tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2928386780016173458..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Evidence for the existence of god(s)Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19443514272541207322015-04-01T16:51:13.513-04:002015-04-01T16:51:13.513-04:00I Jamie Barry am the one true God.I Jamie Barry am the one true God.Jamie Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001285307451887427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17584126749289020032015-02-22T23:39:41.285-05:002015-02-22T23:39:41.285-05:00Clearly you don't know what "one small am...Clearly you don't know what "one small amino acid" even means, so it's unlikely you understood what Yockey said, whatever it might have been.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19894331227308821452015-02-22T21:51:30.745-05:002015-02-22T21:51:30.745-05:00Anyway, I got off my butt and actually looked up t...Anyway, I got off my butt and actually looked up the quote. Here it is if you want to check his math. (He did work for Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project).<br /><br />Here it is:<br />Herbert P. Yockey, Information theory and molecular biology, (Cambridge NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 255.<br /><br />He calculated the probability of one small amino acid being created by random forces (although he doubted those amino acids even existed when life began). He says it would take 10**25 years. The universe is only 14*10**9, which is quite a bit younger. Now try to imagine how long it would take for an interacting ecosystem to randomly be generated. Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57646006985422501422015-02-21T16:04:42.435-05:002015-02-21T16:04:42.435-05:00Well, yes it is very much more complicated. He is ...Well, yes it is very much more complicated. He is a physicist and information theorists.I would hazard to guess that he understands probabilistic distributions better than most evolutionists. And I'm sure he can understand the whack-a-mole definition of evolution that has to change rapidly to deflect the mountains of scientific evidences that constantly contradict it, i.e. junk dna, rapid change followed by long periods of stasis, early origin of super-complex life (photosynthetic), and on and on.<br /><br />Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18187325117697690902015-02-20T14:06:20.883-05:002015-02-20T14:06:20.883-05:00Was the mathematics more advanced than putting the...Was the mathematics more advanced than putting the probability at 1/(20^N) where N is the number of amino acids in the protein? That would be the probability of assembling a particular amino acid sequence by randomly picking amino acids from the full pool. The drawback of this calculation is that it has nothing to do with anyone's idea of evolution.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75977003005405019552015-02-20T13:23:47.955-05:002015-02-20T13:23:47.955-05:00Mikkel,
Thanks for your question. It is a referen...Mikkel,<br /><br />Thanks for your question. It is a reference to the scientist Dr Hubert Yockey. He did the calculation in one of his books. He took a simple protein and did a rigorous statistical calculation to determine it would take longer than the history of the world for this protein to be produced by random chance. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Yockey <br /><br />Professor Hubert P. Yockey, PhD is a physicist and information theorist. He worked under Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project, and at the University of California, Berkeley.<br /><br />I did a paper that included his work at school. I don't have the reference handy at the present. The mathematics is very advanced.<br /><br />One of the nice things about blogs is their informality, but I guess it can have it's downsides too.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61161583996204500012015-02-19T18:46:38.095-05:002015-02-19T18:46:38.095-05:00"Speaking of which, the only effort so far to...<i>"Speaking of which, the only effort so far to find an evolutionary pathway for the flagellum is this 8 year old article:<br />https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~matzke/matzke_cv/_pubs/Pallen_Matzke_2006_NRM_origin_flagella.pdf<br />"</i><br /><br />Since it was shown already 8 years ago that the flagellum evolved, why are you here now blathering about it? Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5284169046844450902015-02-19T18:44:22.646-05:002015-02-19T18:44:22.646-05:00"Regarding fast evolution (an oxymoran) I am ...<i>"Regarding fast evolution (an oxymoran) I am sure you're aware that it would take more time than the existence of the universe to randomly create on simple protein"</i><br /><br />Why do you think this? From what principle do you extract this conclusion? Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64592564024760788442015-02-19T18:14:45.722-05:002015-02-19T18:14:45.722-05:00Well, there you have it. You ask a couple of quest...Well, there you have it. You ask a couple of questions to an evolutionists and they're reduced to making snarky comments. The science has evaporated. That's to be expected after all. At the core of it evolution is bad theology producing bad science.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29293155864069198512015-02-19T07:02:18.629-05:002015-02-19T07:02:18.629-05:00Larry, walking ferns? I'm totally lost.
Yeah....<i>Larry, walking ferns? I'm totally lost.</i><br /><br />Yeah. We've noticed.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36847198235468961582015-02-19T07:01:21.697-05:002015-02-19T07:01:21.697-05:00Keep your bedroom door locked at night and buy a c...<i>Keep your bedroom door locked at night and buy a couple of cats to feed to the ferns.</i><br /><br />Hope Jerry Coyne doesn't read this!Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46035600975219991052015-02-19T01:37:50.936-05:002015-02-19T01:37:50.936-05:00Peter:
"Regarding fast evolution (an oxymoran...Peter:<br />"Regarding fast evolution (an oxymoran) I am sure you're aware that it would take more time than the existence of the universe to randomly create on simple protein. "<br /><br />Ah yes. The 'not enough time, thus god did it' argument. The argument based on a creationist caricature of evolution, and a distinct lack of knowledge of biology.<br /><br />I vaguely remember someone mentioning strawman argument? Or was he eaten by the ferns? Nasty stuff ferns.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69667401882344710422015-02-18T23:14:50.647-05:002015-02-18T23:14:50.647-05:00You have nothing to fear from the ordinary walking...You have nothing to fear from the ordinary walking ferns although you might consider buying a leash or at least putting a collar on them. It's the carnivorous walking ferns that cause a problem. Keep your bedroom door locked at night and buy a couple of cats to feed to the ferns.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73038069169435329482015-02-18T22:15:18.013-05:002015-02-18T22:15:18.013-05:00Larry, walking ferns? I'm totally lost.Larry, walking ferns? I'm totally lost.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19153047170858664992015-02-18T22:14:31.255-05:002015-02-18T22:14:31.255-05:00Lutesuite, nice of you to make an argument for me ...Lutesuite, nice of you to make an argument for me I wasn't going to make in the first place. Do you know what a straw man argument is, because your argument contains no substance whatsoever. But I find that a lot in visiting evolutionary blogs.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64491533604242534512015-02-18T22:09:09.867-05:002015-02-18T22:09:09.867-05:00Well Ed, I have to agree with your facts and concl...Well Ed, I have to agree with your facts and conclusion. Yes the whale must have evolved from a land animal? I guess you'll agree with me that all the other animals in history that don't show transitional fetal development. That would imply all the fish, reptiles, birds, insects, and all mammals except the whale never evolved because there is no embryonic evidence. <br /><br />Regarding fast evolution (an oxymoran) I am sure you're aware that it would take more time than the existence of the universe to randomly create on simple protein. So 14 billion years is to quick for a single protein. Now I heard one scientist say that there is enough information in a cm of dna to fill books from earth to the moon. Perhaps Larry could correct me on this one. So, if the entire Cambrian explosion was accomplished in about 20 million years, do you think there is enough time for this evolution which contains many life forms and the requisite proteins of course, to have evolved when 14 billion years was not enough time for a single protein.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78838204839189242922015-02-18T13:50:52.254-05:002015-02-18T13:50:52.254-05:00Carnivorous walking ferns, possibly?
We have fer...<i>Carnivorous walking ferns, possibly? </i><br /><br />We have ferns in our house. Now I'm not going to be able to sleep at night. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62127141938043971892015-02-18T12:47:57.674-05:002015-02-18T12:47:57.674-05:00It's often mildly interesting to observe the v...It's often mildly interesting to observe the varying levels of incomprehension regarding evolution that creationists suffer. I recall one individual with whom I was involved in a discussion who argued that the earliest tetrapods who emerged from water would have immediately gone extinct because they would have been sitting ducks for any predators that were already on land. I kept trying to figure out what predators he was talking about. Carnivorous walking ferns, possibly? Turned out he didn't quite grasp the concept of common ancestry, and thought that every single vertebrate species had to separately evolve from an aquatic to a terrestrial form.<br /><br />Peter Wadeck seems to be suffering a similarly fundamental misunderstanding of basic evolutionary theory.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60719292518942288452015-02-18T12:26:32.800-05:002015-02-18T12:26:32.800-05:00Thank you, Peter Wadeck! I'd never seen this ...Thank you, Peter Wadeck! I'd never seen this argument before. Its wrong on just about every count, but very entertaining.<br /><br />Individuals can be born with serious morphological defects, but no non-human vertebrates have the social structures that would allow, for example, wolves born with flipper-like limbs to survive long enough to become fossils. <br /><br />And can you be serious in suggesting that if evolution is true we expect to find fossils of vertebrates that lived without heads? (By the way, even the more complete sauropod dinosaur skeletons nearly always lack heads, though, I'm sorry to say, not because these sauropods had walked around without them.)<br /><br />The most important problem with your hypothesis is that if evolution is true, past organisms are not merely flawed predecessors of present organisms. They were adequately to splendidly adapted to the physical and biological environment of their times, just as present organisms are to our times. <br /><br />Well, there were a few environments (e.g. earth just after an asteroid impact) that organisms mostly weren't adapted to, but in those cases lots and lots of species went extinct.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the interesting post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3423755115541653522015-02-18T02:02:15.577-05:002015-02-18T02:02:15.577-05:00Thanks for ignoring my question, It also seems you...Thanks for ignoring my question, It also seems your knowledge of embryology is stuck somewhere in the mid 1800's. Haekel may have faked his drawings, modern day embryology knows those hind legs buds in whales are indeed hind leg buds. Evidence you'll obviously brush aside as ' there needs to be more research', but perhaps you should read a modern day university textbook on the subject. <br /><br />Perhaps you can define the term 'rapid evolution'? Is it rapid in what YEC's claim, 6K years ago flood and in 6K years from the few animals on board the arc the current diversity in live on earth has come forth? <br />Or do you mean this as <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6208/463.abstract" rel="nofollow">rapid evolution?