…and this is a 
When you tie a university to a religious ideology, you create stresses that show that the modern search for knowledge is the antithesis of religious dogma. I keep telling people that science and religion are in opposition, and here's a perfect example: La Sierra University is a Seventh Day Adventist college. SDAs are fundamentalists and literalists (although, isn't it strange how different literalist sects all seem to come up with different…ahem…interpretations of the Bible?) who as a point of doctrine believe in a young earth and seven day creation. La Sierra has a biology department, as well as teaching other science disciplines.
Let that sink in. Science departments. Six thousand year old earth.
Does not compute. Error. Abort, retry, fail?
How do they do that? Well, a recent controversy has exposed what goes on there, and as it turns out…they teach pretty good mainstream science. From that story, the faculty in their biology department seem to know what they are doing, and they teach that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and they go over the evidence for it in considerable detail. The professor who teaches one of the courses seems to be no-nonsense and on the ball.
Bradley says he's felt no pressure to change anything about his course, and says bluntly that he doesn't plan to turn his class into a theological seminar, or to present evolutionary theory only to then dismantle it for students. While he's fine with helping students work through struggles of faith, Bradley says he won't undercut decades of peer reviewed scientific research in the interest of religious consistency.
"I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is bullshit," he said.
Meanwhile, the Seventh Day Advent church and the administrators of the college have a different agenda in mind. They want the scientific evidence taught to the students so they can oppose it, and the whole mission of the college is to eventually lead them back into the worship of dogma and superstition — they are plainly going to undermine the teaching of Bradley and get the students to believe that most science is bullshit.
By June 19, the president of the worldwide church had written a letter affirming the church's belief in a "literal, recent, six-day creation" and that "the Flood was global in nature." Jay Paulsen, the church's president, went on to say that church-sponsored colleges and universities should teach students about evolution, but mindfully steer them back toward the church's contrary view.
"As part of that exercise [in teaching] you will also expose them to elements and concepts of evolution. That is understood," he wrote. "As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over. And their home must always be in the world of faith. You owe it to the students, you owe it to God, you owe it to their parents, you owe it to the church, and you owe it to yourself as a believer to safely guide them through difficult moments on their journey."
Oh, and by the way, you cannot get tenure at La Sierra unless you are a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church. The mind boggles. I know this kind of restriction is fairly common at fundie colleges, but it is such an imposition of ideology on the faculty — it turns academic freedom into a joke.
One thing I cannot understand is how Gary Bradley can stomach investing so much of his career in such a place…but he says he is a practicing Adventist.
This exposure of the slimy underbelly of a religious institution came to light as a consequence of an angry student with a sense of entitlement (I've run into a few of those — we have them even at secular universities). He took one of Bradley's courses which taught the real scientific evidence for the age of the earth, and was expected to understand it and be able to explain it in a five page term paper. He couldn't. In fact, his paper is more concerned with presenting a superficial discussion of a few dating methods and then bringing up creationist objections to them, contrary to the instructions he was given.
You can read Carlos Cerna's paper online. It's not very good; it's 13 pages long, but the treatment is incredibly shallow, it has only 5 references, all of which are used to weakly bolster contrarian claims, and simply regurgitates (with skeptical caveats) what he was told in class as representations of standard scientific opinion. For that, he got an incredibly generous C. I would have wobbled between outright flunking the kid or giving him a pity D for being able to type up sentences that are mostly grammatically correct.
You can also read the post-grading exchanges between the student and professor. He's "flabbergasted" that he only got a C. Yeah, I know those students — the ones who think the grade they should get is the one they want, not the one they earned. Bradley's comments are actually very cogent and helpful; he explains what he expected, and that the included apologetics are inappropriate. Here's Bradley's summary; the student was following standard creationist tactics.
As I said, this paper is unacceptable. When I reluctantly agreed that you could insert paragraphs [single paragraphs!] taking issue with the mainstream data I fully expected you to do a good job with that mainstream data. Instead you have largely ignored it and generated yet another creation apologetic piece that "mines quotes" and ignores volumes of data. You can and must do better than this.
It's a valid criticism. I don't quite know why an unacceptable paper was given a C, but I know grade inflation is rampant everywhere.
Meanwhile, the Seventh Day Adventists are freaking out, and protesting that kids are actually exposed to good science in the biology program at "their" university, which they think ought to be teaching only the dogma of their religion. If you ask me, their kids look to be getting a far better education than they deserve.
WARNING TO BIOLOGY PROGRAMS EVERYWHERE: The student, Carlos Cerna, has announced his intention to get a Ph.D. in molecular biology. If you take him on, be aware that he's going to need a lot of remedial instruction, that he has an attitude, and that he probably just wants a degree from your institution so he can use it to peddle creationism to the ignorant. Don't let him slip through your program without thoroughly grilling him on the basics of biology, or he's going to bring some shame on your program.
Education
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 1, 2009 11:56 AM
Even better, Jan Paulsen (head of SDAs) basically admits that the church position is contrary to science. This was in the Adventist Review:
Yes, the findings of science may indeed no reflect "God's creative powers." You sure got that part right.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 1, 2009 12:01 PM
Another one: Babu G. Ranganathan has "his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology" although he doesn't advertise which podunk Bible college miseducated him.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 1, 2009 12:08 PM
I think such tensions are pretty common at schools affiliated with literalist Christianity.
Some years ago I had an acquaintance who taught biology at another "Christian university" (of a different denomination), and I asked him what he thought of Darwin's theories. "They are quite sound," he said. "They are mostly just based on observation."
At the same time, some of his "faithful brethren" were trying to purge evilution from the university curriculum. What did he think of that? "They are just narrow-minded people with little knowledge of the subject."
He was right on both counts, but I think he was working in the wrong place.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 12:10 PM
Guy needs to be careful. Over the last 3 decades there have been witch hunts and purges at a lot of fundie colleges. The targets were....biologists. A lot of them were outright fired. Richard Collings at Olivet was one of the latest. IIRC, he had tenure and is still there but forbidden from teaching biology.
None were stoned to death or burned at the stake that we know of. Very Stalinistic.
The student, Carlos Cerna, is being really stupid. Universities can't and shouldn't make you believe anything. You are required to know what scientists have found out about the real world in courses. Whether you believe it or not is a separate issue and no one's problem but your own.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 1, 2009 12:11 PM
By the way, Paulsen is considered to be a "liberal" in the SDA sense (he's been an academic, albeit in SDA schools), and some think that the controversy over teaching of evolution at La Sierra University is being raised because election for president of the SDAs is coming up soon. The "conservatives" want more Bible thumping.
The SDAs are in a kind of hopeless situtation there, because they actually believe fairly strongly in education and in science. They really did think once that if science was done properly, it would just support the Bible, while most of the relevant scientists in the SDA church know rather better than that at present.
I went to Walla Walla College (University now) as an ex-SDA at a time when evolution could be reasonably well discussed--a professor from another SDA university came by and gave a (non-required) pro-evolution talk when I was there. But then a more conservative president of the local conference came by, and at least one professor was purged, and evolution was toned down there. So there's nothing new about these fights.
About a couple of years ago, Behe gave a talk at Walla Walla College. Jim Nestler, who I think is now head of the Biology Department there, supported the talk, but made clear that evolution was what science supported. Some of the SDAs thought that Behe was even "too liberal," however, and complained that a believer in an old earth gave such an important set of speeches.
The situation is, there are SDA "conservatives" who will say that a professor teaching evolution isn't being honest, and in some sense they're right. Of course others point out that lying about science is hardly honest, and they're certainly right as well. Meanwhile, the church is losing its younger members at a terrific rate, for many reasons (their hideous (dead) prophet, Ellen White, is a good reason), but no doubt in part because it makes no sense to push education and science, while denying science where it is decidedly contrary to their dogma.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Davianed
|
September 1, 2009 12:13 PM
I think one of the things that has come to disgust me the most about fundies and their obsession with evolution is the number of their web sites or organizations that have words such as "truth", "answers", etc.
There is no truth or answers in these sites, only misinformation, outright lies, and libel disguised as a "truthful" message. Yet people insist upon believing them.
Posted by: Newfie | September 1, 2009 12:14 PM
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"
Posted by: damitall | September 1, 2009 12:15 PM
Dr. Bradley is wasted in that rotten place. He would be more appreciated and find more receptive students elswhere - there must be plenty of secular colleges panting for good professors teaching good science well, who wouldn't care two hoots for his religion - always PROVIDED he kept it out of Science classes - which he seems well capable of doing.
Posted by: Cut and Paste | September 1, 2009 12:19 PM
Quick Search on google found this letter, also from educatetruth.com
http://www.educatetruth.com/evidence/la-sierra-evidence/letter-to-dr-wisbey-from-carlos-cerna/
Posted by: SaraJ
|
September 1, 2009 12:19 PM
I thought a University education was supposed to teach critical thinking skills and not just teach kids what to think. Oh, wait, that's not a University, it's a cult indoctrination clinic.
Posted by: Funnyguts | September 1, 2009 12:20 PM
"Universities can't and shouldn't make you believe anything. You are required to know what scientists have found out about the real world in courses. Whether you believe it or not is a separate issue and no one's problem but your own."
Only the first sentence is correct. The rest is bullshit. Of course whether you believe it matters! Would you be content to sit through a class where six-day creationism is presented as true? Wouldn't you voice objections? Wouldn't it be academically dishonest to simply take the course and write down the answers that you know the professor wants to hear?
Yes, there are creationist students. There will be creationist students for quite some time. But they're allowed to disagree, just like we are. That disagreement could easily lead to more interesting discussions and understanding of concepts than if everyone was just sitting there nodding in agreement with the professor.(The creationist students aren't, however, allowed to use poor arguments to create poor papers, just like everyone else..)
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 1, 2009 12:22 PM
He's "flabbergasted" that he only got a C.
Last year, a woman who runs a biology lab in a university in the Netherlands left a comment here. She told a story about an exchange student from the US who was a creationist. She had her run microbiology experiments which the girl didn't want to understand in evolutionary terms, refused to write up the reports as told, etc. Eventually, she gave the girl a "B", because she felt sorry for her (the Dutch are like the Canadians of Europe - unfailingly nice), and because, as she put it, she took into account the inferior educational standards of American universities. The girl was outraged that she didn't get an "A".
The worst part of the story is that when she got back to the States, her advisor changed it to an "A".
Posted by: Davianed
|
September 1, 2009 12:22 PM
"Dr. Bradley is wasted in that rotten place. He would be more appreciated and find more receptive students elswhere - there must be plenty of secular colleges panting for good professors teaching good science well, who wouldn't care two hoots for his religion - always PROVIDED he kept it out of Science classes - which he seems well capable of doing."
@ #8: It saddens me to think of how under-appreciated he probably is at that university, and instead of being lauded for a dedication to the facts, he's being castigated because he's rational enough to actually - GASP - teach good science!
Posted by: Rick R | September 1, 2009 12:27 PM
"As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over. And their home must always be in the world of faith."
The message clearly conveyed: education is dangerous, knowledge is dangerous, ignorance is safety. Why do they even bother with the pretense of education?
Posted by: Chuck | September 1, 2009 12:28 PM
Ha ha ha! On the second page of the kid's paper, he says that cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms, which are then transformed magically into carbon 14 atoms.
I wonder if he cites "Fantastic Four" as one of his sources.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 1, 2009 12:28 PM
The Case of Alexander Winchell
In which he was fired from (then-Methodist) Vanderbilt in 1878 for teaching Teh Evolution.
Posted by: Davianed
|
September 1, 2009 12:30 PM
"The message clearly conveyed: education is dangerous, knowledge is dangerous, ignorance is safety. Why do they even bother with the pretense of education?"
@ #14: It sells it better to the masses. If you just rant and rave, you can come across as an inane jackass. If you call it education, wrap it up in a bow, and feed it to the masses, people are more willing to lap it up.
Not to mention, getting this bullshit spoon-fed to the young is the same thing that so many people rant about - it's basically brainwashing, introducing ignorant ideas at an early age and then suppressing any competing thoughts.
Calling it education is roughly equivalent to painting feces a more pleasant color, but it sells it better.
Posted by: Lynne | September 1, 2009 12:32 PM
Another right-wing Christianist closet case outed.
http://www.blogactive.com/2009/08/rumors-confirmed.html
Posted by: Alyson Miers | September 1, 2009 12:36 PM
she gave the girl a "B", because she felt sorry for her (the Dutch are like the Canadians of Europe - unfailingly nice), and because, as she put it, she took into account the inferior educational standards of American universities.
Those Dutch need to stop being so damn nice. As an A'merkin who's taught foreign youngsters with highly tenuous interest in the subject matter (in my case, the English language) and lousy previous education, and accordingly graded for effort first and achievement second--I would've given that girl a D at best. Maybe then her advisor would have been content to leave her with a C.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 12:40 PM
Bullshit to you too. Universities can't and have no right to make people believe in anything. They are in the business of teaching and research.
There are no thought police. Just how are you going to make people believe what you believe? Beat them over the head with a 2X 4? Water board them? Threaten to shoot them?
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | September 1, 2009 12:42 PM
Actually (and unfortunately) Mr. Cerna has probably struck on a winning strategy: when you can't do the work or examine the evidence, appeal to peoples' tightly held beliefs and emotion, claim you're being discriminated against.
It won't work in any results-oriented situation, but it's probably a lot easier and works just fine in a situation were he wants to scrape by.
It's sad, but I don't see how Bradley can win. The Adventists are likely to line up behind Cerna and throw the guy who actually wanted his students to examine *evidence* in a *science* class to the dogs. It's sad, but private universities are businesses in the end, and either students or parents pay the tuition money. Apparently sometimes to get the form, rather than the function, of an education. :o(
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2009 12:44 PM
Actually I doubt it would lead to interesting discussions. There are plenty of contentious issues that are part of legitimate disagreement within evolutionary biology that would lead to much better discussions and understanding.
Posted by: Davianed
|
September 1, 2009 12:45 PM
"There are no thought police. Just how are you going to make people believe what you believe? Beat them over the head with a 2X 4? Water board them? Threaten to shoot them?"
@ 20: Oh sweet temptation with the 2x4...
This blog actually has some good examples. In the rare cases when a creationist comes in actually wanting honest discourse, asking legitimate questions instead of just all informing us what direction we'll be taking in the afterlife, people here respond with factual, frequently referenced replies instead of forcing them to believe. It gives them the information, then lets them draw their conclusions. If they stay stoneheaded, their loss.
Ideally, that's the way the university system works, to me.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 1, 2009 12:49 PM
@Alyson Miers: I would've given that girl a D at best. Maybe then her advisor would have been content to leave her with a C.
She claimed their freshman are better educated in science than our seniors.
Posted by: Laura | September 1, 2009 12:49 PM
"As part of that exercise [in teaching] you will also expose them to elements and concepts of evolution. That is understood," he wrote. "As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over. And their home must always be in the world of faith. You owe it to the students, you owe it to God, you owe it to their parents, you owe it to the church, and you owe it to yourself as a believer to safely guide them through difficult moments on their journey."
Yuck. Just totally disgusting. I feel dirty after reading that. It's like science is a field trip to Disneyland. Some big show put on for entertainment.
If I wasn't at work right now I would go cleanse myself with numerous videos of Louis C.K., George Carlin and Bill Hicks.
Posted by: Absurdist | September 1, 2009 12:49 PM
Adventists are interesting. One of the best scientists I know- a chemist who publishes meticulous papers in top journals- is an adventist. Never asked him about it though.
Posted by: Funnyguts | September 1, 2009 12:49 PM
@20: I didn't say that universities should force belief. That's why I agreed with the first statement. I disagreed with the others because they implied that belief is to be completely ignored despite the student's views coming into a class (and what is gained throughout the term) is important to how the student approaches the subject. Ignoring that in favor of a bunch of facts about something isn't going to engage the student, and he or she will be left with no good reason to remember it after the final. Addressing issues of belief will better contribute to what the student takes away from the class, even if the student remains a creationist (or whatever the case may be.)
If a student can form his or her own valid argument for a certain belief and defend it well, while constantly updating that belief as new facts become apparent, that's acceptable.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 12:50 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about Mr. Cerna. We've all seen disaffected students like him, crackpots in the making. They tend to cause as many problems as they can. Then they drop out. It is a free country. If he doesn't like what he is being taught and where, he can always go do something else.
I see an exciting career as a grass cutter expert in his future.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 1, 2009 12:50 PM
Keep in mind that George MacCready Price -- the man who essentially revived YECism when even most (educated) fundamentalists had abandoned it, and founded "scientific creationism" even before Gish and Morris got their hands on it -- was a SDA. So this is hardly surprising.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 12:54 PM
raven, #20: Just how are you going to make people believe what you believe?
Send them to room 101.
Posted by: Funnyguts | September 1, 2009 12:57 PM
Matt Penfold @22: On one hand, I agree. If everyone accepted evolution by college we could certainly have more advanced discussions. But not everyone does, and it's unfair to those students who don't to be left out of discussion. I suppose that my expectation of better learning through creationists and evolution supporters (PZ's old post about pedantry didn't take with me) is more appropriate for grade school than university, though.
Posted by: Funnyguts | September 1, 2009 1:02 PM
Let me rewrite an idea in my post (31). I meant that addressing the beliefs of both creationists and evolutionists (ick) as a discussion topic is useful to look deeper at how each person understands the world. Ideally this should end with everyone determining for themselves that evolution is true, and that this would happen in grade school.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 1, 2009 1:03 PM
I'm dismayed that the exchange student got a B and Cerna got a C. It wouldn't surprise me if Cerna eventually replaced Bradley as a tenured Professor at La Sierra University in the not so distant future.
Posted by: Justin N
|
September 1, 2009 1:04 PM
So my town has appeared in Pharyngula. Too bad it isn't under better circumstances.
In the IE Atheists and Agnostics group, we have many (formerly SDA) La Sierra alumni. They all report that the biology education there was top-notch, and this is stretching over a period of several decades. With any luck, this incident will blow over and the department will go back to their usual curriculum. Of course, if #5 is right about the SDA presidency, that might be a touch more difficult.
I will mention to Dr. Bradley that there is a very large and very biology-heavy secular university just across town. We are in a hiring freeze right now... but when the economy picks up, if he gets sick of pandering...
Posted by: Alyson Miers | September 1, 2009 1:05 PM
Jeff @24: As I haven't been to a Dutch university and didn't major in a science discipline, I'll take her word for it on that, but still: where's the student's effort? Where's the interest in learning? Where's the give-a-damn? A lousy previous education in the subject may excuse poor understanding, but there's no excuse for refusing to do the work. Shit, I had a Chemistry instructor who dinged the heck out of my lab reports when I didn't know how to use significant digits correctly, and this was at a very middlebrow university! I've got no sympathy for a girl who takes the trouble to do a foreign exchange and then can't even be bothered to write up a lab report for a biology experiment. Get in the fookin' sack!
Posted by: FitzRoy | September 1, 2009 1:05 PM
A privacy question:
Aside from the points raised by this story concerning the teaching of evolution . . . Does anyone know how or why an undergraduate student's class paper, and the related e-mail exchange with his professor were broadcast to the world?
On its face, it seems inappropriate to do that with an undergraduate's class work, unless the student himself is somehow responsible for seeking publicity.
The professor certainly should not have done that (and presumably didn't). Who did?
Posted by: Yossarian | September 1, 2009 1:06 PM
@Chuck, #15:
Chuck, actually that does happen. That's where we get Carbon 14 from, which decays at a steady rate into Carbon-12. It is the ratio of the two that are used for carbon dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
Posted by: Dr. J | September 1, 2009 1:07 PM
Why bother to give degrees in science if your university doesn't really "believe" in science?
I teach at a private, Christian associated university and am fortunate to have a friend in our chaplain that will tell students the literal creation story is BS and if science and theology don't agree, you have to go with the science since it is tested and has positive evidence for it. I'll get a few creationist students in my Evolution course but so will anyone at a public institution. I view it as a chance to "save" them ;-)
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 1, 2009 1:08 PM
PZ wrote:
That's not exactly what he said:
I read that to mean "No. I go to church and stuff, but it's all crap." Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 1, 2009 1:10 PM
Actually, it decays into nitrogen-14, what it was before it was zapped by cosmic rays.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Helen | September 1, 2009 1:10 PM
This isn't sad. It isn't pathetic.
This is about peddling and enforcing lies. Peddling yet more fake degrees.... When are you guys going to get angry and do something about the crap going on in your country? This nonsense just needs to stop once and for all.
That student wouldn't have got a mark on my undergrad course let alone a C. A redo request would have been generous!
The money, time, talent and all the resources spent on repelling and fighting this nonsense over and over again. What a waste. What an embarrassment to America.
America, where is the modern likes of Edward R Murrow?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2009 1:10 PM
I wonder if he understands how bad it is to be called out on the most popular science blog on the internet. I hope he get put through the wringer if he ever gets accepted anywhere worthwhile.
I guess he could always go to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and get his degree. He'd be a star there.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 1, 2009 1:11 PM
The paper and email exchanges were apparently first posted to a pro-Adventist site which was arguing that the mission of the college was being compromised by these science teachers, so I presume it was put there by the student trying to make a public case for a better grade, and to condemn his wicked teacher who gave him a C.
Posted by: Michael Kingsley | September 1, 2009 1:15 PM
I was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist during elementary school & high school, and I remember my pastor at a small SDA church in Northern Minnesota as being a trusted role model. That being said, there were others who practiced belittlement for questioning the Young Earth doctrine. That basically resulted in rejection of YEC and quitting the church.
So I'm heartened to see good science professors teaching at an Adventist university. I basically thought Walla Walla and Loma Linda University were pretty good learning institutions, even though I had quit the church and rejected YEC.
I'll be watching further posts in this thread with great interest.
Posted by: Yossarian | September 1, 2009 1:17 PM
@Glenn, #40
Thanks, Glenn. I stand corrected. I should read the Wikipedia articles I cite a little more carefully!
Posted by: Yossarian | September 1, 2009 1:20 PM
And forgive the misspelling of your name. I noticed it just after I posted!
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 1, 2009 1:28 PM
La Sierra University is like 5 minutes from my house!
I've always knew something unsettling was going on at La Sierra. Good think, then, that I decieded to go elsewhere.
But I must point out one thing: My friend goes (went) there but she's RC so perhap it's not entirly exclusive to SDA.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | September 1, 2009 1:30 PM
@28
I believe the proper term is "landscape specialist."
You know you have to be PC about this stuff... :-P
Posted by: Anders from Sweden | September 1, 2009 1:30 PM
Science teacher at a fundie school? See thats a job I NEVER will apply for! It's begging for trouble. Only a matter of time when the parents will demand religion in science class.
In Sweden we've got private schools as well, some of them religious (No universities or colleges though). Almost all private schools are funded by tax money and have no fee. They then have to follow the Swedish Curriculum. Some christian and islamic schools got critique by the National education agency and could loose their funds if the do not follow the plan. I think even the private funded schools in Sweden have to follow the curriculum.
The recent curriculum from 94 (from the right wing government then) have some controversial passages the Christian party imposed: "In accordance with the ethics borne by Christian tradition
and Western humanism, this is achieved by fostering in the individual a
sense of justice, generosity of spirit, tolerance and responsibility."
It was heavely debated then and they were asked to define what Christian ethics (The crusades or the inquisition?) and what Western humanism (Opposit from the humanism of other civilizations around the world?). They didn't have any! Now it's regarded as something to keep the loonies happy. Well, a storm in a glass compared to your situation I suppose.
Good lyck with you basket cases.
Anders
Posted by: Mark Johnson | September 1, 2009 1:34 PM
Seriously... who cares?
In the big picture who is being hurt if he believes or teaches what he has determined to be true? Why come to blows if your theories differ with his conclusions?
But this is not without historical precedence, consider the case of Demetrius the silver smith:
But when they recognized that he was a creationist, a single outcry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours:
"Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"
"Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"
"Great is evolution of the Ephesians!"
"Great is evolution of the Ephesians!"
"Great is evolution of the academians!"
"Great is evolution of the academians!"
"Great is evolution of the academians!"
Posted by: chris | September 1, 2009 1:35 PM
As an aside, irrespective of the content of the paper, he should get at best a C simply for not following the assignment. He was asked for a 5 page paper. He submitted 13 pages. Don't know how it works in Morris (but curious), but when I apply a length restriction to an assignment, that's part of my evaluation of the work. I want students to learn how to self-edit. If it's a 5 page assignment and you find 13 pages worth of good information, you have to make a judgment as to what to keep and what to leave out. If you can't do that, or more likely, don't bother, it's reflected in your grade.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | September 1, 2009 1:35 PM
By USA terminology, this is by definition not a private school.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 1, 2009 1:36 PM
The labor market for WAL-MART greeters and McDonalds drive-through window operators is really tight right now. I think these kids are making a bad move if they're angling for service industry jobs.
Posted by: Josh | September 1, 2009 1:37 PM
Cerna's paper was pretty dreadful, but it wasn't (sadly) the worst student paper I've ever had to read...
That said, I'm not sure that I'm motivated to comment on the "geology" in it; I'd likely end up writing rather more than 13 pages. Let me just summarize: No.
I did love this gem from page 8, though: the geological column as a theory. It looks as though Cerna understands the basic concepts of science about as well as...well honestly, about as well as many incoming U.S. college freshmen.
Oh, and then there is this paragraph, also from page 8:
Wow.
I'd let a student in a secondary school physical science get away with that paragraph. If you're in college, then I'm sending it back ungraded.
Posted by: Pablo | September 1, 2009 1:38 PM
Unfortunately, I think _that_ question is asked far too often.
Posted by: Funnyguts | September 1, 2009 1:42 PM
@Mark Johnson: "Seriously... who cares?
In the big picture who is being hurt if he believes or teaches what he has determined to be true? Why come to blows if your theories differ with his conclusions?"
Two big things: First, Cerna presented a paper that was wrong about life on Earth, and then he posted that paper on the internet, meaning he is now Wrong on the Internet.
Second, he may potentially cause a good man to lose his job or at least his standing within the university, which is unfair and worth caring about.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2009 1:43 PM
Is it normal for students at University level in the US to write essays in the first person ?
Posted by: Karl | September 1, 2009 1:45 PM
So he has 3 references from the 1970's and 1 reference from some personal webpage on homestead.com? That is so awesome!
Most instructors I've had would only grade the first 5 pages of an over-length 5 page assignment. But that would not affect the grade in this case since the paper has no announced structure beyond "discuss[ing] many different techniques" without indicating what the purpose of the discussion is. Which would not go over very well in a freshman writing course.
Posted by: Karl | September 1, 2009 1:46 PM
So he has 3 references from the 1970's and 1 reference from some personal webpage on homestead.com? That is so awesome!
Most instructors I've had would only grade the first 5 pages of an over-length 5 page assignment. But that would not affect the grade in this case since the paper has no announced structure beyond "discuss[ing] many different techniques" without indicating what the purpose of the discussion is. Which would not go over very well in a freshman writing course.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2009 1:50 PM
In other words, treat your college students like kindergartners.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 1, 2009 1:50 PM
Prof. Myers maybe it could be possible to a commentary on the National Center for Science Education report on how evolution teaching is faring around the country in public school systems? It may dovetail nicely with Cern and the aig articles:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9u0610162rn51432/fulltext.html
As far as I know only Michael White has commented on the report:http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/evolution_doing_better_state_curricula
Posted by: MikeM | September 1, 2009 1:51 PM
I love this quote:
Wow. This guy can actually look in the mirror?
Posted by: Citizen Z | September 1, 2009 1:53 PM
@Mark Johnson: "Seriously... who cares?
People who care about quality education?
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2009 1:54 PM
I have no idea how common it is, but it is definitely frowned upon by professors. And their high school teachers probably didn't like it either, but you can only give so many bad grades for bad work before the principal and school board start getting on your case.
Posted by: John | September 1, 2009 1:59 PM
There's only one rational thing to do when confronted by the very words "Seventh-Day Adventist."
RUN!
I can't. I had the fortune to fall in love with a wonderful woman who was raised SDA. She's the most passionate if sometimes irrational antitheist I've ever come across.
I call that progress.
Her parents now live downstairs. It's working, but it's like living on ice. Don't ask, don't tell, and remember to hide the Hitchens and Dawkins as if it were porn.
Posted by: BlueMonday | September 1, 2009 2:03 PM
I've mentioned this before, but I attended Oral Roberts University, and that is the first place I got decent exposure to evolutionary theory. My high school biology class was a YEC apologetics course. I applaud the biology teachers who go into the trenches and face obnoxious, pimple-faced idealogues. It was that class (bio 101) that tipped the scales for me and turned me into a devout lover of science. Until then, though I'd enjoyed chemistry and physics in high school, I couldn't appreciate science as a means to real answers because it had been so brutally butchered. Once I saw how much it makes sense (i.e. saw *actual* science), it changed my life. I was already a godless skeptic, but that class opened me up to a world in which (at least some) things make sense. It has been an upward spiral from there.
I just checked, and my bio professor is still there. Good for you, Dr. Seaman.
Posted by: Jason | September 1, 2009 2:05 PM
As someone who helps to teach introductory science at a well-known university, I would give this paper a C or worse in a freshman class on the basis of the writing and style alone. The paper is poorly organized, written in an informal first person perspective, which is inappropriate for a scholarly work, and lacks proper citations and references. By their senior year, any college student should know how to write a scholarly paper regardless of their field of study.
Posted by: Joe Agnost | September 1, 2009 2:09 PM
BlueMonday wrote: "Good for you, Dr. Seaman."
heeheehee.... What?!?! Am I the only 12 year old here? ;)
Posted by: slackwench
|
September 1, 2009 2:15 PM
Is this really a problem in biology programs? I'm a physics PhD student, and I know (from seeing it happen) that this would simply be a nonissue in my field. A combination of rigorous first year courses and group leaders who won't put up with bullshit would mean any student who tried something like that here (or at any reputable school) would be lucky to end up with a master's degree, let alone a PhD (qualifying exams usually take care of that problem).
Maybe that's how he was raised, and he feels like he can do some good teaching real science at a place like La Sierra.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2009 2:15 PM
So you admit being elitist and forcing students to submit to your secular anti-God viewpoint?
^ sarcasm
Posted by: Jojo | September 1, 2009 2:17 PM
His whole paper reads like a poorly written 13 page concern troll post.
Oh, and I just read that this was the capstone Biology course. I think the "C" was very generous considering all he did was try to debunk dating methods.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 1, 2009 2:19 PM
Alyson, I quite agree. That was the Dutch professor's point - the girl was the product of our American system.
I went back and found the thread (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php):
Posted by: Kim van der Linde | December 7, 2007 9:38 AM
Long time ago, as Ph.D. student in the Netherlands, I supervised an exchange student from Kent State. Her work was mediocre at best, and she refuse to take evolution into account, despite that we are an animal ecology lab where evolution is a central theme. Anyway, after three reports that I gave back to her with comments about the lack of evolution, she finally wrote something abysmally bad but including evolution. At that time, she had to go back, and I had to give her a grade. A C would have been already to much, but taking he low standards of her university in account (sorry but what where final year students coming to do research were less trained than our 1st years), I gave her a B. She threw a fit of immense proportions, claiming discrimination, unfair treatment etc. After a bit of time, I heard that her supervisor at Kent State had increased the grade to an A. That was the end of our lab of taking exchange students from Kent State.
Posted by: Theo Bromine | September 1, 2009 2:24 PM
quoth PZ: If you ask me, their kids look to be getting a far better education than they deserve.
Let's not blame the poor kids. After growing up SDA, they richly deserve a reasonable science education. (Though they are certainly getting a better education than *their parents* deserve.)
Posted by: ButchKitties | September 1, 2009 2:25 PM
I knew it was going to be bad when Carlos started using 1st person pronouns in the second sentence of the paper. I couldn't have gotten away with that in high school, let alone in college. It boggles my mind that this paper got a C.
Posted by: Iron Soul | September 1, 2009 2:30 PM
I'm another SDA turned atheist, who received a quality education in the SDA system (Walla Walla College). I'm an engineer not a scientist, but I do know that many of the faculty in the biology department were serious scientists. There were actually a fair number of professors in the religion department that were not fundamentalist. Some even got into trouble for not teaching the dogma strictly enough. It was my interactions with some of these honest educators that got me started down the road to free thinking. I know that there are many others that have had similar experiences.
Posted by: Jarred | September 1, 2009 2:32 PM
@ FitzRoy #36
"A privacy question:"
The student posted the paper. I'm not sure about the email exchange. If you go to the website where the paper is posted, and read the comments section, you'll see the student in question posting on the comments quite often.
Posted by: BlueMonday | September 1, 2009 2:38 PM
@ Joe Agnost
It gets better. His name is--I shit you not--Dick Seaman. And he's a biology professor. And he won a national science fair award in high school for working on a male oral contraceptive.
And, yes, he pointed all of that out to us in class. I swear, at some point he must've just said, "Fuck it. I'm going all out with this." He's a real gem.
Posted by: Joe Agnost | September 1, 2009 2:40 PM
@BlueMonday: Classic!! He sounds like he'd be a lot of fun as a professor!
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 2:43 PM
Well, it results in mental defectives like yourself. Drags on our society.
Cerna has every right to his belief. It is a free country. He has no right to call it science or biology when it is religious mumbo jumbo. And he and his fellow cultists have no right to impose their religious mumbo jumbo on the rest of us or sneak it into our kid's science classes.
If you fundies would just stay under your rocks and tell your lies to each other, sacrifice your kids by faith healing, and drool a lot, no one would care. We don't care about the Amish because they aren't out blowing up power plants.
I suppose too many anti-science kooks would destroy our civilization. But in a democracy, that is one of the risks we take. How would you like it if your doctor believed in crystal power and treated your type 1 diabetes with crystals? What's the harm and who cares? You would die a quick and agonizing death but the world wouldn't miss a troll.
Posted by: Casey | September 1, 2009 2:44 PM
Absolutely. Perhaps being exposed to proper science education will bring some of the students around and get them to start questioning the fundamental aspects of their faith.
Posted by: Armand K.
|
September 1, 2009 2:50 PM
Phew! I actually took the time to read Cerna's paper...
While I might have missed the finer points on geology, he seems pretty much unfamiliar with scientific notation and language as far as physics and chemistry is concerned: pressure "contained" in snow; "molecules" of air that expand "relieving" pressure; sulfate, nitrate, dust and dust listed as compounds. (And the numbers! What the hell is 1000000000000000000000 doing there?) He actually touched biology only en passant, and mostly to rant against evolutionism and "Darwinism", while repeatedly pushing forward his "own personal beliefs" with no supporting argument except some rhetorical speculation.
Oh, and... did I mention the awful speeling, grammar, and general writing?
(Yes, I know mine isn't that great either, but at least I have two pretty good excuses: 1) English isn't my mother tongue, and 2) this is a reply on a blog, not a term paper that supposedly went through proofreading.)
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 2:55 PM
IANAG, but what in the hell does this gibberish mean? The geological record is mostly flat because of gravity. Stuff settles out of water in oceans and basins and it is 1 g everywhere.
But it isn't always flat. Sometimes it is highly slanted or folded due to faults and tectonic events.
And what is this nonsense about showing no signs of erosion. Most of the geological column is simply gone, eroded away long ago and eroding away as I type. Much of northern New England sits on granite bedrock, any and all sedimentary rock having been washed into the ocean.
Posted by: dean | September 1, 2009 2:55 PM
These folks don't have the corner on foolishness - calvin college, in Grand Rapids, has been and apparently still is, a place where "academic freedom" is another myth.
"Calvin College Professors Troubled by Trustee Edict Against Gay Advocacy
Many faculty members at Calvin College are raising concerns about academic freedom and shared governance at their institution after its Board of Trustees last week issued a memo saying it was unacceptable for faculty and staff to advocate homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the Grand Rapids Press reports."
The initial reports stated that the edict claimed the "unacceptability" idea applied to faculty and staff "in their professional and private" lives - no pushing the gay on your own time.
Posted by: Holydust | September 1, 2009 2:58 PM
He plagiarized, went over the word count by DOUBLE (in my school is an insta-fail, no questions asked), and then was a whiny little bitch when he was GASP expected to show that he learned something in class.
I sure wish I could fall back on my religious beliefs whenever I'm not happy about one of my grades. Lazy little fuck.
Posted by: 386sx | September 1, 2009 3:02 PM
Abort, retry, fail?
I remember something like that. I never knew what any of them meant, and none of them ever worked anyway. Those were the good ol' days of floppy disk, as I recall. Not so long ago, actually...
Posted by: Josh | September 1, 2009 3:07 PM
It means, in short, absolutely nothing. I think you calling it gibberish covers the whole thing quite well.
I mean, if we really wanted to get into it, he pretty much got everything wrong, starting off with the fact that an era is a unit of time. How can a unit of time have a "flat look" or a "close to perfectly horizontal look?" It's absolutely wrong to try and use era to mean strata (ugh) or formation or rock or something. It went downhill from there...
Gibberish. Send it back. Ungraded.
Posted by: 386sx | September 1, 2009 3:18 PM
Abort, retry, fail?
I suppose that if one of those ever actually did something, then I would know what they meant. But they never worked, So I never knew what the difference between those three options were. To me, they were all the same thing. I guess "Abort, retry, fail?" means "Unplug computer, lose data, buy new floppies, then repeat process again?" That's what it meant to me anyway.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 1, 2009 3:18 PM
As a physics student, I was given explicit permission to use first-person pronouns. As Prof. Rajagopal's instructions for our third-semester quantum physics term paper said,
(This comes from the course materials used a few years after I took the class, but the gist was the same.)
Different scholarly journals may have their own in-house expectations and style guides, of course.
Posted by: MikeyM | September 1, 2009 3:19 PM
The SDA are my type of fundies: the type who fight for strict church-state separation. Unlike other persecuted sects, e.g., Baptists, Puritans, Mormons, once they were no longer oppressed, the SDA didn't themselves become the oppressors. They publish an excellent church-state periodical called , whose declaration of principles would make Madison proud:
Posted by: Jim | September 1, 2009 3:23 PM
Raven @82.
No, no, no. It is even more hilarious than you think. This guy thought that the pictures of the geologic column in textbooks represent some actual rock sample. He apparently does not grasp that the geologic column is presented as a conceptual chart, not as an actual piece of rock. He makes this same mistake several different places in his paper, mixing up real geologic strata with the chart of the geologic column.
I laughed out loud when he wrote that he had asked several professors about these errors and contradictions in the geologic column and they just shrugged. If a senior level science major asked me such questions I'ld probably be too stunned to answer either.
Posted by: MikeyM | September 1, 2009 3:26 PM
Oops. The periodical is titled Liberty.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 1, 2009 3:42 PM
*sighs heavily, longs to return to Northern NE, drive up rt. 100 in VT, acroos Rt 2 to Francona Notch in NH, take the Kancamagus and head to Maine, across the state to Bar Harbor and Acadia...
Sigh...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 1, 2009 3:49 PM
dammit... Kancamangus. I never, ever proof-read.
grumble.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 3:50 PM
OK, I see what you mean. The chart with the eras and their periods, like Quaternay, Tertiary, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Permian, Carboniferous, Devonian and so on back to the Precambrian. This chart is a summary of hundreds of years of research and the divisions are measured in time before present.
So the divisions like the Cretaceous are flat because it was 65 million years ago all over the planet at the same time Wow, who could have imagined that!
Posted by: HERV | September 1, 2009 3:59 PM
Has anyone else read the comments on the post-grade exchanges? Some of them are great! One of the best is from 'Thomas' who says "I am not a science major, nor am I into science much at all" and then goes into a long rant about 'scientists change their theories all the time' and a speech about the theological significance of reverse engineering a dino from a chicken.
Posted by: JBlilie | September 1, 2009 4:01 PM
Take a look at the comments on his paper itself:
http://www.educatetruth.com/evidence/la-sierra-evidence/carlos-cernas-unst-404b-capstone-paper/
Enough to blow the coffee out your nose ...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 1, 2009 4:02 PM
"I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is bullshit," he said. ... Gary Bradley ... says he is a practicing Adventist.
Do real live practicing Adventurers even use that underlined word?
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | September 1, 2009 4:09 PM
Reginald @2,
Babu Ranganathan has a B.A. in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University. See link for more.
Posted by: 386sx | September 1, 2009 4:11 PM
He apparently does not grasp that the geologic column is presented as a conceptual chart, not as an actual piece of rock. He makes this same mistake several different places in his paper, mixing up real geologic strata with the chart of the geologic column.
Actually that's not at all unusual for creationists. That's typical Kent Hovind or Karl Bough type material there. So we know where he's getting his real "science" education. (From TBN, CBN, and raunchy creationist web pages.)
Posted by: Davianed | September 1, 2009 4:15 PM
@ #98:
If he went to Bob Jones, then he went to a place with some of the worst ignorance and intolerance of any ideas besides their own.
Biology from Bob Jones is a complete joke. I went to school not far from there, and almost every student to come out of there was unprepared for life outside of their university because of the ridiculous nature of their school.
Saying you're a Biologist from Bob Jones means that you didn't learn Biology, you learned doctrine and where it links into some aspects of Biology.
Posted by: Josh | September 1, 2009 4:18 PM
Holy shit--is that what he meant? That isn't how I read that at all.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 1, 2009 4:22 PM
Different scholarly journals may have their own in-house expectations and style guides, of course.
It's rare you find any professor with grad students recommending anything but first person, though, for the exact reasons yours did.
I can't think of any journal in biology I've read in the last 20 years that the articles weren't written in first person.
It changes when you get back to the point where people were submitting entire monographs for publication, but it seems pretty consistently first person to me these days.
Posted by: Armand K.
|
September 1, 2009 4:25 PM
Indeed... Oh my!Following the same logic, an altitude chart must be obtained by slicing the Earth and taking a photo. And the latitude and longitude marks on maps must be actual lines drawn on earth. (Hey, for the last one I have even peer-reviewed material: Tom Sawyer Abroad by Mark Twain!)
Posted by: Laurie | September 1, 2009 4:27 PM
Celtic Evolution:
Greetings from the Granite State! You spelled "Kancamagus" correctly the first time. It is pronounced "Kancamangus" but the second "n" does not appear in the spelling.
Of course, if you are really cool, you just call it "the Kanc."
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 4:28 PM
I went to school not far from there, and almost every student to come out of there was unprepared for life outside of their university because of the ridiculous nature of their school.
I met a gay stripper who went to Bob Jones. That was a completely fucked up guy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 1, 2009 4:30 PM
Is this really a problem in biology programs?
No.
PZ is deliberate exaggerating to call attention to the several egregious cases, like Jonathan Wells.
All graduate level biology programs I'm aware of rely on GSE's (Graduate Student Examinations) to determine what the weaknesses of any potential grad student are, and typically assign mandatory coursework to rectify.
that said, nothing stops someone like Wells, who is smart enough to game the system, from completing his PhD in exactly the manner LSU would like:
complete awareness of the details of scientific theory, and complete denial at the same time.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
September 1, 2009 4:36 PM
It's been 22 years since I read Nineteen Eight-Four.
And that still makes me shiver in discomfort.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Zetetic
|
September 1, 2009 4:37 PM
@ Slackwench #69:
A quick comment before I run off to work...
The problem is that some creationists are trying to get science degrees in biology just so they can attack evolution. Physics isn't really a target for them, yet. They just learn parrot enough biology to get through the tests, and then once they get the degree they spend their carriers never doing any actual science but making speeches and writing books attacking science from a position of false authority.
It's like if religious members started taking physics classes, trying just hard enough to get a degree, then they spent the rest of their carriers promoting geocentrisim and attacking relativity, quantum mechanics, and the "Big Bang" while never creating any peer reviewed research.
Posted by: Arnold T. Pants | September 1, 2009 4:45 PM
"One can not argue that the content of this class has been extremely informative."
That's almost as good as Hovind's opener in his fake dissertation.
Posted by: Chris | September 1, 2009 4:50 PM
I read his paper, and it seems to me he was lucky to get a C. I wonder if my undergraduate work ever sounded so lame, I really hope not.
However, what really struck me is that most of his arguments seem directly parroted from that arch-fraud Kent Hovind. Right down to the "Charlie Darwin" at the end. Anyone who takes Kent Hovind at all seriously deserves an immediate failing grade in my book.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 1, 2009 4:59 PM
I've always taken "literalist" literally - the literal interpretation in this case being "hallucinatory cherry-picker" (apologies to real cherry pickers out there). I learned that in catholic school many decades ago: "Sure some parts of the bible can be interpreted literally" and the teacher then picks out disparate phrases here and there (phrases, not entire paragraphs) and proceeds to make conclusions which rival the ontological argument for utter stupidity. I got into trouble for talking to my classmate and saying something like "I can do that with the Holy Webster Dictionary too: religion is stupid."
So there's the one and only lesson you need on literal interpretation of the bible. So go out there, get your bible, and make up some funny shit; just don't start a new religion because my bible tells me that I have to throw rocks at you if you do, and god tells me the bible is true.
Posted by: arachnophilia | September 1, 2009 5:16 PM
no, it's not strange at all. have you read the bible? it's a big collection of texts, written in three different languages, by at least 50 different authors, in two separate countries (and an occupied territory), and contains many different ideologies and interpretations of god, and many different philosophies. at some points, these texts are even unskillfully mashed together, particularly in the first five books.
no matter what these literalists say, it's impossible to get a clear and consistent literal interpretation of the bible, because it's contradictory. perhaps even schizophrenic.
Posted by: David Utidjian
|
September 1, 2009 5:21 PM
Blake Stacey @ 88:
I agree that it is not important that the passive voice be used in scientific writing. Where I take issue is when the styles are mixed within a sentence and, sometimes, when they are mixed within a paragraph. I think there may also be exceptions to the mixing-in-a-sentence-rule but I don't know enough about the rules of the English language to be certain.
As an example, in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the paper:
"One can not argue that the content of this class has been extremely informative."
If you can parse that sentence the same way I am then I doubt very much that he meant that the content of the class was extremely UN-informative... which is the way I read it. Was he trying to dis the professor in the very first sentence? That first sentence is also in the third person singular. The rest of the paragraph alternates between first person singular, first person plural, and third person singular.
Though I get the basic idea of what he is trying to say in the paper, the overall style really jangles my nerves. I find that I have to re-read sentences and paragraphs several times in order to understand what he is trying to say.
I wrote better papers when I was in the fifth grade. I have written better papers in high school and college. My writing style has deteriorated since then due to laziness and lack of critical feedback but I can still recognize good (or even reasonable) writing style when I see it. If I had submitted this paper in high school I would have gotten a "D" if I was lucky.
-DU-
Posted by: Mark Johnson | September 1, 2009 5:28 PM
Raven,
I know I can't change your mind, you are a true believer after all, but I will point out that seldom have I seen more close mindedness on a supposed scientific forum. Strong words that villify anybody who doesn't adhere to this group's evolutionary doctrines of faith is commonplace. Rare indeed is there a posting here without some kind of condemnation of the infidel, a certain readiness to wage jihad on the free thinker who stands in defiance of the evolutionary Talmud.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 1, 2009 5:34 PM
Have you people ever done anything but lie?
Slime like you attack "evolutionists" first, then when you're treated like the stupid liar that you are, you whine. Never do you justify your "free thinker" status, since extremely few of you have even troubled to read anything by the other side, and those few just tell lies like you do anyhow.
Tell the truth, moron, and you won't be treated like a mindless thrall to religious stupidity. As long as you're merely attacking, not thinking, we'll treat you like the hater of truth and science that you actually are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2009 5:36 PM
*yawn*
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 5:37 PM
Strong words that villify anybody who doesn't adhere to this group's evolutionary doctrines of faith is commonplace. Rare indeed is there a posting here without some kind of condemnation of the infidel, a certain readiness to wage jihad on the free thinker who stands in defiance of the evolutionary Talmud.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | September 1, 2009 5:38 PM
Grade inflation makes me sad. But what can you do?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 1, 2009 5:39 PM
shorter Mark Johnson:
Dear Raven,
Watch me project like a mad motherfucker.
Now watch me run away.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 5:55 PM
Glen Davidson (answering Mark Johnson), #115: Never do you justify your "free thinker" status, since extremely few of you have even troubled to read anything by the other side, and those few just tell lies like you do anyhow.
And we know that you rarely trouble yourselves to read anything by the other side by the very obvious and easily correctable errors that you make each and every time one of you posts.
Posted by: Mark Johnson | September 1, 2009 5:55 PM
Like I said...
You gang up like a pack of 8th grade girls and hurl abuse at the smart girl who swims upstream instead of down. She thinks for herself and wore modest straight legged jeans today rather than the low-hipped bell bottoms of the popular girl clique. She doesn't care what others say. She is confident at looking at all sides and deciding herself with whom she wishes to befriend, easily discerning between flights of fancy and solid ground. She speaks respectfully even to those she disagrees with. (She's bad!)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 1, 2009 5:56 PM
Zetetic writes:
Physics isn't really a target for them, yet.
I am mentally picturing that, and it makes me
have a big smile.
Why haven't they? Are they scared because the physicists have high energy gizmos and wear goggles? Maybe physicists need to start saying things like, "We want the large hadron collider because it will prove that god doesn't exist. Or, if he does, it'll vaporize him. Either way. (long pause) Just kidding."
Posted by: lose_the_woo | September 1, 2009 5:58 PM
Ok there freethinker (heh heh) - here's one for your freethinkingness:
Why not Alah?
Use empirically-based reasoned logic only (i.e. reality based). Referring to any doctrinal here-say, such as ancient horse-shit mythology, disqualifies you as a free thinker and brands you as a dogmatic, emotionally stunted, intellectual cripple.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 6:02 PM
Mark Johnson, #121:
Thanks for that, Mark. You people really parody yourselves, you know that?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2009 6:05 PM
Well. He get's one more post.
Do you have any evidence that refutes the "dogma" of evolution? We're open to any research you have. I mean, you must have reams of it right?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 1, 2009 6:07 PM
Yawn, what a waste of a post. Speak plain American instead of regiobabble. No free thinking here. Just utter and total follow my babble.Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 1, 2009 6:08 PM
You gang up like a pack of 8th grade girls and hurl abuse at the smart girl who swims upstream instead of down. She thinks for herself and wore modest straight legged jeans today rather than the low-hipped bell bottoms of the popular girl clique. She doesn't care what others say. She is confident at looking at all sides and deciding herself with whom she wishes to befriend, easily discerning between flights of fancy and solid ground. She speaks respectfully even to those she disagrees with. (She's bad!)
Actually, from my experience, that is the complete opposite of what you folks have done. To be sure, most of the time, most of the time it's just screaming at us that we are going to hell. Stop acting like the oppressed minority: You’re not.
Posted by: Dave UH | September 1, 2009 6:10 PM
"I plant to pursue a PhD in Molecular Biology"
That was a good one, especially after he says that he will use molecular biology to disprove "magnetic stratigraphy." I would bet money that he actually does not know what molecular Biology is. The student should have received an F.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 1, 2009 6:12 PM
Last I knew, the language was called English.Posted by: Josh
|
September 1, 2009 6:13 PM
Could he first explain to me what "magnetic stratigraphy" is?
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 6:13 PM
You never, ever present anything like a coherent thought. Just stupid drive by comments and insults. In that sentence alone you have three insults: true believer, close mindedness, and "supposed" before scientific. As you sow, so shall you reap.
You never did answer my points in #79. Because you couldn't. Why don't you fundies just stay under your rocks and leave normal people alone? You have no legal, ethical, or moral right to attempt to impose your beliefs on anyone else.
Why are you here anyway? No one held a gun to your head and forced you. You are just here to be an asshole fundie xian troll. We see them constantly.
Ever here of swine flu? It is a newly evolved and rapidly evolving virus that is about to scare most, sicken many, and kill a few creationists (and everyone else). It was also predicted based on evolutionary theory. Talk about closed minded morons, evolution stares you in the face and you will have to make up some more lies.
OK, Mark,
lie some, check.
Insults check.
stupid comments check
Tell everyone they are going to hell not yet.
Leave some death threats behind. not yet.
Two more items on your check list and you are done for the day.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 1, 2009 6:15 PM
Last I knew, the language was called English.
He means general American dialet English. There are differences.
Posted by: Marc Abian | September 1, 2009 6:15 PM
Fixed that for you buddy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 1, 2009 6:19 PM
I believe Richard Dawkins and I are separated by a common language.Posted by: Mark Johnson | September 1, 2009 6:23 PM
Why is the anger here so deep? Rare is the post without abusive language or polite disagreement, rather it runs thick with condemnation. What is the threat? If there is no God as you claim why do care when someone believes that there is? I'm cognizant enough to realize that with the same zeal an evolutionist on this site might defend his beliefs are equal to, if not greater than the most devoted religionist.
Great is Artemis of the Ephesians indeed.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 6:23 PM
Thanks for writing that little gem. You are quite likely fruitbat crazy.
Acceptance of evolution runs over 99% of scientists in relevant fields in the USA. That "pack of 8th grade girls" created the 21st century and are the best, brightest, and most well educated our society has ever produced.
All you fundies want to do is tear it down in some sort of Nihilist frenzy because reality contradicts 2 pages of your mythology.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 6:26 PM
Mark Johnson, #135:
Mark, could you point out some of the posts on this thread where you actually discuss the issue in the opening post in a substantive manner? If not, that could go a long way toward explaining the abuse you see in the comments directed to you.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | September 1, 2009 6:30 PM
Hey Mark,
Not everybody here is angry, but some are. Why? Well, you already know the answer to that, don't you? This blog gives plenty of examples of how you and your deluded pals inflict all manner of harm on the world. Yeah, we're kind of sick of it. Plus--maybe it's just a coincidence--but you and your pals seem like a bunch of assholes.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 1, 2009 6:33 PM
Why is the anger here so deep? Rare is the post without abusive language or polite disagreement, rather it runs thick with condemnation. What is the threat? If there is no God as you claim why do care when someone believes that there is? I'm cognizant enough to realize that with the same zeal an evolutionist on this site might defend his beliefs are equal to, if not greater than the most devoted religionist.
Great is Artemis of the Ephesians indeed.
You don't get it do you? There reason that we are defensive is because religious goons are constantly assault people and throwing their beliefs on them. This article shows how they threaten the integrity of science and free thought in order to advance their religious dogma. Like raven said: If you were like the Amish, and keep your religion to yourself instead of forcing it on others no one would care. Now one here believes evolution is a religion. Nor do we believe it science is a religion. We defend it because it's facts; one that religious goons don't want others to know.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 6:33 PM
It's not about whether others believe in God, it's the rampant dishonesty that creationists bring when talking science. Either they don't know better or they are wilfully lying. Either way it is infuriating to see people who can't be described any more aptly than Liars For JesusTM.Go ahead, believe in God. Doesn't affect me unless you start using that belief to justify intruding on the lives of others. But as for using God to dismiss science, then you'll draw my ire.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 6:34 PM
That was your first question. We told you. You ignored it. You are wasting our time.
Guy is playing the persecution card now. Mark came here voluntarily to troll.
Mark insults, lies, babbles incoherently, and then claims persecution when people point out that he has mental problems, has no point but trolling, and is dumb.
Call in the B team Troll Kicking squad. He can stay stupid longer than most people can stay interested.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 6:36 PM
Sure it is, they just call it "evolution". Remember Ken Ham with his evolution challenge - to prove the life, the universe, and everything happened without God - otherwise evolution is false. Keeping evolution to the change and diversification of digitally-reproducing life over time? Bah, not if you're a creationist.Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2009 6:40 PM
Well that was pointless and expected. Mark should be ignored. He's just a needling putz.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | September 1, 2009 6:46 PM
Throughout the ages never has a reason been demonstrated that would cause someone to think that deities exist. But by all means, if you have something compelling, feel free to share.
And the whole all beliefs are equal position espoused by most myth-believers is just plain wrong. Not all beliefs are equal. Most are dangerously out of sync with reality. Those that are adequately in parity with reality are far superior to those that aren't. Nowhere in reality do we find evidence of a young Earth or the existence of deities. Actually, empirical reality clearly demonstrates otherwise.
As far as caring about what you believe goes - stop trying to legislate your mythology and we'll get along as equal citizens of our secular nation just fine.
Posted by: Seeker | September 1, 2009 6:46 PM
Can somebody clarify something for a Continental European who graduated over 10 years ago?
I'm not very well versed in the US educational system but the level this paper was meant for... that's the level around 18 years, right? You know, the level where the people who only went to school because they had to are seperated from the ones who are actually interested in studying even more?
I mean... in my final year of secondary school, I might still have turned in a paper like that... written in the first person singular. No chapters. Some glaring homophone "spelling errors". No structure. Jumping from point to poiunt. Bringing up points and immediately dropping them... I would never have dared to turn in a work like that even in my first year of Bachelor's study.
So please, can somebody of you put my mind at ease and confirm that when PZ mentioned that this is a "university" he didn't mean the kind of university that turns out Bachelors and Masters, or FSM forbid ... PhDs.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 6:46 PM
Science is the backbone of our society. So why does it matter? Because science matters.does it matter if the individual on the street doesn't accept evolution? Of course not. But this is someone getting accreditation for the purpose of undermining the scientific method. In the big picture who is being hurt? The population in general.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 1, 2009 6:49 PM
Great is Artemis of the Ephesians indeed.
Oh, here we go with the fucking pseudo-KJV English. You people just love the drama, don't you? Isn't it about time you tell us about the One whom we have offended? And the "just wrath" that will be poured out upon us? Which will, no doubt, give you a great deal of pleasure.
On another note -
@Zetetic: It's like if religious members started taking physics classes, trying just hard enough to get a degree, then they spent the rest of their carriers promoting geocentrism and attacking relativity, quantum mechanics, and the "Big Bang" while never creating any peer reviewed research.
It's already started: http://www.geocentricity.com/
This guy is just all kinds of crazy.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 7:02 PM
The fundies have targeted physics. Dr. Jason Lisle of the AIG is an astrophysicist from U. Colorado .
The fundies ultimately want to target and destroy biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, physics, archaeology, and history because all these fields contradict their 2 pages of mythology. Oddly enough, the sciences all agree with each other.
They came for the biologists but I was not a biologist.....
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 1, 2009 7:13 PM
Alyson, I quite agree. That was the Dutch professor's point - the girl was the product of our American system.
I went back and found the thread
Jeff,
The only objection I have to the comment regarding the Dutch professor's point is that they didn't claim that ALL US seniors are at the level of Dutch freshmen, only that this student was at that level. Really though, what can you expect from a "devout believer" who refuses to accept a fundamental concept of the field they opted to study. On top of that, she came from a 3rd tier university coming out of a program that isn't particularly notable.
The fact that they changed the grade is, from my point of view as an educator, insane. I have to question the legality of that move given that Kent State is a public university, of course there could be loopholes or technicalities in a study-abroad program.
Posted by: Badger3k | September 1, 2009 7:21 PM
This kid would get it sent back to him from me, and I teach high school. Blech.
On the other hand, being tired and reading this, at #95, I had to do a double take. After the "Dick Seaman" mentioned, I had to read "reverse engineering a dino from a chicken" as "reverse engineering a 'marital aid/personal massager' from a chicken." Now, that would be an accomplishment!
Posted by: Badger3k | September 1, 2009 7:48 PM
Artemis? Artemis? I prefer good old Zeus. At least he knocked up women in person. Yahweh had to use an intermediary (his schizo third person "holy spirit"). Bit of a coward, if you ask me, even if he did claim responsibility for the bastard child. It wasn't adultery, but did He pay Mary's dad the bride price for raping his property? Inquiring minds want to know?
I love the metaphors, a brave girl swimming upstream yadda yadda yadda - I just waited to see if it ended with her sitting quietly at home (or in the kitchen) supporting her man, who is her superior, of course. But in terms of metaphors, it would be more appropriate for the girl to be swimming against the raging tsunami that is reality, all the while insisting that the water is a trickle. We're in black knight territory here.
Read some of the comments on that site - gak! Such stupidity and ignorance! I liked the one comment on how it doesn't matter whether what is in the paper is true or not, just that the SDA should choose whether to teach reality or to lie and hide behind dogma (even if it wasn't phrased that way - I edited it for honesty). It would be nice to conform beliefs to reality, but I suspect that (if pressured) the idiots would go for their fantasy world. Pretty depressing to read.
As for the creationists and physics, it's in there. There have been other incidents, but even at the basics the creationists can't stand physics. Look at their misuse of the second law of thermodynamics, or the idea that the speed of light or radioactive decay has changed. They'll go after anything and everything that stands in between their head and the sand, which is pretty much every science we've discovered.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 1, 2009 7:50 PM
The fact that they changed the grade is, from my point of view as an educator, insane. I have to question the legality of that move given that Kent State is a public university, of course there could be loopholes or technicalities in a study-abroad program.
Well, I just figured that it's a large state school in the Midwest; either the prof was also a creationist, or the administration bent over backward because they were frightened of litigation.
I misunderstood her (obviously, English isn't her first language, yet she still writes better than most of the xtian trolls who post here!). I thought she meant all seniors from the States were inadequately educated relative to their freshman; it seems she was just talking about Kent State.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 1, 2009 7:51 PM
"You gang up like a pack of 8th grade girls and hurl abuse at the smart girl who swims upstream instead of down. She thinks for herself and wore modest straight legged jeans today rather than the low-hipped bell bottoms of the popular girl clique. She doesn't care what others say. She is confident at looking at all sides and deciding herself with whom she wishes to befriend, easily discerning between flights of fancy and solid ground. She speaks respectfully even to those she disagrees with. (She's bad!)"
Somebody's lonely.
(bellbottoms?!)
Posted by: thegusdad | September 1, 2009 8:07 PM
I think someone doesn't get it.
Gotta love the "Talmud = jihad" equation.
Posted by: gwangung | September 1, 2009 8:17 PM
Pharisees like you anger people.
The hypocrisy, the lies, the mendacity...they are all afronts and insults to adult minds. And they're doubly so to Christian adults minds.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 1, 2009 8:18 PM
I had the same thought when I read that...:-)
What a peculiar image to choose !
And what's with the Jedi speak?
Posted by: Mark Johnson | September 1, 2009 9:05 PM
Some of you folks are witty. I enjoy that, others more banal.
The point I'm trying to make is that the same level of fervency exercised by the most avowed religionist can be displayed in equal measure on the opposite side of the spectrum within the academic community. Same energy, same tenacity, and unfortunately similar results (condemnation, banishment, denigration). I have a very low bullshit threshold. If I see somebody engaging in rude and cliqueish behavior my experience dictates that there is a deep level of insecurity involved, irregardless of the truth of the matter. Sometimes a messenger can poison the greatest of messages. All humans are deserving of respect and courtesy until they have proven they need put in time out. I can't stand bullies and unable of tolerating watching somebody get pissed on just because they don't toe the political line.
In the immortal words of the Sainted Rodney King, "Can't we just all get along here?"
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2009 9:14 PM
Uhg. You're here to defend creationists from the meanie evolutionist? Really? You're nothing more than annoying bore. You're not even interesting. We get along fine with people who have bizarre viewpoints as long as they're interested in honest debate and are willing to admit when they need to learn a little.
There's no sign that might be you.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 9:19 PM
Ah, yes, life. Welcome.
Are you suggesting that there's a dichotomous variable - religionist/academic?
?
That's stupid.
Not a word.
What message?
?
Posted by: Sastra | September 1, 2009 9:22 PM
Mark Johnson #157 wrote:
And sometimes passion can emphasize a message. You can't decide which side is correct by checking to see who's nicer.
Which, of course, you already know.
Substance, not style.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 9:23 PM
As soon as those stop being intellectually dishonest, I'll be more than happy to engage in civil dialogue. But I have this thing about people lying to my face... I know I'm not a Christian, but isn't there some commandment about not bearing false witness?Posted by: RC | September 1, 2009 9:26 PM
Why, oh why do they always want to be molecular biologists?
We recently flunked out a christian who was studying genetics, and he confessed that he was only doing it so that he could identify and breed out the homosexual gene. Luckily he was also a crap student so he was out purely on academics, but still!
He's also now been reported to the psychology board as he was a practicing psychologist who helped gays 'understand' that they were evil. He said so on the web and the board was a bit concerned. He also wrote papers that he couldn't get into journals because they were 'outside the establishment', so he hand distributed them. Or mailed them to people like Claudia Schiffer and Dan Quayle.
Notes to kooks wanting to be molecular biologists:
-molecular biology supports evolution
-even first year biology students know that eugenics doesn't work mathematically.
Stop coming to my classes!
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 9:27 PM
You know, when I see or hear someone use irregardless I assume they aren't very literate and I tend to ignore them. You wouldn't happen to pronounce "nuclear" as nookyooler would you? (I'm betting you do.)
Awww, can't we all just get along?!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 9:28 PM
I can't stand bullies and unable of tolerating watching somebody get pissed on just because they don't toe the political line.
So, you're admitting that creationism is a political position and not a scientific one?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 1, 2009 9:30 PM
Then you're either not very experienced, not very perceptive, or both.
That you've included the inane non-word 'irregardless' in your comment is further evidence that there are times in your life you should have been paying more attention.
Posted by: John Morales | September 1, 2009 9:32 PM
Mark @157:
That's misusing the word 'deserve', which is inapplicable until you have some knowledge about someone's merits or otherwise.
(It means to become worthy of either reward or punishment, according to service or actions.)
Posted by: Badger3k | September 1, 2009 9:35 PM
"In the immortal words of the Sainted Rodney King, 'Can't we just all get along here?'"
You mean the serial offender and criminal? Not a fine figure to put up (being assaulted by cops doesn't remove his criminal history, not make him a saint by any means).
The answer is "No" - getting along means accepting some batshit insanity as equal to reality. It seems like you want us to toe a "political" line there (I assume you mean PC, or maybe some postmodern bullshit). This isn't some touchy-feely circle jerk, and your hypocrisy is evident. And, sorry to say, people are deserving of respect, until they have shown they don't deserve any. No court needed - we decide that as human beings, just as you do.
Creationists are either seriously misguided, or are liars. The ones who learn to respect reality are treated with respect, the liars who continue to spout lies are not, because they have shown they aren't worthy of respect. Just try to remember that while people are worthy or basic levels of respect, ideas aren't, and they have to be supported by evidence to get any. Respect is also something that must be earned. Even school kids understand this.
I like to ask this question - a man, wearing old, torn clothes, smelling of alcohol, urine, and other odd scents, with a glazed look in his eyes and a hand down the front of his pants, asks to look after your kids for the evening - do you take his word on faith, or do you look at the evidence and say "No thanks!" ? What do you think of the people who say no? Are they on the same footing as the ones who say 'Sure, come on in!' ? Are both sides worthy of the same respect and treatment? Hardly. One is to be congratulated, the other (the "come on in" people) would be up for criminal neglect, even if they aren't putting pictures of their kids on milk cartons. Respect the people who ignore evidence? Not likely.
Actually, looking back over your post again, I guess the quick reply to your post would be:
"Concern troll is concerned". Sounds like framing again.
Posted by: moonkitty | September 1, 2009 9:50 PM
@Rey Fox #153
"(bellbottoms?!)"
Yeah, he's right, bellbottoms are back--have been for some time.
He does seem to be awfully au courant with 14-yo-girl fashions, though, doesn't he?
I found that whole little self-pitying fantasy hilarious. And by hilarious I mean, "seriously creepy."
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 10:06 PM
Mark Johnson, #157: The point I'm trying to make is that the same level of fervency exercised by the most avowed religionist can be displayed in equal measure on the opposite side of the spectrum within the academic community.
