Casey Luskin writes:
Despite disagreements, there is a standard story of human evolution that is retold in countless textbooks, news media articles, and documentaries. Indeed, virtually all the scientists I am citing here accept some evolutionary account of human origins, albeit flawed.
Starting with the early hominins and moving through the australopithecines, and then into the genus Homo, I will review the fossil evidence and assess whether it supports this standard account of human evolution. As we shall see, the evidence — or lack thereof — often contradicts this evolutionary story.
Early Hominins
In 2015, two leading paleoanthropologists reviewed the fossil evidence regarding human evolution in a prestigious scientific volume titled Macroevolution. They acknowledged the “dearth of unambiguous evidence for ancestor-descendant lineages,” and admitted,
[T]he evolutionary sequence for the majority of hominin lineages is unknown. Most hominin taxa, particularly early hominins, have no obvious ancestors, and in most cases ancestor-descendant sequences (fossil time series) cannot be reliably constructed.1
Nevertheless, numerous theories have been promoted about early hominins and their ancestral relationships to humans.
One leading fossil is described below:
Ardipithecus ramidus: Irish Stew or Breakthrough of the Year?
In 2009, Science announced the long-awaited publication of details about Ardipithecus ramidus (pictured above), a would-be hominin fossil that lived about 4.4 million years ago (mya). Expectations mounted after its discoverer, UC Berkeley paleoanthropologist Tim White, promised a “phenomenal individual” that would be the “Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism.”17 The media eagerly employed the hominin they affectionately dubbed Ardi to evangelize the public for Darwin.
Discovery Channel ran the headline “‘Ardi,’ Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled,” and quoted White calling Ardi “as close as we have ever come to finding the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.”18 The Associated Press declared, “World’s Oldest Human-Linked Skeleton Found,” and stated that “the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor.”19 Science named Ardi the “breakthrough of the year” for 2009,20 and introduced her with the headline, “A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled.”21
Calling Ardi “new” may have been a poor word choice, for it was discovered in the early 1990s. Why did it take some 15 years to publish the analyses? A 2002 article in Science explains the bones were “soft,” “crushed,” “squished,” and “chalky.”22 Later reports similarly acknowledged that “portions of Ardi’s skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction,” including the pelvis, which “looked like an Irish stew.”23
Claims about bipedal locomotion require accurate measurements of the precise shapes of key bones (like the pelvis). Can one trust declarations of a “Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism” when Ardi was “crushed to smithereens”? Science quoted various paleoanthropologists who were “skeptical that the crushed pelvis really shows the anatomical details needed to demonstrate bipedality.”24
Even some who accepted Ardi’s reconstructions weren’t satisfied that the fossil was a bipedal human ancestor. Primatologist Esteban Sarmiento concluded in Science that “[a]ll of the Ar. ramidus bipedal characters cited also serve the mechanical requisites of quadrupedality, and in the case of Ar. ramidus foot-segment proportions, find their closest functional analog to those of gorillas, a terrestrial or semiterrestrial quadruped and not a facultative or habitual biped.”25 Bernard Wood questioned whether Ardi’s postcranial skeleton qualified it as a hominin,26 and co-wrote in Nature that if “Ardipithecus is assumed to be a hominin,” then it had “remarkably high levels of homoplasy [similarity] among extant great apes.”27 A 2021 study found that Ardi’s hands were well-suited for climbing and swinging in trees, and for knuckle-walking, giving it a chimp-like mode of locomotion.28 In other words, Ardi had ape-like characteristics which, if we set aside the preferences of Ardi’s promoters, should imply a closer relationship to apes than to humans. As the authors of the Nature article stated, Ardi’s “being a human ancestor is by no means the simplest, or most parsimonious explanation.”29Sarmiento even observed that Ardi had characteristics different from both humans and African apes, such as its unfused jaw joint, which ought to remove her far from human ancestry.30
Whatever Ardi was, everyone agrees the fossils was initially badly crushed and needed extensive reconstruction. No doubt this debate will continue, but are we obligated to accept the “human ancestor” position promoted by Ardi’s discoverers in the media? Sarmiento doesn’t think so. According Time magazine, he “regards the hype around Ardi to have been overblown.”31
Full article at Evolution News.
Notes
- Bernard Wood and Mark Grabowski, “Macroevolution in and around the Hominin Clade,” Macroevolution: Explanation, Interpretation, and Evidence, eds. Serrelli Emanuele and Nathalie Gontier (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2015), 347-376.
- Michel Brunet et al., “Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’?,” Nature 419 (October 10, 2002), 582.
- Michel Brunet et al., “A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa,” Nature 418 (July 11, 2002), 145-151. See also Michel Brunet et al., “New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad,” Nature 434 (April 7, 2005), 752-755.
- Smithsonian Natural Museum of Natural History, “Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/sahelanthropus-tchadensis (accessed November 30, 2020).
- “Skull Find Sparks Controversy,” BBC News (July 12, 2002), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2125244.stm (accessed October 26, 2020).
- Milford Wolpoff et al., “Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’?” Nature 419 (October 10, 2002), 581-582.
- Roberto Macchiarelli et al., “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” Journal of Human Evolution 149 (2020), 102898.
- Macchiarelli et al., “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis.”
- Madelaine Böhme, quoted in Michael Marshall, “Our supposed earliest human relative may have walked on four legs,” New Scientist (November 18, 2020), https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24833093-600-our-supposed-earliest-human-relative-may-have-walked-on-four-legs/ (accessed November 30, 2020).
- Bob Yirka, “Study of partial left femur suggests Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not a hominin after all,” Phys.org (November 24, 2020), https://phys.org/news/2020-11-partial-left-femur-sahelanthropus-tchadensis.html (accessed November 30, 2020).
- Potts and Sloan, What Does It Mean to Be Human?, 38.
- John Noble Wilford, “Fossils May Be Earliest Human Link,” New York Times (July 12, 2001), http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/world/fossils-may-be-earliest-human-link.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
- John Noble Wilford, “On the Trail of a Few More Ancestors,” New York Times (April 8, 2001), http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/world/on-the-trail-of-a-few-more-ancestors.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
- Leslie Aiello and Mark Collard, “Our Newest Oldest Ancestor?” Nature 410 (March 29, 2001), 526-527.
- K. Galik et al., “External and Internal Morphology of the BAR 1002’00 Orrorin tugenensis Femur,” Science 305 (September 3, 2004), 1450-1453.
- Sarmiento, Sawyer, and Milner, The Last Human, 35.
- Tim White, quoted in Ann Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” Science 295 (February 15, 2002), 1214-1219.
- Jennifer Viegas, “‘Ardi,’ Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled,” Discovery News (October 1, 2009), https://web.archive.org/web/20110613073934/http://news.discovery.com/history/ardi-human-ancestor.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
- Randolph Schmid, “World’s Oldest Human-Linked Skeleton Found,” NBC News (October 1, 2009), https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna33110809 (accessed October 26, 2020).
- Ann Gibbons, “Breakthrough of the Year: Ardipithecus ramidus,” Science 326 (December 18, 2009), 1598-1599.
- Gibbons, “New Kind of Ancestor,” 36-40.
- White, quoted in Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” 1214-1219, 1215-1216.
- Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, “Ardi Is a New Piece for the Evolution Puzzle,” Time (October 1, 2009), http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1927289,00.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
- Gibbons, “New Kind of Ancestor,” 36-40, 39.
- Esteban Sarmiento, “Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus,” Science 328 (May 28, 2010), 1105b.
- Gibbons, “New Kind of Ancestor,” 36-40.
- Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison, “The Evolutionary Context of the First Hominins,” Nature 470 (February 17, 2011), 347-352.
- Thomas C. Prang, Kristen Ramirez, Mark Grabowski, and Scott A. Williams, “Ardipithecus hand provides evidence that humans and chimpanzees evolved from an ancestor with suspensory adaptations,” Science Advances 7 (February 24, 2021), eabf2474.
- New York University, “Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry,” ScienceDaily (February 16, 2011), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132034.htm (accessed October 26, 2020).
- See Eben Harrell, “Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn’t?,” Time (May 27, 2010), http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1992115,00.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
- Harrell, “Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn’t?”
Fossils and Human Evolution (full series thus far)
https://evolutionnews.org/tag/fossils-and-human-evolution-series/
To promote evolution, especially human evolution, earlier forms are needed because we share a common ancestor with apes, or so the story goes. Instead, what do we have? Neanderthals, as painted in the 1960s, were primitive men that lived in caves and TOTALLY separate from human beings. As the decades passed, paintings of Neanderthals began to look more and more like so-called MODERN humans. Then scientists discovered that modern humans have Neanderthal DNA.
Denisovians were presented as another “primitive” ancestor. Then scientists discovered modern humans had Denisovian DNA.
The obvious falsehood is that unguided evolution had no reason to “upgrade” alleged early humans and turn them into modern humans. And the so-called “early” humans could mate with modern humans, proving that they are not ancestors but fully human. Look at the skull shapes of Asians, Africans and Europeans. The so-called ancestors of “modern” humans appear to be nothing more than other racial types. If they were “primitive” ancestors then they should not have been able to interbreed with modern humans.
Of related interest to Darwinists telling ‘narratives’, i.e. just so stories, about human evolution this following, fairly recent, article is interesting.
In May 2021, via an article from the American Museum of Natural History, (which is certainly no creationist organization), it was stated that the human evolution ‘narrative’, (as it is portrayed to the general public by Darwinists) is “just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.”
Likewise, in the past even leading Darwinists Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr themselves honestly admitted that the purported evidence for human evolution is, basically, just “elaborate storytelling” and “historical narrative”.
As should be needless to say, having a senior research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, and leading Darwinists Stephen Jay Gould, and Ernst Mayr, all say that the evidence for human evolution boils down to, basically, “just a big mess”, “elaborate storytelling”, and “historical narrative”, certainly does not bode well for any Darwinist who tries to claim that the supposed fossil record for human evolution is beyond all dispute.
Genesis 2:21
“So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.”
2:22
“And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”
From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII, 1880:
5. “Still, the purpose We have set before Us is not to recount, in detail, benefits of this kind; Our wish is rather to speak about that family union of which marriage is the beginning and the foundation. The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”
This is a classic example of an Evolution News piece by Casey Luskin published, it would appear, to solely take digs (pun intended) at paleontologists for a story that is thirteen years old:
I would hope so; after all the discovery of Ardi would be the oldest hominid find to date, coming in at 4.4 mya, over a million years older than Lucy. Everyone studying human evolution understands that Ardi’s place within the hominid grouping is still under debate.
So, again, other than taking cheap shots, it’s hard to glean the point of Luskin’s article.
BTW, News flash, BA77, Gould’s statement is over 30 years old and Gould’s been dead for 20 years….
Relatd/4
There is a classic – and certainly funnier – take on that story here
chuck
alright.
So something more recent (May 2021), and from a Darwinist:
a big mess :)))))))))))
CD I will agree with your position if you can show me one scientific test one scientific experiment that can be carried out on the Ardi fossil that shows how we know for sure it is ancestral to any other hominid fossil.
The reason the whole thing is a mess is because there are no test no experiments only conjecture , and if you cant test or do experiment to show your position its hardly what you would call a scientific endeavour.
But maybe I am wrong so I await your test or experimental response.
Since CD, while honestly admitting that Ardi is ‘under debate’, (which is still an understatement on his part), still alluded to Lucy as supposed proof of human evolution, it is good to look at the infamous Lucy fossil(s).
Here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy that is widely displayed by Darwinists in museums
And here is an anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy
Other ‘Lucy’ fossils have been found since the ‘powersaw incident’ that show that Lucy could not have possibly walked upright.
Of supplemental note, although Darwinists tell many ‘historical narratives (Mayr)’, i.e. ‘just-so stories’, about how it is possible for ‘Natural Selection’ to transform an ape-like creature into a human, Natural Selection, (via the widely acknowledged “waiting time problem’ in population genetics), is found to be grossly inadequate in its power to transform any creature into any other creature.
Shoot, as if that was not bad enough for Darwinists, “biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism), as irrelevant.,,, At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.”
In short, Darwinists simply have no clue how ”biological form” is achieved in the first place, much less do they have any mechanism, via Natural Selection, to explain a ‘transformation of biological form’. i.e. It turns out to be all “just-so story’ telling on the part of Darwinists with no known causal mechanism(s) to ‘transform biological form(s)’ for Darwinists to base their ‘just-so stories’ on.
Supplemental notes,
The main thing about australopithecines (including related genera Ardipithecus and Paranthropus) is that they were not missing links on a ladder from apes to humans. They were their own distinct group of animals that had their own distinct ecological niches, and they were amazingly successful — for at least two million years, they were the most intelligent and resourceful animals in their environments, and quite plausibly anywhere on the planet.
They managed to live, using brains only slightly larger than those of a modern chimpanzee, in environments considerably more dangerous than where modern chimps live — more big predators, less readily available food and shelter. They are, in their own way, an amazing success story.
Australopithecines weren’t just bipedal apes and they weren’t just really small dumb humans. They were their own kind of being, certainly evolved from other kinds of Miocene apes, and quite probably ancestral to Homo, but with a mosaic of features that is all their own.
BA77:
I’m not going to waste time responding to sources like Answers in Genesis or Evolution News. Again, you’ve missed the whole point of my original comment: Casey Luskin once again trying to create a tempest in a teapot using old and/or outdated information.
Marfin:
If you look closely at the AMNH article, it is critical of interpretive approaches in paleontology as a “big mess” (which, itself is hyperbole), not the fossil record itself. It urges a cooperative interpretive approach and inclusion of fossils, such as Miocene apes, not typically considered. The gist of the article is this:
@12:
The original article in Science looks pretty interesting — from what I can tell, I don’t have institutional access.
I was intrigued by their suggestion that “some modern ape similarities might have evolved in parallel in response to similar selection pressures.” For a long time, it was conjectured that the last common ancestor of hominids and African great apes was a knuckle-walker, because both chimpanzees and gorillas are knuckle-walkers. It seemed more parsimonious to posit that the LCA was a knuckle-walker than to posit that knuckle-walking evolved twice, once in gorillas and again in chimpanzees. But now it seems that the evolved-twice scenario is getting more plausible. That seems consistent with a new article just out in Scientific American about how complicated the evolution of hominid bipedalism may have been: “Fossils Upend Conventional Wisdom about Evolution of Human Bipedalism“
ChuckyD, with no causal mechanism, you’ve got less than nothing.
Again, Darwinists simply have no clue how ”biological form” is achieved in the first place, much less do they have any mechanism, via Natural Selection, to explain how a ‘transformation of biological form’ might actually take place. i.e. It turns out to be all “just-so story’ telling on the part of Darwinists with no actual causal mechanism(s) for Darwinists to base their ‘just-so stories’ on.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-the-standard-story-of-human-evolution-a-critical-look/#comment-768651
@14
The causal mechanisms that generate biological form are going to be discovered through developmental systems theory. As Susan Oyama likes to put it, evolution is the change in timing of developmental events.
Perhaps better put, changes in timing of developmental events generate new functional structures. If those functional structures alter organismal goals in ways that tend to facilitate differential reproductive success, evolution by natural selection is the net effect.
In other words, the causal mechanisms are developmental and ecological — natural selection isn’t some additional causal mechanism, but rather, it’s what tends to happen as a result of these causal mechanisms interacting over time.
I read Origin of Species a few years ago, and came away convinced that Darwin’s basic idea is that speciation by natural selection is a cumulative effect of ecological interactions. The idea that it has some mysterious creative power of its own is not consistent with Darwin’s own best observations and inferences.
CD at 12,
Just repeating the party line. Evolution is not goal directed, supposedly. It is nothing more than a form of storytelling. For one creature to “upgrade” requires the addition of information in the correct place to do something useful. Take the supposed development of the human brain. It – Evolution – supposedly made it larger. That, by itself, does not take into account the fact that the skull then needs to be made larger. And that extra brain mass does what? Random stuff? Take the human eye. It is not just an eyeball. You need an optic nerve that is connected to the “right” part of the brain. And the brain needs to have the correct image processing software. Where did that come from?
The human body can go through alleged “evolutionary” changes in a TV show or movie but that does NOT mean it can happen in real life.
EVOLUTION IS STORYTELLING – Fictional storytelling.
PM1 at 15,
That’s just storytelling, nothing more.
CD , I am afraid you failed to answer my question, so what test or experimentation can be done on a fossil to show it is ancestral to another fossil , please provide an answer.
You see I am afraid interpretive approaches is all you have .
When palaeontologists disagree why do they not say well lets put such and such a fossil under our tried and trusted test to prove its validity as the ancestor you say it is, because there is no way of putting any fossil ever found to a test that does not exist.
Martin, are you aware of two evolutionary concepts: anagenesis and cladogenesis? Beyond a certain limit, no more than a million years, molecular phylogenetics (the powerful tool to settle fine details of taxonomic relationships) is unavailable and paleontologists have to rely on techniques such as comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, biostratigraphy to categorize fossils. Which fossil species are direct ancestors of other fossil species or of modern species is usually impossible to determine definitively. Conclusions are always provisional and subject to revision in light of further discoveries.
Human evolution subsequent to cladogenesis from our most recent common ancestor is a case in point. There is only Homo sapiens now and whether we are a chronospecies directly descended from Ardipithecus ramidus is still under discussion.
Again, Darwinists have no clue how ‘biological form’ is achieved in the first place, so obviously much less can they have any realistic clue of how a ‘transformation of forms’ might actually take place.
As Doug Axe, (no slouch in molecular biology), stated, “We have no idea how a single cell produces an adult”,,,.
And as Alexander Tsiaras stated at the 7:25 minute mark of the following video, “The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.”
And in keeping with the fact that Darwinists have no realistic clue how a single cell turns into the 30 trillion cells that make up a typical human body, it should not be surprising to find out that there is a stark lack of ‘intermediate fossils’, (i.e. transformation of biological forms), when we look at the fossil record as a whole,
The entire fossil record, when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal, (and with a heavy Darwinian bias as it is with human fossils), is VERY antagonistic to the entire Darwinian narrative.
From the Cambrian explosion onward, the entire fossil record simply refuses to conform to Darwinian expectations.
Charles Darwin himself acknowledged that the Cambrian explosion was a problem for his theory,
In fact the Cambrian explosion is now, 160 years on, even more of a problem for Darwin’s theory than it was in Darwin’s day.
As Stephen Meyer noted in the following recent video at the 8:00 minute mark, “The Cambrian Explosion,, has become more explosive”
And what makes the Cambrian explosion so explosive, so ‘un-Darwinian, and so ‘upside-down’, to what Darwin predicted is the fact that it is phyla, (which are among the very highest taxonomic categories), that are found to be ‘explosively’ appearing in the Cambrian explosion first without any plausible precursors.
As the following article states, “the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
And as James Valentine explained, “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
And as Chen Junyuan, one of the world’s leading researchers on the Cambria explosion, observed, “Darwin’s tree is a reverse cone shape”
Moreover, it is not only the Cambrian explosion where the fossil record is, basically, completely upside-down from what Darwin’s theory predicts.
The following study which “looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups” that appeared subsequent to Cambrian explosion, found that “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head.”
That the fossil record is severely discordant, even ‘upside-down’, to what Darwin’s theory predicts is not just some fringe belief that is held by the dreaded creationists, but is something that is readily, and widely, acknowledge by leading Paleontologists.
At the 16:49 minute mark of the following 2021 video, Dr. Gunter Bechly, who is a paleontologist himself, quotes many leading Darwinian paleontologists who also agree that the fossil record is severely discordant with Darwin’s theory.
Thus, given the fact that the entire fossil record, (when viewed in its entirety instead of just piecemeal), simply does not conform to Darwinian expectations, (and is even ‘upside-down’ to Darwinian expectations), then, obviously, we have more than sufficient reason to be VERY suspicious of the claims from Darwinists that the fossil record for human evolution is, supposedly, a ‘slam dunk’.
And indeed, when we zoom-in on the fossil evidence that purports to ‘unquestionably’ establish that humans evolved from some chimp-like ancestor, (as Casey Luskin is currently doing in his series), we find that things are not nearly as neat and tidy as Darwinists have falsely portrayed them to be to the general public with their imaginary ‘just-so stories’
But such developments are impossible biologically and logically.
In addition, there is zero evidence any such process occurred once in history let alone the thousands of times that would be necessary. It is essentially a begging the question fallacy. Must have happened so what sounds good. But it is actually impossible to have happened.
@21
Why are changes in the timing of developmental events biologically impossible? (Clearly they are not logically impossible, since we can conceive of them!)
*retches popcorn*
ETA *leaves Freudian slip alone*
Marfin/18
AF beat me to the punch in comment 19 where he does a great job listing both the current tools in paleontology and the limitations thereof.
“changes in timing of developmental events generate new functional structures”
My 2 cents,
The above is bare assertion, completely devoid of evidence, something that I guess “sounds good”, otherwise, meaningless. It’s like something from the Proverbial Randomy Science-Like Phrase Generator.
Andrew
@25:
I borrowed the phrase from Oyama’s The Ontogeny of Information. It’s quite good. Inoculated me against simplistic neo-Darwinism at an early age.
One could say the same about pink weightless unicorns on a frictionless surface.
First I ever heard of something that’s nonsense becomes logical because one can conceive of it. We are into a new territory of the absurd here.
First because there is no such thing as a developmental event at least in terms of biology.
So how can something that does not exist be a possible explanation? It just sounds good but is also absurd.
@27
I’m coming from a philosophical background. It’s more or less standard in philosophy to say that everything conceivable is logically possible. One could, I think, conceive of pink weightless unicorns on a frictionless surface. They just aren’t physically possible.
@28
Then what would you call stages of embryogenesis and cascading gene activation?
You want to call gestation a development event.
Fine, now how is this useful for anything to do with Evolution? No one understands how gestation works or has shown that it leads to anything new.
Aside: Gestation is what has to be explained, not an explanation for anything to do with Evolution.
What is this and why is it relevant for Evolution?
as to “indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.”
Luskin’s next article is up:
Luskin’s article fails even in the usual style of ID criticisms of mainstream science. Paleontologists regularly have to revise provisional conclusions when new discoveries are made. I notice he does not mention Ardipithecus ramidus at all.
AF & DC So Radiometric dating (rocks to date the fossils) , biostratigraphy (fossils to date the rocks)
and comparative anatomy (well if they look alike they must be ancestral) these are the best tools available to the palaeontologist , no wonder its not considered a real science , these guys are historians at best .
Show me the test methods show me the empirical experimentation , then I will consider palaeontology a reliable scientific field , and not a search to prove what you already believe.
I find that hard to believe. And who do you think you are, James Tour? 😉
Seriously, do you think paleontology is some kind of scam? Start with William Smith. He made a map of Britain based on his knowledge and research of rock strata (he worked in the mining industry as a surveyor). He noticed that fossils and strata matched. His research, discoveries and conclusions were pragmatic and useful. He was able to reliably predict where new extraction sites for minerals should be located.
Or let’s give a shout out to women in science. Let’s hear it for Mary Anning, arguably the first working paleontologist. No atheist agenda there, just making a living.
AF , so was William Smith making his decisions as a geologist or as a palaeontologist , there is a difference .
Asauber: The above is bare assertion, completely devoid of evidence, something that I guess “sounds good”, otherwise, meaningless. It’s like something from the Proverbial Randomy Science-Like Phrase Generator.
But I have told you, several times, where you can find evidence and discussion of why that is the case in a book, easily available and not expensive, written expressly for general, non-specialist readers. Have you bothered to even try and find that book and read it? Of course not.
Stop asking for evidence if you’re not going to look at it when someone tells you where to find it.
He was a surveyor. He used his observations of strata and the fossils embedded in them to make predictions that proved useful. He contributed (unwittingly perhaps and certainly unappreciated in his lifetime) to establishing both geology and paleontology as empirical sciences, based on evidence.
JVL, when Darwinists are asked for evidence they are being asked for real-time empirical evidence, i.e. ‘scientific’ evidence, that Darwinian processes can actually accomplish what Darwinists claim for them, not for some ‘word salad speculations’ in some obscure book somewhere.
For instance, if Darwinian processes were really capable of transforming ‘body plans’ into ‘new body plans’, then Darwinian processes ought to be able to, in principle, easily change one type of protein into a fundamentally new type of protein. Yet that is not what we find. Darwinists simply have no real-time evidence of that type.
Of supplemental note:
AF , No one who knows anything about science believes palaeontology is an empirical science , its a historical science at best.
Its akin to trying to find out how the pyramids were built , you may have some great theories and show how it could be done but can never show how it was actually done .
But the pyramids are real we can see them so research into their construction is valid , man descending from some ape like ancestor is not necessarily true , so if it never happen research into how it happened is some what futile and definitely not empirical science .
Empirical is based on observation or experience , so show me by these two methods that palaeontology is empirical , its not as the saying goes ” you kick over a stone in Africa and you get to rewrite human history” such is the flimsiness of the supporting evidence for any given fossil
@ Marfin. I’m sorry you don’t like the idea of sharing ancestry with other species. You are not obliged to accept it. You are welcome to ignore the fact that you and bonobos are genetically very similar. There’s another explanation that you prefer, perhaps.
AF: “You are welcome to ignore the fact that you and bonobos are genetically very similar.”
And you are welcome to ignore the fact that you and Dolphins, (and kangaroos), are genetically very similar, (just don’t call yourself an unbiased arbiter of scientific evidence when you ignore it).
AF , Alan I happily accepted I was close relative of the great apes , until I was confronted with enough evidence to the contrary .
I did not want to accept this contrary evidence , because I knew what the implications of it was but you just have to go where the evidence leads no matter how unpalatable at the time.
If you are willing to look at contrary evidence I recommend the book ” bones of contention” , by Marvin Lubenow , it will really open your eyes to how open to conjecture the how field of palaeontology is.
@ Marfin
It’s 20€ on Kindle. I see it’s considered written from a Creationist view point. I’ll look at a few reviews and then I’ll think about it. I have to declare my scepticism that Creation science has any validity. It seems to be bending evidence rather than following it.
Reviews are mixed.
AF: “I have to declare my scepticism that Creation science (and/or Intelligent Design) has any validity.”
And where is even a smidgeon of skepticism on your part that your worldview Atheistic Naturalism has any scientific validity?
In fact, assuming Atheistic Naturalism, instead of Judeo-Christian Theism, as a starting philosophical presupposition in science drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Supplemental note:
But I don’t ignore that, Phil. Genetic similarity across species demonstrates the nested hierarchy of common descent of all known life on this planet. I continue to be amazed how the new science of molecular phylogenetics confirms so precisely the pattern of common descent observed and developed by comparative physiology and taxonomy.
AF , Alan if you want I can post you my copy , but dont look at who`s saying it, just look at whats being said , as there can be an honesty and a bias on both sides.
That’s a generous offer. Postage might be steep to France. Another point. The latest edition is 2004. I’m sure there have been significant developments in the field over the last twenty years.
AF, so in your book genetic similarity proves common decent except when it doesn’t? Heads I win, tails you lose? Really? You are a joke, and not even a very funny one.
As James Le Fanu explains, “Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.”
Genetic similarity simply does not line up with morphological similarity as was presupposed within the Darwinian model of ‘genetic reductionism’.
Moreover, where differences are greatest between chimps and humans, (and between all other creatures), are not in the genetic sequences per se, but are instead found in the alternative splicing patterns of those genetic sequences.
As the following paper states, “A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”
In fact, due to alternative splicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,”
This finding of “perhaps a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification”
is simply completely devastating to the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists, (i.e. to ‘genetic reductionism’).
As Stephen Meyer stated in the following interview, “it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species.,,, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,”
The evidence from genetics, when scrutinized in detail, and directly contrary to what Darwinists claim, simply does not support the Darwinian ‘narrative’ that humans evolved from apes. In fact, the empirical evidence, via alternative splicing patterns, actually falsifies their claim in a ‘hard’ fashion.
How on Earth do you get that from anything I wrote?
All life on Earth is genetically similar. All evidence points to a common origin. Sure one can postulate a divine designer, but why bother reinventing the wheel with separate creations of virtually identical (at the cellular level) organisms when all you need to do is create the Universe and kick start life just the once?
Whatever AF, your claims are ‘not even wrong’ (Pauli).
As Dr. Cornelius Hunter (PhD Biophysics) explained, when looking at “a total of nine massive genetic databases”, “Darwin could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory”.
The intelligent design model falsified the Darwinian common descent model by 10,064, 40,967 and 515,450 bits respectfully, and this is where 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence for a model.
Which claim of mine is it you are disputing, Phil? That all cellular and multicellular life on Earth is, on a biochemical level, incredibly similar even to the extent that the genetic code, with the exception of a few though significant variations among bacteria, is universal. Universal!
Bornagain77: when Darwinists are asked for evidence they are being asked for real-time empirical evidence, i.e. ‘scientific’ evidence, that Darwinian processes can actually accomplish what Darwinists claim for them, not for some ‘word salad speculations’ in some obscure book somewhere.
It’s not ‘some obscure book somewhere”! It’s recent, it’s written for the general reader, it has a number of particular evolutionary developments it looks at, it’s documented, it’s not lengthy or expensive, it’s probably in your local library. But will anyone here read it? Not so far. But you keep asking us for the scientific work. And we tell you where to find it and you don’t look.
Clearly you don’t want to do anything that might threaten your views. You’re afraid to look. So why should I bother responding to the nth demand for evidence?
“Stop asking for evidence”
JVL,
I didn’t ask for any evidence. I stated there wasn’t any, to which there has been no objection.
Andrew
Asauber: I didn’t ask for any evidence. I stated there wasn’t any, to which there has been no objection.
I do object. I’ve answered lots of your questions. You won’t look at some easy to find and easy to digest material. You’re not interested in having a real conversation or dialogue. You’re 100% NOT interested in looking at any research or evidence or data or material or easy to find and inexpensive books that might bring your views into question.
People have been objecting to your statements, people have been trying to answer your questions, people have tried to support their views. You just ignore everything.
So, tell me: why should I bother trying to discuss things with you in the future?
“So, tell me: why should I bother trying to discuss things with you in the future?”
JVL,
You should stop trying and just go away.
Andrew
You refer to the statement in comment 15, I think:
…changes in timing of developmental events generate new functional structures…
There’s a whole branch of biology, Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology), that is the study of embryology and how cell differentiation, division, and die-back is under genetic control, such as via HOX genes. This is not controversial.
We all should. You are a lost cause and we have better things to do. Why I can’t stop then? Must be an ego-driven addiction and without free will I’m powerless in its grip. 🙁
Asauber: You should stop trying and just go away.
You didn’t object to the statements I made that you weren’t actually interested in considering the evidence that is contrary to your point of view so I guess that statement stands.
See how easy it is to tar-and-feather someone. Not that you need lessons.
Alan Fox: We all should.
It’s worth pointing out hypocrisy though. It’s worth showing that some ID proponents intentionally do not even try to keep up with the fields of study they think they know so much about. It’s worth letting them know that the ruse is running out of road.
“There’s a whole branch of biology”
AF,
One whole branch? I’m not sure what that proves.
See, you trolls seem to think that sciency-sounding groups are what make for good science. I don’t think so. If Science Marketing impresses you, that’s your problem.
Andrew
Asauber: One whole branch? I’m not sure what that proves.
It shows that there is a lot of research and publications, whole journals in fact, which you are ignorant of. So how do you know what the current state of the science is since you don’t even know what work is being done?
See, you trolls seem to think that sciency-sounding groups are what make for good science. I don’t think so. If Science Marketing impresses you, that’s your problem.
And casting aspersions on stuff you’re clearly ignorant of proves what exactly? That you’re ignorant and out of touch. That you have an agenda which is to never, ever concede that mainstream evolutionary science might have a point. If that means not looking at publications or data or evidence or research then that’s what it takes.
“That you have an agenda which is to never, ever concede that mainstream evolutionary science might have a point.”
JVL,
That’s not true. On the other hand, literally everything from the Evolutionist side I’ve heard all my life has been hype or lies, so you have that going for you. I’m not seeing anything from you trolls that is bucking that tendency. I don’t know what else to tell you. All the benefit of doubt was squandered long ago, so some fancy phrasing has no value. But I’m not even sure youse guys understand what I’m saying.
Andrew
I’ve just been looking for reactions to a paper championed by Cornelius Hunter and copy-pasta’d by Phil in 54 above. I found this discussion at Peaceful Science, where Josh Swamidass points out shortcomings in the paper that Ewert acknowledges and says he will give it some thought and respond. As far as I am aware, Winston has not yet got back to Swamidass. Yet Phil, unaware of the paper’s faults and Ewert’s failure so far to respond to criticism, presents the paper as a slam-dunk for “Design” vs evolution.
Beyond “evolution sucks and people posting here providing evidence supporting it are dishonest trolls”? Beyond that, you don’t say a whole lot.
“people posting here providing evidence”
AF,
Don’t see much of that. I see lots of comments. Evidence is rare. Jerry has prolly calculated the ratio for blah, blah, blah to evidence. It’s pretty steep to the naked eye.
Andrew
AF 55: “the genetic code, with the exception of a few though significant variations among bacteria, is universal. Universal!”
So AF, the universality of the genetic code (save for some ‘minor’ exceptions),
So AF, the universality of the genetic code (save for some ‘minor’ exceptions), not any specific genetic similarity/dissimilarity between organisms per se, is what makes universal common decent a slam dunk in your book? And you see no problem with this line of reasoning for Darwinian evolution?
Really?
To point out a few ‘minor’ problems with your ‘reasoning, (as if ‘reasoning’ were even possible for a Darwinian meat robot (J. Coyne)), number one, unguided material processes cannot account for the origin of any code. In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can prove that mindless, unguided, material processes can create a ‘simple’ code.
Number 2, even if mindless, unguided, material processes could somehow account for the origin of a ‘simple’ code, Darwinian processes still could not account for the further ‘evolution’ of that ‘simple’ code into the ‘optimal’ genetic code that is found in life,
To add insult to injury to AF’s line of ‘reasoning’, the primary reason why the further ‘evolution’ of a ‘simple’ code into the ‘optimal’ genetic code is impossible for Darwinian processes to explain is given by none other than Richard Dawkins himself,
Phil, what you quote Dawkins as saying is correct. No idea why you think that has any bearing on the point I’m making about the near-universality of the genetic code. Also I acknowledge and embrace the insights provided by the minor variations in the genetic code found in some bacteria. They hint at evolutionary pathways to the current code.
Asauber: On the other hand, literally everything from the Evolutionist side I’ve heard all my life has been hype or lies, so you have that going for you.
That is a lie, a big lie. Trump-level lie. If you keep it big and repeat it some folks will believe it.
I’m not seeing anything from you trolls that is bucking that tendency.
Another lie. We have pointed you to things that address your queries. YOU choose to not look at them. How can you learn if you refuse to do some reading?
But I’m not even sure youse guys understand what I’m saying.
I understand what you are saying. And I’ve spent many, many posts presenting links to information that addresses your queries. You completely blank on all that and now lie and say we haven’t made the effort.
So, I think what you are really saying is: I’m just going to keep wasting these evo-dopes’ time. That’s about it isn’t it? IF you did want to learn about the actual research and evidence you would check on the things we present to you. But you don’t. That’s not your purpose at all.
Don’t see much of that. I see lots of comments. Evidence is rare.
Your choice to ignore the references and suggestions we make. Arguing out of ignorance is bad enough; choosing to stay ignorant and then saying you haven’t seen anyone answering your questions is just lying. If you’re not aware of that then you’re a fool. If you are then you’re a knave.
Which are you?
Bornagain77: Dawkins’ claim of universality in mind,
Let me guess, you haven’t even read his book have you? If you had you would know that he qualifies his statements in the same way that Alan Fox has.
So either you haven’t read his book and are just quote mining from secondary sources which would explain why you didn’t know how Dr Dawkins actually characterises genomics. Which just makes you look like a foolish copy-and-paste acolyte.
Or you have read his book and are intentionally leaving out the bits that run contrary to what you are saying. Which makes you a knave.
So, fool or knave? Which is it?
AF, so you got nothing other than the usual hand-waving denial on your part, and some token cheerleading from your fellow troll JVL claiming that you guys are not constantly lying through your teeth..
Pathetic.
I am quite satisfied to let my comments stand on their own merit for unbiased readers (if there be any here on UD)
On their own merit? Hmm. Though I grant that some of your comments can be both good and original. Unfortunately the good parts are not original and the original parts are not good.
Hat-tip to who said that first
Bornagain77: so you got nothing other than the usual hand-waving denial on your part, and some token cheerleading from your fellow troll JVL claiming that you guys are not constantly lying through your teeth..
That’s rich coming from someone who has (probably) never read any of the books or articles we have suggested you read and (I suspect) hasn’t even read many of the sources you quote-mine. In fact, as I showed a week or two ago, I caught you linking to a couple of things you clearly hadn’t read ’cause you said the thing at the end of the link said one thing when it didn’t.
You don’t ‘do’ science by creating a huge database of what you consider damning quotes, grouped by topic, and then copy-and-paste them in a blog discussion. Science isn’t about how many references or foot notes you can generate. You actually have to understand the work you are linking to otherwise you just look like a fool. Or a knave.
How often do you go through your database and makes sure the links are a) actually linking to something with the quote you’ve attached and b) still active? Or is it, since you know very few people (especially ID supporters) actually look at the links, that you don’t bother making sure everything is accurate and up-to-date? You frequently do link to sources that are 10 or 20 years old.
I am quite satisfied to let my comments stand on their own merit for unbiased readers (if there be any here on UD)
Are you saying you aren’t unbiased? Is Kairosfocus unbiased? How about Asauber? Or Jerry? Or ET (whose has been strangely absent recently)? Or UprightBiPed? Querius? Do you read any posts by anyone other than yourself and those responding to you?
I can tell when you haven’t got a decent honest answer; it’s when you pull the “I’m quite satisfied to let my comments stand” line. You can’t truthfully answer what has been said so you walk away.
JVL at 56,
I will huff and puff and blow your house down. Clearly, as Ba77 has written on more than a few occasions, you refuse to recognize facts. Too bad.
Fair warning: I have a sock launcher aimed in your direction. Don’t make me use it.
Ba77,
Just a point about the pro-evolution troops stationed here. Heads you lose, tails you lose.
Evolution makes a lot of changes except when it doesn’t.
Evolution is fast except when it’s slow.
As a storytelling mechanism for FICTION, it is unsurpassed, except by its promoters who are impervious to facts.
Relatd: Fair warning: I have a sock launcher aimed in your direction. Don’t make me use it.
Uh huh. I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of your awesome display of editorial power.
How often do you think BornAgain77 actually reads the entire source material he quotes from? How often do you think he checks his database to see which links are still active?
JVL at 79.
Here we have JVL as judge, jury and executioner.
‘Ba77, you have been charged with the following crimes: Quote-mining and not reading your own sources thoroughly. Worse, you have departed from the true faith – Darwinism. Before you plead, allow this court to extend its mercy towards you. Not only are we magnanimous but we are good. So either mend your ways or face the Darwinist Inquisition.’
Relatd: Here we have JVL as judge, jury and executioner.
Since you didn’t answer my questions does that mean you have no objections to them? Asuaber thinks that if no one offers any objections then what was said must be true. Right?
Sorry Bornagain77, Asauber thinks you’re guilty of not reading your sources or keeping up with your links. Don’t shout at me, it’s not my logic.
Aside from that Relatd didn’t definitely say he thought Bornagain77 did thoroughly read and understand his sources nor did he offer an opinion as to whether or not his links are kept up-to-date.
JVL at 81,
I have every objection to everything you say. You’re just here to promote bad arguments and bad reasoning; i.e. if you just read THESE books and/or articles and you will be automatically converted to the one true faith – Darwinism.
Let’s face it. There are two ONLY two sides here. The atheist and the Christian. And the arguments revolve around faith, not science. The “up to date” line is CRAP. Darwinism wasn’t true 10 or 20 years ago? So cut the CRAP.
Relatd: I have every objection to everything you say. You’re just here to promote bad arguments and bad reasoning; i.e. if you just read THESE books and/or articles and you will be automatically converted to the one true faith – Darwinism.
You could say the same thing about reading Dr Behe’s books or Dr Dembski’s books. That’s not an argument. I spend time on this site to learn what the people I disagree with think and why so that I DON’T fall into the fallacy you’re suggesting I have succumbed to.
Let’s face it. There are two ONLY two sides here. The atheist and the Christian. And the arguments revolve around faith, not science. The “up to date” line is CRAP. Darwinism wasn’t true 10 or 20 years ago? So cut the CRAP.
I disagree with you but it’s interesting you are playing the ‘it’s all about faith’ card. ‘Darwinism’ has been widely established and supported for decades. Does this mean you are giving up the ‘ID is science’ line?
And, please note, you still haven’t chosen to defend Bornagain77‘s practices. For some reason. Are you going to?
JVL at 83,
Ba77’s practices? He can defend himself. I won’t answer the other so-called questions because they aren’t questions. You will continue to promote Darwinism. It’s your job, your mission. And quit calling it a “point of view” as if one side (only) is right and the other wrong.
Both sides can’t be right. You will ignore that, you can’t afford not to.
“Asuaber thinks that if no one offers any objections then what was said must be true.”
JVL,
Not at all. Truth is Truth no matter who objects or doesn’t object. I just thought it was interesting that my particular comment drew some responses, but no objections. Until the 9pm Troll Feeding.
Andrew
Well, “Christians” is only 1/3 of the world’s religions, but for some reason that doesn’t matter.
Does this dualism of atheist/Christian correspond to Darwinism/ID, in your view? So all atheists are Darwinists and all Christians are intelligent design advocates?
If Darwinism and intelligent design are the only two comprehensive frameworks in which one can do biology, and if the choice between them is a matter of faith, then biology rests on faith. That seems to make biology really different from physics or chemistry, which don’t rest on faith in the same way (or do they?).
Perhaps biology isn’t a real science at all, since the choice of framework in which one does biology is decided on faith, and not on the basis of evidence.
PM1 at 86,
Provide some real, actual evidence for evolution.
87:
Are you asking me to conduct an experiment of my own and report back? Or am I permitted to cite the research done by others?
If the former, I have some strange things growing in the back of my fridge but let’s not talk about those.
If the latter, what are you asking for? Evidence of speciation? If I were to cite research showing that speciation is close-to-observable, and that we know something about the genetic changes that led to the emergence of new species, would that be sufficient?
PM1,
The usual dodge. What was the question? I don’t understand. Repeat ad nauseum and I do mean nauseum.
@89
If you refuse to be clear about what you’re saying, it’s not someone else’s fault that they don’t understand you.
“If you refuse to be clear about what you’re saying”
PM1,
Well, he asked you to provide evidence for Evolution, which is an extremely scientific and informationally robust term, so what are you confused about?
Andrew
@91
Well, for starters, they* could have clarified if they were requesting evidence of microevolution or macroevolution, and if they were requesting evidence of macroevolution, if they were requesting evidence of speciation or evidence of some higher-taxa change, e.g. evolution at the level of genera or above.
Evolution is an umbrella term for lots of different processes and theories about those processes. If related isn’t going to be clear about what they mean and responds with snark at a sincere request for clarification, that’s not my problem.
* I use “they” for all online users except in cases when a specific gender can be attributed to a user based on the handle they’ve chosen or the user has indicated their gender to me.
Though I’m much more interested in whether Relatd thinks that biology can be a science at all, since it would seem that on their view, the choice of basic conceptual framework in which to do biology is determined by whether or not one believes in God, and that seems to be very different from the situation in chemistry or physics.
“Evolution is an umbrella term for lots of different processes and theories about those processes.”
PM1,
So when Evolution is discussed within your spheres of communication, you spend a few moments clarifying what it is you mean when you use the term?
Andrew
What does the theory of evolution have to do with the science of biology?
As the late Philip Skell stated in an article entitled “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?”, “I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Darwinists simply have no experimental evidence whatsoever that any biological system could have arisen by unguided Darwinian processes. As biochemist Franklin Harold honestly admitted in 2005, “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
Given to abject failure of Darwinian evolutionists to be able to demonstrate the origin of even a single biological system, (or even a single protein), then it is highly disingenuous for Darwinists to try to tack the word “evolutionary’ onto the word ‘biology’ every chance that they get, as if evolution has had anything whatsoever to do with the existence of biology, much less the existence of biological science itself.
@PyrrhoManiac1 :
Thousands before you repeated the same nonsense you do. All you darwinists are made in the same factory? because you seem to have installed the same faulty operating system : illogical ideas , just-so stories , ad-hominem, rinse and repeat.
🙂 We must understand them ,they have no scientific evidences of darwinian evolution but they have to push the agenda with the only method they have left…empty words: “Evolution is a fact” , “evolutionary” biology , evolutionary this ,evolutionary that.
Yes, the Darwinist Assembly Factory. All get the same programming.
The National Academy of Sciences attempts to defend evolution and knock down ID.
https://www.discovery.org/a/4386/
@94:
Yes, of course.
@96
Well, it’s certainly true that thousands of people before me have also learned the basic principles of scientific reasoning.
Relatd: Ba77’s practices? He can defend himself. I won’t answer the other so-called questions because they aren’t questions.
They are questions and, for some reason, you won’t offer your opinion. I’ll stop asking. Clearly you’re afraid of answering.
And quit calling it a “point of view” as if one side (only) is right and the other wrong.
I was trying to be polite. Do you want me to stop being polite? Like you? Attack, attack, attack? Is that the way forward?
Bornagain77: What does the theory of evolution have to do with the science of biology?
And here’s another tsunami of copy-and-pasted quotes mined from sources that Bornagain77 has probably not even read.
AND, guess what, no one has stepped up to defend BornAgain77‘s technique. Funny that. It’s almost like none of the other ID supporters had paid any attention to what he was doing. Could that be true? . . . Inquiring minds want to know.
But, sadly, I predict that there will be no one willing to be honest about such things. They are too afraid to admit a crack or a chink in what they have been told is the ID armour. Hold the line! Don’t give an inch. Never, ever admit your opponent has a point or something sensible to say.
It is true isn’t it that it really is theological? You guys think: if they’re for God then they’re with us. And we have to label all the others as materialists. You need a black and white split to justify your stance.
Wow, my handle in now being bolded by JVL in his ad hominem posts against me. I guess I should consider that a promotion. 🙂
JVL at 101,
Allow me to edit the following:
“They are too afraid to admit a crack or a chink in what they have been told is the Darwinian armour. Hold the line! Don’t give an inch.”
Quite true in your case and in the case of the usual suspects here.
Bornagain77 has been doing a fine job for the most part. His long and detailed replies, and links, include information anyone can read for themselves. Everything points to evolution sinking like the Titanic right now, but until reassignment, the pro-evolution troops stationed here must repeat the same tired, old lines. Meanwhile, ID has convincingly presented its case and is sweeping aside claims with no foundation. As ID becomes more popular and as research continues, evolution will disappear completely under the waves. Never to be seen again, except as a historical aside.
My only quibbles with Ba77 involves certain things related to quantum mechanics, a field of study that is just getting off the ground in earnest.
Another box checked!All repeats this nonsense too. Let’s see the next one.
PS: Maybe you want to present some scientific evidences how an animal became another type of animal but just-so stories and assumptions are not allowed only science . 😉
Whistler at 104,
I’d very much like to see that. Ape to man conversion. With complete evidence. Yes.
“Ape to man conversion.”
Relatd,
Common Ancestor* To Man conversion.
*Common Ancestor being deliciously difficult to put an opposable thumb on.
Andrew
“Yes, of course.”
PM1,
How could I ever think otherwise? 😉
Andrew
PyrrhoManiac1 @26, 29,
Just some perspectives on your previous comments . . .
Because I was really surprised at the presumptuous title, I looked up descriptions of Susan Oyama’s book. The conserved nature of information is a considered by most physicists (including Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking) a conundrum to be solved, while others (including Sabine Hossenfelder) consider it unsolvable.
Information is obviously transferred physically between physical objects, but its nature and source is problematic. “Shannon Information” relates to data compression. So, how would you differentiate between information and data? Consider this:
https://byjus.com/biology/difference-between-data-and-information/
Maybe you can appreciate why I think Susan Oyama’s use of the term is too sloppy to be used outside of psychology.
Not having a background in philosophy, this observation also surprised me. For example, science fiction writers often conceive of faster-than-light travel, but Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity implies that traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible.
Lessee, just to have some fun . . . the “unicorn” came from a wildly exaggerated description of the Indian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) from the Greek physician and historian Ctesias around 400 BCE in his monograph, On India. So, if we humanely capture one, sedate it, dye it pink, and take it for a ride on a diving transport jet, it will become weightless. A frictionless surface can be defined mathematically as parallel to the floor of the aircraft just under the happily drugged, floating rhino.
But your point was that anything conceivable is “logically possible,” although “not physically possible.”
Certainly, logic can be imposed on something like non-Euclidean geometries, but I don’t understand how their existence is logical versus illogical.
-Q
Bornagain77 @102
No, it simply means that you’ve won the debate with JVL.
-Q
Relatd/105
What conversion? Humans are apes.
JVL, in all fairness, we all know that once a key case study passage is on the table, it may have in it one of the most powerful forensic, historical and hermeneutical points: an embarrassing admission against interest.
Such has particular weight precisely as it implies that an objector cannot dismiss or deny the point.
For most recent example, while Plato does put on the table the idea of philosopher kings, he is forced to put in his Socrates character’s mouth — there is no guarantee Socrates actually had such a conversation — the admission that he agreed with the objector that a great many students of philosophy were failures at making a good difference, even as he argued that looter mutineers who could not sail the ship of state aright would predictably marginalise, defame or murder those they should acknowledge as competent. Similarly, that pattern is at the heart of the Christian Gospels, which are historic, and of course Ac 27 is actually a miniature real world case of the Ship of State in action. I actually take Plato’s allusion to a FLEET as a subtle allusion to the notorious Sicilian expedition. Oddly, Ac 27 is in almost the same waters.
There are many, many telling admissions by evolutionary materialistic scientism advocates and fellow travellers that should be collected, pondered and heeded.
Further, you should be willing to acknowledge that for over a decade I have consistently argued that we have worldviews with first plausibles and should exert comparative difficulties analysis.
Also, I have pointed to the centrality of abductive inference to the best explanation and accountability before factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power.
Then, you know full well that Newton was right to insist that claimed causal factors be shown to have the requisite capability by being observed to actually work as causes of the like effects.
Are you prepared to argue that such things are mere empty dismissible bias worth only a one phrase sneer?
If so, you know which side of the mutiny you are on.
KF
PS, a reminder on Newton’s rules:
Now, kindly show us where suggested forces of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity were ever demonstrated and observed to be capable of causing Orgel-Wicken functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 to 1,000 bits, as regards origin of life [note Tour’s critique], origin of major body plans or origin of the human body plan and mental capabilities. We all know there is no actual observation of such capability meanwhile intelligently directed configuration is such a clearly demonstrated source of FSCO/i that FSCO/I is rightly regarded as a sign of such design. Except, when the great evolutionary materialist ideological imposition is used to shut down and marginalise.
Seversky, no, we are not. We are primates, yes, as a structural categorisation but the skeletal differences are already telling, and the mental differences are beyond reasonable doubt. KF
Q, a possible world is a reasonably complete set of propositions describing how this or another world may be. This then allows us to exert logic of being analysis to distinguish impossible vs possible beings, thence contingent vs necessary world framework beings. Of the last, I find we can identify core mathematical entities, sets and structures that are part of the fabric of any possible world and of course that confers universal power to that core, N,Z,Q,R,C,R* and linked results. Just C brings in a quantifiable version of the Euclidean plane and grounds its results algebraically, e.g. we do x, then jx –> y, so then we take y = mx + c as specifying straight lines then we can define what parallel lines are and why for any real values of coordinates they will never meet. . God, of course, is a serious candidate necessary being, which if properly reckoned with utterly changes the terms of current debates. On unicorns, I believe there is a market for such, and likely within a century they will exist via genetic engineering. As to completely frictionless situations, pipe dream, though like absolute zero we can come close. And more. KF
PS, in case. Set f1: mx + c1 –> y1, and f2: mx + c2 –> y2, m the same and constants c1 != c2. Then for any x in R, y1 and Y2 will have the same separation c1 – c2. This clarifies what parallel means and how such lines never converge.
Ardipithecus ramidus lived in Africa around 4.4 million years ago. They (noted PM1) have skeletal adaptations both for bipedality and arboreal existence, occupying a transitional niche between forest and savannah. Evolutionary pathways can be hypothesised without recourse to saltation or special creation.
Evolutionary explanation for human cognition. Selective pressure over 4 million years favouring increased cognitive ability. Brains get bigger.
“Intelligent Design” explanation is _____? KF or anyone please explain and include supporting evidence. TIA.
By whom other than your good self, who is unable or unwilling to explain the methodology.
AF,
there are highly material skeletal differences that are not simply accountable.
Next, the standard talking point is all too well known on accounting for our capabilities. What they fail at was long since highlighted by Haldane. Responsible rational freedom just simply is the requisite of sound theorising. It is also, necessarily, utterly distinct from dynamic-stochastic computation on a substrate. Even as ground-consequence chains freely acknowledged to be right and accepted are cheese to the chalk of blind inherently causal consequence of computational steps or phases driven by GIGO and functioning as canned reasoning of a programmer. Where, your programmer of choice is blind lucky noise filtered by incremental success. Something which, nowhere, never, has been observed to write complex code and linked successful algorithms. So, it is fallacious ideological imposition.
Such crooked yardsticks have next led you into dismissive personalising rather than willingness to acknowledge the key insight of Orgel and Wicken, or that of Dembski who noted that in biosystems complex specified information is cashed out as [configuration based] function. FSCO/I is as real and as observable and identifiable as the difference between your writing text in English and your having written gibberish of empty repetitive short blocks of characters. And you full well know this, you cannot but know it.
So, we can freely infer that your attempt to deny the reality of FSCO/I even while your objection is a case in point, is a selectively hyperskeptical dismissal as deep down you face a conflict that to acknowledge it is fatal to your preferred ideology.
We simply note that this starts with the coded algorithms in the living cell and their execution machinery:
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/
You have never had a sound, straightforward, whole hearted acknowledgement of your error regarding these generally known and otherwise uncontroversial facts.
KF
PS, you full well know that one may readily infer and with good warrant, that X is the case without knowing the specific or general means. For example, we still do not know the trade secrets of Stradivarius and cannot replicate his sound. Hence, why his violins are particularly precious. [cf here] We still do not know how the pyramids were built. And in any case, we already have first steps of design of life forms given Venter et al. I suggest, further, something obvious. Programmed nanotech is the means we see in biology, why would it then be so inconceivable that advanced programmed nanotech was used to begin with?
Accountable? Accountable to whom? What are you asserting? That skeletal changes between Ardipithecus ramidus and Homo sapiens can’t be accounted for by 4.5 million years of accumulated and selected variation?
Come on then, be specific. Tell us of a change that can’t be explained by evolution. For bonus points, let’s have your alternative explanation.
I’ve made many errors in posting here (that in itself is the worst) and I’m happy to acknowledge and correct them, if I spot them or someone points it out (DIL for niece).
I suspect you are referring to a point on which we disagree, or something you have written that makes no sense to me (that happens a lot). It’s also possible I’ve not read something. Your “literary” style is off-putting to anyone more used to the twenty-first century and I skip the repetitive bits (which saves much time).
Given the above, I suggest you post a link and covering note to the source of your grievance and I’ll respond as I think fit.
Kairosfocus: in case. Set f1: mx + c1 –> y1, and f2: mx + c2 –> y2, m the same and constants c1 != c2. Then for any x in R, y1 and Y2 will have the same separation c1 – c2. This clarifies what parallel means and how such lines never converge.
You certainly have idiosyncratic ways of noting things. It’s clearer if you write:
l1: y = mx + c1
l2: y = mx + c2
Or
f1(x) = mx + c1
f2(x) = mx + c2
Mathematics doesn’t have to be obtuse and hard to read.
JVL, I have in mind distinct pairs of ‘vertically’ separated points in two parallel lines, and colons work as here comes specification of a function . BTW, I should have explicitly said m is in R too. KF
AF, there is no — zip, zilch, nil, nada, nyet — repeat, no evidence of actual observation that in 4.6 BY, 500 BITS of FSCO/I can be created by blind chance and mechanical necessity on the gamut of our solar system, much less what is needed to transform ape to man. If you doubt kindly provide documentation of observed creation of 500 bits by said blind chance and mechanical necessity, a classic would be text generation without front loading with active information. So, oh in 5 my or 8 to 10 we go from ape to man easy peasy is fantasy. Part of a wider, deeply institutionalised fantasy but still a fantasy. KF
PS, a wiki confession:
PPS, you are here also trying to pretend that you disagree with me on D/RNA having coded algorithmic info and it’s my fault when you have a quote from Lehninger and a link to an OP on the subject. Where also you clearly understood that I stated just that about D/RNA and you pretended it was because I am ignorant etc. I quoted Lehninger and Heirs to show just how off base you are.
Kairosfocus: I have in mind distinct pairs of ‘vertically’ separated points in two parallel lines, and colons work as here comes specification of a function . BTW, I should have explicitly said m is in R too.
You are overly complicating the idea. Keep things simple so the point is clear.
Kairosfocus: If you doubt kindly provide documentation of observed creation of 500 bits by said blind chance and mechanical necessity,
Unguided evolution as specified in countless books, text books, papers, research and data. NO ONE claims all that ‘information’ came about suddenly. This gets back to what you think the first ‘life’ on Earth was like. HINT: it wasn’t a cell.
Look, you are the one claiming that the widely held scientific paradigm is incorrect so you need to propose an alternative hypothesis and show it does a better job explaining the data. BUT, when queried, ID does not do a better job explaining the data because you cannot say WHEN design was implemented, HOW design was implemented, or PREDICT what will come next.
you are here also trying to pretend that you disagree with me on D/RNA having coded algorithmic info
You may have answered this somewhere and I’ve missed it so I apologise if that’s the case . . . my question is: show an example of one of those algorithms. I’m happy with a link if I’ve missed the response.
JVL, it is simple enough. f1: definition, assignment of o/p value to y1, similar for f2. The main point is for any x in r, correlated y1 and y2 have the same vertical separation for algebraic reasons, so we see why the lines are parallel, rather than taking an arbitrary statement. That we are using a modified version of C allows us to specify, too, what a flat, planar Euclidean space is about. In former years we have had people playing with contexts to make this postulate seem arbitrary and ill advised. It is not, once we keep the planar context in mind. KF
JVL, unguided macro evolution creating novel body plans has never been observed. That is my specification, following Newton’s rules for good reason. Again, Lyell:
Causes now in operation speaks to actually observed.
Next, Kindly simply click the linked, above and now repeated. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/
I took time to add another point where Lehninger directly compares a stele.
KF
Kairosfocus: it is simple enough. f1: definition, assignment of o/p value to y1, similar for f2. The main point is for any x in r, correlated y1 and y2 have the same vertical separation for algebraic reasons, so we see why the lines are parallel, rather than taking an arbitrary statement. That we are using a modified version of C allows us to specify, too, what a flat, planar Euclidean space is about.
C? What are you talking about? If you mean complex numbers (which there is no reason to bring up) then just say so!
You always want to make things sound math-y. Just say them simply.
Kairosfocus: unguided macro evolution creating novel body plans has never been observed.
Have you read Dr Neil Shubin’s book: Some Assembly Required? I’m guessing you haven’t. In the book he explains how mutations to control genes can alter parts of the body so they have new functions. You should read it.
Next, Kindly simply click the linked, above and now repeated. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/
So, where in all that is the algorithm?
JVL, notice, above I spoke to a universal, necessary entity core of Math and pointed to NZQRCR* explicitly. Yes C is the complex space where jx is replaced by y, allowing us to mathematically, algebraically define a plane. In this context we can define straight lines algebraically and show why parallel lines do not converge. Background is the fifth postulate and games that have been played with it here over the years. If people had played straight then, there would be no need to emphasise this now, but that is water under the bridge. KF
PS, the algorithms of AA chaining in protein synthesis. In summary start/load methionine, elongate with AA2, AA3 etc, halt with one of the stop codons.
Kairosfocus: notice, above I spoke to a universal, necessary entity core of Math and pointed to NZQRCR* explicitly. Yes C is the complex space where jx is replaced by y, allowing us to mathematically, algebraically define a plane. In this context we can define straight lines algebraically and show why parallel lines do not converge. Background is the fifth postulate and games that have been played with it here over the years. If people had played straight then, there would be no need to emphasise this now, but that is water under the bridge
Please don’t be so condescending. And try harder to use standard, textbook style methods of referring to mathematical structures and concepts.
the algorithms of AA chaining in protein synthesis. In summary start/load methionine, elongate with AA2, AA3 etc, halt with one of the stop codons.
So, you’re talking about a gene? Is that it?
Algorithms for a single cell(in mathematical formulas) will be available after scientists will discover everything about a single cell. We don’t need to wait until then to know for sure that algorithms are a reality because humans can observe many functions( interconnected, dependent on each other in a nonlinear way ) of the cell that are coordinated(upper-level algorithm) for a meta-function: survival.
🙂 “countless books, text books, papers” Yes ,countless but no one have the evidence required by KF.
Your “hint” is also “very scientific” I’m sure there are countless books about scientific evidences backing your hint and not just storytelling “scientific” articles.
Whistler: Algorithms for a single cell(in mathematical formulas) will be available after scientists will discover everything about a single cell. We don’t need to wait until then to know for sure that algorithms are a reality because humans can observe many functions( interconnected, dependent on each other in a nonlinear way ) of the cell that are coordinated(another level of algorithm) for a meta-function: survival.
If you say: there are algorithms and you can’t show they exist then . . .how can you be sure? What evidence tells you they are there when you can’t pinpoint them?
In this we will have to disagree.
But we know who made them, when and where they were made, the tools used, the basic mechanisms of construction, the materials used and their origin, some of the chemicals used, the purpose for the construction, etc., etc., etc. For the flagellum, what do we know about the mysterious designer, the tools used, when and where the design was first realized, the mechanism of construction, etc., etc., etc?
We know when they were build, where they were built, that they were designed and built by humans, that the blocks were quarried from Giza, south of the pyramids, that the cap rocks were quarried from Tura and transported by boat. We know that the blocks were quarried using copper tools. The biggest disagreement about their construction is how the blocks were transported and lifted into place, although there are leading contenders.
For the flagellum, how did the designer obtain the materials needed to assemble it? How was the first one assembled? What tools were used? Where did the raw materials come from? Etc., etc., etc.
And, more importantly, what research is being conducted by ID researchers to solve these “design” mysteries?
Careful. Don’t give KF wiggle room. A gene is an umbrella term for a section of DNA that can be linked to the expression of some trait in the phenotype. Any DNA sequence can, in principle, be translated into a protein sequence. Whether the protein product has a function in some context (or enough function to be worked on and honed by successive rounds of selection and variation) is a different question. KF tends to conflate sequence with function.
Alan Fox: Careful. Don’t give KF wiggle room. A gene is an umbrella term for a section of DNA that can be linked to the expression of some trait in the phenotype. Any DNA sequence can, in principle, be translated into a protein sequence. Whether the protein product has a function in some context (or enough function to be worked on and honed by successive rounds of selection and variation) is a different question. KF tends to conflate sequence with function.
Understood. But he will have to get more specific if he wants to have a real discussion. Let’s see if he can.
JVL, merited correction, much less explanation and giving context are not condescending in the bad sense. KF
Kairosfocus: merited correction, much less explanation and giving context are not condescending in the bad sense.
When your ‘giving context’ is overly complicated then you’ll lose part of your audience.
JVL & AF: the denial continues. I simply cite Lehninger:
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/
AF, I have never conflated sequence with function, though of course there is functional sequence complexity, and more, going back to Trevors and Abel.
And I could actually discuss a threshold metric in more detail, but the denial would simply continue.
Let the fact that you had to compose meaningful text strings exhibiting FSCO/I in order to object to the concept and the fact that we can observe functionality based on particular configuration, assign a binary dummy variable 1, multiply the number of bits and subtract a threshold value speak.
KF
Kairosfocus; the denial continues.k
I haven’t denied anything. I’ve asked you for clarification.
And I could actually discuss a threshold metric in more detail, but the denial would simply continue.
Just answer the questions: show me one of the algorithms you say exist. AND: are you talking about a gene?
Let the fact that you had to compose meaningful text strings exhibiting FSCO/I in order to object to the concept and the fact that we can observe functionality based on particular configuration, assign a binary dummy variable 1, multiply the number of bits and subtract a threshold value speak.
Just answer the questions. Okay?
F/N: Remember, 49 years ago:
KF
Kairosfocus: Remember, 49 years ago:
Yes . . . but . . . have you actually showed us the algorithm you profess exists?
You said there were algorithms in the genome. We just want to see them.
JVL, did you look at the stepwise finite procedure to chain AAs, towards proteins? That has been very specifically highlighted and is a commonplace fact. KF
Kairosfocus: did you look at the stepwise finite procedure to chain AAs, towards proteins? That has been very specifically highlighted and is a commonplace fact.
Yes. Is that not just a single gene expression?
Is that an ‘algorithm’ or just a list? What is the difference?
The difference being: what triggers the execution of instructions?
I just want you to specify and be clear of what algorithms you think exist in the genome. So, just be specific and we can get on with things.
Kairosfocus/112
Yes, there are differences but not so great as to prevent us being classified as hominids, a sub-group of the Great Apes and, as you say, we are all primates. I have no problem with that. Our taxonomic niche makes no difference to who and what we are.
:))) The functions are the visible part of the algorithms. And even if you see a single algorithm you ask for you couldn’t make head nor tail of it. Are you into coding life?
You can use an Operating System even you have no clue about the source code. The functions (running softwares, editing docs ,etc.)are the sign of the source code activity.
A toddler doesn’t ask mommy for source code of the milk to verify that milk is good enough for him/her.
Whistler: The functions are the visible part of the algorithms. And even if you see a single algorithm you ask for you couldn’t make head nor tail of it. Are you into coding life?
Just show us the algorithm. If you can.
A toddler don’t ask mommy for source code of the milk to verify that milk is good enough for him/her.
Your condescension is noted. Now, can you show us the algorithm(s) or not?
Seversky at 110,
Prove it. Show me the step by step transition. Otherwise, your comment is stupid.
Relatd: Show me the step by step transition.
If you were given one . . . how would you know if it were correct? In other words: how will you judge an answer.
:))I’ve just seen some old comments of you. So ,don’t tell me , you think that there is no real code /no real language in the cell but you ask for an algorithm? Now I understand why you don’t accept the answer of KF.
Yes, protein production , repairing , transport, cell signalling and other functions that take place in the cell happen because of randomness and chaos and not because of the algorithms . 😉
Whistler: So ,don’t tell me , you think that there is no real code /no real language in the cell but you ask for an algorithm?
I’m open minded, if you give me some good evidence I’ll give it some thought. The question is: is there an algorithm? Let’s just address that.
Yes, protein production , repairing , transport, cell signalling and other functions that take place in the cell happen because of randomness and chaos and not because of the algorithms .
Again, just spell things out.
What in heavens name goes on in your head, KF? Despite my continual (did I get that right, Jerry) demands, you have failed to define any real concept as FSCO/I. You make no sense.
You can assign whatever you like, you cannot divine functionality in a sequence. It’s embarrassingly obvious to me, to anyone following, and I guess to KF as well.
What is DNA/RNA transcription and translation? It’s either a random process or an algorithm directed process .There is no third option.
Sure there is. Chemistry. Can you point to a single aspect of protein synthesis that doesn’t involve chemistry?
Whistler: What is DNA/RNA transcription and translation? It’s either a random process or an algorithm directed process .
If you could just spell out the algorithm please.
Sadly, neither Whistler or Kairosfocus were able or willing to present one of their claimed algorithms which is a pity. One would hate to think that such things were only assertions instead of actual, physical objects. Oh well.
Also, Relatd was unable to tell me how he could tell if a step-by-step transition I gave to him was correct. So, if I just made one up would he know? What criteria would he use to evaluate such a thing? You’d think if someone asked for something like that they could tell if they were given the real deal or not. You’d think. Oh well.
Perhaps it is all just chemistry after all. You know, chemistry, the laws of which were, apparently, created by the designer. I’ve heard.
Haha, you are so predictable. I was waiting for your message to see if you consider your argumentation a win and you indeed met my “expectation” and this is the evidence that the logic is not your stronger quality.
algorithm definition : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end. . I think all of The Cell Biology manuals provides hundreds of examples of algorithms inside of all life’s processes : movement, reproduction, sensitivity, nutrition, excretion, respiration , growth,etc.
All these are specific functions that can’t be explained in terms of chemistry alone . Also there is no scientific evidence that chemistry has “the ability” to create a single living function in the natural realm( under a rock, in a pond 😉 ) let alone life . Chemistry is not the answer unless you believe that a bricks made the castle just because are constitutive elements of the castle. and a castle doesn’t even reproduce itself like a cell certainly do 😉
Let’s compare 2 messages of JVL:
In his first message his credulity about darwinism rest in just-so stories. He doesn’t show scientific evidences about how life originated , no evidences for first life form ,nothing only stories. So heartwarming.
In his second message his hyperskepticism stop him even to acknowledge that exist real functions (performed in multiple steps toward an end goal) in the cell unless we provide him the line of code that execute those functions. You can’t make this stuff up !
He probably will admit that real functions exists in the cell only if are produced by randomness/unknown/mysterious naturalistic processes so nobody from darwinist side will have to botter to produce a line code algorithm for JVL . :)) ” Chemistry did it”
Whistler: algorithm definition : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end. . I think all of The Cell Biology manuals provides hundreds of examples of algorithms inside of all life’s processes :
I know what an algorithm is. I’m asking you to pick one you think exists in biology. How is it encoded? Where is it encoded? How is it triggered? How is it stopped?
In his second message his hyperskepticism stop him even to acknowledge that exist real functions (performed in multiple steps toward an end goal) in the cell unless we provide him the line of code that execute those functions.
Are you saying cellular algorithms are not ‘written down’ somewhere? How else could they be carried out?
“Creators of closed-source software products control access to the source code of their programs. ”
https://encyclopedia.kaspersky.com/glossary/closed-source/
@Whistler:
SOURCEcode. Anyone can look at the generated machine-code.
Whistler: “Creators of closed-source software products control access to the source code of their programs. ”
But you can still say WHERE the code which contains the algorithm is. You know how it is stored. You know what processes it. You know how to overwrite it or erase it. You might even be able to reverse engineer it. If you know the machine code you can ‘read’ the instructions, line by line. I’ve seen a tech alter lines of code by flipping switches on the front panel as the lines (on and off lights) came up on the register.
Pick a process and pseudo-code it out so we can see what kind of thing you think exists.
🙂 You are not very familiar with programming. But I digress…
JVL, disappointing. We all know that in D/RNA there are algorithms expressed as string data structures that — stepwise — construct AA chains towards final form proteins including enzymes. We even have readily accessible code summaries, with recognition of variants, up to a couple of dozen it seems. That you can stand up here and pretend in the face of such that the algorithms are missing even after they have been repeatedly pointed out speaks volumes. KF
PS, the meaning of algorithm is key and I give a more specific form emphasising finitude [so it can be completely executed] and halting [so it terminates whether normally or abnormally]. An algorithm is a finite, goal directed sequence of procedural steps, with halting. Goal directed is a manifestation of naturally evident purpose. They are commonly given as lists of steps.
AF, your blatant denial of facts to accuse is now a manifest rhetorical pattern. First, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I, is already a description of a common, readily observed and distinguished phenomenon. What it needs is examples and such have been copiously given here at UD for many years. Indeed, your own objections as text in English as opposed to typical random gibberish uhs46touhjdfyfd and/or repeating blocks asasasasasas are a manifest case in point, as are watches, fishing reels, galvanometers, gears, aircraft, oil refineries, the process-flow network for cellular metabolism and in that context, tRNA and mRNA as well as Ribosomes, with of course the algorithmic code to chain AAs towards proteins you cannot acknowledge in the mRNA as a particularly direct case. These are matters of observable fact and description, with an acrostic. Where, ostensive definition by pointing to examples is a valid form of definition. You have been around where metrics expressible in functionally specific bits beyond a threshold where it is implausible that blind chance and necessity could give rise, have been framed. You have cases in point, indeed, what do you think file sizes on your computer measure, however roughly? We could continue but it is clear that you are exerting an irresponsible hyperskeptical no concessions policy that requires you to close your mind to observable fact. Having lost on the merits you are misrepresenting the pointed out facts and are falsely accusing people. Where, as every comment I have ever made at UD links through my handle to a discussion of such matters, I have a right to conclude for cause that your commentary is irresponsible, needlessly denigratory, outright defamatory and so of little or no credibility. KF
@Whistler
What makes you say that? Did JVL get something wrong about programming?
Whistler: You are not very familiar with programming.
So, all those hours I spent covering punch cards with FORTRAN didn’t happen? Or the time I learned BASIC so I could use the department’s PDP-11 and its teletype terminal to program some simple numerical methods for differential equations? Or when I learned Pascal to do even more complicated numerical solutions to PDEs in 3-space (first submitting batch on an IBM and later using a line editor on a VAX/VMS)? It all seems so real . . . And those hours I spent working the nightshift at that US Navy facility writing and implementing hardware interface test programs in CMS-2 and assembler code? Not real? Then there was the tens of thousands of lines of dBASE III I created to help the Navy track replacement parts for one of their bits of equipment. I got paid . . . it must have been real. And the HTML I used more recently . . . sigh.
Well, since you seem to know so much about such things it should be easy for you to provide one of the algorithms you are thinking of. Like falling off a log I should think.
Kairosfocus: We all know that in D/RNA there are algorithms expressed as string data structures that — stepwise — construct AA chains towards final form proteins including enzymes. We even have readily accessible code summaries, with recognition of variants, up to a couple of dozen it seems. That you can stand up here and pretend in the face of such that the algorithms are missing even after they have been repeatedly pointed out speaks volumes.
Well, it should be easy for you to provide an example then.
Kairosfocus: An algorithm is a finite, goal directed sequence of procedural steps, with halting. Goal directed is a manifestation of naturally evident purpose. They are commonly given as lists of steps.
Did you take a course on being condescending or were you just born that way?
Again, just give us an example. Something we can discuss.
AC, he spoke to status c 1940’s to maybe early 60’s. Even my old ET3400A (which I still have) used a keyboard and array of seven segment LEDs. So, it is fair to point to lack of familiarity. Current state of art is something like MS Visual Studio Code. KF
Kairosfocus: he spoke to status c 1940’s to maybe early 60’s.
Really? I worked for the US Navy in the 1980s and one of the other programmers could stand in front of a UYK-20, call up each line of code to the main register which was displayed as a series of lights, either on or off, with a row of switches below them. He could ‘edit’ the code by flipping the switches.
We were working on hardware interface test programs and we frequently looked at the results on the front panel which, again, was just a series of lights or LED display for the machines working in octal.
We carried around cards with all the assembler coding listed. It was easier enough to look at the register and interpret the ons and offs as 0s and 1s and figure out what command and memory locations were being referenced. So, yes, you could ‘back engineer’ the CMS-2 source code.
Perhaps, instead of calling my experiences into question you’d like to actually provide one of the algorithms you are referring to.
JVL, you are in a context where another commenter has resorted to slander. Condescending as a dismissal of substantial correction is not appropriate and you know it. Where, I was in fact responding to W to highlight facets of algorithms that tend to be brushed over lightly in common current descriptions: goal-direction, finitude, halting, the common issue of abnormal termination; halting on reaching goal or on abnormal conditions is significant relative to goal directed and to functionality, both of which are relevant to our discussion. Obviously an infinite code cannot be realise but logically could never terminate, again relevant to goal directed and to functionality. An eternal loop such as a main polling loop that waits on and handles inputs is not properly an algorithm, though it is a program and has its uses. Those are important parts of the picture. As for oh provide examples, you know you have been given a whole class of examples, the AA chain assembly programs towards protein synthesis, which is in D/RNA in the cell, something which is otherwise not controversial. KF
JVL, that would be old tech still in use — I add, similar to the Apollo program machines. I suspect the IBM 360 was the last major mainframe family with a front panel switch array with indicator lights, implying in effect machine language coding, though of course key registers thus accessed would be hard set to initial conditions. Assembly programming was displacing machine code by the 50s and the first breakthrough high level languages were the late 50s. Basic, what, 1964/5 at Dartmouth? I am very aware the first PCs c 1975 were front panel machines, soon to be succeeded by more advanced interfaces, especially once the 6800 family 6845 CRT controller was on the table. But as noted, my late 70’s era ET 3400A was using a keypad and seven segment LED array, c late 70’s, i.e. key in hexcode. KF
Kairosfocus: Where, I was in fact responding to W to highlight facets of algorithms that tend to be brushed over lightly in common current descriptions: goal-direction, finitude, halting, the common issue of abnormal termination; halting on reaching goal or on abnormal conditions is significant relative to goal directed and to functionality, both of which are relevant to our discussion.
Perhaps it would be better if you were clearer regarding to whom your comments are directed.
As for oh provide examples, you know you have been given a whole class of examples, the AA chain assembly programs towards protein synthesis, which is in D/RNA in the cell, something which is otherwise not controversial.
Searching for AA chain assembly doesn’t bring up any biological examples. Are you talking about a single gene? A series of genes? Are you talking about the creation of a single protein, an organ? What?
We know some genes are not always ‘on’ or ‘off’. What determines that? Is that part of the ‘algorithm’?
I just want you to be specific as to what the algorithm in a cell actually is. Matching the criteria as you have noted. I thought a particular example would be helpful.
Kairosfocus: that would be old tech still in use.
They were being used on then, current . . . let’s say things in the water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN%2FUYK-20
Please note, they are still being used.
All computers have a central register. All computers run on machine code. All processors have a collection of assembler code instructions. Any higher level language is translated into the assembler code and thence into machine code whether you see that happening or not.
JVL, I specifically addressed W. As for your onward attempt to pretend that chaining of amino acids in ribosomes using tRMA and mRNA is not algorithmic and does not therefore speak to how the myriads of proteins in the cell are made, that speaks for itself, sadly. KF
PS, again, Lehninger has been cited already. Let us go here
https://biologydictionary.net/protein-synthesis/
This is just to point out the generally recognised. Indeed, each particular AA chain used in proteins is a case of an algorithm stored in DNA transcribed to mRNA executed in ribosome. To suggest in the face of these commonplace facts that there is no example on the table is therefore utterly fallacious.
The no concessions policy in the face of something as commonplace as this speaks, and not in favour of our objectors.
Kairosfocus:
Okay, so you are talking about the synthesis of a single protein, that’s the algorithm you’re thinking about. Its ‘goal’ is to create a single protein. Not a leg or an arm or a lung, just one protein. Correct?
What triggers the execution of the algorithm? We know not all genes/algorithms are active all the time . . . what turns them on?
JVL, yes, while the Iowa Class were also using 1940s analogue, ball and disk integrators for gunlaying, so the point of old tech is made. Now, this is the tech you are discussing:
The phones in the sailor’s pockets vastly outstrip those mini dinosaurs. I wonder where ferrite bead memory is still made.
50 years in operation, technology from the 50’s [ferrite core], I assume hybrid ICs or early monolithics, possibly discretes, I would hope no valves by then though a cube to fit a 25 inch hatch is suspicious. I add, is that 16 or 17 inches on the side?
In that context, a front panel with registers loaded bitwise and using LEDs — almost certainly mainly red — is definitively old tech similar to the Apollo Guidance Computer. As I said, my ET 3400A was an advance on it.
BTW, late 80’s the French built radar for flight control in Jamaica was running on 6800 MPUs. Yes, hundred not thou, and not second gen [6808] or final gen [6809, of fond memory].
KF
PS, did some lookup. Clock rate about 1 MHz, some overlap on fetch-execute, MSI ICs but definitely ferrite core, 64k memory, there is reference to punched paper tape programming, original cost about US$ 25 k. The archi is a modification of von Neumann, microprogrammed instruction set, a rather familiar sounding flag register, and it seems the focus was machine code programming. MSI circuits are early 70’s the rest reminds me of being a baby bro to a s360 or a 1401 or 704. Very similar to the flying computer for Apollo. But I guess ruggedised is a key reference. Amazingly, they and the next step seem to be still in use, an emulator running on a Raspberry Pi Pi Zero microcontroller sitting on a 40 pin card that would sit in an old 40 pin DIL socket (one is next to me as I type) would run rings around them and is a Linux interface.
The operating system of life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JufLDxmCwB0
Firstly, we don’t know how many O.S. are inside the cell . We know that some processes require direct execution by interpreters and other processes require conversion into machine-code by a compiler .What kind of assemblers do we need (meta-asemblers, cross asemblers,etc.) ?
We don’t know too much about this marvel but this doesn’t mean that darwinian “technology” unintentionally compiled under a rock few operating systems that work together for millennia with self-updating.
I don’t see the term encryption ,cypher in your “qualifications”. Even if those few O.S. that operate in the life systems are not encrypted guess what ? Without the right compilers/asemblers/interpreters are encrypted for us. Even if the scientists decoded few lines of code by checking the causal chain that doesn’t help too much to discover all the code line .(see biggest failure of darwinism : “junk DNA” that ,in fact is more important than protein coding region, one of the O.S . definitely resides in junk DNA area)
W, we are seeing machine code used in numerical control in the cell, especially in the focal case, protein synthesis. Thus the comparison is embedded systems. We know there are regulatory frameworks above and beyond, which are just now being teased out. That goes beyond. But already, we have a case of widely known complex algorithms that use known codes and are known to execute in the living cell to help make its proteins; a crucial known case. I suspect many objectors are unfamiliar with system architecture thinking, and especially with machine code, discrete state control, numerical control and the like. They think the physical layer exhausts all, failing to see that there is software, there are functionally organised structures expressing the assembly language view [and augmented by the OS or monitor that does regulating work] and implying systematic organisation AKA architecture. They deal with us who come from that sort of background and refuse to credit that such and related areas constitute legitimate bodies of knowledge that have something to say.That is how it looks to me, I am suggesting names like Andrew S Tanenbaum and Morris Mano etc for starters but suspect they will not be able to bridge. As for embedded systems and numerical control, those are arcane arts from the beginning. KF
F/N: Let’s try a reference or two:
https://www.jsway-cnc.com/what-is-numerical-control-nc
Notice, automation.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/automation
Now, Drexler Assembler:
https://fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/nano.musings.html [note, security warning, I guess old page]
Wiki on the Drexler-Smalley debate:
So, now, Wiki’s confessions on tRNA:
That is, tRNA is a mobile, molecular, position-arm device with a CCA universal joint tool tip that is loaded with the appropriate AA through loading enzymes. [This is where the code is enforced, chemically any CCA can load any of the 20 AAs]. This then matches the mRNA codon in the tape in the ribosome. At the other end of the L, the AA is loaded to the AA chain, towards the protein.
This is an automated process, and it is algorithmic with start, elongate, finite scope, halt on stop codons, and of course manifests a naturally evident goal through elaborate means. Given, significance of proteins in cell based life. The cell devotes considerable energy, investment in complex machinery and in stored information to carry forward this part of the even more elaborate overall process-flow metabolic network.
This brings us back to, here we see coded algorithms at work.
But the zero concession fallacy, doubtless will be engaged here, to studiously ignore highly material facts.
It is time to invoke the adapted JoHari window and establish our own, independent knowledge base.
KF
Whistler: Firstly, we don’t know how many O.S. are inside the cell
We do know that so far you haven’t pointed any out.
We know that some processes require direct execution by interpreters and other processes require conversion into machine-code by a compiler .What kind of assemblers do we need (meta-asemblers, cross asemblers,etc.) ?
Nice smoke screen covering up your inability to answer the question.
I don’t see the term encryption ,cypher in your “qualifications”.
It wasn’t pertinent.
ven if those few O.S. that operate in the life systems are not encrypted guess what ? Without the right compilers/asemblers/interpreters are encrypted for us.
Again, an excuse for you not being able to answer the question.
Even if the scientists decoded few lines of code by checking the causal chain that doesn’t help too much to discover all the code line .
Uh huh. So, you say there are definitely algorithms in cells but can’t provide an example because you assume it’s all complicated or encrypted?
Sounds like you don’t know that much about programming.
JVL, W has spoken to the onward cases where indeed we do not know. But, right before us — and this is Nobel Prize winning work now taught in primary schools — we have a known case, complex coded algorithms used in chaining the diverse AA strings toward synthesis of proteins, as part of an automated process in which mRNA serves as a tape storage medium and tRNA as a carrier of AAs and position arm device used to chain the AAs. This is a case of adequate warrant, where what we do not yet know should not be allowed to block us from acknowledging what we can and should know. In this context the obvious zero concessions policy that you just used is a clear manifestation of hyperskeptical denialism of unwelcome evidence that should instead have been faced squarely and acknowledged. KF
Kairosfocus: W has spoken to the onward cases where indeed we do not know.
He’s a bit of a jerk who treats people in a very condescending manner when he probably knows less than those he berates. It’s his attitude I don’t like.
I was hoping to get a clear response to some questions I posted above. I shall repost so you don’t have to look for them:
“Okay, so you are talking about the synthesis of a single protein, that’s the algorithm you’re thinking about. Its ‘goal’ is to create a single protein. Not a leg or an arm or a lung, just one protein. Correct?”
“What triggers the execution of the algorithm? We know not all genes/algorithms are active all the time . . . what turns them on?”
“He’s a bit of a jerk who treats people in a very condescending manner when he probably knows less than those he berates. It’s his attitude I don’t like.”,,,
“We’re going to need a bigger irony meter!” 🙂
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIDs6UAXsAALH85?format=jpg&name=small
JVL:
1: EACH protein has its own algorithm, that’s thousands. They follow the same design pattern but each is different.
2: The immediate goal is to properly assemble the AA chain towards the proteins, where these are pivotal to biological life.
3: Each of these thousands of algorithms use coded step by step procedures with halting etc.
4: This is a case where what we do not yet know should not distract us from what we know. The mRNA is created, matured, passed to the cytoplasm, fed into ribosome, executed.
5: These show language and goal directed processes in the cell, turning on deep knowledge of polymer chemistry.
KF
This is just nonsense on a stick.
AF, your denialism and projection are what cannot stand scrutiny. KF