Here’s a Typical Example of Evolutionary Story-Telling

8 Replies to “Here’s a Typical Example of Evolutionary Story-Telling”

1. 1
   Mung says:

   September 17, 2014 at 2:52 pm

   The organisms which leave the most offspring always leave the most offspring. This has been repeatedly proven. It’s the most basic fact of evolution.
2. 2
   REC says:

   September 17, 2014 at 7:00 pm

   Umm. That is the abstract of the article–a summary of what the paper proposes. These are fleshed out, with evidences, in the body of the paper.

   As a published author, Dr. Hunter knows this. Why the deception?

   And these are proposals. If the author went to far, Dr. Hunter would accuse his of dogmatism.
3. 3
   Mung says:

   September 17, 2014 at 7:05 pm

   REC, are you saying that the abstract merely proposes a story and that Dr. Hunter should have read the entire article to get the full story?
4. 4
   REC says:

   September 17, 2014 at 7:11 pm

   Mung….the abstract is a proposal, and the paper supports it–with hundreds of references and original analysis.

   So, yes. And so should you. It is free.
5. 5
   Mapou says:

   September 17, 2014 at 7:44 pm

   Evolution is a fish story. But we knew that.
6. 6
   bornagain77 says:

   September 17, 2014 at 8:02 pm

   REC you claim:

   “the abstract is a proposal, and the paper supports it–with hundreds of references and original analysis.”

   Now REC you wouldn’t be picking up Matzke’s bad habits of literature bluffing would you?, The fact of the matter is that no one has ever observered, or ever changed, one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria, much less has someone changed any archaea into eukarya:

   Scant search for the Maker
   Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. –
   Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
   http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

   Behe surveys 4 decades of lab work here:

   “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
   Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
   http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

   Behe’s survey included Lenski’s infamous Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE). The results, if you are a “Origin of Species” thumping Darwinist, are disappointing to put it mildly.

   Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting – Michael Behe – November 21, 2013
   Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture — a cumulative total of trillions of cells — has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that’s equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans.,,,
   ,,,its mutation rate has increased some 150-fold. As Lenski’s work showed, that’s due to a mutation (dubbed mutT) that degrades an enzyme that rids the cell of damaged guanine nucleotides, preventing their misincorporation into DNA. Loss of function of a second enzyme (MutY), which removes mispaired bases from DNA, also increases the mutation rate when it occurs by itself. However, when the two mutations, mutT and mutY, occur together, the mutation rate decreases by half of what it is in the presence of mutT alone — that is, it is 75-fold greater than the unmutated case.
   Lenski is an optimistic man, and always accentuates the positive. In the paper on mutT and mutY, the stress is on how the bacterium has improved with the second mutation. Heavily unemphasized is the ominous fact that one loss of function mutation is “improved” by another loss of function mutation — by degrading a second gene. Anyone who is interested in long-term evolution should see this as a baleful portent for any theory of evolution that relies exclusively on blind, undirected processes.
   ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, –
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

   Moreover REC, besides the failure of Darwinists to demonstrate the feasibility of neo-Darwinian processes in the laboratory, it turns out that bacteria also demostrate long term stasis in the fossil record:

   Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
   Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
   http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

   The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
   “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
   http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

   Thus REC, where is the actual empircal evidence that any single celled organism can change into another??

   This is exactly what Dr. Hunter (and Dr. Behe) are talking about. Darwinists imagine all sorts of unsubstatiated stories for how one organism can change into another with never one shred of actual empirical evidence to support the feasibility of the ‘just so’ story!

   EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
   Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
   Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
   Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
   Biologist Michael Behe observes:
   “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
   http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

   “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
   Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s
7. 7
   Eric Anderson says:

   September 17, 2014 at 11:04 pm

   REC:

   Mung….the abstract is a proposal, and the paper supports it–with hundreds of references and original analysis.

   Presumably, REC, the abstract represents the conclusions the author felt could be supported by all those references and original analysis you refer to. The abstract is a summary, not a proposal for research. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the abstract is some kind of original hypothesis that is then scrutinized in the paper itself? So the abstract is, as it typically is, essentially a summary or the conclusion that can be drawn from all that hard work and research.

   And Dr. Hunter is simply pointing out how embarrassingly empty those conclusions, findings, results, whatever you want to call them are. Lots of waffle words, handwaving, maybe’s, what-if’s, etc. This is one of the key differences between real bench science and so much of what falls under the heading of evolutionary research.
8. 8
   Mung says:

   September 19, 2014 at 8:31 pm

   You mean I read the whole article for nothing when I could have just read the abstract?