Darwinian Debating Device #17: “The Black Knight Taunt”

_{Barry Arrington
November 3, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

The essence of the “Black Knight Taunt” is to pretend overwhelming victory after suffering a crushing defeat. Here we have a classic example from a commenter named “keiths.”

In my No Bomb After 10 Years post I noted that after 10 years of debating origins I had never encountered a “science bomb” that would disabuse me of my ID position.

Amusingly, keiths insisted that he had posted just such a bomb over at The Skeptical Zone that proved that Darwinism is “trillions” of times better at explaining the data than ID. His argument failed at many levels. Yet, even more amusingly, he kept on insisting he had debunked ID after his so-called bomb had been defused by numerous commenters. See, e.g., here and here.

Here is the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

In my example, WJM lopped off the Black Knight’s arms and KF took out his legs. Yet days later he was still posting shrill comments announcing his triumph.

In the clip above Arthur gives the only response to “The Black Knight Taunt.” We pick up the scene after Arthur has cut off the knight’s arms and legs:

Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
King Arthur: You’ll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I’m invincible!
King Arthur: …You’re a loony.

Arthur rides away.

Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!

Comments

Enkidu: It’s not any designer multifunctionality that’s an issue. It’s the trillion arbitrary ways the single function could be ID implemented. Disagree with Keith’s argument if you like but at least represent it properly.
Did you bother to read Keith's OP at the skeptical zone? I did. Contrary to your claim, the versatility of the designer is central to Keith's argument. He argues that are trillion options available. [sarc] All very scientific numbers. [/sarc]
Keith: The options open to a Creator are enormous. Only a minuscule fraction of them give rise to an objective nested hierarchy of the kind that we see in nature. In the face of this fact, the only way for a creationist to argue for common design is to stipulate that the Creator must have chosen one of these scant few possibilities out of the (literally) trillions available.
Box_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

E: That there's more than one way to skin a catfish has utterly nothing relevant to do with recognising on signs sitting there in front of us, that this cat's done been skinned. Or, in short, the empirically tested reliable signs of design, such as functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (for which there genuinely are trillions of observed cases) when present, per canons of inductive reasoning strongly warrant the conclusion on sign, design. There may be many ways to design, and more to effect it, but to recognise that twerdun, all we need is the known, reliable sign. In short, KS' argument is a fallacy of irrelevancy, apart from that it begs several big questions as WJM and I as well as others, have pointed out. But, until selective hyperskepticism regarding anything that points to design and correlated hyper credulity for what objectors wish to be so, is addressed there will be no acknowledgement of any pro design argument, regardless of how strong. Indeed, again and again we have seen objectors to design thought climbing all over the walls to find objections to self evident first principles of right reason, in a context that strongly suggests the mere fact that design thinkers support such is reason enough to react in a polarised way. It is time to do better than that. KFkairosfocus_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