</a>. Because what I read here doesn't contradict Darwin. Do explain.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55185783240726628092015-02-17T19:52:25.163-05:002015-02-17T19:52:25.163-05:00Not all defects get aborted. Thalidomide children ...Not all defects get aborted. Thalidomide children didn't get aborted, and that's only one defect. If the forces of creation are random as you suggest then there should be more rejects than successes, way more. The fossil record strongly contradicts evolution. <br /><br />In answer to your questions can you create a creature? How do you know which embryonic pathway is the most efficient. Your questions are from a lack of knowledge and do not really suggest anything other than there needs to be more research. I would advise caution here. Too many scientists have misinterpreted data like this before, i.e. gills that didn't turn out to be gills, the whole Haeckels embryo fraud, etc. It's easy to see what you want to see. <br /><br />On the topic of subjective interpretation of evidence Steven Myers debated evolutionists at Biologos on the subject of the Cambrian explosion. None of them claimed to have an explanation for the greatest creation event in history. They said that it is a problem they are still studying. If these evolutionary scientists can ignore such monumental evidence then one certainly can be skeptical about what they say. <br /> <br />Perhaps you could answer one question for me, how is rapid evolution even evolution? Rapid evolution is supposed to happen many times. This contradicts Darwin's understanding of evolution. And yet evolutionists can so easily say a phrase that completely contradicts itself. Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1838197843932855012015-02-17T02:39:27.060-05:002015-02-17T02:39:27.060-05:00Mr Reynolds, as usual you cherry pick what you wan...Mr Reynolds, as usual you cherry pick what you want to read, I doubt you have even read the pdf you cite above. A quote:<br />"Many new flagellar systems have been discovered through genome sequencing — a trend that is likely to increase with time. For example, over three hundred flagellin sequences were obtained in a single sequencing project that focused on samples from the Sargasso Sea (17) . By even the most conservative estimate, there must therefore be thousands of different bacterial flagellar systems, perhaps even millions. Therefore, there is no point discussing the creation or ID of ‘the’ bacterial flagellum. Instead, one is faced with two options: either there were thousands or even millions of individual<br />creation events, which strains Occam’s razor to breaking point, or one has to accept that all the highly diverse contemporary flagellar systems have evolved from a common ancestor"<br /><br />Do explain, has Behe adressed this issue in later papers? If so, do cite them.<br /><br />Perhaps you should also search for: Brucella melitensis . Has Prof. Behe adressed this issue in later publications? If so, do cite them.<br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81256611718521612232015-02-17T01:55:22.612-05:002015-02-17T01:55:22.612-05:00Peter:
"You don't find people where genet...Peter:<br />"You don't find people where genetic mutation has randomly not produced a head, or liver, or ANYTHING."<br /><br />Correct, during embryogenesis those embryo's die/ are dead or in case of mamals those embryo's get aborted, called a miscarriage. You wont find those fossils, because these embryo's die before bones start to form. <br /><br />What you do find in fossils is transition over time from say a cow/ hippo like common ancestor, to slightly better adapted creatures for living in water to ultimately a modern day whale, complete with a rudimentry pelvis.<br /><br />I have two questions for you:<br />If you look closer at whale embryo's you'll find that during embryogenesis they actually do have hind legs buds, like they have front leg buds. Now thats weird, what in the world would a whale need hind legs for? And why does a whale have a (rudimentry) pelvis, when a whale doesn't have hind legs? <br />And 'only god knows' isn't an answer. Want to give it a try?<br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80855913779330949722015-02-16T20:37:07.228-05:002015-02-16T20:37:07.228-05:00I think the best evidence for a creator is found i...I think the best evidence for a creator is found in biochemistry.<br /><br />The topic is irreducible complexity, and the object is the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is a perfect illustration of Behe's point:<br /><br />"INTERVIEWER: One criticism of ID has been that it makes no predictions, and thus is unscientific. Does The Edge of Evolution address this?<br />BEHE: The Edge of Evolution is almost entirely concerned with the major, opposing predictions of Darwinism and ID. The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed."<br />http://www.discovery.org/a/4097<br /><br />Speaking of which, the only effort so far to find an evolutionary pathway for the flagellum is this 8 year old article:<br />https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~matzke/matzke_cv/_pubs/Pallen_Matzke_2006_NRM_origin_flagella.pdf<br /><br />Larry, as a biochemist you would now best - has any progress been reported in your literature in verifying flagellar evolution in the past 8 years? If so, would you post the cites for us, please?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11927735948286702242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19893611091483116392015-02-16T12:09:06.628-05:002015-02-16T12:09:06.628-05:00Photosynthesis,
Wikipedia - A bookmaker, bookie, ...Photosynthesis,<br /><br />Wikipedia - A bookmaker, <b>bookie</b>, or turf accountant is an organization or a person that takes bets on sporting and other events at agreed upon odds. <br /><br />IOW, a bookie, a professional better certainly would not bet on evolution when the chances against it are unimaginable. <br /><br />p.s. insults are not very persuasive arguments. Especially when the criticism is completely wrong.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.com