Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution Professor: Orphans Not a Problem for Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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

Comments
> BA77
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)”
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
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Barb, with such skills, you could probably bring the New York Times back from the brink of collapse and make it respectable once again :)bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
If this isn’t living proof of how religion atheism makes you stupid, I don’t know what is. It’s obvious he believes there is evidence for Darwinian evolution creation and possibly the existence of God and that the evidence is sound but rejects it because the bible his nihilist worldview tells him to. Utterly and completely STUPID!!!!! All religion atheism does it make one lie to one self. Fixed it again.Barb
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Don’t bother with BA77 JLAfan2001. 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 whatever Christian atheist propoganda he can. It’s funny how he claims that he is not a YEC an anti-theist but is willing to believe their research without question. Why? Cause it’s supports belief in his jeebus.atheistic worldview. Fixed that for, well, everyone.Barb
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
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" :P 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.JoeCoder
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
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 dogmatistsbornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
@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
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
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!bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
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
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
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. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-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/2013/09/more_irreducibl077051.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/36880067bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
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..bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
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 ;)Piotr
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
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/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.ukbornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
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 did my doctoral dissertation in that field [evolution], I've been to conferences; I'm a member of evolutionary societies. I'm steeped in deep. I mean deep in the evolution community so I know it intimately well. And there's never been anything in there that's struck me as totally utterly irreconcilable with my creationist understanding. To be sure there are challenges and difficulties that still need to be resolved. But it wasn't an issue of "Oh my goodness I can't explain this." And I never ever doubted my faith."
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.JoeCoder
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
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.JLAfan2001
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
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.bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
#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.Piotr
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
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!bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
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.JLAfan2001
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
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)" https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/neanderthals-were-not-mentally-inferior-study-finds/#comment-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!bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
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-tale-of-three-creationists-part-1 Need I say more?bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
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.OldArmy94
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
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.JoeCoder
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
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/2012/05/from_jerry_coyn060271.htmlbornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
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
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
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/95287522bornagain77
May 15, 2014
May
05
May
15
15
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply