Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Discussion Zone For Evolution

This post will serve as a permanent discussion zone for evolution. It will be on the Left hand column.

324 comments:

  1. I wanted to leave THIS HERE as a great starting point. It's my favorite, Greg Bahnsen's argument about evolution that is worth watching on both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Objective knowledge requires that a principles be either completely self-evident to all rational persons, or that the principle be objectively provable by rational persons who care enough about it to prove it themselves.

    Evolution is neither of the above. Evolution is not self-evident, since it contains many irrational components as necessary elements. Evolution is not objectively provable by any one, not even in the best financed and equipped laboratory.

    Evolution cannot be considered to be valid objective knowledge.

    For that reason, the plethora of evolution stories cannot be considered to be an empirical science, despite the claims of its practitioners. Evolutionary hypotheses are not amenable to experimental validation; they are merely stories which certain experts of the day claim to be "plausible", and for that reason they are called "Just So Stories" (in the same category as Kipling's book of that name).

    Evolutionists claim that "mountains of evidence" exist. All of that evidence is extrapolated opinion - all of it. When challenged to provide actual objective evidence in the form of hypothetico-deductive experimental data which is replicable and replicated, falisifaible and non-falsified, open data, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, none is ever provided. This is because by their very nature, evolution stories cannot be tested, empirically. So Evolution is not an empirical science, and cannot be. It is an historical guessing game dominated by extrapolated opinion, and that opinion is falsely called evidence; it is not evidence, it is merely opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Returning to the two types of objective knowledge listed above, the current trend amongst evolutionists is to claim that evolution is self-evident AND that anyone who disagrees is insane, evil or stupid. This position requires that the evolutionist a) not examine and b) definitely not internalize the evidence against evolution. The evidence against evolution is immense. The evidence for evolution does not exist except as fable-type story-telling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My reply to Hugo is long and requires several comment blocks:
    Hugo Pelland said...
    ”Finally, on a more personal note, perhaps I can explain what it means to me to be an Atheist, as it is, after all, a personal belief: Atheism does not relate to what we know but only to what we believe. Simply put, I don't believe in God and I am convinced that many of the versions of God I have heard of are definitely non-existent, with just a few options being still possible, but just unlikely. Here's how I would list it:

    1) God - Sun: I don't believe that the Sun is God, nor are the stars, the constellations, etc... I don't think anybody alive today believes that either, but it used to be common. We just know better now.

    2) God - Natural Events: I don't believe there is a God that controls the natural elements. Disaster such as tsunami, earthquakes or tornadoes hit randomly based on uncontrolled natural conditions. Some people today think that God may be in control of that, partially, but I think most people who believe in God don't blame Him for natural events like that. To me, it's just purely natural so I don't believe such God exists.”


    I take these to be sarcasm. As if theism is just about stupid things.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I had already replied to some assertions:

    "For instance, common ancestry is a fact so strongly supported by evidence that it cannot be denied, and the best explanation as to how living things came to be so diverse while being related is: the Theory of Evolution."

    That is an absurd statement regarding one of the most undocumented stories of evolution. It falls apart at the Cambrian Explosion. There is no possible common ancestor for all the existing phyla (save one minor phyla appearing later) which accords with the "ancestor" criteria. Nor are there many ancestors at that point, either. The criteria are clear: the ancestor must have the capability to a) possess all the information required to produce much, much more highly complex, organ bearing, neurological structural and internal information languages and information feedback systems, sexual reproduction including egg creation and maturation as opposed to mitosis, cellular specifity to single functions, and information packets containing the information for all of this which are transferred to progeny, OR b) to evolve all of these things simultaneously in a geologically minute time frame, virtually immediately with all information simultaneous and in a manner which far outpaces the negative mutations to which all organisms are subject due to universal entropy.

    That is the first rational obstacle. The second rational obstacle is this:

    There is no law of physics which provides for the emergence of living cells containing both DNA/RNA, and RNA-ase as well as auxillary polymerases which are required to access and utilize the DNA information, nor for the simultaneous creation of metabolic ATP feedback systems, nor for systems of acquisition of external energy and conversion to ATP and emission of waste. The minimum requirement for cell construction (dead cell) cannot be accounted for by any physical laws or the four forces of the universe. Further, the coordinated actions of a living cell toward an objective (protecting its life and reproduction for perpetuation), also cannot be reduced to the four forces of the universe. (Strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity).

    These outlines above do not do justice to the complexity of the minimal single cell, nor the magnificent jump in complexity during the Cambrian Explosion.

    What you are going on is merely correlation as causation, without considering the detailed ramifications underlying the correlation.

    That's it for now; but it's sufficient to disqualify superficial correlation. Full explanation cannot be created with stories; all the ramifications must be addressed. Those are highly complex and not even all of them are known.

    Common ancestry is not a "fact". Common DNA artifacts are facts, but that doesn't prove anything other than their existence -- unless an ulterior motivation for calling it something else exists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hugo replied:
    "It falls apart at the Cambrian Explosion. "
    This is going too far; we don't need to look at the Cambrian Explosion to come up with an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and the fact of common ancestry. What the Cambrian period shows is actually a confirmation that the Theory is valid. It could have falsified it; it confirmed it.”


    And there we have an absurd “truth statement”, made confidently as if it is fact, and without a shred of evidence (not even a good “story”) to back it up. The Cambrian explosion consisted of a geological “instant” in which complexity erupted and formed simultaneously all the phyla which exist today, except one minor one. This would, to the story teller, suggest a common single cell ancestor which had mutated (and kept all the mutations) sufficiently to create multiple complex phyla, far beyond its own meager existence. The brand new complexities just happen to be working organic mechanisms, all functioning serendipitously together with internal informational feedback regulation, including sexual reproduction (requiring two functioning, complementary sexual systems), and also, the structures to hold them, to feed the extremities, and to create both mobility and root systems for land existence. All this due to mutations in a single ancestor, mutations retained and miraculously not lost to entropic mutational devastation.

    Or maybe there was a single cell for each phyla, retaining all the information for the completely new existences for simultaneous release with the other single cell ancestors for the other phyla.

    ”There is no possible common ancestor for all the existing phyla (save one minor phyla appearing later) which accords with the "ancestor" criteria."

    Why is it impossible? This is a very strong claim that disregard what we see, today.”


    Entropy is the death of that theory. Entropy is universal, without change in direction, always positive with time. The “very strong claim” here disregards entropy and the huge preponderance of negative, deletory mutations that every cell would experience long before accumulating the unbelievabley huge amount of systemic information required to make new organic bearing phyla, even in a single cell. The idea itself is absurd. Regardless of how necessary it is to the hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ”Even if we had no access to any fossil at all, the evidence for common ancestry would still remain. Looking at living things today, we can present an explanation as to how they came to be this way, and why they are all related. That's enough to consider it 'possible'.”

    No, actually you cannot. You cannot produce even a story for how a single cell can mutate to produce both the Brand new DNA containing all the information for a new phyla which is far beyond its own existence, and especially in the presence of universal entropy. What this actually shows is that the evolution narrative must ignore modern knowledge of the complexity involved, the type of complexity, and the natural outcome of mutations.

    ” We also happen to have proven it, but it has nothing to do with the claim that ' There is no possible common ancestor for all the existing phyla'.

    You need to explain why you reject the evidenve, the reasoning and the facts. You cannot just say it's impossible when it is entirely possible, by definition.”


    This is completely outside the boundaries of rationality. No one has, or can, “prove it”. That is the nature of both objective knowledge, and empirical science. Should we revert to a primer on those two essential elements?

    ”You say it yourself: it's just a so-story. Well, if it's a so-story, it means it's possible because we have that story.”

    This is pure desperation. We also have fairy tales; they are stories of the same caliber as evolutionary hypotheses.

    ”You can argue the story is wrong; but you cannot say it's impossible without explaining what's wrong with the story. Let alone the fact that the "story" is actually a Theory supported by evidence.”

    You have no evidence which shows that the creation of organic complexity being created from prokaryote existence is feasible, possible, or even remotely more than magical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "the ancestor must have the capability to a) possess all the information required to produce [...] "

    No. Whatever comes after that is wrong. The ancestor does not need to have the capability to produce anything. You are not addressing the actual Theory; what you say is impossible is your own version, not the real Theory of Evolution.”


    Ah, so your version is the magical appearance of the organic complexity of each phyla occurred without any prior mutation?? And that is the “Real Theory of Evolution”? Well it certainly is not the Modern Synthesis, nor is it the Extended Synthesis. So what then exactly is YOUR “Real Theory of Evolution”? I’m guessing that you can’t produce such a hypothesis.

    "OR b) to evolve all of these things simultaneously in a geologically minute time frame, virtually immediately with all information simultaneous and in a manner which far outpaces the negative mutations to which all organisms are subject due to universal entropy. "

    No. The Theory is that there were gradual changes, never any impossible jumps because that would be... impossible. I think the problem here is that you are talking about all phyla as they are today. That's not the case; there are actually just a few changes needed in the parent species to yield 2 completely different phyla.”


    That’s false, according to George Gaylord Simpson:
    ”Evidence of gradualism between phyla, classes and even orders is either non-existent or is much disputed. Certainly, no pervasive pattern of gradualism exists. George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged this decades ago as he described the situation in these terms:

    "This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed...

    This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.
    • Simpson, G. G. (1944)
    Tempo and Mode in Evolution
    Columbia University Press, New York, p. 105, 107”


    ReplyDelete
  9. And this:
    ”Taxa recognized as orders during the (Precambrian-Cambrian) transition chiefly appear without connection to an ancestral clade via a fossil intermediate. This situation is in fact true of most invertebrate orders during the remaining Phanerozoic as well. There are no chains of taxa leading gradually from an ancestral condition to the new ordinal body type. Orders thus appear as rather distinctive subdivisions of classes rather than as being segments in some sort of morphological continuum.
    Valentine, J.W., Awramik, S.M., Signor, P.W., and Sadler, P.M. (1991)
    "The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary"
    Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 25, Max K. Hecht, editor, Plenum Press, New York and London, p.284”


    ”This is what the videos on feline and canine, which I shared earlier, explained, for instance. The Theory does not say that 1 species yield 1000s of species immediately.”

    Try this:
    ”Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it (Lewin, 1988).

    Lewin then asked the all important question:

    "Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?"
    Lewin, R. (1988)
    Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291”

    ReplyDelete
  10. ”The first feline and the first canine may have been literal cousins, who were separated, and then slowly changed over time.”

    You have moved the goalposts. The discussion is about the creation of phyla during the Cambrian Explosion, not dogs and cats.

    Their descendants also changed slowly, got separated and so on... this yields a lot of diversity within canines and felines, even if they come from a common ancestor. That's the "story" of course; not the evidence we see today. The facts are that all canines and felines are related, morphologically and genetically.

    The “fact” is that all living things are related, if the only consideration is the fact of “life” in the observation of “living”. The correlation is 100%. No other correlation is 100%, nor even close, because the correlation itself is an opinion based on the willful extrapolation outside of the boundary of scientific observation. Actual observation shows commonality, not actual relationship. The relationship being touted is not “actual”, it is a virtualization in the sense of projection of hypothetical cause without the benefit of observation. Science, without observation, is not science; it is science fiction. When science fiction is called science, it is a perversion of science.

    “When I asked where you draw the line, the non-answer was at the species level, which does not answer anything since species are also related, genetically, and we can find cousin species just like we find literally cousins, with genetic testings.

    That is NOT what is found, period. What is found is genetic similarity as well as genetic difference; the pretense of “relatedness” is not “found”, it is projected: pure opinion.

    ” So the hierarchy does not stop at species; it keeps going. This is what the Theory of Evolution explains; these are facts.”

    That you claim this projected opinion to be “fact” relates only to your degraded definition of “fact”. It does not relate to what “is” or what “was”, because those things, “is” and “was” cannot be observed, a testable hypothesis created, experiments designed to test the hypothesis, experiments performed and replicated sufficiently to non-falsify the hypothesis, and only at that point cautiously refer to the hypothesis as contingently validated. The loose use of the term “fact” in the sense of “truth” is far, far outside the purview of science. It is even outside the norm of science fiction, which is not declared truth. To declare non-observed, non-replicable, non-falsifiable opinion regarding a material hypothesis to be “Fact” in the sense of “Truth” is purely religious in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  11. " The second rational obstacle is this: There is no law of physics which provides for the emergence of living cells containing both DNA/RNA, and [...]"

    Let's assume this is true; I don't think it is, but let's just assume it is for a minute.


    No, let’s not. How about if you provide evidence that it is not true? Show how the laws of physics provide any testable, replicable, falsifiable path to the emergence of a single living cell. And don’t charge off saying “well that’s not evolution theory” when it is obvious that FIRST LIFE had to have evolved directly from non-living, molecular minerals. This is just flat out necessary under the evolution constraint of Philosophical Materialism and Determinism. Evolutionists cannot ignore obvious falsifiers. And that is what is going on with the obvious falsification issues of the evolution of First Life, and the Cambrian Explosion.

    Ignoring falsifiers is NOT science; it is not even religion. It is irrationality in the pursuit of perpetuating an irrational worldview, and salvaging it by ignoring rational falsifiers. And here is precisely where you do exactly that:

    ”This does not affect the Theory in any way at all. All eukaryote are related, just like all members of the same phyla are related, just like all species, all mammals, all humans, etc... This is not an obstacle for Evolution because even if there were no possible way eukaryote's cells came to be naturally, once you have them, it is possible to yield every single member of that kingdom.

    You have to have performed the following intellectual knot tying in order to arrive at that position.

    First, you must ignore the falsifiers for the basic premises underlying evolutionary stories: Evolution of First Life is excluded from the investigation; Cambrian Explosion is explained away with untestable hypotheses such as “Punctuated Equilibrium” (the idea that “no data” proves the theory of P.E.).

    Next, you must accept as Fact/Truth projections beyond correlations which are not testable and not falsifiable.

    You must also assume that there is no “essence” to living things which exists beyond the capability to test and falsify materially, even though no one has a clue as to how to do it.


    You must assume that to “have a story” relates to a “possibility”, when there is no evidence even “possible” to validate that assumption. (An elephant’s skin is NOT wrinkled because he slept in his day clothes; yes he does sleep in his day clothes – that’s not the REAL explanation for his wrinkles).

    You must assume that the total lack of observable validation/non-falsification is a normal scientific state for Fact/Truth: it is NOT a normal state for scientific pursuit of material contingent facts; disciplined empirical hypothetico-deductive-experimental-non-falsification is the only –ONLY- intellectual path to contingent objective knowledge.

    ” Common ancestry is not a "fact". Common DNA artifacts are facts, but that doesn't prove anything other than their existence"

    Where and why do you draw the line then? You agree that members of a species can be identified by DNA; that's where you more-or-less draw the line on the other thread.


    DNA is split, cross coupled, and passed from parent generation to child generation. That much is observable. The rest of your presumptive path outside of the genomic pool of the species is not observable, and therefore is not falsifiable, leaving it in the unknowable category. Yet you (and others of course) persist in claiming that which is unknowable, empirically and objectively, to be Fact/Truth.

    It is irrational to claim that the unknowable is Fact/Truth. You cannot show otherwise, and that is why you persist in doing it over and over and…

    ReplyDelete
  12. ”But then the question is, why is DNA wrong in showing common ancestry for 2 closely related species?”

    Because the “close relation” of two species is presupposed, even in your sentence just above. Not only that, but the presumption cannot be proved by observation of DNA transfer, as is done in single species reproduction. The entire enterprise of proving relatedness steps clean off the cliff of material knowability, and into the chasm of projection of opinion based solely on correlation: completely unknowable as objective material knowledge, much less “Fact/Truth”.

    ”What about all feline? All canines? All mammals? There are not explanations for why they are not related; but there are explanations as to how they came to be like that: they evolved from common ancestors.”

    You have only, solely, science fiction stories.

    " There is no "evidence" which is not merely correlation as causation. There is plenty of evidence that it is not possible that [macro] evolution actually did happen. And there is no REAL evidence that it did, any more than there was REAL evidence for epicycles when they "solved" the planetary motion problem. Correlation is purely induction; there is no possibility of deductive validation OR falsification. At least not at our current level of knowledge and technical, material capability."

    This conclusion does not fit with the Theory; that's where we see why we disagree on it.”


    This is not a conclusion: it is an analysis of the rational/irrational processes which are used to declare evolution “Fact/Truth”, which is what you are doing. As you note, rational process in pursuit of contingent objective knowledge based on replicated observation and non-falsification (i.e., science) does not fit the “theory” (actually not a theory, but an untestable hypothesis based on correlation).

    So which is correct? Evolution hypothesis? Or Rational Process? You have made that necessary decision clear.

    ” There is plenty of evidence that all life is related…

    Yes, but only by being invested with something called “life”. All the rest is correlation as causation: a pursuit which is fatal to scientific, contingent, materially and experimentally validated and non-falsified temporary factoids. Not only is it not science, it is not “Fact/Truth”. I hope I’ve said that often enough that you cannot ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ”…and the explanation is that they must have evolved. It's not that there is evidence that macro-evolution actually did happen; we cannot show it in action over centuries. The idea is that there must be some explanations for today's observations.”

    The use of the term “must” denotes a statement of Truth. What it actually references here is not Truth; it is a science fiction story and nothing more than that, because it is unprovable and not falsifiable. Ignoring provability and falsifiability is an egregious lapse out of rationality, and into fantasy – which is declared to be a “must” believe story.


    ”This explanation is the Theory of Evolution.”

    Given that it is a science fiction story and not validatable, not testable, not falsifiable, and thus not knowable as either Fact or Truth, yes it is the Just So Story of Evolution.

    ”Then, we can try to look at the past and see if the Theory fits, and it does.

    Do elephants actually sleep in their clothes? Why of course they do. Does that explain his wrinkles? Why of course it does. Is it the real explanation? Using the evolution thought process: yes that must be accepted as Fact/Truth. Having a story is good enough.

    ” The fossil record confirmed the theory by showing that ancestors of today's living things are related morphologically and genetically.”

    That is false. The fossil record correlates because it relates to “life” and living things. Projecting beyond that actual, simple observation of material findings is not warranted unless one wishes to accept unprovable, non-falsifiable, extrapolated projections of opinion.

    And there is a big market for accepting that sort of faux science as Fact/Truth.

    ”It is impossible to find an animal, today, that does not have a potential direct common ancestor in the fossil record.”

    That statement is false and egregiously so. There is no common ancestor between great apes and human which has been located. Show otherwise. There are projections of other humanoids which are said to have existed contemporaneously with human sapiens sapiens. There is no fossil known for a common ancestor. And that is only one of many unknowns.

    ”We cannot be sure that a particular specimen living today came literally from an old fossilized specimen; it's actually almost certain the living specimen is 'not' a direct descendant. But, it confirms that there were animals, in the past, which fit the characteristics of today's living things' theorical ancestors.”

    And here is an admission to the unknowability of the projected correlation as Fact/Truth. And in fact the placement on the Tree of Life (of which there are many) of many species keeps changing. Note that the tree has branches; the nodes are not labeled as ancestors.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

    Note also that this particular tree did not have eukaryotes “emerge” from prokaryotes. They both “emerge” from the same mystery common ancestor.

    Darwin’s tree had no labels at all.

    So now it is your turn again. The irrationality of the evolutionary hypothesis has been demonstrated for you to refute. The overt falsifications for the evolutionary hypothesis have been shown, available for your refutation. The misuse of the term "fact” has been shown, available for your refutation. The inability to provide validation and non-falsification has been shown, available for your refutation.

    And the request for actual falsifiable experimental data still applies, in the pursuit of actual objective scientific knowledge rather than science fiction or Just So Stories.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here is a scholarly paper on biological trees and grids, including many preceding Darwin. Darwin was certainly not first in any of his concepts, as is shown in this quote:

    "(N)ature rises up by connections, little by little and without leaps, as though it proceeds by an unbroken web, it proceeds in a leisurely and placid uninterrupted course. There is no gap, no break, no dispersion of forms: they have, in turn, been connected, ring within ring. That very golden chain is universal in its embrace. - Juan Eusebio Nieremberg, 1635 [[1], p.29]

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here's a PDF book called The Evolution of Evolution:

    The Evolution of Evolution

    ReplyDelete
  16. Evolution was not responsible for the Cambrian Explosion, then?

    So - what was?

    ReplyDelete
  17. All that can be said regarding human capacity to know, is that the mechanism is not known. It can be obvious, however, that it was not Darwinian, nor any form of mutation/selection; nor common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Given the paucity of evidence from the Pre-Cambrian and the extreme rarity of fossilisation events in the first place, and of the survival of fossilisation events from that far back, your confidence in the "obvious" is misplaced at best. The "Cambrian explosion" is likely to be at least in part an artefact of what has survived.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Martyn, I agree with Stan. The strikes against Darwinian natural selection are not grounded in evidence from the fossil record, nor should they be.

    Soooo... you're questioning Stan's confidence, then offering proof in terms of something 'likely to be at least in part'? Those are weasel words and your statement is simple denial. You have no proof for OR against what Stan says, because you missed the first sentence.

    The mechanism is not known. It may never be known. And we will have to be content with not knowing. Fred Reed, though not a theist, admits this, even shouts it from the rooftops, if you will. He does not believe that Darwinian stories, nor any other, are sufficient to explain what actually happened.

    We. Don't. Know. And THAT, if anything, is glaringly obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Given the paucity of evidence from the Pre-Cambrian and the extreme rarity of fossilisation events in the first place, and of the survival of fossilisation events from that far back, your confidence in the "obvious" is misplaced at best. The "Cambrian explosion" is likely to be at least in part an artefact of what has survived."

    Then you know nothing of the fossil record, which has literal tons of fossil evidence from both the preCambrian and the Cambrian, including sites where the demarcation in the geologic layers show all the phyla, going down in the layers and back through time through the Cambrian, until the well defined juncture with the PreCambrian layer, where the phyla stop abruptly and immediately. It is all sponge, algae and single cells from there on down (back in time). And it is that way as found at sites around the world. Your skepticism is just wishful thinking in support of your ideology, but it is not supported by known, physical evidence, which is abundant, not a paucity.

    You can't deny this existing archaeological evidence without being an actual, practicing, science-denier, given that you are denying the existence and nature of material evidence which physically exists. You already are a logic-denier favoring infinite regressions despite their logical impossibility. Your exercise of skepticism is variable, depending upon whether evidence supports or refutes your irrational worldview. That is obvious bias in favor of a closed mind.

    You might try actually addressing the logical arguments which you have been given, rather than dismissing them out of hand. If mere dismissal in the face of contrary refutation of your position is all you have, and all you will ever present, then discussion with you is a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. the classical Category Error of demanding material evidence for non-material arguments.

    The error is in insisting that the answer to material existence can even be non-material. It’s nonsense on stilts. And it staggers me that you declare: “I can’t give you the evidence you demand because it can’t be shown” and expect anyone to accept that.

    The concept of infinite regression as a valid argument or proposed existence is logically FALSE (proof of this was given to you).

    You might feel you can declare that logic rules out infinite regression as an argument: plenty of people disagree, as you must be aware.

    Oh, and by the way: "Kimura proved that the only mutations to be passed along are deleterious, not beneficial." - no he didn’t.”

    Empty assertion; not accepted

    Where’s your proof that’s what he said? The empty assertion here is being made by you.

    “the well defined juncture with the PreCambrian layer, where the phyla stop abruptly and immediately.”

    “All new phyla – indeed, new kingdoms – have to start out as mere new subvarieties and then become new species. The fact that from today’s vantage point they appear to be members of new phyla does not make them special at all …studies that have been done to date suggest that … the Burgess Shale fauna, for all their peculiarity, exhibit no inexplicable or morphological diversity after all.” (Daniel Dennett)

    “If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the default assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition, therefore God must have intervened. It is utterly illogical to demand complete documentation of every step of any narrative, whether in evolution or any other science.” (Richard Dawkins)

    “You already are a logic-denier favoring infinite regressions despite their logical impossibility”

    You keep making that claim, but it’s not true. See eg this: http://tiny.cc/kel9ay

    ReplyDelete
  22. "It is false to call pre-existing capabilities which were disabled, “new”. When each of these proves that these “new” functions are NOT the result of pre-existing capabilities in part of the population, then we have something to discuss. I’m not aware of any such findings."

    Explain then how there is a strain of bacteria capable of digesting byproducts of nylon? (And nylon was only invented in 1935). (And no other strain of bacteria is capable of digesting nylon).

    "The same argument applies here. Revealing previous capabilities which were disused is not evidence of evolution. Just claiming “evolution” does not prove evolution."

    If you bothered to have a look at my link you would have found this is answered.

    “The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes."

    Confirmation:
    Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

    Potential Falsification:
    "Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism’s genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible (Lewin 1999).”

    ReplyDelete
  23. The mechanism must be fully understood before making claims for “evolving tolerance”. Doing otherwise is indicative of sloppy and false science which presupposes the conclusion.

    No we not need to fully grasp the mechanism to know evolution is true as my link
    correctly states.
    Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.”

    "Alloploidal Hybrids are sterile; sterile plants are not evidence of an evolved species. Even Darwin’s Finches produce sterile offspring when they are hybrids. Polyploidy produce combined morphology of both parents, not new features. The supposed new species is in fact just recombinations of features of the parent species. While this is called speciation, it has produced nothing new."

    Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis)

    "And again, unsubstantiated assertions without actual content attached. Merely claims, not facts."

    See link for evidence of speciation.
    http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html

    "First, that link provides zero empirical evidence. It provides inferential connections which are not observed, but which are inferentially extrapolated between two actual observations. It is certainly possible to generate mountains of stories in the form of inferential extrapolations and other opinions. That is in no sense, mountains of empirical evidence suitable for claiming objective knowledge."

    My link above answers this too.

    “The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferredvia indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these “invisible” phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term “evidence” is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.”

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Second, observation is not empirical. Observation is purely Inductive, and subject to the Inductive Fallacy (black swan). Empiricism (and objective knowledge) require that the observations produce an inductive hypothesis for cause regarding a set of effects, which can be tested deductively by deducing a materially implementable cause for the inductively observed set of effects (required by the rule of determinism) and then inventing a disciplined experimental test that forces a cause and observes the hypothetical effect of the cause. The requirements of the empirical process are that it be replicable, falsifiable, disciplined and unbiased data open to everyone, repeated independently and non-falsified. This is the only process of empiricism, it produces only contingent knowledge of cause and effect, and it is the historical definition and basis for empirical science."

    My link answers this also

    Many anti-evolutionists, such as the “scientific” creationists, are especially fond of Karl Popper and his falsifiability criterion. These cynics are well known for claiming that evolutionary theory is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. In this article, these accusations are met head on. Each of the evidences given for common descent contains a section providing examples of potential falsifications, i.e. examples of observations that would be highly unlikely if the theory is correct.”.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ”It is false to call pre-existing capabilities which were disabled, “new”. When each of these proves that these “new” functions are NOT the result of pre-existing capabilities in part of the population, then we have something to discuss. I’m not aware of any such findings."

    Explain then how there is a strain of bacteria capable of digesting byproducts of nylon? (And nylon was only invented in 1935). (And no other strain of bacteria is capable of digesting nylon).”


    First, it is up to you to prove that a specific mutation occurred - magically, just in time to digest the nylon. The likelihood of that is zero, but that aside, when you claim “mutation” without pointing to a specific change in the structure of genome, you are asserting magic. The next statements show the Appeal to Magic:

    ”"The same argument applies here. Revealing previous capabilities which were disused is not evidence of evolution. Just claiming “evolution” does not prove evolution."

    If you bothered to have a look at my link you would have found this is answered.

    “The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes."


    This is in NO manner an answer; it is rhetoric without producing any dialectical facts. Where is the science? Where is the study which analyzed the cause for the effect? Appealing to Rhetoric has no truth value, because it is all merely unsupported assertions. Take for example the asserted “Confirmation” which claims all sorts of mechanisms for change: where is the relationship between the stated “causes” and any specific effects? This is a list of more assertions, not actual science. It is not a study of a specific cause and effect.

    ” The mechanism must be fully understood before making claims for “evolving tolerance”. Doing otherwise is indicative of sloppy and false science which presupposes the conclusion.

    No we not need to fully grasp the mechanism to know evolution is true as my link
    correctly states.”


    That would be true only if the effect is known not to be a pre-existing state which was OFF. If you don't know that, then you don't know it was "evolution". What was listed was a bunch of proposed mechanisms without any specific effects attached to specific mechanisms. That means that it is not known if the cause is mutation or if it was pre-existing in the genome. So the existence of evolution is presupposed in the premise.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No we not need to fully grasp the mechanism to know evolution is true as my link
    correctly states.
    Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.”


    This again is an assertion without any support, without any studies which show the validity, and which in fact denies up front that any of the “explanatory mechanisms” even apply. It is an assertion that something happened in the organism and it didn’t die, but it also didn’t unchange back. That’s all that is really known, by referring to just this set of assertions. What it claims is outside of the arena of actual knowledge: it is inferred speculation.

    "Alloploidal Hybrids are sterile; sterile plants are not evidence of an evolved species. Even Darwin’s Finches produce sterile offspring when they are hybrids. Polyploidy produce combined morphology of both parents, not new features. The supposed new species is in fact just recombinations of features of the parent species. While this is called speciation, it has produced nothing new."

    Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis)”


    So if they are mutation/selection evolution, what mutated? This statement is purely rhetoric with no dialectical content.

    ” "And again, unsubstantiated assertions without actual content attached. Merely claims, not facts."

    See link for evidence of speciation.
    http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html”


    No, I’ll not be sent all over the entire internet looking at specious claims. Make your complete case here, for everyone to see and assess.

    ” "First, that link provides zero empirical evidence. It provides inferential connections which are not observed, but which are inferentially extrapolated between two actual observations. It is certainly possible to generate mountains of stories in the form of inferential extrapolations and other opinions. That is in no sense, mountains of empirical evidence suitable for claiming objective knowledge."

    My link above answers this too.”


    Make your case here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ” “The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferredvia indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these “invisible” phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term “evidence” is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.”

    As far as I can tell, this has no bearing on Philosophical Materialism. It is a declaration of voluntary materialism, and the extensions of material sensors by the development of material sensors which translate the sensed into human capacity to sense.

    ” My link answers this also

    “Many anti-evolutionists, such as the “scientific” creationists, are especially fond of Karl Popper and his falsifiability criterion. These cynics are well known for claiming that evolutionary theory is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. In this article, these accusations are met head on. Each of the evidences given for common descent contains a section providing examples of potential falsifications, i.e. examples of observations that would be highly unlikely if the theory is correct.”.”


    That is a LAUGH! There are copious calculations of the probabilities of the various aspects of evolution which demonstrate that evolution is unlikely to the point of 10^-4000. First Life is impossible due to the necessity of high numbers of simultaneous, functional, complex existences WITHIN an existing, living fully functional cell.

    And there is this: “potential” falsifications count for absolutely nothing. It is a logical fallacy to address “potential” anything when it is impossible for a concept to have truth value in the first place.

    What is needed, again, is actual studies which produce cause and effect, which has first been observed inductively; then an hypothesis is deduced whereby IF [the cause is induced], THEN [the effect will in fact always result]. If the relationship is valid and true, then the effect must follow the cause each and every time, or the effect is not a true result from the cause. In the case of evolution, the effect is speciation; the proposed cause is some sort of mutation which must be identified with complete specifics so that the mutation can be induced in order to determine if the effect, speciation, invariably is due to that specific change in the genome. If it is independently replicated successfully, then it constitutes contingent knowledge of cause and effect. If it is not replicated, then that constitutes a potential falsification which might itself be subsequently falsified, or which might stick as a true falsification of the claim of cause and effect.

    The reason that both the “potential falsifications” and their claim of falsifying the falsifications is trivial is this: neither the falsifications nor their refutations refer to any actual science: they are stories about stories and nothing more than science fiction. That is the sad state of the “science” of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "First, it is up to you to prove that a specific mutation occurred - magically, just in time to digest the nylon. The likelihood of that is zero, but that aside, when you claim “mutation” without pointing to a specific change in the structure of genome, you are asserting magic. The next statements show the Appeal to Magic:"

    Nylon did not exist before 1935. It is man-made. There are no "nylon deposits" that the bacteria could have lived in prior to 1935.
    (See http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa980325.htm for the details.)
    Therefore, this organism could not have existed before 1935. Where did it come from? Why, it evolved. This is further illustrated here.

    (source http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm)
    "Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides. However, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine (‘T’) nucleotide caused the new bacterium’s enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting. The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection. However, this inefficiency would certainly not be expected in the work of an intelligent designer. The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced"

    "This is in NO manner an answer; it is rhetoric without producing any dialectical facts. Where is the science? Where is the study which analyzed the cause for the effect? Appealing to Rhetoric has no truth value, because it is all merely unsupported assertions. Take for example the asserted “Confirmation” which claims all sorts of mechanisms for change: where is the relationship between the stated “causes” and any specific effects? This is a list of more assertions, not actual science. It is not a study of a specific cause and effect."

    From my previous link,"Prediction".
    "The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes.”

    "Confirmation Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294)"

    ReplyDelete
  29. "That would be true only if the effect is known not to be a pre-existing state which was OFF. If you don't know that, then you don't know it was "evolution". What was listed was a bunch of proposed mechanisms without any specific effects attached to specific mechanisms. That means that it is not known if the cause is mutation or if it was pre-existing in the genome. So the existence of evolution is presupposed in the premise."

    No
    Potential falsifications- "Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism’s genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible (Lewin 1999). ”

    "This again is an assertion without any support, without any studies which show the validity, and which in fact denies up front that any of the “explanatory mechanisms” even apply."
    That’s why it provides hundreds of 1)predictions (made by the theory) 2) Predictions confirmed by the scientific evidence and 3) Potential falsification.


    "It is an assertion that something happened in the organism and it didn’t die, but it also didn’t unchange back. That’s all that is really known, by referring to just this set of assertions. What it claims is outside of the arena of actual knowledge: it is inferred speculation."

    The nylon eating bacteria can now only digest nylon byproducts, it cannot digest any other carbohydrates (like other bacteria can). If what you believed was true the DNA could back mutate and the nylon – only – eating bacteria could again become capable of digesting other carbohydrates. But that doesn’t happen so your belief is falsified by the evidence. Or perhaps your “hypothesis” is unfalsifiable? Interesting, what you claim about common descent is actually true of your belief.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "So if they are mutation/selection evolution, what mutated? This statement is purely rhetoric with no dialectical content."

    It means they have evolved in such a way that they no longer do – or can – breed together..

    "The reason that both the “potential falsifications” and their claim of falsifying the falsifications is trivial is this: neither the falsifications nor their refutations refer to any actual science: they are stories about stories and nothing more than science fiction. That is the sad state of the “science” of evolution."

    It could very easily be falsified either by showing 1) That mutations don’t happen or 2) That mutations cannot be passed on to the next generation. Here is the evidence from genetics.

    “Part 4:
    The Molecular Sequence Evidence”
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html )

    ReplyDelete
  31. "First, it is up to you to prove that a specific mutation occurred - magically, just in time to digest the nylon. The likelihood of that is zero, but that aside, when you claim “mutation” without pointing to a specific change in the structure of genome, you are asserting magic. The next statements show the Appeal to Magic:"

    Nylon did not exist before 1935. It is man-made. There are no "nylon deposits" that the bacteria could have lived in prior to 1935. Therefore, this organism could not have existed before 1935. Where did it come from? Why, it evolved.

    See the evidence for how mutations can produce new information

    http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm#spetner

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nastika says:
    ”The nylon eating bacteria can now only digest nylon byproducts, it cannot digest any other carbohydrates (like other bacteria can). If what you believed was true the DNA could back mutate and the nylon – only – eating bacteria could again become capable of digesting other carbohydrates. But that doesn’t happen so your belief is falsified by the evidence. Or perhaps your “hypothesis” is unfalsifiable? Interesting, what you claim about common descent is actually true of your belief.”

    Actually what that proves is that two simultaneous things happened: 1) The digestion of A became the digestion of B; 2) The digestion of A was switched OFF. In other words, a genetic switch was thrown from A to B. This is actually evidence for the pre-existence of B, and evidence for a switching mechanism. That goes completely contrary to the concept of creating an additional, all new capability due to random mutation/selection.

    As for falsifiability, no one can falsify the original claim because it is totally absent anything of an evidentiary nature to falsify. It is a guess, and nothing more. So all that can be done is to analyze the guess, and of course that is not falsifiable because it cannot address any material evidence which is not given. Falsification requires material evidence; evolution has none.

    ”"So if they are mutation/selection evolution, what mutated? This statement is purely rhetoric with no dialectical content."

    It means they have evolved in such a way that they no longer do – or can – breed together..”


    That is totally false. Chihuahuas cannot breed with Great Danes. They both are still canines –dogs. No one claims otherwise. Not only that, it is a Red Herring Fallacy, because it does not address the issue in the slightest manner. The issue is this: What part of the DNA molecule changed (mutated)? Why did that produce the effect claimed? If you do not have that information, then you have no idea what happened. In fact, you do not even know if they were previously undiscovered varieties which existed on their own. All you actually know is the inscrutable statement being made with no corroboration – which you accept as evidence.

    ”"The reason that both the “potential falsifications” and their claim of falsifying the falsifications is trivial is this: neither the falsifications nor their refutations refer to any actual science: they are stories about stories and nothing more than science fiction. That is the sad state of the “science” of evolution."

    It could very easily be falsified either by showing 1) That mutations don’t happen or 2) That mutations cannot be passed on to the next generation. Here is the evidence from genetics.”


    Stories which are not based on empirical replicable material experiments cannot be falsified empirically. To claim otherwise is anti-science.

    I will, this once, go to the site; I’ve been there before, and there is only inference-as-evidence which is given. Yet I will go there again, in case there’s a mutation in their claims. I will apply the standards of the empirical scientific method to see if they have satisfied the requirements for being called “science”, or whether they persist in their correlation-as-causation fallacies.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here we go:

    Prediction 4.1: “…the most probable result is…” and “…Furthermore, the very basis of this argument could be undermined easily if…”f

    Probability is not Truth, as will be discussed toward the end.

    Prediction 4.2: “…the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical…”, BUT “…tthe two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein. …”

    So. They are NOT identical then, and especially not “exactly identical”. AND, what is the probability that all 1049 will fold in the same shape? (Precise folded shape determines the utility of the protein). I’m guessing zero. But here’s the logical rub: correlation is not causation. Repeat that with me: correlation is NOT causation. Even if these proteins actually WERE identical, it proves just that they are identical; nothing more.

    Here’s an identity: 4+3=5+2. Equal, but not the same.

    Prediction 4.3:
    “…the only mode of transmission from one metazoan organism to another is directly by DNA duplication and inheritance (e.g. your transposons are given to your children)…”

    “…More specifically, three different specific SINE transpositions have been found in the same chromosomal locations of cetaceans (whales), hippos, and ruminants, all of which are closely related according to the standard phylogenetic tree. However, all other mammals, including camels and pigs, lack these three specific transpositions (Shimamura 1997)….”

    So not all mammals have SINE transpositions in the same place. So the commonality of mammals to each other is questionable.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Prediction 4.4:
    “…The remaining type of pseudogene, in which an organism carries both a functional gene and one or more counterpart pseudogenes, is hereafter termed a "redundant pseudogene".

    “…if a pseudogene has little or no function, then most mutations in the pseudogene will have only minor functional consequences, and many mutations will not be weeded out by purifying selection.”

    “…redundant pseudogenes originate by gene duplication and subsequent mutation. Many observed processes are known to duplicate genes, including transposition events, chromosomal duplication, and unequal crossing over of chromosomes.”

    “…It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989).”

    “…Both chimpanzees and humans share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene that renders it incapable of its normal function…”

    “…Furthermore, once a gene is duplicated and mutations render it a redundant pseudogene, it is inherited by all descendents. Thus, once certain organisms are found that carry the same pseudogene, common descent requires that all organisms phylogenetically intermediate must also carry that pseudogene.”

    There is no reason to think that the event causing the gene duplication would not have affected both chimpanzees and humans simultaneously. After all, both species are posited to have originated in the same part of Africa and could well have incurred the same trauma which caused the duplication in the first place.

    I’m stopping here, and noting that every “Prediction” is “Confirmed” with a presumptive assignation of probability. Here we have the old claim: “because I can see and think of no other cause, then the cause to which I assign this probability is the correct cause”. Probability, especially when assigned to historical issues, is highly dependent upon the insertion of inference (conclusion in the premise), and to hidden premises which are presupposed as true.

    Bayesian probability (widely used for historical purposes) is especially susceptible to bias, because the assumption of probability is right there in the premise of the calculation.

    None of these “confirmations” are conclusive, in the sense of immtability. To claim that “added together they become conclusive” (a mountain of evidence) violates the First Principle: Non-Contradiction, which demands that Truth contains no Falseness. If it contains the slightest amount of falseness, then it cannot be True. If one subscribes to logic as the arbiter of correct thought, then no inferences about historical occurrences can ever be Truth, especially not immutable Truth. Historical events have a probability which is never very high because only filtered information reaches to the present.

    Further, even with visible, tangible material evidence to evaluate, no science ever produces Truth; Science produces only and solely contingent factoids which are always subject to subsequent findings which can change the understanding of the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The idea that evolution is True, that it is Fact, that it MUST BE ACCEPTED is irrational and completely so. It is falsified in advance by the necessity of material evolution of First Life from minerals, and again by the radical impossibility of the evolution during the Cambrian Explosion to have occurred rapidly, simultaneously, with the vast complexity requirements, from a single, unknown cell. This falsification of the entire basis for evolution should be enough to cause the concept to be scrapped by reputable scientists; but it cannot be attacked, because anyone doing so will find his career ended and his reputation smeared beyond recognition (that’s happened, of course). The result of such purges in the science community is the silencing of any principled objections by anyone in the community who wishes not to be purged.

    So that leaves us – again - with the request for actual physical empirical evidence for the purported “science of evolution”: evidence that meets the criteria which all objective knowledge is required to meet, and which evolution has not, and cannot. I request this empirical evidence continually to demonstrate to true believers that what they believe cannot be True, and that it most definitely has been falsified using its own techniques.

    ” "First, it is up to you to prove that a specific mutation occurred - magically, just in time to digest the nylon. The likelihood of that is zero, but that aside, when you claim “mutation” without pointing to a specific change in the structure of genome, you are asserting magic. The next statements show the Appeal to Magic:"

    Nylon did not exist before 1935. It is man-made. There are no "nylon deposits" that the bacteria could have lived in prior to 1935. Therefore, this organism could not have existed before 1935. Where did it come from? Why, it evolved.”


    Because nylon is a simple, 6 carbon molecule. Why do you think that the ability to digest such a molecule could not have existed in the distant past, been switched OFF as other nutrients became available, and then switched back ON? Your own “evidence” above talks about gene switching. And it takes just one cell that switches ON to create an entire population. Your conclusion is not warranted, it is not based on any actual material evidence, and it ignores other possibilities in order to declare “why, it evolved.” To say, “It evolved”, is not a scientific claim. You must provide the mechanism which is conclusively the reason for making the statement.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I find it highly amusing that the faith-based so-called "science" (scientismist) community wants to "silence" anyone who disagrees with their agenda - while simultaneously decrying the "silencing" of Galileo by the Catholic Church.

    The "science" is "settled" because the collective has reached a "consensus." It's so wonderful seeing so many scientismists taking the high "religious" position of the medieval Church. And they wonder why their God hasn't died quite yet!

    MY group of scientismists favor using argumentum ad populum because OUR group is larger than YOUR group of naysayers. So, I win!

    I wonder what kind of "progress" would have been made if the prevailing physics "consensus" had prevailed when Einstein published his theories of relativity? Perhaps they should have "silenced" Einstein, for the betterment of mankind (no Einstein, no nukes). Too bad that crystal ball broke around 1905. . .

    When "they" do it, it is horrible anti-science, but when "we" do it, it is all in the furtherance of open and honest "scientific" inquiry. (As long as you parrot the "consensus" you will have a job; otherwise we will have to "kill" your professional career.) It just might cause others to doubt our "science" if just anybody could raise questions about our methods and findings.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Legion.

    "A vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two weavers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The Emperor's ministers cannot see the clothes themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the weavers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor suspects the assertion is true, but continues the procession."

    I wonder why that "hopelessly stupid" attack isn't made more often with regard to the "settled sciences" of evolution and Global Climate Whatever?!?

    Oh; NEVER MIND!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Stan,

    I found this link regarding the nylon-eating bacteria (aka Flavobacterium Sp K172)

    http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2010/Flavobacterium.html

    Though Flavobacterium Sp. K172 uses the nylon 6 byproducts as its sole source of carbon in nature, it has shown exceptional adaptability in the lab. The bacterium has been repeatedly modified to produce enzymes more akin to the traditional Flavobacterium digestion enzymes, curing it of its dependency on nylon as a source of carbon. Though this helps support that Sp. K172 is a Flavobacterium, it does little to explain how this metabolic pathway developed so quickly...


    Is my understanding correct that this bacteria has quick adaptability and potentially not entirely dependent on nylon?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Actually what that proves is that two simultaneous things happened: 1) The digestion of A became the digestion of B; 2) The digestion of A was switched OFF. In other words, a genetic switch was thrown from A to B. This is actually evidence for the pre-existence of B, and evidence for a switching mechanism. That goes completely contrary to the concept of creating an additional, all new capability due to random mutation/selection."

    Mutations are they only thing that add variation, unless the designer designed organism with resistance to artificial substances which did not exist (which seems highly unlikely). Also it didn’t “switch back on” that bacteria can now only digest nylon byproducts – and nothing else.

    "The issue is this: What part of the DNA molecule changed (mutated)? Why did that produce the effect claimed? If you do not have that information, then you have no idea what happened. In fact, you do not even know if they were previously undiscovered varieties which existed on their own. All you actually know is the inscrutable statement being made with no corroboration – which you accept as evidence."

    1) If they had the same DNA they would still be part of the same species and be able to breed together. 2) Do you think humans and chimpanzees are the same species – since we share about 99% of our DNA?

    "As for falsifiability, no one can falsify the original claim because it is totally absent anything of an evidentiary nature to falsify. It is a guess, and nothing more. So all that can be done is to analyze the guess, and of course that is not falsifiable because it cannot address any material evidence which is not given. Falsification requires material evidence; evolution has none."

    Okay then what is your belief? Either you believe in a creation theory or an alternative evolutionary theory. What are its claims, how they can be tested, falsified and what is the evidence for them?

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Prediction 4.1: “…the most probable result is…” and “…Furthermore, the very basis of this argument could be undermined easily if…”f

    Probability is not Truth, as will be discussed toward the end."


    Nonsense for example you are much more similar to a close relative than to a randomly chosen person. If someone is similar to you it is much more probably that they are closely related to you than just a random stranger. People are much more similar to closely genetic relatives than a random person, (and MUCH more similar to them than a randomly chosen member of a animal non-human species.) It is highly improbable that a person who is similar to you IS not a close relative, likewise chimpanzees sharing the same genes as humans is much more probably due to the fact we share a common ancestor than random chance. In Fact these are the odds of it happening without a hereditary mechanism and unlike the odds that creationists give these are not made up.

    "So. They are NOT identical then, and especially not “exactly identical”. AND, what is the probability that all 1049 will fold in the same shape? (Precise folded shape determines the utility of the protein). I’m guessing zero. But here’s the logical rub: correlation is not causation. Repeat that with me: correlation is NOT causation. Even if these proteins actually WERE identical, it proves just that they are identical; nothing more."

    Okay they are *only* 98.8% identical even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein. (Which is over half a billion times larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe). But of course to “evolution skeptic” probability doesn’t equal truth.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Prediction 4.3: So not all mammals have SINE transpositions in the same place. So the commonality of mammals to each other is questionable."

    No they don’t have it because they are not closely related. As it says “Very recent human Alu transpositions have been used to elucidate historic and prehistoric human migrations, since some individuals have newer Alu insertions that other individuals lack”. In fact, common Alu transpositions have been demonstrated to be reliable markers of common descent in paternity cases and in criminal forensics.


    Prediction 4.4: "...None of these “confirmations” are conclusive, in the sense of immtability. To claim that “added together they become conclusive” (a mountain of evidence) violates the First Principle: Non-Contradiction, which demands that Truth contains no Falseness. If it contains the slightest amount of falseness, then it cannot be True. If one subscribes to logic as the arbiter of correct thought, then no inferences about historical occurrences can ever be Truth, especially not immutable Truth. Historical events have a probability which is never very high because only filtered information reaches to the present."

    You just examine the Genotype. “There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989). Another example is the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. Humans have two copies of the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, a functional one and a untranslated pseudogene. Inactivation of the functional gene leads to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH, a rare and serious genetic disease), giving positive evidence that the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene lacks its proper function. Both chimpanzees and humans share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene that renders it incapable of its normal function (Kawaguchi et al. 1992).” I guess nobody can check this claim right and its pseudo science according to a “evolution skeptic” like you?

    "So that leaves us – again - with the request for actual physical empirical evidence for the purported “science of evolution”: evidence that meets the criteria which all objective knowledge is required to meet, and which evolution has not, and cannot. I request this empirical evidence continually to demonstrate to true believers that what they believe cannot be True, and that it most definitely has been falsified using its own techniques."

    False there are thousands of scientific studies involving evolution. It’s the so called intelligent design which postulates that an unknown number of unknown “designers” interacted with this object or process in an unknown way at unknown points in time for unknown reasons, which predicts nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Amusing:

    ". . .unless the designer designed organism. . ."

    So obviously NOT random mutation, and yet - NO DESIGNER for the whole shebang does the trick every time!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Nastika says,
    ”"Actually what that proves is that two simultaneous things happened: 1) The digestion of A became the digestion of B; 2) The digestion of A was switched OFF. In other words, a genetic switch was thrown from A to B. This is actually evidence for the pre-existence of B, and evidence for a switching mechanism. That goes completely contrary to the concept of creating an additional, all new capability due to random mutation/selection."

    Mutations are they only thing that add variation, unless the designer designed organism with resistance to artificial substances which did not exist (which seems highly unlikely). Also it didn’t “switch back on” that bacteria can now only digest nylon byproducts – and nothing else.”


    Two points:
    1. Epi-genetics is the study of genetic mechanisms that cause variations which are not mutations, including gene switching, which apparently you are not aware of:

    http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/06/genetic-switches-play-big-role-human-evolution

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/5796/20140419/genetic-switches-spelled-the-difference-between-neanderthals-and-modern-humans.htm

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/gene-switches.html

    2. The actual mechanism, however, was a frame shift of one place which serendipitously created new a set of amino acids which were 2% effective on nylon. And this is easily shifted back and forth, as has been done, effectively a gene switch.

    The most interesting part is this, a separate change also was required in a different part in order to implement these different enzymes enabling slight nylon digestion (two simultaneous changes), plus the existence of nylon in the environment. So the entire evolution enterprise was both astronomically unlikely, and it would have always produced death of the microbe, except for the human introduction of nourishment material to keep the microbe population from extinction.

    "The issue is this: What part of the DNA molecule changed (mutated)? Why did that produce the effect claimed? If you do not have that information, then you have no idea what happened. In fact, you do not even know if they were previously undiscovered varieties which existed on their own. All you actually know is the inscrutable statement being made with no corroboration – which you accept as evidence."

    1) If they had the same DNA they would still be part of the same species and be able to breed together. 2) Do you think humans and chimpanzees are the same species – since we share about 99% of our DNA?”


    1) Microbes don’t “breed together”; they assert mitosis.
    2) This is false science for the following reason: only a small part of the DNA was tested; that part was chosen because it was known in advance that that part would be highly similar. Most of the DNA was ignored. But the “99%” became a cult icon amongst amateur evolutionists who don’t follow the actual science.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "As for falsifiability, no one can falsify the original claim because it is totally absent anything of an evidentiary nature to falsify. It is a guess, and nothing more. So all that can be done is to analyze the guess, and of course that is not falsifiable because it cannot address any material evidence which is not given. Falsification requires material evidence; evolution has none."

    Okay then what is your belief? Either you believe in a creation theory or an alternative evolutionary theory.”


    You have presented a false dichotomy. My beliefs are the third horn: I don’t know, and neither do you or anyone else. I don’t have to have a “theory”, because I understand that no theory is empirically testable or falsifiable, and no theory can be called valid and true without valid and true premises. So claims of truth for unprovable theories is both false and useless for actual knowledge. I further am convinced that, as Dawkins said, evolution causes Atheism, and Atheism is the main reason for belief in evolution. Highly circular and self -referencing – logic fallacies of the first order. Because there is no actual objective evidence for evolution then, the belief is not sustained by either deductive logic or empirical evidence, and therefore the belief is in the category of religious beliefs which are tightly held against all rational principles.

    ”“Prediction 4.1: “…the most probable result is…” and “…Furthermore, the very basis of this argument could be undermined easily if…”f

    Probability is not Truth, as will be discussed toward the end."

    Nonsense for example you are much more similar to a close relative than to a randomly chosen person. If someone is similar to you it is much more probably that they are closely related to you than just a random stranger. People are much more similar to closely genetic relatives than a random person, (and MUCH more similar to them than a randomly chosen member of a animal non-human species.) It is highly improbable that a person who is similar to you IS not a close relative, likewise chimpanzees sharing the same genes as humans is much more probably due to the fact we share a common ancestor than random chance. In Fact these are the odds of it happening without a hereditary mechanism and unlike the odds that creationists give these are not made up.”


    1. No one is quoting creationists.
    2. A Chevy is more similar to a Ford than to a Catepillar D11 bulldozer. Evidence for common ancestor or for common design characteristics? The honest answer is that the designs implement common design philosophies which have the ultimate intention of performing specific functions, and use common components such as refined and hardened steel, internal combustion, power transfer via shafts and gears, etc.

    So commonality is not proof of anything other than commonality exists. Claims as to how it came to exist, or why it came to exist are not science, they are inferential claims which are made from an ideology which demands support for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "So. They are NOT identical then, and especially not “exactly identical”. AND, what is the probability that all 1049 will fold in the same shape? (Precise folded shape determines the utility of the protein). I’m guessing zero. But here’s the logical rub: correlation is not causation. Repeat that with me: correlation is NOT causation. Even if these proteins actually WERE identical, it proves just that they are identical; nothing more."

    Okay they are *only* 98.8% identical even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein. (Which is over half a billion times larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe). But of course to “evolution skeptic” probability doesn’t equal truth.”


    It’s interesting that Atheists are proud of their supposed “skepticism”, yet are dismissive of the skeptics who produce evidence contra evolution. Also that the evolution true believer Atheists are willing to assert the “number of atoms in the universe” for some arguments, and to ignore that meme when it comes to the probability of evolution of First Life from minerals, and the probability of all phyla popping into existence during the Cambrian explosion. Both of those vastly improbable occurrences have vastly less probability than that you quote: 10^200 and 10^4000.

    "Prediction 4.3: So not all mammals have SINE transpositions in the same place. So the commonality of mammals to each other is questionable."

    No they don’t have it because they are not closely related. As it says “Very recent human Alu transpositions have been used to elucidate historic and prehistoric human migrations, since some individuals have newer Alu insertions that other individuals lack”. In fact, common Alu transpositions have been demonstrated to be reliable markers of common descent in paternity cases and in criminal forensics.”


    If Alu transpositions are not consistent across a population of homo sapiens sapiens, then Alu transpositions are not markers for evolution because they exist but did not cause speciation. Here is the status of knowledge regarding Alu’s:
    1. Most Alu’s are deleterious. Many diseases have been related to Alu degradation of DNA.
    2. Beneficial Alu’s are purely speculative.
    3 Alu’s are markers for entropy; those that exist in a person’s genome are highly likely either benign or most likely deleterious, causing genetic disease – however, there apparently are too many to have been completely studied so the knowledge is incomplete.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ”Prediction 4.4: "...None of these “confirmations” are conclusive, in the sense of immtability. To claim that “added together they become conclusive” (a mountain of evidence) violates the First Principle: Non-Contradiction, which demands that Truth contains no Falseness. If it contains the slightest amount of falseness, then it cannot be True. If one subscribes to logic as the arbiter of correct thought, then no inferences about historical occurrences can ever be Truth, especially not immutable Truth. Historical events have a probability which is never very high because only filtered information reaches to the present."

    You just examine the Genotype. “There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989). Another example is the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. Humans have two copies of the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, a functional one and a untranslated pseudogene. Inactivation of the functional gene leads to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH, a rare and serious genetic disease), giving positive evidence that the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene lacks its proper function. Both chimpanzees and humans share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene that renders it incapable of its normal function (Kawaguchi et al. 1992).” I guess nobody can check this claim right and its pseudo science according to a “evolution skeptic” like you?”


    Exactly what do you think this paragraph proves? Does it not show merely that some common event occurred to Chimpanzees and humans, who were living in the same area of Africa at the same time? Or is your personal interpretation the only one, making it absolute, immutable TRUTH? Why is your version the only one – do you have exact evidence of what happened? If so, then WHERE IS IT? Since you are demeaning any other interpretations and those who hold them, apparently you have more evidence than appears here, because this evidence refers to what exists in genomes currently observe, not how it happened to get there. How it “happened” is inferred opinion, subsequently declared TRUTH, making it a religious belief, dogmatically dictated.

    "So that leaves us – again - with the request for actual physical empirical evidence for the purported “science of evolution”: evidence that meets the criteria which all objective knowledge is required to meet, and which evolution has not, and cannot. I request this empirical evidence continually to demonstrate to true believers that what they believe cannot be True, and that it most definitely has been falsified using its own techniques."

    False there are thousands of scientific studies involving evolution. It’s the so called intelligent design which postulates that an unknown number of unknown “designers” interacted with this object or process in an unknown way at unknown points in time for unknown reasons, which predicts nothing.”

    ReplyDelete
  47. And you have not provided a single determinative observation showing if or how it happened.

    ” "So that leaves us – again - with the request for actual physical empirical evidence for the purported “science of evolution”: evidence that meets the criteria which all objective knowledge is required to meet, and which evolution has not, and cannot. I request this empirical evidence continually to demonstrate to true believers that what they believe cannot be True, and that it most definitely has been falsified using its own techniques."

    False there are thousands of scientific studies involving evolution.”


    You have yet to produce a single empirical scientific replicable, replicated, falsifiable, and non-falsified, open data, peer reviewed and published study regarding natural selection of random mutations which produce new features. (note that selection for nylon digestion is, as you said yourself, an artificial selection, not a natural selection because it did not exist before a certain time of its invention). That’s a fact, but it is trivial and not determinative compared to the genetic disease caused by Alu frame shifts.

    So your statement about “thousands of scientific studies” has no value and provides no information regarding empirical observation and subsequent deductive empirical validation of random mutation and natural selection. If none of the "thousands" have that, then you/they do not have Objective Knowledge of your subject; further, if you reject that (Objective knowledge) as being necessary, then you are anti-science while still being pro-Scientism a blatant internal contradiction in your worldview. And that points directly to the ideology of Atheism as being your actual First Principle, upon which your dogma is founded.

    Your skepticism is virtually non-existent; you quote all sorts of stuff with no pre-analysis of your own at all, taking for granted that it will stick as “proof” by merely throwing it out. But there is nothing –NOTHING- in evolution which can be granted the status of Objective Knowledge for the reasons I have given before – and which you have totally ignored in favor of ever more non-determinative inferential “evidence”.

    The only “design” referenced here is the analogic comparison of ground vehicles to your common descent inferences. So your snark about “intelligent design” is rejected, since it has no bearing on the incapability of your stories to produce immutable Truth, which is the actual subject here.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Two points:
    1. Epi-genetics is the study of genetic mechanisms that cause variations which are not mutations, including gene switching, which apparently you are not aware of:"


    Epi-genetics is about changes to the gene expression (phenotype) which are “switched” on or off by environmental triggers. Mutations cause changes to the genotype, epi genetic switching does not. For example sunburn is environmental, but how easily or how much natural resistance you have to sunburn is determined by the genes. So if you have white skin, if you get sunburnt (environmental) you will burn, but you burn more quickly and easier than a black person because of the genes. An epi genetic effect is not going to make a persons skin more resistant to damage from the Rays of the sun.

    2. The actual mechanism, however, was a frame shift of one place which serendipitously created new a set of amino acids which were 2% effective on nylon. And this is easily shifted back and forth, as has been done, effectively a gene switch."

    You don’t understand your own link and what it was saying read this.

    “Before we did our research it was possible that completely different genes were involved in making beaks of different shapes. We didn’t think that was likely, based on what we knew about how genes control development, but it was possible. What we found reinforced the general emerging picture: that the same genes are involved in making a sharp, pointy beak or a big, broad, nut-cracking beak. What makes all the difference is how much you turn a gene on, when you turn it on, when you turn if off—the subtle differences in regulation. Specific genes are essential to make any beak, but it’s the tweaking—the amount of the gene, the timing of the gene, the duration of the gene—that’s actually doing the trick.”

    Yes this is one of the newest findings in biology as to how the evolution happens and I believe it is called “de nova genes” here is a link which explains this a bit easier .
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_05

    "Mutations are often the victims of bad press — unfairly stereotyped as unimportant or as a cause of genetic disease. While many mutations do indeed have small or negative effects, another sort of mutation gets less airtime. Mutations to control genes can have major (and sometimes positive) effects.
    Some regions of DNA control other genes, determining when and where other genes are turned "on". Mutations in these parts of the genome can substantially change the way the organism is built. The difference between a mutation to a control gene and a mutation to a less powerful gene is a bit like the difference between whispering an instruction to the trumpet player in an orchestra versus whispering it to the orchestra's conductor. The impact of changing the conductor's behavior is much bigger and more coordinated than changing the behavior of an individual orchestra member. Similarly, a mutation in a gene "conductor" can cause a cascade of effects in the behavior of genes under its control.
    Many organisms have powerful control genes that determine how the body is laid out. For example, Hox genes are found in many animals (including flies and humans) and designate where the head goes and which regions of the body grow appendages. Such master control genes help direct the building of body "units," such as segments, limbs, and eyes. So evolving a major change in basic body layout may not be so unlikely; it may simply require a change in a Hox gene and the favor of natural selection.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  49. 1) Microbes don’t “breed together”; they assert mitosis.
    Yes and because of that it is difficult to decide what “species” that organisms that reproduce asexually belong to. In fact the concept of “species” is not absolute it’s like the concept of “vehicle” it’s very broad and subjective.

    2) This is false science for the following reason: only a small part of the DNA was tested; that part was chosen because it was known in advance that that part would be highly similar. Most of the DNA was ignored. But the “99%” became a cult icon amongst amateur evolutionists who don’t follow the actual science.

    Answered here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB144.html

    The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).

    The difference measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are 29 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). If you measure nonsynonymous base pair differences within protein coding regions, humans and chimps are 99.75 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005, fig. 9). The original 98.4 percent estimate came from DNA hybridization experiments, which measured (indirectly, via DNA melting temperature) sequence difference among short segments of the genomes that are similar enough to hybridize but with repetitive elements removed (Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Whatever measure is used, however, as long as the same measurement is used consistently, will show that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (including the bonobo, sister species to the common chimpanzee) than to any other species.

    Note also, though, that evolution has not been uniform throughout the genomes, so estimates of human-chimp divergence which consider only part of the genome can give different results (Britten 2002, Chen et al. 2001).

    ReplyDelete
  50. "A Chevy is more similar to a Ford than to a Catepillar D11 bulldozer. Evidence for common ancestor or for common design characteristics? The honest answer is that the designs implement common design philosophies which have the ultimate intention of performing specific functions, and use common components such as refined and hardened steel, internal combustion, power transfer via shafts and gears, etc."

    The evidence from Nested Hierarchies provide ample evidence for common ancestry.

    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

    "It’s interesting that Atheists are proud of their supposed “skepticism”, yet are dismissive of the skeptics who produce evidence contra evolution. Also that the evolution true believer Atheists are willing to assert the “number of atoms in the universe” for some arguments, and to ignore that meme when it comes to the probability of evolution of First Life from minerals, and the probability of all phyla popping into existence during the Cambrian explosion. Both of those vastly improbable occurrences have vastly less probability than that you quote: 10^200 and 10^4000."

    That’s because these calculations are fallacious. It like saying you cannot have being born from natural processes but only have come about through “design”. This is nonsense.

    "If Alu transpositions are not consistent across a population of homo sapiens sapiens, then Alu transpositions are not markers for evolution because they exist but did not cause speciation."

    If one species has the same pseudo gene as another species it is highly probably to be because they are related. Just like if you have an exact same DNA sequence as your father it is incredibly more probably that you inherited it than random chance.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Exactly what do you think this paragraph proves? Does it not show merely that some common event occurred to Chimpanzees and humans, who were living in the same area of Africa at the same time? Or is your personal interpretation the only one, making it absolute, immutable TRUTH? Why is your version the only one – do you have exact evidence of what happened? If so, then WHERE IS IT? Since you are demeaning any other interpretations and those who hold them, apparently you have more evidence than appears here, because this evidence refers to what exists in genomes currently observe, not how it happened to get there."

    1)Not Relevant 2) Do we need to know all the events and processes and all the precise details of how you inherited your genes from your mother and father? Is it logical to believe that a stork delivered you?

    "How it “happened” is inferred opinion, subsequently declared TRUTH, making it a religious belief, dogmatically dictated."

    There are many theories as to “how it happened”, that a God being created you however is not one of them, just like the belief in a stork delivering babies is not a scientific hypothesis.

    "You have yet to produce a single empirical scientific replicable, replicated, falsifiable, and non-falsified, open data, peer reviewed and published study regarding natural selection of random mutations which produce new features...."

    See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html 1)New abilities have evolved 2)New species have been observed to evolve 3) Hundreds of different breeds of dog (for example) have being produced through selective breeding with new features.

    "The only “design” referenced here is the analogic comparison of ground vehicles to your common descent inferences. So your snark about “intelligent design” is rejected, since it has no bearing on the incapability of your stories to produce immutable Truth, which is the actual subject here."

    Its a proven fact – through genetics, the fossil record (including transitional fossils) and the anatomy/bone structure the evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Two points:
    1. Epi-genetics is the study of genetic mechanisms that cause variations which are not mutations, including gene switching, which apparently you are not aware of:"

    Epi-genetics is about changes to the gene expression (phenotype) which are “switched” on or off by environmental triggers. Mutations cause changes to the genotype, epi genetic switching does not. For example sunburn is environmental, but how easily or how much natural resistance you have to sunburn is determined by the genes. So if you have white skin, if you get sunburnt (environmental) you will burn, but you burn more quickly and easier than a black person because of the genes. An epi genetic effect is not going to make a persons skin more resistant to damage from the Rays of the sun.”


    This long paragraph does not address the issue at all, which is that there are other mechanisms for evolution besides mutation, as you claimed. So this is a Red Herring, taking the conversation off the tracks and into the weeds.

    ”2. The actual mechanism, however, was a frame shift of one place which serendipitously created new a set of amino acids which were 2% effective on nylon. And this is easily shifted back and forth, as has been done, effectively a gene switch."

    You don’t understand your own link and what it was saying read this.

    “Before we did our research it was possible that completely different genes were involved in making beaks of different shapes. We didn’t think that was likely, based on what we knew about how genes control development, but it was possible. What we found reinforced the general emerging picture: that the same genes are involved in making a sharp, pointy beak or a big, broad, nut-cracking beak. What makes all the difference is how much you turn a gene on, when you turn it on, when you turn if off—the subtle differences in regulation. Specific genes are essential to make any beak, but it’s the tweaking—the amount of the gene, the timing of the gene, the duration of the gene—that’s actually doing the trick.”

    Yes this is one of the newest findings in biology as to how the evolution happens and I believe it is called “de nova genes” here is a link which explains this a bit easier .
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_05


    What in the world are you talking about??? I'm talking about the change which allowed the digestion of nylon – which was a simple frame shift.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Mutations are often the victims of bad press — unfairly stereotyped as unimportant or as a cause of genetic disease. While many mutations do indeed have small or negative effects, another sort of mutation gets less airtime. Mutations to control genes can have major (and sometimes positive) effects.
    Some regions of DNA control other genes, determining when and where other genes are turned "on". Mutations in these parts of the genome can substantially change the way the organism is built. The difference between a mutation to a control gene and a mutation to a less powerful gene is a bit like the difference between whispering an instruction to the trumpet player in an orchestra versus whispering it to the orchestra's conductor. The impact of changing the conductor's behavior is much bigger and more coordinated than changing the behavior of an individual orchestra member. Similarly, a mutation in a gene "conductor" can cause a cascade of effects in the behavior of genes under its control.
    Many organisms have powerful control genes that determine how the body is laid out. For example, Hox genes are found in many animals (including flies and humans) and designate where the head goes and which regions of the body grow appendages. Such master control genes help direct the building of body "units," such as segments, limbs, and eyes. So evolving a major change in basic body layout may not be so unlikely; it may simply require a change in a Hox gene and the favor of natural selection."


    This is quite simply a load of crap. There are thousands of ways to corrupt DNA, maybe even hundreds of millions. In a book, they are called “typos”; in an instruction manual they misdirect the instructions and never ever make the instructions better. No one, NO ONE has produced a beneficial, new organ even in the trillions of drosophila manipulations done in the lab. These claims are worse than mere opinion; they are false. Of course there are HOX genes. So What? Monkey with them, one mutation at a time and see what you get. HINT: it won’t be pretty.

    ”1) Microbes don’t “breed together”; they assert mitosis.
    Yes and because of that it is difficult to decide what “species” that organisms that reproduce asexually belong to. In fact the concept of “species” is not absolute it’s like the concept of “vehicle” it’s very broad and subjective.”


    So when you say stuff that is false, you just double down. Why should I even talk to you at all? You don’t care what is true and valid; you care about looking as if you know things which you do not.

    Now that we know that the concept of “species” is not a solid concept, why do you claim that evolution is a solid concept. It is much less a solid concept than “species”, yet it is called Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 2) This is false science for the following reason: only a small part of the DNA was tested; that part was chosen because it was known in advance that that part would be highly similar. Most of the DNA was ignored. But the “99%” became a cult icon amongst amateur evolutionists who don’t follow the actual science.

    ”Answered here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB144.html’

    The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).

    The difference measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are 29 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). If you measure nonsynonymous base pair differences within protein coding regions, humans and chimps are 99.75 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005, fig. 9). The original 98.4 percent estimate came from DNA hybridization experiments, which measured (indirectly, via DNA melting temperature) sequence difference among short segments of the genomes that are similar enough to hybridize but with repetitive elements removed (Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Whatever measure is used, however, as long as the same measurement is used consistently, will show that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (including the bonobo, sister species to the common chimpanzee) than to any other species.

    Note also, though, that evolution has not been uniform throughout the genomes, so estimates of human-chimp divergence which consider only part of the genome can give different results (Britten 2002, Chen et al. 2001). “

    ReplyDelete
  55. "A Chevy is more similar to a Ford than to a Catepillar D11 bulldozer. Evidence for common ancestor or for common design characteristics? The honest answer is that the designs implement common design philosophies which have the ultimate intention of performing specific functions, and use common components such as refined and hardened steel, internal combustion, power transfer via shafts and gears, etc."

    The evidence from Nested Hierarchies provide ample evidence for common ancestry.”


    So Truth is the accumulation of sufficient opinion and extrapolation and inference? That is the entire issue with evolution: there can be no evidence of common descent which is not opinion, extrapolation, and inference. Further there is no possible cause/effect hypothesis chain which can support the emergence of bonobos, chimps and humans from a common ancestor, because the common ancestor does NOT exist. And finally, all of the stories are predicated on the unprovable premise that evolution is True, despite the lack of Objective Knowledge in its support.

    Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981:
    “The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve”; Figure 6.2 has been adapted from David Attenborough’s ‘life on earth’. It shows that the higher taxonomic categories of plants and animals, without claiming any connections have been discovered between them. Authors of texts in biology are often so convinced of that such connections existed that they cannot refrain from drawing in an evolutionary tree with all the life forms of 6.2 derived by a system of branches from a single ancestral trunk. Indeed, if one believes in Darwinism, then it must be so, and in many people’s minds that puts the matter beyond all doubt”

    There are zero known common ancestors for each of the many lines of descent. The knowledge of the lines terminates without connection. The connections are presupposed by the dogma of Darwinism, not by actual evidence of common ancestors which have been found to actually exist.

    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

    "It’s interesting that Atheists are proud of their supposed “skepticism”, yet are dismissive of the skeptics who produce evidence contra evolution. Also that the evolution true believer Atheists are willing to assert the “number of atoms in the universe” for some arguments, and to ignore that meme when it comes to the probability of evolution of First Life from minerals, and the probability of all phyla popping into existence during the Cambrian explosion. Both of those vastly improbable occurrences have vastly less probability than that you quote: 10^200 and 10^4000."

    That’s because these calculations are fallacious. It like saying you cannot have being born from natural processes but only have come about through “design”. This is nonsense.”


    You cannot prove they are fallacious; you can only deprecate them. That is obvious. When mathematicians take on evolution, evolution fails at the get-go. Until you can prove they are fallacious, they contain more truth than any of the science fiction story telling (based on the presupposition that evolution just has to exist), that anyone can generate.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "If Alu transpositions are not consistent across a population of homo sapiens sapiens, then Alu transpositions are not markers for evolution because they exist but did not cause speciation."

    ”If one species has the same pseudo gene as another species it is highly probably to be because they are related. Just like if you have an exact same DNA sequence as your father it is incredibly more probably that you inherited it than random chance.”


    So now you want to talk about “species” as a real, specific thing, whereas just above “species” was too foggy to deal with. Do you not see that you make up new rules for every piece of the argument you make which presupposes evolution in its premises?

    And now "random chance" has become improbable, even though that's the basis for Darwinism? That creates an infinite regression: mutation X must be thought of coming from the immediate ancestor, rather than acquired by a mutation event. Since "all" life has immediate ancestors all the way back to the very First Life, then it is more reasonable to think that the "mutation" EITHER occurred to the very First Living Thing - the universal common ancestor - OR it was a feature at the beginning which is now not understood but has been carried forward (not a mutation at all), OR that no one understands the issue at all, period, but are willing to make up stories about it and call it Truth. Every story told has a consequence, and evolutionists don't look at the consequences, because they want the stories to be considered absolute Truth. Empirical science never, ever, ever produces absolute Truth; it produces contingent factoids which are always subject to change.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Exactly what do you think this paragraph proves? Does it not show merely that some common event occurred to Chimpanzees and humans, who were living in the same area of Africa at the same time? Or is your personal interpretation the only one, making it absolute, immutable TRUTH? Why is your version the only one – do you have exact evidence of what happened? If so, then WHERE IS IT? Since you are demeaning any other interpretations and those who hold them, apparently you have more evidence than appears here, because this evidence refers to what exists in genomes currently observe, not how it happened to get there."

    1)Not Relevant 2) Do we need to know all the events and processes and all the precise details of how you inherited your genes from your mother and father? Is it logical to believe that a stork delivered you?


    Truly the cheapest possible response; one with no content at all, whatsoever. Because you cannot refute the existence of an alternative possibility which absolutely destroys your argument, you assert the “stork”, like a child would. To repeat the questions which you shrug off:

    1. Is there only your interpretation which is allowed?
    2. Where is the evidence which supports YOUR interpretation?
    3. Demeaning the opposition is rhetoric and is information-null, but is a tactic to stop an attack which is fatal.

    "How it “happened” is inferred opinion, subsequently declared TRUTH, making it a religious belief, dogmatically dictated."

    ”There are many theories as to “how it happened”, that a God being created you however is not one of them, just like the belief in a stork delivering babies is not a scientific hypothesis.

    "You have yet to produce a single empirical scientific replicable, replicated, falsifiable, and non-falsified, open data, peer reviewed and published study regarding natural selection of random mutations which produce new features...."

    See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html 1)New abilities have evolved 2)New species have been observed to evolve 3) Hundreds of different breeds of dog (for example) have being produced through selective breeding with new features.”


    This is why you slip-slide your definition of species. You claim “new species” and then we find that they are all dogs.

    ”"The only “design” referenced here is the analogic comparison of ground vehicles to your common descent inferences. So your snark about “intelligent design” is rejected, since it has no bearing on the incapability of your stories to produce immutable Truth, which is the actual subject here."

    Its a proven fact – through genetics, the fossil record (including transitional fossils) and the anatomy/bone structure the evidence for common descent is overwhelming.”


    This is another load of feces. Name some transitional fossils that cannot be falsified, such as archaeopteryx, any of the walking fishes, or anything at all. So far as I know, none of them can be anything but failed mutants, with no significant progeny. And as is easily shown, genetics referring to the history of life is purely inferential and without any fact, not even contingent fact, and it is purely based on opinion and inference. Genetics works for contemporary analysis of current life forms; it does not hold any validity beyond pure inference for historical life.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "This long paragraph does not address the issue at all, which is that there are other mechanisms for evolution besides mutation, as you claimed. So this is a Red Herring, taking the conversation off the tracks and into the weeds."

    1)The point was evolution adds information. 2) Even if epi genetics adds information which can be inherited, this does not contradict evolution or common descent.

    "This is quite simply a load of crap. There are thousands of ways to corrupt DNA, maybe even hundreds of millions. In a book, they are called “typos”; in an instruction manual they misdirect the instructions and never ever make the instructions better. No one, NO ONE has produced a beneficial, new organ even in the trillions of drosophila manipulations done in the lab. These claims are worse than mere opinion; they are false. Of course there are HOX genes. So What? Monkey with them, one mutation at a time and see what you get. HINT: it won’t be pretty."

    A mutation to a Hox gene could produce a new feature, such as a beak which can crack nuts. This mutation would then become more common in the population – as it was would increase fitness.

    "Now that we know that the concept of “species” is not a solid concept, why do you claim that evolution is a solid concept. It is much less a solid concept than “species”, yet it is called Truth."

    If you understand why a species is fluid and not solid then you will understand why the creationists are wrong. 1)All individuals are different (except identical twins). (If they wasn’t evolution couldn’t happen). 2) Species are a group of individuals which share characteristics. 3) Science splits species into groups based on how similar or (dissimilar) they are (and how closely related they are) e.g mammals and reptiles. 4) Got it?

    "So Truth is the accumulation of sufficient opinion and extrapolation and inference? That is the entire issue with evolution: there can be no evidence of common descent which is not opinion, extrapolation, and inference. Further there is no possible cause/effect hypothesis chain which can support the emergence of bonobos, chimps and humans from a common ancestor, because the common ancestor does NOT exist. And finally, all of the stories are predicated on the unprovable premise that evolution is True, despite the lack of Objective Knowledge in its support."

    Since you don’t what you're talking you will want to read this about nested hierarchy’s. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

    Species are grouped to together based on shared characteristics, so snakes and lizards for example are grouped together because they are much more closely related to each other than to other animals. This is like how we group languages together, we do it for a valid reason and not a subjective preference- like we would for cars for example. E.g Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese. While cars could be classified according to many different things according to subjective preference, e.g manufacturer, model, size, colour etc.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "There are zero known common ancestors for each of the many lines of descent. The knowledge of the lines terminates without connection. The connections are presupposed by the dogma of Darwinism, not by actual evidence of common ancestors which have been found to actually exist."

    Do you what a transitional fossil is, evolution skeptic? I guess not, anyway here is the evidence. Of human evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

    "You cannot prove they are fallacious; you can only deprecate them. That is obvious. When mathematicians take on evolution, evolution fails at the get-go. Until you can prove they are fallacious, they contain more truth than any of the science fiction story telling (based on the presupposition that evolution just has to exist), that anyone can generate."

    The concept is nonsense, end of story.


    "So now you want to talk about “species” as a real, specific thing, whereas just above “species” was too foggy to deal with. Do you not see that you make up new rules for every piece of the argument you make which presupposes evolution in its premises?"

    The idea of species is something we humans made up for our own convenience. The most useful definition however is “a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.” Obviously though this definition is problematic when applied to organisms that reproduce asexually.

    "And now "random chance" has become improbable, even though that's the basis for Darwinism? That creates an infinite regression: mutation X must be thought of coming from the immediate ancestor, rather than acquired by a mutation event..."

    Natural selection isn’t “chance” so no chance is not the basis of evolution.

    "Truly the cheapest possible response; one with no content at all, whatsoever. Because you cannot refute the existence of an alternative possibility which absolutely destroys your argument, you assert the “stork”, like a child would. To repeat the questions which you shrug off:

    1. Is there only your interpretation which is allowed?
    2. Where is the evidence which supports YOUR interpretation?
    3. Demeaning the opposition is rhetoric and is information-null, but is a tactic to stop an attack which is fatal.

    "How it “happened” is inferred opinion, subsequently declared TRUTH, making it a religious belief, dogmatically dictated."


    The central tenets of evolutionary theory are all clearly defined. The mechanims that cause genetic change have been studied for decades and are understood in considerable detail (see any textbook on Biochemistry or Molecular Genetics). The processes that shape allele frequencies in populations have detailed mathematical descriptions (see any textbook on Population Genetics). Constructing evolutionary models based on the previous points and statistics, to explain past events, is clearly explained in most textbooks on Bioinformatics. Which possible observations in paleontological, embryological, biogeographical etc. research are consistent with common descent and which observations would refute it is clearly explained in most textbooks on Evolutionary Biology.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "This is why you slip-slide your definition of species. You claim “new species” and then we find that they are all dogs."

    You said new features remember, not new species? Or are you changing the goalpost now? Also many kinds of dog cannot produce fertile offspring E.g Great Dane and a pug cannot breed together, and it through this variation that you get a new species, it is not rocket science.

    "This is another load of feces. Name some transitional fossils that cannot be falsified, such as archaeopteryx, any of the walking fishes, or anything at all. So far as I know, none of them can be anything but failed mutants, with no significant progeny. And as is easily shown, genetics referring to the history of life is purely inferential and without any fact, not even contingent fact, and it is purely based on opinion and inference. Genetics works for contemporary analysis of current life forms; it does not hold any validity beyond pure inference for historical life."

    You can do your own research and you will find that there are thousands of such fossils – despite the creationist lie that there are none.

    ReplyDelete
  61. >>Also many kinds of dog cannot produce fertile offspring E.g Great Dane and a pug cannot breed together, and it through this variation that you get a new species, it is not rocket science.

    Please clarify this bare assertion. 1. Do you have evidenced for this, because yes you can. I grew up with 3 Great Danes who had puppies, so I was raised with 9 Danes in our house. 2. Do you consider pugs as different species than Danes, because of mere size, or some other criteria? 3. Is a Kardashian different species than basketball players?

    My evidence for my assertions are plenty, just google it, here is a counter example for size from breeders: http://puppytoob.com/dog-breeds/can-chihuahua-great-dane-mix-exist/

    If they breed, they are the same species, as your criteria? Great.Eg Ligra, Zonkey, and jaglions, etc. The problems arise with modern speciations meshing with family "Kinds" of Scripture. Modern speciation tries to devide at its earliest point, where Scripture and didn't work that way. You cannot blame Scripture because of modern speciation, but you can certainly blame modern speciation for the confusion of kinds in Scripture. It's sad you fell pray to it, which lead you to absurdity.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "This long paragraph does not address the issue at all, which is that there are other mechanisms for evolution besides mutation, as you claimed. So this is a Red Herring, taking the conversation off the tracks and into the weeds."

    1)The point was evolution adds information. 2) Even if epi genetics adds information which can be inherited, this does not contradict evolution or common descent.


    There is no consistent meaning to anything you say, is there? What it obviously means at one point, it no longer means later on.

    Here’s the fundamental logic error behind pretty much everything you claim:
    You presuppose the conclusion in the premise.

    For example, you cannot say “evolution adds information” without presupposing that 1) evolution occurred, and is the only mechanism involved, even though 2) “evolution” has no descriptive delimiters on its definitions and covers both everything and nothing, and therefore, 3) if information exists, then it just HAD to come from evolution, even though neither you nor anyone else can give any disciplined experimental data on HOW it happened. So you MUST believe the non-credible: that random mutations create highly complex, novel, useful organs and their feedback control systems which are dependent upon other novel organs and their control systems - none of which existed anywhere ever before.

    This is pure Faithism in the form of Religious Scientism, the religious belief in what you cannot prove, but make truth claims about anyway, because of your faith that only your interpretation can exist.

    Next, no one made the claim you try to refute: that epi-genetics contradicts evolution or common descent. What it contradicts is YOU and YOUR claim that ONLY mutation could be posited as causal. So your statement is meaningless.

    Mutation has a probability of zero for causing "New Features" such as all new, regulated organs which did not pre-exist; New, novel functional limbs or novel extensions which did not previously exist (cardio-vascular systems; digestion, conversion and metabolic regulation and control systems; neurological pathways and meaningful information both to and from organs and sensory systems; or functional reality detection systems which did not previously exist, etc.) New information refers to something which did not previously exist, yet is fully functional as a novel system AND the novel system is SO useful that it gives a selection advantage to the novel organism, which just HAPPENS to fit a new environment. That’s how all the phyla would have evolved from the single cell common ancestor at the Cambrian Explosion.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "This is quite simply a load of crap. There are thousands of ways to corrupt DNA, maybe even hundreds of millions. In a book, they are called “typos”; in an instruction manual they misdirect the instructions and never ever make the instructions better. No one, NO ONE has produced a beneficial, new organ even in the trillions of drosophila manipulations done in the lab. These claims are worse than mere opinion; they are false. Of course there are HOX genes. So What? Monkey with them, one mutation at a time and see what you get. HINT: it won’t be pretty."

    A mutation to a Hox gene could produce a new feature, such as a beak which can crack nuts. This mutation would then become more common in the population – as it was would increase fitness.”


    You did not address the issue which is just above, re-read it. You provide an answer which is so obtuse as to be entirely unrelated to the issue being discussed.

    Let’s get something straight.
    1) A stronger beak is not a new feature. It does not add anything to a genome, because it is already there. It is not a change outside the natural genome of the specific bird (obviously the Darwin’s Finches on the Galapagos). Those Finches do not have any novel organs, novel structures, novel anything, because the population oscillates its beak size back and forth depending on the change from drought to wet weather. The population remains Finches. They do not even hybridize functional new birds when bred with Finches of other Galapagos Islands. This is the conclusion of the science done over decades by the team of Grant and Grant, done in situ on Galapagos. It is actual science, not claims made out of the imaginary evolution sphere.

    In fact, because you use this erroneous example to make your point, it is easy to presume that you have no better case to make, than such phony arguments. The issue of evolution’s existence vs. its status as mythical science fiction hinges on the ability of mutation to create novel features which have thousands of mutually dependent subsystems which all work in perfect concert to produce a functional cell, on the one hand, and then produce all different phyla on the other hand.

    If you continue to claim that because "it happened", therefore evolution did it (produces all that new information) which is your de facto claim, then you are making a non-credible claim (affirming the consequent – circularly), and making it with zero empirical, replicable, falsifiable evidence, yet asserting it with the maximal confidence deep belief, rather than the curiosity of an actual scientist. That is a sure sign of irrationality.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Now that we know that the concept of “species” is not a solid concept, why do you claim that evolution is a solid concept. It is much less a solid concept than “species”, yet it is called Truth."

    If you understand why a species is fluid and not solid then you will understand why the creationists are wrong.”


    That is a gratuitous and false statement, as will be shown.

    1)All individuals are different (except identical twins). (If they wasn’t evolution couldn’t happen).

    Then you have just falsified evolution. Thanks. Single cells use mitosis to split DNA, which has two identical strands. Each of the two new cells gets a single identical strand, and the daughter cells are therefore identical – the exact same as – the parent cell. This was always the case for X billion years. Then BAZAMBO hundreds of thousands, probably millions of new and novel, functional organic and mechanical extra-genomic capabilities emerged in a geological instant – all of which serendipitously were magically selectable and selected. Probably more like hundreds of millions of novel, functional extra-genomic capabilities. And most of these novel, extra-genomic capabilities, aside from their vast complexities, were dependent upon each other (blood systems must have vascular systems which require lungs and livers and kidneys and bladders and bone marrow and defense mechanisms, and all of which require feedback control systems for maintaining stable operation - and those require both meaning and language for transmitting the changing information regarding system status, as well as the agency to act upon the information received in order to change system inputs to complete the task of regulation. Is this sentence complex? It only begins to demonstrate the complexity change between First-Life-type single cells and the phyla of post Cambrian life.

    So your falsification (which is your error) leads to the actual falsification which is this: the rational impossibility of the spontaneous eruption of enough valid, coordinated, interrelated, highly complex information to make the jump from single cell mitosis, to all the phyla.

    So perhaps you can see why a different beak shape is not just unconvincing as proof, it is totally trivial.

    ReplyDelete
  65. ”2) Species are a group of individuals which share characteristics.”

    Interesting definition. Turtles have four legs; cows have four legs. Turtles and cows are the same species.

    This is a false definition, one which is chosen for its non-specificity in order to prove its non-specificity. Another circular assertion, and false to boot.

    Species are those groups of living things which share a group genome from which their characteristics are chosen, and from which genome they will not vary without changes to the genome – which are invariably deleterious by observation.

    From: “Principles of Microbiology”; RM Atlas; 1995; pg 653.”
    “Implicit in the definition of species for higher organisms is a similar and shared gene pool”.
    And:
    “The asexual means of reproduction typically exhibited by bacteria that gives rise to clones of genetically nearly identical cells limits the diversity of the gene pool…”

    Your definition is purely self-serving and it has no discrimination capability. That fits your narrative, but not the reality as understood by actual science.

    ” 3) Science splits species into groups based on how similar or (dissimilar) they are (and how closely related they are) e.g mammals and reptiles.

    4) Got it?”


    At this point I’m ready to say “screw you, you arrogant, ignorant, non-scientist, Scientism-worshipping acolyte.” You have no objective knowledge in the form of actual replicable and falsiable science; all you have is “Coulda happened according to my story”: Science is the description of a) What happened in precise terms; b)science then hypothesizes what will happen in precise terms if the same conditions are brought to bear specifically as done before; c) Science actually brings the conditions to bear, experimentally in the laboratory, thereby providing objective, replicable evidence of either falsification or non-falsification of the hypotheses.

    No evolutionist has any answer to either of those conditions for actual science. Further, they cannot produce any testable hypotheses, and they cannot test non-existing hypotheses for falsification or non-falsification. Science cannot possibly ever have those answers.

    Evolution, therefore, is not science. Evolution will NEVER be a science.

    But because it is legally the law, it is the dogma, it is the “consensus” of scientists who are screened by that law and dogma for their “proper” belief, evolution is an onerous, false belief system which is seizing control of minds by perverting the definitions and actual known facts regarding the source of life and the ancestry of genomic species. And it does this by FORCE, meaning not allowing any other interpretation of fossils or genetic markers or any other currently used excuses for “evolution”.

    In fact, that is exactly where this stands. You make up stuff and then pose as some intellectual qualified to be looking down on everyone else. But you are well loaded only with logic fallacies, circular arguments and stuff which you make up or get from some Atheist site. You never acknowledge your logic errors; you only change definitions to suit your mood. You do not seek the truth of the situation, you merely change the parameters to suit your presupposed answer. So there is no logic in your comments, and there is no rational conversation to be had when logic is eschewed in favor of a dogma. There is no reason to continue this conversation, because you never, EVER acknowledge your errors, or acknowledge that you just make stuff up in order to call it science. But you do strut yourself as superior anyway. You are merely a drain on my time.

    Unless you come up with rational assertions based in real experimental empirical science, and not “well, this ‘Coulda happened’, if you’re buying my schtick, which I’ll change as necessary”, there will be no response from me to your future comments.
    Adios.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I guess this is what they mean when they say: "taking someone to school".

    ReplyDelete
  67. Stan,

    I've just notice something as I re-read your responses. You copied nastikas post but did not respond. I doubt your lack of response was a concession. perhaps you did type a response but forgot to publish it.

    Here it is:

    The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).

    The difference measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are 29 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). If you measure nonsynonymous base pair differences within protein coding regions, humans and chimps are 99.75 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005, fig. 9). The original 98.4 percent estimate came from DNA hybridization experiments, which measured (indirectly, via DNA melting temperature) sequence difference among short segments of the genomes that are similar enough to hybridize but with repetitive elements removed (Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Whatever measure is used, however, as long as the same measurement is used consistently, will show that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (including the bonobo, sister species to the common chimpanzee) than to any other species.

    Note also, though, that evolution has not been uniform throughout the genomes, so estimates of human-chimp divergence which consider only part of the genome can give different results (Britten 2002, Chen et al. 2001). “

    ReplyDelete
  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "Unless you come up with rational assertions based in real experimental empirical science."

    Despite the mountain of evidence from the DNA sequences, molecular sequences , the fossil records, the anatomy, and phylogenetics (which puts species in nested hierarchies – based on DNA sequences and morphology similarities – which was predicted by common descent) and all the observed instances of micro and macro evolution both observed in the laboratory and in the wild.

    (Study of speciation of salamanders If your interested http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_01 ). Of course to “evolution skeptic” this is “non existent experimental data”.

    "It is not a change outside the natural genome of the specific bird (obviously the Darwin’s Finches on the Galapagos). Those Finches do not have any novel organs, novel structures, novel anything, because the population oscillates its beak size back and forth depending on the change from drought to wet weather. The population remains Finches. They do not even hybridize functional new birds when bred with Finches of other Galapagos Islands. This is the conclusion of the science done over decades by the team of Grant and Grant, done in situ on Galapagos. It is actual science, not claims made out of the imaginary evolution sphere."

    So a beak (or a whole bird for that matter) could not become anything non bird like through this process not even in billions of years? As far as Darwin’s finches are concerned see this:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150211141238.htm .
    A team of scientists from Uppsala University and Princeton University has now shed light on the evolutionary history of these birds and identified a gene that explains variation in beak shape within and among species. The study is published today in Nature, on the day before the 206th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.”

    If those links does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence then what exactly will?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Nastika:
    Re: Salamanders.
    This is the big dog, little dog argument all over again. And here the definition of speciation is not fuzzy or foggy: it is defined as inability to breed.

    Well, just as in the case of dogs, which of the big dog/little dog scenario (tea cup Chihuahuas vs Great Danes) which of those animals is no longer a canine? That must be the case, if they can’t breed, right? No, both varieties are dogs, period.

    Same with salamanders with different colored skins. Which ones are not salamanders? Would they breed if someone painted them the correct colors to promote attraction?

    Re: Darwin’s Finches.
    The last statement in that article should give you a clue:

    ” "I would not be surprised if it turns out that mutations with minor or minute effects on ALX1 function or expression contribute to the bewildering facial diversity among humans," says Leif Andersson.”

    Facial diversity among humans is caused by sexual breeding rather than asexual. The DNA provided to the egg is not the same as DNA of either parent. But it still remains in the human genome. The nose is still the nose, but is not the same as the parent. But like the parent, the offspring remain homo sapiens sapiens.

    With finches, the beak is not the same as the parents’ beak either. So it is selected for by the wet vs drought conditions which exist, and which produce different kinds of edibles. This is known to oscillate back and forth in size and shape in response to those birds that survive best in each environment.

    This refers to common micro-evolution within an existing genome of sexual reproducers. And before you go there, yes. Evolutionists do, in fact, refer to “macro-evolution” as being the phenomenon related to evolution. The genome must acquire an all-new segment which defines and implements the new organ, new limb, or any non-previously existing, all new

    There is no comparison between this type of variability within existing organs and the type of variability which would require, say teeth. Finding a bird with teeth which demonstrably erupted in response to an environmental selection would be a much more interesting development, because teeth, as far as I know, require genetics outside the bird’s genome, although they might exist but be repressed.

    I notice that the Grants have changed their story about hybridization. They observed in their book that hybrids which occurred were never observed to be viable. Now they say that the DNA shows hybridization. Like all hybridization stories, the common ancestor is not known to have actually existed. So that is just a different type of story, but it is still not falsifiable.

    Finally, I have told you what has to be done in order to form hypotheses which are congruent with the scientific method and the requirements necessary to create objective knowledge. So what about that needs further explanation?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Stan said:

    "Well, just as in the case of dogs, which of the big dog/little dog scenario (tea cup Chihuahuas vs Great Danes) which of those animals is no longer a canine? That must be the case, if they can’t breed, right? No, both varieties are dogs, period."

    This short quote sums up one of the biggest misunderstanding about evolution. When populations of animals evolve, they don't become something else completely. A canine will always give birth to a canine, and so will ALL of its descendants. When two members of that same group branch off and become different enough, such that they cannot reproduce with each other, they are creating new sub-groups, new sub-species, new families, etc., whatever label is used at that level. But they remain members of the larger set. It's a mistake to ask which canine is no longer a canine when 2 canines cannot reproduce with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  72. ”there are standards of validity and facts are not relative to our opinions. But you insist on asking for a specific proof which cannot be made, hence I am trying to explain why 'your' request, yours Stan, what you defined, is a subjective view that does not fit with the objective contingent facts of biology.”

    The standards for Objective Knowledge are not mine; they have been produced by John Locke, David Hume, Francis Bacon, and multitudes of other philosophers of science, including the originators of the Enlightenment. What you claim to be my personal issue is in fact the issue of the entire body of the empirical sciences vs non-empirical, opinion-based non-science: primarily evolution. And when you and your co-evolutionists declare Special Pleading for your beliefs that evolution has “facts” which don’t meet the standards for actual fact, you demonstrate the irrationality of the Ideology which evolution has become – or rather as it was created by its icon, Charles Darwin. Darwin made it acceptable to pervert the scientific method by creating deductions that are necessarily stillborn, unable to proceed to the necessary process of validation and non-falsification, with replicable processes and data for objective verification. AND it is forever based in narrative only, not in actual cause/effect.

    That, THAT, is what evolution proponents call fact. And you are wrong about the biology: evolution is NOT biology. Evolution is a pretense of USING biology in the creation of science fiction. Modern biology, from Linnaeus and Mendel onward used empirical methods which carry forward to Modern Biology of today. Evolution DOES NOT. It cannot. It will not – ever.

    Evolution is sacred as the Atheist creation story; that is why it is protected BY LAW against other insurgencies. That is legal Special Pleading for a declared status of “science” for what is actually a non-science. Your Special Pleading is obvious above: evolution just cannot produce any actual evidence. But it is “fact”, anyway.

    That this not only doesn’t bother you, no matter how many times it is pointed out, plus the defense you make that empirical scientific requirements are a) unfair, b) just Stan’s personal subjective requirements, c) are compatible with real, Modern Biology, demonstrates volumes about your thought process and deeply held ideological dogmatic beliefs.

    And despite all this, you “insist” that I change my mind on evolution. Evolution is without content. It is without cause and effect. It is totally without hope of falsification. The probabilities are functionally zero. That’s what you insist that I accept.

    You go ahead and believe without me.
    I'll stick with rational conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Stan said...

    "The standards for Objective Knowledge are not mine [...]"

    Of course there are standards that all of science should follow. The point is that biology and its Theory of Evolution does, in fact, follow these same standards.

    The point I was making about 'your' request has nothing to do with this. The problem is that you claim that you are skeptical of evolution because of the absence of proof, which 'you' define. You say that you would be convince that evolution is true if someone could provide you with 'X', regardless of whether 'X' actually fits under the theory. You impose YOUR own subjective standards; that's what I was pointing out.

    But at the same time, you also wrote that nothing could ever convince you:

    "evolution is NOT biology. Evolution is a pretense of USING biology in the creation of science fiction. Modern biology, from Linnaeus and Mendel onward used empirical methods which carry forward to Modern Biology of today. Evolution DOES NOT. It cannot. It will not – ever. "

    So, which one is it? Why the contradiction? Are you open to the idea that the Theory of Evolution is the most accurate explanation we have to describe the diversity of life and all the facts regarding living organisms? Or, as you were very clear in your last comment, is this a dead end and you would never, ever, entertain the idea again?

    But, why have a Discussion zone on Evolution then?

    Finally, maybe you will address that mistake about canine if I keep bringing it up?

    Stan said:
    "Well, just as in the case of dogs, which of the big dog/little dog scenario (tea cup Chihuahuas vs Great Danes) which of those animals is no longer a canine? That must be the case, if they can’t breed, right? No, both varieties are dogs, period."

    Do you see a mistake here, yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Stan said...

    "The standards for Objective Knowledge are not mine [...]"

    Of course there are standards that all of science should follow. The point is that biology and its Theory of Evolution does, in fact, follow these same standards.

    The point I was making about 'your' request has nothing to do with this. The problem is that you claim that you are skeptical of evolution because of the absence of proof, which 'you' define. You say that you would be convince that evolution is true if someone could provide you with 'X', regardless of whether 'X' actually fits under the theory. You impose YOUR own subjective standards; that's what I was pointing out.

    But at the same time, you also wrote that nothing could ever convince you:

    "evolution is NOT biology. Evolution is a pretense of USING biology in the creation of science fiction. Modern biology, from Linnaeus and Mendel onward used empirical methods which carry forward to Modern Biology of today. Evolution DOES NOT. It cannot. It will not – ever. "

    So, which one is it? Why the contradiction? Are you open to the idea that the Theory of Evolution is the most accurate explanation we have to describe the diversity of life and all the facts regarding living organisms? Or, as you were very clear in your last comment, is this a dead end and you would never, ever, entertain the idea again?

    But, why have a Discussion zone on Evolution then?

    Finally, maybe you will address that mistake about canine if I keep bringing it up?

    Stan said:
    "Well, just as in the case of dogs, which of the big dog/little dog scenario (tea cup Chihuahuas vs Great Danes) which of those animals is no longer a canine? That must be the case, if they can’t breed, right? No, both varieties are dogs, period."

    Do you see a mistake here, yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  75. ”You impose YOUR own subjective standards; that's what I was pointing out.”

    And I showed conclusively that that’s crap.

    ”But at the same time, you also wrote that nothing could ever convince you:”

    Why is this so hard for you to get? Let me try to make it as basic as possible:

    1. I accept contingent facts derived from, and not falsified by, the disciplined use of empirical science.

    2. If evolution could produce disciplined, empirical, non-falsified, replicable data regarding the observation of a) First life; b) the generation of all phyla from one cell during the Cambrian Explosion, I would accept it as contingent fact.

    3. There is no possible way for human endeavor to produce #2.

    4. Thus evolution is not empirical science; evolution cannot produce contingent knowledge; evolution cannot produce truth; evolution cannot be more than opinion/speculation/extrapolation – science fiction.

    5. Therefore, there is NO reason to accept it as valid, factual, TRUTH, and I will not be bullied into accepting it because of the irrational beliefs of others, NOR by laws which dictate its validity through the courts, NOR by zealots who refuse to think in terms of deductive rational skepticism, and demand that I do not do so either.

    ADDENDA:
    6. Evolution is NOT biology; biology in its modern form uses deduction of falsifiable, replicable cause and effect regarding living entities. Evolution does not use deduction of falsifiable, replicable cause and effect, nor does it study living entities. Evolution CO-OPTS information from actual biology, and attempts to deduce NON-replicable, NON-falsifiable, NON-verifiable fictions surrounding the fossil record – AND to make claims for fossils NOT EVEN FOUND, in order to fill-in the multitudes of blanks.

    Further, evolutionists make claims of descent based purely on bones, which they line up every which way, depending on the current evolutionist who is doing it.

    The absurdities are manifest and legion.

    ”But, why have a Discussion zone on Evolution then?”

    Purely because of folks like yourself, who cannot disbelieve it, nor assert the slightest skepticism, and assert “ignorance” for those who do.

    ”Finally, maybe you will address that mistake about canine if I keep bringing it up?

    Stan said:
    "Well, just as in the case of dogs, which of the big dog/little dog scenario (tea cup Chihuahuas vs Great Danes) which of those animals is no longer a canine? That must be the case, if they can’t breed, right? No, both varieties are dogs, period."

    Do you see a mistake here, yes or no? ”


    I’m asking you a question, which I will elaborate since you do not apprehend its content: “Is speciation by ‘genetic drift’ a real cause of evolution?” The accepted definition of speciation is “inability to interbreed” (unless you want to change it for this case, of course). The Huge and Diminutive ‘dog-like-animals’ can no longer interbreed. By the definition of speciation, they have “speciated”. So what are they (you say they are dogs), but if they have "speciated", at least one of them must not be of the original species. Which one? This is no different from Ring Species. At what point does the mutation become the vaunted and necessary CAUSE of NEW SPECIES?? Evolution absolutely requires the generation of NEW SPECIES, and ‘genetic drift’ is called evolution, although in reality it is just minor change within an existing genome. So is it speciation? Is it evolution?

    I don’t think I can make this any more clear.

    Why will you not produce any detailed answer? I suspect that it is because “genetic drift” cannot produce anything other than what is in the original, varied genome.

    The mistake is yours for not actually addressing the issue presented: genetic drift.

    ”Genetic drift — along with natural selection, mutation, and migration — is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.”

    For a cool picture, go to the site and observe the boot.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Stan said...

    "”You impose YOUR own subjective standards; that's what I was pointing out.”
    And I showed conclusively that that’s crap.
    "

    No, you haven't; you just repeated what facts are, in general. And you added commentaries around it:

    "Why is this so hard for you to get?"

    A prime example; just some sort of passive-aggressive insult implying I don't get it, because it's too "hard" for me. But I get it, I am explaining it to you; telling you exactly what you get wrong and why, as patiently as I could.

    "1. I accept contingent facts derived from, and not falsified by, the disciplined use of empirical science."

    That's correct, but you just stated the obvious; because you have nothing specific to bring up regarding biology and evolution, which ARE using the exact same body of facts.

    "2. If evolution could produce disciplined, empirical, non-falsified, replicable data regarding the observation of [...] "

    Evolution is both a Theory, as a set of explanations for the observed diversity of life, and a fact, as the observed mechanism of mutation and selection. So yes, evolutionary biology does produce what you are describing as valid scientific observations yielding contingent facts. It does not matter what YOU think should come after these [...] . The facts are what they are, not what observations some people would 'like' to see.

    "...a) First life;"

    This proves you are completely wrong when it comes to the subject of evolution. It is absurd to bring up abiogeneis as the first example of what Biology would need to prove to convince YOU that the Theory of Evolution is correct. Biology studies living things TODAY, and attempts to understand how they got to be the way they are over time. What we observe today is not affected by how life started in the first place. It could be some gods magic hands creating a couple of self-reproducing self; that's all that's needed. After that, the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have as to how these initial organisms develop into all the species we see today. Yes, including the following:

    ReplyDelete
  77. " b) the generation of all phyla from one cell during the Cambrian Explosion"

    There is nothing crazy about the Cambrian Explosion. You make it "sound" crazy by saying that all phyla appear, pretty much the same we see today, as if this meant that some crazy large number of new living things appeared. It is not the case. Do you even understand how many phyla there are, in total? And how many appear in the Cambrian Explosion over a few tens of millions of years? Here's the answer: there are just 35 phyla today.

    The problem stems from your expressed misunderstanding of how new species are created and how animals diverge from each other. Because of that mistake, you cannot possibly understand why getting ~30 phyla to evolve over millions of year is not impossible at all. It's actually exactly what we expect by working out a theory of living things today and extrapolating backward, to try to figure out what happened in the past.

    Take the example of the tail, no-tail, animals I used before. Now, extrapolate it to 30 animals by using this thought experiment:
    - Animals of group 2 are very simple, uni-cellular
    - Animals of group 3 are very simple, but multi-cellular
    - Animals of group 2 and 3 look closely related; they use the exact same molecular cell machinery, to name just 1 common set of traits
    - Animals of group 1 are older, also very simple, uni-cellular, and again share significant common characteristics with group 2 and 3
    - Therefore, Group 1 is a common ancestor of Groups 2 and 3
    - Now, we also have groups 4 to 33 that are very simple, multi-cellular, but each has at least 1 separate unique characteristic.
    - Groups 4 to 33 are more recent, still exhibit the exact same common characteristics of Group 3, and thus share a common ancestor with Group 1.
    During the Cambrian explosion, you can thus have had as little as these 30 groups of animals that diverged from a parent group. Each group is still part of the larger group, because living things always give birth to members of their own species. And, again, there was TENS of MILLIONS of years for this to happen. There was surely a lot lot more than 30 groups and even a lot lot more diversity. But 99% of species that appeared over time also disappeared, as living things keep changing, keep evolving, and yield more and more diversity.

    Now, this just-so story is nothing but a story, right? I cannot prove that this is what happened, nobody can. Because that's not the point. The point is that we know something 'like' that must have happened for many reasons. Common ancestry is the basic one that proves, without doubt, that all living things are related to one another. I have given multiple resources that prove this point. It is not an opinion; it is a fact of biology. Common ancestry is the proof, the Theory of Evolution is the most likely explanation. Together, they yield more and more hypothesis and reinforce/change/update the Theory.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Taking that with the other biological fact that living things yield offspring within their own species, we can trace back the hierarchy of animals and spot that moment, in the Cambrian Explosion, when many multi-cellular animals started to appear, diverged from each other, and formed groups of great-great-great-...-great-grand-parents of the animals we have today. They are the direct ancestors; every single animal alive today is STILL part of their group, still part of their SPECIES. But, why do we use different words then? Simply for classification purposes. Nothing else. I am quoting videos below, but I would bring up the 13th minute of that one specifically. Would you have recognized that as a macro-evolutionary event?

    Well, no, because you contradicted all of that, with a few key sentences over several days:
    "Well, just as in the case of dogs, which of the big dog/little dog scenario (tea cup Chihuahuas vs Great Danes) which of those animals is no longer a canine? That must be the case, if they can’t breed, right? No, both varieties are dogs, period.
    [...]
    answer the question: are they dogs or not, and if not, then what are they? Say out loud what they are if they are not dogs. WHAT ARE THEY?
    [...]
    “Is speciation by ‘genetic drift’ a real cause of evolution?” The accepted definition of speciation is “inability to interbreed” (unless you want to change it for this case, of course). The Huge and Diminutive ‘dog-like-animals’ can no longer interbreed. By the definition of speciation, they have“speciated”. So what are they (you say they are dogs), but if they have "speciated", at least one of them must not be of the original species. Which one? This is no different from Ring Species. At what point does the mutation become the vaunted and necessary CAUSE of NEW SPECIES??Evolution absolutely requires the generation of NEW SPECIES, and ‘genetic drift’ is called evolution, although in reality it is just minor change within an existing genome. So is it speciation? Is it evolution?
    "

    It's actually both simple and complicated, depending at what you look at precisely:

    ReplyDelete
  79. - Complicated: it's hard to tell exactly when a new species is created. As a parent species branch off, say in 2 groups, the new groups can still interbreed at first, since they are still closely related. They tend to produce infertile offspring, a sign that there are indeed 2 new species being created. The further they diverge, the least likely it is that reproduction between members of both new species will work at all; they are not clearly different species.
    - Simple: both species ARE still members of the parent species. They never stopped being members of that species, and never will.
    The only reason we don't use the word 'species' at some point is for classification purposes.

    The best explanation of how these relationships are classified and how we can get many sub-species from a parent species remains, in my opinion, this series of video I have posted before:
    Falsifying Phylogeny
    There is 1 video specifically on canine, which may be of particular interest:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8 (it's about canine)

    However, as the video says (I wished it did not and stick to the science but... you can skip these parts), some people are unable and/or unwilling to understand even the simplest lessons. After trying for so long, giving up, then trying again over the last few days, I am afraid you are unwilling Stan... and I really don't know why. You say it's against your intellectual integrity, but how could the entire scientific community be so wrong, so intellectually dishonest then? It does not add up. And, I know you are able to comprehend, so it's really just because you are unwilling, for some unstated reason.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Interesting side point, you said this a month ago:

    "There is no comparison between this type of variability within existing organs and the type of variability which would require, say teeth. Finding a bird with teeth which demonstrably erupted in response to an environmental selection would be a much more interesting development, because teeth, as far as I know, require genetics outside the bird’s genome, although they might exist but be repressed."

    It seems to me that you might have some sort of partial memory of hearing something about this. But, because you are so strongly against anything related to proving that macro-evolution did occur and does occur, you don't remember the exact details, just that it must be false. Yet, that's the example that pop into your head, some sort of sub-conscious reminder that there might be an example like that but, even then, it would be false, because evolution is false.

    Why do I say this? Because there was a semi-famous research done on that. Birds were genetically modified and grew teeth. I believe I might have pointed it out to you myself because it's part of the Crash Crouse Biology, which I linked to a few times before. Birds are closely related to Dinosaurs and that proved this relationship. Of course, the instant anti-scientific argument is that the dinosaurs had the teeth, so the genes were there already, just dormant. The problem with that is that this proved, beyond doubt, that just a small change in some genes can actually cause the change to happen, either way. It is proof that, sometimes, just a small change in some gene can have a dramatic change on the animal with the mutation. Because yes, that is an example of mutation. And birds have a lot of characteristics that dinosaurs did not have; these were not present in the great-great-grand-parent dinosaurs, so they evolved, because of mutations and natural selection.

    In short, EVO-DEVO is really interesting; it's the cutting edge of evolutionary biology in 2016. But, it must be a conspiracy, because you say so, Stan... ?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sjwlxQ_6LI

    ReplyDelete
  81. Another interesting side point:
    "Further, evolutionists make claims of descent based purely on bones, which they line up every which way, depending on the current evolutionist who is doing it."

    This is not just false, this is another example of misunderstanding. Without any fossils at all, evolutionary biologist would still conclude that all life on Earth must be related through common ancestry. DNA has provided the best evidence of common descent. Combining visual observation, taxonomy, with the DNA observations, yield such a close ancestral tree that the best explanation is still common descent, without 1 single fossil. But, we do have the fossils! And they only confirm over and over again, in great details that the hypothesis of common descent is correct, and thus accepted as fact and incorporated in our collection of facts and explanations: the Theory of Evolution.

    And finally a conclusion based on that:
    "”But, why have a Discussion zone on Evolution then?”

    Purely because of folks like yourself, who cannot disbelieve it, nor assert the slightest skepticism, and assert “ignorance” for those who do.
    "

    Ok, but 'folks like myself' are actually caused by people like you! Not the other way around. Science moves on without input from people like you. The denial of evolution brings nothing to the table, provides no knowledge, no experimentation, no hypothesis, no novel ideas, really, nothing. The only thing that does happen is that when people who understand evolution discuss it, some ignorant folk will inevitably bring up their skepticism of a well-supported scientific field and try to accuse the entire scientific community of fraud. Trying to explain why that skeptic is wrong can be interesting, and useful for others who are also unsure about what science found, over time.

    But it is not, absolutely not the case, that you are the one who needs to have a 'Discussion Zone on Evolution' because others are trying to shove something down your throat. You decided to put yourself at odd with the scientific community. You are ignorant, you misrepresent facts, you are a radical skeptic, and you are the one who needs to prove his position. But you will not, because you cannot. Evolution is based on solid science that you deny. And that's the end of the story. You can then decide to keep being ignorant, and insult the critical thinking skills of those who do understand and accept BIOLOGY and the Theory of Evolution, or you can... well, there is no 'or', because we both know that's exactly what you will continue doing.

    Vacation is over, I am out. And I am starting my MBA soon so I have to stop this blogging time-suck and focus on more important things. Good luck!

    Sincerely,
    Hugo

    ReplyDelete
  82. P.s. forgot that I was going to address that, because it made me smile for 2 reasons:

    The mistake is yours for not actually addressing the issue presented: genetic drift.
    ”Genetic drift — along with natural selection, mutation, and migration — is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.”
    For a cool picture, go to the site and observe the boot.


    This website has been used here before I believe. I don't know if I shared it myself but I have seen it for sure. It's a great resource, and obviously supports the Theory of Evolution so it's very ironic you would refer to it to somehow support your points. They completely disagree with you! The notion of genetic drift is one of the few mechanisms through which living things evolve; nothing discrediting the conclusions of evolutionary theory... The question you may want to answer is: how did the color differences appear originally? If we can find an ancestor with just 1 color, then it means there must have been mutations to add that 2nd color.

    And, what's funny is that this is on the UC Berkeley's website and this is where I am going to study :) At Haas' business school though, far from the biology department, but I thought it was an interesting coincidence...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hugo,
    My response to your last, and apparently departing, comment has been placed into a long post, HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Phoenix says,
    "Stan,

    Over at another site I had a discussion with an Evolutionist about the lack of experimental evidence regarding Evo. He then forwarded the Lenski experiment which was supposedly successfully replicated. I searched your site hoping to find something on the topic but couldn't find anything. I also asked him to come over here and share his "knowledge and evidence" with us.

    What is your take on the laboratory studies done on the 12 E.coli populations which is supposed to be empirical proof for Evolution?

    http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/"


    First, I recommend that you go here for a good analysis:

    http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i11f.htm

    This represents a mutation that caused a nearly-existing function already in place to come into existence, after 33,000 generations. This required merely a simple mutation in order to enable it. My own calculations show that the actual proven chances of happening are roughly 10^-14,600, even in the controlled conditions of the lab which was trying to produce it.

    Remember that the populations increase exponentially at the rate of 10^2 per day. Even by using the 20,000 generation number, the rate of that mutation is 2^-20,000. But I used 20 years, with a population change of 10^2 per day. The calculation is rough, of course. But the probability is obviously non-credibly low. To claim that this is proof of evolution is absurd.

    When this is placed in the perspective of creating an entire digestive system, one mutation at a time and collecting all the vastly numerous required, ordered mutations for a sudden release of a complete digestive system, the probabilities are far beyond astronomically against it.

    The question is not whether such occurrences could happen. The question is whether the probabilities are such that it is credible.

    The second question might be, what does it take to believe it, in the face of its non-credibility? The answer would be "faith in the face of solid science against it". So it requires denialism of science and/or mathematics in order to believe that the Lenski experiment proves evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "This required merely a simple mutation in order to enable it."

    Well, no, that's not true, is it, Stan? It required several mutations. So that's your calculation proved wrong for a start.


    "Remember that the populations increase exponentially at the rate of 10^2 per day. Even by using the 20,000 generation number, the rate of that mutation is 2^-20,000"

    But they're throwing 99% of the population away every six or seven generations. So the size of the population is stable, and your claimed mutation rate is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  86. The Lenski finding of a Cit+ variant has been replicated in short term experiments, I now discover. [1] Further, Lenski more recently reported the cause to be a single mutation to a gene switch controlling the on/off operation of the pre-existing Cit+ capability. The result is the re-enabling of a pre-existing feature. It is not a new, utilizable feature which is possible speciation material. Here's the Lenski statement:

    " The Cit(+) trait originated in one clade by a tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter. The clades varied in their propensity to evolve this novel trait, although genotypes able to do so existed in all three clades, implying that multiple potentiating mutations arose during the population's history." [2]

    Translation:
    (a) A citrate transporter previously existed in the e-coli, and was "silent" (disabled).
    (b) A mutation caused the pre-existing citrate transporter to be "enabled".
    (c) Despite the single mutation used to enable the citrate transporter, Lenski claims that it is "implied" that "multiple potentiating mutations" were involved. There is zero evidence of that.

    Further, experiments by other researchers have shown conclusively that the mutation can arise in a short time. So there is no "history" required, as Lenski insists.

    At a minimum this is not the creation of a novel feature ex nihilo. The feature pre-existed in those e-coli cells, but was disabled; now it is enabled. Further, it is useful only in high concentrations of citrate availability - not a normal environment. Maybe that's why it was shut off?

    This is true of all the known, published mutations which the LTEE process has produced. They have been mostly loss-of-function variations, or disabling or enabling functions. An example is the loss of the flagella due to the loss of the flagella-producing genetics. Presumably this is positive because it saves the energy required to produce the flagella. [3] As can be seen, the designation of "positive" to a mutation is at the discretion of the person who reports it.

    One interesting mutation is the new "mutator phenotype". This increases the mutation rate because it is a degradation of the ability of the "MutT" enzyme which eliminates damaged nucleotides (guanine) from being included in DNA. So the bad stuff is allowed into the DNA, and presto, a mutation. But it is at the cost of losing the MutY enzyme, which eliminates other errors from getting into the DNA.

    All in all, the LTEE has produced no truly novel features. All it has done is to turn on some pre-existing features, turn off others, and insert garbage into DNA.

    Pretty much works like random changes are expected: destructively, benignly, or the occasional lucky hit on pre-existing features being re-enabled.

    NOTE
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045076
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883821

    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22992527

    3. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/richard_lenski102839.html
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/hype_from_new_s097151.html
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html

    ReplyDelete
  87. "The question is not whether such occurrences could happen. The question is whether the probabilities are such that it is credible."

    The flaw in this argument – which is just a rehashing of the old “Monkeys typing Shakespeare argument” – is that he Ignores the fact that one 1)Evolution modifies preexisting structures – eyes and digestive systems etc don’t just come into being “by accident” as he says. 2) Natural selection sieves out defective gene sequences. (See Dawkins weasel program which shows this). Also seemingly virtually impossible events happen all the time this is not an argument that something can’t happen. For example what are the odds of this message? The odds are mind bogglingly small when you consider all the factors and conditions involved but yet the fact is this message exists.

    Now then putting aside this fallacious argument what argument do you have against the evidence for common descent? Explain nested hierarchies? Explain why humans still have bones in the ear which reptiles have as part of their jaw? Explain why humans still have a tail bone? Explain retro virus’s and pseudo genes? Explain why the mole has blind eyes? Explain why all life uses the same protein code when it could use a hundred different combinations? Explain why humans can’t breathe and swallow at the same time? Explain why the Python still has a pelvis if it did not descended from lizards? The only explanation for these facts is common descent there is no other theory which fits these facts.

    ReplyDelete
  88. First, this:
    "Evolution modifies preexisting structures – eyes and digestive systems etc don’t just come into being “by accident” as he says."

    Great start: so how do those things come into being? You imply that you have that knowledge, so tell us. Evolution is mutation/selection. Mutation is random (accidental modification). So evolution is fully dependent upon accident.

    "Natural selection sieves out defective gene sequences."

    Why of course it does. And when there are thousands of defective mutations to every benign mutation, there is every expectation that the benign mutation will get nuked by natural selection. The collection of benign mutations for an ultimate release as a highly complex organ and its feedback regulations, metabolism, DNA information for its replication and support, is flat-out absurd as an expectation.

    "seemingly virtually impossible events happen all the time this is not an argument that something can’t happen."

    How many dependent "impossible events" happen simultaneously "all the time", in a fashion which emulates design of complex, coherent, novel creations out of nothing, for no reason? For example, your comment above is totally expected and is not at all an impossibility, since it is the mantra of the casual evolutionist who is partial to the dogma of evolution. Furthermore it was created by a mind, for a specific purpose. So it seriously smacks of intelligent design, however flawed.

    Every one of the things which you apparently think are "GOTCHAs" are, in fact, not evidence of anything at all: they are independent facts which are being inferentially extrapolated into meanings which are not actually there, physically. None of those items on your list can be empirically proven to have happened as a consequence of common descent. They are "imagined" to have been proof, when they are merely somewhat "consistent with" common descent... except that common descent has been falsified by the implications of the Cambrian Explosion and for other reasons as well.

    So you are left with "imaginary" evidence for a falsified concept.

    The idea that theory X is true because "there is no other theory" was falsified many centuries ago, when Ptolemaic theory was overthrown after being the "only theory" for many centuries.

    Feel free to try again.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "Great start: so how do those things come into being? You imply that you have that knowledge, so tell us. Evolution is mutation/selection. Mutation is random (accidental modification). So evolution is fully dependent upon accident."
    The knowledge I'm implying is evolution, naturally. And no natural selection is the opposite of random (accidental).

    "Why of course it does. And when there are thousands of defective mutations to every benign mutation, there is every expectation that the benign mutation will get nuked by natural selection. The collection of benign mutations for an ultimate release as a highly complex organ and its feedback regulations, metabolism, DNA information for its replication and support, is flat-out absurd as an expectation."
    Why would a benign mutation be destroyed? Lethal mutations will die out . The eye for for example is believed to have started out as just a patch that was capable of detecting light. See http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/
    "Researchers at Lund University wanted to find out how long it might take for a complex eye to evolve. Starting with a flat, light-sensitive patch, they gradually made over 1,800 tiny improvements—forming a cup, constricting the opening, adding a lens—until they had a complex, image-forming eye. It is important to note that every tiny change these researchers made measurably improved image quality. The researchers concluded that these steps could have taken place in about 360,000 generations, or just a few hundred thousand years. 550 million years have passed since the formation of the oldest fossil eyes, enough time for complex eyes to have evolved more than 1,500 times.”

    "How many dependent "impossible events" happen simultaneously "all the time", in a fashion which emulates design of complex, coherent, novel creations out of nothing, for no reason? For example, your comment above is totally expected and is not at all an impossibility, since it is the mantra of the casual evolutionist who is partial to the dogma of evolution. Furthermore it was created by a mind, for a specific purpose. So it seriously smacks of intelligent design, however flawed."

    It’s incredible – miraculously you could even say – improbable when you consider all the events and conditions involved. For example only one egg and one sperm – out of millions and Billions – of potential ones – came to be me. And this is just ONE FACTOR out of millions (that we know about) that is needed for this message to exist. So according to this persons absurd reasoning this message is an impossibility – despite the fact that I and this message exists.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "they are independent facts which are being inferentially extrapolated"
    And why because it is an inference does it mean it’s not science? Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent because it was an inference that he killed his wife – based on the physical evidence?


    "So you are left with "imaginary" evidence for a falsified concept."
    Explanations for them are valid and are not imaginary evidence.Like the explanation for why OJ’s blood was found at the crime scene is that he killed them. This is the only explanation that makes any sense and according to the blood evidence alone the chances of him being innocent are 1 in 57 billion. Just like the only explanation for why all life uses the same code is that they all share a common ancestor. Or why different species have the same retro virus’s is because they they share a common ancestor. And the chances that species have the same retro virus or that all species would use the same code – without a heritable mechanism- is ridiculously higher than 57 billion.

    "The idea that theory X is true because "there is no other theory" was falsified many centuries ago, when Ptolemaic theory was overthrown after being the "only theory" for many centuries."
    Forensic evidence in courts should be thrown out then according to your reasoning since it just “tells a better story”. Not buying it, your “evolution skepticism” doesn’t have a leg to stand so far as I am concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "they are independent facts which are being inferentially extrapolated"
    And why because it is an inference does it mean it’s not science? Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent because it was an inference that he killed his wife – based on the physical evidence?


    "So you are left with "imaginary" evidence for a falsified concept."
    Explanations for them are valid and are not imaginary evidence.Like the explanation for why OJ’s blood was found at the crime scene is that he killed them. This is the only explanation that makes any sense and according to the blood evidence alone the chances of him being innocent are 1 in 57 billion. Just like the only explanation for why all life uses the same code is that they all share a common ancestor. Or why different species have the same retro virus’s is because they they share a common ancestor. And the chances that species have the same retro virus or that all species would use the same code – without a heritable mechanism- is ridiculously higher than 57 billion.

    "The idea that theory X is true because "there is no other theory" was falsified many centuries ago, when Ptolemaic theory was overthrown after being the "only theory" for many centuries."
    Forensic evidence in courts should be thrown out then according to your reasoning since it just “tells a better story”. Not buying it, “evolution skepticism” doesn’t have a leg to stand so far as I am concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  92. ”The knowledge I'm implying is evolution, naturally. And no natural selection is the opposite of random (accidental).”

    Evolution is not knowledge. The designation of actual “Knowledge” has specific requirements. Those requirements place knowledge outside and apart from opinion, inference, non-falsifiable religious claims and other claims which have no demonstrable proof. And claims of knowledge in the physical realm require physical cause and effect demonstration.

    Evolution has exactly none of these. In fact, the claim that your knowledge consists of “evolution” is a nonsense statement, similar to a statement that “my proof of God is religion”. So the claim is absurd. Evolution is exactly what must be proved; it is not capable of being demonstrative knowledge.

    And evolution is not = natural selection. So you don’t even know the basics of the theory. Evolution as define since the 1940s has always been “mutation, followed by selection”. If you want to argue against that, then that is a different subject – which you will lose. Mutation is definitely and irrevocably random. And the time of its occurrence is also random, making the availability of an environment which favors the mutant also random. Even evolutionary scientists don’t argue against that, because the underlying axioms include non-teleology (randomness of nature).

    ”Why would a benign mutation be destroyed? Lethal mutations will die out .”

    You are not thinking this through. A benign mutation will with virtually certainty be followed by a dilatory mutation which will result in the culling of both of the mutations. The probability of a benign mutation surviving through subsequent lethal mutations is virtually zero.

    ”The eye for for example is believed to have started out as just a patch that was capable of detecting light. See http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/”

    That imaginary story is a perfect example of the nature of all evolutionary claims: story telling with absolutely no evidence to support the story. One clue is the ubiquitous use of terms such as “believed”. That term means that they have made up a story and they “believe” it… and of course, so should everyone else. But the deeper you look into the pile of stories, you ultimately find that there are numerous empirical findings for which they have no stories, because they cannot even imagine how many things could have happened under the well-known laws of physics.

    ReplyDelete
  93. ”"Researchers at Lund University wanted to find out how long it might take for a complex eye to evolve. Starting with a flat, light-sensitive patch, they gradually made over 1,800 tiny improvements—forming a cup, constricting the opening, adding a lens—until they had a complex, image-forming eye”

    Of course they did: they did it by teleological intelligent design, in the closed system of a jealously guarded and protected of a laboratory environment. What they unintentionally show in that process is that 1800 mutations, properly sequenced, fully protected, had to have happened in nature – and that disregards the neural processing and mental acuity required to comprehend the elements contained in the image. A fully functional vision system requires far, far more sequential mutations than the 1800. Further, each mutation would have to be a specific increase in the information content, with only the proper, completely correct information.

    Here’s the rest of the quote which you did not include:
    ”The researchers concluded that these steps could have taken place in about 360,000 generations, or just a few hundred thousand years. 550 million years have passed since the formation of the oldest fossil eyes, enough time for complex eyes to have evolved more than 1,500 times.”

    Their “conclusion” is simple, isn’t it? They allow 200 generations for each tiny but sequentially correct mutation to occur. How do they know that?? Obviously they don’t. They made it up. And they also don’t calculate any probability of loss due to dilatory mutations. But I can help out with that: the probability of that happening is zero.

    ”It’s incredible – miraculously you could even say – improbable when you consider all the events and conditions involved. For example only one egg and one sperm – out of millions and Billions – of potential ones – came to be me. And this is just ONE FACTOR out of millions (that we know about) that is needed for this message to exist. So according to this persons absurd reasoning this message is an impossibility – despite the fact that I and this message exists.”

    So according to that thinking, then everything that exists, everything that happens, everything is an “impossibility which happens all the time”. Therefore, nothing is actually impossible because the impossible does happen all the time. That leads to the obvious, necessary conclusion that everything must be completely probable, so therefore, cause and effect has no temporal restriction and thus everything can and does happen all the time. And of course, everyone wins the lottery every time.

    The immediately above is a Reductio Ad Absurdum. The logic fails this logic test. Further, if you choose to test it empirically, then produce a series of coin tosses in which the head/tails performance produces a Fibonacci series, to the 1800th place. Because it happens all the time, it should be easy to video and produce visual validation for your theory.

    And finally, I understand that you got this idea from a book that is making the rounds. I think that you and the author should notify all university mathematics departments that their statistics classes are no longer needed, because probability is always p=1.

    ReplyDelete
  94. ”Explanations for them are valid and are not imaginary evidence.Like the explanation for why OJ’s blood was found at the crime scene is that he killed them. This is the only explanation that makes any sense and according to the blood evidence alone the chances of him being innocent are 1 in 57 billion.”

    Given your previous position, that is not the case. Probability is always 1. That’s because impossible things always are happening. So the probability of his innocence is 1.0, and the probability of his guilt is also 1.0. Do you see a problem with your theory?

    On the other hand, if you should actually choose to accept classical mathematics, and the well-established probability laws as they apply to coin flips, then the probability of an eye actually evolving would (very generously) be P= 2^-1800, but ONLY if there never exist any dilatory mutations, and the proper mutations to produce sight are 0.5 for every mutation, with each mutation received in the exact proper order (again, very generous).

    So in real life, controlled by entropy and all, the actual probability is zero.

    ”Just like the only explanation for why all life uses the same code is that they all share a common ancestor.”

    Codes don’t exist ex nihilo in nature. A code presumes the existence “meaning” (there is no “meaning” in deterministic, entropic nature); the existence of meaning presumes that there is an intelligence capable of comprehension of the meaning; an agent is necessary which is capable of creating a representative symbolic code which can describe the meaning accurately; there is a separated assumption that there is a need to “codify” the meaning in a physical context; that there is a use for the meaning when it is decoded; that there is a receiving agent which will decode and operate according to the meaning of the code.

    Given the necessary and sufficient nature of an information-bearing code, as given above, there is no need to assume that the code was used just once, in one single primordial ancestor. In fact, given the continuing lack of branch connections in the permanently flawed “trees” of life, it is more parsimonious to assume that the actual existing evidence points to the introduction of the code into individual lines many times, not just once. This is far more explanatory than “common ancestor”.

    ReplyDelete
  95. ”Or why different species have the same retro virus’s is because they they share a common ancestor.”

    There is no reason to think that retroviruses infected only an ancestor, rather than infecting similar species at the same time frame (parallel infection). The retrovirus HIV infects simians and humans, for example. Retroviral infection is not proof of common ancestry.

    ”And the chances that species have the same retro virus or that all species would use the same code – without a heritable mechanism- is ridiculously higher than 57 billion.”

    This is just not the case. For one thing it goes counter to your original claim and is therefore non-coherent within your argument. For another, there are more parsimonious explanations for each of your points.

    ”Forensic evidence in courts should be thrown out then according to your reasoning since it just “tells a better story”. Not buying it, “evolution skepticism” doesn’t have a leg to stand so far as I am concerned.”

    Forensic evidence is a small part of the evidence presented in an objectively solid case. Motivation and opportunity, along with lack of alibi, witnesses, mental history, legal history, etc. weigh far more. Forensic evidence can be no more than “consistent with”… other evidence.

    However, despite the overwhelming lack of valid and true objective knowledge regarding “evolution”, your mind is made up. You are a True Believer, one who is not likely to apply skepticism to the source of your blind belief system. That is up to you. Believe whatever you want. But don’t call it true or Truth; logically you cannot do that.

    Uncritical belief in a dogma – especially surrounding a physical phenomenon which should be falsifiable but is NOT – is purely religious, in the form of a blind belief. It is needed in order to support another cherished blind belief: Atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Your maths continues to be nonsense, because it's based on the idea of just one "coin flipper". We're dealing with billions of mutating organisms. It's like the game sometimes played at conferences where the audience is asked to stand up and put their hand on their head or their arse, while the speaker flips a coin. If the coin comes up tails, all those with their hands on their heads sit down. The next round the survivors are asked to choose again, and again those who made the wrong choice are eliminated, and so on until the numbers are reduced to just one or two. Now, the chances of any individual making the right call time after time are tiny, but the chances of someone in the crowd doing so are pretty good, especially with a large crowd. That's how evolution works: most will indeed get the "wrong" mutation eventually, but given a large enough number of mutating organisms, some will inevitably get the "right" mutation every time, thrive and multiply.

    ReplyDelete
  97. You make no mathematical case for support of the necessity for 1800 exactly biologically correct sequential mutations, in exactly the correct segment of DNA, preserved against the necessary negative, fatal mutations that purge the system.

    Your argument is even worse. Your claim is that ALL of the gazillions of organisms receive the exactly biologically correct sequential mutations, in exactly the correct segment of DNA, and the volume of organisms is so large that the probability of 2^-1800 becomes, of your claimed necessity, 2^0 = 1. However, you seem not to consider that the probability requires numbers far far more than the number of atoms in the universe - much less the number of organisms of which you conceive.

    Your continued belief requires believing the following:
    1. That the mutations containing the proper incremental information could even occur, ever. Especially unlikely in terms of connective logical handshakes from one generation to the next. Far less likely than the binary example used, where the result is known in advance to be one of two states.
    2. That those mutations could be received in exactly the proper order, for 1800 receipts, due to pure randomness.
    3. That this happened for every organ, in every creature in every phylum created in the geologically rapid Cambrian Explosion.

    Because you speak only in analogies and not in terms of actual occurrences, it is obvious that you have no real, actual data to present. So your belief is in the caricatures which you use to convince yourself. But such caricatures are not even close to representing the full requirements that would be necessary under the random conditions of Mutation/Selection. You even tried to present evolution as non-random. But you have never admitted to a single error in your position, you merely move away and onto other caricatures.

    You are definitely a True Believer in the cult. You attempt to present your analogy caricatures as belief icons which prove the validity of evolution as a science. Real science does not accept belief icons, it requires falsifiable, replicable objective data.

    I repeat that: Real science requires falsifiable, replicable objective data. Evolution has zero to offer. Evolution demands that inference be considered Truth, because of the logic fallacy: Appeal to Authority.

    You have not addressed any of these objections. You merely present more belief statements in the form of false analogies.

    How about some actual data from you, on actual mutations which occurred in the Cambrian Explosion, forming all the phyla from a single ancestor? That would be actual science.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I need to add this. Claiming your existence is an extraordinary low probability is fallacious. You just won the lottery, and someone always wins the lottery (P=1). And the heart and soul belief in evolution is hardly a low probability, so your comments here are quite common and have a high probability of occurring. In fact there is P=1 probability that it would happen and that it will happen again. The only question is who and when.

    The idea that improbable events are "always" happening is quite deceptive. Events that do happen can be improbable. But there are an infinite number of improbable events that do NOT happen. The likelihood that your exact genetic DNA mix will occur again, or will occur daily, or will occur all around you, every day - these are so improbable that they should (must) be considered to be P=0.

    The claim that improbable events do exist doesn't take into account the non-probability of a sequence of information-bearing novelties on the order of 1800 times in a row. Multiplying improbable events increases the improbability exponentially.

    Let's say you are given the task of finding the one individually but invisibly tagged atom which might be anywhere in the universe but not on Earth. There are 10^84 atoms in the universe. Your chance of a correct pick the first time is 10^-84. That is a metric by which to judge the likelihood of other very large numbers, as we'll do now.

    Now then, converting the binary to base ten: 2^-1800 = 10^-563, roughly. The number of atoms in the universe is 10^84 (taking the high estimate to be conservative). So it would be the same as finding one specific atom in 479 extra universes for the chance of picking the correct atom out of ALL atoms to equal the chances AGAINST the development of the eye (by NOT using intelligent design in a carefully controlled lab with carefully controlled modifications inserted at just the right place and just the right time).

    Further, the size of introns and exons in the newly created, information bearing DNA alone is greater than the 10^84 number:

    "In human transcripts, the exons are usually short (typically 100–200 bases) and the introns are much longer, averaging about 3 kb (2)."
    http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11193.full

    For new introns, then just creating introns and exons for the new, novel organ are >10^3,000. This is so much greater than the number of atoms in our universe (baseline comparison), that it would require 2916 extra universes for the numbers to be comparable. The actual data would require much, much more of the information bits, as well. This is just for one set of introns; it does not account for the rest of the information which is necessary.

    The odds of successfully completing a full chain of 1800 steps in perfect sequential, meaningful DNA modification is too absurdly, negligibly small to have any reason to think that it occurred, especially not just once, or twice, but many, many times (for the creation of complex organs and their neural/chemical communication systems) in the formation of complex creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Martyn Cornell:

    "Now, the chances of any individual making the right call time after time are tiny, but the chances of someone in the crowd doing so are pretty good, especially with a large crowd."

    Prove it experimentally: find a crowd, as large as possible, and do this 30 times without having everyone drop out. (So at least one person has to replicate your sequence of 30 coin tosses.) Film it and link it here; you can also find someone who already did this and link it. After all, 30 isn't such a huge number, right?

    Then, you can keep trying again to replicate a sequence of coin tosses that's as large as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  100. After a 1 month break, it's hard to ignore this thread as I still get the email notifications ;)

    Anyway, just a quick comment... both Martyn and Xellos are wrong regarding the coin toss analogy.

    Martyn gets the big picture but was a bit sloppy with his example of predicting 30 coin tosses in a row. Even with a large group of people, it would be really hard to ever have that right. Because you actually need slighlty more than 1 billion people to succeed every time.

    But the fact that we can know how many people proves Xellos to be completely wrong. He clearly doesn't get neither the big picture nor the details of the thought experiment. Nobody needs to reproduce the coin toss to know exactly how likely it is that someone will be able to predict 30 coin tosses in a row. With 2^30 people, you will always, 100% of the time, get someone who correctly predicted all 30 coin tosses, given that the predictions are split half-half at every coin toss.

    But what does this have to do with evilution anyway? Well, Martyn explained that very clearly already; but misunderstanding of biology prevents some of the folks involved here from getting it. So I wont add more, just passing by... good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Not even with 2^30 people. Only with 2^30 different predictions, as in all possible combinations, will you get P=1. But with people you will get redundancies, which precludes P=1, but could come close... or not. For one redundancy, the probability would drop to 0.5; for two redundancies P=0.25; for three P=0.125; for four P=0.0625 etc., following the standard progression toward virtual zero.

    So what is the probability of getting all possible combinations with 2^30 people who are choosing randomly? I don't believe that you can ever guarantee that all possible combinations are chosen, using people. And if that is the case, then P is never, ever 1.

    And if your arrogant snark means that you claim special knowledge that biology has some mechanism which defeats probability even in a known and accepted random situation - and that you know what it is but no one else does, then what is it? Tell us. Surely you would want everyone to know what that is - it would be teleological, for one thing. But you have never come across with anything other than loosey-goosey accusations so far; never immutable facts for proof of your personal concept of "biology". And one more thing: evolution is not biology. Evolution is without predictive capability; biology has predictive capability. So evolution is definitely NOT biology, it is a pretender.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Sorry I thought my explanation was clear. The idea is this:
    1) Take 1 billion people.
    2) Ask them to predict whether the next coin toss will be head or tail.*
    3) Half will be winners; half will be losers.
    4) Keep only the winners, repeat step 2.

    After 30 coin tosses, we end up with 2 people who have successfully predicted 29 tosses in a row. There are now only 2 people left.

    One of them will be right and will have predicted 30 tosses in a row.

    *But, they must agree on not picking the same answer in order to make sure there's always a winner and a loser. When we have groups, they need to be split in 2 equal halves.

    Regarding your general comment on evolution at the end, Stan, your opinion doesn't matter. The Theory of Evolution is a major part of Biology, just like any other theories such as The Big Bang Theory, General Relativity, Germ, ... You're the one who argues Biology is different, but cannot justify why; because you're simply wrong. I have nothing to prove to you; I am just pointing out specific things that you get wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  103. There is no reason to think that retroviruses infected only an ancestor, rather than infecting similar species at the same time frame (parallel infection). The retrovirus HIV infects simians and humans, for example. Retroviral infection is not proof of common ancestry.

    You claim to be good at working out odds. What are the odds of simians and humans catching the same retroviruses and those retroviruses being preserved in exactly the same places in the simian genome and the human genome? Vastly, vastly greater than the probability that the retroviruses are evidence of common ancestry.


    "You make no mathematical case for support of the necessity for 1800 exactly biologically correct sequential mutations, in exactly the correct segment of DNA, preserved against the necessary negative, fatal mutations that purge the system.

    You make no case at all for the necessity of the various mutations to be in the right order, or for each one to have to be biologically perfect. It will be fuzzy and, in the beginning, imperfect. Evolution will sort it out, however. And you keep going on as if this was only happening to one organism. It's happening to billions of organisms across millions of years.

    Your claim is that ALL of the gazillions of organisms receive the exactly biologically correct sequential mutations

    That's a lie, Stan, I claim nothing of the sort. You're distorting what I'm saying because you can't argue against my actual message.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hugo,
    You have biased the selection by not allowing random choice by the people involved. It is now group choice and they are forced into rules for selection. You have engineered a biased selection process to try to ensure that all possible combinations are chosen. That applies in NO manner to the issue at hand.

    And you make no case in defense of evolution except for Appeal to Authority, as always. You did not argue against the statement made, you merely devalued me. But you have consistently supported devaluation of certain humans. You would have devalued Gallileo with your Appeal to Authority weapon polished and ready. Geocentrism, epicycles and phlogiston rule, in your preferred system. Actual material evidence vs stories? Why stories win, hands down.

    So it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  105. You claim to be good at working out odds. What are the odds of simians and humans catching the same retroviruses and those retroviruses being preserved in exactly the same places in the simian genome and the human genome? Vastly, vastly greater than the probability that the retroviruses are evidence of common ancestry.

    I made no such claim, so that is an untruth. You make a truth claim here: let's see your calculations, then. Evidence required: the physical implications of locating a retrovirus in a genome. Show your work.

    "You make no case at all for the necessity of the various mutations to be in the right order, or for each one to have to be biologically perfect"

    Are you serious? If you build a house and install the foundation after the roof is on, how well is that going to work? How about plumbing after dry wall?

    The intelligent design which required 1800 mutations was explicit: each step produced an incremental benefit. It was precisely designed to do that. Each addition was in precise order to enhance the previous stage.

    And if mutations are not perfect, they are dilatory: defects are not selected for survival, they die and do not reproduce: that's a fundamental premise of standard evolution.

    " It will be fuzzy and, in the beginning, imperfect."

    Now your are talking about the sensory ability, not the mutation itself. You have changed subjects amidst stream. Every mutation must be both correct and complex (with proper information for that specific step), or the sequence of 1800 beneficial mutations producing an eye will fail. Any non-correct mutation will stop the sequence at that point.

    "Evolution will sort it out, however."

    This is the ultimate Belief Premise upon which evolution is based. There needs be no mechanism involved to invoke this blind belief. It is a statement of faith, blind faith, a secular religion being invoked.

    "And you keep going on as if this was only happening to one organism. It's happening to billions of organisms across millions of years."

    Yes, the billions of monkeys pounding randomly on typewriters argument. But the numbers still fail, remember? There are 10^82 atoms in the universe but there are 10^563:1 odds against the sequence, even without considering the odds against perfect mutations which are necessarily >3000 bits each, with perfect information for each next stage installed inside the 3000 bits of intron/exon in each mutation.

    So assertion of the monkey/typewriter fallacy just doesn't work

    By ignoring the fundamental issues, which you do not address, and asserting the "large number" fallacy, and the blind faith fallacy, you have not produced any real evidence in the favor of evolution. Perhaps you do have some empirical evidence which you have not shared, regarding, for example, the mechanism of retroviral attack on genomes for the specific virus being invoked. You should share that with us. Otherwise, the case for evolution remains unsupported except by stories and blind belief.

    "Your claim is that ALL of the gazillions of organisms receive the exactly biologically correct sequential mutations

    That's a lie, Stan, I claim nothing of the sort. You're distorting what I'm saying because you can't argue against my actual message."


    Your right, you didn't claim that specifically because it was a necessary but unstated (hidden) premise. If only one organism received that series of mutations, then it was a VERY fortunate organism, especially since they live for so few hours. But that's not what happened in the lab, is it? All of the organisms received the same mutations, which were preserved and carried to the next generation(s). So your charge of lying is a specifically provable FALSE charge, and is so noted.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Stan,

    1) One of the main points regarding biological evolution is that it is not completely random; hence the analogy serves as a good representation of how something which appears to be really hard to get, from the start, actually ends up happening all the time, with a combination of simple rules. The equivalent of putting people in 2 groups at each stage of the coin toss is the equivalent of natural selection, which picks "winners" who reproduced more successfully than "losers" whose species die off.

    2) An argument from authority would be to state that 'Expert X says A, hence A is true'. What I have been trying to point out to you is that 'Experts X-Y-Z all say A, but Stan says B' and both sides have reasons for saying A or B, but the experts have better arguments that fit with the rest of the knowledge base we have on Biology. When you say something that goes against the scientific community's findings, which have been refined over decades/centuries, then it'snot an argument from authority to point out how different your views are, compared to the views of experts in the field.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I have a post available which looks at the claim of eye evolution which is made above.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Hugo,
    "When you say something that goes against the scientific community's findings, which have been refined over decades/centuries, then it'snot an argument from authority to point out how different your views are, compared to the views of experts in the field."

    Har! Good'n Hugs. Here's the thing. You have just that one tune to sing. You have nothing else, because there is no ... NO ... evidence which satisfies empirical standards for evolution. NONE. You have given us none; how many times have I requested some actual DATA? We've been through all this... how many dozens of times now? All you have is the blatant Appeal to Authority, just like the Catholics pulled, what, 10 to 15 centuries ago? Over and over and over and over. Because that's all ya got.

    It's actually kinda sad, seeing a science turn into catholicism of centuries ago, using lawyers and judges to keep the saints and the children clean from any objections.

    The experts have nothing. You should know that and accept that, but you don't. Analogies don't work for empiricism. Inferences and opinions (same thing) don't work for empiricism. Story telling doesn't work for empiricism. Fantasies declared "plausible" don't work for empiricism. So why don't you saddle up and get some real data instead of beating the fallacy drum as your only case.

    Here's why: there is none.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Hugo again:
    "1) One of the main points regarding biological evolution is that it is not completely random; hence the analogy serves as a good representation of how something which appears to be really hard to get, from the start, actually ends up happening all the time, with a combination of simple rules."

    This is familiar territory, you've made claims like this before. But they are empty. When asked, "what are the simple rules", they never seem to be actual rules, they turn out to be just more speculation, inference and opinion (all the same thing). And here you did not even attempt to provide any actual rules. You just tell us that "rules exist". Presumably only the insiders know the rules and how immutable the rules are.

    The ability to get around the actual probabilities is essential to evolutionistas, because they cannot produce legitimate data that proves otherwise. Rather than concede to the obvious, they always, ALWAYS double down and try to engineer fantasy solutions to counter the facts. It's the product of an ideology which has infected an entire culture:

    It's also sad to see presumably intelligent people refuse to question their premises, even in the face of physics, mathematics and molecular science which stand in opposition. Even modern biology doesn't care how evolution is "responsible" for the eye (for no apparent reason and no apparent data and no apparent affect on modern biology).

    Evolution is an intellectual washout.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Stan, what's sad is to see someone who is otherwise smart completely reject valid science backed by data, evidence and logical reasoning. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  111. And again, you have no valid science, data, or evidence and the logical reasoning is purely Appeal to Authority. I can't reject what doesn't exist. You believe that it exists (so you say) but you never produce it. If you can't back up your belief system, then what good is it?

    ReplyDelete
  112. I repeat this comment I made at the beginning. It has not been refuted. It is denied, of course, but not refuted because it is true.

    [...]

    Objective knowledge requires that a principles be either completely self-evident to all rational persons, or that the principle be objectively provable by rational persons who care enough about it to prove it themselves.

    Evolution is neither of the above. Evolution is not self-evident, since it contains many irrational components as necessary elements. Evolution is not objectively provable by any one, not even in the best financed and equipped laboratory.

    Evolution cannot be considered to be valid objective knowledge.

    For that reason, the plethora of evolution stories cannot be considered to be an empirical science, despite the claims of its practitioners. Evolutionary hypotheses are not amenable to experimental validation; they are merely stories which certain experts of the day claim to be "plausible", and for that reason they are called "Just So Stories" (in the same category as Kipling's book of that name).

    Evolutionists claim that "mountains of evidence" exist. All of that evidence is extrapolated opinion - all of it. When challenged to provide actual objective evidence in the form of hypothetico-deductive experimental data which is replicable and replicated, falisifaible and non-falsified, open data, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, none is ever provided. This is because by their very nature, evolution stories cannot be tested, empirically. So Evolution is not an empirical science, and cannot be. It is an historical guessing game dominated by extrapolated opinion, and that opinion is falsely called evidence; it is not evidence, it is merely opinion.

    [...]

    Denial of this position is fruitless unless actual valid empirical data is replicated, non-falsified, at which time it becomes merely contingent knowledge. Evolutionists make the claim that their unfalsifiable opinion-stories must be considered both "science", and "Truth" - and that any dissent is to be considered anti-science and demented, thus deserving being banished or even prosecuted. These are the tactics of totalitarian ideologists, not of objective science.

    ReplyDelete
  113. You know the data exists; universities, labs, museums, etc, are filled with evidence, research papers and explanations. You look at all of that and conclude: nope, that's total BS, the concensus is wrong!

    And then you ask for valid science, data, or evidence and the logical reasoning...

    Well, that's what you reject Stan. So, there's nothing else to show. What else can be said besides pointing out what you get wrong, when you attempt to write on the topic and inevitably expose your misunderstanding?

    ReplyDelete
  114. And finally, all you have is a cheap pissing contest. Where is the objective data? Let me repeat: Where is the objective data? One more time, because you never ever produce it: Where is the objective data?

    There is none. Your claims and your ideology are false.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Here's an even clearer picture of what's happening:
    . You ask for data, evidence, logical reasoning regarding evolution.
    . Information is given to you.
    . You reject the information because it never answers what you think should be shown, and add red herring by pointing out howhow logic works and how dogmatic evolutionists are.
    . You go back to the first step, and even claim that nothing was shown.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "Well, that's what you reject Stan. "

    You make glib statements as if they are truth. Yet you do not produce any actual, valid, objective data.

    Because no matter to what Authorities you constantly Appeal, they have only extrapolated, inferred opinion, and nothing else.

    So your final Appeal to Authority is just another weak-kneed, empty-bucket of opinion without a shred of actual deductive-hypothetical, objectively repeatably testable, falsifiable, empirical data (required for knowledge claims), and you know it or you would actually have produced it long, long, long ago.

    You do not, and you don't care that you cannot. Truth is what you say it is, not what can be objectively proven using empirical standards for the minimum designation of contingent knowledge. You don't care that evolution doesn't rise to a level of provability required by real sciences. Evolution is a sacred cow, unassailable despite its purely religious nature.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Stan, we have literally spent days discussing this. It's dishonest of you to say nothing was presented. You rejected it; it's not the same.

    OTH, you stated very clearly that you have no alternative to present. You simply reject the Theory of Evolution and keep using the same negative labels again and again to refer to it. But these labels are nothing but your opinion, and an expression of your ignorance.

    I can appreciate your concern for making sure that what we believe is true. But regardless of how many times you repeat this mantra, it does not make the Theory of Evolution false. You're the one at odd with the scientific community and, every single time you try to explain why, you fail. Because you cannot prove evolution wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Last thought for today.

    How can you, or anyone, expect to hold a rational discussion regarding a non-falsifiable claim? The fact that there is no possible way to disprove (falsify) the claim means that the claim is purely a faith claim which is to be understood as true by virtue of faith alone, faith which you demand as necessary due to Authority. Stacking up numerous faith claims for a claim of a plausible overall combo claim is the job of religion. Not science. Faith claims cannot be disputed since they cannot be disproven. Hence, they are dictated by an accumulated priesthood which gains value from the belief. As the religion gains power it proceeds to punish and banish heretics, and that is exactly what has happened in evolution. Heretics cannot get published as the fracas at the Smithsonian and other priesthoods proved. Without publication, no science career can survive. Heretics are thus culled.

    I irritate you because you cannot bully me. I am not subject to the pressures you think you can bring to bear with your constant references to authority. I am a free heretic who cherishes science of the objective sort, and I have come to abjure the sort of non-falsifiable, non-objective, opinion-only basis for pursuits which you think are fine. The priesthood cannot force me into a pre-molded, non-falsifiable religion.

    I am free to actually search for deductive-logic-based truth, without having to bow to ANY authority priesthoods producing non-falsifiable, non-probable non-sense. You are a tiny part of the priesthood. Go, don your vestments, and preach to your true believers.

    Or come back with falsifiable, replicable open and objective data.

    ReplyDelete
  119. You don't irritate me, at all. You're just wrong.

    And no, I will not come back with anything for you. I have done enough of that already. If you present something that's interesting to discuss, I might bite and explain why it's wrong. Because it will be. Until then, all you are doing is preventing yourself from being correct. Too bad for you! Seriously, that's the only consequence...

    ReplyDelete
  120. "there is no possible way to disprove (falsify) the claim" - of course there is. All you have to do is point to one development that could not have come about through evolution. Which, despite your attempts at fiddling the maths, you have failed to do.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Hugo,
    Again, just words, no actual objective facts. The evidence you believe is not actual objective falsifiable evidence; your belief is religious.

    Martyn,
    That which cannot be objectively proven true also cannot be objectively proven false. That which cannot be independently verified also cannot be falsified. Until the actual molecular mechanisms are provided, they cannot be analyzed for either verification or rejection. All that evolutionists provide are mythical forces, such as "evolution will sort it out". Evolution is not one of the four physical forces of nature.

    The two of you have this in common: you accept the Official Authority of non-falsifiable, non-verifiable, non-material evidence, and you reject deductive Aristotelian logic, fundamental mathematics, molecular physics and the need for actual, physical, material evidence.

    The common Atheist mythology and anti-logic goes thus:
    (1) We need not disprove the existence of the non-material or of God (for which there is no material evidence which we accept); you, on the other hand must disprove the existence of the mystical force of evolution (for which there is no extrapolated, inferential, fantasy story which we don't accept because there is NO material evidence even possible regarding the actual mechanism or force itself).

    ReplyDelete
  122. I almost forgot. You both provide stories like the creation of the eye in a lab - which was not actually created in a lab, was it? Just self-refuted story telling, couched in scientese. And you believe them. Complete uncritical belief in an unprovable, non-falsifiable, non-material-evidence, mythos is irrational.

    What do you even have to say when everything you present is refuted as irrational under the deductive principles of Aristotelian logic? You merely ignore it, or claim that Authority Figures believe it, and therefore, so should everyone else.

    Beyond that, you actually have nothing to present of an objective scientific nature. Hugo even denies that to be a necessary condition for belief. Martyn denies that probabilities have any meaning and are just math manipulations. Denialism is not a valid argument; it is merely obstructionism in the protection of an unproven and unprovable ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Evolution is pure myth. It is a continuum of fantasy stories.

    Real science could prove otherwise, with actual, physical, falsifiable evidence.

    Evolution has no such evidence. It never will have such evidence. It is purely myth.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I just realized:

    Evolution is Reality Denialism.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Hugo:

    "After a 1 month break, it's hard to ignore this thread as I still get the email notifications ;)"
    Click here.

    "Sorry I thought my explanation was clear. The idea is this:
    1) Take 1 billion people.
    2) Ask them to predict whether the next coin toss will be head or tail.*
    3) Half will be winners; half will be losers.
    4) Keep only the winners, repeat step 2.

    After 30 coin tosses, we end up with 2 people who have successfully predicted 29 tosses in a row. There are now only 2 people left.

    One of them will be right and will have predicted 30 tosses in a row."

    So you're saying that the possibility of both choosing wrong is not P=1/4 (assuming they choose randomly and independently), but P=0.
    What's more, you're saying that with the initial 2^30 people, the probability of any number of people choosing wrong is not determined by the binomial distribution, but P=0.

    The error, of course, arises in step 3), where you deny the people (and yes the argument is about real people) their free will to choose.

    Truly, your math skills have never been matched. Outmatched, yes - but not matched.

    "Stan, what's sad is to see someone who is otherwise smart completely reject valid science backed by data, evidence and logical reasoning. It's that simple."

    On the other hand, seeing who only pretends to be smart (you) do it is quite funny.

    "You don't irritate me, at all. You're just wrong."

    In this moment, you are euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, you are enlightened by your intelligence.

    Martyn Cornell:

    "All you have to do is point to one development that could not have come about through evolution."

    Which actually means: a development such that nobody will be able to make up a story about it.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Xellos says,
    "Which actually means: a development such that nobody will be able to make up a story about it."

    Excellent point. They should start with the platypus. There are others that also require strained explanations which require True Faith to believe. Perhaps some examples from the morphological vs. genetic debates, where parallel evolution is invented and invoked (same morphology evolved using a different genetic path: adjust the tree o' life to fit).

    Evolution, being non-falsifiable, covers everything and nothing at the same time: a truly miraculous theory of a force with no constraints whatsoever: the secular god.

    Still, there's the platypus. And the bombardier beetle. Very likely lots of examples.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Stan said:

    "Again, just words, no actual objective facts. The evidence you believe is not actual objective falsifiable evidence; your belief is religious."

    Correct. I specifically told you I have nothing more to offer to you in terms of independent explanations of what evolution is; you can always refer to all the links I posted before. I am replying to your words on evolution, which show that you reject the knowledge available to all of us.

    What I choose to do is point out the false arguments you put forward when they contradict that knowledge. But, you are not even trying to explain anything either; you are mostly lying to be frank:

    "You both provide stories like the creation of the eye in a lab - which was not actually created in a lab, was it?"

    Nobody said that eyes were involved in a lab. That's not even possible.

    " Complete uncritical belief in an unprovable, non-falsifiable, non-material-evidence, mythos is irrational."

    We should always be critical of information we receive. All of us; regarding everything.

    "...everything you present is refuted as irrational under the deductive principles of Aristotelian logic? You merely ignore it, or claim that Authority Figures believe it, and therefore, so should everyone else."

    I repeat: I had discussions with you, a lot, only 1 month ago the last time. Just this thread is mostly you and I talking, including links to/from other threads. So I did not ignore your points, and I did provide lots and lots of explanations and deductions. We disagree Stan, nothing more.

    "you actually have nothing to present of an objective scientific nature. Hugo even denies that to be a necessary condition for belief. "

    I would never say something like that; exact same thing as being uncritical about beliefs.

    "Denialism is not a valid argument; it is merely obstructionism in the protection of an unproven and unprovable ideology."

    Correct, but this does not apply to me here; it applies to you Stan.

    You deny the Theory of Evolution and explicitly state that there is nothing else to be discussed. You have no alternative to present. Biologists are just wrong, in your opinion, because the Theory of Evolution is not what you think it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Xellos said:
    "you're saying that the possibility of both choosing wrong is not P=1/4 (assuming they choose randomly and independently)"

    As you stated correctly below, I was assuming they do not choose 'completely' randomly and independently. The 'completely' is very important btw.

    "What's more, you're saying that with the initial 2^30 people, the probability of any number of people choosing wrong is not determined by the binomial distribution, but P=0."

    At the first coin toss, each person has 1 chance out of 2 of being right. With 2^30 people, approximately 2^29 would get it right, even if we let them decide randomly. So, we could actually have the beginning of the process be complexly random and it would still work. That's another reason why it's such a great analogy for evolution, since randomness is only part of the process.

    " The error, of course, arises in step 3), where you deny the people (and yes the argument is about real people) their free will to choose. "

    To get a winner every time after exactly 30 coin tosses, yes, you have to have some simple rules such as splitting participants in 2 equal groups every time, if you started with 2^30 people. But, even if you let people decide randomly, you will get a lot of people with the right answers up until the very last few coin tosses, which already supports the idea that something which seem super unlikely on its own, say getting 25 correct coin tosses in a row instead of 30, is very likely when you have lots of tries. Actually, out of 1 billion people, you would get 32 people (2^5) who can predict 25 coin tosses in a row on average. Not bad for something that looks almost impossible to do!

    And that was Martyn's point; let me quote some of the relevant bits:
    We're dealing with billions of mutating organisms. It's like the game sometimes played at conferences where the audience is asked to stand up and put their hand on their head or their arse, while the speaker flips a coin. [...] That's how evolution works: most will indeed get the "wrong" mutation eventually, but given a large enough number of mutating organisms, some will inevitably get the "right" mutation every time, thrive and multiply.

    So even if it seems unlikely to have a very specific series of mutations in a very specific order, when we look at it after the fact, it's actually pointless to mention that this specific series of mutations was unlikely since billions of mutations happened with billions of organisms over billions of years.

    "Click here [...]
    Truly, your math skills have never been matched. Outmatched, yes - but not matched. [...]
    On the other hand, seeing who only pretends to be smart (you) do it is quite funny. [...]
    In this moment, you are euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, you are enlightened by your intelligence.
    "
    Oh no, I am being mocked on the Internet... Seriously Xellos, FOUR times in the same comment... Is that really necessary? I mean, I don't really care, I just think it reflects badly on you more than me. And the math we are discussing here is so simple that I think anyone can understand it but anyone could also make some mistake because they are going too quickly. I love it if I get corrected, but mocking is just useless...

    ReplyDelete
  129. As always Hugo, you claim evidence and knowledge has been presented. But your apparent definition of evidence and knowledge, based on what you presented, is limited to opinion. That's all that is available, so it has been redefined to be "evidence and knowledge" when it is actually merely opinion. That is what you believe in, and you deny de facto that any stricter definitions (actual requirements in other real sciences including modern biology) should ever apply. Special Pleading.

    You have been asked for falsifiable (empirical) data; you come back with opinion. So yes, that is rejected as being knowledge. So you pull out your standard Appeal to Authority. Predictable you are.

    Your newest twist, though, is Equivocation: you argue that your Appeal to Authority is actually not an Appeal to Authority, because you need to Appeal to Authority, so in your case it's not an Appeal to Authority. OK, it's also Special Pleading. A Twofer.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I think I failed to mention that the creation of eyes in 1800 steps in a lab has been refuted in this post, HERE.

    Even the authors of the paper admit that it is a bogus series of assumptions, and mock it right there in the paper. See the post for more info.

    ReplyDelete
  131. The paper considering the creation of the eye in 1800 steps is a perfect example of all - ALL - evolutionary papers, books, claims and apologetics. The elements are these: fantasy assumptions; calculations; conclusions. Because the basis is fantasy, imaginary steps, sequences, and/or causation, then the entire enterprise is fantasy.

    Making calculations based on fantastic, imaginary assumptions leads to more fantastic, imaginary conclusions.

    That's all that exists.

    This applies to extrapolation from existing fixed data points, such as modern DNA extrapolated to historical events, and one fossil find extrapolated to another fossil find. Extrapolation is always imaginary. Evidence of actuality does not exist. So the assumptions are fantasy, and are not knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Stan said:
    "As always Hugo, you claim evidence and knowledge has been presented. "

    Yes, I stand by that claim: You know the data exists; universities, labs, museums, etc, are filled with evidence, research papers and explanations. You look at all of that and conclude: nope, that's total BS, the consensus is wrong!

    "But your apparent definition of evidence and knowledge, based on what you presented, is limited to opinion. That's all that is available, so it has been redefined to be "evidence and knowledge" when it is actually merely opinion. That is what you believe in, and you deny de facto that any stricter definitions (actual requirements in other real sciences including modern biology) should ever apply. Special Pleading."

    And that is what you claim: everything presented is merely opinion because... it goes against your opinion. You are the one making special pleading arguments against Biology because you don't agree with its conclusion. The same processes are in place; you are simply in disagreement with the conclusions that everybody else reaches when looking at the same empirical data, evidence, deductions, facts, etc...

    "You have been asked for falsifiable (empirical) data; you come back with opinion. So yes, that is rejected as being knowledge. So you pull out your standard Appeal to Authority. Predictable you are."

    Again, and again, the falsifiable (empirical) data is available. You looked at it; you know it exists. But you conclude: nope, that's total BS, the consensus is wrong! It's not an appeal to authority. You use that as a cope out for you lack of support for your position. You simply dismiss the evidence presented, for no good reason, because you disagree with the conclusions.

    "Your newest twist, though, is Equivocation: you argue that your Appeal to Authority is actually not an Appeal to Authority, because you need to Appeal to Authority, so in your case it's not an Appeal to Authority. OK, it's also Special Pleading. A Twofer."

    No, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy. I am stating what experts say, yes, but it's not necessarily a fallacy to do so! Again, I need to repeat: An argument from authority would be to state that 'Expert X says A, hence A is true'. What I have been trying to point out to you is that 'Experts X-Y-Z all say A, but Stan says B' and both sides have reasons for saying A or B, but the experts have better arguments that fit with the rest of the knowledge base we have on Biology. When you say something that goes against the scientific community's findings, which have been refined over decades/centuries, then it's not an argument from authority to point out how different your views are, compared to the views of experts in the field.

    The part in bold is really the crux of the issue here. You, Stan, conclude something different after looking at the same pieces of evidence as everybody else. You are at odds with the scientific community and the vast majority of educated people who actually care about the topic. You are demonstrably wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Stan, you are the one who repeats the same thing over and over again. You keep making the same reasoning errors about that 1 topic. Unlike you, I am not making any kind of generalizations based on that, and I can thus be very confident here in saying that you are completely wrong when it comes to the Theory of Evolution. You are not incapable of loigical reasoning, but you seem incapable of fixing that 1 mistake for some reason.

    You keep repeating these same errors:
    - You looked at the data and concluded that this is not evidence for evolution.
    - You asked for data that would actually prove evolution, which you re-defined.
    - Nothing can be shown, using your personal definition of what evidence for evolution would be.
    - You conclude that no data was shown, and go back to asking for more.

    Basically, yes, we have been through this many many times. I will never change my mind on this because, whether you like it or not, it is objective knowledge available to all. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, it doesn't matter that you think it's just your opinion versus the opinion of others. It doesn't matter that you claim that objective truth is on your side. There is such a thing as objective reality and, in this specific case, you are rejecting that objective reality.

    The analogies server as explanation to try to explain how things work. They are not the research itself; they are not the data, nor the evidence, nor the facts... But all of that is available and you know it is. You also know that every single university, natural history museum, scientific magazine, research organization, everyone in the field, disagrees with you. IT's not an argument from authority; I am not saying they are right because they the authority. I am just pointing out the obvious here: you, Stan, some insignificant person on the Internet (just like me and anyone else commenting here, I am not special...) disagrees with the experts in the field. Again, I am not saying they are right just because they are the experts; the experts are right because they have data, evidence and reasoning to back up their claims. So why on Earth would anyone believe you instead of them? Your explanations fall flat, empty, every single time, because you cannot disprove evolution by sharing your opinion and faulty reasoning. You just cannot. All you do is show what you misunderstand or misrepresent or both.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Finally, let me try this, something slightly different...

    You know how I told you that I did change my mind on a few things because of you, right? And I think we already established that neither of us are stupid people. We disagree strongly on certain things and I would never expect you to change your mind, and that's perfectly fine.

    But, regarding evolution, I have to insist: I know you are wrong and you will always be wrong until you change your mind. I understand that you want to retain your intellectual integrity and I am telling you that the only way to do so is by looking into the evidence, data and logical reasoning behind the Theory in order to understand it better. This is not an opinion; this is factual.

    To be clear, this is not an attempt to force anything on you; it's actually more of a "gift" as I appreciate what I learned from you over the years, and wish I could at least correct 1 of your views. We all make mistakes sometimes; can't you see that this is 1 which you have an opportunity to fix? It's the only 1, I think, which I am 100% sure about. There is really nothing else I can think of which you are so wrong about that I would make such claim. This is not arrogance, this is not schooling, this is not bullying; this is really just what I know to be true. And I don't say that lightly.

    Unfortunately, I suspect that nothing will change, but I had to try at least once. And I would love to be proven wrong. So you can prove me wrong Stan! Show that you are open to new knowledge and that your opinions are not set in stone. You have the ability to do some sort of 'reset' here and try to ignore your bias against the Theory of Evolution and attempt to understand how the conclusions are reached, instead of starting with the conclusions and rejecting them. But I am almost certain you will never change your mind, but there is a small chance that I am wrong. Why don't you prove me wrong? You cannot prove me wrong about evolution, but you can prove me wrong about you being blind regarding that 1 topic, just 1. Which will it be?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Hugo takes off again:

    And that is what you claim: everything presented is merely opinion because... it goes against your opinion. You are the one making special pleading arguments against Biology because you don't agree with its conclusion. The same processes are in place; you are simply in disagreement with the conclusions that everybody else reaches when looking at the same empirical data, evidence, deductions, facts, etc...”


    This is totally false; it has been shown to be false; Hugo never provides proofs for his claims like this one, because claims like this one are not true. Let’s take this apart, one sentence at a time:

    ” And that is what you claim: everything presented is merely opinion because... it goes against your opinion.”

    Opinion is a concept which cannot be proven, yet is held to be valid and true by the person(s) promoting the concept. Official definition:
    o•pin•ion [əˈpinyən]
    NOUN
    a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”

    em•pir•i•cal [əmˈpirik(ə)l]
    ADJECTIVE
    based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic


    What I continuously ask for is empirical, falsifiable evidence which can be designated as contingent knowledge which support statements-of-truth made by evolution enthusiasts. None is ever produced. None. This is an objective fact, not an opinion. Hugo has been told this over and over; yet he persists in publishing false claims about me and my positions. This amounts to conscious lying.

    Next:
    ” You are the one making special pleading arguments against Biology because you don't agree with its conclusion.”

    Again: maximally false, and egregiously so. Special Pleading is asking to be relieved of the requirements demanded of others, so that benefits may be received to which the pleader is not entitled. It is a form of theft, in this case it is theft of legitimacy, by an illegitimate contender: evolution. The details of this “relief of requirements” include the relief from intellectual rigor in the form of falsifiable demonstrative proof, which is required of real sciences. Instead of providing falsifiable demonstrative proof, evolution demands equal value to non-falsifiable, non-demonstrative non-proofs which are based purely and solely on the personal opinion of the evolutionist who is invested in the ”truth” of his posit. Once again Hugo is lying about my position, which has been consistent for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Next:
    ”The same processes are in place; you are simply in disagreement with the conclusions that everybody else reaches when looking at the same empirical data, evidence, deductions, facts, etc...”

    This claim is also false. The processes of cause/effect, hypothesis/deduction/replication-falsification/verification—experimentation are not – NOT – in place (Or Hugo would have produced at least one for us to examine, wouldn’t he?). There is zero similarity between claims made for evolution and claims made for physics/chemistry/modern biology. ZERO.

    ”Again, and again, the falsifiable (empirical) data is available. You looked at it; you know it exists.”

    I don’t remember exactly what you provided. But if the analysis done then on that data was incorrect, then why did you NOT provide corrections to the analysis? I have asked for a repeat performance on such data :::::: nothing.

    ”But you conclude: nope, that's total BS, the consensus is wrong!”

    Screw the consensus. Get me the data – again, if you did it before – and then defend it.

    ”It's not an appeal to authority. You use that as a cope out for you lack of support for your position.”

    And that is an Appeal to Relief-from-Fallacy as Necessary For Your Position. (Special Pleading for a non-empirical science to be considered True, when it cannot prove its opinions.)

    ”You simply dismiss the evidence presented, for no good reason, because you disagree with the conclusions.”

    When you make all these false claims, knowing full well that they are false, that is lying. You should do the following: (a) provide the evidence which provides specific, repeatably testable observation which provides cause/effect observation for a specific evolutionary claim, provided again if necessary, with the accompanying open experimental process and data which specifically prove AND non-falsify the claim; (b) stop lying: provide the empirical evidence without making false claims which you know are false.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Stan,

    On Joe's blog, someone mentioned something about how everything is just a "cosmic soup" of energy whirling around that makes concepts like "cause" seem wrong.

    I made a comment about how it reminded me of the primordial soup that evolutionists like to use as an explanation of how life came about. Ryan (someone who comments on Skeppy's blog, or the home for the mentally challenged, had this to say):

    "Nothing" is ambiguous. It could mean "no pre-existing material" or it could mean "non living material". The former is probably something no evolutionist has ever believed. The latter is something many evolutionists have believed. I should note that "evolutionist" may as well denote "Scientifically literate person".

    I recommended that he come over and debate you. We'll see if he shows up.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Stan, you could show some sort of humility with the fact that you, as an individual, has an opinion which differs from an entire field of scientific research. But no, you are missing the point of my latest posts completely. I am not presenting any empirical data, facts, evidence, or anything else, which would explain to you what evolutionary biology is all about. I repeat, I am not doing that. Hence, of course you are correct when you say that I do not present anything. I did before though, but let's ignore that for a minute, because that's not what I am asking you.
    So I will repeat again:

    Why should anybody think that your opinion regarding biology is correct?

    Of course, this is not really a question because we know the answer already: there is no reason to agree with you Stan. You even mentioned that your position has not changed over decades; science discoveries on the other have been made over decades and they all fit with the Theory of Evolution, according to the specialists in the field. I am not saying I know about it; I am saying that you clearly go against their findings despite the evidence. And you present nothing in exchange; you just say that the conclusions are wrong. Some form of micro-evolution happens, because that's obvious, but, somewhere/somehow, the extrapolation fails, because you cannot believe otherwise.

    Here's yet another way to put it. Let's pretend I have never heard of evolution, at all. I come here, on your site, and read something like this:
    "The processes of cause/effect, hypothesis/deduction/replication-falsification/verification—experimentation are not – NOT – in place. There is zero similarity between claims made for evolution and claims made for physics/chemistry/modern biology. ZERO."

    Then, I visit the closest Natural History museum, or some biology department of a university, or read some magazine such as NewScientist that makes it easier to digest what is found in other science magazines such as Nature or Science. What would I find?

    I would find the very things you say don't exist... yet, you would insist that I still need to explain to you why they are correct. You would still insist that I need to present data, evidence, logical reasoning. But what's what we get from these sources already.

    However, I do know about it, at the amateur level just like you, and I can tell from your arguments that you make false claims about what evolution really is about and ask for impossible data points that would, supposedly, convince you. But we know you cannot be convinced, you made that very clear already.

    Hence, I think it's more likely that the specialists are correct rather than Stan being correct. But, after years of reading on the topic and actually reading everything you have to offer, I would go one step further: I know you are wrong. There is absolutely no doubt here. We don't know everything there is to know about biology, but we know enough to understand how species evolve today, how they relate to each other, and how they came to be so diverse: through evolution and natural selection.

    So, in short, your last comments proved me right. Too bad, I prefer to be proven wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  139. @Hugo: your faith in evolutionism is admirable, if misplaced.

    Stan refutes you time and again, and here you are, your denialism intact.

    Bloody marvelous, if it weren't such a huge waste of your time.

    But do keep coming back. Others who stop in and read this column will note your deficiencies and perhaps one or two will be saved.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Steven, that's new; usually you tell me that you are done with me and suggest I go somewhere else!

    Stan did change my mind on a few things but he has not refuted Biology, which is what is behind the Theory of Evolution, not me...

    I do agree that this is interesting for others mostly. As I mentioned, I was pretty sure nothing would change Stan's mind and I wished I would be wrong on that one. Because it's knowledge, not belief, not faith. Just scientific knowledge based on the same principles that are applied in all the other fields and actually tied to that field.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "Stan refutes you time and again" - no he doesn't. He keeps repeating the same demand for "proofs" that are irrelevant to the clear and obvious truth of evolution. His demand for "replication/falsification/verification" is actually a category error, in that the way evolution works, the timescales it works over and the by definition random nature of evolution, "replication" is impossible. The evolution of eyes in so many different forms over the aeons is a perfect examle of this. Evolution, by its nature, will rarely repeat itself. Bat wings are not the same as bird wings. Dolphin tails are not the same as fish tails. Snails' eyes are not the same as flies'eyes. But the fact that evolution doesn't fit the very narrow definition of "scientific" Stan wants it to doesn't make it wrong. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, evolution is very easily falsified: just show one development, one fossil, that couldn't possibly have happened through evolution. (And no, the "Cambrian explosion" doesn't count: you stibll have no evidence that the Cambrian explosion is evolutionarily impossile, only your frankly unscientific clams that it "must" be.)

    According to Stan's false definition of what is scientific, plate tectonics is unscientific as well: impossible to replicate. But Stan's demands are crafted to be impossible to meet, because denying the truth of evolution is much more important to him than actually discovering and deciding what is true.

    Evolution is the most perfect, logical, beautiful explanation of the natural world, and the fact that it makes Stan and others feel hugely uncomfortable is their problem, not evolution's.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Note that Hugo does not respond to my challenge, above (7/25, at 8:24am).

    The reason for that is that he cannot. Hugo, like all Atheists I've encountered, is fully dependent upon the validity of evolution as the Atheist creation story. Denial of this, as he will do and has done, is without value; Atheists are first and foremost Denialists.

    Atheists are without any material proof of their main belief systems - Philososphical Materialism (existence for no reason, with no reason); evolution as creation story (undefinable, essence-free life arises from minerals which then gains information which is self-perpetuating); and the ever popular claim without evidence that there is no intelligent causation for either the universe-from-nothing, or for teleological information increases.

    Atheists deny that they have any responsibility for accounting for anything. Atheists have a belief system which removes them from that responsibility. So the inability to EVER provide falisifiable knowledge surrounding the creation of life from minerals and the creation of all phyla in the Cambrian Explosion is denied, and not just denied, it is weaponized in logical fallacies such as the Appeal to Authority, and the logical mutation of Special Pleading for removal of intellectual discipline, into Special Pleading for Category Error.

    If Atheists/Evolutionists had any actual case which is not - NOT - unfalsifiable opinion, they would produce it with gusto. They do not do that. What they do is to defend unfalsifiable claims as being "science".

    The defense of unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, non-experimental claims as science has been the main thrust of Evolution and Atheism for a century and a half. This sort of unfalsifiable ideology-as-Truth has been very damaging to both legitimate sciences, and to the ability of the populace to think rationally under actual rules of logical deduction... certainly that is the case of Atheist thought processes.

    Atheist thought processes become completely untethered when the Atheist enters into the Atheist VOID. Due to the total denialism and rejectionism acquired in the VOID, the Atheist comes to believe that his every thought is rational, and any dissent is not just irrational, but also immoral. And the discovery of the completely irrational and evidence-free zone of evolution and its population of irrational defenders who claim that non-falsifiability is OK forms a support group. This support group must be defended.

    But defending irrationality requires ever more irrationality. Lack of demonstrable, falsifiable evidence places evolution into the highest plane of irrationality, because it requires the demand that it be called a science, and be believed with the distinguished reputation that are accorded to actual sciences. When that is accomplished, then the Appeal to Authority has a ring of plausibility to the ears of the Atheist/evolutionist, who has nothing else to provide. Certainly no scientific-grade evidence to provide.

    The irrationality of the doctrine of evolution was incorporated into the "scientific basis" for both Leninism and National Socialism. Iconizing and institutionalizing irrationality leads directly to the history of mass-murder-by-government and genocides of the 20th century.

    Yet Atheists cannot let go of evolution and its obvious consequences, because it is all they have.

    When dissecting and analyzing a concept for its rational basis, it is not necessary to provide an alternative. All that is required is to demonstrate the logical fallacies which are necessary foundations for the concept, without which the concept has no basis for support and therefore fails.

    Concept failure should lead to both abandonment of the failed concepts, and open-minded searching for rational concepts. Most Atheists cannot do that, for psychological reasons. But rational people do.

    That's what we do here.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Hugo with the same ol' song:
    "Stan did change my mind on a few things but he has not refuted Biology, which is what is behind the Theory of Evolution, not me...

    I do agree that this is interesting for others mostly. As I mentioned, I was pretty sure nothing would change Stan's mind and I wished I would be wrong on that one. Because it's knowledge, not belief, not faith. Just scientific knowledge based on the same principles that are applied in all the other fields and actually tied to that field."


    That is completely FALSE and Hugo knows that it is false. Evolution has no knowledge which is based in the empirical, falsifiable, replicable and replicated, open data form which is necessary for real sciences. Evolution is precisely faith and blind belief. Hugo is an acolyte for this system of Atheist belief.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Martyn says,
    ” "Stan refutes you time and again" - no he doesn't. He keeps repeating the same demand for "proofs" that are irrelevant to the clear and obvious truth of evolution”

    Here Martyn admits that the disciplines required for empirical sciences in order to provide objective knowledge of a proposed principle of Materialism are irrelevant for evolution.

    Further he makes the additional claim that evolution is a “truth” which is “clear and obvious”. So evolution goes beyond the idea that science provides contingent verifications of a propositions via physical verification of deductive hypotheses. Evolution is promoted to the status of self-evidence, and is in fact a fundamental axiom, a First Principle of the Universe.

    As a First Principle which is self-evident, there is no verification required: evolution is true because evolution is true. So we can see that if evolution is not really self-evident, axiomatic, and a First Principle, then it is a tautology: a logical fallacy, a rational failure.

    The promotion of evolution to the status of First Principle/undeniable axiom, actually makes evolution into a blind belief system, unfalsifiable, a religion requiring conformance to belief.

    As with all religions, conformance has no necessity of being supported by empirical materialistic proofs. And that’s what Martyn admits about evolution.

    ” And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, evolution is very easily falsified: just show one development, one fossil, that couldn't possibly have happened through evolution. (And no, the "Cambrian explosion" doesn't count: you stibll have no evidence that the Cambrian explosion is evolutionarily impossile, only your frankly unscientific clams that it "must" be.)”

    Here Martyn ignores the still existing lack of common ancestors at all levels of the purported tree. The magical emergence of all modern life still, at this late date, has no common ancestory on the tree. Further, the tree is based purely on calcium morphology (bones), and not on actual proof of descent. So from a rational standpoint, the entire enterprise is without support, across the board.

    And Martyn is right: mathematical impossibility is not the same as “evolutionary impossibility”, because the mathematics is ignored as “unscientific claims”. More abject denialism in service to the ideology. This time the denialism is directed at the mathematical analysis of the story-telling which is done by evolutionists because they have no actual data. Falsifying stories requires two things: (a) analysis of the actual likelihood that the story could have happened in actual space-time allotted to it; (b) understanding that it is merely a fictional story based on the opinion of someone who must be believed due to the Appeal to Authority, rather than examination of any data (which does not exist).

    ReplyDelete
  145. Plate tectonics is an interesting choice for attacking the need for data. Plate tectonics was rejected as being not science, but being just a story, UNTIL it was verified by measurements taking physical data. "Wegener's inability to provide an adequate explanation of the forces responsible for continental drift and the prevailing belief that the earth was solid and immovable resulted in the scientific dismissal of his theories." When plate tectonics became a physically falsifiable endeavor during the geophysical year and further measurements in the 1960's, it became accepted as a true science, falsifiable and non-falsified by actual observation and data.

    If you want the same standards for evolution, just say so. That's been what I've been asking for. But you, Hugo, and evolutionists in general don't really want that sort of disciplined rational scrutiny. And that's why evolution is not a science: there is no data. And unlike actual REAL science, evolutionists hate scrutiny, and ALWAYS refer to Appeal to the Authority of the writers of fictional stories and opinions.

    ” But Stan's demands are crafted to be impossible to meet, because denying the truth of evolution is much more important to him than actually discovering and deciding what is true.”

    Har! "Crafting demands"... HAAR! Can't make this stuff up.

    Here's the thing: I DON'T make this stuff up. These are the standards to which REAL science adheres. Evolution can't adhere, not to the real standards or even to fake standards. Absolutely cannot. Sociology can't adhere, either, and the Society admitted that sociology is NOT a science. They were honest about it. But not evolution: evolution makes claims such as that it explains EVERYthing in the universe. Oh, and that it is SO TRUE, self-evidently, that it absolutely MUST be believed as Truth. It is therefore irrational to require any standards whatsoever to evolution.

    You can't claim legitimate objective knowledge but you DO claim truth, beauty and logic - see below. What you have is a blind belief system for which you make claims of truth, beauty, logic and explanation for all of the natural universe. That's an incredible claim for a bunch of opinions. (by incredible, I mean completely non-credible).

    Mathematics has demonstrable proofs which are falsifiable, and is much more credible than evolution. Denying the truth of mathematics is much more important to Martyn than actually discovering that what is false should not be believed. Mathematics shows that the probability of every phase of evolution is functionally zero. As in totally non-credible, logically.

    ”Evolution is the most perfect, logical, beautiful explanation of the natural world, and the fact that it makes Stan and others feel hugely uncomfortable is their problem, not evolution's.”

    Let’s see: evolution is (a)perfect; (b) beautiful; (c) logical; (d) the explanation of the natural world.

    Except for “logic”, this entire statement is ideological. The prior claim that it is self-evident, axiomatic and a First Principle is congruent with this.

    But as for logical, the holes in the logic of evolution are highly destructive to any claim of logic. Aside from the mathematics showing the rational impossibility of evolution, the real holes in the materialist approach start at the evolution of first life from minerals, are exacerbated by the holes at the Cambrian Explosion, and are fully realized in the lack of common ancestors for each set of clades. This lack of internal logical consistency completely destroys all claims for evolution being “logical”.

    Evolution is logical the same way that Donald Duck is logical.

    I am very comfortable with evolution; it’s the irrationality of the true believers that induces wariness in me.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I have presented this falsification of evolution before. Unlike evolutionists, I do provide the information which I claim to have provided.

    Show the "story" which determines the evolution of the platypus, including the causal forces.

    Evolution is incapable of ever providing causality for the proposed evolution of Y from X. Even though evolution is the vaunted "explanation" for the natural universe, it cannot explain any of the zillions of creatures which "evolved" from prior different creatures in terms of actual mutations to the genome.

    The term "mutation" is a meaningless term when considered in the light of actual occurrences in the physical realm. So the claim of "mutation" actually means that there is no real information regarding what happened, so the meaningless generality must be invoked - and believed despite not having any evidence whatsoever for the actuality of the claim.

    Even less meaningful, if that is possible, is the term "evolution" which is used to explain (absent details) everything which lives, including creatures which have not "evolved" at all. Everything and nothing is not an explanation; it is without discernment or discrimination: nothing can occur which is not covered or will be covered by an all new fictional story; yet no occurrence can be shown conclusively to actually have evolved.

    Evolution is truly a phantasmagorical belief.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Hugo waxes forth :
    ” Why should anybody think that your opinion regarding biology is correct?”

    This is merely cheesy Tu Quoque shots in the dark. You know that opinion is all that evolution (NOT biology, that's a cheap subject change) amounts to; I have been saying that for years, and have received no empirical data to refute that, despite your claims otherwise. So you have taken to the Tu Quoque hoping to prove that the disciplines required of actual REAL science is merely an opinion.

    You have even answered the question regarding shipping your products: you do not ship based on opinion that they are all good – you insist that they be tested to objectively prove that they are in fact good. But not evolution: that is exempt from objective validation, and demands for objective validation by testing are said to be only an opinion, and only my lonely opinion. The absurdity of that is phenomenal.

    ”Of course, this is not really a question because we know the answer already: there is no reason to agree with you Stan.”

    In fact there is a strong ideological reason to reject the need for objective testing: Atheism needs evolution. So there must be arguments for accepting evolution despite the inability to objectively prove it.

    ”You even mentioned that your position has not changed over decades; science discoveries on the other have been made over decades and they all fit with the Theory of Evolution, according to the specialists in the field.

    OMG! Is it… yes it is: Appeal to Experts. I must submit immediately.

    ”I am not saying I know about it; I am saying that you clearly go against their findings despite the evidence.”

    You are perpetually making the false claim of evidence; there is none which is not opinion, formed into unconfirmable, non-falsifiable opinion claims which you and the other believers claim is “evidence” when it is not. Repeat: it is NOT evidence; it is purely opinion.

    If there were actual, REAL evidence, you would provide it. Rather than do that, you make specious claims in terms of foggy generalities: “Evidence exists” because the “experts” say so.

    And yet there is no evidence which meets the standards which REAL sciences meet.

    ”And you present nothing in exchange; you just say that the conclusions are wrong. Some form of micro-evolution happens, because that's obvious, but, somewhere/somehow, the extrapolation fails, because you cannot believe otherwise.”

    And here you admit: extrapolated opinion without hope of validation is all you have. Good job. I don’t have to “present anything in exchange”; all that is required to show that evolution is not science is to compare the non-requirements for evolutionary claims vs. the stringent requirements for REAL sciences. What cannot be objectively shown to be true has no hope of being considered true, no matter how many “experts” make truth claims about it.

    ReplyDelete
  148. "Here's yet another way to put it. Let's pretend I have never heard of evolution, at all. I come here, on your site, and read something like this:
    "The processes of cause/effect, hypothesis/deduction/replication-falsification/verification—experimentation are not – NOT – in place. There is zero similarity between claims made for evolution and claims made for physics/chemistry/modern biology. ZERO."

    Then, I visit the closest Natural History museum, or some biology department of a university, or read some magazine such as NewScientist that makes it easier to digest what is found in other science magazines such as Nature or Science. What would I find?

    I would find the very things you say don't exist... yet””


    No, you would not. You would find CLAIMS that such things exist. And that’s all. And again, if such things did exist, then you would present them, wouldn’t you? Of course you would, but you can’t because they don’t exist. So you use the story you made up just above as yet another truth claim, but like all the others, it fails.

    ” However, I do know about it, at the amateur level just like you, and I can tell from your arguments that you make false claims about what evolution really is about and ask for impossible data points that would, supposedly, convince you. But we know you cannot be convinced, you made that very clear already.”


    That is another lie, Hugo. You are batting 1000. I accept disciplined deductive arguments regarding physical phenomena which are validated objectively in the form of deductively designed experiments which are performed and replicated, non-falsified, and with open data and instructions for replication by disinterested parties. Those are the standards which are enforced by REAL sciences and the journals which document them.

    For those reasons, evolution cannot be considered a REAL science, can it? Of course not. Modern biology does, in fact, meet those requirements, and is a REAL science. And modern biology does not require any input from evolutionary stories in order to do the job of REAL science, because there is no hope of deducing any cause/effect relationship using evolution.

    ” Hence, I think it's more likely that the specialists are correct rather than Stan being correct. But, after years of reading on the topic and actually reading everything you have to offer, I would go one step further: I know you are wrong.”

    So you have acquired the necessary knowledge that no objective scientific discipline must be applied to evolution in order for the opinions of evolutionary “experts” to hold sway over your thoughts? Interesting. You have ceded your intellectual integrity to the consensus of a coterie of opinion-as-Truthers. That concession is up to you, of course. But when the integrity of science is diluted by the concessions required by evolutionary stories, there is no actual reason to believe those stories except for prior ideology (Atheism). So once again, the entire enterprise is religious in nature.

    ” There is absolutely no doubt here. We don't know everything there is to know about biology, but we know enough to understand how species evolve today, how they relate to each other, and how they came to be so diverse: through evolution and natural selection.”

    No, what you CLAIM to know is covered only by opinion, not by objective FACT. So you might know the opinions but you don't know any objective, contingent, scientific facts, because there are none available for you to know. But that’s enough for you to claim to have the inside knowledge and Truth. Very much like fundamentalist religions, and in fact indistinguishable from fundamentalism.

    Finally this absurdity:
    ” So, in short, your last comments proved me right. Too bad, I prefer to be proven wrong.”

    Riiiiiiiiiiight. One cannot prove wrong that which cannot be proven right: fundamental principle of falsification.

    ReplyDelete
  149. And then there's this from Hugo:
    ”Stan, you could show some sort of humility with the fact that you, as an individual, has an opinion which differs from an entire field of scientific research.”

    When it is a specific field which calls itself research, but in fact does no actual research but only creates stories about the research done in other fields such as archaeology, modern biology, molecular biology, etc., then it is that specific field which is parasitic and which calls for Special Pleading and for Appeal to Authority, including the courts in order to garner the respect which it cannot gain through its concepts.

    That’s why there’s a specious call for humility in the form of deference to that specific field of false endeavor, which is called “an entire field of scientific research”, despite having only stories as its output. It requires an abandonment of intellectual responsibility, not humility.

    So the question itself is a study in falseness: false “humility” requirement for an “opinion” which is actually the accepted requirement for intellectual robustness and credibility for physics, chemistry and modern biology, psychology, medicine, engineering of all types, common sense, and objective knowledge; and of course the “entire field of scientific research” which does no research, but does do story telling about their opinions. Just one false presupposition after another, formed into a moral accusation based in falseness.

    ReplyDelete
  150. @Hugo: as I said, do keep coming back. You are one of the foils necessary for the debunking of evolutionism. As a foundational belief of Atheism, discussing it on this site is quite appropriate.

    It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction by Stan (and many others) that evolutionism is, stripped of 'because I said so' and 'but it's SCIENCE!', nothing but a cornerstone of irrational Atheism - an axiom in a philosophy that denies axioms exist! It is denial, rejection, nihilism pure and simple. It is the repeated phrase, "Ain't No God", dressed up in the Emperor's Clothes and like a religious mantra, considered to gain power with repetition.

    You can fool yourself, Hugo, and you might fool many others who want desperately to NOT believe. But you're whistling past the graveyard and you know it. You've already given yourself away many times. You and 'Martyn Cornell', to a degree you would not dare let anyone ever see, know that your faith is pure bunk.

    You don't even believe it yourself. Thus you keep twisting words, and lying about actual facts, and pass off your own opinion as a 'scientific fact'. But all the denial in the world counts for less than a fart in a whirlind when you're up against the real world.

    Don't be fooled by this Internet, Hugo. It's not real. Saying silly things here is not trying to live them out in the real world. You can't logically do it here - why on earth would you think anyone would make any important decision based on such obviously self-contradictory nonsense in the real world? Only a fool would build his house upon sand. Only a con artists - one who thinks himself perpetually the smartest guy in the room - would promote it to other people.

    What are you making off pushing your religious belief, Hugo?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Steven, your delusion is fascinating. The whole of modern biology is based on the self-evident truth of evolution, and yet your apparent emotional need to deny that truth compels you and Stan to insist that evolution is a lie promoted solely to advance the cause of atheism. Have you not seen how many Christians have accepted the truth of evolution? Have you not noticed that despite Stan shouting with his fingers in his ears 'It's not true! It's not true!" he is unable to come up with one killer fact that destroys evolution for ever? Have you not noticed that fresh discoveries continue to back evolution as the only game in town? And here's the most recent one: not just a demonstration of the links between archaeons and bacteria, but further evidence of how the first living cells developed from natural physical processes driven by physics and chemistry - something, of course, that Stan continues to deny is possible: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2098564-universal-ancestor-of-all-life-on-earth-was-only-half-alive/ Oh, and I'm not "Martyn Cornell", I'm Martyn Cornell. You can certainly believe in me.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Martyn says,
    "The whole of modern biology is based on the self-evident truth of evolution,..."

    No, modern biology is not based in any manner on evolution. Evolution has no explanatory value because it deals strictly in generalities and not in specific cause and effect. Evolution theory cannot make any predictions regarding the outcome of its very own principles. So evolution is a useless parasite on biology. There is no - NO - investigation in modern biology that starts with "evolution predicts". Evolution makes no predictions because it contains no actual knowledge of cause and effect, or of actual ancestral lineage.

    "and yet your apparent emotional need to deny that truth compels you and Stan to insist that evolution is a lie promoted solely to advance the cause of atheism. Have you not seen how many Christians have accepted the truth of evolution? Have you not noticed that despite Stan shouting with his fingers in his ears 'It's not true! It's not true!" he is unable to come up with one killer fact that destroys evolution for ever?"

    FALSE. I have requested that you experts in evolution provide the ancestral tree which leads to the Platypus. Silence as you ignore that over and over and...

    And you admit now that evolution is self-evident. Therefore, once again, evolution is not a science because no science is self-evident. But self-evidence is the basis for true belief without evidence, proof or hope of ever having evidence or proof. Self-evidence is raw Truth in the nature of religious belief or philosophical grounding. In the case of evolution, it is pure emotional, evidence-free, blind belief, because under Reductio Ad Absurdum, evolution fails and cannot ground any arguments, since it is logically false.

    In fact, your diatribe is not a statement of logical content; it demonstrates your reduction to emotional outburst in defense of an illogical story which has no evidence, and which has no universal self-evidence except to you who need it to be true either for reasons of protecting employment, or for reasons of ideology. Your emotional outburst, however, is direct evidence in the lack of an actual grounded case for evolution being even possible.

    And then you present this amazing claim: “Further evidence” of life arising in oceanic hydrothermal vents. Except that they didn’t. They admit that it couldn’t have had any metabolic capacity; that it couldn’t have had the capacity to create amino acids; they ignored stuff they didn’t want to deal with:
    ”But it’s hard to tell apart genes that are truly ancient and those that merely appear ancient because bacteria and archaea have swapped them. Martin’s team disregarded these swapped genes, and could in the process have omitted some genes that LUCA did possess, perhaps including those for amino-acid synthesis.”

    All they did – ALL they did – was look for commonality in genes and then declare them to be a minimal set, even though it excluded both metabolism(!!!) AND excludes the ability to make amino acids(!!!) And THEN they declare it to be compatible with thermal vents. So OBVIOUSLY it is possible that life evolved at thermal vents. Sorry; no, it’s just another failure which is painted up with hype, lots of hype. It is not evidence, as you claim; it is an attempt to make compatible that which is not even closely compatible.

    Credulousness is not a feature of intellectual discrimination and responsible discernment. This paper demonstrates how easy it is to get ANYTHING published so long as it declares “compatibility” with featureless and non-discerning evolution. One must be vacuously credulous to accept this as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  153. @Martyn: please grow up, and stop wasting my time. You're in denial, which of course you deny. Your words are those of a grown-up but the thoughts behind them are those of a very emotional, very small child.

    This is all apparent to anyone with actual eyes to see. When you join the ranks of the sighted, you may address me again and expect a response.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Steven, the denial is entirely on your side. You're obviously not stupid, so your inability to accept the truth - that evolution fits the known facts so well, the chances of it being wrong are tiny - can only be explained by an emotional need to deny this fact. Ask yourself what it would cost you to embrace evolution, and you may gain some insight into why you are in intellectual denial.

    ReplyDelete
  155. 'Evolution makes no predictions' - nonsense, Stan, and you know it. Evolution predicts the likelihood of antibiotic resistance, for example. Evolution predicts how predator/prey relationships work out. I'll make an evolutionary prediction right now: more and more Chinese people are going to be born with a gene that extends lactose tolerance into adult life. More importantly, evolution explains: why Scandinavian people developed pale skins, while Inuit people, who live at similar or higher latitudes, did not, for example,

    The platypus is irrelevant: inability to explain everything about an animal that has almost no living relatives and diverged from modern mammals some 100 million years ago is not an evolution-killer. Given the choice between 'the platypus (or the Cambrian explosion, or any other alleged evolution-killer) proves evolution wrong" and "we don't have all the facts, but an evolutionary explanation can be found in the overwhelming majority of cases and is very likely to be found eventually here too', I know which one I consider more likely.

    You're demanding a specificity for evolution that you must know is impossible because of the way evolution works: it is, of course, random to the extent that all mutations are random, but not random to the extent that the continued existence of a mutation is largely driven by its contribution to survivability. Evolution predicts that predators and prey are both likely to evolve camouflage: it can't predict whether that will be spots or stripes, because that depends on whatever mutation eventually occurs to give the animal in question the necessary evolutionary advantage.

    You continue to assert that evolution cannot be true because it doesn't fit your definition of science. The rebuttal to that is simple: you've deliberately rigged the definition of science to get the answer on evolution that you want.

    ReplyDelete
  156. 'Evolution makes no predictions' - nonsense, Stan, and you know it. Evolution predicts the likelihood of antibiotic resistance, for example.

    That’s absurd. Evolution did NOT predict antibiotic resistance, it claimed it after the fact, just as it claims everything and nothing as outcomes of evolution. Antibiotic resistance is a loss of information in a genome. LOSS of information. Information degradation is not indicative of the ability to create new complex organic systems which are fully dependent upon other new complex organic systems.

    Evolution predicts how predator/prey relationships work out. I'll make an evolutionary prediction right now: more and more Chinese people are going to be born with a gene that extends lactose tolerance into adult life.

    And again, claiming after the fact is not prediction, is it? It is merely applying a story retroactively. Applying a fictional story which explains everything and nothing to any event is hardly an intellectual exercise.

    ”More importantly, evolution explains: why Scandinavian people developed pale skins, while Inuit people, who live at similar or higher latitudes, did not, for example”

    Evolution is non-discriminatory, intellectually. It explains everything and nothing using fictional reasoning, yet having exactly no … NO … hard evidence or proof for its claims. REAL science discriminates by requiring cause and effect replication and non-falsification, which you cannot produce and do not even address. Becausenothing you present is relevant to the practices of science, you are presenting nothing but blind beliefs in a purely fictional story.

    The platypus is irrelevant: inability to explain everything about an animal that has almost no living relatives and diverged from modern mammals some 100 million years ago is not an evolution-killer.

    First you say, show something that evolution cannot address. Then you say the obvious: there is no possibility of falsification of evolution because it is a fiction designed to tell stories about ANYTHING with no danger of being proven wrong. The story for those items which do not fit any conceivable chapter in the story are given over to Scientism. Scientism is tasked with explaining how the totally irrational can be explained in the future, with ever-more creative stories added to the fictional work.

    ReplyDelete
  157. ”Given the choice between 'the platypus (or the Cambrian explosion, or any other alleged evolution-killer) proves evolution wrong" and "we don't have all the facts, but an evolutionary explanation can be found in the overwhelming majority of cases and is very likely to be found eventually here too', I know which one I consider more likely.”

    Translation: no amount of contrary evidence can sway a True Believer. The goal posts will change whenever necessary to protect the narrative, no matter how totally fictional the narrative is.

    In evolution, the goal post analogy is this: both goals belong to the evolutionists: evolution stories can be concocted which claim everything, and nothing. So not just both goals belong to evolution, but also complete lack of goals also are counted as scores, when the ball position is stasis for all known history.

    For most observers, such a game cannot be claimed to produce an outcome which is an objective comparison of the relative merits of evolution to non-evolution. The game is rigged; evolution is anti-intellectually rigged to accept non-truth and falseness which are claimed to be truth.

    ”You're demanding a specificity for evolution that you must know is impossible because of the way evolution works: …

    Actually I am demonstrating the knowing acceptance of fictional story-telling which is called “science” when it ACTUALLY is: a) not falsifiable, b) not testable, c) contains falsifiers which are ignored, d) is highly irrational in light of modern molecular biology, e) has to be defended in court in order to garner respect, f) discriminates against nothing and therefore predicts everything, but only fictionally and after the fact.

    ”it is, of course, random to the extent that all mutations are random, but not random to the extent that the continued existence of a mutation is largely driven by its contribution to survivability.”

    This claim cannot survive the virtually certain probability that such mutations will be selected for extinction due to the extremely high ratio of dilatory mutations to beneficial mutations. This is because one mutation by itself cannot be the sole cause of increased survivability – even if it is a loss of information.

    ReplyDelete
  158. ” Evolution predicts that predators and prey are both likely to evolve camouflage:…”

    No it doesn’t predict that; it makes up a story chapter in order to claim it, after the fact. After the fact claims are not predictions. False use of a concept and word.

    ”… it can't predict whether that will be spots or stripes, because that depends on whatever mutation eventually occurs to give the animal in question the necessary evolutionary advantage.”

    This reminds me of the PBS evolutionary documentary I watched which at one point claimed that this bird is dull colored because it needed protection, then 30 minutes later claimed that this other bird is brightly colored because it needs to breed. A post facto fiction story for everything, no matter how contradictory.

    ”You continue to assert that evolution cannot be true because it doesn't fit your definition of science.

    Not MY definition and you know it, so your continuation is becoming a purposeful falsehood (lie); it is the original and continuing definition of proper objective knowledge generation in the REAL and RESPECTABLE sciences of physics, chemistry, modern biology, molecular biology and even psychology. Even historians and anthropologists are honest enough fully admit that they cannot produce scientific-level objective knowledge. But not evolutionistas. Your claim is actually full-bore anti-science, and pro-fiction-as-science.

    Science, for the story-believers, now has its own fictional chapter in the story book of evolution. Science, in that storybook chapter, is now merely the ability to make up more stories to fill up the rest of the book of evolutionary fiction, AND call those stories science.

    ”The rebuttal to that is simple: you've deliberately rigged the definition of science to get the answer on evolution that you want.”

    Again, it’s not my definition, is it? And which endeavor rigs up stories to get the answer it wants? Is it physics? Chemistry? Modern biology? Molecular biology? Or evolution? Only evolution does that. So you’re accusation is merely a failed Tu Quoque Fallacy, which does not even apply except to your own belief in fantasy-called-science: evolution.

    To your credit you are right about one thing: There is no possible hard, objective, physical evidence for demonstration of evolution in terms of cause and effect, much less historical fact; therefore, fictional stories are all that evolutionists have, and never, ever any actual non-fictional reasons for belief. This is called Truth, and has to be defended in court. When falsifiers are denied, as you specifically have done, it illuminates the depth of the religious component in the evolutionary belief system. You have illuminated this: No amount of skepticism is ever applied by the True Believer; the belief is part of a cherished worldview, which would necessarily be challenged to the point of collapse if the slightest skepticism were allowed out of restraint.

    Remember, the probabilities against several steps which are necessary for evolution to be valid and true are severely high, with serial probability odds easily objectively calculated to be as high as 10^200,000 to 1 against the overall story of evolution.

    The denial is purely on the part of those who accept such rationally absurd odds as “likely” in their acceptance of evolution as having a credible possibility of having occurred, and yet with no contrary evidence which is not just fiction created to support their belief.

    ReplyDelete