These Weeks in Intelligent Design - 18/05/11

Posted 18 May 2011 by Jack Scanlan

Intelligent design news from the 28th of April to the 18th of May, 2011.

Finally! It's back again, your fix of ID news and discussion. To make up for my three-week-long absence, this post will cover five of the top ID blog posts from the past three weeks. Lucky for me then that it hasn't been an especially busy time for the ID community during my break - otherwise I'd have a much bigger job on my hands.

Anyway, enough grovelling, let's get into it.

Today's posts are about Osama bin Laden and junk DNA, Oxford University and evolutionary mathematics, dissent in the evolutionary ranks, enzyme evolution, and, of course, junk DNA.

69 Comments

hiero5ant · 18 May 2011

What.

The.

Monkeyballs.

Klinghoffer is *literally* casting doubt on the evidence that bin Laden is dead. The DNA similarities *could*, after all, be a product of intelligent reuse for a common design.

Mike Elzinga · 19 May 2011

For half a century, mathematicians have been telling Darwinists to get stuffed. If only that would change! Maybe if we enter the figures again and push the "equals" button on our hand calculator just one more time, it will give a different answer. I've sometimes wished the same in seeing what the balance in our family checking account will be once those outstanding checks are cashed.

That “mathematicians” must have been Granville Sewell, who also essentially told the physicists to get stuffed with his “thermodynamic refutation” of evolution.

harold · 19 May 2011

The Klinghoffer quotes about "junk" DNA were brought up at another thread quite a few weeks ago. To summarize - 1) The nucleotide sequences of genes are constrained by natural selection, whereas the sequence and volume of "junk" DNA don't seem to be, which is why it is more variable from individual to individual, and why sharing of alleles between individuals can be more confidently assigned to genealogy; the forensic uses, in short, are based on and reinforce the fact of its different nature from genes. 2) We have a very good idea where some of it came from and how it spreads itself throughout the genome. For full disclosure, I don't particularly like the term "junk" DNA, as it has a teleological/anthropomorphic flavor to me (subjective), but use it because it has become the standard.

Klinghoffer's comments about mathematics and natural selection are merely based on a very typical creationist quote mine.

Here is how the quote continues (emphasis mine)...

"...However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads
to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in
itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. One underlying
cause is that the link between natural selection and fitness optimization is much more
sophisticated than the usual optimization principles associated with dynamical systems,
namely Lyapunov functions and gradient functions."

In fairness to Klinghoffer, the language of the Oxford quote also seems misleading to me. I am ready to stand corrected, but I have never heard of any population geneticist denying that by definition, alleles which are selected for increase in frequency in a population (nor does the quote say that they do, but an unsophisticated reader could get that impression). To my eye the Oxford quote subjectively exaggerates the level of "controversy" in order to make the position sound especially exciting.

John Kwok · 19 May 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
For half a century, mathematicians have been telling Darwinists to get stuffed. If only that would change! Maybe if we enter the figures again and push the "equals" button on our hand calculator just one more time, it will give a different answer. I've sometimes wished the same in seeing what the balance in our family checking account will be once those outstanding checks are cashed.
That “mathematicians” must have been Granville Sewell, who also essentially told the physicists to get stuffed with his “thermodynamic refutation” of evolution.

Considering that David never concentrated (Brown's term for majored) in Mathematics, he doesn't know that one of the foremost ecologists of the 20th Century, the late Robert MacArthur, used a lot of mathematics in his pioneering work in theoretical ecology back in the 1950s until his untimely death from cancer in 1972 (MacArthur earned his Ph. D. in biology at Yale, studying under the great G. Evelyn Hutchinson, but, prior to that, earned an A. M. degree in Applied Mathematics from Brown.). And of course, needless to say, there has been a lot of theoretical work in evolutionary biology, ranging from ecology to population genetics (especially, for example, R. A. Fisher's work) and even paleobiology, that has been supported via extensive usage of mathematics. Just goes to show you that David isn't interested in checking his facts, even when he's been confronted with his lies about Darwin equals Hitler again and again.

DS · 19 May 2011

Harold wrote:

"In fairness to Klinghoffer, the language of the Oxford quote also seems misleading to me. I am ready to stand corrected, but I have never heard of any population geneticist denying that by definition, alleles which are selected for increase in frequency in a population (nor does the quote say that they do, but an unsophisticated reader could get that impression). To my eye the Oxford quote subjectively exaggerates the level of “controversy” in order to make the position sound especially exciting."

Once again, you are correct sir. Assuming that Klinghoffer is referring to the neutral theory, there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever between this and natural selection. More specifically, the neutral theory explains the amount of genetic variation we find in natural populations. This in no way implies that natural selection cannot or does not operate or that favorable alleles do not increase in frequency due to selection. It is simply a consequence of the fact of random mutations in a genome filled with sequences that are not under strong functional constraint. This is of course exactly what is predicted if random mutations and natural selection have shaped the genome.

With regards to DNA fingerprinting and genetic markers for forensics, we know precisely what the genetic mechanisms are that generate the variation and we know that the variation is not functionally constrained for the loci that are commonly used. Once again, this is exactly what one expects if random mutation and natural selection have shaped the human genome. We take advantage of this knowledge in choosing the loci that are most helpful for individual identification purposes. Any creationist who tries to claim that any of this is evidence of anything but random mutation and natural selection is lying.

Science Avenger · 19 May 2011

For half a century, mathematicians have been telling Darwinists to get stuffed.

As I am fond of reminding creationists, and as anyone who's spent a lot of time around mathematicians knows, if there were truly a mathematical problem with evolution, nothing on earth could shut the mathematical community up about it. Having no professional interest in evolution one way or another, they would be calling for Darwin's scalp in all the journals. Ditto for physicists. Cold fusion anyone? And yet the journals remain strangely silent...except perhaps to point out how full of shit creationist math is. I'm looking at you Cornelius Hunter.

DS · 19 May 2011

The Klinghoffer claim is just more of the same old creationist nonsense. Any time the predictions of evolutionary theory are proven correct by new evidence, this is somehow proof that evolution is not true. Klinghoffer claims that evolutionary theory predicted that "junk DNA" would exist. Now, when" junk DNA" is successfully used for forensic testing, this is somehow a problem for evolutionary theory!

News flash for you Einstein, DNA fingerprinting has been going on for many years. We have known about the existence of hundreds of thousands of STR sequences in the human genome for a very long time. Most of them are under no selective constraint. Indeed, of the thirteen core loci used for CODIS, only one of them is even in a region of a chromosome that displays any background selection at all. That is is fact one of the criteria by which the loci are selected for use in forensics. Selection would violate the assumptions of forensic testing and significantly alter the probability of a random match. So once again, evolutionary theory is confirmed by empirical evidence, in this case forming the basis of an entire field of science.

And this in no way invalidates the fact that selection also occurs in other areas of the genome. Indeed, there is evidence for selective sweeps in many regions of the human genome since the time that humans and chimps last shared a common ancestor. That is how humans evolved.

Of course, I can provide references for all of this if anyone is interested. Suffice it to say that Klinghoffer is once again tilting at windmills that he can't even see through his tainted sunglasses.

ATHEISTOCLAST · 19 May 2011

And yet the journals remain strangely silent...except perhaps to point out how full of shit creationist math is. I'm looking at you Cornelius Hunter.

LOL. The mathematical and natural limits to biological change is actually a major areas of research in evolutionary theory. This spans everything from gene and networks to protein folding, intracellular systems, population genetics, etc etc.... It is out there...if you would only care to read the scientific papers published by the journals.

harold · 19 May 2011

ATHEISTOCLAST said:
And yet the journals remain strangely silent...except perhaps to point out how full of shit creationist math is. I'm looking at you Cornelius Hunter.
LOL. The mathematical and natural limits to biological change is actually a major areas of research in evolutionary theory. This spans everything from gene and networks to protein folding, intracellular systems, population genetics, etc etc.... It is out there...if you would only care to read the scientific papers published by the journals.

Everyone - 1) It is obvious to every reasonable person that there are natural limits to biological change, but there is no need to resort to magic for explaining the evolution of the biosphere. In fact, the theory of evolution acknowledges the constraints of reality, and creationism claims that modern organisms can be magically created out of nothing. 2) This individual has published a paper under the name Joseph Bozogmehr http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=joseph%20bozorgmehr. The paper may be technically valid, for all I know, but is not related to his creationist claims. 3) His creationist claims amount to a denial of the well known fact gene duplication, a common event in many eukaryote lineages, may sometimes lead to novel functionality, due to relative lack of selection pressure on the redundant copy http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WG1-4KJV32X-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b255defe1520bc4a43b4ebd64605dfe7&searchtype=a. (This is merely an example publication.) In another thread, his arguments consisted solely of noting that novel function may arise without gene duplication, and that not all gene duplication has led to novel function; both of these statements are true and neither is a logical contradiction of the fact that gene duplication sometimes leads to emergence of proteins with novel function. 3. He also plays a lot of useless word games about what is "new" or "novel". 4. He also misunderstands the theory of evolution, frequently insisting that incremental change is not an example of evolution. Another example of a "creationist arguing against creationism"; it is creationism that claims magical sudden appearance of lineages from nowhere. 5. He has stated that "the designer" is the Elohim, but is unable or unwilling to say what the designer did, when, or how.

mrg · 19 May 2011

6: He also rants, sulks, and throws tantrums a great deal.

Atheistoclast · 19 May 2011

harold said: 1) It is obvious to every reasonable person that there are natural limits to biological change.

Actually, I would say that most evolutionists think that, with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else.

In fact, the theory of evolution acknowledges the constraints of reality, and creationism claims that modern organisms can be magically created out of nothing.

Many IDers accept universal common descent. I know Behe does even if Dembski does not. What he disputes is the efficacy of the Darwininian mechanism: natural selection.

2) This individual has published a paper under the name Joseph Bozogmehr http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=joseph%20bozorgmehr. The paper may be technically valid, for all I know, but is not related to his creationist claims.

IF you care to read the paper, you will find that it argues that natural selection can and has compensated for prior degeneration in a gene family and that this corrective action may be misunderstood for biochemical innovation - it just means a return to square one: No functional change.

3) His creationist claims amount to a denial of the well known fact gene duplication, a common event in many eukaryote lineages, may sometimes lead to novel functionality, due to relative lack of selection pressure on the redundant copy.

Unlike you, I have read the Scherer paper in-depth and have written about it in another that was reported here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-peer-reviewed-paper-challenges-darwinian-evolution/ What Scherer et al found is that many duplicates have been affected by a degenerative frameshift mutation - this is because there is an appreciable relaxation of purifying selection in their case. One of the genes mentioned in the paper HTR3D, if I recall, has completely lost its N-terminus thanks to a frameshift. Yet, Scherer thinks this gene contributes to the diversity of the protein repertoire.

He has stated that "the designer" is the Elohim, but is unable or unwilling to say what the designer did, when, or how.

I have proposed directed evolution by artificial selection - that is how humans create and design new protein functions. Unfortunately, we need a time machine to go back into the past and find out how things happened. However, babies are being created every day in their mothers' wombs - creation is happening in your very midst. And materialist biologists really don't know how a fertilized egg becomes a newborn: only the physico-chemical particularities involved. It really is "magic and mystery" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.20357/pdf ID rules OK.

Karen S. · 19 May 2011

However, babies are being created every day in their mothers’ wombs - creation is happening in your very midst. And materialist biologists really don’t know how a fertilized egg becomes a newborn: only the physico-chemical particularities involved. It really is “magic and mystery”

So why are there so many spontaneous abortions? Is designer angry with the mother?

Dale Husband · 19 May 2011

ATHEISTOCLAST the liar vomited: LOL. The mathematical and natural limits to biological change is actually a major areas of research in evolutionary theory. This spans everything from gene and networks to protein folding, intracellular systems, population genetics, etc etc.... It is out there...if you would only care to read the scientific papers published by the journals.

Does this mean you don't beleive in crockoducks?

Actually, I would say that most evolutionists think that, with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else.

No, that's a lie. I know of no evolutionist who says anything so stupid.

Many IDers accept universal common descent. I know Behe does even if Dembski does not. What he disputes is the efficacy of the Darwininian mechanism: natural selection. IF you care to read the paper, you will find that it argues that natural selection can and has compensated for prior degeneration in a gene family and that this corrective action may be misunderstood for biochemical innovation - it just means a return to square one: No functional change. Unlike you, I have read the Scherer paper in-depth and have written about it in another that was reported here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-peer-reviewed-paper-challenges-darwinian-evolution/ What Scherer et al found is that many duplicates have been affected by a degenerative frameshift mutation - this is because there is an appreciable relaxation of purifying selection in their case. One of the genes mentioned in the paper HTR3D, if I recall, has completely lost its N-terminus thanks to a frameshift. Yet, Scherer thinks this gene contributes to the diversity of the protein repertoire.

You keep assuming that your critics have not read certain papers. That's a cop-out. Deal with the actual criticisms and quit ducking them by merely repeating useless crap!

I have proposed directed evolution by artificial selection - that is how humans create and design new protein functions. Unfortunately, we need a time machine to go back into the past and find out how things happened. However, babies are being created every day in their mothers' wombs - creation is happening in your very midst. And materialist biologists really don't know how a fertilized egg becomes a newborn: only the physico-chemical particularities involved. It really is "magic and mystery" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.20357/pdf ID rules OK.

Moron, how about all those miscarriages of embryos and fetuses we know about, along with so many deformed children who, even if they survive, are not as fit as normal children?

Frank J · 19 May 2011

As I am fond of reminding creationists, and as anyone who’s spent a lot of time around mathematicians knows, if there were truly a mathematical problem with evolution, nothing on earth could shut the mathematical community up about it.
— Science Avenger

Nice point, but it only reminds me why I rarely use the word "creationists." If by "creationists" you mean anti-evolution activists, they know that, but lie about it anyway. If you mean the hopeless ~25% that won't accept evolution under any circumstances they won't believe it no matter hhow much evidence you shoe them. But if you mean nonscientists who have uncritically bought anti-science sound bites, you might get somewhere.

Frank J · 19 May 2011

A lot of people in the anti-ID community see ID proponents as being unintelligent pot-stirrers, but this is rarely the case, at least for the upper levels of the Discovery Institute. No, they know what they’re doing, they’re not stupid. They might be misguided, biased and uninformed, but they don’t lack a savvy sense of self-awareness. If anything, public relations is the Discovery Institute’s strongest suit, even given their religious/scientific image problems.
— Jack Scanlan

Thanks!!! Another thing I avoid is contributing to the endless claims that IDers (or "creationists") "believe this" or "don't undertand that." All it takes is one retort of "I don't have a problem with an old earth" or a few technical terms tossed out, and fence-sitters see us with egg on our faces. However justified those accusations may be in some cases, at best they add nothing to the "debate." These guys are devious wordsmiths, and know exactly which questions to evade to keep as many evolution-deniers and potential evolution deniers in the big tent.

DS · 19 May 2011

Atheist wrote:

"Actually, I would say that most evolutionists think that, with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else."

Great. Then you won't mind providing a reference now will you. Because this is exactly the opposite of what every evolutionary biologist I know claims.

Stanton · 19 May 2011

DS said: Atheist wrote: "Actually, I would say that most evolutionists think that, with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else." Great. Then you won't mind providing a reference now will you. Because this is exactly the opposite of what every evolutionary biologist I know claims.

The only people who say that "evolutionists believe that cats can evolve into dogs" or vice versa are creationists.

TomS · 19 May 2011

I wonder how many evolutionists think that a shmoo can evolve, or a roc, or a centaur.

Such things can only be designed.

Frank J · 19 May 2011

TomS said: I wonder how many evolutionists think that a shmoo can evolve, or a roc, or a centaur. Such things can only be designed.

And a troll is a "fixed kind." ;-)

Atheistoclast · 19 May 2011

Karen S. said:
However, babies are being created every day in their mothers’ wombs - creation is happening in your very midst. And materialist biologists really don’t know how a fertilized egg becomes a newborn: only the physico-chemical particularities involved. It really is “magic and mystery”
So why are there so many spontaneous abortions? Is designer angry with the mother?

Why does the Creator allow people succumb to disease and die? These are moral questions which troubled Darwin. I think the error-prone nature of DNA explains this. If a gene encodes a faulty protein then the result could be tragic. From a theological viewpoint, the imperfection of DNA replication is part of our "sinful nature".

Atheistoclast · 19 May 2011

Didn't Jerry Fodor attack Darwinism because of the fallacy of supposing that pigs could evolve wings and take to the skies?

Why can't pigs fly? Are they just too fat? Why can't humans sprout wings and become angels? I would love to be able to fly to work every morning.

If you lot think a dog-like creature like Pakicetus can evolve into a blue whale through some genetic mutations then you can believe anything. As Dembski has said, the transmutation of species is essentially "alchemy".

DS · 19 May 2011

Atheist,

So that would be a no. You don't have any reference whatsoever to substantiate your bullshit. You just made shit up and expected everybody to believe it. You have no idea what evolutionary theory is all about and yet you try to represent yourself as some kind of expert. Complete ignorance or blatant dishonesty are your only possible excuses. No one cares which excuse you use.

Jack,

Do yourself a favor and banish this guy to the bathroom wall now. He hasn't made a comment about the topic of the thread and it is obvious h=that all he is trying to do is disrupt the conversation.

Dale Husband · 19 May 2011

Atheistoclast said: Yip yip yip yip yip yap yap yap yap.

Paul Burnett · 19 May 2011

Atheistoclast said: From a theological viewpoint, the imperfection of DNA replication is part of our "sinful nature".

Thank you for proving once again that - like all creationists - you're talking about religion and not science.

Karen S. · 19 May 2011

Why does the Creator allow people succumb to disease and die?

Actually, wouldn't it get kind of crowded down here with births but no deaths? The planet would become uninhabitable without sin, wouldn't it? Still there is another rapture scheduled for May 21, which should help with current overcrowding. Hope your bags are packed.

John Kwok · 19 May 2011

Atheistoclast the mendacious delusional IDiotic creobot barked:
Karen S. said:
However, babies are being created every day in their mothers’ wombs - creation is happening in your very midst. And materialist biologists really don’t know how a fertilized egg becomes a newborn: only the physico-chemical particularities involved. It really is “magic and mystery”
So why are there so many spontaneous abortions? Is designer angry with the mother?
Why does the Creator allow people succumb to disease and die? These are moral questions which troubled Darwin. I think the error-prone nature of DNA explains this. If a gene encodes a faulty protein then the result could be tragic. From a theological viewpoint, the imperfection of DNA replication is part of our "sinful nature".

Why would the Intelligent Designer allow women to undergo such illogical waste? Or subject them to the discomfort of an approximately month-long menstrual cycle? Or force them to undergo the pain of childbirth? Wouldn't you say that the Intelligent Designer in its/his/her omniscient omnipotent state, which to ease such pains in women?

John Kwok · 19 May 2011

Karen S. said: Still there is another rapture scheduled for May 21, which should help with current overcrowding. Hope your bags are packed.

Mine are already. I am all ready to declare my oath of loyalty to my one true Master; the bringer of Light himself, Lucifer!!!! I acknowledge Lucifer as my saviour!!!!

Nomad · 19 May 2011

So regarding all this "evolutionists believe anything can evolve into anything" business.. I was going to point out that a creationist once claimed that the fact that people haven't evolved wings and gained the ability to fly is an argument against evolution. I was going to point out what a bizarre argument the "I demand that evolution do anything I want at a moments notice, otherwise it can't do anything" argument is. And then this happened:

Atheistoclast said:Why can't humans sprout wings and become angels? I would love to be able to fly to work every morning.

The thing is.. why start with the fantastic? How about we start off with the mundane? Maybe the human back could be designed a bit better? Maybe we could redo that whole prostate concept so that it's not able to shut off the only exit route the male body has to eliminate urine. Perhaps we could save a whole bunch of people the need for surgery by just deleting the appendix. Why is it always wings?

fnxtr · 20 May 2011

Karen S. said:
Why does the Creator allow people succumb to disease and die?
Actually, wouldn't it get kind of crowded down here with births but no deaths? The planet would become uninhabitable without sin, wouldn't it? Still there is another rapture scheduled for May 21, which should help with current overcrowding. Hope your bags are packed.

Ever read the Philip Jose Farmer story about Hell getting more and more crowded?

Dave Luckett · 20 May 2011

Probably the heaviest animal ever to fly - defined as having the sustained capacity to use naturally generated lift to increase height in air - was the late Cretaceous pterodactyloid pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus. Estimates of its weight are very problematical - maybe about 120-150 kg. A minority of current expert opinion puts the weight at over 200 kgs. This range puts it more than a quantum leap beyond the heaviest current sustained flyer, either the Kori Bustard or the Great Bustard at about 15-18 kgs. It probably generated lift from wave forms like a modern albatross, or relied entirely on thermals.

One or two current researchers even believe that the animal was flightless, despite its clear adaptations for flight. This appears to me to be more a rejective reaction to the idea that an animal so large could fly, than anything else.

For the fact is that Quetzalcoatlus was extremely highly adapted for flight - yet it was still a tetrapod, which illustrates how evolution actually works. A large terrestrial animal did not grow wings as extra limbs and fly. A small climbing animal evolved gliding surfaces that natural selection refined into true wings that further natural selection hyperdeveloped to exploit a particular niche, while other environmental factors favoured increased size. This process continued until an extremely specialised and highly developed form was reached that pushed the boundaries of the physically possible, yet did not vary the basic body plan of all vertebrates.

Rolf Aalberg · 20 May 2011

Actually, I would say that most evolutionists think that, with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else.

A person saying a most silly thing like that is disqualified by default.

Karen S. · 20 May 2011

Ever read the Philip Jose Farmer story about Hell getting more and more crowded?

No, tell me more! What is the title? I assume that in the story only A-clast goes to heaven?

Atheistoclast · 20 May 2011

Rolf Aalberg said:
Actually, I would say that most evolutionists think that, with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else.
A person saying a most silly thing like that is disqualified by default.

And yet evolutionists believe that most of the genes in the genome have evolved from duplicates of more ancient genes of a completely different functional type. For example, I suspect most evolutionary geneticists would not balk at the idea that a duplicate of a cyclin could evolve into an integrin. They would call it "exaptation".

Dale Husband · 20 May 2011

Atheistoclast said: And yet evolutionists believe that most of the genes in the genome have evolved from duplicates of more ancient genes of a completely different functional type. For example, I suspect most evolutionary geneticists would not balk at the idea that a duplicate of a cyclin could evolve into an integrin. They would call it "exaptation".

That's not even remotely in the same ballpark as "with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else," which is vague crap that goes nowhere and does nothing. Only someone with no real knowledge of biochemistry would say they are the same. Remember what you said earlier about flying pigs and angels?

Atheistoclast · 20 May 2011

Dale Husband said:
Atheistoclast said: And yet evolutionists believe that most of the genes in the genome have evolved from duplicates of more ancient genes of a completely different functional type. For example, I suspect most evolutionary geneticists would not balk at the idea that a duplicate of a cyclin could evolve into an integrin. They would call it "exaptation".
That's not even remotely in the same ballpark as "with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else," which is vague crap that goes nowhere and does nothing. Only someone with no real knowledge of biochemistry would say they are the same. Remember what you said earlier about flying pigs and angels?

Well, why not? If the ancestors of bats could take to the skies, and the ancestors of whales and dolphins to the seas, then what is to stop pigs and humans from doing something equally as dramatic? I have an itchy back. Could that be the first sign that I am about to sprout wings?

DS · 20 May 2011

Well, why not? If the ancestors of bats could take to the skies, and the ancestors of whales and dolphins to the seas, then what is to stop pigs and humans from doing something equally as dramatic? I have an itchy back. Could that be the first sign that I am about to sprout wings?

No, it means you are feeling guilty about lying. You are once again misrepresenting an entire field of science about which you obviously are completely ignorant. Why don't you look up the term historical contingency and then see if you want to continue to claim that "evolutionists" believe that anything can evolve into anything else. What you are really arguing against is creationism. Why didn't god give humans wings if she could? Now, do you have a comment about the topic of this thread, or are you just here to spread your lies and deceit? You do know what happens to people who try to disrupt real conversations here don't you?

harold · 20 May 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Rolf Aalberg said:
Actually, I would say that most evolutionists think that, with enough time, anything can evolve into anything else.
A person saying a most silly thing like that is disqualified by default.
And yet evolutionists believe that most of the genes in the genome have evolved from duplicates of more ancient genes of a completely different functional type. For example, I suspect most evolutionary geneticists would not balk at the idea that a duplicate of a cyclin could evolve into an integrin. They would call it "exaptation".

What do you mean "evolve into"? Be very specific. You are describing two major ancient families of proteins that have very different functions and structures. No-one has ever made the silly straw man claim that genes for proteins with highly divergent sequences and functions would "evolve into each other" in the short term via one or a few mutations. By definition, when we know that two genes are related due to a duplication event, it means that each gene has a sequence similar enough to the other that we can recognize the relationship. With the caveat that new function can still be surprisingly novel, what is predicted is accumulation of incremental changes. Also, you are misusing the term exaptation.

Just Bob · 20 May 2011

Atheistoclast said: I have an itchy back. Could that be the first sign that I am about to sprout wings?

Yep, but not through magically fast evolution. It's a sign that you'll be going to heaven tomorrow, along with all the followers of a certain old crock of a California preacher. You'll probably meet "the elohim" (all of them--it's plural). Unless, of course, you're not properly "saved" or "elect" or something. What will you do on Sunday if you've been Left Behind? Dave, My understanding of the term "quantum leap (or jump)" is that it's the smallest possible change that can happen to the smallest possible particles in the universe. Mike will correct me if that's wrong. Somehow, in the vernacular, it's used to mean a really LARGE change.

Atheistoclast · 20 May 2011

harold said: What do you mean "evolve into"? Be very specific.

I mean diverge in sequence and/or function through mutations over time.

You are describing two major ancient families of proteins that have very different functions and structures.

Indeed. But even within the integrins alone, there are two fundamental types: alpha and beta. I just did a comparison on BLAST and I found no homology between any of the alpha and beta types. It is as if we have two separately originated "kinds" of integrin which have then subsequently been duplicated several times over to from two sub-families.

No-one has ever made the silly straw man claim that genes for proteins with highly divergent sequences and functions would "evolve into each other" in the short term via one or a few mutations.

Really? Just ask Joe Thornton of the University of Oregon. He thinks that the vast G-coupled receptor super-family can be derived, ultimately, from a single ancestor gene. Gene duplication is not a mechanism for the creation of new information - as with the world of engineering, it ensures robustness against failure. I'm sorry to have to break the news.

DS · 20 May 2011

So that would be another no. He has no intention whatsoever of ever trying to support his claim that "evolutionists" believe that any organism can evolve into any other. Since that's obviously completely false, I guess that was inevitable.

And that would also be a no, he has absolutely no intention of ever making any comment about the actual topic of the thread. He just wants so to derail the conversation with his worn out nonsense about gene duplications, a process that he obviously doesn't understand any better than he does the rest of evolutionary theory.

The bathroom wall is the only appropriate place to respond to such trolls.

Atheistoclast · 20 May 2011

DS said: So that would be another no. He has no intention whatsoever of ever trying to support his claim that "evolutionists" believe that any organism can evolve into any other. Since that's obviously completely false, I guess that was inevitable.

Really? I thought that evolutionists (that is a proper term that they address themselves as)believed that we are all descended from some froth-like organism (LUCA)and ultimately from self-replicating molecules.

The bathroom wall is the only appropriate place to respond to such trolls.

Censorship is usually how Darwinists deal with their problems.

DS · 20 May 2011

Atheistoclast said:
DS said: So that would be another no. He has no intention whatsoever of ever trying to support his claim that "evolutionists" believe that any organism can evolve into any other. Since that's obviously completely false, I guess that was inevitable.
Really? I thought that evolutionists (that is a proper term that they address themselves as)believed that we are all descended from some froth-like organism (LUCA)and ultimately from self-replicating molecules.
The bathroom wall is the only appropriate place to respond to such trolls.
Censorship is usually how Darwinists deal with their problems.

