Larry Moran Was Channeling Ace Ventura

_{Barry Arrington

November 9, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

This will be my last post on this subject. To remind our readers:

1. I said I understand Darwinian.

2. Larry Moran said that I do not.

3. I challenged Larry to back up his claim. He could have done that by, for example, pointing to a statement I made about Darwinism that is false.

4. Larry put up two posts in response to my challenge.

5. In the first post he quibbled about the term “Darwinism.” Though in the end he admitted I have made it clear I am using the term as shorthand for Neo-Darwinism. Larry’s Grade: F

6. In the second post he said I erred when I wrote that Darwinists in the past said Darwinism predicts junk DNA. The problem is that it is very easy to find quotations from Darwinians such as Jerry Coyne doing just that. Larry’s Grade: F

Summary

After two posts Larry has been unable to back up his claim. It turns out he was just talking though his . . . well, follow this link to an Ace Ventura clip if you want to know what he was talking through: Ace Ventura

But what if Larry searches through all of my writings and comes up with an error in his third post in response to my challenge? Have I not ended this too soon? No. Larry asserted I do not understand Darwinism. The following logic ensues:

1. If Larry could not back up his assertion AT THE TIME HE MADE IT he was channeling Ace Ventura.

2. Larry could not back up his assertion at the time he made it. We know this, because after two follow up posts, he has still not backed up his assertion.

3. Therefore, Larry was channeling Ace Ventura.

UPDATE:

After two failed posts, Larry has put up a post on a completely unrelated topic, apparently giving up on even a pretense of backing up his claim. I expect to see him post an apology for his smear against me that, when challenged, he was unable to support (as soon as pigs fly).

Comments

Larry Moran:
I didn’t know you could read the book.
That almost sounds like an insult. ;) Pretty sure I've read chapter 13, I recognize the name of the chapter, lol. Probably won't hurt to read it again though. I'll check out Chapter 4.Mung_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Professor Moran. Do you believe that evolution occurs according to need or happens irregardless of need?Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Mapou@85 "Or do we have to listen to interminable and boring just-so stories that essentially amount to a big pile of BS?" You have to listen to just-so stories that essentially amount to a big pile of BS.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Mung says, Actually i was referring to the book, which I have access to. References from the book that use neutral evolution and genetic drift to explain the origins of genome architecture. I didn't know you could read the book. Start with Chapter 4 "Why Population Size Matters."
The key point in the following pages is that the types of evolution that can occur within a species depend strongly on the population size. Natural selection is ubiquitous, but for many aspects of genomic evolution, the forces of selection are quite weak. If the population size is sufficiently small, the noise associated with random gamete sampling can completely overwhelm weak selective forces, yielding a situation in which the population evolves as though selection were entirely absent. This idea has long been appreciated in molecular evolution (Kimura, 1983; Ohta, 1997). However, a general theme that will emerge in the following chapters is that although small population size promotes the accumulation of mutations that are mildly deleterious in the short term, the resultant alterations to gene and genomic architecture can provide a potential setting for secondary adaptive changes that are unattainable in large populations. p. 70
There's lots of math and equations because, as Lynch puts it, population genetics has "a level of mathematical rigor that has few rivals in the life sciences." When you have mastered that, read Chapter 13 "Genomfart." There Lynch explains why it's important to understand modern evolutionary theory, especially population genetics. He says,
... I will comment on the current state of affairs in evolutionary biology, particularly the perception of softness in the field that has been encouraged by the propagation of evolutionary ideas by those with few intentions of being confined by the constraints of prior knowledge.
Larry Moran_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

I agree with VC. Where is this evolutionary theory and where can its claims be tested? Will we need a time travel machine? Or do we have to listen to interminable and boring just-so stories that essentially amount to a big pile of BS?Mapou_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
Keep in mind that Michael Lynch is considered to be the world’s leading expert on molecular evolution and genomes
Can he tell us how to test the claim that natural selection and drift can produce a bacterial flagellum? Can he tell us what makes an organism what it is? If not then what good is his expertise to evolutionism?Virgil Cain_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Evolutionary theory has many components...
Using terms like "evolutionary theory" just causes confusion as it makes people think there is an evolutionary theory.Virgil Cain_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

What’s the matter Jack, Can’t you type any faster? Jack's not a pro like some of us. We've learned the power of copy and paste!Mung_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
His book on the subject is still the best source but it’s expensive.
Actually i was referring to the book, which I have access to. References from the book that use neutral evolution and genetic drift to explain the origins of genome architecture. But I'll check out the papers to see what they say. Thank you for the links.Mung_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

I said, Please don’t just fire off knee-jerk criticisms based on a quick read of the abstracts. That’s not helpful. Six minutes later Jack Jone says, Did Michael Lynch have to believe that life originated spontaneously or believe that he is a fish like PZ Myers believes he is, in order to do his work? What's the matter Jack, Can't you type any faster?Larry Moran_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Jack Jones: Yet Evolutionists can’t agree on just what this theory is. What part of "Evolutionary theory has many components, some more strongly supported than others. The commonality of life is strongly supported; The relative role of necessity and contingency is still subject to debate," do you not understand?Zachriel_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

"Evolutionary theory has many components, some more strongly supported than others" Yet Evolutionists can't agree on just what this theory is.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Jack Jones: still under the illusion that there is some “evolutionary theory” in some singular sense, even though evolutionists can’t agree on just what the theory is. Evolutionary theory has many components, some more strongly supported than others. The commonality of life is strongly supported. The relative role of necessity and contingency is still subject to debate.Zachriel_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

@Professor Moran Did Michael Lynch have to believe that life originated spontaneously or believe that he is a fish like PZ Myers believes he is, in order to do his work? Did you find out which of those chemical elements that you tell your students is free?Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Mung asks,
Can you guide me to where he [Michael Lynch] says neutral evolution and genetic drift explains the origins of genome architecture?
His book on the subject is still the best source but it's expensive. Here are some papers you can read. Lynch, M. (2007) The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(Suppl 1):8597-8604. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702207104]
Abstract: The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization. These issues are examined in the context of the view that the origins of many aspects of biological diversity, from gene-structural embellishments to novelties at the phenotypic level, have roots in nonadaptive processes, with the population-genetic environment imposing strong directionality on the paths that are open to evolutionary exploitation.
Lynch, M., and Conery, J.S. (2003) The origins of genome complexity. Science, 302(5649):1401-1404. [doi: 10.1126/science.1089370 ]
Abstract: Complete genomic sequences from diverse phylogenetic lineages reveal notable increases in genome complexity from prokaryotes to multicellular eukaryotes. The changes include gradual increases in gene number, resulting from the retention of duplicate genes, and more abrupt increases in the abundance of spliceosomal introns and mobile genetic elements. We argue that many of these modifications emerged passively in response to the long-term population-size reductions that accompanied increases in organism size. According to this model, much of the restructuring of eukaryotic genomes was initiated by nonadaptive processes, and this in turn provided novel substrates for the secondary evolution of phenotypic complexity by natural selection. The enormous long-term effective population sizes of prokaryotes may impose a substantial barrier to the evolution of complex genomes and morphologies.
Lynch, M., and Marinov, G. K. (2015) The bioenergetic costs of a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514974112]
Abstract: A long-standing mystery in evolutionary genomics concerns the lineage-specific expansions of genome size in eukaryotes relative to prokaryotes. One argument is that the cellular complexity and elevated gene numbers in eukaryotes were impossible without a mitochondrion. However, the energetic burden of a gene is typically no greater, and generally becomes progressively smaller, in larger cells in both bacteria and eukaryotes, and this is true for costs measured at the DNA, RNA, and protein levels. These results eliminate the need to invoke an energetics barrier to genome complexity.
Keep in mind that Michael Lynch is considered to be the world's leading expert on molecular evolution and genomes. You don't have to agree with him but you should be able to accurately state the views of the experts if you want to honestly portray the status of the debate to ID followers. I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to like what Lynch says in those papers. After you read and studied them and checked out the references and the data, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Lynch's coauthor on the last paper is a regular contributor to Sandwalk. You can ask him questions at ... The cost of a new gene Please don't just fire off knee-jerk criticisms based on a quick read of the abstracts. That's not helpful.Larry Moran_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

"Based on that, evolutionary theory" Zach still under the illusion that there is some "evolutionary theory" in some singular sense, even though evolutionists can't agree on just what the theory is.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

mike1962: I didn’t see a yes or no? The Modern Synthesis was more developed than meteorology at that time. mike1962: But I’ll go ahead an tweak the question. Substitute “current evolutionary theory/theories” for the Modern Synthesis. So then, yes or no? mike1962: Do the Zachriels think that current evolutionary theory is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? It's hard to compare such disparate fields. Current evolutionary and meteorological theories, both attempt to explain complex systems. Meteorology is somewhat limited to ongoing weather phenomena, but if we include climatology, in particular, paleoclimatology, then it too includes a historical narrative. Based on that, evolutionary theory is "on par". If you include only non-historical phenomenon, then again, evolutionary theory is probably still "on par".Zachriel_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Zechriels: Which we answered, while noting that the question wasn’t directly relevant to the point under discussion. I didn't see a yes or no? But I'll go ahead an tweak the question. Substitute "current evolutionary theory/theories" for the Modern Synthesis. So then, yes or no?mike1962_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran, Can you guide me to where he [Michael Lynch] says neutral evolution and genetic drift explains the origins of genome architecture?Mung_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Just saying it is a fallacious argument doesn't make it so. You have to actually make your case.Virgil Cain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

bornagain: if it does not make an argument why are you arguing? We were discussing the structure of Dr JDD's fallacious argument. In any case, you are now claiming that your just saying something is so is an argument. Bizarre.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, if it does not make an argument why are you arguing? Of note, you have not addressed the issue of Darwinian evolution not being an empirical science in the first place as you claim it is, thus by your own criteria of 'Saying so doesn’t make an argument' you have failed miserably to make your overly simplistic comparison valid. Zacheriel, I'm satisfied that unbiased readers can see your dishonesty and will respond no further to you on this thread.bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Saying so doesn’t make an argument bornagain: Actually it does. b: A. z: what is your argument for A? b: A. z: saying so isn't argument. b: is so. mike1962: It was a question elicited by what you wrote. Which we answered, while noting that the question wasn't directly relevant to the point under discussion.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Zechriels: It was immaterial to the point raised. It was a question elicited by what you wrote. Aren't I allowed to do that?mike1962_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, 'Saying so doesn’t make an argument' Actually it does. But ignoring and denial of facts in evidence does not. Go figure. As to the subject that you want to distract attention away from, i.e. that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has ever been an empirical science, I would like to focus on one thing in particular,
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
Darwinian evolution simply has no empirical evidence that unguided material processes can create proteins and/or genes, much less can it explain life, much less does it have any real predictive power as Quantum Theory and General Relativity do so as to be verified to 13 decimal places, then there is nothing that Darwinian evolution can offer in comparison so as to answer Berlinski's challenge. The inference to Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can offer something in comparison:
Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video: Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175 the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000 a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000 http://www.vimeo.com/11706014 Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life? K.D. Kalinsky - Pg. 10 - 11 Case Three: an average 300 amino acid protein: Excerpt: It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate the functional information required for the average 300 amino acid protein to be around 700 bits of information. I(Ex) > Inat and ID (Intelligent Design) is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein. http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20Web%20Article.pdf
To give a clue just how strong the inference to design is, the following illustration will help
The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr. Excerpt: But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation Stoner used 48 prophecies (even though he could have used 456) and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is one in 10^157. How large is the number 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Let us try to illustrate this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They are smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 times 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted four electrons every second and counted day and night, it would still take us 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one inch long. But how many electrons would it take if we were dealing with 10^157 electrons? Imagine building a solid ball of electrons that would extend in all directions from the earth a length of 6 billion light years. The distance in miles of just one light year is 6.4 trillion miles. That would be a big ball! But not big enough to measure 10^157 electrons. In order to do that, you must take that big ball of electrons reaching the length of 6 billion light years long in all directions and multiply it by 6 x 10^28! How big is that? It’s the length of the space required to store trillions and trillions and trillions of the same gigantic balls and more. In fact, the space required to store all of these balls combined together would just start to “scratch the surface” of the number of electrons we would need to really accurately speak about 10^157. But assuming you have some idea of the number of electrons we are talking about, now imagine marking just one of those electrons in that huge number. Stir them all up. Then appoint one person to travel in a rocket for as long as he wants, anywhere he wants to go. Tell him to stop and segment a part of space, then take a high-powered microscope and find that one marked electron in that segment. What do you think his chances of being successful would be? It would be one in 10^157. Remember, this number represents the chance of only 48 prophecies coming true in one person (there are 456 total prophecies concerning Jesus). http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-3.pdf
bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
The Modern Synthesis is a rather old theory,
The Modern Synthesis isn't even a theory. It was the name of a book and also a name given to ideas from several books. It was never one coherent concept.Virgil Cain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

bornagain: Zachriel, actually no it was not, but your comparison certainly was. Saying so doesn't make an argument. bornagain: Moreover, as is usual for you, you completely ignore the fact that Darwinian evolution is not a rigorous science in the first place ... Changing the subject doesn't make an argument either.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

mike1962: So is that a yes or a no? It was immaterial to the point raised. The Modern Synthesis is a rather old theory, its origin predating the discovery of DNA. It was a more comprehensive theory than meteorology was at the time, which was largely limited to watchful waiting. Modern meteorology didn't really begin until computers were marshaled to model the complex weather system (e.g. Lorenz, Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 1963). As for current evolutionary and meteorological theories, both attempt to explain complex systems. Meteorology is somewhat limited to ongoing weather phenomena, but if we include climatology, in particular, paleoclimatology, then it too includes a historical narrative.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

mike1962: Do the Zachriels think that the Modern Synthesis is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? Zechriels: Dr JDD’s argument was a fallacy of the same construct as the example from meteorology. So is that a yes or a no?mike1962_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, actually no it was not, but your comparison certainly was. Moreover, as is usual for you, you completely ignore the fact that Darwinian evolution is not a rigorous science in the first place but is in fact a pseudo-science, even a religion, that makes up 'just so stories' as to how some complex system evolved after that system is discovered. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-was-channeling-ace-ventura/#comment-587148 You try to distract from the sheer empirical poverty of Darwinian evolution, as to how unguided material processes can possibly produce such sophistication in molecular biology, so as to try to shift attention away from the elephant in the living room fact that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has ever been, a real empirical science. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-was-channeling-ace-ventura/#comment-587249bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply