Casey Luskin thinks normal scientific explanations are "just so" stories

Well, a "just so" story is a lot better than the Luskin alternative, a "just not so" story.

OK Casey, how do you explain sequence homology between genes? Coincidence? Intelligent design? That doesn't even make any sense of course.

This argument amounts to "were you there"? If we don't actually see the gene duplication happen, then it is assumed that it could not happen. No matter how much evidence there is that it actually did happen. And of course if we ever did actually observe it happen, then it happened in the lab and not in nature, so that doesn't count!

Unless we actually see the rock fall, it couldn't fall. And if we actually do see the rock w=fall, we must have done something to make it fall, so that doesn't count! Heads I win, tails I hit you on the head with the rock.

I'm sure Casey would retort with: "We have a lot more evidence for the existence of falling rocks than evolving genes, so there, you're all really mean to me."

Well, said "retort"...

We have to give a centimeter-by-centimeter, bounce-by-bounce, collision-by-collision description of the descent of that particular boulder before Luskin will believe that the boulder’s source is the ledge above and that its final position and appearance are due to the vicissitudes of boulders tumbling downhill in landslides powered by gravity.

In his 2005 textbook Evolution, Douglas Futuyma states that a high estimate of the gene duplication rate is "about 0.01 duplication per gene per million years." (p. 470) A given gene will thus be duplicated about once every 100 million years. The present paper speculates that the antifreeze gene evolved in response to cooling temperatures in the Antarctic deep ocean water over the past 50 million years. What are we to make, then, of the fact that Antarctic eelpouts have over 30 AFPIII genes, all of which are said to have resulted from a duplication of a single AFPIII gene which evolved at some point in the past 50 million years in response to changing ocean temperatures?

Even if one invokes the magic wand of "positive selection," this gene was apparently duplicating at a rate far higher than the average gene duplication rate. It should have taken some 3 billion years just to accomplish the last step of this little story, which took place in far less than 50 million years, as these repeated duplications are the very last step of the story. In other words, in the last stage alone it seems that this paper requires far too much genetic evolutionary change too quickly.

While I have little doubt in my mind that the vast majority of what Luskin writes is clownish in the extreme, would you mind, for those of us playing along at home, explaining what is wrong with this particular argument?

Dave C said: While I have little doubt in my mind that the vast majority of what Luskin writes is clownish in the extreme, would you mind, for those of us playing along at home, explaining what is wrong with this particular argument?

And there's more than one gene in a genome. Casey Luskin forgets what a "mean" is...

Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why?

Casey demands a centimeter-by-centimeter description, but refuses to describe his alternative even at a parsec scale.

Oh something funm according to Casey Luskin stupid maths, amylase gene copy number variations within human species, are impossible.....

Image

Paper

Dave C -- what RBH and Tiel said, plus the first gene duplication often makes a second duplication more likely, and a second duplication makes additional duplications even more likely, so you get a "snowball" effect.

Tiel said: Oh something funm according to Casey Luskin stupid maths, amylase gene copy number variations within human species, are impossible..... Image

RBH said: There's more than one fish in the sea.

Olorin said: Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why? Casey demands a centimeter-by-centimeter description, but refuses to describe his alternative even at a parsec scale.

Very good, Richard. I had thought about blogging this one, but like many of Casey's posts I decided it was just too twisted to be worth the effort. But you've nicely un-twisted it. Well done.

Olorin said: Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why? Casey demands a centimeter-by-centimeter description, but refuses to describe his alternative even at a parsec scale.

Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why?

For Dave C here's a back-of-the-eyeball calculation to illustrate what Tiel and I meant. (Somebody check my math: I'm subject to "chemotherapy brain" and am doing it in my head.)

Say there are 10,000,000 eelpouts (Cheng's icefish) in the Antarctic population, each with 25,000 genes (not unrealistic numbers). That's 250,000,000,000 genes in the population at any given time. At a gene duplication rate of 0.01 per gene per 1,000,000 years, we expect to see 2,500 gene duplications in the population every year, or one duplication in every 4,000 fish per year. In 10 years, assuming no biases regarding which genes duplicate, it's possible that every gene of the 25,000 in the eelpout genome will have duplicated at least once in at least one fish. In 1,000 years it's practically certain that every gene will have been duplicated at least once in at least one fish. Thereafter it's up to natural selection and genetic drift, both of which are known to operate, kind of like the magic wand of gravity. :)

Boulder landslide? So you're saying rock science is over Luskin's head? :p

Henry J said: Boulder landslide? So you're saying rock science is over Luskin's head? :p

Erasmus, FCD said: ...nothing less than an atomic account will suffice, Darwinist!

RBH said:

Henry J said: Boulder landslide? So you're saying rock science is over Luskin's head? :p

Luskin has a Master's in "earth science." It shouldn't be over his head, literally if not metaphorically. :)

And there's more than one gene in a genome. Casey Luskin forgets what a "mean" is...

So Casey's basically offering up a version of the old "how can you prove it happened if you weren't there to see it" argument (with the creationist corollary "... and if you can't prove it happened, then Goddidit").

oops, meant to attribute that quote to RBH...

RBH said:

Henry J said: Boulder landslide? So you're saying rock science is over Luskin's head? :p

Luskin has a Master's in "earth science." It shouldn't be over his head, literally if not metaphorically. :)

Sorry, this comment is related to another story which PT covered earlier, the ARK in Kentucky, but Ken Ham is just as disgusting regarding creationism as Luskin. It's an interview with Ken Ham & Barry Lynn regarding the public funding of the ARK project.

http://www.au.org/media/videos/archives/2011/aus-lynn-remarks-on-ark.html

Mr Luskin has given a perfect example of the arguments presented by most creation "science". It is not about carefully checking facts and conclusions it is about presenting an argument that will convince the villagers (in other words a good story). So maybe someone should grab these papers and have them loosely translated by a good fictional writer ;)

RBH said:

Henry J said: Boulder landslide? So you're saying rock science is over Luskin's head? :p

Luskin has a Master's in "earth science." It shouldn't be over his head, literally if not metaphorically. :)

Olorin said: Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why? Casey demands a centimeter-by-centimeter description, but refuses to describe his alternative even at a parsec scale.

If I have understood Luskin correctly, forensic science creates just so stories?

Steve P. said:

Olorin said: Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why? Casey demands a centimeter-by-centimeter description, but refuses to describe his alternative even at a parsec scale.

Ahh, the Fallacy of No Alternative. Its apparently the only seemingly plausible explanation on the table so it must be right. Rather, in a rational, scientific fashion, simply stamp it "Unresolved".

Is Futuyma’s rate a mutation rate for the gene duplication type of mutation? (If so, it seems way too low.) Or is it some kind of average rate of increase of total genes in a lineage from the Precambrian til now…

Is Futuyma’s rate a mutation rate for the gene duplication type of mutation? (If so, it seems way too low.) Or is it some kind of average rate of increase of total genes in a lineage from the Precambrian til now…

Rolf Aalberg said: If I have understood Luskin correctly, forensic science creates just so stories?

Steve P. said:

Olorin said: Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why? Casey demands a centimeter-by-centimeter description, but refuses to describe his alternative even at a parsec scale.

Ahh, the Fallacy of No Alternative. Its apparently the only seemingly plausible explanation on the table so it must be right. Rather, in a rational, scientific fashion, simply stamp it "Unresolved".

In fact we do observe genetic changes, genetic variations within species and genetic divergences between populations etc, etc..... An we even see duplication variations within species.....

So Casey Luskin says we don't have enough proofs that the antifreeze gene evolved from a common ancestry from another that is homologous? Casey Luskin will say that in fact scientists didn't prove anything and that we know nothing and Casey Luskin will probably argues that the hypothesis of God a mysterious designer for the antifreeze gene is a equally plausible explanation.

We just have to forget that genetic changes occurs all the time even genes duplications..... And we have to accept a alternative we never did observe with no mechanisms at all!

You can equally say to a geologist that nothing proves that fold mountains are the products of Plate tectonics despite the fact that Plate tectonics exists and moves, that we have marine fossils in the mountains. And after that you can says that the hypothesis of God a mysterious designer for fold mountains is a equally plausible explanation!

Casey Luskin is Definitively a ass clown!

And don't forget the Luskin's fallacy about gene duplication rate, we discussed above!

Stanton said:

Erasmus, FCD said: ...nothing less than an atomic account will suffice, Darwinist!

And yet, whenever I ask Intelligent Design proponents or Creationists why we're supposed to blindly assume that saying "God/Intelligent Designer poofed it with magic" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, they always act like I made a maliciously unpleasant comment about their mothers.

Steve P. said:

Olorin said: Has anyone asked Casey Luskin to describe how the antifreeze gene was designed? From what? By what process? At what time, and why? Casey demands a centimeter-by-centimeter description, but refuses to describe his alternative even at a parsec scale.

Ahh, the Fallacy of No Alternative. Its apparently the only seemingly plausible explanation on the table so it must be right. Rather, in a rational, scientific fashion, simply stamp it "Unresolved".

Erasmus, FCD said:

Stanton said:

Erasmus, FCD said: ...nothing less than an atomic account will suffice, Darwinist!

And yet, whenever I ask Intelligent Design proponents or Creationists why we're supposed to blindly assume that saying "God/Intelligent Designer poofed it with magic" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, they always act like I made a maliciously unpleasant comment about their mothers.

might as well start there! you'll get nowhere else with the bastards

RBH said:

[W]hat is wrong with this particular argument?

There's more than one fish in the sea.

I had my own just-so story this past Sunday. I had left my apartment for three hours, and came back, and found half of my kitchen was flooded--the half not adjacent to the sink!--and there was some ugly black stuff in a ring in my sink, and some puddles on the counters to the left.

Casey-Luskin-style thinking flashed through my head--oh no, some evil twit is pulling some nasty prank on me--but my decades of scientific training prevailed. I hypothesized that perhaps it was perhaps bigger than previous refrigerator leaks--but papers on the floor (no, not left there for scientific purposes) bore no signs of recent flooding. Wait, I could hear some dripping, to the left. The sound was maddeningly hard to localize, but it was near the slightly flooded counters there, and there was a swirl of the same black stuff. OK, hypothesis: the flood waters rose from the depths of my sink somehow and went left. Only left? It seemed that way, so I stared at the sink very carefully, and lo, there was apparently a tiny tilt favoring the left. OK, time for an experiment, and I filled the sink, just enough until it could spill. And indeed, it spilled left, and I turned off the faucet. At which point, I waited for the water to drain, and nothing happened. So I turned on the garbage disposal until the water was halfway gone, turned it off, and after a few seconds, the drain belched! With ugly black stuff filling up half the sink again. Oooh, good one.

Well, anyway, I continued with my experiments, had a pretty good just-so story, fiddled more with the garbage disposal, reset it, made sure everything was pureed, got out all my never thrown away torn up old shirts and put them in the flood, then went downstairs to get one of our building experts. I had a theory, and he agreed with me: a frozen pipe, something I deal with since I live on the floor just above the parking garage. In particular, he confirmed the same mess is a known issue on my floor.

So in this weather, I'm running hot water through my kitchen sink more often and carefully not leaving gunk in the disposal. I can't even begin to think how the Casey Luskins of the world deal with anything beyond animal instinct reflexes.

William makes a very good point. We all use the scientific method and scientific thinking every day to solve lots of problems in everyday life. It's really nothing more than common sense, parsimony and methodological naturalism in action. In the past, it was easy for people to jump to all sorts of supernatural explanations for everything. That didn't work out so well. Of course you can still stick with that, but why would you when the alternative has proven to be so successful and productive?

I sometimes wonder what actually goes on in the minds of people with the supernatural approach to reality. Do they really consider ghosts and goblins first, or do they realize on some level that that explanation has never really worked in the past?

Stanton said:

Erasmus, FCD said:

Stanton said:

Erasmus, FCD said: ...nothing less than an atomic account will suffice, Darwinist!

And yet, whenever I ask Intelligent Design proponents or Creationists why we're supposed to blindly assume that saying "God/Intelligent Designer poofed it with magic" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, they always act like I made a maliciously unpleasant comment about their mothers.

might as well start there! you'll get nowhere else with the bastards

This is very true. It must be a defense mechanism.

DS said: William makes a very good point. We all use the scientific method and scientific thinking every day to solve lots of problems in everyday life. It's really nothing more than common sense, parsimony and methodological naturalism in action. In the past, it was easy for people to jump to all sorts of supernatural explanations for everything. That didn't work out so well. Of course you can still stick with that, but why would you when the alternative has proven to be so successful and productive? I sometimes wonder what actually goes on in the minds of people with the supernatural approach to reality. Do they really consider ghosts and goblins first, or do they realize on some level that that explanation has never really worked in the past?

John Kwok said:

DS said: William makes a very good point. We all use the scientific method and scientific thinking every day to solve lots of problems in everyday life. [...]

Am in complete agreement, DS. Moreover, you could say that what William did was a superb exercise in deductive reasoning.

The Left

has traditionally assumed that human nature is so malleable, so perfectible, that it can be shaped in almost any direction.

Conservatives object, arguing that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous order of instincts and habits.

Darwinian biology sustains conservative social thought by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history.

william e emba said: I had my own just-so story this past Sunday. I had left my apartment for three hours, and came back, and found half of my kitchen was flooded--the half not adjacent to the sink!--and there was some ugly black stuff in a ring in my sink, and some puddles on the counters to the left. Casey-Luskin-style thinking flashed through my head--oh no, some evil twit is pulling some nasty prank on me--but my decades of scientific training prevailed. I hypothesized that perhaps it was perhaps bigger than previous refrigerator leaks--but papers on the floor (no, not left there for scientific purposes) bore no signs of recent flooding. Wait, I could hear some dripping, to the left. The sound was maddeningly hard to localize, but it was near the slightly flooded counters there, and there was a swirl of the same black stuff. OK, hypothesis: the flood waters rose from the depths of my sink somehow and went left. Only left? It seemed that way, so I stared at the sink very carefully, and lo, there was apparently a tiny tilt favoring the left. OK, time for an experiment, and I filled the sink, just enough until it could spill. And indeed, it spilled left, and I turned off the faucet. At which point, I waited for the water to drain, and nothing happened. So I turned on the garbage disposal until the water was halfway gone, turned it off, and after a few seconds, the drain belched! With ugly black stuff filling up half the sink again. Oooh, good one. Well, anyway, I continued with my experiments, had a pretty good just-so story, fiddled more with the garbage disposal, reset it, made sure everything was pureed, got out all my never thrown away torn up old shirts and put them in the flood, then went downstairs to get one of our building experts. I had a theory, and he agreed with me: a frozen pipe, something I deal with since I live on the floor just above the parking garage. In particular, he confirmed the same mess is a known issue on my floor. So in this weather, I'm running hot water through my kitchen sink more often and carefully not leaving gunk in the disposal. I can't even begin to think how the Casey Luskins of the world deal with anything beyond animal instinct reflexes.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 December 8; 106(49): 20818–20823. Published online 2009 November 19. doi: Ubiquitous internal gene duplication and intron creation in eukaryotes Xiang Gao1 and Michael Lynch1 Department of Biology, Indiana University, 1001 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 Duplication of genomic segments provides a primary resource for the origin of evolutionary novelties. However, most previous studies have focused on duplications of complete protein-coding genes, whereas little is known about the significance of duplication segments that are entirely internal to genes. Our examination of six fully sequenced genomes reveals that internal duplications of gene segments occur at a high frequency (0.001–0.013 duplications/gene per million years), similar to that of complete gene duplications, such that 8–17% of the genes in a genome carry duplicated intronic and/or exonic regions. At least 7–30% of such genes have acquired novel introns, either because a prior intron in the same gene has been duplicated, or more commonly, because a spatial change has activated a latent splice site. These results strongly suggest a major evolutionary role for internal gene duplications in the origin of genomic novelties, particularly as a mechanism for intron gain. Because gene duplication is considered to be a primary source of evolutionary novelties (1, 2), studies on the duplication process and its impact on genome architecture are critical for understanding basic evolutionary processes. Up to now, most studies have focused on duplications of complete protein-coding genes resulting from polyploidization or large segmental duplications (3–9). Those studies have revealed a high rate of gene duplication that is only slightly less than the mutation rate at silent sites, implying that on time scales of 100 million years (MY) or so, all genes within a typical eukaryotic genome will have duplicated at least once (2). Although most gene duplicates are eliminated from the population in just a few MY, a minority are maintained by processes of neofunctionalization and subfunctionization (2).

wikipedia wheat: Wheat genetics is more complicated than that of most other domesticated species. Some wheat species are diploid, with two sets of chromosomes, but many are stable polyploids, with four sets of chromosomes (tetraploid) or six (hexaploid).[18] Einkorn wheat (T. monococcum) is diploid (AA, two complements of seven chromosomes, 2n=14).[1] Most tetraploid wheats (e.g. emmer and durum wheat) are derived from wild emmer, T. dicoccoides. Wild emmer is itself the result of a hybridization between two diploid wild grasses, T. urartu and a wild goatgrass such as Aegilops searsii or Ae. speltoides. The unknown grass has never been identified among now surviving wild grasses, but the closest living relative is Aegilops speltoides.[citation needed] The hybridization that formed wild emmer (AABB) occurred in the wild, long before domestication,[18] and was driven by natural selection. Hexaploid wheats evolved in farmers' fields. Either domesticated emmer or durum wheat hybridized with yet another wild diploid grass (Aegilops cylindrica) to make the hexaploid wheats, spelt wheat and bread wheat.[18] These have three sets of paired chromosomes, three times as many as in diploid wheat.

casey luskin the attack mouse: Don’t be too impressed. If you go back and read my article, “How to Play the Gene Evolution Game,” you’ll find that by using a combination of three magic wands – Gene Duplication, Natural Selection, and Rearrangement – it’s a simple matter to concoct a just-so story to “explain” the origin just about any gene sequence – no details required:

DS said: I sometimes wonder what actually goes on in the minds of people with the supernatural approach to reality. Do they really consider ghosts and goblins first...?

Part 3 of Purdom’s “Code of Life” series over on AiG should be good for a few laughs.

It’s a pretty good example of a “Just ain’t so” story by way of mischaracterization.

It’s part of “the laws of chemistry and physics changed after the Fall” shtick.

Paul Burnett said: Scratch most creationists and you'll find someone who believes in Satan.

harold said: (snip) Now let's deal with Lary Arnhart. Unfortunately, Arnhart's blurb, at the head of his linked blog http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/09/has-anyone-seen-evolution.html, is filled with mistruths. http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/09/has-anyone-seen-evolution.html

The Left

The use of the term "The Left" to inappropriately lump authoritarian communists with supporters of strong human rights and democracy, merely because the latter often support programs for the needy, is a deeply offensive propaganda technique.

has traditionally assumed that human nature is so malleable, so perfectible, that it can be shaped in almost any direction.

The weasel word here is "traditionally", but in essence, I myself am one of tens of millions of individuals in the US whose existence demolishes this nasty straw man.

Conservatives object, arguing that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous order of instincts and habits.

If this were true, it would mean that all "conservatives" reject all rational planning for social order.

Darwinian biology sustains conservative social thought by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history.

So much dishonesty and illogic packed into one sentence. First of all, putting aside the use of the anachoristic and clumsy construction "Darwinian biology", the claim is a non sequitur.

william e emba said: But, yes, now that I think about it, I know numerous people who are considered "intelligent" by society (doctors, lawyers, etc) and yet I know these individuals would simply freak out and panic. It disturbs me--some of these people are my friends, yet I think of them as mental cripples.

DS said: I sometimes wonder what actually goes on in the minds of people with the supernatural approach to reality. Do they really consider ghosts and goblins first…?

So, Casey shows up on these threads occasionally... Hey Casey, what do you think of your calculations being blown out of the water?

Are you going to get some training in biology before your next pathetic outburst of wrong-ness???

KP said: So, Casey shows up on these threads occasionally ...

I can just see Casey Luskin in a paternity suit, telling a judge that the DNA test is merely a just-so story. "Breathtaking inanity" indeed.

I've found comparing evolutionary science to DNA paternity tests a pretty effective eye-opener for laymen who don't have a good grasp of evolution, and for the scientifically literate who had no idea just how bad an evolutionary understanding most people have. Usually the bulk of the conversation is spent trying to explain to the misinformed that the paternity test is an example, not an analogy. It's a remarkably difficult notion for them to wrap their brains around.

Michael Behe said: This article simply just assumes that Natural Selection is as certain a fact as gravity, so the claims in this article are based on a fundamental misunderstanding between fact and hypothesis. Natural Selection is not a fact, as the ice fish clearly demonstrates there are many thing that NS cannot explain. "We have to give a centimeter-by-centimeter, bounce-by-bounce, collision-by-collision description of the descent of that particular boulder before Luskin will believe that the boulder’s source is the ledge above and that its final position and appearance are due to the vicissitudes of boulders tumbling downhill in landslides powered by gravity" Well, since you can barely even give a few accounts of how the anti-freeze protein evolved through trial and error, it's very hard to imagine that you will be to get anywhere like the certainty of gravity.

testing said: testing

Dale Husband said: Are you the real Michael Behe?

Michael Behe said: This article simply just assumes that Natural Selection is as certain a fact as gravity, so the claims in this article are based on a fundamental misunderstanding between fact and hypothesis. Natural Selection is not a fact, as the ice fish clearly demonstrates there are many thing that NS cannot explain. "We have to give a centimeter-by-centimeter, bounce-by-bounce, collision-by-collision description of the descent of that particular boulder before Luskin will believe that the boulder’s source is the ledge above and that its final position and appearance are due to the vicissitudes of boulders tumbling downhill in landslides powered by gravity" Well, since you can barely even give a few accounts of how the anti-freeze protein evolved through trial and error, it's very hard to imagine that you will be to get anywhere like the certainty of gravity.

Ahh, the Fallacy of No Alternative. Its apparently the only seemingly plausible explanation on the table so it must be right.

Rather, in a rational, scientific fashion, simply stamp it “Unresolved”.

Casey Vs the Crapper, A parable.

(Basic premise not mine, I don't know who from, improved and expanded by me:)

Casey exits his home in the morning to find crap all over his house. A man on the sidewalk was observed to fling one piece of crap at the house before he stopped when Casey exited. Casey, being observant, notices all the crap on his house and crap drips leaving a pie shaped pattern on the ground converging on the man on the sidewalk. This man is also observed to have an empty bucket of crap and a half empty bucket of crap. The crap missing looks to be about the same amount on his house. The man has crap all over his hands.
"Crap", Casey says, "Because I never saw ever bit of crap that was flung at my house, I have no idea who did it. So it could only have been puffed here by an intelligent agent! I must have sinned!"

Seriously though, if I am not mistaken that is the consequence of this kind of thinking.

The "Michael Behe" commenting is almost certainly not the Michael Bebe of Lehigh University, and is on the way to being banned. Please don't feed the fake troll.

RBH

If NS is a fact, then come up with a test whereby we can falsify this hypothesis. Either the mutations in the genome are the result of chance or they are not the result of chance. Come up with a test that will falsify the hypothesis that mutations in the genome are the result of randomness. Then we’ll test it and see if NS is a fact.

Michael Behe said: So much for Panda's Thumb being more tolerant of dissent than uncommon descent.

Michael Behe said: Hercules, So what you're saying is that NS can not be falsified? If so, then it is not science but just mere speculation.

Michael Behe said: So much for Panda's Thumb being more tolerant of dissent than uncommon descent.

RBH said:

Michael Behe said: So much for Panda's Thumb being more tolerant of dissent than uncommon descent.

We're tolerant of dissent, but we're intolerant of fakers.

NS would be falsified if unfit survived. If, in nature, those with birth defects and so on lived about as well as the otherwise healthy, NS would be disproven.

The faux "Michael Behe" has been banned. I'll leave its comments and responses to them because it's too damned much trouble to deal with them.

Leszek,

“NS would be falsified if unfit survived. If, in nature, those with birth defects and so on lived about as well as the otherwise healthy, NS would be disproven.”

This is where we learn that NS is just a tautology. The strong survive. What does strong mean? It means those who reproduce effectively. What does survive mean? It means reproduces. Thus:

Those who reproduce effectively reproduce.

similarly, the weak perish, or

those who cannot reproduce, do not reproduce. It’s a tautology and tell us nothing.

You can’t disprove a tautology.

when you say

those with birth defects and so on lived about as well as the otherwise healthy, NS would be disproven.”

birth defects = does not reproduce live about as well = reproduces

you cannot conclude

1. those who reproduce effectively reproduce 2. therefore, reptile change into a mammal due to undirected causes.

Carolyn James said: [SNIP] This is where we learn that NS is just a tautology. The strong survive. What does strong mean? It means those who reproduce effectively. What does survive mean? It means reproduces. Thus: Those who reproduce effectively reproduce. similarly, the weak perish, or those who cannot reproduce, do not reproduce. It’s a tautology and tell us nothing. You can’t disprove a tautology.

Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F=ma [Sober 1984, chapter 2], which is the basis for a lot of ordinary physical explanation.

RBH,

"Fitness’ to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations"

It's still a tautology. How can

"those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations"

not mean

reproduce efficiently?

What you're saying is just

those who are expected to reproduce, will reproduce

If something is "adapted" then of course it will reproduce. NS tells us nothing

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a means for falsifying NS.

"Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

How do you define inefficient? If you could rate all two million species according to their fitness, what species should not be there? How do you draw the line between efficient and inefficient. I'm sure all the bottom 100 thousand species could be described as inefficient by they're still here.

"It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

Another tautology:

Those species that cannot possibly exist, do not exist.

here, theoretically impossible = cannot possibly exist

Carolyn James said: RBH, "Fitness’ to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations" It's still a tautology. How can "those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations" not mean reproduce efficiently?

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a means for falsifying NS.

Carolyn James said: I'm still waiting for you to come up with a means for falsifying NS.

Carolyn James said: "It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html Another tautology: Those species that cannot possibly exist, do not exist. here, theoretically impossible = cannot possibly exist

You misread it: It means we can independently identify variables that would, if present, contribute to relative reproductive success, and then we can test whether that predicted relative reproductive success indeed occurs. Read all of the linked explanation.

You're just using synonyms and adding in more words.

Now you're saying:

Those who have variables which contribute to reproductive success, will successfully reproduce.

All you have done is changed "reproduce" to "contribute to reproductive success"

It's still a tautology

When you test whether or not someone with "variables of that contributes to reproductive success" actually reproduces, then of course they will reproduce.

(Let's see if I last more than two weeks at PT)

It means we can independently identify variables that would, if present, contribute to relative reproductive success, and then we can test whether that predicted relative reproductive success indeed occurs. Read all of the linked explanation.

Carolyn James said:

You misread it: It means we can independently identify variables that would, if present, contribute to relative reproductive success, and then we can test whether that predicted relative reproductive success indeed occurs. Read all of the linked explanation.

You're just using synonyms and adding in more words. Now you're saying: Those who have variables which contribute to reproductive success, will successfully reproduce. All you have done is changed "reproduce" to "contribute to reproductive success" It's still a tautology When you test whether or not someone with "variables of that contributes to reproductive success" actually reproduces, then of course they will reproduce.

If you introduced a new gene into a population of organisms, and you observed that that gene caused (no matter how) considerably higher numbers of the offspring of organisms that carried it to survive and themselves reproduce, and then you observed that the frequency of that gene in the population didn’t increase with time, that might be a start.

Stanton,

Since you're basically just making statements of belief, I won't comment.

Carolyn J said:

It means we can independently identify variables that would, if present, contribute to relative reproductive success, and then we can test whether that predicted relative reproductive success indeed occurs. Read all of the linked explanation.

Now you've just replaced "reproduces effectively" with "possesses variable that contribute to reproductive success" It's the same thing. All you're saying is Those that have variable that contribute to reproductive success, will successfully reproduce. Still a tautology. Discovery Institute Senior Fellow William Dembski’s weblog, “Uncommon Descent”, has comments enabled, but the moderation there is generally so ham-fisted that only a few voices of dissent have lasted more than a week or two. - Wesley Elseberry (Let's see if I last more than two weeks at PT)

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

Carolyn J said: Stanton, Since you're basically just making statements of belief, I won't comment.

So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

Carolyn J said: Stanton, Since you're basically just making statements of belief, I won't comment.

Flint said:

So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

When you say "NS", do you mean natural selection? Isn't selection the exactly opposite of random? Why would selection be falsified if the opposite of selection doesn't work? Maybe I'm not following your syntax correctly.

Stanton,

I don't debate people who think Ad Hominem attacks are useful. When you say "you have less than an elementary school level of science education," that's an Ad Hominem attack. I'm going to ask Elsberry to give you a warning because that's not the kind of behavior that he wants to promote at his website.

Carolyn J said: So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

Carolyn J said: Stanton, I don't debate people who think Ad Hominem attacks are useful. When you say "you have less than an elementary school level of science education," that's an Ad Hominem attack. I'm going to ask Elsberry to give you a warning because that's not the kind of behavior that he wants to promote at his website.

When you say “NS”, do you mean natural selection? Isn’t selection the exactly opposite of random? Why would selection be falsified if the opposite of selection doesn’t work?

Mike Elzinga said:

Carolyn J said: So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

What can you tell us about “The Lottery Winner Fallacy?” Do you know what it is?

you demonstrate that you don’t have much in the way of science education. And secondly, you aren’t debating at all, simply just going “it isn’t so,” and brushing everyone’s counter-arguments aside solely because they don’t agree with you. Thirdly, if you ever were interested in debating, you wouldn’t be whining and threatening me about my tone.

Carolyn James said: Leszek, “NS would be falsified if unfit survived. If, in nature, those with birth defects and so on lived about as well as the otherwise healthy, NS would be disproven.” This is where we learn that NS is just a tautology. The strong survive. What does strong mean? It means those who reproduce effectively. What does survive mean? It means reproduces. Thus: Those who reproduce effectively reproduce. similarly, the weak perish, or those who cannot reproduce, do not reproduce. It’s a tautology and tell us nothing. You can’t disprove a tautology. when you say those with birth defects and so on lived about as well as the otherwise healthy, NS would be disproven.” birth defects = does not reproduce live about as well = reproduces you cannot conclude 1. those who reproduce effectively reproduce 2. therefore, reptile change into a mammal due to undirected causes.

Carolyn J said:

you demonstrate that you don’t have much in the way of science education. And secondly, you aren’t debating at all, simply just going “it isn’t so,” and brushing everyone’s counter-arguments aside solely because they don’t agree with you. Thirdly, if you ever were interested in debating, you wouldn’t be whining and threatening me about my tone.

All of those statements are mere assertions. They are not rigorous scientific statements that can be falsified and tested with evidence, or reproduced in a lab, so there is no point in responding to them.

If you want to discuss science, then produce evidence, otherwise, I don't think dialogue is possible.

“It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evo[…]utology.html Another tautology: Those species that cannot possibly exist, do not exist.

Carolyn J said:

When you say “NS”, do you mean natural selection? Isn’t selection the exactly opposite of random? Why would selection be falsified if the opposite of selection doesn’t work?

Flint, Random mutation is random, but NS (Natural Selection) is not. Still, at its core NS is unintelligent process and it derives its resources from random generations. NS is essentially a destroyer. It destroys bad mutations. Just because it destroys does not mean it can build.

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Carolyn J said: So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

What can you tell us about “The Lottery Winner Fallacy?” Do you know what it is?

She can not even notice that there is an extreme difference between "randomness" and "natural selection"

Carolyn James getting it completely wrong: This is where we learn that NS is just a tautology.

Carolyn J said:

If you introduced a new gene into a population of organisms, and you observed that that gene caused (no matter how) considerably higher numbers of the offspring of organisms that carried it to survive and themselves reproduce, and then you observed that the frequency of that gene in the population didn’t increase with time, that might be a start.

If when you say "you" you mean a human being that would prove ID, since humans are intelligent. If by "you" you mean chance then you would have to get some computer with a random function to come up with a random list of amino acids then insert them randomly into the genome. Since the typical amino acid in bacteria is about 150 long, which means about 10^195 different sequences, then inserting that into a huge genome, I'd say the odds of that gene working and contributing to reproductive success are well beyond one in 10^195. So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.

Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle [3, 5, 15, 26, 28]. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator [24]. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive. This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism [20]. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins

As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

Carolyn J. being wrong some more: NS is essentially a destroyer. It destroys bad mutations. Just because it destroys does not mean it can build.

Carolyn J said:

If you introduced a new gene into a population of organisms, and you observed that that gene caused (no matter how) considerably higher numbers of the offspring of organisms that carried it to survive and themselves reproduce, and then you observed that the frequency of that gene in the population didn’t increase with time, that might be a start.

If when you say "you" you mean a human being that would prove ID, since humans are intelligent. If by "you" you mean chance then you would have to get some computer with a random function to come up with a random list of amino acids then insert them randomly into the genome. Since the typical amino acid in bacteria is about 150 long, which means about 10^195 different sequences, then inserting that into a huge genome, I'd say the odds of that gene working and contributing to reproductive success are well beyond one in 10^195.

So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

Dale Husband said: Ah, it's the lame "It couldn't have happened because it was so improbable," canard!

Carolyn J said: Stanton, I don't debate people who think Ad Hominem attacks are useful. When you say "you have less than an elementary school level of science education," that's an Ad Hominem attack. I'm going to ask Elsberry to give you a warning because that's not the kind of behavior that he wants to promote at his website.

Explain to me why you think I’m making “statements of belief.” Is it because you have less than an elementary school level of science education? Or is it because you were told to reject evilution under pain of eternal damnation?

As best I can tell, it’s possible to express any scientific theory in tautological form. So what, and what difference does that make to whether or not any particular scientific theory is valid? As well, why get your knickers in a twist over the putative tautological nature of any one theory, such as natural selection, when they all can be expressed in tautological form?

Ah, it’s the lame “It couldn’t have happened because it was so improbable,” canard!

Carolyn J said: When Einstein came up with his theory of relativity he made a prediction, during an eclipse you could verify that the sun bent light. Eddington later performed this experiment and E was proved right. NS makes no such prediction and cannot be falsified. A tautology would be E = E, not E = mc^2

Carolyn J said:

As best I can tell, it’s possible to express any scientific theory in tautological form. So what, and what difference does that make to whether or not any particular scientific theory is valid? As well, why get your knickers in a twist over the putative tautological nature of any one theory, such as natural selection, when they all can be expressed in tautological form?

When Einstein came up with his theory of relativity he made a prediction, during an eclipse you could verify that the sun bent light. Eddington later performed this experiment and E was proved right. NS makes no such prediction and cannot be falsified. A tautology would be E = E, not E = mc^2

Carolyn J said:

Ah, it’s the lame “It couldn’t have happened because it was so improbable,” canard!

Stanton & Dale, If you believe in things that are so improbably then why don't you belive that there is a black hole between Earth and Venus. It's VERY improbable that there is a black hole between E and V. So why do you not believe there is one?

Carolyn J said:

Ah, it’s the lame “It couldn’t have happened because it was so improbable,” canard!

Stanton & Dale, If you believe in things that are so improbably then why don't you belive that there is a black hole between Earth and Venus. It's VERY improbable that there is a black hole between E and V. So why do you not believe there is one?

From actual REAL WORLD EXPERIMENTS, the odds of a random sequence having a selectable function is 1 in 10^9 to 1 in 10^15 - about 180+ orders of magnitude more likely than your ridiculous ‘calculation’

the ability of repeated cycles of mutation FILTERED BY SELECTION to create information has been demonstrated many times over.

As well as computer programs that EVOLVE the ability to perform logical operations (the initial programs can only replicate; they are granted more cycle time by being able to perform logical operations on input strings - and, unlike Dembski at Dover, the programs were rewarded only IF THEY COULD DO SOMETHING)

mutation/selection is quite creative.

Actually beneficial mutations are common and we see them every day. They are the basis of our agriculture systems and a huge problem in medicine. We see them in humans too. About 1 in 500 people are resistant or immune to HIV, the AIDS virus. Some of those mututions have been characterized

Carolyn J said: Someone said I committed the one true fallacy, I didn't, I specifically said that 50% of amino acids can be different and a protein can still work.

Carolyn J said: Elzinga, I'm well aware of the lottery winning fallacy.

Carolyn J said:

Actually beneficial mutations are common and we see them every day. They are the basis of our agriculture systems and a huge problem in medicine. We see them in humans too. About 1 in 500 people are resistant or immune to HIV, the AIDS virus. Some of those mututions have been characterized

People are only resstance to HIV because they destroy proteins they already have not because they build new proteins that destroys HIV.

Carolyn J said: Right, and it was the intelligent computer programmer that rewarded them. NS gets zero rewards until it hits on that gene that can actually work, but since the odds of a functional gene forming spontaneously is astronomical it will never get rewarded. You need to plan in order to be creative, NS acting on RM can't do that.

Carolyn James the creationist: The simplest eye we know of it made of 202 proteins, it’s an eye spot in the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. All those proteins need to be built with the knowledge that they would eventually work together. NS can’t accomplish that since it has no foresight.

Search ResultsThe eyespot of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii: a comparative ...by F Crescitelli - 1992 - Cited by 11 - Related articles The eyespot of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is believed to utilize a rhodopsin-like pigment in its responses to light. This paper examines its eyespot by means ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1455731 -

Dale Husband said: OK, this one is a troll. Toss her to the Bathroom Wall! Hey, could this be Kris returned from the dead?

Carolyn J said: Stanton, I don't debate people who think Ad Hominem attacks are useful. When you say "you have less than an elementary school level of science education," that's an Ad Hominem attack. I'm going to ask Elsberry to give you a warning because that's not the kind of behavior that he wants to promote at his website.

Carolyn J, Potential Sockpuppet said: If you want to discuss science, then produce evidence, otherwise, I don't think dialogue is possible.

how come you don’t care to give us a counterexample of the Intelligent Designer magically tinkering with genomes? If Natural Selection doesn’t work like you claim, how come you refuse to show us how things really work?

Stanton,

Here is the labwork

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK7-4CVV2GH-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F27%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1623607238&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fc1cb14541e2dbc54d654c522e241a96&searchtype=a

Dale Husband said:

Carolyn J said:

Ah, it’s the lame “It couldn’t have happened because it was so improbable,” canard!

Stanton & Dale, If you believe in things that are so improbably then why don't you belive that there is a black hole between Earth and Venus. It's VERY improbable that there is a black hole between E and V. So why do you not believe there is one?

OK, this one is a troll. Toss her to the Bathroom Wall! Hey, could this be Kris returned from the dead?

Carolyn (or kris-behe) making stuff up: People are only resstance to HIV because they destroy proteins they already have not because they build new proteins that destroys HIV.

Well, Carolyn J is using a classic Creationist tactic known as the Gish Gallop, throwing claim after claim after claim at us rapidly while we stuggle in vain to keep up with her crap.

Shameless, that damned troll!

Carolyn J said:

how come you don’t care to give us a counterexample of the Intelligent Designer magically tinkering with genomes? If Natural Selection doesn’t work like you claim, how come you refuse to show us how things really work?

Let's say we're Drake looking at signals from outer space and we're trying to detect intelligence. Let's say we see a signal as such: 1 2 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 There are three possibilities as to the generator of that signal: chance, physical law, or design. Design is the most logical choice because only design can be accomplished by intelligence. Only intelligence knows about prime numbers. Maybe law can generate prime numbers but we have no evidence for it, so we can't believe that. Now let's look at the genome. We see 202 proteins in the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Those 202 proteins work together to form an eye. In other words those genes were built with the knowledge that they would work together. NS acting on RM is a combination of law and chance. It is a law that that which does not work can not pass on its genes. Law and chance working together could not have built those 202 genes because there is not enough time in our universe for chance acted on by NS to produce such a thing. The odds are too high. It is not rational to believe in something which is too improbable. No rational human jumps off a cliff and says I have a one in 10^20,000 chance of surviving so I might as well do it because I believe in the improbable. http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/8/1908

I’m curious to see if this troll starts going after nitty-gritty details and just continues throwing up crap thick and fast. It's already hopping around in a bunch of areas in which it obviously has no expertise.

You can’t drag these characters anywhere near a fundamental concept in science. They just try to look impressive by throwing crap around trying to give the appearance of being able wrestle and confound multiple experts simultaneously.

This tactic goes all the way back to Morris and Gish.

I wonder if any of these vacation bible “colleges” are giving credit for using PT as a training ground for their children.

Hey, could this be Kris returned from the dead?

Chlamydomas is at the end of 3.7 billion years of evolution, same as us. There is nothing simple or primitive about this organism. The eye spot evolved incrementally like everything does. In point of fact, the visual sensor pigment in Chlamydomas is…rhodopsin. The same pigment we humans use in our rods and cones. And where did rhodopsin come from? Prokaryotes, which contrary to your claim, have a light sensing system. Which uses…rhodopsin. “Bacterial rhodopsins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBacterial rhodopsins are a family of bacterial opsins. They are retinal …” We can trace the evolution of the parts of the eye back a billion or so years. After a billion years, we are still using the same visual sensing pigment, it is just in a more complicated way.

We can trace the evolution of the parts of the eye back a billion or so years.

By the way, Raven, If you do what Darwin did which is point to a simple eye, then an eye more complex, and another eye even more complex, that's not proof that NS acting on RM caused the change of those eyes. That's just assuming that NS is the cause.

raven said:

Hey, could this be Kris returned from the dead?

Almost certainly the kris troll. Same style, making stuff up as he goes along, changing the subject, moving the goal posts at a 100 miles/hr. Plus the sockpuppeting. Behe just got tossed and I'm sure a few more sockpuppets will be binned after Carolyn. It isn't worth spending any more time on a crazy troll.

How about RM + NS = E? Is THAT a tautology?

Carolyn J said:

If you introduced a new gene into a population of organisms, and you observed that that gene caused (no matter how) considerably higher numbers of the offspring of organisms that carried it to survive and themselves reproduce, and then you observed that the frequency of that gene in the population didn’t increase with time, that might be a start.

If when you say "you" you mean a human being that would prove ID, since humans are intelligent. If by "you" you mean chance then you would have to get some computer with a random function to come up with a random list of amino acids then insert them randomly into the genome. Since the typical amino acid in bacteria is about 150 long, which means about 10^195 different sequences, then inserting that into a huge genome, I'd say the odds of that gene working and contributing to reproductive success are well beyond one in 10^195. So how long will we have to wait before randomness fails to build a gene that we declare NS falsified?

This person does know that "tautology" means true regardless of evidence or lack of it, right?

If NS were a tautology, that would make it true, period, and as that is not generally what anti-evolutionists want people to think (as I understand it, anyway), I really don't get this choice of tactic for their propaganda efforts.

Though whether it's a tautology or not, the statement

"genetic varieties that give their carrier a higher reproductive success than other varieties in the same environment, will tend to spread in the population in that same environment"

is pretty much common sense for people to bother to think about it.

One thing that keeps it from being a tautology though is that environment is not a constant. Indeed, if one species evolves in an area, that by itself changes the environment for other species with which it interacts, sometimes producing a positive feedback effect, analogous to an arms race. (Oh, and the so-called Cambrian explosion appears to be a major example of this).

Henry J

Carolyn J said:

Chlamydomas is at the end of 3.7 billion years of evolution, same as us. There is nothing simple or primitive about this organism. The eye spot evolved incrementally like everything does. In point of fact, the visual sensor pigment in Chlamydomas is…rhodopsin. The same pigment we humans use in our rods and cones. And where did rhodopsin come from? Prokaryotes, which contrary to your claim, have a light sensing system. Which uses…rhodopsin. “Bacterial rhodopsins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBacterial rhodopsins are a family of bacterial opsins. They are retinal …” We can trace the evolution of the parts of the eye back a billion or so years. After a billion years, we are still using the same visual sensing pigment, it is just in a more complicated way.

It's not an argument form personal incredulity. You can't believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you believe in something for which there is no evidence then why not believe in Santa Clause? Show me an eye built from less than 202 proteins. Actually, even an built from 20 proteins is astronomically difficult.

We can trace the evolution of the parts of the eye back a billion or so years.

prove it

People are only resstance to HIV because they destroy proteins they already have not because they build new proteins that destroys HIV. How is that not supposed to be a positive mutation? Where is the labwork that proves what you’ve asserted, on faith alone, is true?

Carolyn J said:

How about RM + NS = E? Is THAT a tautology?

No, that is not a tautology, but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a test that would be prove that RM + NS = E The only test I've seen so far is the tautological: NS would be false if it can be shown that those who reproduce effectively do not reproduce.

Dale Husband said: What evidence would you accept? Even if we presented clear evidence to you, I suspect you would move the goalposts again and keep denying the obvious.

Carolyn J said:

How about RM + NS = E? Is THAT a tautology?

No, that is not a tautology, but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a test that would be prove that RM + NS = E

The only test I've seen so far is the tautological: NS would be false if it can be shown that those who reproduce effectively do not reproduce.

From Wikipedia, ApoA-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1] [edit] DiscoveryDiscovered by accident, the mutation was found to be present in about 3.5% of the population of Limone sul Garda, a small village in northern Italy. It has been traced to a mutation in a single man who had lived in the village in the 18th century and passed it on to his offspring.[2] It is characterized by the replacement of a single amino acid at R173C.[3]

It is interesting to see how badly sock-puppets behave. As several posters have pointed out, finding an intelligent creationist or denier of evolution would be remarkably refreshing, and well worth debating.

This one is not.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said: You share the common cdesign proponentsist misconceptions that genes are created de novo and that the odds of randomly constructing an entire functioning gene from scratch are in some way relevant to a debate over evolution. They aren't, and they aren't.

Evolution doesn’t work by “building new proteins” very often. It works by sequentially modifying existing genes and proteins.

There are a number of human resistance mutations leading to HIV survival and not all are loss of function.

Malchus said: It is interesting to see how badly sock-puppets behave. As several posters have pointed out, finding an intelligent creationist or denier of evolution would be remarkably refreshing, and well worth debating. This one is not.

Carolyn J said:

Evolution doesn’t work by “building new proteins” very often. It works by sequentially modifying existing genes and proteins.

The human has 3.2 billion DNA the simplest bacteria that we know of has about a half million. To get from half a million to 3 billion you have to build. Yes, this is done through gene duplication, then altering, but these mutations are not unintentional. They are altered by an intelligence. (and by the way, I do not believe that the intelligence is the creator of the universe, rather some other lesser intelligence, but in any case immaterial. This is because it's obvious that the designer does not have complete knowledge of the genome, otherwise there wouldn't be so many extinctions)

There are a number of human resistance mutations leading to HIV survival and not all are loss of function.

Prove it

As for the APoA-1 mutant gene that confers protection from cardiovascular disease, Raven, I haven't heard of this gene, but it looks like it does this by "preventing the synthesis of apoA-I protein, which results in an absence of plasma high-density lipoprotein." In other words, this is yet again a case of a mutation destroying a function which just happens to have a benefit. This is not evidence of NS being creative. For NS to be true you have to show that it can create new molecular machine, not that it destroys machines already built. Moreover, single mutations are not evidence. Many proteins have very few sequences in common.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/the-possible-role-of-nondisjunction-in-evolution/ A common objection to natural selection as the mechanism for evolution is that while it may act as an editor, it cannot be an author. That is, it may change genetic information through mutation, but it cannot cause genetic information to increase. And they are right, but genetic information can still increase across the generations of organisms through a process called nondisjunction. This occurs when an unequal amount of genetic material is passed on to two daughter cells after the process of a cell dividing. One cell will have slightly less genetic material, and the other will have slightly more. The most famous example of nondisjunction is the kind that causes Down’s Syndrome, when a human embryo receives three 21st chromosomes from its parents rather than the normal number of two. But nondisjunction can occur regarding any chromosome in any organism and may not even involve chromosomes at all, such as in the case of bacteria. Let us imagine that three billion years ago, a bacterial cell was dividing, but because of a chemical malfunction, slightly less genetic material ended up in one daughter cell, and slightly more in the other. The cell with less material will probably end up smaller, while the cell with more material may end up larger, because a greater amount of genetic material can produce a greater amount of proteins, the molecules that provide the structural basis for all organisms. Larger cells (assuming the reproductive potential of the different cells was the same) would have an advantage over smaller cells in the race to gain food, thus natural selection would favor larger cells. If this process was repeated many times, then it is possible that over a billion years a bacterial cell would have emerged that had hundreds of times more genetic material than the first primitive organisms that arose on Earth about four billion years ago. And that would have enabled the evolution of more complex organisms than bacteria…including us!

All this talk of banning me. Let me quote the leader of this website:

Discovery Institute Senior Fellow William Dembski’s weblog, “Uncommon Descent”, has comments enabled, but the moderation there is generally so ham-fisted that only a few voices of dissent have lasted more than a week or two. - Wesley Elseberry (Let's see if I last more than two weeks at PT)

At least over at UD they last two weeks. It looks like I won't even last three hours. So much for PT being an oasis of toleration.

Carolyn J said: As for the APoA-1 mutant gene that confers protection from cardiovascular disease, Raven, I haven't heard of this gene, but it looks like it does this by "preventing the synthesis of apoA-I protein, which results in an absence of plasma high-density lipoprotein." In other words, this is yet again a case of a mutation destroying a function which just happens to have a benefit. This is not evidence of NS being creative. For NS to be true you have to show that it can create new molecular machine, not that it destroys machines already built. Moreover, single mutations are not evidence. Many proteins have very few sequences in common.

Carolyn J said: All this talk of banning me. Let me quote the leader of this website: Discovery Institute Senior Fellow William Dembski’s weblog, “Uncommon Descent”, has comments enabled, but the moderation there is generally so ham-fisted that only a few voices of dissent have lasted more than a week or two. - Wesley Elseberry (Let's see if I last more than two weeks at PT) At least over at UD they last two weeks. It looks like I won't even last three hours. So much for PT being an oasis of toleration.

There is a distinction, you know, between variation and selection. The two are logically independent. The scenario I described involved directed (non-random) variation, but natural selection (it is nature, not any intelligent entity, that decides which organisms will survive and reproduce).

On the other hand, the methods by which humans have developed, say, different breeds of pigeons involve random (undirected) variation and artificial selection. Evolution (ex hypothese) involves both random variation and natural selection.

You asked for a way that natural selection might be falsified, and I tried to comply. (Not being a scientist, I may have flubbed it, but if so, it’s not for the reason you think.) My scenario did not address undirected vs. directed variation, but as a test of natural selection it does not have to.

In any event, the fact that my experiment would involve an engineered gene doesn’t “prove” ID,

You share the common cdesign proponentsist misconceptions that genes are created de novo and that

[you share the misconception that] the odds of randomly constructing an entire functioning gene from scratch are in some way relevant to a debate over evolution. They aren’t, and they aren’t.

Dale Husband said: It's an interesting coincidence that you showed up right after "Michael Behe" was banned, and engaged in the sort of disruptive behavior that any sensible person would already know would get her banned, and yet you complain about us being intolerant? Clearly, you set a trap for us!

It’s an interesting coincidence that you showed up right after “Michael Behe” was banned, and engaged in the sort of disruptive behavior that any sensible person would already know would get her banned, and yet you complain about us being intolerant? Clearly, you set a trap for us!

Besides, Dale, I won't be around for much longer. I'm going to bed soon.

BTW, if you think an intelligence was necessary to increase the genomes of bacteria until it became complex enough to produce organisms like us, do you also think an intelligence was responsible for the cases of Down’s Syndrome? If so, that “intelligence” is a real bastard whose @$$ I’d love to kick!

Why don’t you prove YOUR claim above? This: “Yes, this is done through gene duplication, then altering, but these mutations are not unintentional. They are altered by an intelligence.” SHOW US THE INTELLIGENCE!

From Wikipedia, ApoA-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1] [edit] DiscoveryDiscovered by accident, the mutation was found to be present in about 3.5% of the population of Limone sul Garda, a small village in northern Italy. It has been traced to a mutation in a single man who had lived in the village in the 18th century and passed it on to his offspring.[2] It is characterized by the replacement of a single amino acid at R173C.[3]

Carolyn J said: A bunch of stuff variously non-responsive, oblivious, and/or inscrutable.

Natural selection is not a tautology, since it’s merely an observation.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said:

Dale Husband said: It's an interesting coincidence that you showed up right after "Michael Behe" was banned, and engaged in the sort of disruptive behavior that any sensible person would already know would get her banned, and yet you complain about us being intolerant? Clearly, you set a trap for us!

No coincidence. I'm pretty sure the first post under the name "Carolyn J" (now deleted) explicitly avowed that she was the one who'd been posting as Behe. Either that or my imagination is way more extravagant than I think it is.

You really do believe in the effectiveness of copious random poop-flinging as a debating tactic, don’t you? At this hour of the night, it’s just not worth responding any longer.

Could be a pissed off Steve P.

Carolyn J said:

BTW, if you think an intelligence was necessary to increase the genomes of bacteria until it became complex enough to produce organisms like us, do you also think an intelligence was responsible for the cases of Down’s Syndrome? If so, that “intelligence” is a real bastard whose @$$ I’d love to kick!

This is the because the design is not perfect it is therefore not designed fallacy.

I believe that genes are duplicated, then the duplicate is turned off, then an intelligence mutates them until they’re ready, then they’re turned on.

Then, how do I falsify NS? If NS acts on random mutation, I need to prove that the mutations are random. If I prove that they’re random you will just say that odds are not relevant. So I can’t falsify your theory. This is not science.

Carolyn J said:

You really do believe in the effectiveness of copious random poop-flinging as a debating tactic, don’t you? At this hour of the night, it’s just not worth responding any longer.

Ok, basically the only arguments I'm seeing now are just insults. So I guess it's time to end the debate. Hopefully I'll resist the urge to come back tomorrow. By the way, I'm not Kris. Here's proof. Kris is probably a Christian. I'm not a Christian and I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. Kris surely wouldn't say that would he?

Carolyn J said:

Why don’t you prove YOUR claim above? This: “Yes, this is done through gene duplication, then altering, but these mutations are not unintentional. They are altered by an intelligence.” SHOW US THE INTELLIGENCE!

When I look at the Rosetta Stone I don't need to be able to point the Stone's creator in order to infer that it is the result of intelligence.

Carolyn J said: By the way, I'm not Kris. Here's proof. Kris is probably a Christian. I'm not a Christian and I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. Kris surely wouldn't say that would he?

I have said it before, but I will repeat it because the above conversacion proves my case: What is needed to see who is making a sensible argument is reading comprehension. Even without having to understand the details, the math or the science one can see that Ms. J has found and excuse for not answering any questions and has shown many if not most of the tell tale signs for identifying trolls. I know it hurts, but I don't see a way a way out without stoppind the feeding and having the troll claim victory.......just keep in mind that the claim to victory has as much credibility as the rest of the troll's statements.

Not feeding the troll, but I found it amusing when said troll thought that finding regular sequences in astronomical signals would be proof of intelligence. The troll is clearly unaware of Jocelyn Bell and Tony Hewish's 1967 discovery of an incredibly regular radio signal from light-years away. Their first thoughts, naturally, were that these were the work of alien intelligences and they even called the signal LGM for "little green men." They investigated further and discovered that the signal was from a rapidly spinning neutron star. We now call these stars pulsars and Hewish won the Nobel for it (Bell was controversially omitted).

And it doesn't end there: many spiral galaxies are distributed along a Fibonacci sequence. Even prime numbers follow amazing patterns (Google Ulam's Rose).

If Bell and Hewish had been IDists (or UFOlogists) they would have announced the discovery of alien intelligence and wrapped up their research then and there.

raven said:

Carolyn J. being wrong some more: NS is essentially a destroyer. It destroys bad mutations. Just because it destroys does not mean it can build.

Got that totally wrong. This is just the routine creationist lie, beneficial mutations don't exist. Actually beneficial mutations are common and we see them every day. They are the basis of our agriculture systems and a huge problem in medicine. We see them in humans too. About 1 in 500 people are resistant or immune to HIV, the AIDS virus. Some of those mututions have been characterized.

IBelieveInGod said: Please explain how being resistant or immune to HIV is caused by a beneficial mutation.

Isn't it funny how every time he gets his ass kicked IBIGOT takes the sock off his puppet?

CJ said: "Then, how do I falsify NS? ... So I can’t falsify your theory. This is not science."

IBelieveInGod said:

raven said:

Carolyn J. being wrong some more: NS is essentially a destroyer. It destroys bad mutations. Just because it destroys does not mean it can build.

Got that totally wrong. This is just the routine creationist lie, beneficial mutations don't exist. Actually beneficial mutations are common and we see them every day. They are the basis of our agriculture systems and a huge problem in medicine. We see them in humans too. About 1 in 500 people are resistant or immune to HIV, the AIDS virus. Some of those mututions have been characterized.

Please explain how being resistant or immune to HIV is caused by a beneficial mutation.

Carolyn J said: All this talk of banning me. Let me quote the leader of this website: Discovery Institute Senior Fellow William Dembski’s weblog, “Uncommon Descent”, has comments enabled, but the moderation there is generally so ham-fisted that only a few voices of dissent have lasted more than a week or two. - Wesley Elseberry (Let's see if I last more than two weeks at PT) At least over at UD they last two weeks. It looks like I won't even last three hours. So much for PT being an oasis of toleration.

CJ said: “This is not science.”

IBIG said: “... is not science.”

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

RBH said: For Carolyn's benefit I'll quote Todd Wood, a young earth creationist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry (IIRC) from a secular university:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

All bolding original. I call particular attention to this phrase: "...yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure." Except for the "well-meaning" bit that describes Carolyn exactly.

Malchus said: And yet Wood is a YEC. How does he manage the cognitive dissonance of holding those two positions simultaneously?

Except for the “well-meaning” bit that describes Carolyn exactly.

Please explain how being resistant or immune to HIV is caused by a beneficial mutation.

This example of beneficial mutations and HIV reminds me of why:

creationists are so evil and malevolent. If satan existed, he would be their leader.

Before modern medicine, a novel disease like HIV would have just burned through the entire population. For a few generations, most people would spend years being sick and die young. Eventually, the resistant segment would take over the population and we would forget all about it.

We don't have to do it this way anymore because of science, the subject they attack whenever they can on cult religious grounds.

raven said:

Except for the “well-meaning” bit that describes Carolyn exactly.

Carolyn is kris. He is using exactly the same fallacies and examples as the last time he trolled a thread. I now vaguely remember the Chlamydomonas eyespot fallacies. And jumping from subject to subject and moving the goal posts. Sockpuppeting.

Please explain how being resistant or immune to HIV is caused by a beneficial mutation.

J Infect Dis. 2010 Sep 15;202(6):908-15. Multiple-cohort genetic association study reveals CXCR6 as a new chemokine receptor involved in long-term nonprogression to AIDS. Limou S, Coulonges C, Herbeck JT, van Manen D, An P, Le Clerc S, Delaneau O, Diop G, Taing L, Montes M, van't Wout AB, Gottlieb GS, Therwath A, Rouzioux C, Delfraissy JF, Lelièvre JD, Lévy Y, Hercberg S, Dina C, Phair J, Donfield S, Goedert JJ, Buchbinder S, Estaquier J, Schächter F, Gut I, Froguel P, Mullins JI, Schuitemaker H, Winkler C, Zagury JF. Chaire de Bioinformatique, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers. Abstract BACKGROUND: The compilation of previous genomewide association studies of AIDS shows a major polymorphism in the HCP5 gene associated with both control of the viral load and long-term nonprogression (LTNP) to AIDS. METHODS: To look for genetic variants that affect LTNP without necessary control of the viral load, we reanalyzed the genomewide data of the unique LTNP Genomics of Resistance to Immunodeficiency Virus (GRIV) cohort by excluding "elite controller" patients, who were controlling the viral load at very low levels 100 copies/mL). RESULTS: The rs2234358 polymorphism in the CXCR6 gene was the strongest signal (P=2.5 x 10(-7); odds ratio, 1.85) obtained for the genomewide association study comparing the 186 GRIV LTNPs who were not elite controllers with 697 uninfected control subjects. This association was replicated in 3 additional independent European studies, reaching genomewide significance of P(combined)=9.7 x 10(-10). This association with LTNP is independent of the CCR2-CCR5 locus and the HCP5 polymorphisms. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical significance, the replication, and the magnitude of the association demonstrate that CXCR6 is likely involved in the molecular etiology of AIDS and, in particular, in LTNP, emphasizing the power of extreme-phenotype cohorts. CXCR6 is a chemokine receptor that is known as a minor coreceptor in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection but could participate in disease progression through its role as a mediator of inflammation.

Carolyn/Kris Troll demanded:

From actual REAL WORLD EXPERIMENTS, the odds of a random sequence having a selectable function is 1 in 10^9 to 1 in 10^15 - about 180+ orders of magnitude more likely than your ridiculous ‘calculation’

prove it

"Random peptide libraries displayed on the ribosome are becoming a new tool for the in vitro selection of biologically relevant macromolecules, including epitopes, antagonists, enzymes, and cell-surface receptors"

'EVOLVED' ENZYME HAS UNIQUE ACTION MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: Technique produced a protein that catalyzes RNA ligation STU BORMAN Chem. Eng. News, 2007, 85 (34), p 13 DOI: 10.1021/cen-v085n034.p013 Publication Date (Web): October 29, 2010 Copyright © 2007 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Abstract A WAY TO MAKE new types of enzymes has produced one that accelerates a ligation reaction that no other enzyme is known to catalyze. The approach, which could create enzymes that cleave and modify substrates in addition to linking them together, may aid basic research and speed the synthesis of drugs and other chemicals, among other applications. Research fellow Burckhard Seelig and molecular biology professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator Jack W. Szostak of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, devised the approach, which is based on messenger RNA (mRNA) display and in vitro selection ( Nature 2007,448, 828 ).

raven said: Using in vitro evolution and random peptide libraries, Seelig and Szostak have been able to evolve enzymes that perform reactions that have never even been seen in nature. In this case an RNA ligase.

raven said:

Except for the “well-meaning” bit that describes Carolyn exactly.

Carolyn is kris. He is using exactly the same fallacies and examples as the last time he trolled a thread. I now vaguely remember the Chlamydomonas eyespot fallacies. And jumping from subject to subject and moving the goal posts. Sockpuppeting.

Please explain how being resistant or immune to HIV is caused by a beneficial mutation.

This is trivial. Figure it out yourself. 1. Any two humans can differ by up to 15 million bp, a huge amount and what makes each of us differ, variation. 2. The mutation rate in humans by DNA sequencing analysis runs about 150 bp per generation per genome. This is what produces said variation. 3. HIV, untreated is almost 100% fatal. Almost. We now know that a small percentage of people are either resistant to infection or are capable of suppressing the virus once infected, i.e. long term nonprogressors or elite cotrollers. The advantages of not dying should be obvious even to creationist trolls.

Raven says: "The advantages of not dying should be obvious even to creationist trolls"

To a fundy, HIV is god's punishment for gay sinners. They are supposed to die. If everything is designed by god, then this mutation must also be made by god and it must mean that god doesn't want some gays to die.

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

The trolls seem to be reaching the "Youre being mean to me" stage very quickly.

nmgirl said: If everything is designed by god, then this mutation must also be made by god and it must mean that god doesn't want some gays to die.

Malchus said: Yes. I suspected it might be Kris. He didn't like losing every argument he tried to put forward, and being treated as a dishonest person. I didn't think he'd take it lying down.

nmgirl said: The trolls seem to be reaching the "Youre being mean to me" stage very quickly.

Carolyn J said:

From actual REAL WORLD EXPERIMENTS, the odds of a random sequence having a selectable function is 1 in 10^9 to 1 in 10^15 - about 180+ orders of magnitude more likely than your ridiculous ‘calculation’

prove it

the ability of repeated cycles of mutation FILTERED BY SELECTION to create information has been demonstrated many times over.

prove it

As well as computer programs that EVOLVE the ability to perform logical operations (the initial programs can only replicate; they are granted more cycle time by being able to perform logical operations on input strings - and, unlike Dembski at Dover, the programs were rewarded only IF THEY COULD DO SOMETHING)

Right, and it was the intelligent computer programmer that rewarded them. NS gets zero rewards until it hits on that gene that can actually work, but since the odds of a functional gene forming spontaneously is astronomical it will never get rewarded.

mutation/selection is quite creative.

You need to plan in order to be creative, NS acting on RM can't do that.

Someone said I committed the one true fallacy, I didn't, I specifically said that 50% of amino acids can be different and a protein can still work.

The troll is clearly unaware of Jocelyn Bell and Tony Hewish’s 1967 discovery of an incredibly regular radio signal from light-years away. Their first thoughts, naturally, were that these were the work of alien intelligences and they even called the signal LGM for “little green men.” They investigated further and discovered that the signal was from a rapidly spinning neutron star. We now call these stars pulsars and Hewish won the Nobel for it

(Bell was controversially omitted).

I am a little ate to the party, put WRT this character Carolyn, what is the difference between natural and artificial selection? There’s got to be something for selection to work on, regardless of whether natural or supernatural causes for the variation? Isn’t the cause of genetic variation irrelevant; won’t natural selection decide the outcome anyway?

Differential reproductive success is what it is. Or is Carolyn trying to sell genetic nihilism?

Carolyn proves once a gain, that if you ignore all of the evidence, make crap up without any evidence, then demand evidence from everyone else, that you can do the creationist fertility dance. Just put your hands over your eyes, close your mind completely, click your heels together three times and repeat "we're not in Kansas anymore". Everyone else will be completely fooled and you will win every time. Especially if you don't take your hands away from your eyes.

Now who else do we know who uses this same routine? EIther they are all the same poster, or they at least all study under the same Jedi master. A little green guy with pointed ears I think. May the farce be with you.

I recommend this 1852 essay by Herbert Spencer which points out that the anti-evolutionists have no alternative:

Herbert Spencer, The Development Hypothesis

Someone said I committed the one true fallacy, I didn’t, I specifically said that 50% of amino acids can be different and a protein can still work.

Who cares what Luskin thinks? He probably loves the Pandas Thumb because you are the only people who pay attention to him.

mutation/selection is quite creative. You need to plan in order to be creative, NS acting on RM can’t do that.

@william e emba

Thanks for the extra information on he history of pulsar research. I like hearing stories about scientists who were spurned only to be vindicated later. The problem with the ID crowd is they portray themselves as the spurned geniuses but do not understand that (i) it takes *evidence* to switch from spurned to vindicated, and (ii) even the worst examples of modern scientific oversight were rectified within a generation...meanwhile creationism has been losing its battles since 1859.

Carolyn J said: Stanton, I don't debate people who think Ad Hominem attacks are useful. When you say "you have less than an elementary school level of science education," that's an Ad Hominem attack. I'm going to ask Elsberry to give you a warning because that's not the kind of behavior that he wants to promote at his website.

Klaus H said:

Carolyn J said: Stanton, I don't debate people who think Ad Hominem attacks are useful. When you say "you have less than an elementary school level of science education," that's an Ad Hominem attack. I'm going to ask Elsberry to give you a warning because that's not the kind of behavior that he wants to promote at his website.

So, now you try a different excuse for your evasion. You do not seem to know what or why Stanton's QUESTION wasn't one.

Casey's argument reminds me of the Dave Chapelle skit talking about if he were on the OJ, R Kelly, etc. juries.

With two important differences. One: Chapelle's demand for for ridiculous levels of proof was intended to be funny. Two: it achieved its purpose (well, IMO).

Chris Lawson said: I like hearing stories about scientists who were spurned only to be vindicated later.

Couple of unrelated comments: On common descent falsification, there is a "shadow biosphere" theory, unsupported by evidence at this time, of organisms of either alien origin, or from origins of live other than the one which produced life as we know it. An organism with a completely different genetic code would support this theory.

In 1959, in a required MS level geology course, I received a half semester tirade against continental drift. I used to have a 25 page purple mimeograph handout about it.
Basic problem was that continents were pictured as ships sailing in a sea of denser rock, but no evidence of bow waves or wakes. Also no proposed force or propulsive mechanism. Plate tectonics is a rather different concept of how continents would be moved around, and was widely accepted with a few years time after my experience.

Jim Thomrson said: Couple of unrelated comments: On common descent falsification, there is a "shadow biosphere" theory, unsupported by evidence at this time, of organisms of either alien origin, or from origins of live other than the one which produced life as we know it. An organism with a completely different genetic code would support this theory.

We need to remind ourselves from time to time that Darwinism is more than a scientific idea, and more than the seed of a social philosophy or worldview. It's also a prime example of the kind of rigid thinking -- the idée fixe or fixed idea -- that bedevils seemingly unrelated fields having to do with diet, therapy, advice, and self-help, with results that are sometimes comic, sometimes more unfortunate than that.

Fixed-idea thinking maniacally jams all cases, facts, and individuals into the same simplistic interpretive mold, yielding a single model for evaluating behavior, therapeutic treatment, diet, or what have you. In our culture, this counterfeit of wisdom is often mistaken for the real thing, of which we're largely bereft. Authors, gurus, and therapists have discovered it's possible to fuel a lucrative career by selling as universally applicable a single insight into the nature of some human beings -- maybe a group of people no more populous than that of the self-help author and his own spouse or her own child or family.

Which brings us back to Darwinism, specifically to Darwinian evolutionary psychology. The latter is a field that embarrasses even other Darwinists, who pride themselves on the "rigor" of their own scientific theorizing, a boast that can be sustained only because the claims of evolutionary psychology are less technical and thus easier to make fun of. Yet whether considering the evolution of the cell or the psyche, Darwin's theory is always the same obsessively fixed idea, cramming everything we see in nature into the same bursting interpretive suitcase and jumping up and down on the lid to get the blasted thing shut.

Darwinism is the mother of all fixed ideas, corroding the picture of ourselves we carry in our heads with a vision of nature in its entirety reduced to flat, ultimately sterile and dead matter chasing round a cosmic drain hole. Yes, it very much matters who we think we are. If Darwinian reductionism is right, we're nothing more than meat on its path to putrefaction. Other, older and deeper views -- various forms of theism, traditionalism, conservatism, call it what you will -- hold out the hope that we are something not so easily defined, something greater, more mysterious and, at least potentially, more noble.

You and me, baby are much more than mammals So says the group called the Discovery Institute

Reductionism and creationism go hand in hand. The real world is far more marvelous than creationists can imagine. Pity on them.

I have a few questions. I wasn't able to read the actual article in Nature since I don't have a subscription and I have only read the summaries of others. I trust that someone here has actually read the article.

The article states that a gene database was searched for matching subseqences. Were non-coding regions searched as well?

How long is the code for the digestive emzyeme that has matching subsequences.

How long is the code for the antifreeze protien?

How log were the matching end points?

Do these matching end points match the end points of other genes?

I would also like to know if the number of chomosomes that the two compared species have match and if the two compared genes were on the same chromosome.

Intelligent Designer said: I have a few questions. I wasn't able to read the actual article in Nature since I don't have a subscription and I have only read the summaries of others. I trust that someone here has actually read the article. The article states that a gene database was searched for matching subseqences. Were non-coding regions searched as well? How long is the code for the digestive emzyeme that has matching subsequences. How long is the code for the antifreeze protien? How long were the matching end points? Do these matching end points match the end points of other genes? I would also like to know if the number of chomosomes that the two compared species have match and if the two compared genes were on the same chromosome.

Wow! A lot of nitpicking. And if any of the answers to the questions is “No”, your response may be, “See, this is not proof of evolution!!!!!!1111!!!!”

Intelligent Designer said: I have a few questions. I wasn't able to read the actual article in Nature since I don't have a subscription and I have only read the summaries of others. I trust that someone here has actually read the article. The article states that a gene database was searched for matching subseqences. Were non-coding regions searched as well?

How long is the code for the digestive emzyeme that has matching subsequences.

How long is the code for the antifreeze protien?

How log were the matching end points?

Do these matching end points match the end points of other genes?

Intelligent Designer said: How long is the code for the digestive emzyeme that has matching subsequences. How long is the code for the antifreeze protien? How log were the matching end points? Do these matching end points match the end points of other genes?

It would also be interesting to know how they compare nucleotides. Do they actually compare the nucleotides for a match or do they compare taking into account equivalent codons.

The probability of exactly matching a 9 letter nucleotide sequence is 1 in 262144. The chances of a match taking into account equivelent codons is 1 in 8000.

I think asking questions about how comparisons are made affects the plausability of the conclusions that were drawn from the data.

Intelligent Designer said: I think asking questions about how comparisons are made affects the plausability of the conclusions that were drawn from the data.

Intelligent Designer said: It would also be interesting to know how they compare nucleotides. Do they actually compare the nucleotides for a match or do they compare taking into account equivalent codons. The probability of exactly matching a 9 letter nucleotide sequence is 1 in 262144. The chances of a match taking into account equivelent codons is 1 in 8000. I think asking questions about how comparisons are made affects the plausability of the conclusions that were drawn from the data.

Intelligent Designer said: It would also be interesting to know how they compare nucleotides. Do they actually compare the nucleotides for a match or do they compare taking into account equivalent codons. The probability of exactly matching a 9 letter nucleotide sequence is 1 in 262144. The chances of a match taking into account equivelent codons is 1 in 8000. I think asking questions about how comparisons are made affects the plausability of the conclusions that were drawn from the data.

RBH FTW.

RBH said: Go away and study.

Given the way Intelligent Design proponents behave, you might as well have asked him to count all the sand grains in the Gobi.

Carolyn J said: ...Let's say we see a signal as such: 1 2 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 There are three possibilities as to the generator of that signal: chance, physical law, or design. Design is the most logical choice because only design can be accomplished by intelligence. Only intelligence knows about prime numbers...

Science Avenger said:

Carolyn J said: ...Let's say we see a signal as such: 1 2 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 There are three possibilities as to the generator of that signal: chance, physical law, or design. Design is the most logical choice because only design can be accomplished by intelligence. Only intelligence knows about prime numbers...

Or even that strange sequence of numbers you gave us. How fucking sad is that? You can't even get your own bullshit right.

Science Avenger said: Or even that strange sequence of numbers you gave us.

Carolyn J said: ...Let's say we see a signal as such: 1 2 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 There are three possibilities as to the generator of that signal: chance, physical law, or design. Design is the most logical choice because only design can be accomplished by intelligence. Only intelligence knows about prime numbers...

stevaroni said: Um... so did you find a long string of prime numbers in your genome, Carolyn? Or is this yet another hypothetical "mark of the designer" argument?

mrg said:

stevaroni said: Um... so did you find a long string of prime numbers in your genome, Carolyn? Or is this yet another hypothetical "mark of the designer" argument?

Hmm ... "Let say we see a signal of: 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 ... Design is the only logical choice. Natural processes couldn't approximate a sequence of such values."

mrg said:

stevaroni said: Um... so did you find a long string of prime numbers in your genome, Carolyn? Or is this yet another hypothetical "mark of the designer" argument?

Hmm ... "Let say we see a signal of: 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 ... Design is the only logical choice. Natural processes couldn't approximate a sequence of such values."

sylvilagus said: I think your FIB-ing about that.

Jim Thomrson said: Couple of unrelated comments: On common descent falsification, there is a "shadow biosphere" theory, unsupported by evidence at this time, of organisms of either alien origin, or from origins of live other than the one which produced life as we know it. An organism with a completely different genetic code would support this theory. In 1959, in a required MS level geology course, I received a half semester tirade against continental drift. I used to have a 25 page purple mimeograph handout about it. Basic problem was that continents were pictured as ships sailing in a sea of denser rock, but no evidence of bow waves or wakes. Also no proposed force or propulsive mechanism. Plate tectonics is a rather different concept of how continents would be moved around, and was widely accepted with a few years time after my experience.

Luskin's argument is too crude to merit the name of sophistry. By calling natural selection a "magic wand," he is assuming the very point he is trying to prove--that evolution by natural selection is a false or incomplete explanation of speciation.

In other words, stripped of pseudo academic flourishes, his entire argument is founded upon question begging. We can ignore the fiddly-bits, leaving more time to marvel at the dishonesty of the IDeist mind.

The duplication and billion years thing - there might be duplications all the time, but there is no positive selection for them and they are lost (reaching only a rare population frequency that we don't spot), like a red headed orphan raised in Tibet. How many generations would that red headed trait last in the population?

Also, many of those (partial)duplications are harmful - Down's syndrome, many cancers. Posters at ASHG are loaded with photos of kids and embryos with chromosomal mutations that leave them deformed or dead. It's extremely common, but these traits are negatively selected.

So it's not a billion years to get a beneficial mutation, it's only every billion years that an environmental condition AND a duplication of ONE gene act to favorably select that gene. But when the conditions change and new traits are needed, natural selection promotes them from the ranks.

Or to put it more familiar terms - by the end of ww2, you could become a Luftwaffe pilot in a couple weeks because the death rate was so high. Sometimes there's nothing like tremendous mayhem to send positive selection into overdrive.

And unfortunately with the boulder analogy, God never gives us proof of his divine guidance, like having those boulders spontaneously assemble into a nice bungalow at the base of the cliff.

Nope, Irreducible Complexity only gets invoked as a convenient attack on scientific theories. Where is it other times? Where are the spontaneously formed houses? How could God be so careless as to not do that for us? Where are the clouds in the perfect shapes of Euclidean solids? Why aren't any of the Great Lakes in the perfectly detailed outline of a pony? Why don't butterfly wings have Bible verses on them?

Back to that scenario about children with chromsomal duplications or deletions - these traits can be recessive, so when you see one of these cases and they show the pedigree of some family from an isolated population like a village in Malta, you see that the child is the result of the kids gandparents being cousins and the father married his own aunt. Natural selection in a large population only reveals these duplications rarely, but just a little selection (such as inbreeding) in an isolated population shows that the actual rate of gene rearrangements is much much higher than you would suspect, and thus cousins should not marry. And when conditions change, there are lots of mutations available to be selected, and probably a population bottleneck that will swiftly increase the allelic frequency of the mutation.

If mutations were as rare as the ID people imply, there would no harm in siblings marrying each other generation after generation, and even illiterate nomads know more science than that.