drc466:
So, you are arguing that tree contains every known species? Nice.
drc466, You see how "Theobald's Figure 1" is underlined in my comment? That means it's a hyperlink. You can actually click on it! Like magic, your browser will then take you to Theobald's Figure 1, which you can inspect at your leisure. When you do, you will see that it represents the 30 major taxa of life.
They are “subjective” in the true definition of the word because the people creating the trees picked and chose which attributes to use when placing species: “subjective”. As I stated, Theobald uses a statistical definition for objective, not a dictionary one (e.g. “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:”). Example: If I used “reproductive system” as my “objective” primary rule for species placement, it wouldn’t look anything like the Trees evolutionists create. Therefore, said trees are NOT “unbiased”.
You're confused about how cladograms are inferred. They are based on derived characters, and the order in which the derived characters are applied is not arbitrary. The order is chosen so that the resulting cladogram satisfies a constraint, such as maximum parsimony or maximum likelihood. It's objective. Have you even read Theobald?
Your entire premise is that the Trees of Life created are statistically ONH’s, and therefore must be Phylogenetic (UCD). If you don’t assume ONH = UCD, then by the Symmetric property we can’t assume UCD = ONH, and you have no reason to prefer UCD over any other theory, because all those other “trillions” of non-ONH’s might also show UCD.
I don't assume "ONH = UCD". An ONH could also be produced by separate creation via common design, and I examine that possibility. The problem for ID is that there are trillions of other possible patterns that could be produced via common design, while for unguided, gradual evolution with primarily vertical inheritance, an ONH is the only possibility. Unguided evolution predicts an ONH, out of trillions of other possibilities. ID doesn't predict an ONH -- unless you assume, ad hoc, that the designer is an evolution mimic. ID therefore loses. I also don't assume that "UCD equals ONH". It definitely does not. Guided evolution need not produce an ONH, which is why my argument is effective not only against creationists but also against guided evolutionists. Haven't you read my OP? I cover this quite explicitly:
What about our third subset of IDers — those who accept the truth of common descent but believe that intelligent guidance is necessary to explain macroevolution? The evidence is a problem for them, too, despite the fact that they accept common descent. The following asymmetry explains why: the discovery of an objective nested hierarchy implies common descent, but the converse is not true; common descent does not imply that we will be able to discover an objective nested hierarchy. There are many choices available to a Designer who guides evolution. Only a tiny fraction of them lead to a inferable, objective nested hierarchy. The Designer would have to restrict himself to gradual changes and predominantly vertical inheritance of features in order to leave behind evidence of the kind we see.
drc466:
And….with that I ride off from the BK with everyone else.
Except that you can't ride off, because it's you who is missing his limbs, not the Black Knight.keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

AF, of course refuses to acknowledge that the Durston et al work exists, that Yockey et al have done work, or that the common H-metric SUM pi log pi, suitably modified to reflect functional specificity, would be reasonable. Or, even that functional files commonly seen in computer systems are measured routinely on the number of Y/N questions required to specify used states. For utterly simple instance, an ASCII character in text is commonly known to require seven y/n q's to specify, and this leads to a metric of info storage. Namecalling a reasonable and standard procedure as bogus simply shows the hyperskepticism, churlishness, hostile closed mindedness, rage and more we are -- sadly -- dealing with. Surely, this matter can be addressed by objectors at a better level. KFkairosfocus_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Box Keith argues that multifunctionality by the designer (or by mobile phones) has a hugely negative effect on the probability of being a cause. His reasoning simply doesn’t make sense. No he doesn't. It's not any designer multifunctionality that's an issue. It's the trillion arbitrary ways the single function could be ID implemented. Disagree with Keith's argument if you like but at least represent it properly.Enkidu_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Enkidu, You made "much more probable" up. My summation, in post #41, is spot on. From Keith's OP at the skeptical zone:
And because unguided evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of the kind we actually observe in nature, out of the trillions of alternatives available to a Designer who guides evolution, it is literally trillions of times better than ID at explaining the evidence.
Keith argues that multifunctionality by the designer (or by mobile phones) has a hugely negative effect on the probability of being a cause. His reasoning simply doesn't make sense.Box_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

beau:
You guys are punching a steel plate anticipating tears by continuing to argue this with Keith.
You're right, beau. They need something better than bare fists if they want to put a dent in a thick steel plate.keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Box 1) a digital camera explains a picture 2) a mobile phone explains a picture, but also 100 other things. Therefore a digital camera is a 100 times better at explaining a picture. That was not how the Keith S. argument goes. The real argument is 1) There are a trillion different arbitrary patterns ID could produce 2) There is only one possible pattern evolution through common descent can produce. 3) The fossil and genetic records show the one pattern that matches evolution through common descent. That makes evolution through common descent much more probable.Enkidu_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

You guys are punching a steel plate anticipating tears by continuing to argue this with Keith.beau_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

keith s #15
1. The cladograms are not “incomplete and contrary”. Theobald’s Figure 1 is rightly captioned “The Consensus Phylogenetic Tree of All Life”. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1
The diagram is subjective right from the start in the choice of traits to make it a better sell. Why not include camera eyes? Well because Theobald would have had to write it in two different locations which would look awkward. So instead he opts for the vague nesting of "organs" The nodes and branches, (everything about the diagram that suggests Common Descent) is imaginary data. It is also quite plastic, and could have been rearranged many different ways if the data had demanded it. Why must digits have evolved after jaws instead of the other way around? Why can't feathers or hair evolve independently in multiple lineages? Evolution has no such constraints... it merely accommodates the data available. Nothing about this nested hierarchy exclusively demonstrates Universal Common Descent, because UCD could accommodate all sorts of rearrangements and even contradictions. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them. Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern. Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern. Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution. In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity. lifepsy_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Keith, your argument contains many errors. I have pointed them out here This time I want to highlight a logical error in your conclusion: At one point in your argument you arrive here:
1) Unguided evolution explains X 2) A designer explains X, but also a trillion of alternatives. Therefore unguided evolution is a trillion times better as an explanation for X.
The way the trillion finds its way into the conclusion doesn't make any sense. Maybe a comparison will clear things up for you: Suppose we observe a picture on a computer screen. This photo can be explained by a digital camera or by a mobile phone. Suppose that a digital camera's sole function is taking pictures. The mobile phone can also take pictures, but has a hundred other functions.
1) a digital camera explains a picture 2) a mobile phone explains a picture, but also 100 other things. Therefore a digital camera is a 100 times better at explaining a picture.
Does the multifuntionality of the mobile phone warrant a conclusion that a digital camera is a hundred times better as an explanation for the photo on a computer screen? Does the digital camera get an even better explanation when new apps are added to the mobile phone?Box_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Phil, I caught a glimpse of "Mr Fox" but my scroll finger was too quick for you! :)Alan Fox_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

KF writes:
And BTW, AF, brazenly declaring that quantitative metrics don’t exist [with working, indeed in peer reviewed literature for biology cases, and/or suggesting hyperskeptically that the common way to measure functionally specific files (just look at file lists on a PC) is suddenly deeply suspect when an ID thinker uses it, or that the math has not been done even after several corrections to the contrary, is itself revealing of this problem.
Show us your work. Where is there a CSI calculation other than your bogus nonsense manipulating a simple count of a sequence of amino acids?Alan Fox_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

The following paper was interesting for 'who' wrote it:
A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - Didier Raoult - May 2010 Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html
Didier Raoult, who authored the preceding paper, has been referred to as 'Most Productive and Influential Microbiologist in France'.,,, He has said, in no ambiguous terms, that Darwin’s theory is wrong.
The "Most Productive and Influential Microbiologist in France" Is a Furious Darwin Doubter - March 2012 Excerpt: Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html
This following paper was interesting for what it found, and also was interesting for what was happening on the day that it was released:.
Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
What else is interesting is that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year. :)bornagain77_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox @ 17
drc466 wrote,
Meanwhile, empirical evidence of chance/law producing CSI/novelty/macro-evolution/whatever you want to call it still remains absent. To which the evolutionist’s only response is to deny there is a difference between complex/simple, specified/unspecified, up/down, add/subtract, new/old, live/dead, sandcastles/piles of sand.
Let’s see those CSI calculations. Please show your work. All IDers, please. This is open to anyone!
CSI calculations for what? drc466's claim is completely true.
"Meanwhile, empirical evidence of chance/law producing CSI/novelty/macro-evolution/whatever you want to call it still remains absent.
There is ZERO empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even a single protein of functional complexity/information. This point is made clear in even the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution
Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting - Michael Behe - November 21, 2013 Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture -- a cumulative total of trillions of cells -- has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that's equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski's project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,, ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html
Even the 'emergent' ability to digest citrate in Lenski's e-coli, which Darwinists were quick to tout as proof of that unguided Darwinian processes could generate functional information/complexity, turned out to be a pre-existing ability that the bacteria already possessed:
Innovation or Renovation? By Ann Gauger - Sept. 24, 2012 Excerpt: But how significant was this innovation (citrate; Lenski)? In his paper in Quarterly Review of Biology, Dr. Michael Behe pointed out that E. coli was already capable of using citrate for anaerobic growth (when no oxygen was available). He postulated that a change in gene regulation could turn on citrate transport and permit growth on citrate under aerobic conditions. After an enormous amount of work, having sequenced the genomes of many clones along the lineages that led to the ability to use citrate, as well as lineages that never did, and testing the phenotypes of identified mutations, Blount et al. have now reported that Behe was largely right. The key innovation was a shift in regulation of the citrate operon, caused by a rearrangement that brought it close to a new promoter. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/32246480851/innovation-or-renovation?og=1
Thus what functional complexity/information does Mr. Fox want a calculation for? There are simply no new functional proteins generated by unguided Darwinian processes to which he can appeal so as to be to do the calculation. Moreover, Lenski's e-coli is not alone. Behe surveyed four decades of lab work here and not a single protein of functiona complexity/information was generated:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
As well, despite the fact that HIV and malaria have greatly exceeded the total number of mammals since mammals originated, no new functional proteins have been generated in HIV or malaria...
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution
You would think that with such a stunning lack of empirical confirmation in the lab, that keith s would have some fairly stunning evidence from the fossil record and genetics to back up up his claim that the fossil record and genetics confirm unguided Darwinian processes to be true 'trillions' of times better that ID. That simply is not the case. The fossil record and genetic evidence are both almost as bad, if not as bad, as the laboratory evidence is in confirming Darwinism to be true. Although I could produce numerous quotes from leading paleontologists saying that the fossil record does not conform to Darwin's predicted pattern for a tree of life, this fairly recent study of the fossil record goes one better and shows us that the fossil reord is actually upside-down, 'on its head', to what Darwin predicted.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html
That 'on its head' pattern for the fossil record is certainly not 'trillions of times better' than what 'top down' implementation of Design would predict! The predictions for unguided Darwinian processes do not fair any better when faced with the evidence from genetics. Casey Luskin did an overview of the genetic evidence here:
Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php
Moreover, this confict in genetic data persists even though Darwinists severely manipulate the date to try to arrive at their predetermined conclusion:
Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush - May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/ That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works - Cornelius Hunter - June 2013 Excerpt:,,, The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene. These various strategies each have their own rationale. That rationale may be dubious, but at least there is some underlying reasoning. Yet none of these strategies worked. In fact they sometimes exacerbated the incongruence problem. What the evolutionists finally had to do, simply put, was to select the subset of the genes or of the problem that gave the right evolutionary answer. They described those genes as having “strong phylogenetic signal.” And how do we know that these genes have strong phylogenetic signal. Because they give the right answer. This is an example of a classic tendency in science known as confirmation bias.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/that-yeast-study-is-good-example-of-how.html
RNAs are just as, if not more, uncooperative with Darwinian presuppostitions as the genetic evidence is. RNAs are 'tearing apart traditional ideas':
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution - Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. - Elie Dolgin - 27 June 2012 Excerpt: “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. "...they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist - Kevin Peterson) Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says. Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
bornagain77_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

KF wtites:
PS: I link from the OP here, here and also here; a substantial discussion can easily enough be had on the merits of fact and logic if there is any genuine interest. Prediction: none such will happen.
Prediction confirmed Comments are closed on the three linked threads! :) HT ABAlan Fox_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

KF, If you aren't afraid of open discussion, as you claim, then let's have one right here. Let me repeat my challenge:
kairosfocus, If my argument is incorrect, there must be at least one fatal flaw in it. Can you identify one, instead of frantically trying to change the subject, or posting another “FYI-FTR” with comments disabled to prevent open discussion?
keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

*yawn* Joe. Have a cookie.Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

KF at 20: "PS: I link from the OP here, here and also here; a substantial discussion can easily enough be had on the merits of fact and logic if there is any genuine interest. Prediction: none such will happen." For once I fully agree with KF; substantial discussions will not be made on the OPs you linked to. That tends to happen when someone cowardly prevents or stops comments, on all three OPs. Barry, a "wise" man once said that scoffing is a poor form of argumentation. I believe that it was the same person who wrote the current OP that scoffs at anti-ID arguments by posting a Monty Python skit.william spearshake_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Rich:
So Joe, is it your contention that there was a tinkerer designer making millions upon millions of to all lines of life across millions and millions of years?
That doesn't follow from what I posted. And your position can't get beyond prokaryotes even when given starting populations of prokaryotes. You need to work on your own before you bother with us. Only cowards do it your way.Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Rich @14: So, using phylogenetic analyses on complete, local, limited and known ancestors and descendants = validation for using same analyses on hypothetical, mostly incomplete trees composed primarily of unknown ancestors and transitional forms? I had forgotten the evolutionist' fondness for unwarranted extrapolation, my apologies. Keith s @16:
1. The cladograms are not “incomplete and contrary”. Theobald’s Figure 1 is rightly captioned “The Consensus Phylogenetic Tree of All Life”.
So, you are arguing that tree contains every known species? Nice. And if there's only 1 tree, and not contrary trees - so much for his "Consilience of Independent Phylogenies", eh? Make up your (his) mind!
2. They are also not “subjective”. Theobald makes the difference clear here.
They are "subjective" in the true definition of the word because the people creating the trees picked and chose which attributes to use when placing species: "subjective". As I stated, Theobald uses a statistical definition for objective, not a dictionary one (e.g. "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:"). Example: If I used "reproductive system" as my "objective" primary rule for species placement, it wouldn't look anything like the Trees evolutionists create. Therefore, said trees are NOT "unbiased".
3. I do not assume that “ONH = UCD”. My argument works against creationists, common designists, and guided evolutionists alike.
Sure you do. Your entire premise is that the Trees of Life created are statistically ONH's, and therefore must be Phylogenetic (UCD). If you don't assume ONH = UCD, then by the Symmetric property we can't assume UCD = ONH, and you have no reason to prefer UCD over any other theory, because all those other "trillions" of non-ONH's might also show UCD. And....with that I ride off from the BK with everyone else.drc466_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

So Joe, is it your contention that there was a tinkerer designer making millions upon millions of to all lines of life across millions and millions of years?Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

The Theobald paper does NOT support unguided evolution. It only tries to support Universal Common Descent. Phylogenetics, in an ID framework, would take the similarity to be part of the common design with the differences being related to the different requirements of the organisms. However universal common descent needs to start with trying to figure out what makes an organism what it is. Our we a sum of our genome? That seems doubtful. And if we are not then changes to the genome cannot account for the diversity of life. You guys rushed to the finish without even realizing if you had the right mechanisms for the race. And you still don't know.Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Richie is keeping his coherent arguments in a safe place. That could mean they are with the alleged theory of evolution. As for keith s, Darwin refuted his argument in 1859 and Denton did it in 1985. Is the twist with numbers just a coincidence?Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

drc466, Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the theobald paper was setting up a strawman to defeat. What alternative model should someone use to compare common descent with an ID hypothesis?wd400_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

KS: That you find yourself forced to misrepresent a FTR linked to and from a live discussion and plainly stating in its opening words: >> I was just challenged to reply to the KS “bomb” claim, and though I am busy, I will pause to note briefly, and will link this FYI-FTR to the thread of discussion where the challenge was made. >> . . . speaks volumes on the want of substance in your response, as well as basic disrespect for the patent truth. Nothing I have done prevents serious discussion, so kindly drop the misrepresentations. KFkairosfocus_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

And what, exactly, is your argument, Rich? And keith s, shut up, your argument is dead. You have nothing left to say but repeat your ignorance. Why bother? Do you need proof you should be committed to an asylum?Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Hi KF. Don't close comments here, I don't thin Barry would approve? Are you motive mongering in your post? Didn't you give some 'sage' words about that before? Again, when you think FIASCO is ready for prime time, we've got data sets ready for you to test it against. You know, if its a real science thing not just a talking point...Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, If my argument is incorrect, there must be at least one fatal flaw in it. Can you identify one, instead of frantically trying to change the subject, or posting another "FYI-FTR" with comments disabled to prevent open discussion?keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Joe, your lack of comprehension should not be confused with a lack of coherence. ;)Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply