Would it be best to get Darwinism out of the discussion?
Mathematician Peter Saunders on Darwinism and epigenetics, Part II, Following on Part I (see especially Mae Wan-Ho):
Peter Saunders: The idea is that if you have an organism, say maize, and you want it to be resistant to a certain herbicide — then what you do, consistent with the Modern Synthesis, is you find the “gene” that the herbicide resists in something else and you transfer it to maize. There you are. The only thing is that too depends on the 1960s thinking about the “gene.”
What is that piece of DNA actually doing? Remember what they transfer isn’t the “gene.” It’s a piece of DNA, which is not the same thing. You have to ask — but what does it actually do? It doesn’t actually block. What it does is it alters metabolism in the plant in such a way, which in connection with other things that are already in the plant, will cause it to be resistant to the herbicide.
The interesting thing is — I remember once seeing a talk describing how mice had gotten into a corn storage shed and they’d eaten the non-GM corn and ignored the GM corn completely.
Suzan Mazur: That’s fascinating.
Peter Saunders: But it isn’t magic at all, the reason is the action of the “gene” was to block the metabolism at some point and at this point formaldehyde was thought to be created and then it was going to be destroyed. But the formaldehyde wasn’t destroyed because the “gene” was blocked. Mice don’t like formaldehyde.
Note: Suzan Mazur is author of The Origin of Life Circus
Follow UD News at Twitter!
What does this have to do with epigenetics?
OT: If you missed Stephen Meyer on Eric Metaxas’s show today, here is the podcast of the show
http://www.metaxastalk.com/pod.....y-21-2015/
BA77-Thanks, I got a good laugh out of that:
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Hour 1: Intelligent design advocate, author and scientist Stephen Meyer joins the show.
Hour 2: Bigfoot expert Christopher Noël continues our first Bigfoot Week and is joined by fellow Sasquatch enthusiast Michael Medved.
Art and science combine to reveal the inner workings of our DNA – July 21, 2015
Excerpt: How can cells that contain the same DNA end up so different from each other? That is not only a difficult question for science to answer, but also a challenging one to represent visually.
It is also the question I posed at the start of my latest biomedical animation, called Tagging DNA, which visualises the molecular mechanisms behind epigenetics.
It specifically looks at a process called methylation, where methyl groups are added to DNA, thus changing which genes are switched on and which are switched off. This is one of the processes that enables the same static DNA to produce different types of cells throughout our bodies.
The animation also seeks to engage the viewer on a visual and emotional level, yet also balance what we know based on the latest science. You can view the animation below:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....l-dna.html
Well REC, nobody can produce a Bigfoot, or a UFO, to dispel all the naysayers of Bigfoot and UFOs (of which I am one) but I can easily produce many examples of intelligent design for which neo-Darwinists have no answers as to how it came about except to deny, against all common sense, that it was designed.
For instance, here is, according to a atheistic Darwinist, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway chart:
And here is an example of the ‘Intelligent Design’ of the ‘simplest’ cell on earth:
And here is the intelligent design of the ‘call graph’ of a e-coli
Thus REC, it is not a matter of you rationally denying that for which you have seen no convincing evidence, i.e. Bigfoot and UFOs, it is a matter of you insanely denying that which is plainly evident before your very own eyes!
I think Harry did an excellent job of elucidating the insanity of your atheistic position REC:
REC:
Hour 3: Atheist/Darwinist Stephen Hawking and Russian billionaire Yuri Millner discuss their hunt for little green men. Hawking will also present his theory that aliens cannot normally be seen because they are time travellers from the future. The aliens must not be trusted, he says, because they are after our resources and our AI technology which, by the way, is more dangerous than nuclear weapons because they can rebel against humanity and wipe us all out. Our best bet, he insists, is to upload our brains to the cloud, murder our old worthless carbon units and live forever in eternal geekdom.
Relevant to epigenetics: Yeast cells optimize their genomes in response to the environment.
Who needs RM + NS if you can modify your own genome to adapt?
There is more evidence for bigfoot and UFOs than there is for evolutionism.
Just sayin’…
Sounds like good old materialistic science coming up with a good old materialistic explanation. So how come it isn’t being slammed as another just-so story from an elitist, tax-funded prof? The question is rhetorical, of course. I have a pretty good idea what the answer is.
MMMM seversky, magic would be invoking unguided material processes as the explanation as to how that specific epigenetic metabolic control network came about since no one has ever seen unguided material processes produce control networks (nor proteins for that matter). Yet, computer programmers produce similar control systems all the time. Thus, we know for a fact that intelligence can produce integrated complexity whereas it truly would be invoking ‘magic’ to believe unguided material processes wrote the next version of Windows.
repost from another thread:
Moreover, ‘materialistic science’ is an oxymoron, since number one, the science of quantum mechanics has falsified materialism as to being true. And number two, science winds up in epistemological failure by forcing materialistic answers for the origin of the universe and also in epistemological failure for forcing materialistic answers for the origin of our conscious minds.
Also see: Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
Well, it’s easy to see why Virgil ‘Joe’ Cain hasn’t got any academic publications.
SLeBrun, for several years now I have been asking for ANY real time empirical evidence for the grand claim of Darwinian evolution that unguided material processes can create functional information and/or complexity over and above what is already present in life. Such as a novel protein fold (Axe; Gauger) or a molecular machine (Behe).
The request goes unmet!
What I have found is a lot of dishonest literature bluffing from atheistic neo-Darwinists with never an honest admission as to this stunning lack of empirical confirmation for their preferred theory.
Thus, seeing as how Darwinian evolution is accepted uncritically by a large segment of the population, the unsubstantiated, i.e. ‘mythical’, status of neo-Darwinism in society greatly exceeds that of Bigfoot or UFOs:
Perhaps you don’t understand the literature . . . what’s your academic background?
I don’t think that’s true at all. Clearly you’ve never been to a conference where evolutionary theory is discussed. All scientists that I know would LOVE to prove someone else wrong. They know if they could prove a fault in modern evolutionary theory they would become famous beyond their wildest dreams. So I don’t buy it that evolutionary theory is just accepted blindly.
I have never, ever seen blind acceptance on the part of any person I’ve ever known who works in any science or was well educated in a science. I think you’re constructing a strawman which doesn’t exist.
Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps you work in the field and have lots of academic publications and years of research to draw upon. If so I’d be glad to have a look at your work.
SLeBrun, perhaps you would like to be the first person in the history of UD to ‘prove us wrong’, i.e. to empirically falsify Intelligent Design, and produce real time empirical evidence of a single molecular machine being originated by unguided material processes?
As I said before, all I’ve seen from Darwinists, in backing up their grand claims that functional information/complexity can easily be generated by unguided material processes, is dishonest literature bluffing:
Seeing as how molecular machines, particularly the flagellum, greatly outclass man-made machines in terms of engineering parameters,,,
,,, I certainly would like to physically see how unguided material processes can out-engineer even our best molecular engineers:
Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
I think that’s been done quite nicely already in many publications and such. Perhaps you didn’t understand the research? You didn’t say what your academic background is or whether you work in the field. I’m thinking you don’t have a pertinent academic qualification or any research experience since you tend to quote non-academic sources which don’t really carry any weight. Anyone can offer up an opinion and publish it but if it hasn’t been reviewed by people working in the field then . . . it doesn’t really matter.
Well, like I said, perhaps you didn’t understand the research. Why won’t you say what your academic background is? Are you ashamed of it or afraid someone will disregard your opinion if they think you don’t really know? I’ve never seen ‘bornagain77’ on any published research paper or article.
Or is it that you are afraid your colleagues will make fun of you and chastise you so you prefer to stay anonymous? If you want to win people over then find some real peer-reviewed research work to back up your ideas instead of linking to youtube videos and blogs from The Discovery Institute. Just my opinion, maybe you don’t care if people you aren’t already ID supporters take you seriously.
And if you’re so convinced you are correct then why be anonymous? Are you worried about a few nasty emails?
BA77 @10
In many cases we (engineering design software* developers) wish to produce similar control systems and sometimes it is just daydreaming. 🙂
(*) engineering design software development is much closer to the elaborate information processing choreographies seen within biological systems than business software development. Two different animals.
SLeBrun
“I think that’s been done quite nicely already in many publications and such.”
and your peer-reviewed references are where? Or do you think I’m unqualified to actually see the peer-reviewed evidence that you claim actually exists?
Surely you have several dozen references ready at the fingertips to prove your point?
Can we start with your peer-reviewed references for the flagellum being generated in real time by unguided material processes since it is the UD mascot? And is the threshold that Dr. Behe holds up for falsification?
Between you, me, and the fence post, Methinks you have sorely overstated your case for unguided material processes vs. Intelligent Design:
BA77
Perhaps your interlocutors are correct. Maybe you have not understood the available literature?
Here’s one of many papers proving that the evo-devo folks have figured out “Como le entra el agua al coco”, regardless of what naysayers like you may argue:
See @922 in this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-572262
🙂
Dionisio, the slogans ‘where’s the beef?’ and ‘show me the money’ should be posted below the flagellum header on UD!
🙂
Yes, yes, we know the bacterial flagellum is amazing. That doesn’t mean some unknown, undefined and undetected designer designed it. Without evidence of a lab or materials or equipment . . . .
A very disingenuous query. You’ve been told over and over, you know where to find them. You’re just a denialist.
You could go look yourself, if you were really interested.
You’re entitled to your opinion even if you haven’t got any publications or research or academic background to prove you’re more than a ‘true believer’.
Like I said, I’ll stick with over 150 years of peer-reviewed research and publications as aptly summarised in many accessible popular books (that you can probably check out of your local public library). I’m not going to play your citation game because you’ll just deny anything I bring to the table. I’ve seen that happen many, many times in the past. It has never moved the conversation forward a single step.
AND you steadfastly refuse to even address the fact that you continue to dodge questions about your own academic and research background. If you’re going to stay anonymous and only ‘publish’ lengthly posts with lots of non-academic references on a widely derided ID-apologist blog then who is ever going to take you seriously? Your opinion just isn’t going to count. At all.
So no references are presented, only a ‘you know where to find them’ and derogatory comments,,,
Sad!
Contrary to the high esteem you hold for yourself and your non-existent references, I think you are delusional for thinking such unfathomed complexity can be had by unguided material processes!
Jerry Coyne’s Faith Versus Fact is listed in Religion. So, he’s a believer? It’s also listed in Science. So maybe arguments about God are a part of science.
SLeBrun:
We’ve heard that one before. Darwinists are the smartest people in the universe. If you don’t worship dirt as they do, it’s because your feeble minds cannot comprehend their advanced intellectual ruminations. Yeah, right. You are all a bunch of morons with room temperature IQ. LOL.
Flagellar Diversity Challenges Darwinian Evolution, Not Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – July 22, 2015
Excerpt: flagella are distributed in a polyphyletic manner that doesn’t fit what we’d expect from common ancestry,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....97831.html
Since you have discarded already all of the excellent arguments made by many, many people much smarter than myself I think I’ll just assume you’re not playing fair.
And, you know what? Since all you’ve got to show is a lot of long, cut and paste posts on this blog it’s pretty clear that no one is ever going to really care what you have to say. I’m sorry to be blunt but seriously, you’re just a tempest in a very small teapot. Posting all your links and references, almost completely for non-academic material, and never, ever dong any research or work about something new.
AND you CANNOT address some simple, straight-forward questions about you own academic background and history. Why is that then?
I’m not sure what your point is. Except to bitch.
Well perhaps you’d like to show us all what you have come up with as an alternative. What articles you have published, what books you have written, what research you have done. Yes? Or are you just bitching and moaning? Where is your alternative? Where is your work? Where is your research?
Again, NOT an academic reference.
Do you actually have any academic qualifications? Yes or no? You don’t seem to understand the academic environment at all.
SLeBrun, contrary to what you fervently believe as an materialistic atheist, there are ZERO examples of unguided material processes generating ANY non-trivial functional information and/or complexity in real time above that which is already found in life.
Better, more qualified, people than I have been looking for a long time.
In other words, there are ZERO examples of macro-evolution as opposed to minor variations within kind.
Since you have made it abundantly clear that you could care less about my unqualified opinion in these matters (I never claimed to be a PhD by the way), perhaps you will respect Alan H. Linton’s opinion. He is emeritus professor of bacteriology at University of Bristol
“Again, NOT an academic reference.”
HUH, did you even read the article before you spewed your atheistic nonsense?
here is the reference cited in Luskin’s article:
Trends in Microbiology, Vol 17, LAS Snyder, NJ Loman, K. Fuetterer, and MJ Pallen, “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?,” pp. 1-5, Copyright 2009, with permission from Elsevier.
None that you accept you mean.
And, guess what . . you can’t provide a viable alternative explanation to that which evolutionary science has provided. You can’t say when design was implemented. You can’t say how design was implemented. You can’t say why design was implemented. You can’t point to any evidence of workshops, labs, production lines, waste, etc . . . any of the kind of detritus we find when we observe a design environment. BUT you keep saying: we only observe design when there is intelligence. But you don’t look for all the other signs that should be there IF there is a designer present.
And you wonder why you’re not taken seriously? You refuse to even explore the ramifications of your own hypothesis!! IF there was a designer then where is the evidence of ‘his’ presence and work? And if you think that’s not necessary then you are making some very strong assumptions about the nature of the designer. Aren’t you?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah You didn’t see it so it didn’t happen. Right. How do you know your great-great-great-great-great grandfather wasn’t a rapist? You weren’t there so how do you know?
are you acknowledging that your opinion is ‘unqualified’? I’m just checking.
I admit my opinion is unqualified. I’m not a biological researcher. I base my opinion on those of eminently qualified people in the field. I fully admit that. I do read what they write and read critics of their views. And I do listen to the ID: The Future podcast. And I do follow this blog. I want to make sure I account for valid criticism.
but, in the end, I’m not doing the research, publishing the papers, addressing the critics, doing the work. I tend to trust those who are, knowing what the academic environment is like, but I always have some skepticism.
SLeBrun, you have provided no examples for me to accept or not accept. Yet you claim I rejected them. Are you daft?
i.e. you refer to fictitious evidence that you think must exist as if it counts.
Go ahead cite a real world example of a molecular machine being created by unguided material processes. You will be looking for an example for a REALLY long time!
FYI, Machines do not put themselves together. They are created by intelligence
there is a word for believing that machines can be put together unguided material processes,, it is called being gullible!
How does that reference uphold Luskin’s point? Casey reproduces a diagram from the cited paper. But what in the paper upholds his view>
Did you read the referenced paper? Do you understand the reference?
I guess that means you chose to be ignorant of 150 years of published research and works for the general public. That’s your call.
No I refer to published analysis in 150 years of journals and books, etc. You being ignorant of all that does not prove your point. If you chose not to keep up, that’s your loss.
If you’re happy living in the 19th century that’s fine by me.
AND, since you have no academic support for your views, since you don’t do any research of your own, since you don’t have any publications, since you probably don’t teach biology in any form .. . I don’t think it really matters what you think. You’re not changing anyone’s view or affecting the progress of scientific investigation.
You’re just a bit of an intellectual curiosity. Maybe even a joke. I hope you’re okay with that.
If you want to change that then you’d best find some real data, come up with a real theory and test your ideas in the scientific forum. UD is NOT that forum.
SLeBrun:
Yeah, I got your research hanging, Mr. Dirt Worshipper. Nobody needs to impress the likes of you. You’re inconsequential. I’ll show you my research as soon as you show me yours. We’re still waiting for the research that shows that inert dirt turned into living organisms and single cell organisms turned into whales and donkeys. We’ve been waiting for centuries for that groundbreaking research.
SLeBrun, you keep alluding to this mythical ‘150 years of published research’ that overwhelmingly confirms neo-Darwinism, but never cite any actual substantiating evidence to support your atheistic position that unguided material processes can produce the unfathomed complexity we see in life. That is NOT a minor omission on your part.
Perhaps I can give you a little clue as to what I’m looking for:
The last four decades worth of lab work are surveyed here, and no evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution surfaces:
How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance?
That doesn’t seem to be helping.
How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can find any evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution?
Well, that doesn’t seem to be helping either.
How about if we just try to fix an unconditionally ‘beneficial’ mutation by sustained selection?
Well that’s certainly disappointing.
How about if try to help neo-Darwinian evolution out a little and just saturate genomes with mutations until we can actually see some ‘evolution’ in action?
Now this is starting to get a little frustrating.
Perhaps we just have to give neo-Darwinian evolution a little ‘room to breathe’?
How about we ‘open the floodgates’ and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution?
Now that just can’t be right.
We should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!
Hey I know what we can do. How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ ‘beneficial mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined?
Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing?
Now something is going terribly wrong here. Isn’t neo-Darwinian evolution an established fact on par with gravity?
Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab. I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab, and let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal.
Surely now neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles for all to see and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror!
Now, there is something terribly wrong here!
After looking high and low and everywhere in between, we can’t seem to find any substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism anywhere!
It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!
Verse and Music:
supplemental notes:
Here’s a recent paper on epigenetic control:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-573118
BA77
Here’s a hint for your interlocutors to come up with a game changer that could shutdown this UD site:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-573124
🙂
Bornagain77,
Why is it silly childish trolls like SLeBrun try to target you? It always gives me a chuckle when they try to debate you. Keep calm and carry on my friend.
I happen to have an explanation for that: Bornagain77 makes all his opponents look like silly childish trolls.
Well, certainly Bornagain77 does an excellent job posting lots of references to very interesting information, but it’s kind of unfair, because the current situation in science research tends to favor his worldview position and it’s going to get better for him, as more discoveries are made in biology in the days ahead, shedding more light on the elaborate molecular and cellular choreographies within the biological systems. As more information comes out of the labs, outstanding questions get answered but new questions are raised, the complexity of the big picture gets more complex. That’s making it harder for the 2nd and 3rd way folks to resolve the OOL conundrum.
That’s why @19 & @37 tried to help ba77’s opponents in order to level the field so that the debate gets a little more balanced. 🙂
Definitely these are fascinating times to watch what’s going on in biology research.
Praise the Creator and thank Him for revealing some of His creation mysteries to His beloved creatures.
Sing hallelujah and rejoice!
Thanks for the encouragement guys, but as SLeBrun stated at 21, nothing I do really matters.
Sigh! Vanity of vanities!
Now SLeBrun, I realize that you believe that any action I may take is trivial, but just how do you, an atheist, deduce whether something is truly worth doing in this world or not? Exactly how is there any purpose for life to be derived from your worldview since your atheistic worldview denies the existence of purpose in the first place?
Have you ever honestly thought thru the nihilistic implications inherent within your atheistic worldview? It is said that Friedrich Nietzsche did so with brutal honesty:
i.e. In atheism, everything you do, whether you write on a blog, are a good husband and father, or even whether you build a civilization, is doomed to utter meaninglessness in the grand scheme of things.
There is simply no way to derive any true meaning, purpose, and/or value for life without God. Dr. Craig makes that point clear in the following video:
As Dr. Craig Pointed out, in the materialistic worldview, everything in the universe is ultimately doomed to entropic heat death:
As the Kansas’s song goes, if atheism is true, then everything is just ‘dust in the wind’
SLeBrun, I simply don’t see how atheists such as yourself can live as if your worldview were actually true.
In fact SLeBrun, many leading atheists themselves admit that it is impossible for them to live consistently as if atheism were true:
What should be needless to say, if it is impossible to consistently live your life as if your worldview is true, then that is VERY powerful evidence against your worldview actually being true!
Of related note:
Just how does one derive value for a ‘person’, (as if there were even such a thing as ‘person’ in the materialistic worldview), from the materialistic philosophy that maintains all transcendent values are illusory?:
I would like to think, despite the atrocities of Nazism and Communism of last century, and of abortion today, that most people intuitively know that they are of far worth than a dollar?!?
Materialism/Atheism simply can provide no basis for value.
Of course, in the marketplace some arrangements of matter carry much more intrinsic value than other arrangements of matter. But this is because of the craftsmanship inherent within how the matter is arranged. i.e. The ‘value’ is imparted to the material by the Craftsman.
But materialists, besides denying humans are made in the image of God, deny that there is truly any craftsmanship within humans. We merely have the ‘appearance of design’ according to Dawkins. i.e. We are merely the happenstance product of a lucky series of accidents.
Lucky us!
Whereas atheism can provide no basis for human value, meaning, or purpose, (or even a basis for ‘person-hood’), Theism, particularly in Christianity, there is no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are really worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him, since he was willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice so as to redeem us from death and to give us eternal life:
Verses and Music
I’m sure it does look that way when you don’t look at all the research and publications. We’re talking of hundreds every year that support and extend modern evolutionary theory.
I operate in this world from my heart and from careful consideration of what I can do to help support my fellow humans beings. I like helping people which is why I was an excellent teacher. Just because you think my (assumed) world view is bleak and meaningless doesn’t mean it is for me. Don’t impose your values on people you disagree with.
I disagree. Vehemently. But you have consistently, over the years, refused to accept that people who don’t believe in God(s) can be anything other than nihilists. I accept that your theology is what gives your life meaning, purpose and focus. I would never, ever want to take that away from you. And yet you look at my (assumed) world view and say it’s stupid and bleak. I’m not the one who’s got blinders on, you do.
More and more the people who vote, who work for charities, who work for social reform, who are doctors and nurses, who spend time trying to help out their fellow human beings are admitting that they have no faith in a deity. And, guess what . . . society is NOT collapsing, violent crime rates are dropping, there are lots and lots of social programs which didn’t exist 100 years ago, women and blacks can now vote.
It wasn’t atheists who marched off to the Middle East 1000 years ago and made the streets of Jerusalem, the Holy City, run with blood. It wasn’t atheists who persecuted and murdered Jews across Europe for centuries. And it was certainly NOT atheists who participated in the Waldensian and Abigensian crusades which saw the Pope’s followers persecute and kill other Christians with whom they disagreed over some points of theology. It’s not atheists who even now still promulgate violence in Northern Ireland. It’s not atheists who shoot and kill doctors performing legal abortions. It’s not atheists who picket and protest when fellow citizens are allowed to exercise the same privilege to get married because their sexual orientation is condemned by an ancient collection of writings.
I have some very, very good friends who are Christians and not one of them thinks I’m a nihilist. But you just blanket condemn all who don’t believe in God. And you accuse me of being narrow minded.
SLeBrun
This is not a stellar apologia, SLB.
‘It’s not atheists who even now still promulgate violence in Northern Ireland.’
This happens to be untrue. Don’t laugh, but they have Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists there. It’s about a historic tribal quarrel over a piece of land. Just as Hitler’s and Stalin’s were on a massive scale – only both were died-in-the-wool atheists…
‘… It’s not atheists who shoot and kill doctors performing legal abortions.
Shooting mass murderers. The fact that it’s legal is neither here nor there. Also, Hitler favoured euthanising handicapped people and did so on a grand scale. So the murderous record of atheists far exceeds that of Christendom throughout it history.
It’s not atheists who picket and protest when fellow citizens are allowed to exercise the same privilege to get married because their sexual orientation is condemned by an ancient collection of writings.’
Dismissing a moral code so palpably civilizing despite all our failures, that it is unmatched by any other, and indeed many atheists are offended if told that they behaviour isn’t Christian.
And if you say all Christians are hypocrites, I would advise you, should you ever come across a church where there are no hypocrites, not to join it on any account. Because you will surely spoil it.
We are all damaged goods; only Christ was the full personification of truth in his own right. We can aspire to grow in it, as grace builds on our nature, ‘as is’;, i.e. our fallen nature.
‘I disagree. Vehemently. But you have consistently, over the years, refused to accept that people who don’t believe in God(s) can be anything other than nihilists.’
That, SLB, is because you are INconsistent. Many of us, myself included, are inconsistent in our love for animals, eating them happily, while supporting or at least favouring the RSPCA or PDSA. It happens, but there is no point in denying the intellectual reality of the inconsistency; still less, in an intellectual controversy.
SLeBrun,
Your comments lead me to believe that this is your first time through such a dialogue in the company of those who have had many such encounters. We know that you are bluffing because many of us have examined the so-called relevant literature and know how to read a scientific report.
What you don’t understand is that neoDarwinists and advocates for neutral evolution provide a smattering of evidence for common descent and then try to pass it off as an argument for unguided evolution. Each time we call them on it, they head for the tall grass. The context of the debate eludes you. If you don’t know the difference between guided evolution and unguided evolution, you can’t even get in the game.
Let me help you out here. There is no evidence that naturalistic mechanisms, such as random variation, natural selection, or genetic drift, contain sufficient causal power to drive the macro-evolutionary process from start to finish. The Darwinists know this as well as we do. That is why they shut down all such discussions in the university classrooms and avoid this site like the plague.
SLeBrun states:
“Modern evolutionary theory” is useless as a heuristic in science, and although the findings of molecular biology consistently contradict what is predicted from Darwinism,,,,
,,, and although the findings of molecular biology consistently contradict what is predicted from Darwinism, Darwinism is, many times, layered on as a ‘narrative gloss’ in mainstream publications. In other words, in many mainstream publications, the core of Darwinian theory is never questioned, and, despite consistently contradictory findings, Darwinism is given credit anyway:
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a narrative gloss in peer-reviewed literature:
SLeBrun @43
How many people can look carefully at all the research and publications? Who has time for that?
How many molecular biology papers have you looked at recently?
Can you point (provide link) to just one that meets the requirements stated @37 above? The ones I’ve looked at seem to fail like the one @19 above.
BTW, in case you missed reading them:
Within this current thread, see @19
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-573015
and @37
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-573125
They both point to posts in another thread.
Feel free to comment on them if you want to. Thanks.
It DOES matter if it’s been determined to be legal based on the system of laws in the country. If we hope to live in a country with true tolerance and acceptance then we have to agree on a base of legal assumptions. The US constitution and amendments is a good basis I think.
I didn’t say that. I merely pointed out that religious beliefs have and are being used as a justification to do hideous things to other human beings.
How do you KNOW that I’ve been inconsistent? Are you just making stuff up? You know almost nothing about me. So why assume? You could ask you know. But you don’t. You prefer to assume.
It doesn’t mean you got it right though. Or that your assumptions about me are correct.
I disagree about it being a ‘smattering’ of evidence. I think, my opinion, that just shows how unfamiliar you are with the data and the research. I think that means that you are being too selective in what you consider. I think that means that you are not considering all the data. I also think that the typical trope: show us then is a disingenuous feint to deflect the issue. People whose livelihood depend on keeping up spend time every day making sure they are abreast of the most recent research. Their attitude is NOT, if you don’t bring it to me then I don’t have to address it. Whereas many of the contributors to this blog seem to take on the attitude that if it’s not laid out, here, in a way they can understand, then it’s not been established.
This is not the way scientific development works now. To contribute you have to keep up. You DO NOT just demand that things are brought to your attention.
hahahahahahahahah A vast majority of working biologist are unaware that this site even exists. Honestly. You guys are so caught up in your own mindset that you think your stance is central to the state of the knowledge. But it isn’t. And the reason it isn’t is because you guys are NOT producing viable research that is getting published after being scrutinised by people working in the field who know what is going on.
Also, as is typical of people who are NOT actually in an academic, scientific environment, you people assume that scientists are intimidated into toeing the party line. Every single scientist I’ve known would LOVE to find fault with the consensus. It would make them superstars and mean they would be on television and make a lot more money. You guys continue to parade this strawman which is not true. It’s something you made up and you buy into it because it supports your persecution complex.
Lynn Margolis fought the consensus and won. She knew what needed to be done and she doggedly got the data, addressed her critics and eventually gained their respect. ID proponents are continually criticised and told how they can prove their point. And they keep falling short. And so they keep being left behind.
Are you bitching about the cut-throat system now? Are you acknowledging the fact that it IS hard to keep up with current research? Are you admitting that you might not be up to date? I know I”m not. That’s why I defer to specialists in the field. Especially after several of them have agreed. That’s a sensible way of dealing with new material I should think.
Here we go again and again and again. Look, if you choose to be ignorant of current research that’s your call. But don’t expect someone to follow you around and hand everything to you on a plate.
If you want to compete you have to keep up. Or you can lag behind. It’s up to you. The work and research will go on even if you keep standing alongside the road saying you don’t get it.
What research have you done? What publications have you written? What books have you published? Have you even got past the point of posting anonymous comments on this blog?
I certainly takes you a long time to confess that you or no one else can provide even a shred of evidence to support the dubious claims of Neo-Darwinian evolution. You could have said that in one sentence.
So you want to move the target and change the subject to our “mindset” and our “lack of research.” That is a rookie mistake. People try that one on a regular basis. It’s similar to the “ha-ha-ha-ha-ha” gambit.
SLeBrun in 43 states:
It is certainly not me ‘imposing’ my values on you.
It is the fact that any values that you may think you harbor for this life, given materialistic premises, must be illusory.
There is simply no other way that it can be in materialism.
And I certainly don’t deny that ‘you’, whoever ‘you’ are in materialism, think that what ‘you’ are doing in this life has meaning and purpose.
As I said earlier, and as leading atheists admit, it simply is impossible to live as if your life has no meaning, value and purpose.
That meaning, values, and purpose, for this life are, given materialistic premises, illusory, shouldn’t really cause you to ‘vehemently’ disagree with me since even you yourself, given your materialistic premises, are an illusion.
i.e. “You”, given your materialistic premises, really don’t exist.
The amazing thing about Dawkins, and other militant atheists, in their claim that God does not really exist, is that, in their denial of the reality of God, also end up denying that they really exist as real ‘persons’.
In other words, given atheistic/materialistic premises, there really is no such person named Dawkins, (or Coyne or etc..), there is only a neuronal illusion of a brain who thinks, (if illusions could think), that it is a person named Dawkins
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,
What should be needless to say, if raising your arm is enough to refute your supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of atheistic materialism, then perhaps it is time for you to seriously consider getting a new scientific worldview?
Of note to the atheist’s inability to ground ‘personhood’. Both the Jews in Nazi Germany, and the humans in their mother’s womb in present day America, are denied the legal status of ‘personhood’
As stated previously, anybody who lived consistently within atheistic materialism would be considered a psychopath:
Moreover, this psychopathic characteristic inherent to the atheistic philosophy is born out empirically, in that people who do not believe in a soul tend to be more psychopathic than the majority of normal people in America who do believe in a soul. You can pick that psychopathic study of atheists around the 14:30 minute mark of this following video:
Here is a dramatic personal testimony of that psychopathic characteristic inherent to atheism and of the relief that Christianity provided for the person’s psychopathic condition:
A few more notes as to the amorality inherent to materialistic atheism:
SLeBrun you also state:
Contrary to what you believe, the fact is that atheism, and atheists, when looked at holistically instead of piecemeal, are dying out:
SLeBrun you go on to ‘the argument from evil’ and, although Axel pointed out that atheism far exceeds Christianity in terms of comparative evil, you have a far worse problem than that in that in order for you to make to argument from evil in the first place, you must presuppose the existence of some objective standard of good. i.e. You must presuppose the existence of God!
Verse:
SLe:
That research doesn’t support unguided evolution producing the diversity of life. That research can’t explain the existence of any flagella. That research hasn’t provided any details into the evolution of any multi-protein machinery.
That research hasn’t even provided a scientific theory.
The people who can’t answer any questions? The people that can’t muster testable hypotheses?
Why would you base your opinion on them?
SLeBrun @49
I have done ZERO research. I have written ZERO publications. I have published ZERO books.
Where ZERO means NOTHING, NADA, NULL.
My IQ score is about the same as my age, but changing in the opposite direction. My communication skills are almost nonexistent. My reading comprehension is very poor. My mind works slower than most people out there -when I hear a joke said on the weekend, usually I get it by Tuesday, after my wife explains it to me.
Is that clear to you now?
Alright, all that said, let me tell YOU something very important, that I want you to remember next time you address me here or anywhere else:
I challenge anyone here or out there, with as many PhD degrees they may have, to show me a single case that meets the requirements described in post 37.
Again, I dare anyone and their cousins to produce that information.
I’ll be more than glad to review it an comment on it.
But I won’t hold my breath while waiting for that document to be produced, because I believe it does not exist, at least not yet. Actually, I believe it won’t be produced.
Did you get it now?
StephenB @50
Your interlocutor wrote:
“A vast majority of working biologist are unaware that this site even exists.”
Of course, they have difficult problems to resolve, hence don’t have time to squander on senseless arguments in any site.
But we can read/comment their papers (when not paywalled). That’s what some of us do here.
Still, I don’t understand what was the point of such obvious observation.
A clear misinterpretation of what I said.
I’m not an illusion. Neither are my values. Despite what you want to be true. There is NOT only one way to truth and beauty. My way is just as valid as yours. Your approach is discriminatory and intolerant. As is any system which claims to be ‘the truth’.
I’m glad your faith sustains and inspires you. But I’m sad that it closes your mind to others’ ways of living.
Stayed tuned, all the bits you request are being worked on. For now all the available evidence consistently points to universal common descent with modification via natural selection and other unguided processes. When you come up with a specific, detailed alternative publish it and let people examine it.
SLeBrun, you state:
I did not say that you, nor your values, were an illusion. In fact, I’m the one holding that they are real. i.e. In my Theistic premises, I hold that the fact that you are conscious and that you know that you are really real and that you are not a robot, i.e. that you really exist as a real person, is the MOST real thing you can know about reality. Atheistic/materialism, i.e. your professed worldview, denies this primary datum and insists that you are merely a deterministic robot. It is not me disagreeing with your claim that you really exist as a real person, it is your own atheistic worldview itself that disagrees with you, not me.
You also stated
So is that why atheistic materialists are so discriminatory and intolerant of anyone who does not hold their worldview?
Moreover, how do you, an atheistic materialist, derive the objective moral value that humans ought not be discriminatory and intolerant from your Darwinian belief system which holds ‘survival of the fittest’ as the reason for why all the diversity of life exists on earth? i.e. Exactly how is altruism, which you apparently value highly, to be accommodated within the whole ‘selfish gene’ scenario that you apparently hold to be true? If my genes are selfish, who am I to tell them otherwise? Given your premises, I am a victim of my genes, a deterministic robot, and am not really accountable for any of my actions since there is really no ‘me’ that is in control of my actions whether they be selfish or otherwise!
Is it just me or is SLeBrun starting to sound a lot like Liddle?
further to:
“Given your premises, I am a victim of my genes, a deterministic robot, and am not really accountable for any of my actions since there is really no ‘me’ that is in control of my actions whether they be selfish or otherwise!”
John Cleese – The Scientists – humor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo
Given materialism, “you” are not an illusion because …?
Given materialism, “your” “values” are not illusions, but grounded by …?
Do you hold that there are multiple truths? Or do you hold that we all arrive at the same truth?
SL:
How do you respond to this, from Crick in his The Astonishing Hypothesis:
KF
SLe:
Only to the extremely gullible. Unfortunately such a claim doesn’t produce any predictions, it cannot be modeled and it cannot be tested. That means it isn’t a scientific claim.
Nice job, ace.
SLe:
We debated this elsewhere on UD and even some hard-core evolutionists denied that the evidence supports universal common descent versus multiple-sncestry.
One of the many reasons why the claim cannot be modeled or tested is that it relies on the assumption that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship.
But that’s the claim that evidence for common descent is supposed to prove.
SleBrun
Of course, it was a misrepresentation. It was a joke calculated to highlight a salient point:
You trust the Darwinists more than they trust themselves:
[a] We know that they cannot support their claims.
[b] They know that they cannot support their claims.
[c] You didn’t know that they cannot support their claims.
However, let me take a moment to express a measure of empathy and understanding. It is very difficult for one to pass through the government indoctrination center, that is, the public educational system, without losing the capacity to reason properly. It was, after all, designed for that purpose. The elitists don’t want thinkers; they want dutiful worker bees.
The good news is that you can restore those powers by acquiring a new mental habit: ask the right questions in the right order and listen carefully to the answers. Education is a series of questions, the answers to which cause confusion and frustration, leading to better questions on a higher an more important level.
Silver Asiatic: One of the many reasons why the claim cannot be modeled or tested is that it relies on the assumption that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship.
Not a mere similarity, but a strong signal of a containment hierarchy, a predicted consequence of branching descent.
Z
Yes, but the evidence equally supports common design.
Silver Asiatic: the evidence equally supports common design.
Artifacts generally do *not* form containment hierarchies, but can be arranged in many equally logical ways.
Zachriel:
Yet branching descent does not predict a containment hierarchy. You are confused or dishonest.
COMMON DESIGN- learn how to read and try to respond to what was actually posted.
Evolution is too complex to produce a containment hierarchy. Even Darwin knew that.
Stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies which are sophisticated and complex patterns. There are many examples of hierarchies in the design context.
The power of the mechanism needs to be equivalent (or greater than) the effect it produces. The proposed evolutionary mechanisms are primative and blind – relying on accidents and copy errors to produce function. As discussed on the epigenetics threads, evolution struggles to explain uni-dimensional, linear change, when living organisms show mulit-level relationships and increasing complexity.
As we discover more complexity and sophistication in organisms, the evolutionary mechanisms have not changed to meet the greater challenges. It is difficult to support the claim that mutation and selection are adequate for one level of change. When the requirement for more complex change was discovered (epigenetics, molecular machines, human neurology) the same mechanisms are claimed to be able to achieve a much more complex and precise result. Genetic drift is not even a mechanism as such, and is certainly more primitive and less powerful than the Darwinian mechanism.
If there was no branching hierarchical tree it would not be evidence against evolution since distinction between species could be blurred or lost.
[edit – constrained hierarchies can be found in series of artifacts as a design feature].
Aside from all of that, common descent is built on the assumption that genomic similaries are evidence of descent, when it is known that the same or even identical DNA can generate different, inhereted functions depending on environmental conditions.
Evolutionary theory absent a theory on the origin of the first self-replicating molecules is incomplete since the power and capability of replication can only be known from its origin. In the case of abiogenesis, the properties of living organisms need to be traced back to non-living chemical substances.
Silver Asiatic
Beautifully expressed–and correct. It is a creative and informative way of expressing the one truth that makes all the difference: Every effect requires a proportional cause.
Silver Asiatic: Stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies which are sophisticated and complex patterns.
That is absolutely incorrect, as can be easily shown. It’s the branching process that creates the nested pattern.
Zachriel:
Show it. Your bluff is called.
Nonsense. Nested patterns can be replicated as a branching process but branching processes do not produce a nested pattern.
You are either really ignorant or very dishonest.
Zach
This is why I referred to a stochastic process. We can’t look at a subset of a designed process and declare that to be random since it’s the result of design.
If evolution is a stochastic process then it has to include the supposed random creation of self-replicating molecules. The distinction between living and non-living entities is artificial amd irrelevant. If the first living cells were designed by God, then replication is non-stochastic.
We’ve seen no evidence that a stochastic process can produce self-replicating cells – which are a necessary requirement for any branching and descent tree structures.
So again, stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies and in the evolutionary context, it’s impossible to model a purely stochastic process without introducing intelligently designed assumptions (modelling a process itself brings intelligently-designed decisions into the analysis).
Silver Asiatic: Stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies which are sophisticated and complex patterns.
Here’s a simple example of a stochastic process, given branching descent.
Notice how they form a nested hierarchy, and we can reconstruct the ancestry from the descendents. We can add other features, such as limiting population, but the results will be much the same.
StephenB – thank you. The classic formulation you gave is surprisingly useful — and, you’re right, very important.
Zachriel proves that it doesn’t understand the concept of nested hierarchies.
Family trees are examples of branching descent and Zachriel has admitted tat family trees do not form a nested hierarchy. Zachriel also said that a patriLINEAGE forms a nested hierarchy but that was soundly refuted by an expert. But facts do not deter losers and so we have Zachriel continuing to spew its nonsense.
Zach
That’s a designed process. You determined a “generation” and a mutation rate and mutation value and some reason why mutations are retained in future generations.
As I said, you can’t present stochastic elements of a designed process and claim that as a stochastic process. The process itself needs to be random – the way chemical molecules randomly align to form living cells.
That’s where you have to start. There’s no branching in that process – it’s stochastic.
Silver Asiatic: You determined a “generation” and a mutation rate and mutation value and some reason why mutations are retained in future generations.
Yes. It turns out that living organisms replicate with variation. We showed that if the variation is stochastic, such a branching process will form a nested hierarchy. This contradicts your claim that stochastic processes can’t form a nested hierarchy.
Silver Asiatic: you can’t present stochastic elements of a designed process and claim that as a stochastic process.
A roulette wheel is designed, but the game is stochastic.
In any case, this returns us to your original statement that we can’t model common descent because it relies on a similarity. It’s not mere similarity, but a nested hierarchy, the expected result of branching descent.
Silver Asiatic: The process itself needs to be random – the way chemical molecules randomly align to form living cells.
Where did you get that idea? Chemical molecules do not randomly align, though there is a stochastic element in their movements.
Zachriel:
You don’t know what a nested hierarchy is. So please shut up.
You are a deluded and pathological liar.
Family trees are examples of branching descent and Zachriel has admitted tat family trees do not form a nested hierarchy. Zachriel also said that a patriLINEAGE forms a nested hierarchy but that was soundly refuted by an expert. But facts do not deter losers and so we have Zachriel continuing to spew its nonsense.
Zachriel, a fine example of the deluded masses who accept evolutionism.
You guys crack me up. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that organisms have “generations”, mutation rates and that mutations fix in populations (we even know the rate).
wd400
You’re starting with what you have to prove.
You start with a system of replication and inheritance and then say that the system produces replication and inheritance. I say that’s a designed system, not stochastic.
Now, to prove that wrong, you need to explain the origin of the system. Show me a stochastic chemical process that produces a pattern of hierarchical descent with modification.
You want to exclude that problem by starting with “life” but as I said, that’s an artificial distinction. Life is merely a chemical formulation. So, you need to show the stochastic process of chemicals that produces replication with inheritance.
You’re saying that the transition from non-living chemicals to chemical organisms is not random?
We don’t know the rate as the equations have never been verified.
Zach
You did nothing to distinguish that from a designed system that shows the same results.
You have to demonstrate the origin of the system.
Silver Asiatic: You’re starting with what you have to prove.
Your statement was “One of the many reasons why the claim cannot be modeled or tested is that it relies on the assumption that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship.”
The response is that a nested hierarchy (not mere similarity) is a consequence of branching descent and stochastic variation.
Silver Asiatic: You did nothing to distinguish that from a designed system that shows the same results.
The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of branching descent and stochastic variation.
In this analogy, what are the designed aspects of evolution?
Is there a roulette wheel that randomly produces self-replication, inheritance, adaptation and descent with modification?
Zach
I understand. The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of a system designed to produce that.
You’ve done nothing to refute the counter claim.
Silver Asiatic: In this analogy, what are the designed aspects of evolution?
It’s not an analogy, but a counterexample to your statement that “you can’t present stochastic elements of a designed process and claim that as a stochastic process.” Indeed, we presented stochastic elements of a designed process, Roulette, and correctly claimed Roulette as a stochastic process. You seem to be stumbling on the word “stochastic”, which can mean purely random, but often means a system that includes a random element.
Silver Asiatic: The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of a system designed to produce that.
What it means is that the nested hierarchy is evidence of common descent, whether designed or not. And more specifically, that it is evidence of common descent, even if the variations are stochastic.
Zach
Do you believe that everything that exists is reducible to stochastic events? If so, you’d need to model the creation of a sophisticated process of replication and inheritance from a purely stochastic state.
If not, where did the non-chance elements come from and what, precisely are they?
If you agree with me that they come from Intelligent Design, then you’d need to incorporate that somehow into your explanations for the origin and development of living organisms.
If not, you’d need to show a purely stochastic process that can produce a nested hierarchy of self-replication and descent with modification.
You can’t merely start with the system. That’s like ignoring the designed elements of the Roulette wheel.
There’s no way to distinguish that evidence from designed similarity through multiple lines of descent.
Silver Asiatic: Do you believe that everything that exists is reducible to stochastic events?
The trajectory of the Earth around the Sun is not stochastic.
Silver Asiatic: If not, where did the non-chance elements come from and what, precisely are they?
None of that is necessary to support our claim, or to contradict your original statement that “One of the many reasons why the claim {of common descent} cannot be modeled or tested is that it relies on the assumption that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship.”
Silver Asiatic: There’s no way to distinguish that evidence from designed similarity through multiple lines of descent.
The evidence strongly supports branching descent from common ancestors for most taxa.
Zachriel:
Only to people who don’t know what a nested hierarchy is and who also don’t understand evolution.
Too nebulous to be of any use.
No one knows what pattern universal common descent would produce. What is a fact is it wouldn’t produce a nested hierarchy, which is strictly a man-made classification scheme, ie purely artificial.
Universal common descent cannot be modeled as we have no idea how to model it. We don’t even know where to start.
Zachriel:
And that claim has been refuted by the experts. Heck even YOU said that a family tree, which is an example of branching descent and stochastic variation, isn’t a nested hierarchy. Now you are contradicting yourself. And you are too afraid to explain why you do such things.
VC: No one knows what pattern universal common descent would produce.
Indeed.
wd400: You guys crack me up.
We’re profession comedians. So thanks!