Just more bullshit from another asshole. You really can't get anything right can you. Bye bye.

mrg · 20 May 2011

DS said: You really can't get anything right can you.

I don't think he cares if he gets anything right or not. In fact, if he doesn't, it works just that much better for picking fights, which is what he's all about anyway.

John_S · 20 May 2011

Atheistoclast said: Why can't pigs fly? Are they just too fat? Why can't humans sprout wings and become angels? I would love to be able to fly to work every morning.

I've never understood why people think these kinds of questions are an argument against evolution. OK, if it's such a good idea, why doesn't God make pigs fly or make humans sprout wings? It's creationists who claim life was created by an all-powerful magician who can do anything, not the ToE.

Atheistoclast · 20 May 2011

John_S said:
Atheistoclast said: Why can't pigs fly? Are they just too fat? Why can't humans sprout wings and become angels? I would love to be able to fly to work every morning.
I've never understood why people think these kinds of questions are an argument against evolution. OK, if it's such a good idea, why doesn't God make pigs fly or make humans sprout wings? It's creationists who claim life was created by an all-powerful magician who can do anything, not the ToE.

I think he did a pretty good job with whales and dinosaurs.

mrg said:
DS said: You really can't get anything right can you.
I don't think he cares if he gets anything right or not. In fact, if he doesn't, it works just that much better for picking fights, which is what he's all about anyway.

None of you here (Harold excepting) have a clue about either genetics or biology.

mrg · 20 May 2011

It's sort of a cousin to the "if monkeys evolved into humans, then why are there still monkeys?" argument.

The Earth evolves, right? Are there mountains where there were once oceans? Are there deserts where there were once forests? Yes. Can we say that certain mountains will sink into oceans, or that certain deserts will become forests again? They could, but who knows?

Creationists keep complaining about evolution being an undirected process, but the fact that is is undirected inevitably, obviously means that it is unpredictable. Nothing may really change; if something does change, it's out of any one of an indefinite range of possibilities, and the only thing we can say for certain is that the possibilities are constrained by the adaptational baggage currently carried by the species involved.

mrg · 20 May 2011

Atheistoclast said: None of you here (Harold excepting) have a clue about either genetics or biology.

Possibly not, but I certainly know a bozo when I see one.

eric · 20 May 2011

Atheistoclast said: Gene duplication is not a mechanism for the creation of new information

Sequence duplication can affect the amount of a protein produced. How is that not information? Do you think there is no informational difference between "add 1 cup" and "add 2 cups?"

Frank J · 20 May 2011

To Lurkers:

Please note the intense irony of someone whining that moving some of their comments to the Bathroom Wall is "censorship," while conveniently omitting that "Uncommon Descent" (a major ID-promoting blog) regularly deletes inconvenient comments and bans those that leave them.

To the Regulars:

Do we know whether this troll agrees with those IDers who admit that life is billions of years old and that humans share common ancestors with other species?

harold · 20 May 2011

No-one has ever made the silly straw man claim that genes for proteins with highly divergent sequences and functions would “evolve into each other” in the short term via one or a few mutations.
Really? Just ask Joe Thornton of the University of Oregon. He thinks that the vast G-coupled receptor super-family can be derived, ultimately, from a single ancestor gene.

And that's very plausible, and completely unrelated to the straw man you are arguing against. He does not think this happened in a short period of time via one or a few mutations. Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't use your other, purely semantic evolution denying strategy, admitting that domains with this function are related but claiming that they are "still the same" since they still have something in common.

Gene duplication is not a mechanism for the creation of new information -

Information is defined by the observer. If there are two copies of a gene, one of them can experience a mutation that impacts protein function, while the redundant copy would not be expected to experience a similar mutation at the same time, except rarely by coincidence. In some cases, this chain of events can lead to novel function in one of the copies, as mutations in that copy can accumulate, because the phenotypes will not be selected against for disruption of the original function, since the redundant copy retains the original function. There is no theoretical reason why this should not happen, and strong evidence that it does and has. Resorting to examples where a gene has duplicated but this does not seem to have happened is not relevant, as no-one is claiming that this always happens, or happens immediately.

as with the world of engineering, it ensures robustness against failure. I’m sorry to have to break the news

Humans are diploid and have two parallel copies of every gene (except for X and Y chromosome genes in men), but if a magical designer is duplicating genes to create even more "extra copies", why isn't every gene duplicated, and why are there ever harmful mutations in humans? A better explanation is the empirical observation that, in many types of cells, gene duplication is a type of naturally occurring mutation that sometimes occurs during DNA replication.

harold · 20 May 2011

Frank J said: To Lurkers: Please note the intense irony of someone whining that moving some of their comments to the Bathroom Wall is "censorship," while conveniently omitting that "Uncommon Descent" (a major ID-promoting blog) regularly deletes inconvenient comments and bans those that leave them. To the Regulars: Do we know whether this troll agrees with those IDers who admit that life is billions of years old and that humans share common ancestors with other species?

No, we don't Frank, although I have raised that issue several times and gotten evasive answers. In fact I suspect he may be YEC, and that may be the root of his incredulity toward intuitively credible and empirically verified evolutionary explanations, and his allergy to accurately paraphrasing what others have actually said.

Mike Elzinga · 20 May 2011

harold said:
Frank J said: To Lurkers: Please note the intense irony of someone whining that moving some of their comments to the Bathroom Wall is "censorship," while conveniently omitting that "Uncommon Descent" (a major ID-promoting blog) regularly deletes inconvenient comments and bans those that leave them. To the Regulars: Do we know whether this troll agrees with those IDers who admit that life is billions of years old and that humans share common ancestors with other species?
No, we don't Frank, although I have raised that issue several times and gotten evasive answers. In fact I suspect he may be YEC, and that may be the root of his incredulity toward intuitively credible and empirically verified evolutionary explanations, and his allergy to accurately paraphrasing what others have actually said.

I concur with your speculation that he is a YEC. A while back he made a number of assertions consistent with a belief in “genetic entropy.” If I am not mistaken, that line of misconception is directly derived from Henry Morris’s misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics. This holds that things cannot possibly be getting better and better. They were perfect before the “Fall,” but have been deteriorating ever since. And he seems to be dancing around enought to suggest that he is hiding that fact.

QED_99 · 20 May 2011

Mr A,

Could you please give an example of the appearance of a "novel function", according to your own definition of "novel"? Please include a description of the genetic changes responsible, and the associated differences in phenotype.

What period of time do you believe was necessary for the example above to occur?

Do you believe in divine guidence of the biochemical mechanism responsible for your example, or that the appearance was "magic and mystery"?

Stanton · 20 May 2011

QED_99 said: Mr A, Could you please give an example of the appearance of a "novel function", according to your own definition of "novel"? Please include a description of the genetic changes responsible, and the associated differences in phenotype. What period of time do you believe was necessary for the example above to occur? Do you believe in divine guidence of the biochemical mechanism responsible for your example, or that the appearance was "magic and mystery"?

I thought Atheistoclast already gave an example of humans and pigs magically, miraculously and spontaneously sprouting feathered wings to fly with.

QED_99 · 20 May 2011

Stanton said: I thought Atheistoclast already gave an example of humans and pigs magically, miraculously and spontaneously sprouting feathered wings to fly with.

What I was after here is a demonstrable example of novel function that has already taken place. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course, I realize that he may believe that a truly novel function doesn't exist. Now my head's beginning to hurt...

Stanton · 20 May 2011

QED_99 said:
Stanton said: I thought Atheistoclast already gave an example of humans and pigs magically, miraculously and spontaneously sprouting feathered wings to fly with.
What I was after here is a demonstrable example of novel function that has already taken place. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course, I realize that he may believe that a truly novel function doesn't exist. Now my head's beginning to hurt...

In that case, there is no function that is novel enough for Atheistoclast: he's repeatedly stated that. He's magically disqualified all examples as either being not novel, or evidence for a Magical Intelligent Designer, and not evolution, or evidence that he's smarter than all of those stupid evolutionists who want to censor him.

QED_99 · 20 May 2011

It would be refreshing if at least now and then the science-deniers, religious extremists, and other assorted big-tent ideological rabble would have the balls to just stand up and say, "This is what I believe, this is how I think it all happened" instead of sniping at strawmen then whining about being treated badly.

It's amusing to me that religious cranks like A always accuse unbelievers of leading empty lives. What joyless, sterile lives they themselves must lead - incurious, unable to feel any real joy from discovery, prisoners of their willful ignorance and dogma.

Anyway, maybe I'll get lucky and he'll answer with full disclosure, not with what can't be, but with the Big Story from his perspective. I know...I know...

Henry J · 20 May 2011

Frank J replied to comment from TomS TomS said: I wonder how many evolutionists think that a shmoo can evolve, or a roc, or a centaur. Such things can only be designed.

And a troll is a “fixed kind.” ;-) I think of trolls as more like broken kinds.

Frank J · 21 May 2011

In fact I suspect he may be YEC...
— harold

I concur with your speculation that he is a YEC.
— Mike Elzinga

Based on what? I have several reasons for doubting that anyone who has the usual "problems" with "Darwinism," but is evasive about his/her own "theory" is a YEC, until there is enough evidence to rule out all sorts of OEC and "pseudoskeptic" positions (they too get anti-evolution material from YEC sources). 1: If one really thinks that the Earth - not just its life - is only 1000s of years old and that the evidence supports it, (see #3) they would want to support that, not just the long-refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." And like some AiG and ICR folk, they would challenge OECs and IDers, at least some of the time. 2: YEC is the biggest seller among the "masses," at least since Henry Morris flooded (pun intended) the conversation with cool "sciency" sound bites. AIUI, before Morris, OEC was the most popular among educated evolution-deniers, and may have started to "trickle down" to the "masses." Which means that anyone who wants, or needs, to keep as many people in the big tent as possible, will not say anything negative about YEC, even if they think it's nonsense. 3: Many "YECs" really aren't "(pseudo)scientific" YECs in the Morris sense, but believe it because it's their interpertation of scripture, and believe, and sometimes even admit, that the evidence does not support a young Earth (but may have been put there to test their faith). 4: Critics of anti-evolution activists are quick to assume that they are YECs, and then get left with egg on their faces when they find that that is simply not so. One example of many was right here when Dembski encouraged people (including those who might have fired him if he didn't) to believe in the Global flood. He was called a YEC, even though (1) many (most?) OECs also take the Flood literally, (2) Dembski clearly admitted old-Earth and old life (all mainstream science chronology), and (3) if he does personally take the Flood literally (that too could be faked) it's clearly on faith, not evidence. The critic quickly retracted the claim that Dembski was a YEC. That said, as you both probably know, I have much more respect for a real YEC than for the "don't ask, don't tell" types.

Mike Elzinga · 21 May 2011

Frank J said: Based on what?

I was simply agreeing with harold’s speculation. I don’t, in fact, really know at this point; and I don’t actually care. That “atheistoclast” character seems more like a narcissistic whacko. But he did express some notions that one sees from the “genetic entropy” line of argument. One sees that more commonly with YECs. And you are right about his evasiveness being more like that of the ID gang. He could be a rogue nut job who believes he knows more science than everyone else in the world; and that he is on the threshold of overturning all of modern science and replacing it with his own genius insights.

mrg · 21 May 2011

ATOC seems to be ideologically inclined to strong fundy creationism, covered by a layer of ID creationism evasiveness, mixed with an unusual level of belligerence.

I've long been bemused by how being emphatic is so compatible with dissembling. (Somehow, I cannot use the word "dissembling" without thinking of R@ndy St1m$0n.)

harold · 22 May 2011

Frank J said:
In fact I suspect he may be YEC...
— harold

I concur with your speculation that he is a YEC.
— Mike Elzinga
Based on what? I have several reasons for doubting that anyone who has the usual "problems" with "Darwinism," but is evasive about his/her own "theory" is a YEC, until there is enough evidence to rule out all sorts of OEC and "pseudoskeptic" positions (they too get anti-evolution material from YEC sources). 1: If one really thinks that the Earth - not just its life - is only 1000s of years old and that the evidence supports it, (see #3) they would want to support that, not just the long-refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." And like some AiG and ICR folk, they would challenge OECs and IDers, at least some of the time. 2: YEC is the biggest seller among the "masses," at least since Henry Morris flooded (pun intended) the conversation with cool "sciency" sound bites. AIUI, before Morris, OEC was the most popular among educated evolution-deniers, and may have started to "trickle down" to the "masses." Which means that anyone who wants, or needs, to keep as many people in the big tent as possible, will not say anything negative about YEC, even if they think it's nonsense. 3: Many "YECs" really aren't "(pseudo)scientific" YECs in the Morris sense, but believe it because it's their interpertation of scripture, and believe, and sometimes even admit, that the evidence does not support a young Earth (but may have been put there to test their faith). 4: Critics of anti-evolution activists are quick to assume that they are YECs, and then get left with egg on their faces when they find that that is simply not so. One example of many was right here when Dembski encouraged people (including those who might have fired him if he didn't) to believe in the Global flood. He was called a YEC, even though (1) many (most?) OECs also take the Flood literally, (2) Dembski clearly admitted old-Earth and old life (all mainstream science chronology), and (3) if he does personally take the Flood literally (that too could be faked) it's clearly on faith, not evidence. The critic quickly retracted the claim that Dembski was a YEC. That said, as you both probably know, I have much more respect for a real YEC than for the "don't ask, don't tell" types.

Well, Frank, we have rival defensible hypotheses, and we'll have to see where the evidence leads. I suspect he is YEC, but trying to hide it. The reasons for hiding it would be to not interfere with the "ID isn't religious and can be taught as 'science' in public schools" paradigm, and also the realistic recognition that people will completely tune out the protein stuff if the 6000 year old earth stuff comes up. I think the silence after that isse came up supports my conjecture. But I could be wrong, and we may find out. Or not.

mrg · 22 May 2011

When ATOC resorted to the "if evolution is true then animals should have evolved something or other I pulled out of my hat" argument, I kind of smelled YEC. It's the brother of a Ray Comfort crocoduck argument.

Stanton · 22 May 2011

Mike Elzinga said: He could be a rogue nut job who believes he knows more science than everyone else in the world; and that he is on the threshold of overturning all of modern science and replacing it with his own genius insights.

How time-cubey. Atheistoclast should stop hording his "genius insights" already.

fnxtr · 22 May 2011

Karen S. said:
Ever read the Philip Jose Farmer story about Hell getting more and more crowded?
No, tell me more! What is the title? I assume that in the story only A-clast goes to heaven?

I read it ages ago and had to look it up. It's called "Inside Outside".

Rolf Aalberg · 23 May 2011

None of you here (Harold excepting) have a clue about either genetics or biology.

Hear hear; authority speaks! I don't have much in the way of credentials except age but make up for holes in knowledge by having a capacity for sincere study and understanding. (Some) knowledge without a sincere attempt at understanding is just as bad as straight ignorance.

John Kwok · 24 May 2011

Atheistoclast the babbling mendacious IDiot barfed: Well, why not? If the ancestors of bats could take to the skies, and the ancestors of whales and dolphins to the seas, then what is to stop pigs and humans from doing something equally as dramatic? I have an itchy back. Could that be the first sign that I am about to sprout wings?

There's nothing in the past phylogenetic histories of both pigs and numans to suggest the evolution of wings? Why, there are no indications that the limbs were modified to become wings. Like the typical creobot that you are, you've forgotten to consider phylogenetic constraints and contingency, as the reasons why your wish is biologicall impossible with pigs and humans or why we'll never see a crocoduck.

Frank J · 25 May 2011

But I could be wrong, and we may find out. Or not.
— harold

Unless one can read minds one can never know for sure what another truly believes. One thing I do know (as we all do) is that professionals who identify themselves as YECs (in the pseudoscientific Henry Morris sense, as opposed to the Omphalos sense) are generally opposed to OEC's conclusions, and ID's evasiveness and occasional conclusion, which usually concedes at least OEC. While they too severely limit their criticism of other anti-evolution positions (in favor of a big-tent assault on mainstream science), they have enough confidence in their particular conclusions to occasionally defend it against other anti-evolution positions, exposing their own testable claims to critical analysis by both "evolutionists" and OECs (or YECs in the case of OECs). Suspected YECs who sell out completely to the big tent at least fear that the evidence might not support YEC, if they don't outright know it.

Pete Dunkelberg · 1 June 2011

If you have time for a comment or two, check out Jack's place:
http://www.naontiotami.com/2011/05/these-weeks-in-intelligent-design-180511/

By the way, does that job description write-up from Oxford remind you of a press release for a paper? (meaning, the writer can't help making a hash of it)