Genomic Junk and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 5, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Evolution was claimed to be an undeniable fact in the nineteenth century so today new proofs hardly seem necessary. But science continues to offer them up, say evolutionists, as we probe the depths of biology. These days a common source of such proofs is the genomic data which exploded onto the scene in recent decades. But are the new data really undeniable confirmations of Enlightenment speculation or are the new data merely interpreted according to the same old metaphysics? Read more

Comments

Occam: Best to you :)gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: If after all this time you still don't understand my position, I am really disappointed. Yes, I do suggest that the changes were implemented by designers. And no, I don't in any way suggest that the changes were the inevitable unfolding of some script embedded in the physical constants. I am an IDist, not a TE. Have I made my position clear, at last?gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

So Rob, do you want to posit a new law that says instead of,,, every effect has a cause it says,,, every effect may or may not have a cause Shoot thanks for the heads up, that will make science a breeze,,, from now on research could go like this,,,,,,,, What caused such and such to occur in the experiment,,, "well after extensive investigation we must invoke Rob's law that this effect was in fact caused by nothing" And to think we have wasted all these years under the misguided assumption we actually had to explain a effect.bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Petrushka @ 118 "How far back have you traced your personal lineage? When you reach the end of your research on genealogy, do you assume that there were earlier ancestors who were human?" This is a joke, right? You can't possibly be as dense as you are making yourself out to be. I'll let others try to get through. I don't find it useful to try and reason with people who reject or don't even understand reason. Good luck to you.tgpeeler_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Cheaper and lazier that claiming not to know the meaning of the word, “nothing?”
In my opinion, yes. You scoff at me asking you what "nothing" entails, but how many times have you brought up your claim that "something cannot come from nothing" and had someone offer quantum events, such as vacuum fluctuations, as a counterexample? Obviously, "nothing" can mean different things to different people in different contexts. One of your responses to the QM challenge is, if I recall correctly, to point to the laws of QM as a cause. So your definition of "nothing" entails the absence of laws. But what does it mean for a law to exist? Does a perfect regularity entail the existence of a law? And isn't nothingness the epitome of regularity? That's why I asked you if "nothing" entails the absence of regularities, a question that you're too dismissive to answer. I can't conceive of a state of affairs devoid of regularities, either statistical or otherwise. Is such a concept of "nothing" even logically coherent? "Something cannot come from nothing" may be a well-justified law, or it might not be. Why not formulate it rigorously so we can vet it and find out? Why should we take it seriously if you don't take it seriously enough to flesh it out?R0b_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, homology, which you are using as the basis for your middle ear argument, is severely flawed as a reliable method to draw firm conclusions: Investigating Evolution: Homology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18 as well your arguments from homology are completely separated from genetic evidence: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using echolocation to hunt a giant squid: Sperm whale Vs giant squid - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710 "Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11 Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old. The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats. https://uncommondescent.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/#comment-340412 It seems you think genetic sequence similarity is a strong suit for you, but recent evidence shows you to be misguided once again: Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 so petrushka do you think kangaroos should be placed right before or after primates for the cartoons showing human evolution: The Ape To Man Drawings - Another Blatant Deception of Evolution - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4236845 The first line of the " Evolution of the Genus Homo" paper illustrates the poverty of the fossil record in establishing human evolution: Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202bornagain77_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

petrushka @ 116 "So thermodynamics is reliable within our universe, but you were applying to the begining of existence. I may be underestimating you, but I’m assuming you nave no actual data on such phenomena." Of course you are underestimating me, but not in that way. What do you not "get" about the arguments for origins? What is your truth claim, exactly? What is it that you are peddling?tgpeeler_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
Nobody is saying that the middle ear did not evolve. You have to show that it evolved by neo-darwinian mechanisms at the molecular level

What alternative explanation are you suggesting?
I didn't see any alternative explanation being suggested in the line above. I saw a requirement that needs to be provided by those who adhere to evolution.Clive Hayden_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Nobody is saying that the middle ear did not evolve. You have to show that it evolved by neo-darwinian mechanisms at the molecular level
What alternative explanation are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that the changes were inserted by designers? Are you suggesting the changes were the inevitable unfolding of some script embedded in the physical constants?Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, How would you detect the future from studying the stars, as in astrology? Do throw out the astrology books until you have a competing theory of the future based on the stars.Clive Hayden_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Is it your theory that the gradual change in the mammalian jaw, culminating in the middle ear, was the result of some process other than gradual molecular change plus selection? If so, can you provide a scenario? The same misunderstanding always shows up. I do believe that molecular change, more or less gradual in different cases, and possibly selection can explain the middle ear, and everything else we observe in biology. Why should I believe differently? But the point is that molecualr change, be it gradual or not, is not explained by the darwinian model of random change + natural selection. Instead, it can be explained by the ID model of guided change + intelligent selection, IOW by designed engineering.gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

What’s the competing theory for turning lead into gold? Don’t toss out all the alchemy books until you have a new theory for turning lead into gold
I'm not sure what the question really is. I assume it's an ironic reference to the fact that lead actually can be turned into gold. I'm not aware, however, that the process involves anything metaphysical. Alchemy became chemistry and physics through the accumulation of knowledge. The process was gradual. The discovery of radioactivity introduced a discontinuity, but didn't affect the commitment to methodological materialism.Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Nobody is saying that the middle ear did not evolve. You have to show that it evolved by neo-darwinian mechanisms at the molecular level.gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

---zeroseven: "I don’t understand it, it seems random and unfair. [Moderation policy]. The problem is that certain people seem to be able to get away with quite strong language and other people can’t. I believe artificial selection is going on to provide an advantage to one side of the debate. I’m probably just a conspiracy theorist though." What you apparently don't understand is the line between using strong language to characterize a ridiculous argument and the point at which one calls the originator of that argument a ridiculous person. Upright Biped and TGPeeler are quite good at presenting spirited arguments and scathing denunciations without attacking the person directly. I will leave it to others to decide whether or not I am successful at managing that same task. The broader point is this: If ID advocates cross the line, they, too, get moderated. Do you want examples? I suspect the reason that Darwinists often have such a hard time with this principle is because, philosophically, they are moral relativists who think they are a law unto themselves. Thus, they don't get much practice at conforming their behavior to moral standards that were not of their own making. Perhaps that explains why some of them get moderated early in the process. Fortunatately, this site contains the intellectual resources to provide the requisite training.StephenB_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
There are gaps and anomalies in every branch of science. With gravity there’s the Pioneer anomaly, but before you pitch out all the books on Newton and Einstein, it’s necessary to have a competing theory.
What's the competing theory for turning lead into gold? Don't toss out all the alchemy books until you have a new theory for turning lead into gold.Clive Hayden_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

A new allele, with a new complex function, whose molecular basis is in the range of neo-darwinian mechanism, would probably get our attention a little more…
Have you ever looked at the evidence for middle ear evolution? http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=middle+ear+evolution&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS237US237&q=middle+ear+evolutionPetrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Gaz,
The term “ancestry” implies the same lineage all the way through to the present day (especially when emphasised by “the exact same”). Actually, all that “common descent” means, when applied to life as a whole, is that all of life shared a single common ancestor (which would have existed between 4.5 and 3.5 billion years ago, in all probability). Clearly, life diverged into myriad different branches since then, with different nodes all over the place representing ancestors which were common only to certain groupings of organisms. So birds and mammals will have had a common ancestor (common to them, that is), but that is a very, very long time ago and was probably a reptilian type of creature. Since then, mammals and birds have had different ancestries. Birds have an ancestry that includes dinosaurs, whereas mammals had a different ancestry that didn’t include dinosaurs but included proto-mammals such as cynodonts (very mammal like but also with reptilian characteristics such as egg-laying – a transitional creature, really) that weren’t ancestral to birds at all.
Yes, I know that's the mythology of common descent. Let me ask you, is there some necessity that animals turned out the way they did? This is a sort of, "all possible worlds" question with regard to it being a natural necessity that a dog must have developed as it did, instead of a griffin, on the theory of evolution. Is it the environment that requires that cows and a wasps must become cows and wasps on the theory of evolution? Are body plans "etched in stone" and reached inevitably by some unknown force or necessity? My objection goes deeper than after-the-fact classifications and "nested hierarchies", it goes to the very plasticity of animals required by common descent, which assumes also that there are fixed and non-plasticine parameters at the same time. If evolution were played out again from scratch, would we see the same animals all throughout history? Or would they be very different? Such as animals we have never even imagined, existing under a different set of miracles of evolution?Clive Hayden_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Are you suggesting that ID does not believe that genetic changes happened? Where is your logic? ... The simple fact is that if you don’t know what molecular changes determined the modifications in the fossil record, or any other kind of observed fact, you will never be able to evaluate if the neo-darwinian model (or any other model) can explain those molecular changes.
My logic is the same logic that causes me to believe that Neptune and Pluto orbit the sun, even though no one has observed a complete revolution. We see molecular changes. We observe selection in action. The rates of observed change are consistent with the molecular distance between species. There are gaps and anomalies. There are gaps and anomalies in every branch of science. With gravity there's the Pioneer anomaly, but before you pitch out all the books on Newton and Einstein, it's necessary to have a competing theory. Is it your theory that the gradual change in the mammalian jaw, culminating in the middle ear, was the result of some process other than gradual molecular change plus selection? If so, can you provide a scenario?Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: the variable distribution of existing alleles in sexual reproduction is obviously an important tool of diversification. We all know that, not only breeders. And you know, if two humans from different races have childre, those children ususally have intermediate morphological characteristics. Great news! How would that relate to the emergence of "new complex functions"? Alleles are there. They are variously reshuffled. And so? A new allele, with a new complex function, whose molecular basis is in the range of neo-darwinian mechanism, would probably get our attention a little more...gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

So please, show us at the molecular level those new complex functions which originated by RV and were selected by positive selection.
Changes in bone length and jaw configuration are generally regarded to be the result of allele distribution. Breeders depend on genetics to fashion prize winning animals. One can work out the physics of sound transmission to demonstrate that the the gradual change in the shape of jawbones would improve hearing. I'm curious why this would present a problem.Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Are you suggesting that something other than a series of genetic changes accounts for the fossil record? Are you suggesting that ID does not believe that genetic changes happened? Where is your logic? The simple fact is that if you don't know what molecular changes determined the modifications in the fossil record, or any other kind of observed fact, you will never be able to evaluate if the neo-darwinian model (or any other model) can explain those molecular changes. That's why it would be better to stick to observed molecular changes (for instance, the appearnce of new protein domains), rather than building just so stories about the fossil record, without even knowing, even generically, what is the molecular basis for what we observe in it.gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Let’s deal with first things first. You want to start in the middle. That way you never have to explain that which most needs explaining. It is aggravating, no error, to continually bump into such intellectual intransigence.
How far back have you traced your personal lineage? When you reach the end of your research on genealogy, do you assume that there were earlier ancestors who were human? Why? or Why not?Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Let’s talk of the molecular level, please. You will agree that everything must happen in the genome, at the molecular level, to influence the phenotype?
Talking about specific molecular changes is going to be rather difficult in the case of the mammalian middle ear. Are you suggesting that something other than a series of genetic changes accounts for the fossil record?Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Let me know the next time you observe a cup of coffee at room temperature spontaneously heat itself or you see an ice cube in a warm room that doesn’t melt.
So thermodynamics is reliable within our universe, but you were applying to the begining of existence. I may be underestimating you, but I'm assuming you nave no actual data on such phenomena.Petrushka_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Petrushka @ 109 "How would you characterize the sequence of changes leading to the mammalian middle ear?" Your question assumes the truth of evolution. That the ear evolved. I, for one, reject that. It is hilarious in the extreme that someone thinks that this is even possible in principle. What darwinists have utterly failed to do is account for the ORIGIN of information IN THE FIRST FREAKING PLACE. I'd use a good Marine Corps word to modify "place" but I don't want to get spanked by the moderator. Let's deal with first things first. You want to start in the middle. That way you never have to explain that which most needs explaining. It is aggravating, no error, to continually bump into such intellectual intransigence.tgpeeler_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Let's talk of the molecular level, please. You will agree that everything must happen in the genome, at the molecular level, to influence the phenotype? Selection expands and fixes the genes. Protein sequences, or nucleotide sequences. Digital information. So please, show us at the molecular level those new complex functions which originated by RV and were selected by positive selection.gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Petrushka @ 108 "Maybe off topic, but the laws of thermodynamics are extrapolations from observations and measurements." Yes, this is true. And your point is?? There has never been one observation that falsifies these laws. NOT ONE. Is that to say that it's logically impossible for an observation to someday do that? No. But this doesn't mean that for all practical purposes it's not impossible. Because it is. Let me know the next time you observe a cup of coffee at room temperature spontaneously heat itself or you see an ice cube in a warm room that doesn't melt. Better yet, let me know if you are willing to put money on betting against the laws of thermodynamics. I'll take those bets all day long. Also, if you have friends who want to bet, let me know. I'd be happy to take early retirement. :-)tgpeeler_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Petrushka- Which changes are those? Are you saying you know the genetic code for the middle ear and changes would be necessary for it to arise?Phaedros_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Petrushka- What changes are those?Phaedros_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

ROb @ 58 "If you disagree, then please provide an operational definition for Werner Gitt’s concept of “information." Aw jeez, are we back to playing that tired old game again? Why don't you spare me the trouble and tell me what you think an "operational concept" (whatever that is) for information is. Then I will be happy to destoy naturalism using your definition.tgpeeler_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply