A Common Code: Surely That Means They’re All Related—Doesn’t It?

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 8, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists don’t think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists don’t matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesn’t come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences. Read more

Comments

CH:
...it is a completely different type of argument than that used in crime labs. These are fundamentally different arguments and so you can’t use the one as cover for the other.
Yes, this has been pointed out to Nick before, and ignored.Mung_{March 17, 2013
March
03
Mar
17
17
2013
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Nick, @16/56/50: We use the term "common descent" in its usual sense, as evolutionists use it, i.e., all species sharing a common ancestor. What you are missing here is that when evolutionists claim similarity (such as the shared mistakes argument) as powerful evidence for common descent, it is a completely different type of argument than that used in crime labs. These are fundamentally different arguments and so you can't use the one as cover for the other.Cornelius Hunter_{March 15, 2013
March
03
Mar
15
15
2013
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

@2 qwerty: Thanks much for the kind words!Cornelius Hunter_{March 15, 2013
March
03
Mar
15
15
2013
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

So it really is is a cult and i am not even a novitiate?Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Really Mung? He won't assist you because then you will know as much as he and then he won't be the preacher. Preachers can only preach where people don't know any better. And if you had his knowledge then you could challenge his sermons. Then you would have to be Pinkered.Joe_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

So, Nick either cannot or will not assist me with my quest to understand macroevolutionary theory. So why does he preach it?Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Good Grief, BA!! You are the resource master! Such fantastic information.William J Murray_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

The fine-tuning of the 'privileged planet principle' is extreme:
Milankovitch Cycle Design - Hugh Ross - August 2011 Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive. http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design Among Darwin Advocates, Premature Celebration over Abundance of Habitable Planets - September 2011 Excerpt: Today, such processes as planet formation details, tidal forces, plate tectonics, magnetic field evolution, and planet-planet, planet-comet, and planet-asteroid gravitational interactions are found to be relevant to habitability.,,, What's more, not only are more requirements for habitability being discovered, but they are often found to be interdependent, forming a (irreducibly) complex "web." This means that if a planetary system is found not to satisfy one of the habitability requirements, it may not be possible to compensate for this deficit by adjusting a different parameter in the system. - Guillermo Gonzalez http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/among_darwin_advocates_prematu050871.html Privileged Planet Principle - Michael Strauss - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318884/
As to Denton's note in his paper on the objection from materialists that water is not 'ideally' suited for life since it prevents 'life' from spontaneously forming:
Water Is 'Designer Fluid' That Helps Proteins Change Shape - 2008 Excerpt: "When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806113314.htm Protein Folding: One Picture Per Millisecond Illuminates The Process - 2008 Excerpt: The RUB-chemists initiated the folding process and then monitored the course of events. It turned out that within less than ten milliseconds, the motions of the water network were altered as well as the protein itself being restructured. “These two processes practically take place simultaneously“, Prof. Havenith-Newen states, “they are strongly correlated.“ These observations support the yet controversial suggestion that water plays a fundamental role in protein folding, and thus in protein function, and does not stay passive. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080805075610.htm Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible - October 2011 Excerpt: WATER'S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.,,, They found that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds were slightly longer than the deuterium-oxygen ones, which is what you would expect if quantum uncertainty was affecting water’s structure. “No one has ever really measured that before,” says Benmore. We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.900-waters-quantum-weirdness-makes-life-possible.html
As to water preventing 'life' from 'spontaneously' forming, well I would hold that there is good 'design' reason for that as well: One reason would be to clearly illustrate to man that 'life' does not spontaneously form: i.e. water is considered a 'universal solvent' which is a very thermodynamic obeying and thus origin of life defying fact.
Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis - Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (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, 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, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean. http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith "Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess of water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all text-books of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenesis ... Has materialistic Neo-Darwinian philosophy overwhelmed us to such an extent that we forget or overlook the well-known facts of science and of chemistry in order to support this philosophy? ... Without exception all Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions."
bornagain77_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Here's the summary of Michael Denton's paper and a few related notes:
The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis - Michael J. Denton - February 25, 2013 Summary (page 11) Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive. It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1 The Elements: Forged in Stars - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861 “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-21T14_43_59-07_00 The Role of Elements in Life Processes http://www.mii.org/periodic/LifeElement.php The vastness, beauty, orderliness, of the heavenly bodies, the excellent structure of animals and plants; and the other phenomena of nature justly induce an intelligent and unprejudiced observer to conclude a supremely powerful, just, and good author. — Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), father of experimental chemistry
The stunning long term balance of the necessary chemicals for life, on the face of the earth, is a wonder in and of itself:
Chemical Cycles: Long term chemical balance is essential for life on earth. Complex symbiotic chemical cycles keep the amount of elements on the earth surface in relatively perfect balance and thus in steady supply to the higher life forms that depend on them to remain stable. This is absolutely essential for the higher life forms to exist on Earth for any extended period of time. http://www.uen.org/themepark/cycles/chemical.shtml
It is found that not only must the right chemicals be present on earth for and extended period of time to have life, the chemicals must also be present on the earth in 'specific abundances'.
Elemental Evidence of Earth’s Divine Design - Hugh Ross PhD. - April 2010 Table: Earth’s Anomalous Abundances - Page 8 The twenty-five elements listed below must exist on Earth in specific abundances for advanced life and/or support of civilization to be possible. For each listed element the number indicates how much more or less abundant it is, by mass, in Earth’s crust, relative to magnesium’s abundance, as compared to its average abundance in the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy, also relative to the element magnesium. Asterisks denote “vital poisons,” essential elements that if too abundant would be toxic to advanced life, but if too scarce would fail to provide the quantities of nutrients essential for advanced life. The water measure compares the amount of water in and on Earth relative to the minimum amount the best planet formation models would predict for a planet the mass of Earth orbiting a star identical to the Sun at the same distance from the Sun. carbon* 1,200 times less nitrogen* 2,400 times less fluorine* 50 times more sodium* 20 times more aluminum 40 times more phosphorus* 4 times more sulfur* 60 times less potassium* 90 times more calcium 20 times more titanium 65 times more vanadium* 9 times more chromium* 5 times less nickel* 20 times less cobalt* 5 times less selenium* 30 times less yttrium 50 times more zirconium 130 times more niobium 170 times more molybdenum* 5 times more tin* 3 times more iodine* 3 times more gold 5 times less lead 170 times more uranium 16,000 times more thorium 23,000 times more water 250 times less http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-02.pdf
Moreover there are found to be widely varying chemical compositions on Earth-like planets thus far discovered:
Compositions of Extrasolar Planets - July 2010 Excerpt: ,,,the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions. http://www.reasons.org/compositions-extrasolar-planets Chemical Clues On Formation of Planetary Systems: Earth 'Siblings' Can Be Different - ScienceDaily (Feb. 23, 2012) Excerpt: An international team of researchers, with the participation of IAC astronomers, has discovered that the chemical structure of Earth-like planets can be very different from the bulk composition of Earth. This may have a dramatic effect on the existence and formation of the biospheres and life on Earth-like planets.,,,'There could be billions of Earth-like planets in the Universe but a great majority of them may have a totally different internal and atmospheric structure. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120223132902.htm Chances of Exoplanet Life ‘Impossible’? Or ’100 percent’? - February 2011 Excerpt: Howard Smith, an astrophysicist at Harvard University, made the headlines earlier this year when he announced, rather pessimistically, that aliens will unlikely exist on the extrasolar planets we are currently detecting. “We have found that most other planets and solar systems are wildly different from our own. They are very hostile to life as we know it,” “Extrasolar systems are far more diverse than we expected, and that means very few are likely to support life,” he said. http://news.discovery.com/space/exoplanet-life-impossible-or-100-percent-what.html
bornagain77_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Darwinist cat reacts to being told ID is scienceenglishmaninistanbul_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

OT: Michael Denton has a peer reviewed article up in Bio-Complexity! The Fine-Tuning of the Biosphere: In BIO-Complexity, Michael Denton Recovers the Lost Legacy of Lawrence Henderson - March 11, 2013 Excerpt: In a new peer-reviewed article in the journal BIO-Complexity, "The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis," Dr. Denton revives and extends the thought of a leading biochemist of the early 20th-century, Harvard University's Lawrence Henderson. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/the_fine-tuning069931.html Of note: Michael Denton: Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis - podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/09/michael_denton_remarkable_coin.htmlbornagain77_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Gregory wrote: "My farewell to UD responds to your question (and others) in the other thread." And where exactly is this "farewell" and where exactly is "the other thread"?Timaeus_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Nick,s comment's related to recent ancestry to refute (disparage) Dr. Hunter's common descent observation were ill founded from the beginning. Dr. Hunter put his use of the term into a context of molecules to men common descent in his very next statement:"If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated." Nick was launching an attack against something Dr. Hunter was not even talking about. Typical! Unforunately.sterusjon_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

OT: WATCH THIS AND SOMEBODY BLOG IT AS ANOTHER FINE TUNE PARTY! http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/03/video-natural-disaster-from-sun-emp-on-earth-2455978.htmlalan_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Nick: We hope you aren't seriously unable to distinguish between (i) DNA fingerprinting of one generation to the next within a species that is known to exist and known to reproduce its own kind, and (ii) DNA fingerprinting of different species that don't reproduce together based on an assumed evolutionary relationship through some unknown ancestor at some unknown point in the past. Either you are simply refusing to acknowledge the difference, or you don't understand Hunter's point.Eric Anderson_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Someone says: “The sky is blue!” IDists say: “Darwinists are wrong.” Someone says: “Water is made up of H2O.” IDists say: “Darwinists are wrong.” Someone says: “I love my husband and children.” IDists say: “Darwinists are wrong.” Really? Wow – never heard that before! It is really a sad demonstration of fetish and icon-worship by Protestant evangelical IDists in America who claim Big-ID is a natural-science-only theory.
Liar.
Phil, if you had read some of my works, you’d likely realise many things to agree with and that perhaps you could find a way to assist me, aside from your fetish with Big-ID and IDMism.
You have a strange way of trying to get people to take seriously things you may have written elsewhere and to get them to agree with you and assist you.
I reject IDism as bad science and bad theology, along with many Abrahamic religious scientists.
And your arguments against ID (if you actually have any) probably contain the same incoherent and self-contradictory flaws as theirs do along with the same misrepresentations. Someone apparently sold you a bill of goods that you failed to critically examine and now you've taken a stance and are too proud to admit you could be wrong. How can ID be both "bad science" and "bad theology"?Mung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Nick, since you decided to stop back in, what's a good textbook on Macro-evolutionary Theory? I have a particular interest in macroevolution in populations of single celled organisms. How does that happen, if not through chemical changes?Mung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
There is no ID theory of ‘artefacts’ (i.e. human-made things). It simply doesn’t exist.
This is a lie! This is a lie! This is a lie! Not that Gregory cares. He's blind, deaf, and dumb. It's like he got whatever degree he was after and forever after need not worry about growing as a human. I hate to think what it was like being a teacher of this know-it-all. Talk about your dogmatic fundamentalists. Gregory, since you never listen to anyone else, how do you ever learn? Or is there nothing more for you to learn?Mung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Supplemental note to post 62 Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Here's the pdf to the preceding article: http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdfbornagain77_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Eric:
...you can just make a personal note to yourself that I am talking about the “science” part of your “Big-ID.” That’s not so hard now, is it?
Gregory finds it hard to admit that there is anything at all scientific about his version of Big I Big D Intelligent Design. So good luck.Mung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Nick M:
...the argument that Hunter advances here is false:
Arguments are not true or false Nick. That's 101 level stuff. Don't they teach you anything in Macro-Evolutionary Theory College? Nick quoting CH:
One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent.
Are you saying that statement is not true? You could have fooled me. Why is it false? 1. Similarity does not imply common descent. 2. The claim that similarity implies common descent is not a common metaphysical premise in evolutionary theory. Where's the falsehood?Mung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke, You must not understand what Hunter is saying. He is saying that you cannot say, for example, that humans and chimps share a common ancestry just because similarities exist- ie we share similar genes.
"If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated."- Hunter's second sentence above
Hunter is talking about two different species. Two that are assumed to share a common ancestor (because they share similar genes) Two humans are the same species. And when I say like produces like, well I am talking about the same species- ONE species.Joe_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Moreover Mr. Matzke, in order for neo-Darwinism to be considered scientific, instead of a pseudo-science (as it is by a majority of the American public), should not there be some identifiable falsification criteria by which one could possibly prove it false or its accuracy?
"On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
In fact, IMO, the reason why neo-Darwinism appears not to have a rigid mathematical foundation in which to test its claims for accuracy, or to falsify it, is because of the random variable postulate at the base of the theory's formulation:
“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64. “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
Yet despite this shortcoming that the random variable postulate presents in preventing any rigid mathematical basis to be developed for neo-Darwinism so as to test it for accuracy or to falsify it, in so far as mathematics can be applied to neo-Darwinian claims, though population genetics, the mathematics of population genetics does strongly dis-confirm the validity of neo-Darwinian claims:
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf
Supplemental note: Neo-Darwinian evolution simply has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation. This includes any supposed ‘Evolutionary Algorithms’ which have been ‘intelligently designed’ by computer programmers (explain that to me!) to simulate Darwinian evolution::
Refutation of Evolutionary Algorithms https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1h33EC4yg29Ve59XYJN_nJoipZLKIgupT6lBtsaVQsUs Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.” Leonardo Da Vinci
bornagain77_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Mr. Matzke, besides the fact that the 'similarity argument' is not nearly as close as you and other neo-Darwinists have misled the public to believe,,,
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals "Junk DNA" Surprise - 2007 Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,, The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html
,,,is the fact that this 'similarity argument' is not a scientific demonstration for your claim of common ancestry but is a circular argument of your claim for common descent preceding the interpretation of the data:
Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009 Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. http://www.discovery.org/a/10651 Douglas Theobald's Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design - November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html
You see Mr. Matzke, despite how much blind faith you have placed in these 'similarity arguments', the plain fact of the matter is that to be considered 'scientific' you have to provide empirical proof, an actual demonstration, that what you prefer to be true as a starting assumption (i.e. that amoebas can turn into tree, bats, frogs, whales and such) is actually possible in the real world. And that Sir, you simply do not have,,,
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
bornagain77_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke, what are your thoughts on convergence in echolocation in bats & whales?
Science Daily Jan. 27, 2010 — Only some bats and toothed whales rely on sophisticated echolocation, in which they emit sonar pulses and process returning echoes, to detect and track down small prey. Now, two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level.
Common ancestry?Box_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Universal Common Descent, Nick The DNA fingerprinting that says I am related to my father would not say that my father or myself is related to any chimp. When you accepted that “like reproduces like”, you accepted that reproduction, i.e., ancestry, produces similarity. Always have. And producing similarity does not explain the differences. You need something that explains the differences.
Well, so maybe you've got some other argument against common ancestry. But my point is that you've admitted that the argument that Hunter advances here is false:
One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists don’t think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists don’t matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesn’t come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent.
NickMatzke_UD_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

And the differences that need explaining are growing: Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome - Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Analysis,,, yielded 57 confidently identified unique peptide sequences in intergenic regions relative to GENCODE annotation. Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html Biologist Douglas Axe on evolution's (in)ability to produce new functions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo Dr. Doug Axe - What are the implications of the book Science & Human Origins for the Darwinian paradigm? - video (What needs an explanation are not the similarities but the differences) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnFs5D-vvnI Nature Article Finds MicroRNAs are "Tearing Apart Traditional Ideas about the Animal Family Tree" Casey Luskin June 29, 2012 Excerpt: When Peterson started his work on the placental [mammal] phylogeny, he had originally intended to validate the traditional mammal tree, not chop it down. As he was experimenting with his growing microRNA library, he applied it to mammals because their tree was so well established that they seemed an ideal test. Alas, the data didn't cooperate. If the traditional tree was correct, then an unprecedented number of microRNA genes would have to have been lost, and Peterson considers that highly unlikely. "The microRNAs are totally unambiguous," he says, "but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.",,, Maybe the reason that different genes yield different evolutionary trees is because there isn't a single unified tree of life to be found. In other words, perhaps universal common ancestry is simply wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/nature_article061471.html micro-RNA and Non-Falsifiable Phylogenetic Trees - (Excellent Research) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-i4pY6_MUbornagain77_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
That’s my point! You’re being inconsistent. DNA fingerprinting takes similarity in DNA and infers ancestry of that DNA. You guys all accept it there. But Cornelius Hunter, and you guys, say that “the claim that similarity implies common descent” is a dubious “metaphysical premise”.
Universal Common Descent, Nick The DNA fingerprinting that says I am related to my father would not say that my father or myself is related to any chimp.
When you accepted that “like reproduces like”, you accepted that reproduction, i.e., ancestry, produces similarity.
Always have. And producing similarity does not explain the differences. You need something that explains the differences.Joe_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

YOU said it, Nick- like reproduces like. That said similarity is evidence for a common design. But you, being ignorant of design processes, just cannot grasp that fact.
When you accepted that "like reproduces like", you accepted that reproduction, i.e., ancestry, produces similarity. I guess it's not so metaphysical after all.NickMatzke_UD_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

And stop being silly. No-one is suggesting that DNA ‘fingerprinting’ is invalid for the crime labs. Nice strawman, though.
That's my point! You're being inconsistent. DNA fingerprinting takes similarity in DNA and infers ancestry of that DNA. You guys all accept it there. But Cornelius Hunter, and you guys, say that "the claim that similarity implies common descent" is a dubious "metaphysical premise".NickMatzke_UD_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply