Speculation Presented As Fact (or, Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit)

_{Gil Dodgen

November 13, 2007

Science}

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

I don’t watch a lot of television, but I must admit that I enjoy the History Channel. The other night I was watching a program on the origin of the universe and life. At one point the narrator commented (I paraphrase), “And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form.”

This is obviously pure speculation presented as fact, and my Carl-Sagan-inspired baloney detection kit went into immediate overdrive. I said to myself: “Self, how do they know that unknown chemical reactions caused life to form? No evidence is presented for this claim. And how did all that complex information-processing machinery come about through chemical reactions?”

Baloney detection is a two-edged sword.

Comments

"And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form." ellazimm:
It is being honest however.
It is being honest about the unknownness of the mechanism. It is not honest about the degree of certainty, or warrant for the conclusion, that material things were the cause of life.lars_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Is there any place where he either retracts the paper publicly, contests the refutation by Schneider and others, or offers another explanation for its disappearance?
http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/Publications/eev.html
Thanks to those who pointed to a bug in our software. This paper has been withdrawn. For revised analysis, see HERE.
Not sure if Bill has publicly stated if they intend to revise and resubmit. You could try emailing Bill to see what he plans: http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/People.htmlPatrick_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

getawitness, "Is anybody going to respond to the story I seem to have discovered above [167]?" I answered this in the Cheryl Crowe cheese-grader-TP blog, which, ironically, has seemed to disappear itself. Anywho, I found the paper in question via Google in about a minute (first page 5 or 6 down): http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/T/ev2.pdf Wellwell, I figured I'd check to see if the .pdf link was still working before I posted this... it is but; it no longer takes you to the paper you're hunting. I saw it last night, now it's a different paper. Weird. Wish I would have saved the thing. The mystery continues. Regards.Robbie_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Magnan and Carl Sachs, I believe that this one piece of evidence, we have been talking about, is key. I am by no means an expert in this area, but the ramifications seem quite clear to me. It would in fact be proof of principle to the whole Theistic ID claim! But, As Carl has clearly pointed out: So what you need to do is show that there is something immaterial that’s causing the neural activity itself (i.e. electrical signals). The causal relation between neural activity and gene activation, by itself, won’t cut it. To me it seems simple intuition that the matter of the brain is not causing the changes in the neural activity but is in fact caused by my creative will, but the trick is to concretely prove it scientifically is it not? Hmmm, this is very interesting problem. But one that I think is very well worth solving for it would blow a hole in the evolutionists claim that we have no mechanism to speak of for the origin of life scenario!bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Joseph, if you were replying to my post #176, I don’t see any relevance in your response. Perhaps you could explain it for me.-Stanton Rockwell
The relevance is IDists are doing the work of science. Also we do NOT have to know a process BEFORE we can make a design inference. We do NOT need to know when, why or by whom before making a design inference. Then there is the fact that we may never know what process could be used and that does not matter one bit to a design inference. That is because some things will remain beyond our grasp. And the bottom line is ID should be held to the SAME standards as any reiging paradigm. And so far the theory of evolution is void of details pertaining to processes.Joseph_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

getawitness: "Is anybody going to respond to the story I seem to have discovered above [167]?" Hey there friend! I read the story. There's not much to say. It looks like Dembski and Marks were wrong. Maybe they'll acknowledge it, and maybe they won't. I don't know. Maybe they're working on correcting their errors and are preparing to re-publish the work. Who knows? But you seem to be implying that this story has some broader implications of some sort. I don't see that it does. Please enlighten us.Clumsy Brute_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

magnan, I never thought of it, but you are right. Materialists are absolutely required to thoroughly define thought to a varying material basis of some sort. The best they can do is point to the varying electrical field of the brain. But they fail to realize even electricity is rigidly defined to a material basis in materialism. Thus what is actually causing the electrical field to vary? They will never prove that varying matter of the brain preceded the varying electrical field! It is simply ludicrous to presume so, even at first glance. In fact, The electrical field is shown precisely, in this study, to precede the formation of structured matter. Yea you are absolutely right Magnan, Failing to find any sort of material mechanism for thought is a major blunder in logic as far as the mathematical foundational of materialism is concerned. Materialism can never answer this following question that it is required to answer: What exactly is telling the electrical field to vary? And remember Materialism does all it can to rigidly define even electricity to a material basis! The clear fact is that materialism is absolutely required to explain ALL thought to a preceding material basis, since thought is said to arise from material basis. You are right Magnan, There is the absence of any identification of the sites and mechanism of whatever it is in the rat that determines to store the memories.bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

In my last post, I meant #173.magnan_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, the long-term memory storage and activation study in rats that you cited (#73) is quite interesting. Especially interesting is the authors' careful avoidance of some of the clear implications of this work. One of these is the absence of any identification of the sites and mechanism of whatever it is in the rat that determines to store the memories. The researchers obviously assume that this basic problem of finding the neurological basis of the consciousness that motivates forming a memory in the first place is not really a problem. Since neuroscience is certain beyond a doubt that there is such a mechanism and that the problem of "qualia" is not really a problem. Another implication that is carefully avoided is the conflict between their hypothesis that long term memory storage is in the neocortex, and the virtual absence of a neocortex is some hydrocephalic humans with apparently still normal mental functioning.magnan_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Joseph, if you were replying to my post #176, I don't see any relevance in your response. Perhaps you could explain it for me.Stanton Rockwell_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

I would like to mention the fact that in order to replicate DNA or RNA there needs to be free nucleotides. Yet the ONLY place we find nucleotides is in living organisms (and in some previously alive). I guess that is the big sticking point- how to go from amino acids to nucleotides (Miller-Urey produced amino acids, not nucleotides).Joseph_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Rather than worry about which genres of particles and forces materialism limits itself to, why not go with Jacques Monod's chance and necessity? We can define materialism as that philosophical stance that allows teleology or agency no fundamental priority. At best agency is seen as derivative of chance and necessity--never as elemental.Rude_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

getawitness, no. Nobody here knows what is going on. Or if they do, they obviously won't say anything. My guess is that it was an embarrassment so they took it down. It is hard to stand up in front of the whole world with your pants down, as it were, and say "I was wrong, I so so sawwy." But one wrong paper does not cause a whole idea to be wrong. Maybe you should email Dr.Dembski. If he doesn't respond, I guess evolution is true. Darn.Collin_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm (#154) “From your brief discussion I wonder why the DNA double helix which does keep a mirror image copy of itself while replicating doesn’t fit the bill.” The original context was the RNA world, and my original comment was a criticism of that hypothesis. There is nothing the matter with the DNA double helix; it fills the bill perfectly. However, the RNA world scenario was originally broached as a work around for a “chicken or egg” problem inherent in DNA replication, namely, DNA requires proteins to replicate (it’s a passive template in that respect) and proteins require DNA encoding in order to be built in the first place. Therefore, both have to exist in just the right arrangement for any kind of life to get off the ground. Even chance worshippers have a problem swallowing the vast improbabilities of the de novo generation of the way that life replicates now. If an RNA molecule could replicate itself and provide some other (unspecified) catalytic functions, maybe, just maybe, one wouldn’t need multiple universes of probabilistic resources to get it going. Enter von Neumann’s caveat: replication requires a template which includes the specification for the device that does the actual copying. I think you can see the problem!D.A.Newton_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

The fossil record could only provide a time-stamp if we know HOW it was formed. Fossils don't come with time-stamps either. Mutation rates could only do so (provide a time-frame) if we knew what was originally designed. Then we could work back to that point. To Stanton: Please read- The Design Inference- Why it matters- revisited:
ID critics & anti-IDists are always saying that ID isn't science because it doesn't attempt to answer questions about the designer- such as its capabilities; the implementation process/ mechanism of design (how); when or where it was designed. But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions. Which should be enough of a driving force to get people seriously looking. IDists understand that in order to possibly answer those questions there is quite a bit of work to be done. The first is the detection- that is what gets archaeologists and SETI researchers going. Then we look for more (clues of design) while others are going over the first. We fit the pieces together, unless of course we find a short-cut, but the answer turns out to be 42** but we don't know the question. (those darn mice). I have always maintained that ID isn't interested in answering those questions but IDists are. I have always maintained that is the same as the ToE not being concerned with life's origins but evolutionists are. IOW the theory of evolution is about what happened after life appeared. But if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, i.e. the only scenario that excludes ID, then there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. I never could or will understand why anti-IDists can't understand that pure & basic logical connection. But anyway... Why isn’t ID interested in those questions? ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. SETI- first detect then try to understand; archaeology- first identify artifacts (detect) and then put the pieces together (understand). In the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make a reasonable inference about the designer is by studying the design. The same goes for how, why, when and where.
Now if we turn that around and ask the anti-IDists about a process or processes all we get in return are vague- random mutations culled by natural selection' lateral gene transfer and; genetic drift. No details what-so-ever. Heck no one even knows whether or not the transformations required* are even possible. * that is if all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.Joseph_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm, if you are still here, I only brought up punctuated equilibrium because it seems to me to be a mere butress for a flagging theory. But I honestly have not read enough of Gould, so I should probably not say more about it. About your concern with refutations of Dembski and Behe, it is obvious that no one here knows which refutations you are talking about specifically, so no one has the motivation to address your concerns. Do you have a specific link for us, a specific argument you could describe? But clearly, the best source is Dr. Behe himself (or Dembski). Look at Behe's amazon blog. He addresses many of his critics there.Collin_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Is anybody going to respond to the story I seem to have discovered above [167]?getawitness_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Carl Sachs, My whole premise is that information is "spiritual" in nature, and, In my opinion, I established that fact with trans-cranial magnetic stimulation studies of Penfield, the NDE of Pam Reynolds, the John Hopkins hemispherectomies studies, (which was challenged by MacT, but I maintain he is wrong for he is concentrating primarily of mind/body deficits and is not ascertaining the retention of information both before and after surgery, while the John Hopkins study did focus on the retention of personality, To MacT's credit He did point out the "physical" recovery was not as complete as I was led to believe) As well I could get into required information of the Big Bang, which clearly preceded the material of this universe. But for now, my premise is strong and I maintain that the "information" being thought about, triggers the formation of structured matter in the brain!. As I stated before, the primary postulation of materialism, postulates that EVERYTHING arises from matter (Electricity included!) The primary postulation of Theism postulates that, actuated thought preceds the formation of matter. What does the evidence clearly indicate? Actuated thought preceding the formation of structured matter! Materialism foundational presumption would be the opposite since electricity, gravity thought and even life itself is dependent on a material basis. I've always wondered why materialism was not called on this one point long ago. Shoot, it is increasingly apparent that even gravity does not arise from a material basis!bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

ellazimm said,
An intelligent designer would have to have introduced design at some place and time and using some process to implement the design. I think those are the most interesting questions about intelligent design. Why not try and answer those? If there’s no data then let’s find it!
To which Joseph responded:
That’s your opinion. Without a time-stamp just how can one determine when something was designed? And just how could we figure out the exact design process used? True we may be able to figure out a way to duplicate it but we will never know if that method was the one used originally.
Joseph, you're asking questions that should be research fodder for ID-friendly scientists, which I think was ellazimm's point. We don't need to figure out, necessarily, the exact design process used, as there could be more than one. What we need to do is show that any design process is sufficient, but before we do that, we have to identify such a process. If you're not willing to do the work of science, then you're not doing science, simply put. "I know it when I see it" just isn't science.Stanton Rockwell_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

The problem, Bourne, is that those experiments are about neural activity, i.e. electrical signals propagated along axons. Last time I checked, electrons were part of the material world. So what you need to do is show that there is something immaterial that's causing the neural activity itself (i.e. electrical signals). The causal relation between neural activity and gene activation, by itself, won't cut it.Carl Sachs_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

That’s your opinion. Without a time-stamp just how can one determine when something was designed? Could we maybe correlate a nested hierarchy with the fossil records to determine when each of the original kinds appeared? That should really get us close to the timing of the design event. And just how could we figure out the exact design process used? True we may be able to figure out a way to duplicate it but we will never know if that method was the one used originally. That is certainly the problem inherent in materialist abiogenesis research. But surely, IDers can do better than that.poachy_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

MacT, The more I look at this site, The clearer mind/generating "structured matter" becomes to me ; http://www.irishscientist.ie/2000/contents.asp?contentxml=196s.xml&contentxsl=insight3.xsl Eric Kandel and colleagues demonstrated that persisting neural (electrical) activity leads to gene activation and the translation and synthesis of new proteins necessary for the structural change in the nerve cell connectivity pattern that accompanies the acquisition of complex behaviour in sea slugs. It is as clear as daylight, the neural activity (thought of mind) precedes the generation of structured matter. In materialism, What is the foundational basic presumption? The presumption is that everything emanates from a material foundation, Theism would postulate the exact opposite. What does the evidence heavily suggest MacT? It clearly suggest that thought precedes the generation of structured matter.. It could not be any simpler!bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, I agree that genetic information strongly suggests common descent. But two things you have to consider which the data does not show. 1. There is no evidence for the mechanism of how the separate species acquired the same genetic information. In other words this does not support gradualism. Gradualism would explain it but there is no evidence that it actually was the cause. For support of gradualism, there must be evidence elsewhere showing that it had an effect other than the trivial. We use the expression "trivial" frequently because gradualism does operate in micro evolution all the time producing change, but change that is irrelevant for evolutionary biology where the issues are the appearance of novel functions. These trivial changes can have very significant effects in terms of medicine and disease and most of modern medicine is based on this phenomena. This is not an ID issue and probably most of agree with that assessment. So what are the mechanisms for common descent? There are four broad categories that are proposed and each could have variations and maybe there are more. A. Gradualism or what is usually referred to as neo Darwinism. This is what is taught in all the textbooks, which by the way only use trivial examples to illustrate it. I wonder why. B. Massive changes to the genome that cause sudden and dramatic changes to the genome. What are the mechanisms that cause these changes? Allen MacNeill listed 47 possible mechanisms but no evidence to illustrate how each might have worked and admits that there is no evidence for any really novel functions arising from these mechanisms. Of course A and B could be the explanation for change if there were any evidence for such. But there is none now and B is just speculation and mainly based on models of how change could have occurred. B is problematic because the genomes are so fine tuned that it is unlikely a massive change would serendipity hit upon a new novel function . Anything is theoretically possible but too many low probability events start to get you wondering. C. Some intelligence now and then affects the genome of an organism, creating novel functions and in effect creating a new species, family or order or in the Cambrian, new phyla. This is one form of the ID hypothesis. How many times did it happen. Unknown, but the odds are at least once in the creation of life and probably at some other times. This is easily mocked and Darwinists will refer to it as the "poof" explanation using such terms to try to make its adherents look like fools because no one has ever witnessed or has evidence for a "poof." Well we just had a minor poof at Case Western where genetic engineering have produced a very different mouse that ostensibly has superior characteristics for a mouse. It is initially called Mighty Mouse and we will have to see where this goes. D. Some intelligence created one or more cells that had the genetic information within it to create all the life we see on the planet today and all the life in between the formation of the earth and today. This is called front loading and there are many fans of this process amongst ID adherents. None have any evidence to support it. Most evidence in the evolutionary biology area is negative evidence against the other possible mechanisms. Second, Common descent can have two meanings. It can mean everything is descendant from some one celled organism and all life forms have branched out from this LUCA (Last Unique Common Ancestor.) Some has suggested there were several LUCA's for different part of the evolutionary tree. Or it can mean that some species are descendant from one particular species and no implication outside of this. Humans and chimps may have a common ancestor but it does not mean they are descendant from reptiles in any direct way. The evidence for this is mainly non functioning molecular sequences in the genome. So when you bring up common descent you should be aware of the issues involved. It does not point to any particular mechanism for speciation. For that evolutionary biology uses negative arguments against the other mechanisms.jerry_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

MacT, Why have not the near-de^ath experiences of people like Pam Reynolds made an impression on you? For crying out loud MacT, She was proven to have no electrical activity in her brain whatsoever, yet at the same time she was scientifically proven to be de^ad, she gave an accurate description of the scene in the operation room. And this is just one of thousands of testemonies for near-de-ath experiences found in Judeo-Christian cultures. Taking into consideration your profession it is hard for to see how this escaped your attention. Do you have a naturalistic explanation for the event? In regards to Joseph's comment in 166 The ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del, if found consistent for loss of morphological variability and Genetic Variability, can provide a fairly accurate "time stamp" for design implementation and the fossil record itself, when known in fairly accurate detail can also infer a fairly accurate place stamp for origination of parent species.bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

ellazimm in comment 40:
An intelligent designer would have to have introduced design at some place and time and using some process to implement the design. I think those are the most interesting questions about intelligent design. Why not try and answer those? If there’s no data then let’s find it!
That's your opinion. Without a time-stamp just how can one determine when something was designed? And just how could we figure out the exact design process used? True we may be able to figure out a way to duplicate it but we will never know if that method was the one used originally. in comment 158:
I find the DNA evidence of common descent extremely compelling. What do you think of the endogenous retrovirus arguments?
I find the DNA evidence very weak. That is because no one has been able to use the DNA data to exolain the physiological and anatomical DIFFERENCES observbed. As for ERVs- it very well could be that they just look like ERVs. Why would one expect to see an ERV intact enough to be used as a genetic marker after millions of generations that included the mutations that allegedly led to those observed differences? The same goes for pseudogenes. Very weak argument- and there isn't any way to test either. That is we cannot introduce a retyro virus and then sit around for millions of generations to see if it is still there. As for the alleged pseudogenes- that they persist should be an argument that they are not useless remants. When evolutionists start explaining the physiological and anatomical differences observed they will have something scientifically testable. Until then all the theory of evolution is, is dogma. As for antibiotic resistance- please read the following: Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? (hint-No) I have also read the essays pertaining to Behe and HIV. All that I have read point to the authors not understanding what Behe is saying.Joseph_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

MacT you stated: This is utter nonsense. There is no evidence from TMS studies that memory is not instantiated in brain processes. I do not use TMS in my own work, but we do have a modern TMS facility in my institute, and I am familiar with the technology. Yet I present this evidence: http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm of special note: Neurophysiological research is being performed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in the course of which a localized magnetic field (photons) is produced. TMS can excite or inhibit different parts of the brain, depending of the amount of energy given, allowing functional mapping of cortical regions, and creation of transient functional lesions. It allows assessing the function in focal brain regions on a millisecond scale, and it can study the contribution of cortical networks to specific cognitive functions. TMS is a non-invasive research tool to study aspects of human brain physiology including motor function, vision, language, and the pathophysiology of brain disorders as well as mood disorders like depression, and it even may be useful for therapy. In studies TMS can interfere with visual and motion perception, it gives an interruption of cortical processing with an interval of 80-100 milliseconds. Intracortical inhibition and facilitation are obtained by paired-pulse studies with TMS, and reflect the activity of interneurons in the cortex. Also TMS can alter the functioning of the brain beyond the time of stimulation, but it does not appear to leave any lasting effect. (14). Interrupting the electrical fields of local neuronal networks in parts of the cortex also disturbs the normal function of the brain, because by localized electrical stimulation of the temporal and parietal lobe during surgery for epilepsy the neurosurgeon and Nobel prize winner W. Penfield could sometimes induce flashes of recollection of the past (never a complete life review), experiences of light, sound or music, and rarely a kind of out-of-body experience. These experiences did not produce any transformation.(15-16) After many years of research he finally reached the conclusion that it is not possible to localize memories inside the brain. Did you catch that: Nobel prize winner W. Penfield COULD SOMETIMES INDUCE FLASHES OF RECOLLECTION OF THE PAST (never a complete life review) Doesn't sound like "utter non-sense" to me MacT! Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

I've been thinking a lot lately that speciation probably happens more than the liberal darwinist media tells us. If you believe Ernest Mayer then I am probably a different species than an Eskimo, since we don't usually run into each other in the kinds of places we go. there is a lot of america between us! but even if some moved in around here or i had to work with one i doubt i would even be attracted to her although they would probably be attracted to me.Erasmus_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Bugsy [160], I took your advice and Googled the paper (for those watching, it's "Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites.") Wow! What a story if true. As the story goes, Dr. Dembski put this refutation of Tom Schneider's "ev" program on the evo-info website and crowed about how Schneider had not responded to it. Then when the paper was soundly refuted and shown to contain devastating errors, it was removed without comment from the site. Now, if this story is true, it seems scandalous. Dr. Dembski has routinely decried the Darwinist rewriting of history that he observes. (He did so just weeks ago in the case of Homer Jacobson.) Is there any place where he either retracts the paper publicly, contests the refutation by Schneider and others, or offers another explanation for its disappearance? I would like to believe that the story is not as it seems.getawitness_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Since I feel this is very important, I'm going to clean up what my baby sitter filter ate: The basic rule for reproductive isolation (i.e. sub-speciation events) for the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del will hold that all “sub-speciation” events will come at a cost of information from the parent species that abruptly appeared in the fossil record. For a clear example of this principle being obeyed over deep time: The following article is unique in that is shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the Trilobites, over the 250 million year fossil history of their life on earth (Note: the Trilobites were a species that appeared suddenly at the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the “simple” creatures that preceded them (Trilobites have been a major thorn in evolutionary thought ever since Darwin's day)). http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html of special note from the article: He focused on actively evolving characteristics. The trilobite head alone, for example, displays many such characteristics. These include differences in ornamentation, number and placement of spines, and the shape of head segments. His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so. “There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” This is a very clear example of the “culling of information” that is predicted to take place with the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del. Special note: at no time during the 250 million years did the fossils ever decide to demonstrate novelty, to grow a fin, to start to become a fish, or a shrimp. All the variation found within the foundational establishing of the Trilobites stayed within extremes, and all observed variability markedly decreased over time. (NOTE: This is exactly the opposite of what is predicted by standard Neo-Darwinian Thought!) This is not an isolated incident! “As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould pointed out almost three decades ago, the general (consistent) pattern for the evolution of diversity (as shown by the fossil record) follows precisely this pattern: a burst of rapid diversity following a major ecological change, and then a gradual decline in diversity over relatively long periods of time.” Allen MacNeill PhD.; Teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Prof. Allen Macneill is more honest than most evolutionists, but still tries to "gently" brush over the hard reality of what the fossil record is actually showing us when he says "the general pattern for evolution". In fact, it is a very consistent pattern with NO exception in the fossil record. On top of all that it conforms exactly to the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del. The hard evidence, contrary to the evolutionary mo^del that can fit any hard evidence that comes along, fits the ID?Genetic Entropy mo^del to a tee. Plus, unlike evolution, the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del can indeed be falsified by simply showing an increase in morphological variability/diversity over deep time! As far as recent sub-speciation events are concerned: All recent sub-speciation events can be proven to fall within the ID/Genetic entropy mo^del, The recent infamous fruit fly sub-speciation event, as well as all other sub-species insects, have a narrowed window of variability for the fruit fly sub-species. Thus conforming to genetic entropy. (Note: such as cave scorpions loosing their eyes) Observed recent plant sub-speciation events are a bit more tricky to discern the Genetic Entropy in, for there are a few demonstrated sub-speciation examples that double the number of chromosomes for the plant, Yet Dr. Sanford goes over exactly this type of sub-speciation event in his book, Genetic Entropy, and explains why doubling the number of chromosomes actually decreases functionality and the “useful” information in the genome. Please note, Dr. Sanford is an expert on plant genetics and has worked in this field for decades. As well, He spearheaded the biolistic “Gene Gun” breakthrough. As opposed to the multi-faced evolutionary mo^del that can fit any evidence, The ID/Genetic Entropy Mo^del is very testable and I truly am surprised at how well all evidence fits into the mo^del! On top of all this it fits into the recent Encode findings of 100% functionality of the genome. The mo^del has exceptional explanatory power that does not have to wait for future discoveries to gain validation as evolution does, but in fact can lay its premises directly on foundational pillars of science: The second law of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of information. Whereas, Evolution has to drastically pollute the beauty and simplicity of these foundational laws.bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

The basic rule for reproductive isolation (i.e. sub-speciation events) for the ID/Genetic Entropy will hold that all "reproductive isolation" events will come at a cost of information from the parent species. For a clear example of this principle being obeyed over deep time: The following article is unique in that is shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the Trilobites, over the 250 million year fossil history of their life on earth (Note: the Trilobites appeared suddenly at the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the “simple” creatures that preceded them). http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html of special note: He focused on actively evolving characteristics. The trilobite head alone, for example, displays many such characteristics. These include differences in ornamentation, number and placement of spines, and the shape of head segments. His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so. "There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." This is a clear example of the "culling of information" that is predicted to take place with the ID/Genetic Entropy . Special note: at no time during the 250 million years did the fossils ever decide to grow a fin or to start to become a fish. All minor variation found for Trilobites stayed within extremes and all variability markedly decreased over time. This is not an isolated incident! “As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould pointed out almost three decades ago, the general pattern for the evolution of diversity (as shown by the fossil record) follows precisely this pattern: a burst of rapid diversity following a major ecological change, and then a gradual decline in diversity over relatively long periods of time.” Allen MacNeill PhD.; Teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Allen Macneill is more honest than most evolutionists but still tries to brush over the reality of what the fossil record is actually showing when he says general pattern. In fact it is a very consistent pattern with no exception in the fossil record. On top of all that it conforms exactly to the ID/Genetic Entropy . And contrary to the evolutionary that can fit any evidence that comes along, con be falsified by showing an increase in morphological variability over deep time! As far as recent sub-speciation events: The recent infamous fruit fly sub-speciation event has a narrowed window of variability for the fruit fly sub=species. Thus conforming to genetic entropy. Observed recent plant sub-speciation events are a bit more tricky to discern Genetic Entropy in, for there are a few sub-speciation examples that double the number of chromosomes for the plant, Yet Dr. Sanford goes over exactly this type of event in his book, Genetic Entropy, and explains why doubling the number of chromosomes actually decreases functionality and "useful" information in the genome. Please note, Dr. Sanford is an expert on plant genetics and has worked in this field for decades. As well, He spearheaded the biolistic "Gene Gun" breakthrough. This ID/Genetic Entropy is very testable and I truly am surprised at how well all evidence fits into the !bornagain77_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply