Sportscaster to be fired for supporting ID on live TV?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 21, 2015

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If so, Darwin’s followers are raising the stakes. Don’t think you can watch the game in peace any more—not unless you acknowledge their prophet.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

ATP is certainly important for the cell. Binding ATP in a non-useful fashion that disrupts the optimal metabolic balance of a cell, as Szostak's proteins did, is certainly NOT important for the cell. Refusing to accept that obvious point is important for someone who refuses to be honest to the evidence just so he can defend his irrational atheistic belief system.bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: as Szostak’s ATP binding protein is disruptive ATP binding is an important function in the cell.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: ‘artificially’ of course http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VEdtL1b6lzA/Tglh4obXMkI/AAAAAAAAAE8/GgZFIXFZy8s/s320/Galileo%252C+Pisa.jpgZachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

actually, finding a protein that will not be disruptive to the metabolic balance of the cell, as Szostak's ATP binding protein is disruptive, is far more difficult than finding a 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one, a 1 in 10^77, needle in a haystack protein:
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
Actually, considering the extreme inter-weaved complexity involved in the metabolic pathways of a cell, I firmly believe even that 'one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities' estimate of Dr. Axe, for finding a metabolic pathway that will not be disruptive to a cell, is overly optimistic:
Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Picture http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkRRa65sIo/TlltZupczfI/AAAAAAAAE1s/nVSv_5HRpZg/s1600/pathway-1b.png Metabolic Pathways - interactive map (high resolution) http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~turk/bio_sim/articles/metabolic_pathways.png
As well the cell is found to be optimal in its metabolic efficiency:
Metabolism: A Cascade of Design - 2009 Excerpt: A team of biological and chemical engineers wanted to understand just how robust metabolic pathways are. To gain this insight, the researchers compared how far the errors cascade in pathways found in a variety of single-celled organisms with errors in randomly generated metabolic pathways. They learned that when defects occur in the cell’s metabolic pathways, they cascade much shorter distances than when errors occur in random metabolic routes. Thus, it appears that metabolic pathways in nature are highly optimized and unusually robust, demonstrating that metabolic networks in the protoplasm are not haphazardly arranged but highly organized. http://www.reasons.org/metabolism-cascade-design Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust - 2010 Excerpt: ,,, In other words, metabolic pathways are optimized to withstand inevitable concentration changes of metabolites. http://www.reasons.org/making-case-intelligent-design-more-robust Optimal Design of Metabolism - Dr. Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-optimal-design-of-metabolism
Needless to say, haphazardly throwing a protein into that extreme optimal complexity and expecting that protein to be useful instead of disruptive is not a rational belief to hold. of related interest, Casey Luskin has recently done a excellent overview of the insurmountable difficulties faced by unguided Darwinian processes for merely changing a protein of one function into a similar protein of a different, yet similar, function.
Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins - Casey Luskin - January 22, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/biologic_instit_1092941.html In Light of New BIO-Complexity Paper, Maintaining Neo-Darwinism Means Rejecting Established Methods of Historical Science - Casey Luskin - January 23, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/in_light_of_the092951.html
bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

'artificially' of coursebornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

bornagain: So it is not evidence for ‘real’ evolution? It shows that random mutation and selection can optimize protein function.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

"the full experiment included 'artificial' evolution" So it is not evidence for 'real' evolution?,,, And your point, besides being dishonest, is what exactly?bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: So it is relevant for ‘protein engineering’, (i.e. intelligent designing proteins), but not for Darwinian evolution? The hypothesis was based in theories of abiogenesis, and the full experiment included artificial evolution. Returning to your original comment: bornagain77: what if the odds were 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one? One out of 10^77.(?),,, Those are the odds of finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function by chance alone.,,, Actually, the chance of finding a particular function, such as ATP binding, is only about 10^-11. As your last comment seemed to change the subject, do you now concede the point?Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

"This is an important result that may have implications for the development of protein engineering" So it is relevant for 'protein engineering', (i.e. intelligent designing proteins), but not for Darwinian evolution? Thanks for at least that much honesty! As to 'protein engineering', (i.e. intelligently designing a protein that binds in a useful way instead of in a disruptive way), trying to intelligently design a protein that binds in a useful way has been compared to 'docking a space station'
Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses - June 1, 2012 Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, "to leapfrog over bottlenecks" to improve the activity of the binder. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-computer-designed-proteins-variety-flu-viruses.html Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design! - Fazale Rana - June 2011 Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required: "...cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2" If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely? In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs (protein-protein interactions) requires intelligent agency to arise. http://www.reasons.org/viral-binding-protein-design-makes-case-intelligent-design-sick-cool Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093
Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous, Herculean, effort that went into intelligently designing the preceding protein:
Science - Fuz Rana - Unbelievable? Conference 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u34VJ8J5_c&list=PLS5E_VeVNzAstcmbIlygiEFir3tQtlWxx&index=8
bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: If disrupting the metabolic balance of a cell by binding ATP in non-useful ways is your definition of “finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function” then it is clear you have no interest in being honest with the evidence. Binding ATP was the specified function, and that's what it did within the cell. From your citation: "We found that a synthetic ATP-binding protein from non-natural origins functions inside living cell by disrupting the normal energetic balance within the cell." This is an important result that may have implications for the development of protein engineering and new medical treatments. bornagain77: intellectually dishonest Darwinists That's seems to be your only remaining argument, that the very scientists you cite for their results are dishonest.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

If disrupting the metabolic balance of a cell by binding ATP in non-useful ways is your definition of “finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function” then it is clear you have no interest in being honest with the evidence. On the positive side, unlike the 1 in a trillion ATP binding protein, at least you do serve a useful purpose/function in life, in clearly showing unbiased people how intellectually dishonest Darwinists are willing to be just so to defend their foundational atheistic/materialistic worldview from honest criticism.bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Keefe and Szostak is not relevant as they were not seeking functional proteins, but merely mild ATP binding. That meets your condition of "finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function". If you want to retract your original claim, that's fine.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, you keep repeatedly citing Szostak as if that experiment has not been thoroughly addressed and found wanting numerous times here and on Dr. Hunter's blog. Why is that? Do you not care for what the evidence actually says? If you do care, then why do you continually repeat this evidence as if it has not been addressed and found wanting? Moreover, is it even possible for you to answer that question with rigorous honesty instead of rhetoric?!?
Why Greta Christina’s critique of God-guided evolution misses the mark - August 18, 2014 Excerpt: Keefe and Szostak managed to isolate four ATP binding proteins from a library of 6×10^12 proteins, and concluded that the proportion of all possible protein sequences that are actually functional might be as high as 1 in 10^11, or 1 in 100,000,000,000, and that functional proteins could therefore have arisen by an unguided, stochastic (i.e. random) process. (Their 2001 paper in Nature 410:715-718 can be accessed here.) Another team of scientists (Taylor et al., 98:10596-10601, 2001, doi:10.1073/pnas.191159298) estimated that a random protein library of about 10^24 members would be sufficient for finding one chorismate mutase molecule, making the problem of unguided natural processes hitting upon a functional sequence difficult but by no means impossible (see here for their article). Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. In a recent personal communication, Dr. Cornelius Hunter explained to me why these estimates of the probability of finding a functional protein sequence by chance are wildly over-optimistic, and pointed out that a more realistic estimate would be 1 in 10^60, or 1 in 1 million million million million million million million million million million: “First, Keefe and Szostak is not relevant as they were not seeking functional proteins, but merely mild ATP binding. Second, Taylor, et. al. deals with a simple, helix only, protein (homodimeric AroQ), biased the sequence toward helix forming amino acids and sequence patterns, did not fully randomize the sequence but only randomized regions, and is vague about how they arrive at their 10^24 tries required. Even if their calculation of 10^24 is reasonable, you’re dealing with a pretty simple protein… AroQ is toward the simple end of the spectrum… And finally there are several studies on slightly more complex, challenging proteins, all of which come in at around 10^60 – 10^80 attempts required.” Dr. Hunter also poured scorn on the suggestion, voiced by some experts, that the first proteins may have been relatively short, making their emergence by random processes far more likely. He wrote: “Proteins are by no means created equal. They occupy a wide spectrum of size and complexity… Nor is there reason to think that evolution could live with the shorter, simpler ones at first, and then later somehow the larger, more complex ones would evolve. The larger ones appear to be needed, and there are not obvious gradual pathways to forming them.… We’re still not close to the more complex proteins.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-greta-christinas-critique-of-god-guided-evolution-misses-the-mark/
Moreover, the following papers found that man-made ATP binding is disruptive (i.e. non-functional) when expressed in a cell:
A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells - 2009 Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385 Strange Behavior: New Study Exposes Living Cells to Synthetic Protein - Dec. 27, 2012 Excerpt: ,,,"ATP is the energy currency of life," Chaput says. The phosphodiester bonds of ATP contain the energy necessary to drive reactions in living systems, giving up their stored energy when these bonds are chemically cleaved. The depletion of available intracellular ATP by DX binding disrupts normal metabolic activity in the cells, preventing them from dividing, (though they continue to grow).,,, In the current study, E. coli cells exposed to DX transitioned into a filamentous form, which can occur naturally when such cells are subject to conditions of stress. The cells display low metabolic activity and limited cell division, presumably owing to their ATP-starved condition. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121227143001.htm
Moreover, even if the rarity of truly functional proteins, (proteins that actually do something useful in the cell instead of just disrupting the metabolic balance of the cell), were ONLY one in a trillion, that still would present an insurmountable, even comical, difficulty for the Darwinian scenario:
How Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010 Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of (non-beneficial) function. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html
Yet, the reality of finding useful proteins is far more stark than the, ahem, 'optimistic' 1 in a trillion number that Zachriel cited is:
Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 1, 2012 Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21. These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required. And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier. These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.html?showComment=1354423575480#c6691708341503051454 Stephen Meyer & Doug Axe Critique Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" Illustration - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8
Of related note, here is a very interesting comment by Jack Szostak himself as to the unexplained origin of molecular machines necessary for life (such as ATP synthase):
The Origin of Life on Earth Excerpt: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time. It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago. Dr. Jack Szostak - Nobel Laureate and leading Origin of Life researcher (who, despite the evidence he sees first hand, apparently still believes 'life' simply 'emerged' from molecules) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth
bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: what if the odds were 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one? One out of 10^77.(?),,, Those are the odds of finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function by chance alone.,,, Actually, the chance of finding a particular function, such as ATP binding, is only about 10^-11. See Keefe & Szostak, Functional proteins from a random-sequence library, Nature 2001.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Is this sportscaster for sure getting fired? Still on the air, still working with Bill Walton. This is the slowest moving persecution in historyvelikovskys_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Comparing the Odds: The Seahawks Game Versus...Evolution? - Ann Gauger - January 22, 2015 Excerpt: that the odds of last week's Seahawks win were quite small. They had to come back from a 12-point deficit in the last three minutes of the game. At that point the odds for a win were only 0.1 percent.,,, what if the odds were 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one? One out of 10^77.(?),,, Those are the odds of finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function by chance alone.,,, Finally, instead of the goal posts being about 50 yards away, they are anywhere in a cubic search space of roughly 1×10^25 meters on a side (using the number 1 in 10^77 as a guide for the relative size of the space to be searched compared to the target). 1×10^25 meters is approximately one billion light-years, so the space to be searched is a cube one billion light-years on a side. Even if a trillion trillion trillion blindfolded players and proportionately more 12th person fans yelling loudly were dropped randomly into that (oxygenated) space, they still couldn't find the goal. They'd each have a cube 10 trillion meters on a side to search. Clearly the only way to get the team to the cosmic goal would be to get some very specific intelligent guidance from someone. Luck wouldn't win the game. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/comparing_the_o092961.htmlbornagain77_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Is this sportscaster for sure getting fired?KRock_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. No, but you just admitted it represents a falsifiable claim. It's a weak claim because it relies on a negative proof, which could simply represent limitations of human knowledge. However, Darwin offers numerous positive ways to test his theory. bornagain77: yet,,, No, but you again admitted to what you just denied, that modern evolutionary theory has mathematical components.Zachriel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

as to: "First, a mathematical basis is not required for falsification, just a testable claim." Okie Dokie, how bout this testable claim and falsification?:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
as to: "Second, the modern theory of evolution does have mathematical components, including population genetics and cladistics." yet,,,
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85kThFEDi8o Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011 Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/ Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (greater than 100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin's theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. "Phylogenetic systematics," the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, "relies on the theory of evolution." To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air. Tight fit, major fail.7 No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that "phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever."8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html
bornagain77_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

I watched the video. It was uncool of the other guy to pick on him on TV that has nothing to do with origins.DesignDetectiveDave_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

"Thanks, Bill. Oh, interesting. It says here life was 'originally breathed by the Creator'. Glad to know that."Silver Asiatic_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

I wish Pasch had said "Thanks Bill. Have you got anything better than a book written 160 years ago? A lot of water has passed under the bridge." or perhaps "Thanks Bill. I'll put this on the shelf along with other interesting old books on phlogiston and phrenology".cantor_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock, I didn't notice that, good observation. Beats me but I have known this site to be fair with its reporting and allowing different sides to be discussed.cobracai_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

cobracai, You might notice that the first two comments on this thread quote previous comments: Mapou responding to AVS and goodusername responding to News. The original comments (and others relating to Wilson and Tebow ...) have disappeared. And don't be over-concluding from the fact that a comment by News was deleted. ;) So: glitch, or intentional?DNA_Jock_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Falsification Criteria) Wrong on two counts. First, a mathematical basis is not required for falsification, just a testable claim. For instance, concerning phototropism in plants; blue light is the primary cause of the effect, activation occurs at the tip, bending occurs below the tip; three different scientific claims, none of which are mathematical, but each subject to falsification. See Darwin, The Power of Movement in Plants, Murray 1880. Second, the modern theory of evolution does have mathematical components, including population genetics and cladistics. And that's just your first point! DNA_Jock: Regarding this story, my money’s on Betteridge. IS BETTERIDGE OFF HIS ROCKER? DO ALIENS WORSHIP OPRAH? Read all about it! http://tinyurl.com/DoAliensWorshipOprahZachriel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

I see no point in talking about the expulsion when he hasn't been expelled, and is unlikely to be expelled. It seems the ID camp is fervently hoping he is expelled just so they can make him a martyr.Me_Think_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

The atheist movers and shakers must be absolutely terrified.Axel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

There's no controversy. Nobody is interested in ID and it doesn't generate any attention. Right?Silver Asiatic_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock, At the beginning of the post, it says there are 21 comments. I proceeded to count them and came up with 21 comments. Not "for cause".cobracai_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Looks like the first few posts on this thread have disappeared. Is this a software glitch, or were there deletions "for cause"? Regarding this story, my money's on Betteridge.DNA_Jock_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply