Cont. I saw a YT vid where Miller was supposedly debunking the mouse trap ex. of i.d. He took some of the parts off of the trap, made it less complex. Then we were led to believe it could still catch mice. Lol. I'd like to see him or anyone catch mice with that broken down thing! Did he show an ex. of how it could kill rodents? Of course not! As usual, no data or evidence is presented, just speculation is presented and we are supposed to believe it.
Cont. A "bug" that can move rapidly thru the body with a whip will have extremely different uses than one w/o those parts. It will be making all kinds of chemical exchanges thru the body. Guess what? The parts of the body that will interact with the moving bug wouldl also have to change synchronously! The whole thing gets more & more complicated & interrelated the more you look at it. This is just the simplest ex. of i.c. I can give. All of life is i.c. tho, from the cellular level up.
Cont. Look at the flagellar whip & the rotary motor right below it. The whip needs the motor & the motor needs the whip. One can't function w/o the other. There is no imaginable "dual purpose" or "co option" that either of those little nano technology machine parts could have. How is evo going to drive initially useless micro stubs of nubs for those parts to completion while they are useless? Further, how is it going to drive them to completion synchronously? That's not all. Cont.
Cont. Then they talk about co-option & dual purpose. Of course they only use those to a limited extent because it only holds true for a lilmited extent. A very limited extent. I will give a spin off on Behe's example. His was great but I think mine is easier to debunk. Please use YOUR mind & YOUR eyes. You know how evo is supposed to work. You know it supposedly starts small & becomes more complex. As Dawkins said, it can't predict the future. Here is my ex.: Cont.
When Miller & others set out to "debunk" Behe's argument they rely on speculation presented as data, as usual. For ex. they point to less complex "bugs" and we are supposed to fill in the blanks with evo think and believe that Well, those bugs were less complex so therefore Behe's ex. was once also simpler in the long ago unobservable, untestable unrepeatable past. And never mind that those simpler bugs perform different functions in the body. Cont.
1. Homology has been proven false many years ago. Sorry!
2. Analysing it from evoloutionist point of view we have a contradiction:
because flagellum is more complex the bubonic plague should be the ancestor. But if we put the main rule of evolution (how many chances of survival an animal has) then bubonic plague is much more prolific than bacteria flagellum that means that flagellum is the ancestor. So evolution contradicts itself. You say you have an history, but which came first.
And once you've read page 66 I guess even you will know that you've been talking out your arse (even if you won't admit it). Maybe one day, you will be able to come to terms with this and admit you wree wrong: "PERHAPS [by] ADAPTING PARTS [of things you were saying] THAT WERE ORIGINALLY USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES." LOL - bye bye
It's always good to come upon a character like you. You really have no idea what you're talking about and yet you're so certain you're right. It's such a boost to see that you are so totally unbale to deal with an objection that all you can do is invent defintions and then refuse to rpovide any evidence for them Fantastically, widely, extraordinarily, extravagantly, diabaterously (I made that one up) wrong! Why don't you just read Behe's book - here's a clue - read page 65/6. ROFL
I guess the point is this: for the best part of 15yrs you/Miller claimed that Behe really did say that no part of an IC system could have any function at all. I provided argument and then crystal clear examples from Behe's own work that showed that this position was untenable, yet you have stuck to it. Now, you don't seem very bright, so it is possible that you may actually believe what you say. But Ken Miller is an intelligent guy. He knows he just made up a strawman. How sad is that?
@kkkaldav Hm. You see, I no that Behe specifically claimed that his IC is a system that if any part is removed it becomes nonfunctional and that all precursors to the system are nonfunctional by definition. This was a statement made by Behe in Darwin's Black Box. And it is this definition of IC that I'm dealing with (not yours) directly from Behe, not Miller.
It just so happens that parts are functional, as I mentioned in my critique. So again, your claim is wrong.
@SoCalAtheist You have nothing from Behe that says anything nearly as strong as the way you reading it. The meaning of the quote you provide, according to Behe, should be read as if, e.g., it had the words "as a mousetrap" following the word fucntion(ality) in every case. That is, Behe is clearly talking about non-functionaility in the particular capacity. How else do you explain the other passages in DBB where he explicitly talks of function in precursor systems and parts.
@kkkaldav Ah, but he did say this, pretty much exactly. And then, just like you're trying to do, backpedaled with phrases like "in the particular capacity". Problem with that redefinition is, now the system is allowed to have evolutionary precursors and can no longer be irreducible in any fashion. He tried to get around this by claiming that there were "unselected steps" in the evolution of the system. With that it becomes an argument from ignorance and fails once again.
@SoCalAtheist Behe did not say anything like you claim. At no point does he claim that NO parts can have any function. That's just you're stupid reading (like the yellow theory of evolution). For example, in the very same book Behe explicitly discusses parts of an IC system having different functions. How can you explain this? Are you seriously claiming he psycically became aware of Miller's forthcoming objections and backpedaled only a few pages after his orignal defintion.
@SoCalAtheist Think about it, if whay you say is true then you should have multiple quotes from Behe saying something like, "in an IC system no parts of the system have any functionality AT ALL prior to them coming together in that system". But you have NOTHING like that. All you have provided is a slightly ambiguous defintion which you insist must mean one thing, but which clearly does not mean that at all given the context in which it appears in DBB which is replete with talk of function.
Behe hasn't backpeddled at all. The notion of IC is the same as it always was. It is as ludicrous to say he has backpeddled as it is to say darwinists have backpeddled from the "everything should be yellow" claim. All he has done is clarified the fact that the notion he intended, IC, is not what Miller defined it as. And, if his actual notion was so weak, why the need for a strawman. That is, if Behe's actual argument was rubbish then you wouldn't need to redefine it so ridiculously, would you?
And Behe further points out regarding Miller's disingenuous attack: "As much as some Darwinists might wish, there is no quick fix solution to the problem of irreducible complexity. If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they'll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model building—not by wordplay and sleight-of-hand." It seems, then, that Behe is in perfect agreeement with my reading of IC.
@kkkaldav Ah, but they have done so. The flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, etc have all been shown to have evolutionary precursors. Some of those precursors had similar functions, others had totally different functions, but they are there, and many were presented at k v. d and Behe had no response other than, to paraphrase, "I haven't yet read those findings" even though they go back decades.
Behe has nothing, and neither do you. IC is dead, in fact, it never even lived.
@SoCalAtheist (See also, general comments below, today.) What "evolutoinary precursors?" What evidence have you showing the flagellum was ever in a simpler "less evolved" state? 0. As usual evo is presenting pure dataless evidenceless conveniently untestable & unobservable speculation as if it is the Gawd's truth. There are simpler organisms observed today which have different, simpler, purposes than the one Behe shows. There is zip zilch 0 evidence they "evolved" from, or into, anything.
@SoCalAtheist Cont. When evidenceless, untestable, unobservable events, pure speculation, are presented as if they are actual facts that prove a point you no longer have science, but pseudo science. But if I'm wrong, if you can show evidence of the flagellum ever in a less evolved state, ditto those it supposedly evolved from, then provide it. Also provide an explanation for the i.c. of the whip & motor which I gave below. Not "could have...might have...millions of yrs ago." Evidence.
@SoCalAtheist Cont. Friend, all of evo theory is based on evidenceless speculation piled ontop of logical fallacies. For ex. we are told that a hairy beast with hooves, Ambulocetus, is a Prewhale. Based on what? Some minor similarities in its inner ear to that of whales. (Correlation Does Not Imply Causation Logical Fallacy - probably the fave in evo lit.) Do they have a shred of actual evidence that ambulocetus produced any progeny significantly different from itself.? No. Pseudo science.
Behe also says about Miller's deliberate mischaracterisation: "That's what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms—the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle. The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn't be used for any other purpose. That would be silly..."
Anyway, I initially pointed out that you were spectacularly wrong in your criticsim of Behe. I have now pointed out that the reason you were wrong is that you mistook irreducible complexity for simple irreducibility, and therefore your arguments against irreducibility leave Behe's notion of irreducible complexity untouched. Your response is simply to demand (over and over) that your defintion, rather than Behe's, is correct. It can't be. Behe invented the concept therefore he gets to define it.
@kkkaldav Yeah, you made that claim. I don't accept it. Also, I'm using Behe's own definition (the first one not the one after kitzmiller v dover because that one essentially is meaningless). In the end, if any system is reducible to functional parts then IRC is dead...oh and that's exactly what has been shown with every ID claim on this subject.
Again, let's have you define what you think Behe claims. Until I can compare your claim to Behe's I'm thinking your just trying to salvage BS.
@SoCalAtheist Behe never intended IC to be taken the ridiculous way you/Miller have misinterpreted his words. And a cursory glance at almost any of Behe's work on the subject would show that that reading simply cannot be sustained. E.g., Behe says in rsponse to Miller: "I clearly wrote in Darwin's Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system."
@kkkaldav Of course he didn't. He wanted an impenetrable challenge to evolution. In that he fail. His back pedaling over IC when it was shown that his examples are not irreducibly complex and that the theory of evolution can account for the development of those very examples that he used.
In the end, IC doesn't exist. Given that the main part of his attempt was to illustrate systems that could not evolve from earlier systems (even if those systems have different functions than the final).
@kkkaldav You made that claim, but you haven't proven it. My criticism of IC stands. If a system contains components that are repurposed then it is not irreducibly complex. It's evolved. As for Behe, if his notion of IC was so strong, why the back pedaling and redefining of it? Where's the empirical evidence for it?
IC is just another cellophane wrapping, easily torn and discarded by science.
Here is the mistake you have made. You have mistaken the concept of "irreducible complexity" for the concept "irreducible". You therefore (following Miller) think that you can refute irreducible complexity by simply pointing to the component parts of a system and then imagining them propping open a door, or clipping a tie, and so on. But this is to completely miss the key point about irreducible complexity and how it differs from irreducibility. This is an astonishingly simple error.
@kkkaldav But that's just the point. If the system can be reduced to parts or collections of parts and variations on those, even if they perform a different function, then the system is not irreducibly complex. And guess what? Every example that Behe has given is refuted by scores of papers.
But how about this. Give me your specific take on what irreducible complexity means. I'll compare it with what I've read Behe to claim that it means.
@kkkaldav Look. I understand what YOUR definition of irreducible complexity is. It is exactly the same as the defintion of irreducible. However, that was not Behe's definition. That was not what he was talking about at all. And that is why all you are "demolishing" with your ludicrous arguments is your own strawman definition. Come on, it's not that hard to understand. I mean, why would Behe try to argue that there are these composite systems that are not composed of anything.
Watch me refute the theory of evolution (drumroll/fanfare): according to the theory of evolution, everything in the world should be yellow. Everything in the world is not yellow, therefore evolution is false. Dah dah! Now I don't want you coming up with any ad hoc redefinitions of evolution to side-step this refutation. Just accept the theory is dead in the water. Yellow indeed!
The most obvious error is simply that Behe does not claim that no parts of an IR system can have function. What he does claim is that the core function (catching mice) is completely lost when any of the parts are missing. This means Miller (and you) are attacking a straw-man. And we know that Behe gets this point because in his book he discusses the functions the various parts of the mousetrap might have. Therefore, he had already dealt with Miller's objection in stating his original argument.
@kkkaldav Ah, but that was only part of the points that I was making. Nice cherry picking, however your argument (and Behe's) still fails. If the parts or a collection of parts less than the parts of the example system have a function, even a different a different function then irreducible complexity is refuted. And it has been with every example ID creationists have tried to come up with. Attempting to adhoc redefine his own term to sidestep insurmountable refutations is disparate.
@SoCalAtheist You have done a nice job of explaining exactly what makes your objection an objection against a strawman. That is, it is an objection against what you take the notion of IR to be (no parts can have any function), rather than against what Behe claims IR is (a system with a function F that is totally lost when any of the parts are missing). All that has been refuted, then, (however many cliches you throw in - LOL) is your own mistaken understanding of Behe's argument. Dear dear!
@kkkaldav Actually IR as you put it is a claim that a some systems are so complex that the removal of any part leaving only a partial system that does not function and hence cannot be beneficial nor can the final system be evolved from partial stepwise accumulations of parts. This is exactly where Behe fails and has had to back peddle. IR does not take into account repurposing of elements from previous systems. Behe's error was shown very well in Kitzmiller v Dover and his argument demolished.
@SoCalAtheist Look, you don't get to decide what IR is. Behe gets to do that because he came up with the concept. What you are critiquing is a ludicrous claim that nobody did (or would) make. Behe uses a moustrap as an example for goodness sake. Do you think Behe is claiming that no spring, or piece of wood, has any function except in a mousetrap? Of course not. That's just your stupid interpretation of Behe (a strawman) that you are demolishing. And to cite a court case as science is shameful!
@kkkaldav "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition)"
These are his own words (until he changed them to side step the refutations). In reality, often times these systems still function, though in completely different capacity.
So you're incorrect calling my argument a strawman.
@SoCalAtheist Do you not see how embarrassing it is that you have to deliberately misunderstand an argument in order to attampt to refute it. That is almost the definition of setting up a strawman. Yes Behe says those words. And yes, if you refuse to read a few lines more, you can almost make them mean what you say. But if you read them in the context of the discussion in the book it is clear the function Behe says is lost is not (as you would have it) any and all function of any and all parts.
@kkkaldav Yes, he used a mousetrap as an example and the counter examples using mousetraps missing parts functioning as something else well demolish his line of argument.
@SoCalAtheist How could the very basic descriptions Behe gives in setting up his defintion demolish his own argument. That should be a sign that you have got the wrong end of the stick or, possibly, no stick at all. It is no part of Behe's argument that all function of all parts must be lost if any part is missing. His argument is that the system's function (catching mice) is lost when any parts are missing. Behe knows full well a broken TV can be used to hold open a door!
@SoCalAtheist So there is no strawman here. Behe was positing a hypothesis that had already been refuted by the study of these systems before Behe even set to pen his idea. IR is dead, stop beating it.
@SoCalAtheist BTW, I have no interest in debating you. The fact that Behe says what I say he does and does not say whay you say he does is not a matter for debate in any event. You can simply read what Behe says in Darwin's Black Box and you will see you are wrong. In that book he openly discusses the functions the parts of the mousetrap might have. He therefore cannot have meant to endorse the ludicrously strong version of IR you dreampt up in order to (ahem) demolish. Go read his book.
@kkkaldav Not a matter for debate? As if I accept you as an authority on this matter. That very much makes it a matter of debate.
As for your position; basically you're claiming (and claiming that Behe claims the same) that a system is IRC even when its parts have other functions independent of the complete system. Therefor the systems isn't irreducible, hence IR is again demolished.
@kkkaldav I've read his book and his arguments are laughable. Not only does he simply defines into existence a concept that has no foundation in reality, but the concept (IRC) itself fails because no system is irreducible. Yes, the original function is lost, but that isn't the crux of the issue here, its the evolvability of such systems. Behe's lack of imagination leads to a god of the gaps, and is contradicted by verifiable evidence from investigation over the last several decades.
@SoCalAtheist You simply don't understand Behe's argument. Behe is not saying these systems cannot be reduced to parts (he talks about the separate parts - that should give you a clue). What he is saying is that, e.g., a moustrap (a device that catches mice) will not catch mice if it doesn't have all the parts that form this "irreducibly complex system". To say this isn't the crux of the issue when it is the essence of Behe's argument is point missing and strawman construction on a grand scale.
@kkkaldav Wrong, I understand it completely. And what I've said, and many others, is that the process of evolution reuses and repurposes "parts". Meaning, even by Behe's second definition of IRC that none of these are irreducible. The mousetrap is repurposing parts into a different configuration. And those parts themselves can form many different usable configurations. IRC is nonsense, no matter how you wish to define it, or Behe wishes to redefine it. This is what you fail to understand.
It's always good to come upon a character like you. You really have no idea what you're talking about and yet you're so certain you're right. It's just such a boost to see comments like "Even our technology, all of it, contains no irreducible systems because they all have histories that have stepwise reducible components.". Fantastically, widely, extraordinarily, extravagantly, diabaterously (I made that one up) wrong! Brilliant. Keep up the bad work.
The difference between Marsupial embryology and placental embryology are completely unique in the animal kingdom and as a teacher you should know this. Even a kid knows the difference. Ill respond to other post when I have time. I think you misunderstood re.
@benthemiester Actually they are identical in the early stages and only differ in the later stages in regards to location. One in a womb, the other in a pouch. They both have bilateral cleavage of the embryo, they are deuterostomes, they develop the same structures in the same order, they use the same hox genes and other genes. You couldn't tell a 4 week old deer embryo apart from a 4 week old kangaroo embryo
The people u mention base this paradigm on proiri assumptions concerning the modern synthesis however they cannot demonstrate this empirically. If u know of specifics, again please give details. Point 2, the modern synthesis as we know it, is being questioned and challenged right now, not only by IDer's but by evo devo biologist as we speak. Massimo Pigliucci has just called for a relaxing of the Darwism and is in favor of a new extended synthesis such as epigentics,plasticity self organization.
@benthemiester They cannot demonstrate this empirically? You mean with evidence... Like fossil in the correct time sequence (see cambrian cordates)? How about embryological development (see the development of all cordates)? Or genetics (see National Center for Biotechnology Information)?
Regarding your claim about M. Pigliucci, see the following comment.....
@SoCalAtheist CONT.... Trilobites appear early in cambrian record. They had extremely sophisticated eyes. Modern glasses use this design. This throws a wrench into decent with incremental modification unless your willing to use a lot of imagination in trying to make a sequence between prokaryotes and eukaryotes that doesn't exist. This is a particular subject of interest to me. Prokaryotes themselves are extremely complex organisms also.
@benthemiester It appears your first part was lost by youtube. As for trilobites, if you examine their fossils you'd see that there was not one type of trilobite eye but three with the least complex appearing earlier in the fossil record and the most complex appearing at the end of their time. Also there are Ediacaran progenitors to trilobites such as Spriggina. All in all, trilobites are very good supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.cont...
@benthemiester As for prokaryotes to eukaryotes have you heard of Lynn Margulis? Her work covers your concerns regarding prokaryotes and eukaryotes. However, I fail to see the why you even brought up pro/eukaryotes in this context. It almost seems as though you're indicating that trilobites are prokaryotes when they were not.Was this just a switching of gears mid thought?
"Evolutionary theory is undergoing an intense period of discussion and reevaluation. This, contrary to the misleading claims of creationists and other pseudoscientists, is no harbinger of a crisis but rather the opposite: the field is expanding dramatically in terms of both empirical discoveries and new ideas."
Massimo Piglucci.
The theory of evolution is still going strong. Why? Because it works.
@SoCalAtheist CONT...The radiation event alone happens in a three to five million year time period. We have documented an explosion of multi cellular creatures appearing globally already in their own categories of phyla, and in orders of magnitude with no known ancestry. This is followed by a forty million year old record of diversification within those kinds.
@benthemiester The Cambrian radiation in 3 to 5 Ma? Try more like 40 to 100 Ma. Also, the Cambrian radiation (a far better and more descriptive term than "explosion") was proceeded by the Ediacaran period (the ancestors), and had many interesting types of organisms.
It appears that you've missed out on some of the evidence that exists regarding that epoch. It would be something that you should examine before continuing with this line of claims.
@Thundralight It wasn't created, it was built. Built on the shoulders of knowledge that came before. All our technology and knowledge are built on an earlier, less "advanced" state. Those that "designed" the pyramids did were able to do so only because of earlier developments.
We can recognize them as being built because the technology that led to them is historical and it evolved (don't confuse the use of the term "evolved" here with the biological use though there are similarities). ...
@Thundralight There was no fiat "creator" of the pyramids. Nor is there a fiat creator of anything today. It is all the result of technological evolution.
As for your views on embryology which hasn't been taught in medical school for seventy years. Its called BIOGENTIC LAW & this is what evolution friendly Wikipedia has to say about it,
The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a discredited biological hypothesis.
The bacteria flagellum has been called the most efficient machine in the Universe. Did u mean Type III secretion system?
@benthemiester Well I didn't speak about recapitulation. I spoke about the repurposing of structures. Thanks for not listening closely though, it's always nice to revisit things just to remind myself what I've done.
Though you are correct about the secretion system. A slip on my part.
@SoCalAtheist I'm still not sure why u mentioned embryos if it was just to make a case for homology which is notoriously inconstant. U could have tried to make a case with out mentioning embryos. There are many animal that look morphologically homologous and are not even related by a close enough common ancestor. The wings of bats, birds & insects are not homologous yet they are all wings.The morph of marsupial Tazmanian Tiger was almost identical to N American placental Wolfe yet not related.
@benthemiester You've made an error in comparison here homologous structures and analogous structures (see a 1st year bio book for the definitions). Functional wings can develop in many ways. But the embryological development of them are different between birds, bats, and insects. However, the development between a bat and a bird's wings is far more similar embryological than between a bat and an insect and a bird and an insect.....
@benthemiester This is due to birds and bats being more closely related to each other than either are to insects (evidence from the fossil record, and genomic comparisons). With bats and birds the wings are modified front forelimbs. With insects the wings the evidence for their origin is spars, however, embryologically they are derived from structures that are akin to insect tracheal gills on the thorax and hence are not homologous in structure to bird/bat wings.
@SoCalAtheist Your also wrong about your take on birds and bats, even If bird are more related to bats, it still doesn't solve problem. Google Homologies & Analogies, if that doesn't do it, I can show you more. The problem with homology is that there is no goal post to measure it. If something looks similar but can not be because of separate lineage, then we simply say its convergent evolution and cite analogy as explanation. These are all priori assumptions. There are volumes written on this.
@benthemiester If you read closely I didn't call the bird's and bat's wing homologous structures. I referenced the forelimbs as being homologous structures and Berkley agrees: "interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. nterestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous."
@SoCalAtheist I sent you to this website for the very reason it was an orthodox evolutionary view point written in an article about homology, and it was to counter a specific point concerning a common ancestor. I'm not going to send you to Kent Hovind... give me a break. Ill respond to others latter. If I ever send you to the National Enquirer for info I would make sure I saw the divorce papers in Angelina Jolie's hands first.
@benthemiester However the article does exactly the opposite of what you wanted. Not only does it directly support my claim that bird's and bat's are homologous (while the wings are analogous) it also supports my claim that birds and bats have homologous forelimbs because they have a common ancestor.
"Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs." From that same website.
@benthemiester As for the goal posts see statistics. But here's a run down of a start
Shared: control genes (some slight modifications), humerus, ulna, radius, metacarpals (5 for both during embryo development, birds then have some fusion), same musculature, similar muscle proteins, skin proteins, etc.. Perhaps you get the point. You take an inventory comparison of the similarities and differences and analyze them statistically like with a chi square treatment. It's not about looks.
@benthemiester As for the marsupial vs. the placental. They have exactly the same embryological development. Just as all vertebrates do.
Which brings me to the last comment, I've only mentioned vertebrate embryological development yet you brought in insects. This was straw man on your part. Don't do that again.
Lets see how Millers science and the so called predictions of theory play out. In 1994 Miller Stated "the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles" Ken Miller, 1994 Empirical. At the same time Behe and others were disputing this hypothesis and were called religious nuts for doing so. If you like I can cite current work that destroys the Junk DNA paradigm. Nature and the National Human Genome Research also now dispute this.
@benthemiester Then cite your sources. But make sure they actually support your position first.
We have a good idea of what parts of the genome are used (they tend to be the ones that are conserved) and which parts of the genome are actual junk (those that are not conserved and vary considerably). In fact, because of these conserved parts we knew that those genomic elements were important. We also know that the remainder is junk.
@SoCalAtheist If your interested in the new extended synthesis, & I say new because the current synthesis is technically considered the new synthesis that was put forth around 50 to 60 years ago. So lets say the new & newer extended synthesis, then read about epigentics and the shift in biology to a more Lamarckian type of approach. Afterwords look at video I posted entitled, Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up. Stuart Newman is not a creationist or IDer & gives his take.
@benthemiester It's not Lamarckian at all. Even Stuart Newman uses the Darwinian concept of natural selection in his work. He does not propose that changes an organism experiences because of its environment as something that is then written into that organisms genome. Only that phenotypic expression is modified by the environment to a greater degree than generally thought.
Also, I think you're assuming that I only accept the theory of evolution as Darwin first proposed it. This is erroneous.
@SoCalAtheist Concerning insects, I was speaking of homology which was your analogy for proposing common decent. I'm not sure why you would open up a can of worms for evolution theory by mentioning the Cambrian explosion.......
@benthemiester Insect wings are not homologous to bird wings, I never indicated the contrary. They are analogous. Wings develop differently and are constructed differently for both clades. What I spoke of was gill arches and jaw bones which develop identically in the embryo and are controlled at an early stage by nearly identical genes. As I've said, be careful not to build strawmen (unless of course that was your intention in the first place).
I think if your going to be fair to the subject, u have to speak of Behes response. If you are are admitting that Behes proposition can qualify as being apart of scientific methodology by including it in your analogy then on that we can agree. What exactly do you find so compelling about Millers argument? He say one piece can be used for a tie clip but he doesn't demonstrate how a tie clip would be beneficial in catching mice. Miller was wrong about the literature. I can cite sources if u like.
@SoCalAtheist You admit in first minutes of video that scientist have KIND of looked at it for FUN. Come on man no offense, but that sounds a little weak.
Listen your absolutely right, as far as what u chose to do, however if your speaking of science, as u put it. Then there are competing proposals that a fair minded person might want to hear that's all. I stand by what I said. Just ask what u want me to cite. What do gills have to do with the human jawbone? Please give details.
@benthemiester Weak? It was to illustrate how little the scientific community considers intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a competing proposal. It's really a non-issue for biologists. It not something to be seriously considered.
Cite whatever you had in mind when you claimed you could cite sources.
During embryonic development of all vertebrates develop pharyngeal pouches. In fish they develop into gills, in humans they develop in to other structures including the jaw bone......
@mejc2 I'd love to met any one that would higher a creationist for a science teacher. How utterly uneducated they'd have to be.
Given that the entire academic community (with very very few exceptions) disagree with every claim that you've every made and all you do it parrot creationist claims.
But again, you are not answering my questions (and they're actually rather easy with some research, I've even answered one for you here). so good bye to your post.
@mejc2 They're not guessing. They're looking. Something that creationists don't seem to get. They also have some good ideas as to why the rate is higher in the Y chrom regarding sperm production (something mentioned in the Science Daily article you cited, so now I know you've not read it).
@mejc2 And that is just in a single lineage. This rate makes it clear that such changes are not unexpected or outside of the explanatory power of the theory of evolution.
@mejc2 They are not identical generation to generation. The mutation rate per base pair is about 10^-6 (a little higher for the Y chrom). With the Y chrom having about 60 million base pairs that's a potential of 60 base pair mutations per generation. Or for a single lineage since human/chimp diverence a possibility of 32 million base pair mutations. Of course that's only the possible, the actual depends on the affect of the mutation and natural selection. cont....
@mejc2 I also question whether or not you've read the ScienceDaily article since it clearly states that the fastest, i.e. most divergent part of the Y chrom. relates to regions involve with sperm production yet the rest of the Y chrom is evolving only a little faster than the rest of the genome.
Again, an indication that you are wholly ignorance of the genetics involved.
But again, you've failed to answer my previous questions regarding mutations, hence I have to delete this post as well.
@mejc2 I will read this one (I've read the previous one). But I doubt that you've read it. Also is doubt that you realize that the Y chromosome is only about 2% of the total genome (meaning even if it were 100% different, which it is not, it would have little effect on the overall percentage difference). This again indicates your ignorance regarding genetics and the comparison of one genome to another....cont.
@mejc2 "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome" I don't see where it claims this is remarkable. It's actually rather dry.
By the way, have you read this article? You should, and it's free to the public, no need to purchase it.
But again, say good by to your post until you answer my previous questions.
@mejc2 Yes, and not surprising given that the Y chromosome in all mammalian species has the highest rate of mutation of all chromosomes (a fact they hide in books). So you'd expect greater divergence in the Y chromosome.
Again, of the epigenetic regions and the coding regions the DNA remains 98% or so similar. In the non-epigenetic and non-coding regions the difference is quite high. However, this is also true for humans. The non-coding regions are most dissimilar in divergent "races".
@mejc2 Of course, you've failed to answer my earlier questions. I shouldn't have answered this ignorant claim. But I will delete this post and future ones until you answer my questions regarding mutations.
@mejc2 Yes, over the entire genome. Something (that the total difference across the entire genome would increase) that has been expected since the first comparison between humans and chimps were made. This was expected because of the nature of the majority of the genome being "junk", or more specifically, not impacted by natural selection.
However, the protein coding sections (about 1.5%) are 98% similar and the epigenetic regions are also 98% or so similar. Those are the important regions.
Titaalik ? are you kidding? Birds? Humans? Wow! I won't bother you any more. WoW! those mail order colleges will take anyone. Good bye. I would say good luck but you need a lot more than luck. Maybe a miracle will help you OR you might mutate into a thinking being.
@mejc2 I'm not kidding and you're creationist fiends have no demonstrable or verifiable rebuttal to these and all other transitional series.
Also, I need none of your luck given that I don't believe in any of the pseudoscience that you support. I do very well in college because I learn what is known and not what is ad hoc and convoluted attempts at confusing religious mythology with actual science and verifiable knowledge.
@mejc2 One last parting shot. Really more of an observation. I've noticed, during the few exchanges we've had, that you become very frustrated and insulting when your claims are countered. Its very indicative of a person that knows they've been bested but cannot bring themselves to admit so.
Well it's a good thing that those in academia are not like you. No progress would ever be made.
The sad thing is that you actually believe that you have countered my claims. Maybe some day you will actually become educated. However, you will not be able to find me to tell me and all of the children whose minds you have infected with your drivel that you are trying to masquerade for science will have been damaged. You are what is wrong with the American education system.
It's not just me that has countered your claims. All of academia has countered your, and all creationist, claims. Why? Because creationist claims have nothing demonstrable and verifiable to offer. Its all lies and convoluted arguments with no foundation.
I've shown that your "definition" of "kind" is so vague as to mean anything. I've shown that the definition of "species" is very specific. I've shown that you have nothing to bring to the table, And now you're whining about it. That is sad.
@mejc2 LOL, You are really getting desperate aren't you.
Its common to those that are on the "team" that keeps getting whipped.
It's an interesting history for creationists. One or two wins in the public arena, 100% loses in the academic arena.
Their wins are because creationists tend to be good speakers (present company excluded). All the loses because creationists have nothing of value to offer. Just empty rhetoric and ad hominems. You're a surprisingly example of this latter point.
Omg why am I bothering. OK, being that you think that organisms have been mutating new and novel features for hundreds of millions of years, and changing from one into another gradually, Let's forget that the fossil record in no way supports this, Name one animal that definitely arose from mutations to another animal. Given the rate that mutations are harmful and even deadly, to have billions upon billions survive the actual number must be staggering. Name one "for sure"
@mejc2 It's not what I think, it's what the evidence supports. Oh, the fossil record strongly supports this. You know, transitional fossil, organisms with derived features only showing up in younger sediment, etc. To claim that the fossil record does not support this is like claiming that measured time dilation doesn't occur.
One animal? How about several: Italian wall lizard, Drosophila paulistorum, Rhagoletis pomonella, Dogs (not wolves any longer), house cats, etc.
Just what I thought. NO answer. Just name one. According to you it happened quadrillions of times. Name one for sure. Name one animal that for sure arose from mutations to another animal.
@mejc2 Hm, it appears that you are incapable of reading. I answered your question with several examples. However, you have yet to answer mine regarding mutations.
See, this is the dishonesty that you creationists are infamous for.
@mejc2 Here's something better. Sign up with the journal of Science, or Nature and then do a inquiry search for "speciation" . You'd be amazed the number of hits. Also search for "speciation mutation". Again, more article than you could read on this topic.
@mejc2 Interesting. You've been given answers yet claim not to have been given answers. Where does this cognitive dissonance originate from. Or is it an attempt to side step my questions?
Well then, I'll have to institute my rule for creationists. Answer my question about mutations or no further posts of yours will be allowed here.
I'm not surprised that you think that species is specifically defined. However, when you get into some upper level studies you will find that it is not. There are humans that cannot interbreed. would you call them separate species? Poor kids that are subject to you.
not only did I give you one positive verifiable claim of creationism, I gave you two plus an invalid claim made by evolutionists. However, evolutionists are not interested in facts, just fairy tales.
Again back to this kind thing. You haven't provided a suitable definition of "kind". I can simply say that all life is Earth kind and hence the interconnectedness of all organisms on Earth and the theory of evolution remains valid.
As for the second statement, it's false. The Italian wall lizard developed a completely new valve in its digestive tract do to mutation. And mutations certainly produce new genes. And that's not even looking at the fossil record. All observable/testable/falsifiable.
do some research. the valve is not new or novel. it appears in other lizards. Are you claiming that he Italian wall lizard had an accidental mutation that caused it to develop a valve that is identical to a valve in other lizards?
You asked me to define kind I did and you now say my definition is not acceptable to you an evolutionist. Wow! what a shock.
@mejc2 Yes, other lizards have similar valves (though not identical as you claim), but this lizards progenitors didn't. And no, I'm not claiming an accidental mutation. I wouldn't use such a ambiguous and loaded term as "accidental". That's creationist speak.
It isn't an acceptable definition as I demonstrated. Pay attention: all life is Earth kind and hence that is within the limits of the variation possible within its parent organism's population. ..cont
There is no objective empirical evidence to support evolution. Only imposition of a story on observations. Both camps make the same observations. However the facts adhere to the creation model. Evolutionists make up stories around the facts and try to pretend there story is real. You claim quadrillions of mutations over billions of organisms and animals and nary a trace. Only stories trying to connect imaginary dots.
@mejc2 Really? Except that we have directly observed shifts in allele frequencies. Or that we have directly observed speciation. Or that we have literally thousands of transitional fossils (exactly as predicted by the theory). etc.
There is enormous objective evidence for both the process and the theory of evolution. In fact, there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for general relativity or for quantum mechanics.
fossils of animals have been called transitional or intermediate by evolutionists and debunked by creationists. Same fossils different interpretations.
There is no KNOWN process to support evolution. Evolutionists hypothesize that mutations create new and novel body plans and parts. However, there is no Known mechanism.
@mejc2 Really? I've never heard or seen a single one of these claims shown to be valid. When has a creationist debunked Titaalik in a demonstrable verifiable fashion. Or Morganucodon, or any of the transitional series like the horse, whale, bird, human, etc.
As for the process you say doesn't exist, well it's been observed. Mutation exist, natural selection exists, changes in allele frequencies exist. All support evolution and contradict your claim entirely .
@mejc2 Nice try mejc2, but all you've shown here is that creationists like yourself are willing to make utterly dishonest claims. And you want to convince someone like me of your beliefs? Be honest. Don't claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution when there are literally mountains of it.
Here's a challenge to you, chose one, and only one, positive creationist claim and provide verifiable and demonstrable evidence supporting it. My rule is in effect on this one.
The creationist poor attempt at classification? Sorry, cladistics does a far better job and is supported by objective evidence from things like the fossil record and genetics.
Wow, you're one of very few that have taken to my rule. Most just cry (falsely) censorship, Hat's off to ya.
Ok, now you need to define this "limits of variation possible".
What is this "limit". What mechanism sets this "limit" and what is the evidence for said "limit".
As for our observations (including tests, studies, etc) we see many organisms change into different species. We also see no actual "limit". Indeed, we see the opposite.
I do not know what sets the limit or what by what mechanism it is achieved. However, there are limits to what can be accomplished through selection. You can only make beets so sweet, or chickens so big. I once had a friend that spliced a gene from a rat into a mouse embryo and produced 6 three pound mice. However he did not win the Nobel prize that year. He could not make 50 pound mice. there are limits.
if micro evolution is your cause then it is fact. However, macro is fantasy
@mejc2 So here you're claiming that "...limits of variation possible" yet you can provide no evidence for the limit or the mechanisms involved. Sound like a simple ad hoc attempt at confusing the issue. That you claims are empty.
You've tried to define "kind" and failed because you used an ambiguous definition.
Mejc, for all you claims you've provided absolutely nothing demonstrable or verifiable to support them. Just like all creationists. And you wonder why you guys aren't taken seriously.
@mejc2 2nd last thing on this. To date, there has not been a single limit to artificial selection that has not been overcome in time that is allowed under the theory of evolution (like mammals will not produce feathers).
Dogs are a perfect example. The lower limit of size was, only a few generations ago, several pounds, now its less than 2. Same can be said for the upper size limit. And the same is seen in all domestic species. Time allows for more variation via mutation meaning no limit.
@mejc2 Final last thing on this one. I doubt greatly your anecdote. Yet science specifically separates engineered organisms from the theory of evolution. So you example is moot.
And I'm certain that via genetic engineering that if one had the funds for the research the could produce a 100lbs mouse. We can already produce chicken embryos with archeosaurian teeth. We can even turn feathers into scales and vice versa in birds. But again, that's not evolution, that's genetic engineering.
Evolution re purposes things? Mouse trap? Lol did you ever see a mouse trap create itself? Consider the history? Everything is reducible to chemicals. Chemicals do not assemble themselves into living creatures. Living creatures do not acquire new novel features by evillusion. The evidence does not support the story. Evolution does a good job of re purposing things? What drivel, and you are pushing this B.S. on kids. what a shame.
Evolution does repurpose things. That is an observed phenomena (see the 12 year E. coli experiment as one example), in other words, a fact.
No, I haven't seen a mouse trap create itself, then again, I've never seen anything create a mouse trap without relying on past knowledge (go back far enough and it's a primate banging rocks together).
As for organic molecules they do self-organize. It's one of their most interesting properties. Indeed, given this, life is a very likely out come.
OOOHHHH the e-coli experiment. After the observed "beneficial mutation" Lenski went back to frozen e-coli before the supposed mutation and guess what, the old frozen e-coli adapted the same way. Lenski attributed the adaptation to some earlier unknown mutation 'probably occurred" allowing the e-coli to adapt. Accidental mutations are not repeatable.
organic molecules self organize? A Pattern is not a living system.
Evolution from one kind of animal to another never happened.
It appears that you didn't research that experiment sufficiently. He actually used several past generations from frozen stock and found that if he went back a few generations the same phenotype would evolve, however, beyond a certain generation that specific beneficial mutation would not develop. I cannot stress research enough here. But that wasn't the part of the experiment I was referring to, as interesting as it is....cont.
The result of that experiment that I'm referring to relates to this video. Some of the E. coli developed a two part metabolic pathway. A irreducible chemical system. Upon examining the pathways of earlier generations it was found that to independent pathways fused and the underlying scaffolding for those pathways degraded, like taking away the scaffold after completing an archway. In other-words, the observation of the evolution of a supposed irreducible system that Behe......cont.
claimed was impossible for the theory of evolution or the process of evolution to be capable of producing. Again, Behe and his claim have been falsified completely. It's entirely a non-issue in biology because he was completely wrong as evidenced by the historical context of his examples and the observed evolution of the exact type that he said would be impossible.
And that is the history of creationism. Wild claims being easily falsified and proven utterly wrong. Creationism fails.
"organic molecules self organize? A Pattern is not a living system."
Yes, organic molecules do self organize and have been show to produce metabolic pathways, cell like lipid membranes, numerous polymers including RNA and Ribonase and self reproducing RNA strands. The more we look, the more steps we find blurring the line between life and non-life. Again, do the research. See the work done at Scripps for a start.
"Evolution from one kind of animal to another never happened. "
Define "kind" and then we can talk about this. Otherwise it's a meaningless and empty statement.
Because if "kind" is defined as "species" then yes, we've observed it both directly and indirectly. If "kind" is very broad, say mammal vs bird, then in one way you'd be correct. Neither mammals or birds derived from the other. But you really need to define what you mean by "kind".
Both kind and species are slippery terms. Do your research and you might understand this a little better. However we do not observe organisms acquiring new and novel organs or body plans. There is no known mechanism to do this, only speculation, the fossil record does not support this and there are many observations that refute it. However, the only support of it is evolutionists speculations. two atheists just published a book, although still evolutionists, they show "What Darwin got wrong".
Wrong. "Kind" is a completely undefined term. Species is defined as a group of reproductively isolated organism (excluding bacteria, viruses, and some other asexual organisms in which "strain" replaces species).
No new organs? The Italian wall lizard is one to disagree. Other than that, this is a clear case of moving the goal posts.
No new body plan? Specify. But again, just moving the goal posts.
As for the mechanism, natural selection works well. And yes, the fossil record supports this.
Mejc2. I've instituted a new policy for creationist trolls on my videos. And you've now qualified.
You mentioned "kinds". Now, you must define what a "kind" is or admit that it is a meaningless term. No other post of yours will be allowed to remain from this point on until you deal with this issue.
So once again, define "kind" or admit that it is a meaningless term used by creationists to confuse the issue.
Cont. I saw a YT vid where Miller was supposedly debunking the mouse trap ex. of i.d. He took some of the parts off of the trap, made it less complex. Then we were led to believe it could still catch mice. Lol. I'd like to see him or anyone catch mice with that broken down thing! Did he show an ex. of how it could kill rodents? Of course not! As usual, no data or evidence is presented, just speculation is presented and we are supposed to believe it.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
Cont. A "bug" that can move rapidly thru the body with a whip will have extremely different uses than one w/o those parts. It will be making all kinds of chemical exchanges thru the body. Guess what? The parts of the body that will interact with the moving bug wouldl also have to change synchronously! The whole thing gets more & more complicated & interrelated the more you look at it. This is just the simplest ex. of i.c. I can give. All of life is i.c. tho, from the cellular level up.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
Cont. Look at the flagellar whip & the rotary motor right below it. The whip needs the motor & the motor needs the whip. One can't function w/o the other. There is no imaginable "dual purpose" or "co option" that either of those little nano technology machine parts could have. How is evo going to drive initially useless micro stubs of nubs for those parts to completion while they are useless? Further, how is it going to drive them to completion synchronously? That's not all. Cont.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
Cont. Then they talk about co-option & dual purpose. Of course they only use those to a limited extent because it only holds true for a lilmited extent. A very limited extent. I will give a spin off on Behe's example. His was great but I think mine is easier to debunk. Please use YOUR mind & YOUR eyes. You know how evo is supposed to work. You know it supposedly starts small & becomes more complex. As Dawkins said, it can't predict the future. Here is my ex.: Cont.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
When Miller & others set out to "debunk" Behe's argument they rely on speculation presented as data, as usual. For ex. they point to less complex "bugs" and we are supposed to fill in the blanks with evo think and believe that Well, those bugs were less complex so therefore Behe's ex. was once also simpler in the long ago unobservable, untestable unrepeatable past. And never mind that those simpler bugs perform different functions in the body. Cont.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
3. Developing of jaw from fish also was long ago disproven. Sorry again.
4. To say this supports evolution you must also find a way for the transition from one form to another to occur, and state which came first.
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
1. Homology has been proven false many years ago. Sorry!
2. Analysing it from evoloutionist point of view we have a contradiction:
because flagellum is more complex the bubonic plague should be the ancestor. But if we put the main rule of evolution (how many chances of survival an animal has) then bubonic plague is much more prolific than bacteria flagellum that means that flagellum is the ancestor. So evolution contradicts itself. You say you have an history, but which came first.
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
Is this Kerry Kings younger brother?
rockaholick37 1 year ago
And once you've read page 66 I guess even you will know that you've been talking out your arse (even if you won't admit it). Maybe one day, you will be able to come to terms with this and admit you wree wrong: "PERHAPS [by] ADAPTING PARTS [of things you were saying] THAT WERE ORIGINALLY USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES." LOL - bye bye
kkkaldav 1 year ago
It's always good to come upon a character like you. You really have no idea what you're talking about and yet you're so certain you're right. It's such a boost to see that you are so totally unbale to deal with an objection that all you can do is invent defintions and then refuse to rpovide any evidence for them Fantastically, widely, extraordinarily, extravagantly, diabaterously (I made that one up) wrong! Why don't you just read Behe's book - here's a clue - read page 65/6. ROFL
kkkaldav 1 year ago
I guess the point is this: for the best part of 15yrs you/Miller claimed that Behe really did say that no part of an IC system could have any function at all. I provided argument and then crystal clear examples from Behe's own work that showed that this position was untenable, yet you have stuck to it. Now, you don't seem very bright, so it is possible that you may actually believe what you say. But Ken Miller is an intelligent guy. He knows he just made up a strawman. How sad is that?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Hm. You see, I no that Behe specifically claimed that his IC is a system that if any part is removed it becomes nonfunctional and that all precursors to the system are nonfunctional by definition. This was a statement made by Behe in Darwin's Black Box. And it is this definition of IC that I'm dealing with (not yours) directly from Behe, not Miller.
It just so happens that parts are functional, as I mentioned in my critique. So again, your claim is wrong.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist You have nothing from Behe that says anything nearly as strong as the way you reading it. The meaning of the quote you provide, according to Behe, should be read as if, e.g., it had the words "as a mousetrap" following the word fucntion(ality) in every case. That is, Behe is clearly talking about non-functionaility in the particular capacity. How else do you explain the other passages in DBB where he explicitly talks of function in precursor systems and parts.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Ah, but he did say this, pretty much exactly. And then, just like you're trying to do, backpedaled with phrases like "in the particular capacity". Problem with that redefinition is, now the system is allowed to have evolutionary precursors and can no longer be irreducible in any fashion. He tried to get around this by claiming that there were "unselected steps" in the evolution of the system. With that it becomes an argument from ignorance and fails once again.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Behe did not say anything like you claim. At no point does he claim that NO parts can have any function. That's just you're stupid reading (like the yellow theory of evolution). For example, in the very same book Behe explicitly discusses parts of an IC system having different functions. How can you explain this? Are you seriously claiming he psycically became aware of Miller's forthcoming objections and backpedaled only a few pages after his orignal defintion.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Think about it, if whay you say is true then you should have multiple quotes from Behe saying something like, "in an IC system no parts of the system have any functionality AT ALL prior to them coming together in that system". But you have NOTHING like that. All you have provided is a slightly ambiguous defintion which you insist must mean one thing, but which clearly does not mean that at all given the context in which it appears in DBB which is replete with talk of function.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Behe hasn't backpeddled at all. The notion of IC is the same as it always was. It is as ludicrous to say he has backpeddled as it is to say darwinists have backpeddled from the "everything should be yellow" claim. All he has done is clarified the fact that the notion he intended, IC, is not what Miller defined it as. And, if his actual notion was so weak, why the need for a strawman. That is, if Behe's actual argument was rubbish then you wouldn't need to redefine it so ridiculously, would you?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
And Behe further points out regarding Miller's disingenuous attack: "As much as some Darwinists might wish, there is no quick fix solution to the problem of irreducible complexity. If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they'll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model building—not by wordplay and sleight-of-hand." It seems, then, that Behe is in perfect agreeement with my reading of IC.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Ah, but they have done so. The flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, etc have all been shown to have evolutionary precursors. Some of those precursors had similar functions, others had totally different functions, but they are there, and many were presented at k v. d and Behe had no response other than, to paraphrase, "I haven't yet read those findings" even though they go back decades.
Behe has nothing, and neither do you. IC is dead, in fact, it never even lived.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist (See also, general comments below, today.) What "evolutoinary precursors?" What evidence have you showing the flagellum was ever in a simpler "less evolved" state? 0. As usual evo is presenting pure dataless evidenceless conveniently untestable & unobservable speculation as if it is the Gawd's truth. There are simpler organisms observed today which have different, simpler, purposes than the one Behe shows. There is zip zilch 0 evidence they "evolved" from, or into, anything.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
@SoCalAtheist Cont. When evidenceless, untestable, unobservable events, pure speculation, are presented as if they are actual facts that prove a point you no longer have science, but pseudo science. But if I'm wrong, if you can show evidence of the flagellum ever in a less evolved state, ditto those it supposedly evolved from, then provide it. Also provide an explanation for the i.c. of the whip & motor which I gave below. Not "could have...might have...millions of yrs ago." Evidence.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
@SoCalAtheist Cont. Friend, all of evo theory is based on evidenceless speculation piled ontop of logical fallacies. For ex. we are told that a hairy beast with hooves, Ambulocetus, is a Prewhale. Based on what? Some minor similarities in its inner ear to that of whales. (Correlation Does Not Imply Causation Logical Fallacy - probably the fave in evo lit.) Do they have a shred of actual evidence that ambulocetus produced any progeny significantly different from itself.? No. Pseudo science.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
Behe also says about Miller's deliberate mischaracterisation: "That's what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms—the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle. The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn't be used for any other purpose. That would be silly..."
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Anyway, I initially pointed out that you were spectacularly wrong in your criticsim of Behe. I have now pointed out that the reason you were wrong is that you mistook irreducible complexity for simple irreducibility, and therefore your arguments against irreducibility leave Behe's notion of irreducible complexity untouched. Your response is simply to demand (over and over) that your defintion, rather than Behe's, is correct. It can't be. Behe invented the concept therefore he gets to define it.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Yeah, you made that claim. I don't accept it. Also, I'm using Behe's own definition (the first one not the one after kitzmiller v dover because that one essentially is meaningless). In the end, if any system is reducible to functional parts then IRC is dead...oh and that's exactly what has been shown with every ID claim on this subject.
Again, let's have you define what you think Behe claims. Until I can compare your claim to Behe's I'm thinking your just trying to salvage BS.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Behe never intended IC to be taken the ridiculous way you/Miller have misinterpreted his words. And a cursory glance at almost any of Behe's work on the subject would show that that reading simply cannot be sustained. E.g., Behe says in rsponse to Miller: "I clearly wrote in Darwin's Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system."
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Of course he didn't. He wanted an impenetrable challenge to evolution. In that he fail. His back pedaling over IC when it was shown that his examples are not irreducibly complex and that the theory of evolution can account for the development of those very examples that he used.
In the end, IC doesn't exist. Given that the main part of his attempt was to illustrate systems that could not evolve from earlier systems (even if those systems have different functions than the final).
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@kkkaldav You made that claim, but you haven't proven it. My criticism of IC stands. If a system contains components that are repurposed then it is not irreducibly complex. It's evolved. As for Behe, if his notion of IC was so strong, why the back pedaling and redefining of it? Where's the empirical evidence for it?
IC is just another cellophane wrapping, easily torn and discarded by science.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Here is the mistake you have made. You have mistaken the concept of "irreducible complexity" for the concept "irreducible". You therefore (following Miller) think that you can refute irreducible complexity by simply pointing to the component parts of a system and then imagining them propping open a door, or clipping a tie, and so on. But this is to completely miss the key point about irreducible complexity and how it differs from irreducibility. This is an astonishingly simple error.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav But that's just the point. If the system can be reduced to parts or collections of parts and variations on those, even if they perform a different function, then the system is not irreducibly complex. And guess what? Every example that Behe has given is refuted by scores of papers.
But how about this. Give me your specific take on what irreducible complexity means. I'll compare it with what I've read Behe to claim that it means.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Look. I understand what YOUR definition of irreducible complexity is. It is exactly the same as the defintion of irreducible. However, that was not Behe's definition. That was not what he was talking about at all. And that is why all you are "demolishing" with your ludicrous arguments is your own strawman definition. Come on, it's not that hard to understand. I mean, why would Behe try to argue that there are these composite systems that are not composed of anything.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Watch me refute the theory of evolution (drumroll/fanfare): according to the theory of evolution, everything in the world should be yellow. Everything in the world is not yellow, therefore evolution is false. Dah dah! Now I don't want you coming up with any ad hoc redefinitions of evolution to side-step this refutation. Just accept the theory is dead in the water. Yellow indeed!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
The most obvious error is simply that Behe does not claim that no parts of an IR system can have function. What he does claim is that the core function (catching mice) is completely lost when any of the parts are missing. This means Miller (and you) are attacking a straw-man. And we know that Behe gets this point because in his book he discusses the functions the various parts of the mousetrap might have. Therefore, he had already dealt with Miller's objection in stating his original argument.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Ah, but that was only part of the points that I was making. Nice cherry picking, however your argument (and Behe's) still fails. If the parts or a collection of parts less than the parts of the example system have a function, even a different a different function then irreducible complexity is refuted. And it has been with every example ID creationists have tried to come up with. Attempting to adhoc redefine his own term to sidestep insurmountable refutations is disparate.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist You have done a nice job of explaining exactly what makes your objection an objection against a strawman. That is, it is an objection against what you take the notion of IR to be (no parts can have any function), rather than against what Behe claims IR is (a system with a function F that is totally lost when any of the parts are missing). All that has been refuted, then, (however many cliches you throw in - LOL) is your own mistaken understanding of Behe's argument. Dear dear!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Actually IR as you put it is a claim that a some systems are so complex that the removal of any part leaving only a partial system that does not function and hence cannot be beneficial nor can the final system be evolved from partial stepwise accumulations of parts. This is exactly where Behe fails and has had to back peddle. IR does not take into account repurposing of elements from previous systems. Behe's error was shown very well in Kitzmiller v Dover and his argument demolished.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Look, you don't get to decide what IR is. Behe gets to do that because he came up with the concept. What you are critiquing is a ludicrous claim that nobody did (or would) make. Behe uses a moustrap as an example for goodness sake. Do you think Behe is claiming that no spring, or piece of wood, has any function except in a mousetrap? Of course not. That's just your stupid interpretation of Behe (a strawman) that you are demolishing. And to cite a court case as science is shameful!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition)"
These are his own words (until he changed them to side step the refutations). In reality, often times these systems still function, though in completely different capacity.
So you're incorrect calling my argument a strawman.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Do you not see how embarrassing it is that you have to deliberately misunderstand an argument in order to attampt to refute it. That is almost the definition of setting up a strawman. Yes Behe says those words. And yes, if you refuse to read a few lines more, you can almost make them mean what you say. But if you read them in the context of the discussion in the book it is clear the function Behe says is lost is not (as you would have it) any and all function of any and all parts.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Yes, he used a mousetrap as an example and the counter examples using mousetraps missing parts functioning as something else well demolish his line of argument.
Behe is just plain wrong. As are you.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist How could the very basic descriptions Behe gives in setting up his defintion demolish his own argument. That should be a sign that you have got the wrong end of the stick or, possibly, no stick at all. It is no part of Behe's argument that all function of all parts must be lost if any part is missing. His argument is that the system's function (catching mice) is lost when any parts are missing. Behe knows full well a broken TV can be used to hold open a door!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist So there is no strawman here. Behe was positing a hypothesis that had already been refuted by the study of these systems before Behe even set to pen his idea. IR is dead, stop beating it.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist BTW, I have no interest in debating you. The fact that Behe says what I say he does and does not say whay you say he does is not a matter for debate in any event. You can simply read what Behe says in Darwin's Black Box and you will see you are wrong. In that book he openly discusses the functions the parts of the mousetrap might have. He therefore cannot have meant to endorse the ludicrously strong version of IR you dreampt up in order to (ahem) demolish. Go read his book.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Not a matter for debate? As if I accept you as an authority on this matter. That very much makes it a matter of debate.
As for your position; basically you're claiming (and claiming that Behe claims the same) that a system is IRC even when its parts have other functions independent of the complete system. Therefor the systems isn't irreducible, hence IR is again demolished.
You do more damage to IRC than I have.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@kkkaldav I've read his book and his arguments are laughable. Not only does he simply defines into existence a concept that has no foundation in reality, but the concept (IRC) itself fails because no system is irreducible. Yes, the original function is lost, but that isn't the crux of the issue here, its the evolvability of such systems. Behe's lack of imagination leads to a god of the gaps, and is contradicted by verifiable evidence from investigation over the last several decades.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist You simply don't understand Behe's argument. Behe is not saying these systems cannot be reduced to parts (he talks about the separate parts - that should give you a clue). What he is saying is that, e.g., a moustrap (a device that catches mice) will not catch mice if it doesn't have all the parts that form this "irreducibly complex system". To say this isn't the crux of the issue when it is the essence of Behe's argument is point missing and strawman construction on a grand scale.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Wrong, I understand it completely. And what I've said, and many others, is that the process of evolution reuses and repurposes "parts". Meaning, even by Behe's second definition of IRC that none of these are irreducible. The mousetrap is repurposing parts into a different configuration. And those parts themselves can form many different usable configurations. IRC is nonsense, no matter how you wish to define it, or Behe wishes to redefine it. This is what you fail to understand.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
It's always good to come upon a character like you. You really have no idea what you're talking about and yet you're so certain you're right. It's just such a boost to see comments like "Even our technology, all of it, contains no irreducible systems because they all have histories that have stepwise reducible components.". Fantastically, widely, extraordinarily, extravagantly, diabaterously (I made that one up) wrong! Brilliant. Keep up the bad work.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav LOL, nice statement. Now back it up.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
The difference between Marsupial embryology and placental embryology are completely unique in the animal kingdom and as a teacher you should know this. Even a kid knows the difference. Ill respond to other post when I have time. I think you misunderstood re.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Actually they are identical in the early stages and only differ in the later stages in regards to location. One in a womb, the other in a pouch. They both have bilateral cleavage of the embryo, they are deuterostomes, they develop the same structures in the same order, they use the same hox genes and other genes. You couldn't tell a 4 week old deer embryo apart from a 4 week old kangaroo embryo
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
The people u mention base this paradigm on proiri assumptions concerning the modern synthesis however they cannot demonstrate this empirically. If u know of specifics, again please give details. Point 2, the modern synthesis as we know it, is being questioned and challenged right now, not only by IDer's but by evo devo biologist as we speak. Massimo Pigliucci has just called for a relaxing of the Darwism and is in favor of a new extended synthesis such as epigentics,plasticity self organization.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester They cannot demonstrate this empirically? You mean with evidence... Like fossil in the correct time sequence (see cambrian cordates)? How about embryological development (see the development of all cordates)? Or genetics (see National Center for Biotechnology Information)?
Regarding your claim about M. Pigliucci, see the following comment.....
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
benthemiester 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist CONT.... Trilobites appear early in cambrian record. They had extremely sophisticated eyes. Modern glasses use this design. This throws a wrench into decent with incremental modification unless your willing to use a lot of imagination in trying to make a sequence between prokaryotes and eukaryotes that doesn't exist. This is a particular subject of interest to me. Prokaryotes themselves are extremely complex organisms also.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester It appears your first part was lost by youtube. As for trilobites, if you examine their fossils you'd see that there was not one type of trilobite eye but three with the least complex appearing earlier in the fossil record and the most complex appearing at the end of their time. Also there are Ediacaran progenitors to trilobites such as Spriggina. All in all, trilobites are very good supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.cont...
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@benthemiester As for prokaryotes to eukaryotes have you heard of Lynn Margulis? Her work covers your concerns regarding prokaryotes and eukaryotes. However, I fail to see the why you even brought up pro/eukaryotes in this context. It almost seems as though you're indicating that trilobites are prokaryotes when they were not.Was this just a switching of gears mid thought?
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"Evolutionary theory is undergoing an intense period of discussion and reevaluation. This, contrary to the misleading claims of creationists and other pseudoscientists, is no harbinger of a crisis but rather the opposite: the field is expanding dramatically in terms of both empirical discoveries and new ideas."
Massimo Piglucci.
The theory of evolution is still going strong. Why? Because it works.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist CONT...The radiation event alone happens in a three to five million year time period. We have documented an explosion of multi cellular creatures appearing globally already in their own categories of phyla, and in orders of magnitude with no known ancestry. This is followed by a forty million year old record of diversification within those kinds.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The Cambrian radiation in 3 to 5 Ma? Try more like 40 to 100 Ma. Also, the Cambrian radiation (a far better and more descriptive term than "explosion") was proceeded by the Ediacaran period (the ancestors), and had many interesting types of organisms.
It appears that you've missed out on some of the evidence that exists regarding that epoch. It would be something that you should examine before continuing with this line of claims.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@benthemiester BTW, the Ediacaran period pushes back evidence of multicellular organisms to about 100 Ma before the first trilobites.
These worms only serve to fatten and strengthen the theory of evolution.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Do you know how the great pyrimid of Egypt was created? What makes you determine that it had an intelligent designer?
Thundralight 1 year ago 2
@Thundralight It wasn't created, it was built. Built on the shoulders of knowledge that came before. All our technology and knowledge are built on an earlier, less "advanced" state. Those that "designed" the pyramids did were able to do so only because of earlier developments.
We can recognize them as being built because the technology that led to them is historical and it evolved (don't confuse the use of the term "evolved" here with the biological use though there are similarities). ...
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@Thundralight There was no fiat "creator" of the pyramids. Nor is there a fiat creator of anything today. It is all the result of technological evolution.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
As for your views on embryology which hasn't been taught in medical school for seventy years. Its called BIOGENTIC LAW & this is what evolution friendly Wikipedia has to say about it,
The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a discredited biological hypothesis.
The bacteria flagellum has been called the most efficient machine in the Universe. Did u mean Type III secretion system?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Well I didn't speak about recapitulation. I spoke about the repurposing of structures. Thanks for not listening closely though, it's always nice to revisit things just to remind myself what I've done.
Though you are correct about the secretion system. A slip on my part.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist I'm still not sure why u mentioned embryos if it was just to make a case for homology which is notoriously inconstant. U could have tried to make a case with out mentioning embryos. There are many animal that look morphologically homologous and are not even related by a close enough common ancestor. The wings of bats, birds & insects are not homologous yet they are all wings.The morph of marsupial Tazmanian Tiger was almost identical to N American placental Wolfe yet not related.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You've made an error in comparison here homologous structures and analogous structures (see a 1st year bio book for the definitions). Functional wings can develop in many ways. But the embryological development of them are different between birds, bats, and insects. However, the development between a bat and a bird's wings is far more similar embryological than between a bat and an insect and a bird and an insect.....
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@benthemiester This is due to birds and bats being more closely related to each other than either are to insects (evidence from the fossil record, and genomic comparisons). With bats and birds the wings are modified front forelimbs. With insects the wings the evidence for their origin is spars, however, embryologically they are derived from structures that are akin to insect tracheal gills on the thorax and hence are not homologous in structure to bird/bat wings.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Your also wrong about your take on birds and bats, even If bird are more related to bats, it still doesn't solve problem. Google Homologies & Analogies, if that doesn't do it, I can show you more. The problem with homology is that there is no goal post to measure it. If something looks similar but can not be because of separate lineage, then we simply say its convergent evolution and cite analogy as explanation. These are all priori assumptions. There are volumes written on this.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester If you read closely I didn't call the bird's and bat's wing homologous structures. I referenced the forelimbs as being homologous structures and Berkley agrees: "interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. nterestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous."
Taken from the very website you sent me.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist I sent you to this website for the very reason it was an orthodox evolutionary view point written in an article about homology, and it was to counter a specific point concerning a common ancestor. I'm not going to send you to Kent Hovind... give me a break. Ill respond to others latter. If I ever send you to the National Enquirer for info I would make sure I saw the divorce papers in Angelina Jolie's hands first.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester However the article does exactly the opposite of what you wanted. Not only does it directly support my claim that bird's and bat's are homologous (while the wings are analogous) it also supports my claim that birds and bats have homologous forelimbs because they have a common ancestor.
"Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs." From that same website.
You've countered nothing.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@benthemiester As for the goal posts see statistics. But here's a run down of a start
Shared: control genes (some slight modifications), humerus, ulna, radius, metacarpals (5 for both during embryo development, birds then have some fusion), same musculature, similar muscle proteins, skin proteins, etc.. Perhaps you get the point. You take an inventory comparison of the similarities and differences and analyze them statistically like with a chi square treatment. It's not about looks.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@benthemiester As for the marsupial vs. the placental. They have exactly the same embryological development. Just as all vertebrates do.
Which brings me to the last comment, I've only mentioned vertebrate embryological development yet you brought in insects. This was straw man on your part. Don't do that again.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Lets see how Millers science and the so called predictions of theory play out. In 1994 Miller Stated "the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles" Ken Miller, 1994 Empirical. At the same time Behe and others were disputing this hypothesis and were called religious nuts for doing so. If you like I can cite current work that destroys the Junk DNA paradigm. Nature and the National Human Genome Research also now dispute this.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Then cite your sources. But make sure they actually support your position first.
We have a good idea of what parts of the genome are used (they tend to be the ones that are conserved) and which parts of the genome are actual junk (those that are not conserved and vary considerably). In fact, because of these conserved parts we knew that those genomic elements were important. We also know that the remainder is junk.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist If your interested in the new extended synthesis, & I say new because the current synthesis is technically considered the new synthesis that was put forth around 50 to 60 years ago. So lets say the new & newer extended synthesis, then read about epigentics and the shift in biology to a more Lamarckian type of approach. Afterwords look at video I posted entitled, Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up. Stuart Newman is not a creationist or IDer & gives his take.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester It's not Lamarckian at all. Even Stuart Newman uses the Darwinian concept of natural selection in his work. He does not propose that changes an organism experiences because of its environment as something that is then written into that organisms genome. Only that phenotypic expression is modified by the environment to a greater degree than generally thought.
Also, I think you're assuming that I only accept the theory of evolution as Darwin first proposed it. This is erroneous.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Concerning insects, I was speaking of homology which was your analogy for proposing common decent. I'm not sure why you would open up a can of worms for evolution theory by mentioning the Cambrian explosion.......
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Insect wings are not homologous to bird wings, I never indicated the contrary. They are analogous. Wings develop differently and are constructed differently for both clades. What I spoke of was gill arches and jaw bones which develop identically in the embryo and are controlled at an early stage by nearly identical genes. As I've said, be careful not to build strawmen (unless of course that was your intention in the first place).
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist Sorry for misspelling, it was late and I'm sick as a dog right now.
benthemiester 1 year ago
I think if your going to be fair to the subject, u have to speak of Behes response. If you are are admitting that Behes proposition can qualify as being apart of scientific methodology by including it in your analogy then on that we can agree. What exactly do you find so compelling about Millers argument? He say one piece can be used for a tie clip but he doesn't demonstrate how a tie clip would be beneficial in catching mice. Miller was wrong about the literature. I can cite sources if u like.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester No, I don't have to deal with Behe's attempts to respond. I'll leave that to the creationists.
Again, always cite your sources if you claim to have them. But be sure about what they are saying.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist You admit in first minutes of video that scientist have KIND of looked at it for FUN. Come on man no offense, but that sounds a little weak.
Listen your absolutely right, as far as what u chose to do, however if your speaking of science, as u put it. Then there are competing proposals that a fair minded person might want to hear that's all. I stand by what I said. Just ask what u want me to cite. What do gills have to do with the human jawbone? Please give details.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Weak? It was to illustrate how little the scientific community considers intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a competing proposal. It's really a non-issue for biologists. It not something to be seriously considered.
Cite whatever you had in mind when you claimed you could cite sources.
During embryonic development of all vertebrates develop pharyngeal pouches. In fish they develop into gills, in humans they develop in to other structures including the jaw bone......
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@benthemiester The fossil record shows the step wise transition of these gill structures into jaw elements. See Shubin, Prothero, Cotne, and others.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 I'd love to met any one that would higher a creationist for a science teacher. How utterly uneducated they'd have to be.
Given that the entire academic community (with very very few exceptions) disagree with every claim that you've every made and all you do it parrot creationist claims.
But again, you are not answering my questions (and they're actually rather easy with some research, I've even answered one for you here). so good bye to your post.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 They're not guessing. They're looking. Something that creationists don't seem to get. They also have some good ideas as to why the rate is higher in the Y chrom regarding sperm production (something mentioned in the Science Daily article you cited, so now I know you've not read it).
Again, you post will be deleted.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 And that is just in a single lineage. This rate makes it clear that such changes are not unexpected or outside of the explanatory power of the theory of evolution.
But again, your post must be deleted.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 They are not identical generation to generation. The mutation rate per base pair is about 10^-6 (a little higher for the Y chrom). With the Y chrom having about 60 million base pairs that's a potential of 60 base pair mutations per generation. Or for a single lineage since human/chimp diverence a possibility of 32 million base pair mutations. Of course that's only the possible, the actual depends on the affect of the mutation and natural selection. cont....
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 I also question whether or not you've read the ScienceDaily article since it clearly states that the fastest, i.e. most divergent part of the Y chrom. relates to regions involve with sperm production yet the rest of the Y chrom is evolving only a little faster than the rest of the genome.
Again, an indication that you are wholly ignorance of the genetics involved.
But again, you've failed to answer my previous questions regarding mutations, hence I have to delete this post as well.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 I will read this one (I've read the previous one). But I doubt that you've read it. Also is doubt that you realize that the Y chromosome is only about 2% of the total genome (meaning even if it were 100% different, which it is not, it would have little effect on the overall percentage difference). This again indicates your ignorance regarding genetics and the comparison of one genome to another....cont.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Yes, I'm a teacher.
Your post here will also be removed for failure (a common theme for creationists) to answer my questions.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Oh, the one about the Y chromosome specifically, and not the entire chromosome. Got it. Nice attempt to implicate the whole genome here.
Again, you've not answered my questions, your post will be removed.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome" I don't see where it claims this is remarkable. It's actually rather dry.
By the way, have you read this article? You should, and it's free to the public, no need to purchase it.
But again, say good by to your post until you answer my previous questions.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 that you're doing this for children. That's a lie. You're doing this for yourself.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Again, you simply fail to have enough knowledge of the genetics to understand what these figures represent and what they mean.
Sadly though, since you have still failed to answer my questions I'll have to remove this post.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Yes, and not surprising given that the Y chromosome in all mammalian species has the highest rate of mutation of all chromosomes (a fact they hide in books). So you'd expect greater divergence in the Y chromosome.
Again, of the epigenetic regions and the coding regions the DNA remains 98% or so similar. In the non-epigenetic and non-coding regions the difference is quite high. However, this is also true for humans. The non-coding regions are most dissimilar in divergent "races".
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 That's a lie. Answer my questions.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Of course, you've failed to answer my earlier questions. I shouldn't have answered this ignorant claim. But I will delete this post and future ones until you answer my questions regarding mutations.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Yes, over the entire genome. Something (that the total difference across the entire genome would increase) that has been expected since the first comparison between humans and chimps were made. This was expected because of the nature of the majority of the genome being "junk", or more specifically, not impacted by natural selection.
However, the protein coding sections (about 1.5%) are 98% similar and the epigenetic regions are also 98% or so similar. Those are the important regions.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 I did. I give you another example, the strains in the 12 year E. coli experiment. Many mutations, several different strains.
Yet you have failed to answer my questions, say good by to this post.
Also, no further questions of yours will be answered until you've answered my questions. They will of course be deleted.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Titaalik ? are you kidding? Birds? Humans? Wow! I won't bother you any more. WoW! those mail order colleges will take anyone. Good bye. I would say good luck but you need a lot more than luck. Maybe a miracle will help you OR you might mutate into a thinking being.
Good bye.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I'm not kidding and you're creationist fiends have no demonstrable or verifiable rebuttal to these and all other transitional series.
Also, I need none of your luck given that I don't believe in any of the pseudoscience that you support. I do very well in college because I learn what is known and not what is ad hoc and convoluted attempts at confusing religious mythology with actual science and verifiable knowledge.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 One last parting shot. Really more of an observation. I've noticed, during the few exchanges we've had, that you become very frustrated and insulting when your claims are countered. Its very indicative of a person that knows they've been bested but cannot bring themselves to admit so.
Well it's a good thing that those in academia are not like you. No progress would ever be made.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
Bested? Countered? You are precious. The sad thing is that they let mail order diploma's teach kids.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Here is a perfect example of what I mean. Thank you for supporting my hypothesis.
Every claim you've ever made to me has been countered and now all you have is insults.
You have my sympathy.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
The sad thing is that you actually believe that you have countered my claims. Maybe some day you will actually become educated. However, you will not be able to find me to tell me and all of the children whose minds you have infected with your drivel that you are trying to masquerade for science will have been damaged. You are what is wrong with the American education system.
mejc2 1 year ago
It's not just me that has countered your claims. All of academia has countered your, and all creationist, claims. Why? Because creationist claims have nothing demonstrable and verifiable to offer. Its all lies and convoluted arguments with no foundation.
I've shown that your "definition" of "kind" is so vague as to mean anything. I've shown that the definition of "species" is very specific. I've shown that you have nothing to bring to the table, And now you're whining about it. That is sad.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 It's interesting that you'd use the phrase "mail order diploma". That's exactly what the infamous creationist Kent Hovind had.
It seems the more insults you make towards me the more you're actually describing creationists. Can you say "transference".
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
Every time you open your mouth our society takes a step backwards. Doesn't that make you feel important? Those poor kids.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 LOL, You are really getting desperate aren't you.
Its common to those that are on the "team" that keeps getting whipped.
It's an interesting history for creationists. One or two wins in the public arena, 100% loses in the academic arena.
Their wins are because creationists tend to be good speakers (present company excluded). All the loses because creationists have nothing of value to offer. Just empty rhetoric and ad hominems. You're a surprisingly example of this latter point.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
Omg why am I bothering. OK, being that you think that organisms have been mutating new and novel features for hundreds of millions of years, and changing from one into another gradually, Let's forget that the fossil record in no way supports this, Name one animal that definitely arose from mutations to another animal. Given the rate that mutations are harmful and even deadly, to have billions upon billions survive the actual number must be staggering. Name one "for sure"
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 It's not what I think, it's what the evidence supports. Oh, the fossil record strongly supports this. You know, transitional fossil, organisms with derived features only showing up in younger sediment, etc. To claim that the fossil record does not support this is like claiming that measured time dilation doesn't occur.
One animal? How about several: Italian wall lizard, Drosophila paulistorum, Rhagoletis pomonella, Dogs (not wolves any longer), house cats, etc.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Ok, now let's talk about mutation rates. Do you even have a clue what they are? Or what mutations actually are and what they usually do?
What is the mutation rate for eukaryotes (it differs from prokaryotes)?
What types of mutations exist (these are not beneficial, neutral or harmful)?
What are the related rates for beneficial, neutral, and harmful mutations?
I'm certain you cannot answer these questions without looking them up, Please do research them. You'll learn something.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
Just what I thought. NO answer. Just name one. According to you it happened quadrillions of times. Name one for sure. Name one animal that for sure arose from mutations to another animal.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Hm, it appears that you are incapable of reading. I answered your question with several examples. However, you have yet to answer mine regarding mutations.
See, this is the dishonesty that you creationists are infamous for.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Here's something better. Sign up with the journal of Science, or Nature and then do a inquiry search for "speciation" . You'd be amazed the number of hits. Also search for "speciation mutation". Again, more article than you could read on this topic.
Looks like you've failed again.
Oh, and answer my questions.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
NO answer. Exactly. You cry rhetoric ! Ha the whole fairy tale is rhetoric. Name one animal that for sure arose from mutations to another animal.
Those poor kids.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Interesting. You've been given answers yet claim not to have been given answers. Where does this cognitive dissonance originate from. Or is it an attempt to side step my questions?
Well then, I'll have to institute my rule for creationists. Answer my question about mutations or no further posts of yours will be allowed here.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
I'm not surprised that you think that species is specifically defined. However, when you get into some upper level studies you will find that it is not. There are humans that cannot interbreed. would you call them separate species? Poor kids that are subject to you.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Actually species is specifically defined. However, life does not always fit that definition well, thanks to things like ring species.
"There are humans that cannot interbreed."
That is an erroneous application of the term. Species, remember, refers to groups, not individuals.
This is just another example of creationist dishonest by attempting to nit pick something to discredit it. Pathetic attempt really.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
not only did I give you one positive verifiable claim of creationism, I gave you two plus an invalid claim made by evolutionists. However, evolutionists are not interested in facts, just fairy tales.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 You provided no such thing on all accounts.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 And secondly, you've completely sidestep the issue of a verifiable demonstrable positive claim made by creationists.
Sorry, but your post must be removed.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Again back to this kind thing. You haven't provided a suitable definition of "kind". I can simply say that all life is Earth kind and hence the interconnectedness of all organisms on Earth and the theory of evolution remains valid.
As for the second statement, it's false. The Italian wall lizard developed a completely new valve in its digestive tract do to mutation. And mutations certainly produce new genes. And that's not even looking at the fossil record. All observable/testable/falsifiable.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
do some research. the valve is not new or novel. it appears in other lizards. Are you claiming that he Italian wall lizard had an accidental mutation that caused it to develop a valve that is identical to a valve in other lizards?
You asked me to define kind I did and you now say my definition is not acceptable to you an evolutionist. Wow! what a shock.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Yes, other lizards have similar valves (though not identical as you claim), but this lizards progenitors didn't. And no, I'm not claiming an accidental mutation. I wouldn't use such a ambiguous and loaded term as "accidental". That's creationist speak.
It isn't an acceptable definition as I demonstrated. Pay attention: all life is Earth kind and hence that is within the limits of the variation possible within its parent organism's population. ..cont
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 All other organisms on Earth are its descendants and the theory of evolution remains valid in all of its aspects.
Now do you see how your definition of "kind" fails. It remains sufficiently ambiguous so that one can define "kind" in any manor they wish.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
There is no objective empirical evidence to support evolution. Only imposition of a story on observations. Both camps make the same observations. However the facts adhere to the creation model. Evolutionists make up stories around the facts and try to pretend there story is real. You claim quadrillions of mutations over billions of organisms and animals and nary a trace. Only stories trying to connect imaginary dots.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Really? Except that we have directly observed shifts in allele frequencies. Or that we have directly observed speciation. Or that we have literally thousands of transitional fossils (exactly as predicted by the theory). etc.
There is enormous objective evidence for both the process and the theory of evolution. In fact, there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for general relativity or for quantum mechanics.
And all that evidence contradicts creationism.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
fossils of animals have been called transitional or intermediate by evolutionists and debunked by creationists. Same fossils different interpretations.
There is no KNOWN process to support evolution. Evolutionists hypothesize that mutations create new and novel body plans and parts. However, there is no Known mechanism.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Really? I've never heard or seen a single one of these claims shown to be valid. When has a creationist debunked Titaalik in a demonstrable verifiable fashion. Or Morganucodon, or any of the transitional series like the horse, whale, bird, human, etc.
As for the process you say doesn't exist, well it's been observed. Mutation exist, natural selection exists, changes in allele frequencies exist. All support evolution and contradict your claim entirely .
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Nice try mejc2, but all you've shown here is that creationists like yourself are willing to make utterly dishonest claims. And you want to convince someone like me of your beliefs? Be honest. Don't claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution when there are literally mountains of it.
Here's a challenge to you, chose one, and only one, positive creationist claim and provide verifiable and demonstrable evidence supporting it. My rule is in effect on this one.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
OR you could look up Baraminology.
mejc2 1 year ago
The creationist poor attempt at classification? Sorry, cladistics does a far better job and is supported by objective evidence from things like the fossil record and genetics.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
OK I know that you are slow so I will define kind for you instead of writing an IEP for you.
Kind is any animal/organism that is within the limits of the variation possible within its parent organism's population.
Our observations, tests, studies, history, fossil record, etc. show that no animal ever changes into any other kind of animal regardless of time.
mejc2 1 year ago
Wow, you're one of very few that have taken to my rule. Most just cry (falsely) censorship, Hat's off to ya.
Ok, now you need to define this "limits of variation possible".
What is this "limit". What mechanism sets this "limit" and what is the evidence for said "limit".
As for our observations (including tests, studies, etc) we see many organisms change into different species. We also see no actual "limit". Indeed, we see the opposite.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
I do not know what sets the limit or what by what mechanism it is achieved. However, there are limits to what can be accomplished through selection. You can only make beets so sweet, or chickens so big. I once had a friend that spliced a gene from a rat into a mouse embryo and produced 6 three pound mice. However he did not win the Nobel prize that year. He could not make 50 pound mice. there are limits.
if micro evolution is your cause then it is fact. However, macro is fantasy
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 So here you're claiming that "...limits of variation possible" yet you can provide no evidence for the limit or the mechanisms involved. Sound like a simple ad hoc attempt at confusing the issue. That you claims are empty.
You've tried to define "kind" and failed because you used an ambiguous definition.
Mejc, for all you claims you've provided absolutely nothing demonstrable or verifiable to support them. Just like all creationists. And you wonder why you guys aren't taken seriously.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 2nd last thing on this. To date, there has not been a single limit to artificial selection that has not been overcome in time that is allowed under the theory of evolution (like mammals will not produce feathers).
Dogs are a perfect example. The lower limit of size was, only a few generations ago, several pounds, now its less than 2. Same can be said for the upper size limit. And the same is seen in all domestic species. Time allows for more variation via mutation meaning no limit.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Final last thing on this one. I doubt greatly your anecdote. Yet science specifically separates engineered organisms from the theory of evolution. So you example is moot.
And I'm certain that via genetic engineering that if one had the funds for the research the could produce a 100lbs mouse. We can already produce chicken embryos with archeosaurian teeth. We can even turn feathers into scales and vice versa in birds. But again, that's not evolution, that's genetic engineering.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Why can't I see my comment or your weak reply here? I would love to refute the drivel that you provide as evidence.
mejc2 1 year ago
I don't know. I can see both your comment and my reply.
Probably a YT glitch. I'm on the actual video page and not the comment page.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2
I can see all the comments on the comment page as well. Could be your browser. YT has been having issues with some browsers recently.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Evolution re purposes things? Mouse trap? Lol did you ever see a mouse trap create itself? Consider the history? Everything is reducible to chemicals. Chemicals do not assemble themselves into living creatures. Living creatures do not acquire new novel features by evillusion. The evidence does not support the story. Evolution does a good job of re purposing things? What drivel, and you are pushing this B.S. on kids. what a shame.
mejc2 1 year ago
Evolution does repurpose things. That is an observed phenomena (see the 12 year E. coli experiment as one example), in other words, a fact.
No, I haven't seen a mouse trap create itself, then again, I've never seen anything create a mouse trap without relying on past knowledge (go back far enough and it's a primate banging rocks together).
As for organic molecules they do self-organize. It's one of their most interesting properties. Indeed, given this, life is a very likely out come.
Learn.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@SoCalAtheist
OOOHHHH the e-coli experiment. After the observed "beneficial mutation" Lenski went back to frozen e-coli before the supposed mutation and guess what, the old frozen e-coli adapted the same way. Lenski attributed the adaptation to some earlier unknown mutation 'probably occurred" allowing the e-coli to adapt. Accidental mutations are not repeatable.
organic molecules self organize? A Pattern is not a living system.
Evolution from one kind of animal to another never happened.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
It appears that you didn't research that experiment sufficiently. He actually used several past generations from frozen stock and found that if he went back a few generations the same phenotype would evolve, however, beyond a certain generation that specific beneficial mutation would not develop. I cannot stress research enough here. But that wasn't the part of the experiment I was referring to, as interesting as it is....cont.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2
The result of that experiment that I'm referring to relates to this video. Some of the E. coli developed a two part metabolic pathway. A irreducible chemical system. Upon examining the pathways of earlier generations it was found that to independent pathways fused and the underlying scaffolding for those pathways degraded, like taking away the scaffold after completing an archway. In other-words, the observation of the evolution of a supposed irreducible system that Behe......cont.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2
claimed was impossible for the theory of evolution or the process of evolution to be capable of producing. Again, Behe and his claim have been falsified completely. It's entirely a non-issue in biology because he was completely wrong as evidenced by the historical context of his examples and the observed evolution of the exact type that he said would be impossible.
And that is the history of creationism. Wild claims being easily falsified and proven utterly wrong. Creationism fails.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2
And now the final two points.
"organic molecules self organize? A Pattern is not a living system."
Yes, organic molecules do self organize and have been show to produce metabolic pathways, cell like lipid membranes, numerous polymers including RNA and Ribonase and self reproducing RNA strands. The more we look, the more steps we find blurring the line between life and non-life. Again, do the research. See the work done at Scripps for a start.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
@mejc2
"Evolution from one kind of animal to another never happened. "
Define "kind" and then we can talk about this. Otherwise it's a meaningless and empty statement.
Because if "kind" is defined as "species" then yes, we've observed it both directly and indirectly. If "kind" is very broad, say mammal vs bird, then in one way you'd be correct. Neither mammals or birds derived from the other. But you really need to define what you mean by "kind".
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Both kind and species are slippery terms. Do your research and you might understand this a little better. However we do not observe organisms acquiring new and novel organs or body plans. There is no known mechanism to do this, only speculation, the fossil record does not support this and there are many observations that refute it. However, the only support of it is evolutionists speculations. two atheists just published a book, although still evolutionists, they show "What Darwin got wrong".
mejc2 1 year ago
Wrong. "Kind" is a completely undefined term. Species is defined as a group of reproductively isolated organism (excluding bacteria, viruses, and some other asexual organisms in which "strain" replaces species).
No new organs? The Italian wall lizard is one to disagree. Other than that, this is a clear case of moving the goal posts.
No new body plan? Specify. But again, just moving the goal posts.
As for the mechanism, natural selection works well. And yes, the fossil record supports this.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
Mejc2. I've instituted a new policy for creationist trolls on my videos. And you've now qualified.
You mentioned "kinds". Now, you must define what a "kind" is or admit that it is a meaningless term. No other post of yours will be allowed to remain from this point on until you deal with this issue.
So once again, define "kind" or admit that it is a meaningless term used by creationists to confuse the issue.
Post on all other topics will be removed.
SoCalAtheist 1 year ago
This is really a silly argument and Grysham put it best. We just don't know where information comes from..