and put them to work every pico second for the age of the universe you have 10^120 opportunities. Do you see the problem?
There is no problem.
There are 1.7 x 10^8 possibilities to go thru in order for any number to come up in the Powerball drawing. That's a very big number. How do they manage to draw two numbers every week, with those odds against which ever number they draw? (I was mistaken when I said earlier the drawings occur weekly. It's twice a week! That means they have to come up with even more numbers! How do they do it?)
Is there a reason you won't answer my questions, Bill? Too difficult? Or are you afraid of where they might lead?
Bill, can you post a link to that conversation with Larry? I can't find a shred of evidence that the TTN gene in humans & chimps is all that different. If you have any, that's welcome too. And of course there's what lutesuite said.
BTW, I'm sorry but I find your comment about sequential space being "almost infinite" particularly hilarious.
Lutesuite
Do you know how powerball works? Do you know the statistical calculation that gets you to 1.7x 10^8? It is nothing like you are describing. There are 6 balls with 46 possibilities each that gets you to the high probability. 46^6. So how do you get a winner? People buy lots of tickets and so that helps improve the odds of one winner. There is no challenge to drawing balls the challenge is getting the same balls drawn that are on the lottery ticket. lutesuite you do realize that if there were 50 balls drawn instead of 6 the odds of someone ever winning the lottery would be exceedingly small. Why do you say there is "no problem" working through 20^3000 combinations of sequential space?
Hi Dazz
Here is a link to titin sequences human vs primate.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/IEB/Research/Acembly/av.cgi?db=human&c=Gene&l=CCDC141andTTN
You're not following, Bill Cole. I understand fully well how Powerball works. And my point has nothing to do with how someone wins the lottery. It has to do with how a number is drawn in the first place. There are 1.7x 10^8 possible combinations of numbers that have to be "worked thru" before a number can be drawn. So how can they possibly do this twice a week?
And in case you are still not following: I know that is a nonsensical question. The number of possible combinations have nothing to do with how difficult it is to draw a combination of six balls for any drawing.
What you are failing to comprehend is that my question is essentially the same one you are asking, except I realize my question is nonsensical, and you don't realize that about yours. The fact that the number of possible combinations of amino acids is enormous (though not "almost infinite". Dazz, is right, that's really funny of you to say) does not mean it is highly unlikely for some of these to actually arise thru evolution. Just as a number will be drawn every time with Powerball, a number of mutations will happen every time reproduction occurs, and therefore it is inevitable that some of the amino acid sequences in your "almost infinite" (LOL!) collection will arise, just by chance.
Get it yet?
Hi lutesuite
There are 1.7x 10^8 possible combinations of numbers that have to be "worked thru" before a number can be drawn. So how can they possibly do this twice a week?
They pull 6 balls out of the group look at the numbers and then record them.
The chance of winning aka creating a new protein has everything to do with how many amino acid combinations or how many power balls and how many working protein folds you need to do the job your doing. The sequential space of power balls and proteins makes the statistical problem pretty straight forward. As you increase the number of power balls used the odds of finding a winner gets reduced by 46x for every powerball you add. As you increase the number of amino acids to sequence the odds of forming a protein de novo get lower by 20x for every amino acid you add. Sequential space is the largest mathematical space in the universe.
The fact that the number of possible combinations of amino acids is enormous (though not "almost infinite". Dazz, is right, that's really funny of you to say) does not mean it is highly unlikely for some of these to actually arise thru evolution.
This statement needs to be thought through again.
Ordered sequences create numbers closer to infinity than any material thing you can think of by orders and orders of magnitude. 10^80 is the number of atoms in the known universe...this pails in comparison to most protein sequences.
The chance of winning aka creating a new protein has everything to do with how many amino acid combinations or how many power balls and how many working protein folds you need to do the job your doing.
That's your problem right there. You're seeing the chance of creating any new protein as the equivalent of the chance of winning. That is to say, the chance of on particular ticket holder winning. That is not the case. The odds of creating a new protein (any new protein) is the equivalent of someone (i.e. anyone) winning.
If you hold a ticket, the odds of you winning are very low. But the odds that someone will win are much higher and, over several drawings, is a virtual certainty.
Similarly, the odds that one particular specified protein are very low. But the odds of some protein arising eventually are much higher.
If you don't win the lottery, someone else will. And if one particular protein does not arise, some other protein will.
Get it yet?
gary, your actual agenda is showing, but of course it was already easy to figure out anyway.
Hear pull Jesus from a hat here at 6:40 into Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Karn Evil 9:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLS0Med0s6E
No matter what I do, searching for the real meaning in this my most loved growing up song makes it all come true (in a real-life imitating art sense). Therefore if a big-tent spectacular is all set to go then the best thing to do is come inside, come inside, and see the show!
OK, I've been doing some reading about this and apparently there's a few different "versions" (isoforms?) of the Titin protein depending on gene expression. The thing is there's one of those in humans and chimps that differ by just 2 amino acids in length, and the match is a whopping 99% over no less than 33425 amino acids:
Human Titin
Chimp Titin
Scroll down to see the sequence.
I mean, seriously Bill. If this is not evidence for common descent, especially when one can do the same thing for ANY other specie there and find striking similarities for every single gene... I don't know what could be.
It's not only that the similarity is brutal, it's that the similarity decreases as species are more distant in the tree, exactly as one would expect if common descent is true, and the evidence supporting the same tree can be found in independent fields of study, like morphology and embryology.
Seriously Bill, if you were honestly willing to accept wherever this discussion led, it clearly led to prove common descent, using your own example protein, well within the capabilities of random mutation
Here are the sequences in raw text:
Human Titin
Chimp Titin
Gorilla Titin
Mouse Titin
Ah. But,Dazz, Bill Cole is not denying common descent. He is saying those differences in the genes are "directed". If they weren't, in order to create those 1% differences in the genes, humans would have to go thru every single one of the "almost infinite" number of amino acid combinations before arriving at one that was just slightly different from the one in the chimp, or gorilla, or mouse. As to why he doesn't think it could happen by simply starting with a gene they inherited from a common ancestor and changing it just 1% thru random mutations, well, you'll have to ask him.
I know lutesuit, but his claim that the Titin protein differs so much between human and chimps that it couldn't have come about by the known mechanisms, if true, would also put into question common descent. If I interpret the data properly, it's one gene (TTN) producing a number of different proteins (isoforms) by means of alternative splicing during gene expression. The same thing is observed in chimps, gorillas, mice, etc...
So the similarity of all those isoforms is solid evidence for both common descent and the known mechanisms.
Is there a database of the genes themselves to compare the TTN and the associated regulatory genes?
But later, in response to your demonstration that the genes differ by only 1%, he then writes:
Assuming that is true. How many amino acid sequences do you have to work through if random change like neutral theory is used?
So even if you convince him he is incorrect about the difference between the two genes, he is still labouring under the misconception that this difference requires "working thru" the entirety of the possible amino acid combinations before the mutated gene is arrived at. That's the more fundamental error he is making, above an beyond any ignorance he may suffer regarding the plain facts.
Hi Dazz lutesuite
I really appreciate all the thought you guys are putting into this. Ordered sequences are not an easy concept. You guys are starting to think about it and thats great. lutesuite the protein probability discussion is in Author Hunts paper. I will forward it to you if don't have it. The lotto discussion is the right one and it is a good reference point. Guys, I have no position here I am just trying to learn from the facts. As far as common decent goes I think there is clear evidence of common genes in life. Dazz the paper you gave me on that was great. luitesuite you do need to work through the sequence until you find function and ironically the further you are down the evolutionary path the tougher it is. An example of this is for a first enzyme any reaction will work but when you are talking about chimp to human change you now need specific change to specific proteins like titin you basically have to work through most the sequence.
An example of this is for a first enzyme any reaction will work but when you are talking about chimp to human change you now need specific change to specific proteins like titin you basically have to work through most the sequence.
No, you don't. You start out with a working enzyme in a common ancestor of the human and chimp. As the two lineages diverge from the common ancestor, the enzyme changes only 1%, which could easily happen over the time scale of several million years just thru random mutations. You've already admitted to this when you said you agreed with Larry's calculation in the blog post I linked earlier.
There's no reason to "work thru most the sequence." It seems to me you may not actually understand the basics of common descent.
I did not state this clearly...sorry. Let me lay out the challenge. There are 36000 amino acids to the titin protein (one of 11 different versions) in humans and 33500 in chimps for the main titin muscle protein. This data is from the paper that Dazz has. So to add 2500 amino acid sequenced in the titin format how do you do this with mutation?
Exactly. In a lotto draw, it's an entire different, random number every time, and only one winner. In evolution, there's a draw for every mutation that only changes a minimal part of the existing, already functional genome. Every individual carries many of them, in large populations that's many "draws", and there's not a single "winner".
Actually the very fact that gorillas, chimps and humans all found slightly different "solutions" to the Titin from a common ancestor proves there is not a single "winner"
Bill, you insist on the Titin, but all human isoforms I compared against it's chimp counterpart Titin gave a 99% match. These isoforms are not complete recombinations of the canonical form of the protein. It's the same protein with some missing parts here and there, a few small differences here and there. There's no "working through" the entire sequence space, it's gradual change and the Titin match between humans and chimps, being 99% proves not only that they both descend from a common ancestor, but also that 1% is consistent with the molecular clock calculations that make it entirely possible for genetic drift to produce that 1% difference
So to add 2500 amino acid sequenced in the titin format how do you do this with mutation?
What do you mean by "sequenced"? I'm pretty sure you don't need to have a mutation for each "added" amino acid. Just a change in a regulatory gene and some similar version of the protein (and it's isoforms).
If alternative splicing can produce proteins with difference in length of several thousands of amino acids in an individual, why should it be surprising to find an isoform in chimps that is only 2500 amino acids shorter? Especially when, as I pointed out, there's an isoform in humans that differs by only 2 AAs in length.
Also you assume if one protein is larger than other, the shorter one must have produced the larger one. Why not the shorter one got some AAs removed?
Dazz
Here is a problem that illustrates the size of sequential space of the lottery if you add balls to reduce the chance of winning. What is the chance of anyone winning the lottery if everyone in the world buys 10 tickets and there are 20 balls drawn. The balls contain 46 different numbers.
@ Bill Cole,
Since length of the various isoforms of titin in humans alone can vary in length from 34,350 down to as low as 5,604 amino acid residues, just thru alternative splicing, I fail to see why your question represents any sort of "challenge."
Why don't you try answering my questions, instead. That might go better, since I know what I'm talking about.
Bill Cole asks,
I did not state this clearly...sorry. Let me lay out the challenge. There are 36000 amino acids to the titin protein (one of 11 different versions) in humans and 33500 in chimps for the main titin muscle protein. This data is from the paper that Dazz has. So to add 2500 amino acid sequenced in the titin format how do you do this with mutation?
Have you considered the possibility that the ancestral gene encoded 36,000 amino acid residues and somewhere in the chimpanzee lineage there was a deletion removing 100 exons of 25 codons each?
Would that work for you?
No, Dazz. It might be that, in that scenario that Bill Cole just dreamt up, it is highly unlikely that anyone would ever win the lottery.
Just what this has to do with what Bill Cole is supposed to be talking about, well, your guess is as good as mine.
I deleted my last comment because I misunderstood Bill's question. The argument still stands tho
Here is a problem that illustrates the size of sequential space of the lottery if you add balls to reduce the chance of winning. What is the chance of anyone winning the lottery if everyone in the world buys 10 tickets and there are 20 balls drawn. The balls contain 46 different numbers.
Wrong analogy, that's the tornado-in-a-junkyard straw man of evolution.
In evolution you wouldn't get an entirely different combination every time. Every draw would be incremental, so if you have a winning combination, SOME or MANY of SIMILAR combinations would be winning combinations
Dazz
I agree. So step one of the scientific method. Ask a question. What is causing the change in amino acid sequences between human and chimp titin genes?
Larry, is there a way to compare gene sequences instead of the proteins using blast? I tried this tblastx with these sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=2562829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=24896994
but I have no clue what I'm doing LOL
What is causing the change in amino acid sequences between human and chimp titin genes?
Mutations in regulatory genes that produce different Titin isoforms?
What is causing the change in amino acid sequences between human and chimp titin genes?
That question has already been answered. Pleas pay attention, to prevent this discussion from becoming even more tedious than it already is.
Did you not notice that Larry answered your "challenge" just above? Do you have any problems with his answer?
Yes Larry that is certainly possible. Any other ideas we can test?
Dazz
Good idea. What regulatory gene?
Yes Larry that is certainly possible.
"Certainly possible" As in, not impossible, which is what you have so far been saying it is. It is not necessary to "work through the sequential space." Simple random mutations are sufficient to explain the observation. Right?
This is the part where you reveal whether you were telling the truth when you said you were "willing to accept where ever this discussion leads." Let's see. Your move.
What regulatory gene?
I don't know even if it's known. But it doesn't matter. The 99% match across the board is consistent with neutral variation and you keep ignoring that.
You are again asking for an extremely detailed piece of evidence while you don't do that for other theories like gravity. If I ask you if the formation of the solar system is consistent with gravity/accretion, do you need to know what particles of the original nebula formed Saturn's rings to confirm the theory?
BTW, I don't know if the differences in the Titin are really due to mutations in regulatory genes or the TTN gene itslef, or both. The point is that there's nothing special about it that I can see. Still a 99% match with chimps, so...
Dazz
Your idea was very creative. If we stop the debate and just do the science the discovery is about asking a question any coming up with a hypothesis. The titin differences may be testable and if so we can learn a lot about evolution. Hopefully you can see now that getting a testable final cause like design vs natural selection neutral theory etc is very difficult. My point is that there are lots of Science to do between those points and fossil records and gene data. I hope you can also see that if come up with a premature answer it can stop the science because you start restricting the possible solutions in your mind.
OK, I found this: Regulatory Elements for TTN Gene: Transcription factor binding sites by QIAGEN in the TTN gene promoter: IRF-1 HNF-1 HNF-1A STAT1 STAT1alpha STAT1beta
So apparently, (some of?) the regulatory genes are in fact known.
What if we compare those genes in humans and chimps?
Human IRF1
>sp|P10914|IRF1_HUMAN Interferon regulatory factor 1 OS=Homo sapiens GN=IRF1 PE=1 SV=2
MPITRMRMRPWLEMQINSNQIPGLIWINKEEMIFQIPWKHAAKHGWDINKDACLFRSWAI
HTGRYKAGEKEPDPKTWKANFRCAMNSLPDIEEVKDQSRNKGSSAVRVYRMLPPLTKNQR
KERKSKSSRDAKSKAKRKSCGDSSPDTFSDGLSSSTLPDDHSSYTVPGYMQDLEVEQALT
PALSPCAVSSTLPDWHIPVEVVPDSTSDLYNFQVSPMPSTSEATTDEDEEGKLPEDIMKL
LEQSEWQPTNVDGKGYLLNEPGVQPTSVYGDFSCKEEPEIDSPGGDIGLSLQRVFTDLKN
MDATWLDSLLTPVRLPSIQAIPCAP
Chimp IRF1
>tr|H2QRG4|H2QRG4_PANTR Interferon regulatory factor OS=Pan troglodytes GN=IRF1 PE=2 SV=1
MPITRMRMRPWLEMQINSNQIPGLIWINKEEMIFQIPWKHAAKHGWDINKDACLFRSWAI
HTGRYKAGEKEPDPKTWKANFRCAMNSLPDIEEVKDQSRNKGSSAVRVYRMLPPLTKNQR
KERKSKSSRDAKSKAKRKSCGDSSPDTFSDGLSSSTLPDDHSSYTVPGYMQDLEVERALT
PALSPCAVSSTLPDWHIPVEVVPDSTSDLYNFQVSPMPSTSEATTDEDEEGKLPEDIMKL
LEQSEWQPTNVDGKGYLLNEPGVQPTSVYGDFSCKEEPEIDSPGGDIGLSLQRVFTDLKN
MDATWLDSLLTPVRLPSIQAIPCAP
Do I need to compare the rest of the promoters?
Hopefully you can see now that getting a testable final cause like design vs natural selection neutral theory etc is very difficult
Wow, Bill, that's insanely stupid. You just keep ignoring everything we tell you, all the evidence to support that the "final cause" is well supported by evidence.
You: Where's the evidence?
Us: Here it is
You: So no evidence? Where's the evidence?
Us: Again, here it is!
You: So no evidence? Where's the evidence?...
@Bill Cole
Hopefully you can see now that getting a testable final cause like design vs natural selection neutral theory etc is very difficult.
Suppose one were to also say "Getting a testable final cause like gravity vs. invisible fairies etc. as the cause of the curvature of space/time is very difficult." That is just as sensible a statement as what you wrote above, yes?
BTW, whatever happened to your worries about "working thru the sequence space"? Since Larry neatly disposed of that, you no longer seem interested in talking about it. Why is that?
My point is that there are lots of Science to do between those points and fossil records and gene data. I hope you can also see that if come up with a premature answer it can stop the science because you start restricting the possible solutions in your mind.
You're preaching to the choir. No one here is advocating coming up with premature answers and not testing them. No one, that is, other than the IDiots and other creationists who frequently "contribute" here. Your time would be better spent on a creationist website like Uncommon Descent, whether the only "scientific" investigation performed is that which they think can support their presumed conclusion that 'Goddidit."
Oh, and of course...
a testable final cause like design vs natural selection neutral theory etc
Design is not a (scientific) thing. It doesn't belong there with the other mechanisms. It's utterly dishonest of you to demand the amount and detail evidence in support of some mechanisms and ignore the fact that "design" has no mechanism whatsoever and makes no positive case for anything.
Nevertheless I think we've provided all the positive evidence you demanded in support of well known mechanisms with tons of explanatory power, including the math, yet you insist in denying it all. It's not that you've argued against the evidence, you just keep hand-waiving and pretending it never happened.
You were obviously lying when you said you were willing to go wherever this discussion led us
Creationist dishonesty 101
lutesuite
I agree. Testable final causes are tough.
Suppose one were to also say "Getting a testable final cause like gravity vs. invisible fairies etc. as the cause of the curvature of space/time is very difficult." That is just as sensible a statement as what you wrote above, yes?
I really want to start do look at science between fossils/gene data and final cause. The only reason for talking about the probability data is show that final cause is tough and start talking about stuff we can test.
BTW, whatever happened to your worries about "working thru the sequence space"? Since Larry neatly disposed of that, you no longer seem interested in talking about it. Why is that?
When you successfully test Larry's hypothesis then it will be disposed of.
When you successfully test Larry's hypothesis then it will be disposed of.
LMFAO, talk about assuming your conclusions. And you did it again. Neutral theory has been tested. Comparing genomes shows that the difference between our genome and chimps', gorillas, etc... all differ by the expected amount by neutral fixation... across the board!
But please, enlighten us, what testable hypothesis do you have based on "design"?. I mean a POSITIVE case for design, not one that involves ruling out naturalistic causes (by ignoring the evidence)
Come to think of it, what exactly is "final cause", anyway, Bill Cole? Are you sure it's not just another term you're throwing around without it meaning anything, like you were with the term "directed"?
Is there a reason you didn't answer my question? Here it is again:
Suppose one were to also say "Getting a testable final cause like gravity vs. invisible fairies etc. as the cause of the curvature of space/time is very difficult." That is just as sensible a statement as what you wrote above, yes?
When you successfully test Larry's hypothesis then it will be disposed of.
Your "hypothesis" was that it is impossible to arrive at the differences between the titin proteins of humans and chimps without "working thru the sequence space." Larry provided an example of how this difference could arise without "working thru the sequence space," and you admitted this was "certainly possible". The fact that you nonetheless refuse to admit that this falsifies your hypothesis indicates you are not actually willing to "go wherever this discussion leads us" and are not discussing in good faith. That you're just another creationist liar, to put it plainly.
Hi Dazz lutesuite...I do not have a testable hypothesis for design. Yes, alternative splicing is a way to not work through the sequential space and change proteins. Larry's idea is another way that a protein can change without working through sequential space . These are ideas you guys have not been talking about before. Why not? Is this blog just about debating creationists?
Lutesuite...I need to think about your question about final cause more. I agree it needs to be defined.
If you thought this was my hypothesis I miss spoke sorry.
Your "hypothesis" was that it is impossible to arrive at the differences between the titin proteins of humans and chimps without "working thru the sequence space."
You're still missing the main point, Bill Cole. There is no need to provide a testable hypothesis that is an alternative to having to "work through the sequential space and change proteins" because it is simply obvious to anyone who understands the relevant issues that is not necessary to "work thru the sequential space." Your proposal does not need to be refuted because it is patent nonsense.
Suppose a friend arrived at your house and, when you asked him how he got there, he said he just walked from the next block. And suppose you insist you do not believe him, and that he must first prove that he did not travel thru the Andromeda Galaxy on the way to your house. That's the equivalent of the argument you keep making about the "sequential space."
Larry's idea is another way that a protein can change without working through sequential space . These are ideas you guys have not been talking about before.
That is false. Larry's idea is no more than the same one Dazz and I have been repeating to you: That the two proteins simply arose from a common ancestor thru random mutations. That you failed to understand what we were writing is not our fault.
You have yet to explain why you persist in believing that any minor modification to an existing protein requires "working thru the sequential space" of all possible combinations of amino acids. All you do is keep repeating how vast this number of combinations is. So what? That's the same as, if your friend asks why you think he must have traveled thru the Andromeda Galaxy to get to his house, you just keep regaling him with accounts of how vast and distant the Andromeda Galaxy is. Do you think that answers his question? Do you think such an argument is even worth taking seriously? Or should your friend think you're either daft or just pulling his leg? That's how you're coming across here.
Hi Lutesuite
That's the same as, if your friend asks why you think he must have traveled thru the Andromeda Galaxy to get to his house, you just keep regaling him with accounts of how vast and distant the Andromeda Galaxy is
In this case the person knows the direction to the house. If mutations occur and evolution does not know where its going how does it find the next working protein? It may have a few mutations and have no effect but how does it find a new function? Or a modified function? It does not know where its going and its traveling in huge sequential space. See Art Hunts paper. Your friend leaves your house and starts in a random direction blind folded. Whats the chance he runs into his house? How about the chance he runs into an specific spec of sand on the Andromeda Galaxy traveling from your house blindfolded in a random direction. Again, mathematical spaces of proteins are larger then the number of atoms in the known universe ....how do you get from protein A to protein B traveling through this enormous space with random change? You say small stops along the way...according to Hunts paper the smallest stops are 10^10 between each other and average 10^32.
In this case the person knows the direction to the house. If mutations occur and evolution does not know where its going how does it find the next working protein? It may have a few mutations and have no effect but how does it find a new function? Or a modified function? It does not know where its going and its traveling in huge sequential space.
That is a weakness in my analogy, true. The friend is actually trying to get to your house.
You don't seem to realize the assumption you are making, however: The protein that has been modified by mutation is not "looking" for a new function. It just, in a small minority of cases, might by luck happen to find a new function.
You are assuming that evolution is seeking a particular objective. If you assume that, then of course it will have to be "directed" in some way if it is to find that objective. But first you have to demonstrate mutations are, in fact, occurring with the goal of achieving an objective such as a new or improved function. You have yet to do so. Neither has anyone else. So, again, you are committing the error you accuse others of doing, and assuming things to be true that have not been demonstrated by the scientific method.
Your friend leaves your house and starts in a random direction blind folded. Whats the chance he runs into his house? How about the chance he runs into an specific spec of sand on the Andromeda Galaxy traveling from your house blindfolded in a random direction.
Again, that is the wrong question, if you wish to create an analogy to the process of evolution. The correct question is "Your friend starts in a random direction blindfolded. After a period of time he arrives at a random destination. Once he has arrived at that destination, what are the odds that he has arrived at that destination?" The answer, in case you can't figure it out yourself, is 100%.
You keep alluding to Art Hunt. Is that the same Art Hunt who wrote this:
10^-10 -> 10^-63 (or thereabout): this is the range of estimates of the density of functional sequences in sequence space that can be found in the scientific literature.... To give the reader a sense of the higher end (10^-10) of this range, it helps to keep in mind that 1000 liters of a typical pond will likely contain some 10^12 bacterial cells of various sorts. If each cell gives rise to just one new protein-coding region or variant (by any of a number of processes) in the course of several thousands of generations, then the probability of occurrence of a function that occurs once in every 10^10 random sequences is going to be pretty nearly 1. In other words, 1 in 10^10 is a pretty large number when it comes to “probabilities” in the biosphere.
If so, it sounds to me like he's not really saying what you think he's saying. Ooops!
Again, that is the wrong question, if you wish to create an analogy to the process of evolution. The correct question is "Your friend starts in a random direction blindfolded. After a period of time he arrives at a random destination. Once he has arrived at that destination, what are the odds that he has arrived at that destination?" The answer, in case you can't figure it out yourself, is 100%.
Once he has arrived yes it is 100% but when he leaves he has to find a destination where he can become a functioning protein and as we move down the evolutionary path those options get smaller. We are not dealing exclusively with natural selection and large bacterial populations so re read the above section you sent me and let me know if 50 million mutations can get you 60 novel human proteins? The best case for 1 is 10^10 and that is for 100 amino acid sequences which is 20% the size of an average human protein.
Once he has arrived yes it is 100% but when he leaves he has to find a destination where he can become a functioning protein
No, he doesn't. He just has to move to another similar protein with roughly the same function. Nearly neutral theory demonstrates that these abound.
The case you have been discussing is titin. How many mutations can occur in this with it remaining functional? Remember, there are 11 structurally distinct isoforms in humans alone.
let me know if 50 million mutations can get you 60 novel human proteins
On what basis do you claim there are 60 novel human proteins? What is your definition of "novel"?
Are you now retracting you agreement with Larry that the difference between the human and chimp versions of titin could have resulted merely from the deletion of 25 exons?
let me know if 50 million mutations can get you 60 novel human proteins?
Do you understand the math involved in genetic drift? It doesn't even consider natural selection, just neutral fixations:
How many mutations would we expect in the human lineage since it diverged from a common ancestor with chimpanzees if all of the fixed alleles were neutral? The two species diverged about 5 million years ago. The average generation time in the human lineage is about ten years, so that means 500,000 generations. If the rate of mutation is about 100 new mutations per generation, then we would expect to see about 50 million new mutations in the human lineage. The actual number is about 22.5 million (half of 45 million). We're certainly in the right ballpark.
The actual mutation rate may be lower than we calculate.
We're certainly safe in concluding that the number of differences between humans and chimps is consistent with Neutral Theory and we should accept this as the null hypothesis.
our geno is about 3000Mbp long. 1% difference is about 30M fixations.
If 10% of the geno codes for proteins, then would be 3M fixations in protein coding DNA. I guess those would be subject to higher selective pressure, but still
So the answer to me is clearly yes, 50M mutations can in fact get you 60 novel proteins... by genetic drift alone.
You keep assuming the sequence space is a vast desert, in the face of the evidence. Just look at the Titin, look at all the different versions of it in all the species, I just run BLAST against the Japanese rice fish's Titin and the match was 65% with human Titin. That's quite a difference and it's still doing fine. It clearly suggests that there are many, many viable versions of a protein and the known mechanisms can explain the diversity just fine
The weird thing, Dazz, is that Bill Cole keeps citing this article by Art Hunt as evidence in support of his position:
https://aghunt.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/axe-2004-and-the-evolution-of-enzyme-function/
However, that article is actually arguing against Bill Cole's position, and provides evidence to reject it. Bill Cole's argument is that the sequence space resembles Figure 3 in that article: Extremely narrow and widely spaces islands of functional sequences among a vast desert of non-functional sequences. But Hunt argues that Figure 4 is the more accurate depiction. It makes me wonder if Bill Cole even understands his own argument.
Hi Lutesuite
On what basis do you claim there are 60 novel human proteins? What is your definition of "novel"?
Are you now retracting your agreement with Larry that the difference between the human and chimp versions of titin could have resulted merely from the deletion of 25 exons?
First question is a conservative estimate from the genome data comparison and estimates I have heard of. I can include back up data if you guys think it is important. Novel means more than a few mutations where the protein needs to find a new function.
Larry's idea is certainly valid to test. I honestly think it is a long shot that 100 exons were deleted from chimps but there is no data to rule it out at this point.
I would really like to explore this one.
The blind man leaving the house in a random direction is a good analogy for finding functioning protein space. Hunts paper describes that this space is rare. His data creates a problem for the ape to man transition by random change even with his most conservative estimates.
You guys should read through Larry and Nicks discussion on common decent. This subject is debated there.
I will try to get to more when I get home tonight.
First question is a conservative estimate from the genome data comparison and estimates I have heard of. I can include back up data if you guys think it is important.
Yes, I think it's important to this discussion. So please provide the source.
Novel means more than a few mutations where the protein needs to find a new function.
That's still a very vague definition. Maybe you could provide an specific example of one of these proteins you have in mind.
I honestly think it is a long shot that 100 exons were deleted....
Why do you think this? Could you provide the scientific evidence that shows this to be unlikely?
The blind man leaving the house in a random direction is a good analogy for finding functioning protein space. Hunts paper describes that this space is rare. His data creates a problem for the ape to man transition by random change even with his most conservative estimates.
Really? Have a look at the 4th graph in his paper. What kind of "problem" do you think that represents?
You're also on the wrong track if you think it's one blind man trying to find one functioning protein spaces. It's actually millions of blind men trying to find any one of millions of functioning spaces. That makes a big difference.
Post a Comment