In my previous post I discussed Joel Velasco’s claim, in his recent debate with Paul Nelson, that biological designs fall into a nested hierarchy. Velasco is by no means alone in making this bizarre claim. It is not controversial that it is not true, yet evolutionists routinely insist that, as Richard Dawkins once put it, genes across a range of species fall into a “perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” If, like many, your first question is “what are they thinking?” then go to the [1:33:21] mark in the Nelson-Velasco debate where for the final few minutes of his response segment, Velasco sheds light on the closing of the evolutionary mind. Read more
56 Replies to “Evolution Professor: Orphans Not a Problem for Evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In the following video, Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. states that 7% of human genes are unique:
The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video
https://vimeo.com/95287522
I’m still worried about whether Tomkins’s research is trustworthy, based on this comment by AceOfSpades25 on his recent GULO paper. Can anyone comment?
JoeCoder, and your confidence that Darwinian research is trustworthy is based on what exactly? wd400’s testimony? ,,, Frankly, I’ve been lied to so many times by Darwinists I don’t trust anything they say anymore.,,, Watch the video, note his credentials and the rigid methodology of his research. Then judge for yourself if his conclusion is trustworthy. I find his research trustworthy.
Also of note as to ORFans:
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving – May 2012
Excerpt: “More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps.”
Jerry Coyne – ardent and ‘angry’ neo-Darwinist – professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60271.html
BA77: I’m skeptical of everyone. At first I was more skeptical of creationists but in the last couple years that has reversed. However Tomkins has been criticized by other young earth creation biologists.
I will be watching the video (I found the full version on youtube) and will do as you’ve said. But I would be much more confident if AceOfSpade25’s points could be addressed.
From the article:
“In fact Velasco’s appeal here to “all that other evidence” (my paraphrase) is typical. Yes, you can raise minor issues around the edges that have not yet been resolved, but we’ve got this mountain of rock solid, compelling, overwhelming evidence proving evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is yet another form of theory protectionism. It shifts attention away from a theoretical failure, appealing to a mythical, non existent, list of proof texts. Aside from the problem that no such set of compelling evidence exists, it is irrelevant. The question in hand is how evidence X (in this case unique genes) bears on the theory, regardless of the other evidence.”>
That reminds me of A Christmas Story when the family goes looking for their tree. The tree salesman points out how solid and great a tree is until he notices the needles on the ground; he tosses it aside and then exclaims the virtues of another tree. The Darwinian uses the same tact–one piece of evidence under fire? Never fear! Just move on to the next fable and keep the entire cycle moving.
Joecoder, ‘YEC’ Todd Wood is in the same book as Dennis Venema with me. In fact Denis Venema cites Todd Wood! i.e. both practice Shoddy Science!:
In Todd’s own words, evolution is solid science:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
http://biologos.org/blog/a-tal.....sts-part-1
Need I say more?
As to Aceofspades, I don’t know his exact credentials but I do know he put forward a very simplistic view of our brain, (more complex than the internet), randomly evolving. A simplistic view which was beyond laughable
“our increased intelligence may be simply down to a few duplications of a gene (SRGAP2)”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-498499
Now JoeCoder, I assume you are in programming, do you really think anyone who says such things is being genuine to the evidence? I certainly don’t!
Joecoder:
Don’t bother with BA77. He only believes in evidence that supports his worldview. He refuses to look at anything else that could be detrimental to his belief in a god. He lacks critical thinking skills so he just eats up whatever christian propoganda he can. It’s funny how he claims that he is not a YEC but is willing to believe their research without question. Why? Cause it’s supports belief in his jeebus.
Todd Wood is quoted as saying:
“I’ve begun to notice a strange undercurrent of folks proposing that I’m not really a young earth creationist. One especially amusing person suggested that I was stupid, possibly bipolar, or just a liar…
Lest my creationist credentials be doubted, let me be blunt:
I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.
I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God…(Entire text may be found here)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn’t make it ultimately true, and it doesn’t mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God’s creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don’t be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don’t idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that’s not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you. (Emphasis in the original)”
If this isn’t living proof of how religion makes you stupid, I don’t know what is. It’s obvious he believes there is evidence for Darwinian evolution and that the evidence is sound but rejects it because the bible tells him to. Utterly and completey STUPID!!!!! All religion does it make one lie to one self.
Actually JLAfan2001 I’m very open to the evidence. Care to cite one molecular machine evolving by Darwinian processes?
Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
And since you can’t even clear that ridiculously small evidential hurdle JLAfan, why in blue blazes DO YOU believe so adamantly that unguided processes created all life on earth? You simply don’t have the evidence to back up your nihilistic faith!
#1, #2
AceOfSpades25 demonstrates very clearly that Tomkins results are artifacts of appallingly sloppy data handling, made worse by plain dishonesty in presenting the analysis. It’s an exemplary, professional review — a piece of real science. Bornagain77, if you have to distrust somebody, take my advice and distrust Tomkins.
Actually Piotr, anyone who has Moran’s blog listed at the top of his profile as you do is not to be trusted by an ‘IDiot’ like me either 🙂
And, since I gather you think you are also the result of unguided processes, you are also invited to falsify Behe’s claim for just one molecular machine.
BA77
Like Todd Wood said “there are gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution”. You just have to look for it but you focus on the pieces that we havn’t figured out yet rather than looking at what has been discovered. You want every single thing figured out before you accept it. You’re afraid of accpeting it because of what it will mean to your religious beliefs.
Piotr
BA77 won’t take your advice because you are an atheist, at least I think you are. He only listens to the lie of religious people.
I know all about Todd Wood. I’ve been reading his blog for a couple years now, took his Historic Adam class last fall, and have his baraminology book on my shelf. I have the same quote you shared featured on my own page on evolutionary perspectives which also includes evolutionists saying things every bit as damaging on evolution. You said “Need I say more?” about Todd Wood? Yes. On my own page I followed that quote with what he said in his dialog with Darrell Falk of BioLogos:
I disagree with Wood’s first quote about mountains of evidence for evolution. And unlike JLAFan, I have a lot of respect for Wood. While everyone else puts foward knee-jerk reactions to whatever the other side says, he’s not afraid to take a critical eye to creation science. We need more people like him, and like Lynn Margulis who is famous for lines like “The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism” of evolutionary theory.
And BA77: I was on the same thread you linked to on AceOfSpades25 right beside you correcting many other things he got wrong. But that has nothing to do with whether his analysis of GULO is right or wrong. But your criticism of his GULO alignments is at the bottom of Graham’s Heirarchy “attacks the characteristics or authority of the writerwithout addressing the substance of the argument”.
I would love it if Tomkins were right about GULO after all. Maybe he is. But distracting from the real issue isn’t helping us.
Funny that ‘gobs and gobs’ of evidence never includes a single molecular machine arising by unguided processes.
Venter: Life Is Robotic Software – July 15, 2012
Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter.
http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/
How we could create life – The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell – Paul Davies – 11 December 2002
Excerpt: Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer – an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff – hardware – but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.
http://www.theguardian.com/edu.....ucation.uk
Have you read AOS’s review? Can you understand it? If you have, and you can, my sympathies don’t matter. But if you can’t follow AOS’s explanation or see through Tomkins’s flawed and unprofessional methodology, you simply lack the competence to distinguish good science from bad science, or from pseudoscience. If so, how can you know whether Behe’s arguments (or their refutations, or Behe’s responses) make sense?
All right, it’s your choice. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you 😉
Well believe what you want JoeCoder. Personally, from his simplistic dismissal of evidence for design, I don’t trust ACE’s analysis and question his integrity first and methodology second..
Piotr, so do you have a refutation of Behe’s claim or not?
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/
Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291
More Irreducible Complexity Is Found in Flagellar Assembly – September 24, 2013
Concluding Statement: Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It’s a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives! –
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77051.html
Dr. Behe, in an inappropriately named lecture, gives a talk on Intelligent Design in this following video (Of note, the last half of the video, at the 2:22:25 hour and minute mark of the video, is a Q&A session that gets into some of the interesting technical details of his defense of Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting cascade from some high level criticisms)
Theistic Evolution – Michael Behe – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4dpVpS38Cc
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, there are several examples that intelligence can do as such, here is one:
(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video
https://vimeo.com/36880067
JLAfan2001
In one of his posts AOS writes he isn’t an atheist. If he isn’t, I respect his professionalism all the same. He does his job well and doesn’t let wishful thinking cloud his mind.
I don’t think it matterst to BA, which is why I normally ignore his lengthy cut-and-paste collages.
Piotr, the reason you will not answer my request for a molecular machine that has been produced by unguided processes is because, like Matzke, there is no answer you can give for there are no examples to give.
Ignore all you want, and believe what you want, the evidential elephant in the living room you are ignoring remains!
@BA77: I’m not satisfied to dismiss all of what everyone says because they get something wrong. In Edge of Evolution (one of my favorite ID books), Behe was wrong about the number of HIV binding sites, Ian Musgrave corrected him (although got other things wrong and his tone was unbecoming of a professional scientist), and Behe accepted he made an error in a subsequent blog post. But I’m not about to dismiss all of Behe’s arguments because of that. EVERYONE gets things wrong sometimes. And some more than others.
AceOfSpades put a lot more research into his GULO analysis than any of his other arguments, going so far as to checking the alignments himself. I looked at them too but neither of us are biologists. Tomkins argued that there wasn’t enough time for evolution to have produced that many mutations in GULO. If AceOfSpades is right, then Tomkins is taking single mutations that affect many nucleotides and counting them as indivisual mutations to inflate the numbers. Unlike Behe’s honest mistake of not knowing about the binding site, Tomkins should know better. So back to the topic of errors:
1. Behe on HIV binding spot: honest mistakes
2. AceOfSpades25’s points in that other thread: honest mistakes
3. Tomkins on GULO mutations: deliberate?
Because of what Wood and AceOfSpades have shared about Tomkins, I now question more of his research. If you want to fix that please address the problems directly so my mind can be changed. I would be very thankful if someone could do so.
JoeCoder, once again, believe what you want and side with the Darwinists if you wish. My money rides with Tomkins. If you want specific answers as to what is wrong with AOS analysis, I suggest you write Tomkins himself with AOS’s analysis to get to the real meat. If he addresses forthrightly you should knbow very quickly who is right and who is wrong. You simply are not going to get the clear resolution you want to your question on a blog buzzing with Darwinian dogmatists
I just asked AOS if I could share it with Tomkins, and he told me he plans to himself when he gets some time, and will then share with me how it goes. So we wait.
I’m not “siding with the darwinists” 😛 Only exercising due diligence. Sometimes creationists are wrong, and sometimes they even overstate their claims and leave out important details that hurt their case. We do it less than the Darwinists but it still happens. Truth is my ultimate goal even if we have to sacrifice claims and lose battles along the way.
Don’t bother with
BA77JLAfan2001. He only believes in evidence that supports his worldview. He refuses to look at anything else that could be detrimental to his lack of belief in a god. He lacks critical thinking skills so he just eats up whateverChristianatheist propoganda he can. It’s funny how he claims that he is nota YECan anti-theist but is willing to believe their research without question. Why? Cause it’s supports belief in hisjeebus.atheistic worldview.Fixed that for, well, everyone.
If this isn’t living proof of how
religionatheism makes you stupid, I don’t know what is. It’s obvious he believes there is evidence forDarwinian evolutioncreation and possibly the existence of God and that the evidence is sound but rejects it becausethe biblehis nihilist worldview tells him to. Utterly and completely STUPID!!!!! Allreligionatheism does it make one lie to one self.Fixed it again.
Barb, with such skills, you could probably bring the New York Times back from the brink of collapse and make it respectable once again 🙂
> BA77
Oh dear… Is an ad hominem the best response you have?
You’ve changed the subject to attack my character instead of dealing with the critique that JoeCoder has pointed you to.
If you read my comment you will notice that I have provided all of the data to support my critique. Rather that criticise me for something unrelated, I’d encourage you to read my critique and engage with that.
In that instance Tomkins was plainly wrong.
I’m not is a position to address his claim that that 7% of human genes are unique though.
On a side not, how does he define unique? One could argue that 99% of our genes was unique if one was pedantic enough to define single nucleotide polymorphisms as a marker for uniqueness.
Regarding the genes we have that other great apes don’t, I’ve noticed that with many of those, other great apes have the (nearly complete) precursors to what has become functional genes in humans – so this is hardly a good argument.
Aceofspades25 it is not an ad hominem. You did indeed say that something that is more complex that the entire internet, routers, and computers, combined was…
“our increased intelligence may be simply down to a few duplications of a gene (SRGAP2)”
I merely pointed out that I had a lot of trouble believing anyone who has such a simplistic notion as to how our unimaginable complex brain came to be as to be genuine in regards to anything else he might say in biology.
Since both issues deal with biology and not whether or not you are a compulsive liar, cheat on your wife or whatever, it is directly relevant to your trustworthiness in this area!
Cornelius,
You certainly have no clue about what you’re blurting out.
What Velasco said in his debate with Paul Nelson is immaterial. Velasco may not have done his homework properly. He’s unaware of recent studies showing that ORFan genes arise from ancestral intergenic regions via the well-understood process of mutation. You can trace the evolutionary history of ORFan genes in a particular species to intergenic regions in its cousins:
1. Emergence of a New Gene from an Intergenic Region (in Mouse)
http://www.cell.com/current-bi.....?cc=y?cc=y
2. Origin and Spread of de Novo Genes in Drosophila melanogaster Populations
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....9.abstract
3. Female fly genomes also populated with de novo genes derived from ancestral sequences
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-f.....-novo.html
Carl Zimmer wrote a nice piece on this recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04......html?_r=1
New studies are also showing that ORFans emerge and get lost at a rapid rate:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3927632/
In short, ORFans are no longer a mystery or a problem for evolutionary theory.
Sorry, but now creationists like you can go after the next “big problem” in biology to find a foothold for your fictitious designer. ORFan genes are passe.
There may well be gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution.
Evidence is not proof. Evidence is subject to interpretation.
Fossil record = evidence (if you exclude the Cambrian?).
Molecular homology = evidence.
Phenotypic homology = evidence.
Being able to direct evolution = evidence.
But yet as a scientist (and a Christian), I have yet to see anything that made me (like quoted above of Wood) question whether that evidence fits with the Biblical account or with creation. In fact to me it makes near perfect sense, and where it is not perfectly obvious as a fit, it does not cause a big enough challenge to make me question my beliefs.
Fossil record = fits with creation (e.g. sudden appearance of complex organisms, no true intermediate forms showing useless structures evolving, etc). Top-down appearance in-line with designer giving info to allow diversification.
Molecular/phenotypic homology – perfectly expected if a common designer no less than common descent. Molecular data not unexpected for a designer.
Being able to direct evolution in the lab – perfectly explainable with the understanding that you are selecting for something different (not necessarily better) on information already present (i.e. not adding new sequence, etc). In fact, most (surely all) design advocates fully believe in evolution – micro-evolution (modification of exisiting information and either loss of information or selection or differential gene expression, etc).
Then you have the difficult questions – where is the evidence for the multiverse? What about the fine-tuning problems? All perfectly explained in a transcendent creator God. What about abiogenesis? Not a difficulty as despite no idea or evidence OR proof of how it happened (the theories around offer no real and true evidence for this embarassingly poorly supported theory), it is unnecessary with a creator designer.
So all those “things” can be touted as “evidence” for evolution – and they are forms of evidence but they are certainly not proof and one would do well to remember evidence can be attributed to more than one model.
I should note that while these are simplistic pieces of evidence, I have personally gone through extensive amounts of more complicated evidence for evolution and still nothing fits as incompatible at all in light of a Judeo-Christian OOL view point. The way it appears to me is that there are harder things to explain with a naturalistic point of view. Further, most naturalists show their lack of understanding of the Judeo-Christian viewpoint when they claim things don’t look perfect or some designs are not great/don’t make sense/lost functionality (which actually is entirely what you would expect if you take a literal interpretation of Genesis with the curse on man and creation as a result of sin).
the fruit flies are still fruit flies! Does this not speak more to the epigenetic information in fruit fly genomes, rearranging genetic information, more than it does to the different ORFan genes between chimps and humans.,,,
And why does such a obvious, and crippling, objection as to the non-plasiticity of fruit fly morphology, despite radical genome rearrangement, have to be pointed out to you in the first place?.
Evolve, here is your response in a nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic
Seriously, what mental disorder is BA77 suffering from? Same as Byers?
Still? There was a time when their distant ancestors were not fruit flies. There was even a time when the ancestor of the fruit flies was also our ancestor.
Evolve,
We have been hearing the same hand waving, “Orphans are not a problem for evolution,” for years around here. I remember Nick Matzke telling everybody there was no problem because the parents would be found. However, the NYT article you site admits it is a huge problem.
In grand materialist tradition, they now admit the problem because they (wrongly) believe they have a solution.
Yes, it actually says that. The so-called solution amounts to little more than an assumption of evolution, regardless of the mathmatical improbabilities, and regradless of how it flies in the face of every argument about gene evolution that materialists have let fly for the last 30 years.
It says that too, and here is the nuttiness:
Circular reason much? Undermine every BS argument about gradualism climbing Mt. Improbable much? Well hey, why not? It gets better:
Ya, with all this super-fast evolution going on I am worried the mold in my refrigerator will evolve legs and run away with my left overs. Don’t worry though, a solution is offered
Wow! Fancy that! The entire stretch of DNA deleted. And it must of been there at one time because (circular reasoning alert) evolution is true! /sarc
Sorry Evolve, you are going to have to do much much better than that.
sebastians asks
Apparently not the same mental disorder that allows people to believe that their brain, which is more complex than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth,,,
,,,was,,,
If sanity includes believing that a accumulation of random genetic accidents can build such unfathomed complexity, then I will gladly stick with the mentally disabled!
As an aside to the accusation of me having ‘lost my mind’, why is it that I’m not the one denying that I have a ‘mind’ in the first place to lose?:
CH:
heh
True. Take fruit flies, for example.
Consider this quote again from Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, San Diego regarding ORFans.
Yet Velasco is claiming it is not a problem? Liar.
Oh and the so-called explanation?
in other words, “evolutiondidit”
It’s quite obvious that you are suffering from some kind of disorder. Like, what’s up with the “,,,”? Did you have some kind of seizure while writing or what?
I’m amazed how everyone can put up with your endless off-topic copypasting, whilst conveniently ignoring the arguments put forward (you do this all the time). Just goes to show how religion, rather than truth, drives you.
sebastians, although you accuse me of mental illness again (i.e ad hominem again), in terms of mental illness, atheists are shown to be more inclined towards mental illness than theists:
To back the preceding observation up, There are actually studies that show that people who do not believe in a soul are a little bit more anti-social (psychopathic) than normal people who do believe in a soul:
as well, atheists are far more inclined to suicide,
and more inclined to early death
and atheists are more inclined towards depression than Theists
As well, Christians respond better to psychiatric treatment than atheists do
In fact, although atheists pride themselves on their rationality, (even though rationality cannot be grounded in an atheistic worldview), atheists are found to be more irrational than Christians:
As well sebastians, you claim to be driven by ‘truth’ not by religion, (I disagree), but anyways, exactly how is truth to be grounded in an atheistic worldview where everything is in flux?
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Plaantinga has formalized this argument,,,
Thus, If you really were driven by truth and ‘rationality’, and not by religion, then you would not be an atheist sebastians!
Verses and Music:
BA77,
I’m impressed. Your debating tactics are so unique that we need a new term for the phenomenon — one that will commemorate you for posterity. I understand that the word “gallop” qualifies as politically incorrect on this blog (and you have out-gished Duane Gish anyway), so what about the Bornagain Broadside?
Piotr, instead of labeling me, why don’t present some evidence to counter the negative consequences, and logical incoherency, of being an atheist that I have outlined?,,, And since, in reality, you can’t ever rationally defend such an irrational position in the first place, why do personally choose defend the atheistic position as if it were tenable? Do you think God will ‘go away’ if you lie to yourself and others long enough? I have news for you, God is not ever going to ‘go away’, but you, through such foolishness as to oppose almighty God, may be denied to the ability to be in God’s presence forever.
i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!
Verse and Music:
Yeah, Piotr’s debating tactics include bald declarations. For example:
No evidence provided. And-
And still no evidence. Amazing debating tactics, indeed.
When the materialist reductionists themselves post articles that assert,
you know they have lost the debate.
Even these scientists that posit a Darwinian explanation for ORFans call their explanations “improbable” and “kind of nutty.” Don’t be surprised that the posters here have resorted to ad hominem attacks.
#isleepwellatnight
Piotr,
Bornagain77’s posts, while sometimes long, actually contain some interesting material. But you need to be a little patient to read it, rather than just criticizing him.
-Q
Jehu:
Note the past tense. There was no explanation at the time when orphan genes were discovered.
Querius,
BA77’s posts are a rambling hodgepodge of miscellaneous quotations and links, kept together by duct tape and chewing gum (rather than ordinary logic), and typically discharged in one massive salvo; and since BA77 seems unable to fix his attention on the topic being discussed, those logorrhaeic discharges are of null interest to me. I herewith officially name his posting style the Bornagain Broadside ®, and leave it at it.
king piotr proclaims:
“I herewith officially name his posting style the Bornagain Broadside ®, and leave it at it.”
which is just as well since, from as far as I can tell, he just basically ‘officially proclaims’ Darwinian evolution to be true, ignores all evidence to the contrary, and ‘leaves it at that’ as if his evidence free proclamations on the truth of a subject matter one iota in the grand scheme of things.
Ignoring evidence? Ohhh.. the irony
To elucidate why ORFan genes present such a conundrum for Darwinists, (and with the reward of a ‘rambling post’ irritating king piotr being too tempting to pass up), it is important to note that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of a single gene and/or protein arising out of four decades of laboratory evolution experiments,,,
As a point of interest out of the four decades of work was Lenski’s e-coli:
Not a single gene or protein arose out of the equivalent of a million years of supposed human evolution! Moreover, one of the first ‘loss of function’ mutations that Lenski’s e-coli initiated was to ‘toss the flagellum overboard’ to conserve energy since the e-coli no longer had to move long distances to acquire food in Lenski’s ‘cozy’ lab setting!
Moreover, when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined, they resulted in ‘negative epistasis’ instead of any increased functional complexity:
Even if we ditch the lab setting, and use the ‘whole world as our lab’, the evidence for Darwinian evolution still fails to materialize:
Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ is stated here:
Behe’s work agrees with Axe’s work:
And please bear in mind, that was just the probability of a existing protein transitioning to carry out a new function. The probability of a new ORFan protein arising to perform a new function is even more improbable than that:
And that is just trying to get a minimum single function for a protein. In reality both genes and proteins are shown to be multifunctional in their duties which only exasperates the problem exponentially for Darwinists:
And that is not even touching on the biophotonic communication and quantum computation capacity inherent in genes and proteins.
Thus, as Jehu pointed out in post 33, Darwinists never actually demonstrate that a protein/gene can arise by Darwinian processes, Darwinists just assume that every new gene/protein that is found must have arisen by Darwinian processes (because the alternative is unthinkable for them). But as far as the real evidence goes, Darwinists are shown to be living in a pipe dream. i.e. It is delusional to think Darwinian processes will ever be up to the task of explaining where these exquisite genes and proteins came from.,,,
Basically, the following is the reality of the Darwinian argument in a nutshell:
Music and Verse:
And please bear in mind, that was just the probability of a existing protein transitioning to carry out a new function. The probability of a new ORFan protein arising to perform a new function is even more improbable than that:
And that is just trying to get a minimum single function for a protein. In reality both genes and proteins are shown to be multifunctional in their duties which only exasperates the problem exponentially for Darwinists:
And that is not even touching on the biophotonic communication and quantum computation capacity inherent in genes and proteins.
Thus, as Jehu pointed out in post 33, Darwinists never actually demonstrate that a protein/gene can arise by Darwinian processes, Darwinists just assume that every new gene/protein that is found must have arisen by Darwinian processes (because the alternative is unthinkable for them). But as far as the real evidence goes, Darwinists are shown to be living in a pipe dream. i.e. It is delusional to think Darwinian processes will ever be up to the task of explaining where these exquisite genes and proteins came from.,,,
Basically, the following is the reality of the Darwinian argument in a nutshell:
Music and Verse:
bornagain77,
Since the LD 50/30 of bacteria is much higher than that of humans, it would seem that with a proportionally adjusted level of environmental ionizing radiation, one could simulate millions of years of human evolution using bacteria (E.coli comes to mind). This might seem to make an ideal laboratory for testing evolutionary drift, and other theories (instead of waiting 20 years and 44,000 generations).
Interestingly, the E.coli bacteria subjected to an extreme test “evolved” radioresistance in just 20 generations through an unknown “repair” mechanism.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/22641
(One wonders whether the resistance evolved or was there all along in small numbers of the bacteria.)
Would you know of any published experiments that have tried to simulate evolution through moderately higher doses followed by genetic sequencing?
-Q
Querius, in regards to the fascinating paper you cited:
Here is Deinococcus radiodurans
Of related interest, RecA is one of the primary proteins that Dr. Durston studied:
How can RecA proteins reconstruct fragmented DNA? i.e. If the Genetic/Molecular reductionism model of neo-Darwinism were actually true, how can RecA possibly ‘know’ the correct sequence? Needless to say, this is NOT what reductive materialism, which undergirds neo-Darwinian thought, expects. ,,, This all plays into epigenetic information and its falsification of neo-Darwinism:
Of related interest, bacteria are exquisitely designed to ‘detoxify’ the earth of dangerous levels of heavy metal:
As to testing ‘evolutionary drift’, this is what I have so far:
To the disbelieving shock of many evolutionary scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence. According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there ‘HAS’ to be ‘significant genetic drift’ to the DNA of modern bacteria from 250 million years ago.
That certainly is not what neo-Darwinists expected!
Of related interest:
Verse and a little ‘Heavy Metal’ music:
Piotr,
I remember when these things were first discovered and the official party line was that the parents were yet to be discovered and that there were so-called “deep” homolgies that would explain their existence. We IDiots correctly called BS and pointed out that orphans were being discovered faster than parents, and of course “deep” homolgies can’t explain absence in supposedly closely related species.
The talking points now are that orphans evolved quickly and entire genes were deleted from related species. Even the advocates of these “explanations” admit they are “improbable” and “kind of nutty.”