That may be true. But at least the fervency on the side of the academic community is often justified by evidence obtained through rigorous research. The fervency of the religionists, not so much.
Posted by: John Morales | September 1, 2009 10:07 PM
Further to my #166, re
Courtesy refers to urbanity/politeness/civility, whereas respect refers to a profession of esteem; the former is independent to the latter.
To conflate the two concepts (as that quote does) seems very confused, and is idiosyncratic.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 1, 2009 10:09 PM
Laurie @ #104
Sorry for the delayed response to this... life occasionally intervenes. Ya know, I thought that was the case when I wrote it, but then I looked at a Google map and noticed it spelled both ways... figured I had it wrong.
Anyhow, I love NH... I am bummed about the Old Man in the Mountain. I used to spend my summers as a kid at Calef lake near Derry. Good times, good times. I miss it.
Posted by: Reverted | September 1, 2009 10:35 PM
PZ, your very first sentence instantly reminded me of this:
"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." -Bertrand Russell
Posted by: Reverted | September 1, 2009 10:42 PM
@Glen Davidson, #5:
I, too, attended Walla Walla College! And, I even attended the Behe talks a couple of years ago, there!
(I initially didn't think he was as bad as I later found out, after having actually researched his claims. Good grief... what a lying hack.)
And... Jim Nestler is a great guy and, from what I hear, a very good teacher, as well! :)
Posted by: arachnophilia | September 1, 2009 10:57 PM
@raven: (#131)
fundie bashing aside, a minor correction. while viruses like influenza can evolve quite rapidly indeed, "swine flu" or h1n1 is perhaps not "newly evolved" depending on your definition of "new." it's been around for close 100 years.
oh, and this "great is artemis of the ephesians" thing is a hoot. hey mark, have you ever, like, read acts? or studied history?
see, the temple of artemis in ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the world. now, in walks this nonbeliever, paul the apostle, who says this god isn't real and is just made up by silver-smiths demetrius who make a good living selling false gods. and they were worried these terrible nonbelievers would tear down their magnificent temple. "great is artemis" was their cry in defense of their god's existence.
in other words, in this analogy, these guys are the christians, and you're the ephesians. yeah? they don't believe in your god, and are trying to tear down your beautiful history and tradition, and you're defending yahweh and jesus. in somewhat similar style, too. you just happen to not have enough voices in this crowd to shout in unison -- but in other places, yeah, that's pretty much the standard christian tactic. but seriously, you should totally read the bible some time. there's some good stuff there.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 1, 2009 11:36 PM
Seriously.
Posted by: raven | September 2, 2009 12:12 AM
Not quite. While the new H1N1 is a distant descendant of the 1918 virus, it has had a tortuous history. For that matter, the H1N1 seasonal strain circulating for recent decades is also a descendant. Not all H1N1's are the same by any means, they have diverged wildly from 1918 Just like evolution would predict.. We are primates but we are not at all like our ancient forebearers 5 million years ago..
A recent paper sequenced 800-900 flu viruses so we have a lot of data on its recent evolution. Which is complicated. To really do this right, one has to trace the ancestry back for each of the 8 segments, which has been done. The full reassortment package of the new human pathogen is only a few years old at most and it has been called a triple reassortment. Read the papers for more info.
The point stands. This is a recently evolved virus and it is rapidly evolving. It is a good example of the power and necessity of evolutionary theory in medicine.
1. The pandemic was predicted years ahead of time. We didn't know exactly which virus and when, but it was time for a new pandemic. And here we are.
2. I and a few dozen other scientists promptly predicted that it would become Tamiflu resistant. There are already many examples of Tamiflu resistance and the herald wave is only a few months old. It should take a year or 3 for widespread Tamiflu resistance to set in.
3. Next up is antigenic drift to evade the immune system. A safe predicition.
4. This swine H1N1 should displace the seasonal H1N1 and circulate as a new seasonal strain. Not a safe prediction but I've already made it anyway.
Posted by: Glenn Weare | September 2, 2009 1:24 AM
As a former SDA minister I can say that this is going to be dynamite for the SDA church. The SDA church's existence depends on a 7 day creation - otherwise the seventh-day Sabbath (that the seventh-day part of their name) has no basis. They cannot admit that evolution is true. They will simply drum out of the church people who accept evolution as the best explanation for life. In the 1980's they sacked ministers by the hundreds who did not accept an obscure interpretation of Bible prophecy. People with families who still wanted to practice the ministry were summarily sacked.
They will not think twice about doing the same again because more important than the truth is the existence of the organisation. They rationalise this in many ways but it all comes back to the same thing - organisations matter more than truth!
I left the church because I could no longer accept that the Bible was what these people claim it is. I then went through a long road if rethinking, in the process learning to come to terms with evolution and all that it entails. In the end I had to face up to the fact that I was an atheist and life has never been better!!!!!!!!
I urge any SDA's who are hanging onto the church - look at things very carefully and you will most likely find that you have been hoodwinked these many long years. There is a better way!
Posted by: ET | September 2, 2009 2:21 AM
Of all the major indigenous American religious traditions (e.g., SDA [Adventist], LDS [Mormon], JW [Jehovah’s Witness], Christian Science), the Adventist approach to science and education is most interesting because it boarders on the institutionally schizophrenic.
On one hand, North American SDA liberal arts colleges like La Sierra University in most cases have done a very credible job of teaching mainline biology, chemistry and physics science courses and make sure they do everything their accrediting agencies want, e.g., keeping their faculty standards up (e.g., Ph.D.s from some very good places.) originally because their pre-med students needed to get their baccalaureate degrees from accredited colleges (and later, getting reasonably high scores on their MCATs) so that their flagship medical school at Loma Linda University (about 10 miles away from La Sierra University) could obtain and maintain its accreditation and academic standing. Today, it is a very fine academic medical institution.
On the other hand, the institutional ethos of the Adventist theological tradition is, with a few caveats, essentially fundamentalist in orientation. There is an added problem in that Adventism has in its history a 19th century prophetic figure, one Ellen White, who had out-of-body trance experiences beginning in her teen-age years that, among many other things, included visions about a literal 7-day creation and a world wide flood “about 6,000 years ago.” Regretfully, her continuing influence in these matters makes it very difficult to make needed “adjustments” in the traditional Adventist theological system. (As University of Wisconsin historian Ronald Numbers has documented in his book on the evolution of modern creationism, George McCredy Price, an avid believer in Ellen White, was responsible for resurrecting the strange idea of “Flood Geology.”)
There is a small group of non-fundamentalist Adventist progressives attempting to figure out and implement ways to get the Adventist tradition to recognize that religious schizophrenia is not healthy and make appropriate adjustments. Opposing them are hard core Adventist fundamentalists who are ever ready to exploit the fact that Adventist public evangelism has brought into that denomination large numbers of individuals with limited educational background who readily accept the fundamentalist ethos of traditional Adventism and it is these individuals who can be upset easily when they are informed that “their” colleges are teaching evolution. This, in part, explains what is currently going on at La Sierra University.
The more reasonable segments of Adventist administrative clergy are tying to find a formula to keep the fundamentalist and non-fundamentalists elements in Adventism from eventually tearing the denomination apart in North America. An example of this is the statement of Jan Paulsen, the Adventist General Conference President, which was quoted. (By the way, Paulsen has a doctoral degree from Turbingin)
(For what it is worth, I’m an emeritus professor who taught for 30 years at the University of California, Riverside which is located approximately half way between La Sierra and Loma Linda Universities and am a 3rd generation “cultural” Adventist who values the positive medical and philanthropic elements of the Adventist tradition when they make positive contributions to human welfare around the world.)
ET
Posted by: David Waldock | September 2, 2009 2:57 AM
Doesn't the warning at the bottom of the post risk creating a double-victim scenario?
If one accepts that kids sent to this type of institution are being "educationally neglected", then this guy is a victim. By campaigning to prevent his actual education, do you not run the risk of preventing that being rectified?
D
Posted by: John Morales | September 2, 2009 3:25 AM
David @179,
You seem to have missed an earlier part of the post (my bold): Well, a recent controversy has exposed what goes on there, and as it turns out…they teach pretty good mainstream science. From that story, the faculty in their biology department seem to know what they are doing, and they teach that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and they go over the evidence for it in considerable detail. The professor who teaches one of the courses seems to be no-nonsense and on the ball.
Posted by: rt | September 2, 2009 5:44 AM
Oh come one dont take this out on the rest of the kids!
Yeah wont somebody please think of the safety of the students? Bring them back to the warm and comfortable home where god created the earth 6000 years ago, so lets just go and dig up some uranium and mess with it! What could possibly go wrong with that? Let bring them home where they are safe from infection because antibiotics can be used for ever and ever and ever. Lets bring them home where it is safe to lick electrical sockets because Wodan isn`t around to throw bolts of lightning at you, after all, yaweh wouldn`t accept the competition.
Ahh, Home sweet home, dont you feel safer already?
Posted by: rt | September 2, 2009 6:22 AM
OT? He might actually try and run away from his “educational” record. Look at the “moderate republican”. Robert F. McDonnell who is running for the governership of Virginia.
The washingtonpost recently went to the library of Regent university and read his thesis. The found that quote:
The candidate for governor promptly released a statement saying he expect voters not to judge him on some decades old paper he hasn`t though of since. This is interesting considering the Washington post only dug up the paper after he brought it up in an earlier interview with the newspaper when he was asked about his “political roots”.
HT Kevin Drum
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 2, 2009 6:53 AM
All humans are deserving of respect and courtesy until they have proven they need put in time out.
All right; people who nurture the idea of the eternal damnation of billions of human beings have proven they need a time out.
(By the way, Paulsen has a doctoral degree from Turbingin)
This seems to be happening more and more. What is it with European universities giving PhD's to fundamentalists?
even first year biology students know that eugenics doesn't work mathematically
So if we find there's a neurological foundation for fundamentalism, we can't breed it out of the genome? Great; that's one of the last few things I've been holding on for.
Posted by: raven | September 2, 2009 8:57 AM
I'm sure that will go over great with the electorate. Making use of contraception illegal. Already in the USA, something like 1/3 of all children are born to single mothers.
Let's try to get it up to half. And who supports many of those single mothers with children? The taxpayers. I'm sure they won't mind supporting more teen agers with kids with higher taxes.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 2, 2009 9:04 AM
I sincerely hope you are not talking of my Uni of Tuebingen,Germany.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
September 2, 2009 9:04 AM
raven @ #148:
Nice, I like that. I completely agree that biology isn't the only target of the fundies, I was simply meant that physics isn't as high of a priority to them so far. They have already tried attacking physics (and all of science that can in anyway be interpreted as a threat to their dogma), but for now at least evolution is their primary target. I should have clarified that further.
While they clearly want to attack most of science, they see evolution as a more immediate threat. They feel this way (IMO) since it attacks their precious egocentric view that they are the center of the universe (after god) if man is just another animal. When it come to Physics, they seem to think that there are enough gaps in our knowledge about the origins of the universe, to sufficiently squeeze in their god. This will no doubt change over time (hence much of the opposition to the L.H.C. I think), but they seem to be more concerned about directly protecting their egocentric idea that they are "special" in the universe.
Another one to add to your list Raven is Neurology. IMO I think that if the fundies succeed at suppressing evolution in the USA (and any other country stupid enough to let them try and dictate reality), then the Neurological science will be next due to it's tendency to undermine dualism (gee...funny that). After all they can't be "special" or live forever in heaven if there's no immaterial soul stuffed in their meatbags!
@ Mark Johnson:
I find it interesting that you complain about a lack of understanding with your comment...
Your comment completely misses the main point, that the student failed to do the assignment as he was instructed by an instructor at a school that is sympathetic to his irrational prejudices. The instructor's problem wasn't that he attacked evolution, but that the student was so determined to make the attack that he ignored the rules of the assignment and his attempts to attack evolution were of such poor quality. The student and the equally anti-science parents are now upset because the poor little dear thinks that he should get a better grade in spite of his inept efforts, just because he was attacking evolution.
In short neither he, nor the upset parents, actually care about his getting an proper education, or objectively understanding the subject of evolution. They only care about attacking the science behind it, regardless of however dishonest or inept they have to be in order to do so. This about how a group of religious fanatics wants to not only undermine science, but also thinks that they should be able to play by different rules than everyone else because that are God's special little children. Yet you complain about the people that defend science being "cliquish", when they are defending honesty and accuracy in the very science upon which our culture depends.
Do you get the point of the subject now?
As to how the others are reacting to you. That is because you are deliberately siding with those that want to use lies and distortions to undermine both science and freedom in society. Yes, I'm sure that you don't think of it that way, but that is exactly what you are defending in the name of religious accommodation.
It's not the scientific community that is deliberately spreading lies here, it's the religious fanatics that are lying.
It's not the scientific community that is ignoring evidence that doesn't fit with dogma while "cherry picking" anything (no matter how poor) that complies with it, it's the religious fanatics.
It's not the scientific community that is pushing to have special rules to bypass basic academic competence as long as you promote dogma, it's the religious fanatics.
It's not the scientific community that is trying to use the opinion of a public that they have systematically misinformed for centuries to try and overturn reality, it's the religious fanatics.
It's not the scientific community that is trying to oppress and discriminate against those that don't conform to church dogma, it's the religious fanatics again.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
Your whining about being mistreated here is a bit like a member of the Neo-Nazis (even if a less extreme member than some of the others) going into an Jewish community, to complain about how the Jews are always so upset about antisemitism, and how the holocaust was "just an opinion" equally as valid as Holocaust denialism. Then being shocked when the reception to such comments isn't a joining of hands and singing "Kumbia".
Is that clear enough for you now?
Posted by: raven | September 2, 2009 9:10 AM
This is common in xian sects. Vicious infighting, followed by purges, and sometimes a schism. It is a good thing they don't have Siberias and gulags.
This has happened so many times in my natal mainline denominations that it is impossible to keep the names and numbers of splinter groups straight.
Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God cult blew apart after he died and a few scandals. The actual number of pieces isn't known but seems to be around 300. Some of them believe modern science and medicine are false. They have been known to kill their kids by faith healing.
That is why there are 38,000 xian sects and the number keeps going up.
Posted by: raven | September 2, 2009 9:21 AM
Yes, I've seen that. They hate evolution, the Big Bang, and neurobiology in roughly that order.
Despite spending billions on brain research, no one has yet found the soul. The fundies are really upset about that. Cthulhu knows what they expect a soul to look like or how we would identify it. The ectoplasm detectors sold on ebay haven't really worked out.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 2, 2009 9:23 AM
-All humans are deserving of respect and courtesy until they have proven they need put in time out.-
Respect is earned and stupidity should not be tolerated so people can have mushy feelings of cuddlyness. Not in science anyway.
You however managed to start off with a negative respect level after your very first post. But then expected to be taken seriously?
Posted by: reverted | September 2, 2009 9:41 AM
Just as an FYI with regard to this: Adventists do NOT believe in an eternal hell. As I recall, they believe in a prolonged time of punishment (1000 years of "hell", I think; but it's been quite awhile...), after which the damned are dead, period. I know for sure that they do not believe in eternal hell, at least not officially.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 2, 2009 9:47 AM
Just as an FYI with regard to this: Adventists do NOT believe in an eternal hell. As I recall, they believe in a prolonged time of punishment (1000 years of "hell", I think; but it's been quite awhile...), after which the damned are dead, period. I know for sure that they do not believe in eternal hell, at least not officially.
I knew that, actually. I'm assuming (although I probably shouldn't) that Mark is a regular sort of xian.
Posted by: reverted | September 2, 2009 9:49 AM
Just another clarification related to this point: SDA belief is that when a person dies, they really do die; i.e., they do NOT go to heaven/hell/purgatory/anything else immediately upon death. They are dead. SDAs describe death as being akin to being "asleep"... until the Second Coming, that is---at which point the resurrection occurs.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 2, 2009 9:57 AM
@190, Reverted: "Just as an FYI with regard to this: Adventists do NOT believe in an eternal hell. As I recall, they believe in a prolonged time of punishment (1000 years of "hell", I think; but it's been quite awhile...), after which the damned are dead, period. I know for sure that they do not believe in eternal hell, at least not officially."
True. They believe that eternal life is "conditional" upon salvation, and that the damned are punished and then annihilated.
A non-SDA evangelical acquaintance of mine wrote a book on the subject and came to similar conclusions -- The Fire That Consumes (http://www.amazon.com/Fire-That-Consumes-Historical-Punishment/dp/0595143423). It's interesting if you like a thorough study of such things from a religious perspective, but for most here it would be a lot of fuss about unsubstantiated BS.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 2, 2009 11:29 AM
In the USA.
Where I come from, the very first thing university students learn is to not care at all about their grades (unless they flunk, which means they need to repeat the exam… up to 3 times). That's because professors have complete freedom of grading. Some put the middle of the bell curve at the equivalent of a C, where it theoretically ought to be; some put it at the equivalent of a D, and nothing happens; one, I'm told, automatically fails everyone whose immatriculation number is too high because they believe if you take their course in your first year you can't possibly understand it anyway, and again nothing happens. All you can do is go to court if you think you were given an unjustified F equivalent – good joke. So, nobody ever complains about a D equivalent.
I once flunked because I wasn't physically capable of writing fast enough to answer all questions within the (arbitrarily) allotted time. I'm sitting here because I repeated the exam with another professor.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 2, 2009 11:36 AM
I used to see it as somewhat encouraging that some of them were at least attempting to get away from the concept of eternal torment. Now, I just see it as another flavor of crazy.
Posted by: Steve P | September 2, 2009 11:51 AM
I grew up an SDA, and went to SDA schools all the way through college. The only thing I ever heard about evolution was this: "There is this theory that we all come from apes instead of Adam. It's ridiculous and clearly wrong. Let's move on." Combine this with some scorn about carbon dating... and you have the typical Adventist's exposure to non-biblical theories.
Adventism is like the bastard child of Mormons and Orthodox Jews, and even makes other fundamentalists cringe. Don't even get me started on how much the average Adventist child dreads the coming of Saturday.
Posted by: Embarrassed | September 2, 2009 12:33 PM
As a Seventh-day Adventist I'm ashamed and embarrassed. RE: Privacy Issue #36. Shane Hilde was a very ordinary student when he was at La Sierra University. He, along with publicity-hungry Carlos Cerna and the anti-intellectual skate-board riding college drop-out lunatic-fringe, David Asscheek (not sure of the spelling, but you get the idea), have combined forces on a website-- where they have published all of their dirty laundry (including Dr. Bradley's personal emails to Carlos) in an effort to destroy the reputation of the university. They appear to be doing a fairly good job. Well done guys. Oh, and don't underestimate the importance of the up-coming election for the president of the world Seventh-day Adventist church. As was pointed out in several posts, the SDA church is bleeding its educated North American members. However, baptisms are on the rise in third world countries, where creationism is king. So with most of the votes for president coming from that neck of the world, it isn't surprising to see wanna-be church leaders pandering to the far righteous wing of the church!
Posted by: Alan B | September 2, 2009 2:26 PM
Holydust #85 caught a point That I think others seem to have missed (on the basis of doing a search on this page).
He PLAGIARISED / IZED chunks of his paper.
That is a disciplinary offense where I study.
On one course we were given a word limit on assignments to teach us to write more professionally. My tutor told me that he would allow a small %age over but the rules were to ignore anything over the word limit.
Lucky, indeed, to get a C. The content was trash at University level and seemed indicate that he had no idea what was going on. You can only write sparsely if you really understand the material. I suspect that in his lectures the Professor deliberately emphasised key points. Was the student too dumb to catch them?
Incidentally, his e:mail to his Professor was dreadful in grammar, layout, spelling, punctuation, use of l.c. i for the personal pronoun etc. etc. The formal letter he wrote complaining is so different that I can only guess it was written by someone else (a lawyer, perhaps).
Posted by: Bob Brinkman | September 2, 2009 3:01 PM
We have an old joke here in Ohio -
Q: How do you get a Kent State graduate off of your front porch?
A: Pay for your pizza.
Posted by: Beth | September 2, 2009 3:57 PM
La Sierra has put out a statement in response to Bradley's comments in the interview. I didn't figure he was helping himself much as he both cursed and didn't trot out the standard line used by SDA science professors who want to keep their jobs - "We know God is the creator and when He created is less important than, blah blah blah. My faith as an SDA is secure and strengthened as I study God's world blah blah blah."
Somehow I would guess Bradley's days are numbered and the rest of the professors are going to keep their heads down and their thoughts about it all to themselves.
http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/lsu-statement-regarding-inside-higher-ed-article/
I was a little confused by his comment that most SDAs aren't strict creationists. Maybe in the circles he runs but I wouldn't be surprised if 80+% of SDAs in just the US are. Add in the rest of the world and it's probably higher. Many SDAs who aren't fundies in other areas are strict creationists just because that is how they have been taught and they are surrounded by otherwise reasonable people who are also strict creationists. They don't see it as as fundie because they are taught that it is a reasonable, logical position and they aren't exposed to much thinking to the contrary. I know quite a few SDAs with advanced degrees and who are fairly liberal in many areas but still think strict creationism is a legitimate, thoughtful position.
Posted by: peter parker | September 2, 2009 7:47 PM
fuck the police
Posted by: JediBear | September 3, 2009 5:55 AM
It's a mistake to brand SDAs as "fundies." There are several critical differences. About all they have in common with the christian fundamentalist movement is biblical literalism, which leads them to really not get along with the fundamentalists, since most SDAs have actually read the thing and go to pains to understand it.
I'm not surprised that SDAs were caught in teaching good science at one of their universities. They run one of the top medical schools in the country. SDAs aren't comfortable with being ignorant, and I recieved a better quality of instruction under the SDA system than in the public school system. I think it's tragic that they still oppose evolution. I suspect it's inevitable they'll eventually come around.
YEC isn't actually critical to their doctrine any more than it's critical to judaism. The Ten Commandments (one of which is the foundation of the church's split from its Baptist roots) don't change in their authority or meaning if the creation story gets a little less literal. They're skeptical (although not in the scientific sense, their worldview is informed by faith after all.) They're wavering. And the ones who still reject the conclusions of modern science are mostly old men.
My anthopology instructor (a primatologist by training) had a saying about old men. He called it "Taff's Second Law of Primatology" and it was "There is nothing more stubborn than an old male Primate."
A lot of those young people that are leaving the church are founding their own churches. SDAs are schismatic by nature.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 4, 2009 8:16 PM
The professor in question is a Seventh-day Adventist teaching at a Seventh-day Adventist university. As such he is expected to and is paid to teach science from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. That would include teaching scientific theories that harmonize with the idea that life on earth was recently created by God in 6 actual days.
Of course, opposing scientific theories could also be taught. Yet the Seventh-day Adventist parents who pay the bills would expect their children to hear the scientific evidence presented that would demonstrate that evolution is not a viable theory.
One could look at it as being dishonest to not inform the parents that they were not going to be getting what they paid for.
Many evolutionists might not be able to relate to the above. But from a scientific standpoint, having scientists and teachers in the world who are actively investigating nature using widely divergent presuppositions cannot but help all to arrive at a clearer perception of truth. Those approaching problems from the above perspective will tend to see things that others coming from an atheistic or skeptic perspective will miss, and undoubtedly vice versa.
So let religious institutions pursue scientific endeavors according to their convictions, without censorship, and without persecution.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 4, 2009 8:24 PM
Bob Pickle, #203: Yet the Seventh-day Adventist parents who pay the bills would expect their children to hear the scientific evidence presented that would demonstrate that evolution is not a viable theory.
If that's true, then such an anti-reality stance should cost the school it's accreditation, at least in biology and geology, and biology and geology classes should not be eligible to meet other important degree requirements.
Sorry, but it's just not possible to pay for a reality that fits within one's comfort zone; and if reality-as-it-is is too uncomfortable to cope with, then you shouldn't be able to claim a liberal arts education.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 4, 2009 8:25 PM
You've got to be fucking kidding me. Without persecution?As for going according to convictions? Science doesn't work that way. It forms conclusions based on what the evidence says, not the other way around. We don't "believe" in a 13.7 billion year old universe, a 4.55 billion year old earth and a gradual process of evolution causing the diversity of life out of a presupposition. We "believe" in that because that's what the evidence says. To work to presuppositions? That's the job of theology, not science.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 4, 2009 8:35 PM
Pickle. You will all ways be ridiculed for ignoring the actual science to teach some bullshit based on your flavor of theist woo.
You don't get a pass. The earth is round. The sun is the center of our solar system and evolution is a fact. We don't adjust reality to suit you.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 4, 2009 8:42 PM
That would include teaching scientific theories that harmonize with the idea that life on earth was recently created by God in 6 actual days. - Bob Pickle
That's unfortunate, because there aren't any. A scientific theory has to account in a principled and systematic way for a significant body of evidence. Creatonism does nbothing of the kind.
But from a scientific standpoint, having scientists and teachers in the world who are actively investigating nature using widely divergent presuppositions cannot but help all to arrive at a clearer perception of truth.
Well, if creationists (or cdesign proponentsists) would start actively investigating nature, rather than relying on quote-mining and outright lies, that would be excellent. But if they did, of course, they wouldn't remain creationists (or cdesign proponentsists) for long, because the evidence would force them to abandon these ludicrous notions, as it did the honest creationist geologists who did so nearly two centuries ago.
Posted by: Sean Pitman M.D. | September 4, 2009 8:46 PM
Dr. Myers,
Carlos Cerna didn't start this "problem" for LSU - I did.
As far as I can tell, the available data strongly speaks for the need, even the requirement, for high-level intelligent input behind certain phenomena that exist within this universe. Such phenomena include not only the origin, but also the diversity of living things beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
For example, there are no examples of evolution in action producing any qualitatively novel system of function that requires at least 1000 fairly specifically arranged amino acid residues at *minimum* - not one example in all of literature.
Sure, there are a lot of assertions that evolution beyond this level of functional complexity has in fact occurred via the mechanism of RM/NS. However, none of these assertions is actually based on any sort of statistical analysis as to the odds that such an event would actually be remotely likely to take place this side of trillions of years of time.
When it comes to those examples of evolution in action that are available (at lower levels of functional complexity), there is a clear stalling out effect that is exponential in nature as one considers higher and higher levels approaching the 1000aa level.
The reason for this exponential decline in evolutionary potential is due to the fact that the sizes of sequence spaces increase exponentially with each increase in the minimum structural requirement for higher and higher level systems. As the overall size of sequence space increases exponentially, the number of non-beneficial sequences within that space also increases exponentially. The problem with all of this is that the number of potentially beneficial sequences does not increase at the same rate as the increase in non-beneficial sequences. In fact, the difference is exponentially in favor of non-beneficial sequences. The result is the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences declines, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size requirements for qualitatively novel potentially beneficial systems which might be found by the random searches of sequence space.
In other words, the minimum likely Hamming distance between potentially beneficial sequences in sequence space increases in a linear manner with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. Each linear increase in the minimum likely Hamming distance results in an exponential increase in the average number of random mutations required to cross the gap between what exists in the gene pool and what might exist to some improved functional benefit within that gene pool.
Of course, this means that evolutionary progress via the mechanism of RM/NS will predictably decline, in an exponential fashion, as one considers qualitatively novel beneficial systems which have greater and greater minimum structural threshold requirements.
For example, the situation is similar to the ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless character sequences in the English-language system. The ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless 2-character sequences is about 1:7; for 3-character space 1:18; for 7-characters about 1:250,000... etc.
The exponential progression is obvious, and the same relationship exists for biosystem sequence space. Given a large gene pool as a starting point, the likely Hamming distance between what exists and the next closest potentially beneficial system at the level of less than 10aa or even 100aa is likely to be a distance of just one mutational step. However, then number of beneficial islands within such a short distance declines, exponentially relative to all starting point gene pools. Pretty soon, the likely minimum distance starts to increase, linearly, regardless of the size of the starting point gene pool of sequence options.
Once one starts to consider systems with minimum structural requirements greater than 1000aa, even gene pool sizes as large as all the bacteria on Earth (i.e., ~1e35 or so), the odds that any genetic sequence is going to be remotely close to ANY such beneficial system is essentially nil this side of trillions of years of time.
This is the reason why there simply are no examples of evolution in action beyond such levels of functional complexity - because of the exponential expansion of the non-beneficial gap problem with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
The usual comeback is that natural selection solves this problem of climbing Mt. Improbable (as Dawkins puts it). However, Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" algorithm is a red herring here because NS cannot select until after the novel beneficial sequence is actually discovered by pure random steps which are taken blindly into the vastness of sequence space. NS simply doesn't and cannot help solve this problem. It is simply blind until a random search is actually successful. That means if the non-beneficial gaps increase, NS cannot help cross these gaps in any quicker fashion than can be achieved by purely random walk/selection.
But obviously, these gaps have been crossed because higher level systems do in fact exist - far far beyond the 1000aa level of functional complexity. So, how did these systems come into existence?
Well, there is only one known source of higher level information - and that is pre-existing information that already exists beyond these higher levels. Outside informational input is needed which is, itself, at a higher level. The mechanism of RM/NS is simply not able to generate such higher level meaningful informational complexity - due to the problem of meaningful/functional informational entropy. (Please don't confuse this type of information with Shannon information. They aren't the same thing.)
After a point, the level of needed outside informational input reaches the level of what most would label "intelligent".
This is in fact the basis of the attempt of even mainstream science to detect intelligent activity - to include forensics, anthropology, and even SETI. There really is no fundamental difference between the assumptions of SETI science and ID. As far as my basic argument for ID, I see no fundamental difference with SETI, or forensics, or anthropology.
So anyway, your notion that everything can ultimately be explained by non-deliberate mindless process of nature is ultimately, at least in my opinion, a philosophical or even a religious position - not really a position based on an sort of empirical scientific methodologies. It's a faith-based position. And, in my opinion, this purely naturalistic faith is obviously opposed to the vast weight of current scientific evidence.
Sincerely yours,
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 4, 2009 8:52 PM
Quack quack quack.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 4, 2009 8:57 PM
Typical MD showing no science in his thoughts. ID is a religious idea with no basis in science. The fact the Dr. Pitman thinks so, shows his lack of scientific understanding, the desire to make his inane religion right, rather than to follow the evidence, which with a million or so scientific papers, is rock solid...
Posted by: IaMoL | September 4, 2009 9:01 PM
And look at his overwhelming data in peer reviewed scientific journals... Oh, wait.Wow, another religiotard MD who thinks he's a scientist. Didn't see that coming.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 4, 2009 9:01 PM
Sean Pitman M.D. (Oooh, an actual M.D. visiting this humble blog!!! We are honoured.)
Even a non-bioloigst like myself can see that's a load of crap. First, most mutations are neutral (because in most large proteins, it is only limited domains that are tightly constrained), so in any population it's unlikely any two copies of a gene for a 1000aa protein would be the same - so the search is a parallel one. Second, but closely connected, large proteins generally consist of a number of strictly-constrained functional parts that can effectively evolve independently, spearated by large stretcheswhere the precise sequence is of little importance. Third, gene duplication allows non-functional copies to drift through sequence space even across completely non-functional areas.
Finally, are you really arrogant enough to think that the entire community of geneticists and biomathematicians would have missed such as simple point if it was valid. Well, I can answer that one too: yes, you are.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 4, 2009 9:07 PM
It's a vast conspiracy I tells ya!So what's up, Doc? It ain't your theory 'cause that just went down in flames. (What a maroon).
Posted by: SC, OM | September 4, 2009 9:12 PM
And here your problems begin.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 4, 2009 9:13 PM
Are you having a laugh? Is he having a laugh?Lets take the eye, since it is a great example. Now what needs to be the "successful" starting point that has to be in order to have the eye? Well it turns out that all you need to start with is a patch of light sensitive cells. So if we take this as being random (I don't think it is, since it is a modification on other cells), it's still an incredibly small order of improbability. From there, natural selection can work "algorithmically" because there's a survival advantage constituted with better sight. To see and avoid predators, to chase prey, to navigate, etc. So all you need for natural selection to "start" is something really simple.
Evolution doesn't build from scratch, it modifies what is already there. As such randomness is almost completely taken out of the process. What's left is contingency. Anything we see now is contingent on what came before, again this explains why our eyes are wired back-to-front as opposed to the right way round as we see in Cephalopods.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 4, 2009 9:16 PM
I don't know about you but I can't wait to hear the evidence for this.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 4, 2009 9:22 PM
Most MDs aren't scientists, they're body mechanics.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 4, 2009 9:31 PM
There is a major fundamental difference between SETI and ID. SETI is looking for evidence from which to draw a conclusion. ID states its conclusion and then hunts for evidence to support it and ignores evidence that contradicts the conclusion.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 4, 2009 9:32 PM
Most MDs aren't as stupid as Sean Pitman, either. But I guess I should gently ask mine next time I have a checkup. I wouldn't want my money being funneled to creationism.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 4, 2009 9:35 PM
One forces the facts to fit the hypothesis, the other is science.Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2009 9:45 PM
Bob Pickel #203 wrote:
And what do you do after this has already happened, and experts from different backgrounds -- race, sex, nationality, and religion -- have all come together on a scientific consensus that evolution did, in fact, occur? Do you go on searching for mystics, cranks, and the uninformed to continue to bring in their fresh perspectives?
If the goal of science is to tell a lot of inconsistent and incoherent stories and make sure everyone has a 'voice,' then that might work. But it's not.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 4, 2009 10:00 PM
M.D. @ 208,
Apparently those critters didn't get the memo !
Deluded fool.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 4, 2009 10:54 PM
In 1976, members of the National Academy of Sciences signed the following Affirmation of Freedom of Inquiry and Expression in support of scientists within the USSR:
Doesn't look like some of those posting here would feel comfortable signing the above affirmation put out by the National Academy of Sciences if they wish to demand that a religious school lose its accreditation if it dares present scientific evidence in favor of a young earth and a global flood.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 4, 2009 10:59 PM
Not a problem. There is no scientific evidence for a young earth and global flood. Period. There is some manufactured religious evidence for those events, which being manufactured, and total lies, does not fall under free scientific inquiry. What else do you need explained to you?Posted by: Chiroptera | September 4, 2009 11:01 PM
Bob Pickle, #223: Doesn't look like some of those posting here would feel comfortable signing the above affirmation put out by the National Academy of Sciences if they wish to demand that a religious school lose its accreditation if it dares present scientific evidence in favor of a young earth and a global flood.
Well, aside from the fact that no religious school or other organization or person has presented scientific evidence in favor or either a young earth or a global flood (at least none that has withstood scientific scrutiny), your accusation is irrelevant.
I do find it interesting, however, that you think simply denying a school accreditation is the same thing as the USSR actively censoring speech and publications and putting people in prison.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 4, 2009 11:05 PM
There would have to be scientific evidence in favour of a young earth and a global flood for a school to claim that. Because there isn't any evidence to support
that theorythose religiously-inspired lies - and mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence against it, those schools should lose their accreditation if they continue to teach unscientific lies as if they were scientifically valid truth.Posted by: Rorschach | September 4, 2009 11:11 PM
Any school that teaches creationism or any of the other 35000 varieties of the abrahamic mythology, or leprechaunism or teapotism for that matter, anywhere other than in religion or ethics classes should lose its accreditation.
It's child abuse.
Here, I make you a little diagram :
religion != science
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 4, 2009 11:14 PM
In Soviet Russia, school teaches YOU!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 4, 2009 11:14 PM
The National Academy of Science promotes science, not religious myths pretending to be science (and failing miserably). If the creationists ever produce any evidence to support their fables, then it'll be considered. So far the creationists go with delusions, wishful thinking, flat-out lies, and 2500 year old stories instead of actual evidence.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 4, 2009 11:19 PM
If you had made no other comment, you would be worthy of a Molly.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 4, 2009 11:32 PM
Sastra #221 wrote:
At various points in time there has been consensus on various theories, which later were overturned. A majority vote is no guarantee of truth in any field. And whatever consensus there has been in favor of evolution has by no means been universal.
Plus, there is solid evidence against certain aspects of evolutionary theory, and that evidence should be presented and fairly evaluated.
To illustrate, I like bringing up the evidence of Po-218 halos in Precambrian mica and fluorite because I have yet to find an evolutionist who can provide an viable, evolutionary explanation for the phenomena. What typically happens is that the evolutionist will provide a link to what someone else has written rather than discuss the issue.
So then when I go to that link I find that what the other person has written didn't fairly deal with the experimental evidence, and that isn't right.
For example, I can show you at least two websites out there where it is stated that Rn-222 rings cannot be distinguished from Po-210 rings. The implication is that Po-218 halos are really Rn-222 halos, and thus Rn-222 diffused to the halo center in order to produce the Po-218 halo.
What is this all about? A pinprick of an isotope in certain crystals, as it decays to lead, if it undergoes alpha decay, sends out alpha particles which damage the crystal and leave a halo with a radius proportional to the energy of the alpha ray, the energy being isotope dependent. Thus, measure the diameter of the halo and you can identify the isotope.
Halos have been identified for Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210.
Po-218 has a half life of 3 minutes, and if there is no natural way for the Po-218 to get to the halo center before it decays, then the earth must have crystallized instantly instead of cooling over millions of years, because the halos can only form in rock that has already solidified and cooled.
The problem with the two websites making a big to do about Rn-222 rings not being distinguishable from Po-210 rings is that Rn-222 rings are distinguishable in U-238 halos in fluorite, and this has been known for a long, long time. Thus the point being made by the evolutionary websites was already falsified before it was written.
Another problem is that the diffusion of isotopes toward a halo center would result in some atoms not making it before they decay. This would leave behind fossil alpha recoil tracks. Yet there are no more fossil alpha recoil tracks near halo centers than away from them.
Thus, any Rn diffusion hypothesis would have to account for the Rn getting there without leaving any footprints. But the apologetic evolutionary websites out there seem to ignore this issue.
I did find one scientist out there who didn't ignore it. He was trying to propose a diffusion hypothesis, even though he is a YEC. He proposed that all the diffusion of the isotopes occurred above the annealing point, the temperature above which the damage caused by the alpha decay would be erased. Then all the decay took place after the rock had cooled to below the annealing point.
He proposed all this, it seemed to me, without invoking a direct miracle. Yet it certainly sounded miraculous to me.
I'm sure you can see what I am trying to say. There is scientific evidence for creation out there, and it should be fairly presented and evaluated. Despite the number of decades since all this about Po-218 halos was published in the open scientific literature, a viable naturalistic explanation that doesn't ignore the data still alludes the evolutionists.
Expletives and insults are unnecessary, if evolution truly has truth on its side.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 4, 2009 11:36 PM
This is in response to the comments of "Knockgoats"
Actually, most mutations are slightly detrimental, but that's really beside the main point here. Your main point is actually correct. A given beneficial system will have a fair degree of tolerance for sequence flexibility without a complete loss of functionality. Your point here is indeed quite correct. However, the problem is that there is a limit to this tolerance for sequence flexibility. As it turns out, this limitation for fairly specified systems produces a relatively tiny island for each beneficial system that is dwarfed by the vastness of sequence space at the 1000aa level.
In other words, the overall ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial remains extremely tiny. This tiny fraction of potentially beneficial sequences is indeed divided up into island clusters. However, these island clusters are themselves extremely isolated from qualitatively unique beneficial islands (which each require a minimum of at least 1000 specifically arranged residues) in the vastness of 1000aa sequence space.
While this point is also correct, it really doesn't matter at all when it comes to finding qualitatively novel beneficial systems that have minimum structural requirements beyond the 1000aa level.
This point is also correct. However, random drift doesn't help to significantly reduce the average time needed to find a qualitatively novel beneficial island of sequences within sequence space.
Hey, if you can explain this very simple problem to me, I'd be most grateful - even if you aren't a biologist (which is quite clear).
Sincerely,
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Ben in Texas | September 4, 2009 11:36 PM
"A majority vote"
It's not a "vote," but you know that already, don't you?
Who do you think overturned those inaccurate theories? Hint: It wasn't religion-driven dogmatists like you.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 4, 2009 11:42 PM
If you have evidence in favour of a young earth and a global flood, why can't you present it in academia?Posted by: John Morales | September 4, 2009 11:45 PM
Bob @231, "Polonium halos" have to do with dating and the age of the Earth, not with biological evolution (except for incidentally).
Nonetheless, do you care to address talk.origins FAQs on them?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 4, 2009 11:48 PM
Evolution does have the evidence on its side. But that just means we're justified in calling you a dumbass for pretending it doesn't.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2009 11:55 PM
Bob Pickle #231 wrote:
But the consensus among biologists and those in related fields in favor of evolution is overwhelming. Knockgoat's point is a reasonable one: the entire community of expert geneticists, biomathematicians, and biologists would have to be either incredibly dense, or involved in a massive conspiracy. The theory of evolution being over-turned would not be like discovering that tectonic plates move under oceans, or ulcers are caused by bacteria: it would be like discovering that the earth doesn't orbit the sun. It undergirds a network of other theories.
Isn't it more likely that you, a physician, are mistaken, on a matter outside your field?
If not, then how can you possibly explain a conspiracy of dunces, on this level?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 4, 2009 11:59 PM
Which would be fine if you had any reason - beyond adherence to an archaic superstition based around the folk tales of Bronze Age goat herders - to be making the claims you make. Consensus on the fact of evolution is no less universal than the consensus on the fact of gravity or the fact of flight - the only debated aspect of it is exactly how all the mechanisms involved operate.
What you're doing is like insisting that, because your religion says so, mountains don't rise any higher than 1,000 feet - while we're all sitting atop Everest and enjoying the view.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 12:03 AM
Pittman the kook:
For example, there are no examples of evolution in action producing any qualitatively novel system of function that requires at least 1000 fairly specifically arranged amino acid residues at *minimum* - not one example in all of literature.
Bullshit lie from a creationist. Try nylonase from Psuedomonas spp. or the T cytoplasmic male sterility factor in corn. Both have evolved in recent decades. What's up with this 1000 amino acid proteins anyway. You do realize this would make a moderately large protein. Alpha hemoglobin is only ca. 170.
There is also a case of a lizard species evolving a new internal valve in their digestive tract in a few decades, the Adriatic lizard transplant experiment.
And don't expect anyone to be impressed by an MD. There are many MDs and Ph.D.s on this thread.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 12:08 AM
The consensus in biology stands at over 99% supporting evolution. But you're right. it can be overturned. If you want to overturn a theory, the place to do so is in academia instead of arguing your case to the layman.As for a young earth? You don't need to overturn evolution, you need to overturn nuclear physics and geology. Just as for the young universe, you need to overturn astrophysics and cosmology. After all, we have observed galaxies over 12 billion light years back in time.
So why aren't you sending your papers to Nature or Science? Why aren't you putting the experimental results out there that demonstrate your worldview? What evidence shows the young earth? Surely if there was such evidence (as opposed to saying "evidence for the old earth is inaccurate") you'd be fighting tooth and nail to get it heard.
This is why dogma has no place in science, the scientific "story" of the universe has been wholly determined by the evidence. The universe according to modern cosmology is around 13.7 billion years old, the earth according to nuclear physics and geology is around 4.55 billion years old. Life according to geology began sometime in the first billion years, and there's a gradual progression in the fossil record showing to what we see here today. This isn't dogma, this is what the evidence says. Can you show that the evidence says what you say? That God created it all 6000 years ago? If you can, several nobel prizes await you because such discoveries would rewrite physics, chemistry and medicine.
I'm betting all you have is "Science doesn't explain X, therefore Goddidit". Demonstrate otherwise, preferably in peer-reviewed literature - but here will do just fine too :)
Posted by: SC, OM | September 5, 2009 12:10 AM
Define "theory," please. Which theories, specifically? What do you mean by "overturned"?
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 12:10 AM
John Morales #235 wrote:
I already presented two points that pertain to Tom Bailleul's page on TalkOrigins. He claimed that Rn-222 rings are not distinguishable, and ignored the fossil alpha-recoil track problem.
Looks like the other FAQ also tries to say that Rn-222 rings are indistinguishable, and proposes a Rn hypothesis. Isn't it interesting how some of these folks can claim to have Gentry's book and then not even read the scientific papers it contains?
In that second FAQ, the author discusses the possibility that Po-210 halos are really Rn-222 halos that are real faint. But check out pictures of various halos, and see if you think that is really plausible. I see Po-210 halos that are pretty dark yet do not have a Po-218 ring, and the Po-214 halos definitely have a Po-214 ring but no Po-218 ring.
More importantly, that author in or after 1992 proposed an experiment to verify his hypothesis. Excellent. Was the experiment ever done? Were the results published?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 5, 2009 12:17 AM
Bob. Do you have an issue with dating fossils or with dating the earth? Just curious. How old do you think the earth is? How long has man been walking the earth?
Posted by: John Morales | September 5, 2009 12:19 AM
Bob @242, thanks for the response.
Assuming you're right, and that the radioisotope dating using those particular elements is not compelling, do you consider this significantly weakens evolutionary science, or even the case for an old Earth?
(I consider that this issue is but an infinitesimal part of the dataset that supports both.)
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 12:24 AM
This is gibberish strung together to sound sciency and it is false. I notice he doesn't give any references. This is because he or someone just Made It Up.
Most mutations are neutral. The average human newborn has 150 mutations compared to its parents, a subject of news reports and a thread on this blog a few days ago.. This is why any two humans can differ by up to 15 million bases, a huge amount Most obviously have no effect. Even in humans, beneficial mutations are known. Try alpha amylase copy number varians, adult lactase production, delta 32 CCR which confers strong resistance to HIV infection, or apo A1 Milano which confers resistance to the development of artherosclerosis.
In any system we look at beneficial mutations are known and common.
Speaking of nongibberish, any MD should have noticed that we are about to all be scared, some sickened, and a few killed by a newly evolved and rapidly evolving novel pathogen, A2009 swine flu. Evolution occurs while we watch and evolutionary biology is critical in medicine. This pandemic was predicted long before it happened by MDs and Ph.D.s a lot more competent that Sean Pitman.
Hey Sean, why does metastatic cancer evade chemo and radiation and eventually usually kill the host? It is common knowledge any MD would have..
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 12:32 AM
Kel,OM #2340 wrote:
If dogma has no place in science, then some scientists need to cease being so dogmatic in favor of evolution.
And the idea that evolution has been "wholly determined" by the evidence sounds a bit naive. I would think it difficult to support that claim. My understanding is that sometimes ideas were adopted on philosophical grounds before there was evidence in support of them.
Really? It is easier to say that than to prove it.
Sure. U/Pb ratios in U-238 halo centers in coalified wood from Jurassic and Triassic strata were way too high, resulting in ages that were as much as 760 times higher than those proposed by evolutionists.
Another one is the Pb and He retention rates in zircons from deep granite cores, from Precambrian rocks allegedly 1.5 billion years old which, based on the retention rates, had to be just thousands of years old.
It would be helpful if evolutionists in presenting their theories would clearly identify the various assumptions that underly those theories. Sometimes claimed evidence is dependent upon unproven and sometimes untestable assumptions.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 12:46 AM
That is just complete nonsense from start to finish. Here, read this:
Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
That doesn't even begin to make sense. Pb retention rates? Where the hell is the lead supposed to go in the first place, that it's being "retained"?
Seriously, read up on radiometric dating before blathering nonsense and making yourself look like a complete fool.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 12:46 AM
If Pitman's unsourced assertion that most mutations are detrimental was true, it means the human race and the other 20-80 milion species in the earth's biosphere are running down, deteriorating.
They are not. We all have an average of 150 mutations compared to our parents. Most of us manage to slog through life just fine. Most are neutral.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 12:47 AM
Steve_C #243 wrote:
I have an issue with both. I think the earth has been here for about 6000 years, and I think that man has been here for the same length of time. Some think that the earth has been here longer while life is about 6000 years old, but I don't think the evidence points that direction.
John Morales #244 wrote:
Yes, I do, for several reasons.
When we are talking about the Po-218 halo phenomena, we are talking about laws and principles that are considered established and understood, such as radioactive decay, diffusion, and the like. Evolution, whether cosmic, biological, or whatever is built on the premise that the laws of nature we see today have always been, except at the Big Bang, and that we can use these laws to explain everything.
If we are going to approach all of this scientifically, then we are going to identify such premises and attempt to test them. The Po-218 halo phenomena ought to be explainable given that the basic laws that would be involved are already understood and known and experimentally verifiable in a laboratory. Yet the only logical explanation for the phenomena, setting aside all preconceived opinions, is that the Po-218 is primordial and that the rock containing it crystallized before the Po-218 had time to decay.
Other aspects of Gentry's research, such as the U/Pb ratios in coalified wood, and the Pb and He retention rates, collapse the evolutionary timescale to the point that all would agree that naturalistic evolution is not a viable option.
And there is much more evidence that could be cited.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 12:49 AM
Your understanding is just wrong, then.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 5, 2009 12:53 AM
Another good brain completely wasted on religion.
Tell me this Mr Pitman, from one MD to another, how can you live with all those lies you have to tell yourself everyday without your head exploding?
Again, apparently the swine flu virus didnt get the memo.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 1:01 AM
Owlmirror #247 wrote:
Actually, you would have looked much better yourself if you had simply asked me for some references rather than stating what you did.
"Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315.
"Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296.
"Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129.
Offhand I do not recall where I read that the zircons at the deepest depth should lose 1% of their lead every 300,000 years. But for now the above published reports should help you see why I wrote what I did.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 1:06 AM
They are no more dogmatic about evolution that they are about the earth orbiting the sun. Are you suggesting that there's evidence that doesn't support it?But in terms of the history of the theory, we have a very different theory now to what Darwin and Wallace first proposed. Why did it change? Because the evidence demanded that it change. As for it changing still, well that ultimately will be determined by the evidence. You might call that naive, but surely you can appreciate that any paradigm shift in though on the nature of biology (or indeed any other science) will ultimately be determined by what evidence is found.
Your understanding is wrong. There was plenty of evidence in support of evolution, even in Darwin's day. Not to mention he derived his theory based on observations of life. There wasn't as much evidence back then, it certainly wasn't as supported as it is now, but lets not dwell on the past - only how the theory is presented today. And the evidence today overwhelmingly supports evolution. From fossils, to genetic markers, to vestigial morphological traits, from observations of mutation and selection leading to adaptation, as well as seeing the stages of speciation at every step of the way. Prove? I'll put that one down as a mistake in language as opposed to repeating the old creationist canard about how evolution isn't proved.Okay, here's two examples that demonstrate the scientific validity of evolution:
* In the fossil record, tetrapods are first found 365mya. Before then, there's only arthropods on land. There are plenty of lobe-finned fish in rocks 380MYA and older, but there's missing a key step in the middle. So if evolution were to be valid, then surely there should be an intermediate form around 370-380MYA showing the transition. So a few palaeontologists decided to go looking in rock. They found rocks of the right age (from the Devonian period) and of the right type, and went about searching for a transitional form.
And what do you know? There it was, sitting in the fossil record right where it should have been.
TonyTiktaalik, a fishapod showing distinct amphibian characteristics, preserved in the fossil record exactly where it should be. So not only the form was predicted, but the time and place were too.* Humans have 46 chromosomes while chimpanzees, gorillas and orang utans (the great apes) all have 48. For evolution to be valid, we must have all had an ancestor with 46 or 48 chromosomes, and given that we are the odd one out, then it's more likely than not that there's a fused chromosome pair sitting in our genome.
So when looking at the human and chimpanzee genomes, we can look for such genetic markers. After all, there should be telomeres sitting in the middle of the chromosome pair, as well as an inactive centromere. So when we look at the human and chimpanzee genomes, we see that it is human chromosome pair #2 that indeed has these markers and it corresponds to two different chimpanzee pairs.
These are but two instances of evolution making predictions about the kinds of evidence to expect then succeeding. I use these two examples because a) I know them off the top of my head, and b) they both attest to evolution so explicitly. If you want more examples that demonstrate evolution, I can list off a few more without having to consult external resources, and if those don't convince you I can list off even more after consulting the literature just sitting on my desk currently... and if you have to make me get up to go to my bookshelf or use google ;)
But methinks I could fill a book with examples of evolution being demonstrated through evidence and it still wouldn't convince you. Indeed there are many books already dealing specifically with the evidence for evolution. And this is just for one theory. I see you're also inditing cosmology, astrophysics, geology, nuclear physics, etc. in claiming the young earth. And if you want, I could spend all day listing off facts that demonstrate quite convincingly that it all fits together and demonstrates one big picture of the old universe and old earth. But again, I don't think it would matter.
The fact is, the evidence supports an old universe. You have to either admit the laws of physics are wrong or that the observations are inaccurate - and inaccurate to a factor of about 2,000,000. that is the millions of scientists working on the exact measurements are wrong on the scale of estimating the width of North America is about the length from one end of your room to the other. Are you that confident that you know better than those scientists when they say they are measuring light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away that the galaxy doesn't exist or is that close to us that the light only took 6000 years to reach us?
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 1:11 AM
Beneficial mutations are common in any system we look at and we see them often and deal with them often.
The latest beneficial, to the virus at least, mutations are in the news now and will be for a while. Creationists will look the swine flu in the envelop and...lie some more.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 5, 2009 1:13 AM
If dogma has no place in science, then some scientists need to cease being so dogmatic in favor of
evolutiongravity.Damn that evil conspiracy of gravitationists and their unsupported 'theory'. Everyone knows that it's angels holding onto our feet that stop us floating off into the air. Where's the evidence for gravity, huh?
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 1:13 AM
I found the reference to the zircons losing 1% of their radiogenic Pb per 300,000 years. Thus, if the Precambrian zircons were really 1.5 billion years old, there shouldn't be much lead left.
The report is: "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38.
Posted by: John Morales | September 5, 2009 1:15 AM
Bob @249, you seem to be unaware that, well before radioactivity was discovered, the Earth had been determined to be really old, from other lines of evidence.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 1:18 AM
Lose it to where? Where is it supposed to go? How is it supposed to go?
Not really. Nothing in your references refutes the point that the half-life of Uranium is 4 and a half billion years. Nothing refutes the actual age of the Earth itself being that old.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 1:23 AM
Radiometric decay works exponentially, not linearly.Let's do the maths in really simple terms.
Say you have 1,000,000 atoms (this of course is incredibly small) and in 300,000 years you lose 1% of that. You've lost 10,000 atoms. So after 300,000 years you're left with 990,000 atoms. So 300,000 years after that, you'll this time lost 9,900 atoms and have 980100 atoms. The next you'll lost 9,801 atoms... and so on. Surely you can see the pattern.
That is the amount lost gets smaller and smaller. With Carbon-14, it has a half life of about 5500 years. Which means that in 5,500 years there will be half as many carbon 14 atoms in there than there were 5,500 years earlier. So if you go another 5,500 years, then you'll have half as much again. And another 5,500 years half as much again. Which is why you can use C14 to measure back up to ~60,000 years back in time. this is simple mathematics, didn't you every study exponential growth and decay in physics class?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 1:30 AM
One of my favourite lines of evidence for ageing the earth was from coral. The earth's rotation is slowing very gradually. So millions of years ago days would have been shorter and there would have been more days in the year. Coral in addition to having annual growth rings has daily growth rings. So old coral should correspond with more daily rings per annual ring because there were more days back then. Using mathematics, it can be calculated just how long ago back in time the fossil was alive.
Turns out when you do this, the date given by the age of the coral matches the date given by radiometric dating of the rocks around it. What a surprise...
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 1:39 AM
No, that references the reference. You wanted "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons". Which, I note, has the following sentences:
Not to the zircon/lead being young.
Why are all of your references from 20+ years ago, anyway?
Hm, what does more recent research say...
Enhanced diffusion of Uranium and Thorium linked to crystal plasticity in zircon
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1769485
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 5, 2009 1:48 AM
Hold the phone - this assclown is trying to argue that radioactive decay analysis is invalid and he doesn't fucking know what half-life is?
EPIC FAIL!
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 1:50 AM
Kel, OM #253 wrote:
First of all, the alleged evidence you are presenting is based on the assumption that the various strata were not laid down nearly simultaneously, and that they were laid down over millions of years. Without those two assumptions, the evidence isn't evidence.
Is Tiktaalik currently believed to be an actual ancestor of today's amphibians?
Do you have citations where the predictions you refer to were published in the scientific literature before the alleged discoveries were made?
Regarding the number of chromosomes in people and chimps, there are other possible explanations. But let us assume that a common ancestor mutated by having two chromosomes fuse as suggested. What are the odds of that happening per 100,000 individuals? And what are the odds of that mutant mating with another mutant, so that they would end up producing fertile offspring?
The question has also been raised as to whether the mutant would have a genetic disease like Downs. My guess is that it would not, but with today's genetic engineering, it seems like maybe it could be verified that such a fusion would not be detrimental to the creature.
There are actually a lot of evolutionists who are difficult to convince along those lines.
According to the evidence I already shared, if the laws of physics are not wrong, then the earth must be young.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 2:00 AM
Garbage.
None of those references address the real point:
Yes, there are some peer-reviewed geoscience/geochem papers that point out that there were maybe some anomalies with then-current models and theories. But those papers are very narrowly focused, and science corrects its models and theories and moves on.
There is nothing in those papers that even hints that the actual, correct, scientifically correct age of the Earth is 6000 years ago.
For pity's sake, there's a creosote bush ring older than that.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 2:01 AM
Not that it matters, but yes, Tiktaalik was predicted a priori and this is well documented. Shubin spent 7 years looking for that fossil in a Cthulhu forsaken arctic wasteland of an island based on the age and depositional profile of the strata. I'm sure he would rather have been looking for it in Hawaii but the maps said, go freeze your ass off.
Creationists are immune to facts.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 2:10 AM
raven @254,
Somehow I think it inadequate to only extrapolate from bacteria to animals as far as beneficial mutation rates go.
John @257,
Consider Wm. Thomson's calculation. The article clearly said that he based his calculations on assumptions. That would not be evidence. The other dating methods likewise are based on assumptions which, depending on one's philosophical or religious bias, may or may not sound plausible.
Owlmirror @258,
Into the surrounding rock.
Maybe you better read again. Did you actually read them that quickly? Did you read where the U/Pb ratios in the U-238 halos in Triassic coalified wood yielded an age which made the conventional age as much as 760 times too high?
I know that. And based on the reference, it would appear that diffusion does as well, which is what I was referring to when I said they should have lost 1% of their Pb every 300,000 years.
If the zircons are 1.5 billion years old, then they would have been able to lose 1% of their Pb 5,000 times, assuming that the temperature stayed about constant over that length of time. But the zircons showed no Pb missing. And that is the point. There shouldn't have been any Pb left, and there wasn't any missing.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 2:16 AM
Got any evidence that the strata were laid down simultaneously? And as for evidence, there's both relative and absolute dating methods used to confirm the position in the fossil record.Though I find it hilarious that you're arguing the issue, because even if the rock was laid down simultaenously, it doesn't take away from the discovery of
No, it's highly unlike that it is an actual ancestor. But that misses the point completely of what transitional fossils actually are. I have no idea tbh, but you're missing the point of what it actually shows. Of course that isn't the only genetic marker that shows clearly that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees, ERV markers sitting on the genome as well as the same vestigial genes and the genetic drift therein shows the tree of life just as well as anything else. Like I said, I just provided two clear examples of many, and it's telling how you respond to them. Again, you're missing what the example shows. It is not to show whether such a mutation would be detrimental, but that it happened. And that's one fact you can't deny. We have a fused chromosome pair that corresponds directly to two non-fused chimpanzee chromosome pairs. And it's just one of many markers in the genetic code that show clear common ancestry.Tonya fishapod!!! It's a transitional form.
Don't deflect. What evidence would it take for you to admit that evolution is true? Come on, lay out your evidence. I could give an example off the top of my head - mammals in precambrian rocks. They were all laid down at the same time right? ;) Nope, it does not. The evidence from nuclear physics shows the earth to be at least 4.404 billion years old (oldest dated earthly mineral) while meteorite, moon and sun dating all show the universe to be close to 4.6 billion years old. When you have multiple dating methods all with different half-lives coming together to show the same result on the same sample, at the same time as dating the composition of the sun relative to its size and position on the main sequence, then surely you need to listen. Not to mention how it fits in with data from known linear progressions such as the coral I mentioned above or lava flows creating the Hawaiian islands, the picture comes together well...Again, I gave but two examples. Would you like me to give you more? I'm thinking that each step of the way, you're going to do this - that is try and talk down each example and not realise that each example is just one piece in an overall puzzle. Again, evolution is successful because it explains all the evidence we have found in the biological world - in 150 years and millions of observations later, not a single experiment or piece of evidence has contradicted evolution.
as for the old universe: In 1987, a star in the Large Magellenic Cloud (a dwarf galaxy circling our own) went supernova. There was a gas ring around the exploded star that lit up some 8 months later, i.e. when the light from the supernova reached the gas cloud. Using trigonometry (remember SOHCAHTOA? ;) year 7 maths) and the known constant that is the speed of light (e=mc²), they were able to work out just how far away the dwarf galaxy is. 168,000 light years away...
This means that observation of the supernova was 168,000 years after the event took place. Meaning that the universe has to be at least 168,000 years old. Just as when through a variety of standard candles the measurement to M31 (Andromeda galaxy) is shown to be ~2.3 million light years away - meaning any time you look up at Andromeda you are looking ~2.3 million years back in time. The further you look into the cosmos, the further back in time it is. By contrast the moon is 1.2 light seconds away and the sun is ~8 light minutes away.
The laws of physics show that the universe must be old, e=mc² and there's nothing you can do about it...
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 2:16 AM
Why should we assume that? What evidence is there for such a extremely ridiculous and absurd claim that they were indeed laid down "nearly simultaneously"?
Given our understanding of the evidence of geology, we do not assume that they were laid down over millions of years; geologists conclude it.
Hey, some geologists have been waiting for a YEC to show up. You can go here, and ask for Alan B or Josh:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/revenge_of_the_son_of_the_brid.php
Tiktaalik is believed to be a transitional organism between lobe-finned fish and amphibians. "Ancestor" is not what is being claimed.
This explains what a transitional organism is:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html
You simply do not understand genetics. The chromosomal fusion was a trait that spread throughout a population; it did not have to occur in more than one individual.
We know that chromosomal fusions and translocations can take place without causing detrimental symptoms (I am not saying that they are always harmless, only that they can be). Every now and then someone's genes are mapped, and they themselves are surprised to hear that they do not have a normal 23-count karyotype.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyotype#Diversity_and_evolution_of_karyotypes
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 2:19 AM
Owlmirror @261,
No, while it references the other paper, it stated the figure I gave, which is not in that other paper.
That implication of the data was not brought out in that other paper, but it is the implication none the less.
Why are all of your references from 20+ years ago, anyway?
@264,
Precisely, no, but the data in those reports fits a creation and flood model, and does not fit an evolutionary model.
I think the objective scientist would objectively evaluate the evidence, unless he felt his religious beliefs were threatened.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 2:24 AM
Even if correct, this does not affect the age of the Earth. Or were you unaware that the Earth is not made entirely of coalified wood?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 2:25 AM
So your best example is that geology (not evolution) has one observation that cannot be accoutned for? Damn, I thought you actually had evidence that the earth was 6000 years old. Because from here it seems like you've started with the conclusion and then tried to disprove what doesn't fit it rather than finding positive evidence to support it. That doesn't sound like doing science...An explanation cannot be explained? Then let's research it and see how to explain it. Not let's give up on all other data and conclude that the creation myth of the Jews was correct...
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 2:29 AM
They would, they would take in all the evidence from geology - the forms and structures seen all around the world. They would take the evidence from nuclear physics, from plate tectonics, from the relative position of fossils, and combine it all with evidence from extra-solar sources and see what it comes.Are you saying all the evidence supports a young earth? Because it seems to me, what you're doing is using a couple of examples to support your position and calling any evidence you don't agree with "based on assumptions". Now you'd think that an objective scientists would objectively evaluate the evidence... unless he felt his religious beliefs were threatened.
lol, you blew up my irony meter ;)
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 2:33 AM
It most certainly is not. The paper itself says that the implication of the lack of lead migration is due to physical temperature. Gentry's wild and unevidenced YEC speculations are not science.
And did you understand the implications of the more recent work on zircons?
It most certainly does not. I mean, how the hell do you even get from "Pb isn't migrating from zircons, therefore, there was a global flood"?
Well, that explains why Gentry -- and you -- are unwilling to objectively evaluate the evidence.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 2:33 AM
Half of all biologists and other scientists are.. Xians. Most Xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution, The Big Bang, or a 4.7 billion year old earth. They value the truth above lies. You are simply lying if you assume that all scientists are theists or that all xian are creationists. Most xians don't have a problem with science. Many scientists are xians.
The problem isn't religion per se. It is fundie Death Cultists like yourself. You don't speak for anyone but weird cults based in the south central USA.
BTW, they are dying out. Between 1 and 2 million people leave the xian religion every year in the USA. You can choose to be stupid and ignorant and hate, or you can join another sect or leave altogether.
Posted by: John Morales | September 5, 2009 2:33 AM
BP seems like a likely candidate for the Neverending Thread.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 2:39 AM
Typical creationist. He is lying, evading, ignoring, and moving the goal posts at 200 mph without demonstrating a shred of honesty or intelligence.
When xian became synonymous with liar, hater, ignorant, crazy, and killer who wanted to be one?
Good night, all.
Posted by: Bob Pickel | September 5, 2009 2:53 AM
Kel,OM @267,
Sure. The U/Pb ratios in the coalified wood samples from Triassic, Jurassic, and I think Devonian strata all were about the same.
The Po-210 halos in the various samples were produced under particular circumstances which are hard to conceive of happening more than once. Specifically, soggy wood was infiltrated by U-bearing solutions. Po collected at nucleation sites, which then decayed to form a dark halo. Then a compression event took place, and the original Po-210 halo was squashed into an ellipse, and coalification occurred. Then Pb-210 and/or Bi-210 which had also collected at the same sites decayed to form Po-210, which then decayed to form a light, round halo around the darker ellipse. The reason it was lighter is because after coalification, a higher dosage was needed to produce the same density halo.
Out at the Grand Canyon the layers are all flat, with little or no erosion seen between layers. The contact point between layers at one spot allegedly represents 12 million years, and at another spot 100+ million years. Now imagine something just sitting around for that length of time without any rain falling or any wind blowing, in order for the contact point between the layers to stay nice and flat.
Strata are generally believed to have been laid down by water action. The geologic column shows evidence of such water action being on catastrophic proportions. Dinosaur tracks appear by the billions without any bones, and then higher in the column there are lots of dinosaur bones. The Morrison Formation contains lots of bones but little plant material, but certainly the dinosaurs weren't fasting. Flood geology can explain these various things: One catastrophe laid down all the strata rather than multiple catastrophes, dinosaurs left tracks as they tried to evade the rising and ebbing flood waters but were later overwhelmed, and plant material could have been buried before the dinosaurs were overwhelmed.
If the alleged ancestor, alleged descendant, and alleged transitional form were all alive simultaneously, I don't think one would have a case that the creature in question was really a transitional form.
I understand you to mean that transitional forms are species that are not believed to be actual ancestors of modern species. I've recently read that this is the case, but I don't think that the general public realizes this. When the general public hears "transitional form," they think it is an actual ancestor of another creature. But if it isn't, then I don't see how one can call such evidence for evolution.
No, I think you're missing the point. The chromosome question only is evidence of evolution if 46 chromosomes can result from a mutation to 48 chromosomes, AND if the resulting 46 can be inherited from generation to generation. In order for the second condition to be fulfilled, one Mr. Mutant must meet Mrs. Mutant, and Mutant Jr. must be able to meet another Mrs. Mutant and then father kids.
Otherwise, if that isn't possible, then we have to consider other explanations as to why there are 46 and 48 chromosomes.
It's how genetics works.
No, I think it would be better to stick to a few subjects until those are properly analyzed. I've provided the Po-218 phenomena, the U/Pb rations in U-238 halos in coalified wood, and Pb and He retention rates for certain zircons. Now I cited some things from the Grand Canyon. You've presented some things as well. But we shouldn't load the table with too many things.
I think we aren't being given all the facts. For example, I recently read that the KBS tuff was dated by three different teams as being from .5 my to 17 my, with some test results being as high as 230 my. So the idea that there is unanimity amongst different dating methods appears to be science fiction.
And the U/Pb ratios from U-238 halos, already mentioned, do not give the dates evolutionists expect.
As far as the age of the universe goes, I don't know how old it is, and haven't made any claims about that here.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 3:03 AM
Still missing what I'm saying, how about you actually address what I'm actually saying rather than claim it absurd. The genetic marker is there sitting in our genetic code. It's one of many other genetic markers, just a very good illustrative example of how an evolutionary prediction is validated. But no, you won't address that. It's impossible according to you despite it clearly happening and being present in our genetic code.Would you care to comment on ERV markers? What about pseudogenes? Or can you explain those away too?
Again, you're not using the evidence, you're trying to explain it away.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 3:11 AM
Owlmirror @268,
Am I incorrect in thinking that in order for a trait to spread through a population via naturalistic means, it must be passed on via mating from generation to generation? And am I incorrect in believing that since donkeys have 62 chromosomes and horses 64, their offspring are almost always sterile because the chromosomes cannot pair up properly? And am I thus incorrect in suggesting that it would be wise to calculate the probability of such a mutation occurring in two individuals of the opposite sex in a similar location who would then be attracted to each other and have kids together, kids that are able to have kids?
At the very least, someone could fuse the chromosomes in a single chimp and then see if his offspring were fertile.
It doesn't sound scientific to just assume it must have happened that way, even if one thinks it had to happen that way since there is no personal God who created the world like the Bible says He did. If religion is to stay out of it, then every assumption possible should be tested.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 3:31 AM
Again: Even if correct, the Earth is not composed entirely of coalified wood.
Dude.... You're assuming that you know anything at all about geology. You don't.
Go here. Ask for Josh or Alan B.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/revenge_of_the_son_of_the_brid.php
Incomplete. Meh, Josh can talk about aeolian deposits.
No, it can't. For pity's sake, "Flud" geology can't even explain how tracks can fossilize during a flood!
Sorry, but evolution happens on populations over time. If the general public doesn't understand that, then that just means that we need better science education.
Inconclusive, given all the other dating methods. Did you read the essay on radiometric dating?
Irrelevant for the purposes of dating the Earth.
Does not support the claimed conclusions, and rebutted by more recent work.
You didn't cite anything; you just demonstrated your deep ignorance of geology.
Citation?
Did you read the essay on radiometric dating?
Did you read the essay on radiometric dating?
---------
Correct.
Correct, but incomplete.
Yes, you are incorrect. See above about karyotypes and chromosomal translocations, which can and do occur within a breeding population.
Why would it be necessary, when we have evidence of chromosomal translocations and fusions in otherwise healthy humans?
No, it is indeed scientific to assume that a natural genetic process happened naturally.
If God wants the credit, he can publish his genetics engineering work in a peer-reviewed journal, just like everyone else.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 5, 2009 3:36 AM
Looks like we've got another True Delugionist™ on our hands. Someone needs to fire up the geologist equivalent of the bat-symbol so we can let Josh have the pleasure of tearing this fool a third corn-chute.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 3:43 AM
Science is a cumulative endeavour. Every one piece of evidence can be dismissed, but it's the picture as a whole which is telling. The current picture of life presents an old universe, an old earth and the gradual emergence of life over billions of years. You need to be able to explain all the evidence, not just talk away a few examples. Again, this is what the objective scientist does.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 3:47 AM
You think that? I guess this is why science isn't done on thinking. Rather it is done based on interpreting evidence. Radiometric dating has well been established, you're trying to find whatever you can to dismiss the entire enterprise. And for what?Again I ask, what evidence is there to support 6000 years old? You say that we're the dogmatists, but I can give you exact reasons why I support a 4.55 billion year old earth, a 13.7 billion year old universe and the gradual emergence of life. Can you do that? Can you show how you can derive 6000 years without once referencing the bible? And remember, you have to explain just why we see galaxies 13.2 billion light years away... you can't talk your way out of that one. e=mc²
Posted by: Rorschach | September 5, 2009 3:51 AM
Just another godbot blabbering about what they fed into his brain when they brainwashed him.
blah,blah,blah
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 3:51 AM
Kel, OM @278,
And there are other explanations for why that marker is allegedly there. So which explanation is the better one? Each explanation should be tested. But let's not just assume that the evolutionary explanation has to be true without even attempting to test it.
Regarding pseudogenes, http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html looks interesting. Looks like the pseudogene idea would make us related to the guinea pig.
Regarding ERV markers, in 2004 a poster wrote,
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=79&m=1
The above webpage by Sean Pittman states:
Thus, "the theory of evolution [is] in serious doubt" since what the poster said in 2004 about the implications of gorillas and humans but not chimps sharing an ERV would also apply to gorillas and chimps but not humans sharing the same ERV.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 5, 2009 3:57 AM
Why am I getting déjà vu?
/sarcasm
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 4:05 AM
Kel, OM @280,
That does not address the point I made. You asked for evidence that the strata was laid down simultaneously, and those U/Pb ratios are some of that evidence.
Why not? Flood geology should have an easier time with that one than evolutionary geology. You need special conditions to end up with fossilized tracks. Walking on a sand dune doesn't cut it. Neither does walking on a beach.
I thought the goal was for a scientific theory to be able to explain all the evidence. Ignoring some of the evidence isn't helpful. But, unknown to many, this is how science really does work in the real world. Bias leads one or another to ignore this or that,l which hinders the truth from being found.
Try: Roger Lewin’s Bones of Contention, pp. 190-197, 203, 233; Fitch & Miller, “Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolph Artifact Site,” Nature 226:226-228 (April 18, 1970); Fitch, Hooker, & Miller, “Argon 40/Argon 39 dating of the KBS Tuff in Koobi Fora Formation, East Rudolph, Kenya,” Nature, 263:741 (October 28, 1976); McDougal, Maier, Sutherland-Hawkes, & Gleadow, Nature, “K-Ar age estimate for the KBS tuff, East Turkana, Kenya,” 284:230-31 (March 20, 1980); Marvin Lubenow’s Bones of Contention pp. 249, 253.
Or try reading David C. Read's book, Dinosaurs.
Because a plausible sounding hypothesis is only that: plausible sounding. It still ought to be tested.
Evolutionists don't get a pass on having to test their hypotheses.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 4:08 AM
Really, all the snide, unkind remarks don't give evolution a good name. It just demonstrates that man is naturally not very nice, and that we need a Savior.
I would say the same sort of thing to a Creation scientist if he acted this way.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 4:10 AM
Kel, OM @282,
Practice what you preach. Explain the Po-218 phenomena, the U/Pb ratios in coalified wood, the Pb and He retention rates.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 5, 2009 4:13 AM
And the means by which you test the hypothesis of 'Goddidit' is what, exactly? Pray to him to send an angel to whisper it in your ear?
Posted by: Rorschach | September 5, 2009 4:14 AM
Now we're getting somewhere...:-)
As with every creationist, the layer of civility is thin, and what lurks underneath is not pretty.
Well that's worked well so far.Bit of a choosy one too, that savior of yours.
*facepalm*
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 4:16 AM
You need to look at the evidence on the whole, we are talking theories here. You can snipe off evidences one by one, but this won't stop the theory for being true. It just means you can come up with an alternative narrative for that one fact.Take a crime science. Murder with no direct witnesses but plenty of evidence sitting around. They find the alleged murderer's fingerprints at the crime scene, they find his DNA. The victim's blood is on his clothes. CCTV footage shows him leaving the house at 10:31pm. The forensic report on the body shows the time of death was somewhere between 10 and 11pm. A gun is found in the defendant's car. etc.
Now you can explain away each piece of evidence individually. After all, each one is not enough to demonstrate that he did it. Yet it's the overall pattern that makes the case. The evidence points to him being a killer.
What you are doing here is trying to construct a narrative for each piece I'm presenting in order to explain it away. And that's a) the complete opposite of science, and b) missing the point of what those examples where. Those examples were to show the predictive power of the theory, that the evidence does support evolution. Did doesn't mean that evolution is the only explanation for each piece of evidence, it means they fit into the evolutionary narrative. And the millions of peer reviewed papers on the matter all fit into the evolutionary framework, scores of papers are published every day and at each step of the way they have the power to potentially falsify evolution. But after 150 years and millions of scientists publishing millions of papers there's nothing.
And that's just in biology. The age of the earth is an external question to the truth of evolution, it is determined by celestial mechanics, geology, nuclear physics, etc. And the age of the universe? That's determined by cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy among other things.
And the facts are as this: The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. This is true completely independently of the theory of evolution. The earth is about 4.55 billion years old. This is true completely independently of the theory of evolution. Life began sometime between 4 and 3.5 BYA, again this is true completely independently of the theory of evolution. Over time life has changed, and for the last 600 million years or so has become complex. This is again true completely independently of evolution. We share so many genetic, morphological, and anatomical similarities that it would seem life is united in its diversity. Again, this is true completely independently of evolution.
So what is the theory of evolution? It's the mechanism as to how life as changed and diversified over the period of genetic life replicating on earth. Natural selection and genetic drift are the proposed mechanisms for how life has changed, if you think these are wrong, then it doesn't default back to "Yahweh did it October 25th 4004BC". No, you have to explain all the evidence away.
And you aren't interested in doing this, you're not even trying to. You're just trying to cast doubt on whatever the "evolutionists" bring up as evidence. That doesn't support your position, you need to provide evidence to support it. Geological structures don't change the findings concerning physics, and they actually have explanations which you are choosing to ignore. But this is the dishonestly I've come to expect from creationists - though I want to know is why you're spending so much time arguing with a layman instead of writing a paper to Nature that will win you several Nobel Prizes?
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 4:17 AM
Owlmirror #273,
Missed this one.
I think you are incorrect. The paper says that the hotter it is, the faster the Pb should diffuse out. You have it backwards.
Quite unscientific. Things aren't unevidenced simply because you say so.
The most recent work I am familiar with arrived at essentially the same conclusions after duplicating the experiments for He.
If the Precambrian granites are only thousands of years old, not 1.5 by., then everything above them must be relatively younger. The Flood model would then explain the formation of the geologic column within those time constraints.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 4:21 AM
And completely bastardising the scientific process to peddle religion is why creationism is considered absurd by anyone in the know. But you're a smart guy, you can prove it wrong. Write a paper to Nature, or Science explaining exactly why there is a young earth, and if you're right then you'll have your name down next to Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, etc. as people who changed the world. You'd be supreme scientist, you'd have international fame as the one who "proved" God's existence.Yet you don't do this. Why not? You're arguing your case on a blog comment, instead of working to become the most famous person in modern history. This is intellectual dishonesty, and it's synonymous with creationism. You don't have a case, otherwise you'd be trying like fuck to get it accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
Can't wait to Josh comes in and rips you apart for your bad geology, but then again he's a Ph.D geologist so he's hiding information from you...
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 5, 2009 4:22 AM
Because most genes have this structure, parts of different genes, and particularly parts of non-functional copies can get joined to each other by insertions, deletions and transposition. I mean, you do know that not all mutations are point mutations I hope? Thus your characterisation of the search space is complete nonsense: qualitatively novel beneficial systems are not usually evolved through the accumulation of point mutations - that does the fine tuning.
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 4:24 AM
raven @274,
That could be debated. It's like what is the minimal amount of Christian beliefs one has to believe in in order to still be classified as a Christian.
Biblical Christianity teaches that man was created perfect, became degraded after falling into sin, and that we need a Savior to pull us back up. Evolution, in contrast, teaches that we are constantly improving without a Savior.
Biblical Christianity teaches that there was no death before man sinned. Evolution teaches that tehre has always been death.
Biblical Christianity teaches that we are sons and daughters of God. Evolution teaches that we are sons and daughters of slime and fish and ape-like creatures.
Biblical Christianity teaches that we are saved by grace through faith. Evolution leads one to think that it is all right to have unbelief, the opposite of faith. Scripture contains lots of stories in which faith was a key element, faith that what God had said was true. Evolution undermines that key concept.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 5, 2009 4:27 AM
Fortunately, since evolution has the benefit of reality supporting it - as opposed to creationism, which has only fantasy - it doesn't need to be polite. It's amazing how little the truth is affected by the absence of manners.
'Man'? What is this, 1950? I know your bible teaches you that women are second-class citizens, but society has moved on from treating them as possessions; you should too.
Would you ask a leprechaun to tell you where the pot of gold is hidden, or the unicorn to give you a ride on its back along the rainbow bridge to fantasyland? Because a 'creation scientist' is a mythical creature that only exists in the woo-soaked mind of an intellectually dishonest delugionist like yourself.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Pickled Bob - as your nose will tell you, there ain't a hint of god in there anywhere.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 4:31 AM
I found mine. Praise be to Joe Pesci.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 4:33 AM
Yes, we must all be nice. That's the main thing. Not honest, nice is the way to go. That way you can talk shit, infuriate those who know better, then claim the moral high ground when one of them calls you a moron...moron
Posted by: Bob Pickle | September 5, 2009 4:35 AM
Kel, OM #292,
Exactly.
But in this case all the evidence doesn't fit, and the evidence that doesn't fit cannot be ignored. The Po-218 halos demonstrate that the earth crystallized instantly, the Pb and He retention rates show that the Precambrian granites are but thousands of years old, and the U/Pb ratios, among other things show that Triassic and Jurassic strata are much younger than assumed, and were deposited at the same time.
Here's another one: If granite formed from magma, it should be able to be synthesized in the laboratory. But attempts to do so have failed.
I take that back: The evidence that doesn't fit can be ignored. You are free to ignore it if you choose. This is a free country.
But it would not be scientific to do so.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 5, 2009 4:42 AM
Just out of interest's sake, Pickled Bob - even if this 'evidence' (I use the term loosely) you present indicated that the earth was only 6,000 years old, why do you get to assume that the being that created the earth is the Christian god rather than any of the other hundreds of deities proposed by the vast range of human religions over the years?
Posted by: Rorschach | September 5, 2009 4:42 AM
BP @ 300,
Dude, I have walked through cities that are older than your earth.
I have seen cave paintings that were made way before your Abraham guy ever was so much as a jar of milk.
Amazing to see such a true specimen of a creationist, I never get to meet any in real life because people in my country are mostly sane.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 4:46 AM
Honestly, I don't know enough about geology to comment on that. Though I do know more about astronomy and nuclear physics to know that the ways to date the universe / earth are well established and well supported by evidence. So here's the question, are you just trying to find a "gotcha" in my knowledge, or do you honestly think that you've bested almost every single scientist who has worked in the field over the last century? The geologists I've talked to don't see them as a problem.
So here's the thing, if you're so sure that you've found the "naturalism killer", then why aren't you putting it in the form of a scientific paper and shipping it to every relevant academic journal? To me that says that you don't have a case, you just want to evangelise your deity and are looking to intellectually bully anyone who doesn't know.
Like I said, the evidence is there supporting an old earth and old universe. These measurements come not from the geological structures but the laws of physics themselves. The four fundamental forces clearly demonstrate an old universe, so forgive me for being blunt but I'm calling your argument wrong. Think of it as an extra set of fingerprints at a crime scene. Do you acquit because you have an extra set of fingerprints there? Of course not, all the relevant data cumulates to a point. You're using 2 examples and thinking that defeats the whole of science.
Posted by: John Morales | September 5, 2009 4:55 AM
Bob:
But that's what you're doing.
The article Owlmirror referenced @247 explains how and why radiometric dating works; you're denying the entire field based on your incredulity about geologist's applied readings of particular elements — and ignoring all other elements, including carbon in particular.
You've also hand-waved away all other dating methods used prior to the discovery of radioactivity with
"The other dating methods likewise are based on assumptions which, depending on one's philosophical or religious bias, may or may not sound plausible.".
You're further ignoring other dating methods such as dendrochronology (as alluded to by Owlmirror @264), ice-core samples, varve chronology, cosmic-ray dating etc.
But science is world-wide, so your putative ignorance (and conspiratorial cover-up?) by actual scientists across many disciplines must also be world-wide.
--
Finally, you've derailed this thread.
I recommend you continue your arguments on the open thread.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 4:56 AM
Looks like you didn't read and understand the actual work done.
A "poster"? Not an actual biologist?
Um, no. I think the theory of evolution can withstand someone making an overreaching claim, and a creationist analysis of ERV genetics.
----------
I'm not Kel.
No, they aren't. They are evidence that some geochemists found a putative anomaly in U/Pb ratios. Do you have any corroboration more recent than 20 years ago?
No; it has no explanation at all.
Says the man who knows nothing about geology or the conditions in which tracks can fossilize.
Who's ignoring it? You're ignoring all of the evidence for a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth. You have some anomalies, but nothing that contradicts the mass of all of the other evidence.
What exactly is your point?
Since there is no Savior, we need reasons to be nice.
Yeah, right.
Contamination, and the absence of a correct understanding of heavy element and zircon chemistry.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 5:19 AM
No it doesn't. You have it backwards.
We consider that the most important observations on the data in Table 2 are: (i) the fact that the 206Pb/207Pb ratios on single zircons closely approximate the ratio obtained when a group of similar zircons was loaded simultaneously on a single filament, (ii) the relative uniformity of the 206Pb/207Pb ratios for zircons from all depths, and (iii) the fact that the total number of Pb counts per zircon (the counts in column 4 of Table 2 divided by the product of columns 2 and 3) shows no systematic decrease with depth, as would be expected if differential Pb loss had occurred at higher temperatures. Taken together, items (ii) and (iii) provide strong evidence for high Pb retention in zircons even for a prolonged period in an environment at an elevated temperature.
Again, looks like you didn't read and understand the actual work done.
Then we agree: Gentry is unscientific, and has no evidence but his own say-so.
"Same conclusions" as what? He is not Pb.
And what is the "most recent work" you are familiar with? Did you simply ignore my citation? You did, didn't you?
Even if the Precambrian was not billions of years old, it cannot possibly be "only thousands" of years old.
No, it wouldn't. It would not explain fossilized mudcracks, crinoids and other light and flimsy fossils in the lower beds of a formation, limestone formation with associated evolved foraminafera, layered coral reefs, and every other aspect of geology at the outcrop level.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 5:44 AM
Have you never thought about how that makes no sense at all?
Man (or humanity) cannot possibly have been created perfect if it was possible to fall into sin.
Not exactly. Evolution is about change over time. "Improvement" is not impossible, but it's a bonus, not a necessary part of evolution.
Is a literal understanding of death necessary to Christianity? More than a few theists have argued for a metaphorical, spiritual death.
No, actually, the bible teaches that we are of slime (OK, that's the DRB, which has... problems), or dust.
And can't slime and fish and ape-creatures also be sons and daughters of God? Why the bigotry?
Technically, it is empirical skepticism that leads to unbelief.
And besides, you too have unbelief. You have unbelief in all the gods that are not of Christianity.
Do you "have faith" that insects have four legs and not six?
So does all of science.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 6:03 AM
So after all that handwaving about evidence, it comes back to the notion that he can't accept his religion alongside the science? Yet he has the nerve of accusing us of not following the science.
This is why people are hurling insults at you Pickle - you're an exercise in futility who is doing nothing other than trying to justify your religious beliefs. This quote sums it up for me:
It really puts the wanker who said the following to shamePosted by: Knockgoats | September 5, 2009 6:18 AM
That could be debated. It's like what is the minimal amount of Christian beliefs one has to believe in in order to still be classified as a Christian. - Bob Pickle
And you accuse people here of being impolite! Who the FUCK are you to tell people who regard themselves as Christians that they are not, you arrogant piece of shit?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 6:22 AM
Unbelief predates evolution by a long long way. And even if you want to stick to the modern era, Hume obliterated any reason to believe in God long before "evolution" came on the scene.Posted by: 'Tis Himself OM | September 5, 2009 8:02 AM
Not once does Bob Pickle offer the slightest evidence for his 6000 year old Earth poofed into being and inhabited by humans by Da Lawd.
Bob, if you want to show creationism is correct, you've got two completely different jobs ahead of you. You not only have to show how the non-creationist theories are wrong, but you have to show how your creationist theory accounts for all of the evidence. That's all of the evidence. You can't just point at an anomaly and say "see, this shows evolution is wrong and therefore GODDIDIT." You have to show the hand of Da Lawd actively placing Tiktaalik in Devonian rock in Greenland. We await your evidence for this.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 5, 2009 8:16 AM
The main attraction for some Christians, like Pickle, is hating other Christians. That's what the whole history of Christianity means to him: picking out the people who it's righteous and acceptable to hate.
Tell Pickle that he shouldn't hate other Christians, and he'd lose all interest in being Christian in the first place.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 8:17 AM
That's it. He's saying he follows the science, but the best he's done is put out an apparent anomaly and concluded that all cosmology, astrophysics, geology, nuclear physics are wrong by a factor of 700,000 to 2,000,000 (depending on whether it's to do with the age of the earth or age of the universe). He's basically got to gambit that all observations of stars further than 6,000 light years away (which means most of the Milky Way, the dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way and all other galaxies in the universe) aren't real or that e=mc² is wrong.But let him have his geological anomaly, to me an anomaly means something else interesting to figure out as opposed to being evidence that God did it 6000 years ago. Because when it comes down to it, we don't know everything but what we do know has been pretty well established.
Still looking forward to Alan B and Josh coming in to tear this guy a new one.
Posted by: Malcolm | September 5, 2009 8:28 AM
Bob Pickle,
Are you aware that it is possible, and indeed essential, to accurately predict the power output of nuclear power stations?
How do you think that this is done?
That same atomic theory is what is used in radiometric dating.
Posted by: Josh | September 5, 2009 8:30 AM
Okay...there is a lot of overnight crap to deal with here, and honestly, I'm not sure if I feel like spending half of today dealing with it. Some things will obviously be quicker to address than others. As a quick morning coffee starting point, let me just deal with this claim:
The first sentence is accurate, depending on how you define "special." I don't really like the implication that fossilization is a "one in a billion" occurrence. That's another of those bad Geology 101 generalizations that break down immediately when you actually look at the data. But that's neither here nor there. The statement is okay as far as it goes.
The second sentence, however, doesn't really appear to...hold water (1-6).
References
1. www.geosciences.unl.edu/~dloope/pdf/Dry-SandTracks.pdf
2. www.geosciences.unl.edu/~dloope/Poster.pdf (conference presentation of the above for those who like color pictures)
3. www.geosciences.unl.edu/~dloope/pdf/DinoTectonics.pdf (some additional discussion of preservation of the that trackway)
4. www.geosciences.unl.edu/~dloope/pdf/APP08.pdf (a different trackway in the Navajo Formation)
5. ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~irmisr/navajo.pdf (just an FYI review of Navajo vertebrate fossils; related to the content of the paper in 4.)
6. www.geosciences.unl.edu/~dloope/pdf/EkaleBromleyLoope.pdf (this paper is just cool...additional thoughts on dune field ichnofossil preservation)
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 8:32 AM
ssh, you'll get the creationists to shut down the nuclear power stations, then how will they make the nukes to bring on the 2nd coming? ;)Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 5, 2009 8:35 AM
Gosh you had a live one last night. Pickle reminds me a bit of Alan Clarke, and used some of the same well refuted literature. It's like creobots won't think, won't understand how science really works, and won't acknowledge they have no physical evidence for their belief, but they have to manufacture evidence to fit those beliefs. The neverending thread is the best place for this discussion, if Pickles cares to continue with his delusions...
Posted by: Josh
|
September 5, 2009 8:41 AM
Based on #277, Bob appears to favor the idea that all "strata" were laid down simultaneously. This immediately makes me wanna ask "how fast is simultaneous?"
So, I'll ask it. How fast are we talking here? What does "simultaneously" mean here?
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 9:04 AM
You have no idea what xian scientists believe or why. I'd ask for your references but you won't have any.
Scientists xian beliefs roughly mirror the general population. Even many evangelicals accept evolution and reality. One is the next head of the NIH.
A religious cultist of the boringly common, "We are the Only True Xians and everyone else are Fake Xians variety." Fundies hate other xians. No problem, all the other xians hate them back.
BTW, the NT says salvation is through faith, faith and good works, or good works depending on which passages one quote mines. There isn't one word about evolution or believing nonsense or anything else. Creationists do to their religion what they do to everything else. Lie a lot.
Posted by: a lurker | September 5, 2009 9:11 AM
The student's references are ancient. I can't believe that any senior-level course would allow such old references for anything besides doing history-of-science research. I notice he does not use consistent style with his citations which would get him penalized in most places.
I think it can be demonstrated that he did not actually consult all his references. Consider his two O'Rourke references. They are both the same article and yet he does not seem to know it. Clearly he got the O'Rourke from one or more young-earth creationist quote mines as that article has commonly been quote mined. It would also explain his citations being done inconsistently: he merely copied and pasted citations from different spots on the web. This kind of behavior alone could give someone a well deserved 0%.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 5, 2009 9:30 AM
Here is something interesting that I ran across while writing comment #315:
http://www.igeo.ufrj.br/ismar/3/3_11a.pdf
Assuming an answer to my question in #222 regarding "simultaneous," I'm curious as to how a global flood model explains the observation presented in Figure 3 of the Carvalho (2004) article (page 316 of the .pdf).
What Figure 3 (A-C) shows is the top surface of an exposed bedding plain in a sedimentary unit (based on the text, I'm guessing it's a bed of muddy sandstone). The upper surface of the bed is covered in dessication cracks and there is a distinct vertebrate trackway preserved across it.
We're looking down on the top of a single bed here (you can see the eroded remnant, edge on, of an overlying bed (probably the next one...?) at the top of Fig.3A). If we're thinking about that trackway from the perspective of the geology of the area, then that whole surface is at the same time of deposition, which is equivalent to the age of the bed, TD. We're looking at one snapshot in time.
If we're thinking about the bed itself, however, then we're looking at three very obvious "events" with three different times of formation (all within TD). One is the deposition of the bed itself, which occurred at T0.
After T0, we have the drying of the bed, which produced the dessication cracks. This happened at T2. T2 probably took place over the course of a day or so, but could have been days, weeks, or months (or longer) after T0. Because of this, the drying event is called T2. We don't know, from the photograph alone (and I didn't get any help from the text), if there was one drying event after the initial deposition of the bed (T0), or if the bed was deposited, dried, and then hung out for while before a rain event--the drying of which resulted in the dessication cracks. T1 accounts for the time between T0 and the final drying event that produced the dessication cracks (we don't know how long that time period was or how many rain events happened between deposition and the final recorded drying event with the cracks).
The large vertebrate walked across our cracked surface at T3, which took place during T2 (after it started, but before the cracks were "dry" (you'll notice that there are deformed cracks in some of the footprints, as seen in Fig.3B)).
So, my question is, how does a global flood explain this trackway? How do receding (or, I guess, advancing) flood waters produce this bedding plain with it's dessication cracks and the trackway?
There is, of course, a separate TD that involves the bed immediately below this trackway bed, and one that involves that eroded bed that we can see overlying the trackway horizon (Fig 1A). Any flood model has to explain these as well.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 5, 2009 9:36 AM
This paragraph in #321 should be corrected to read:
Posted by: Stanton | September 5, 2009 9:37 AM
Because it was a magic flood sent by God, that's why.Posted by: dean | September 5, 2009 9:48 AM
I tried looking at mr pickles' website to get an idea of what makes him tick: it may have been mentioned before, but he links to at least two sites: one is "pickle publishing", which apparently pushes odd publications, and the other (found from his post at 300) links to
http://www.orionfdn.org/
an anti-big-bang site. i noted that somewhere above a physics student noted that "we don't have this type of problem" - well, yes you do, but apparently the "evul evolutionists" are behind hiding the physics. the "headline" is:
Evolutionists work to suppress collapse of Big Bang Cosmology & the emergence of the new COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE Model that points to the Throne of God at the nearby Center of the Universe.
apparently scientists studying evolution are REALLY well funded and powerful, and apparently mr. dill is even less connected to reality than his posts alone indicate.
Posted by: SteveF | September 5, 2009 9:50 AM
r.e. trackways, YECs are coming up with ever more inventive ways of explaining them. For example:
http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2008/03/eggs-and-tracks-in-flood.html
Posted by: Drosera | September 5, 2009 10:09 AM
Bob Pickle @296,
If there was no death, then there couldn’t have been procreation either, otherwise all those immortal creatures would eventually cover the entire planet. But if there is no procreation, then why are there males and females in most kinds of animals, including man? Did Eve have breasts, and if so, why?
It is not true that evolution teaches that there has always been death. Quite the contrary: All the cells in your body arose from two living cells donated by your parents. The same is true for the cells in your parents’ bodies. Ultimately, the fact that you exist is due to the circumstance that lines of cells have been dividing and fusing since the origin of life itself.
In principle, based on similar reasoning, bacteria are immortal. Death is thus clearly not required for evolution to occur, since bacteria evolve too.
That sure was a self-defeating straw man argument that you gave here.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 5, 2009 10:20 AM
dean #324
Creationists do understand that they not only have to overturn biology but physics, geology, astronomy, and numerous other -ologies in order to push their myth.
I read the complaint filed with the Eastern District of Tennessee federal court. My google-fu isn't strong enough to find if the case was pursued further, if it was heard, and what outcome any possible hearing had. Basically a Big Bang denialist brought suit because the big, bad evilutionists wouldn't let him publish papers.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 5, 2009 10:32 AM
Steve, thanks for that link. Rather eye closing.
I love the YEC attempts at "gotcha" moments.
The evilutionists themselves say that these eggs and footprints were found on tidal flats!
The evilutionists themselves admit that these footprints were made by...swimming dinosaurs!
I love how they will always accept our paleoenvironmental interpretations of rocks when it seems as though the data support their YEC view, but will ignore or argue against them (not refute, notice...) when they do not.
This rock over here, that the geologists interpret as tidal flat deposit, based on sedimentary structures, grain-size, and clast type, is obviously a tidal flat deposit, because tidal flats sound like something that would be abundant on earth during a worldwide flud.
This rock over here, that the geologists interpret as shallow marine deposit, based on sedimentary structures, grain-size, and clast type, is obviously a shallow marine deposit, because shallow marine environments sound like something that would be abundant on earth during a worldwide flud.
This rock over here, that the geologists interpret as a tsunami deposit, based on sedimentary structures, grain-size, and clast type, is obviously a tsunami deposit, because tsunamis definitely sound like something that would happen a lot during a worldwide flud.
This rock over here, that the geologists interpret as an evaporite deposit, based on sedimentary structures, grain-size, and clast type, is obviously an evaporite deposit, because evaporating embayments sound like something that would be abundant on earth as fludwaters receded.
This rock over here, that the geologists interpret as a lake deposit, based on sedimentary structures, grain-size, and clast type, is obviously not a lake deposit, because lakes don't make sense during a worldwide flud.
This rock over here, that the geologists interpret as a meandering river deposit, based on sedimentary structures, grain-size, and clast type, is obviously not a meandering river deposit, because river basins don't make sense during a worldwide flud.
This rock over here, that the geologists interpret as an erg deposit, based on sedimentary structures, grain-size, and clast type, is obviously not an erg deposit, because continental sand seas don't make sense during a worldwide flud.
In all cases, they are using our data about what the rocks are. And they'll happily say "even the evilutionists admit these are tidal flats" when it suites them. But when we show them something that's problematic? Oh, those are rocks that are draped across the mountains. Oh, those aren't really wind-blown sandstones. Oh, it doesn't matter that there's no evidence for a tsunami in these limestones--they're tsunami deposits anyway. Following the evidence, my ass. Even the YEC "geologists" relied on us to teach them what the hell rocks were, before they decided to spend their lives lying about them.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 5, 2009 10:53 AM
I'm a geological illiterate. Perhaps I'm not alone, so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg_(landform)
Posted by: DingoJack | September 5, 2009 11:46 AM
Oh by the way, earlier a poster (Mr Pickle*, perhaps?) used the word 'irregagardless'. Let's see how that is defined shall we?
[Emphasis mine]
So, in short, a real, but informal, word used to try and impress others by saying: 'see how scientific and adult I am, tremble before my mighty baseless assertions &etc.'
Hmm - I bet he wonders why all of you weren't in least bit phased by this ploy? Could it be that it's all been done (and debunked) before, perhaps? - DJ
___________________
OT but - http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Funny/Scary_Baby.jpg
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 12:24 PM
Looks like Sean Pitman, MD is a hardcore creationist. 6,000 year old earth and Noah had a big boat full of dinosaurs. He is also apparently trying to get the LSU biology department fired. Xian morality in action. Let's find someone to hate and hate them. I wonder if they will have heresy trials and terminate them with a good old fashioned biblical stoning to death?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 5, 2009 12:48 PM
Every time I hear people claiming the earth is 6,000 years old, I just want to scream, "Are you really that deluded?!"
People are so fucking insecure in their beliefs that any part of reality that impugns their mythology they create a false one.
What a pathetic way to live.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 12:48 PM
I've seen this before. Apparently there is a battle going on in the SDA church between creationist fundies and the reality based community.
This happens a lot in fundie churches. Sometimes they have purges and witch hunts and fire all the biologists. Sometimes the reality people win and the church has a schism.
Bradley may be joining Pearson, Boyantz, Bitterman, and Collings in the cults" versions of Siberia.
My natal sect had this battle in the 1960's. It lasted 15 minutes and evolution is OK. Didn't make any difference one way or the other.
This is the common dilemna of toxic religions.
They teach you not to lie and to respect and find the truth.
Then when you do, the excommunicate you and frequently make up accusations of witchcraft or sexual impropiety.
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 1:14 PM
Really. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.
50,000 years ago, humans colonize Australia
14,000 years ago, humans colonize the USA
11,000 years ago a creasote bush starts growing. It is still alive as a clone.
8,000 years ago a spruce tree starts growing. It is also still alive as a clone.
6,000 years ago the universe is created.
4500 years ago, the Egyptian 3rd dynasty starts building pyramids.
4500 years ago, god kills all but 8 people in a huge flood.
4400 years ago, the Egyptian third dynasty is still building pyramids. They apparently never noticed the flood or that they were dead.
Posted by: Bobber | September 5, 2009 2:08 PM
Zombie Egyptians? (Or, I guess, reanimated mummy slaves.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2009 2:13 PM
In looking back at the Pickled comments, I noticed him whining about granite not being synthesized, which caught my eye because I remember Alan Clarke also banging on about granite being "primordial" or something like that. YEC "geologists" seem to have a common obsession with granite...
A quick Google finds this response to Gentry's sillier claims about lots of stuff.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/saga.htm
Josh: I realize it's all igneous and shit, but sometimes even a lacustrinophile has to go with the pyroclastic flow.
<*snerk*>
Posted by: Stanton | September 5, 2009 2:25 PM
Hello? It was a MAGIC flood.Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 5, 2009 2:39 PM
At the same time, the Chinese had begun developing their writing system. You'd think they'd notice an event so big as the creation of the universe and would have writen it down lol.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 5, 2009 3:17 PM
Bob @ #296 (snipped due to inanity)
How can you even begin to have a scientific discussion or teaching opportunity with someone who has so badly hamstrung his mind from the get-go?
And for that matter, how does one go about reading scientific literature and learning scientific concepts and then try to shoehorn all that into an ancient myth complete with all the attendant "thee"s and "thou"s and Big Angry Smiting God? Wouldn't you get whiplash from snapping back and forth between wildly divergent eras of human thought?
Posted by: tresmal | September 5, 2009 4:03 PM
While you guys use your fancy shmancy peer reviewed papers and you PhDs to take down Mr. Pickle, I'll tackle the job with some old school Star Trek.
Mr. Pickle says that the Physics of Polonium halos and Lead retention in zircons prove that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That has implications for Physics. Here are two obvious examples. One, our understanding of the speed of light and how fast objects can move would have be dramatically changed. Two we would have to come up with a way for radioactive decay to have happened hundreds of times faster than it does now without releasing so much heat that it melted the Earth's crust and boiled off the oceans. But these do not exist in isolation from the rest of Physics. They can't be rewritten without redoing almost all of modern Physics. That means pretty much all of modern Physics is wrong. That includes the Physics that Mr. Pickle is using to demonstrate 6000 year old Earth.
That means that they don't prove a 6000 year old Earth.
Which means that the Physics is right.
Which proves that Earth is 6000 years old.
Which proves that the Physics is wrong.
Which means that they don't prove a 6000 year old Earth.
Which....
Do I win?
Posted by: raven | September 5, 2009 4:05 PM
As far as I can tell, that is just another of the neverending creationist lies. On google I found references to making granite in the lab dating back over 200 years.
Never heard of this Gentry guy but apparently his work was a mixture of incompetence and fraud. Some of his samples from basement continental granites weren't even granites.
Posted by: tresmal | September 5, 2009 8:52 PM
Btw with regard to the chromosome issue, Boss Squid writes about that very subject here and here (the second has bonus Luskin mocking.)
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 9:00 PM
That was the 2nd migration, there was a migration around 4000 years earlier that colonised all the way down to the tip of Chile.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 5, 2009 9:21 PM
I saw the first Brendan Fraser Mummy movie. Egyptians can live through any mishap or even deliberate attempt to kill them.
Posted by: John Morales | September 5, 2009 9:24 PM
Hm, wonder if Pickle has been scared off?
Perhaps he didn't expect to be engaged quite so comprehensively...
You there, Bob?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 9:30 PM
On October 25th 4004BC...
Posted by: Zarquon | September 5, 2009 9:32 PM
I saw the first Brendan Fraser Mummy movie. Egyptians can live through any mishap or even deliberate attempt to kill them.
And yet still get dumped by your girlfriend.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 5, 2009 9:56 PM
Raven, Gentry wasn't a geologist/petrologist, but rather a relatively competent physicist who allowed his religion to blind his scientific objectivity. The haloes are real and not all aspects of them are understood. However, we do know enough about them to know Gentry's interpretation was junk. The Po-218 haloes in particular don't make any sense. We are supposed to believe that the deity created a bunch of Po-218 in situ just so it could decay 3 minutes later? Po-218 only occurs as a result of a decay chain--or maybe in a supernova.
The biggest problem, though, was that Gentry didn't understand Granites--particularly the fact that not all of them from from melts. Of course, the saddest thing is that even when all this was demonstrated to him he continued to persist in his delusion that he'd proved the Earth was only thousands of years old rather than billions. It's really a cautionary tale about:
1)not pontificating outside your expertise
2)not falling in love with your own research
3)not prejudging the evidence based on preconceptions.
Posted by: Alan B | September 6, 2009 4:12 AM
#336 Owlmirror
I remember that. He went extremely quiet after I asked him how he defined "granite"? How would he tell if a granite was "primordial"? What would he look for in a handspecimen? What extra would he do if he had a laboratory? Are there any other rocks that he considered to be "primordial"? How would he tell? How would he respond to other bona fide YEC scientists who disagree with Gentry's claims about granites?
In fact he went so quiet that he said nothing else on the subject.
Bob Pickles, if you are coming back (and I know timezones are a shocker on a fast moving site), I would welcome having a discussion with you about granites.
Sadly, because of timezones and because there are other things in life than hammering on a keyboard, I was unable to join in the discussion earlier but by all means, Bob, come over to the thread named often above where we are trying to understand where the boundaries are for pre flood, flood and post-flood formations. Your input would be welcome.
best wishes
Alan (from the UK - my time currently about 09:15)
Posted by: Josh
|
September 6, 2009 7:17 AM
Wait...what?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 9:26 AM
Of course not all mutations are point mutations. However, regardless of the type of mutation(s) used, the odds of successfully discovering a novel beneficial island within the vastness of sequence space are essentially the same. There simply is no benefit to the odds by using multicharacter mutations vs. point mutations in a random search of sequence space.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 9:36 AM
Regarding comments by Raven:
Nylonse is indeed a fine example of evolution in action, as is lactase.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#Nylonase
However, neither of these functional protein-based systems requires more than a few hundred fairly specified residues at minimum to work. That is why there are many such examples of evolution in action. All of these are very low level examples that don't even come close to my listed threshold of a minimum requirement of at least 1000 fairly specified residues for a qualitatively novel system.
Also, I'm not asking for a single-protein system here. The 1000aa+ system could use several different proteins. The requirement is, however, that they must work together in a specific arrangement at the same time to produce a qualitatively novel function. For example, a flagellar motility system is a multi-protein system were the motility function itself requires the specific arrangement of the individual protein parts in the system at the same time (and therefore their residues as well).
Such as system would be very unlikely to evolve in a stepwise manner via RM/NS because of the large non-beneficial Hamming gap distances between the potentially beneficial intermediate steppingstones in the evolutionary pathway within sequence space.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 9:37 AM
How does search space affect "descent with modification"?Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 9:39 AM
Reply to more comments by Raven:
Indeed. However, this example is like cavefish who have lost their ability to grow eyes via a single point mutation who are able, in the right environment, to regrow their eyes with a single reversion mutation. It's not like they didn't already have the vast majority of the code for eyes already in place to begin with. Such examples are examples of the evolution of a new functional system that wasn't already within the ancestral gene pool. Such examples are actually examples of turning something back on that was already there to begin with.
Wonderful . . .
You're right. Most mutations that affect DNA that codes for proteins or protein regulation are at least slightly detrimental, while most mutations in non-coding regions are neutral or very close to it.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html
However, neutral drift doesn't solve the problem of how to find qualitatively novel beneficial systems any faster. Neutral or completely random walk on a vast ocean of neutrality won't help find the very rare beneficial islands that exist in that ocean beyond the 1000aa threshold level.
Oh, and by the way, there is pretty good evidence that slowly reproducing populations are in fact heading toward extinction because of genetic deterioration over time.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html#Detrimental
HIV resistance, like antibiotic resistance, is based on a loss of a pre-established interaction between the virus and its target. Such evolution is very easy to achieve because any mutational change that producing interference with the pre-established interaction will due just fine. The odds of such a mutation occurring are actually very good. This is why antibiotic resistance evolves so rapidly - even when it comes to newly synthesized antibiotics. The same is true for HIV resistance in humans. This same thing also explains your other examples.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/antibioticresistance.html
The problem is, this sort of evolution isn't going to help you evolve a system like a flagellar motility system where breaking up previous interactions isn't enough to get you to the next beneficial structure in the evolutionary pathway.
That's true. The problem is that these beneficial mutations never produce a qualitatively novel system of function that has a minimum structural threshold requirement of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues. All of your examples of beneficial mutations listed so far are extremely low level examples that either produce systems with minimum requirements of no more than a few hundred residues or which are based on a loss of a pre-established function or interaction.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 9:42 AM
More comments from Raven:
Again, like HIV and many other viruses, the H1N1 virus does indeed mutate quite commonly. However, such mutations never produce any qualitatively novel system of function within the bacterial colony beyond the 1000aa threshold level.
Cancers rapidly mutate and such mutations often block the activity of the chemotherapy agent(s) being used. It is very much the same principle as for antibiotic resistance. Such evolved resistances, while very real examples of evolution in action, are very low-level examples which are based on a loss of a pre-established interaction and are therefore very easy to achieve via RM/NS. This is not the case for those qualitatively novel structural systems that require new structural elements, not just a loss of a structural element, to work.
See the difference?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 9:43 AM
Pitman, have you checked out the work of Lenski? Three different proteins.
And evolution continues and will continue to exist despite your skepticism. Change will only come from within science, not from without, so start publishing your papers in the peer reviewed scientific journals.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 9:45 AM
Why are you talking about evolution as a "search space" when the evolutionary algorithm has no heuristic - only that which survives? It seems you're retrofitting the final product onto the process and looking at the improbability of it being generated.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 9:50 AM
Since you seem an ID advocate, maybe you can answer a couple of questions I've had about intelligent design...
What mechanism is in play in intelligent design? i.e. what did the designer do?
And how can we test for this?
Because this current path "it's all to improbable to evolve by chance" is not an argument for your position, it seems that you're misunderstanding natural selection (in this case by talking about search space - WTF?) and substituting that for Goddidit. If I'm misreading your case, I apologise, but from my vantage point it seems like nothing more than a god of the gaps argument. If you have positive evidence to support your position, then please let me hear it. But NS not being the mechanism behind evolution doesn't mean that design suddenly becomes true. What positive evidence do you have to support your position?
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 9:53 AM
Summary of Sean Pitman:
Those are all good examples of novel proteins, but, I'm not impressed with any of them because I changed the goalposts while you were all busy typing up your examples. Therefore, evolution doesn't exist because you are all incapable of satisfying my deliberately impossible standards.
P.S., I have an M.D., so you are obligated to respect me.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 9:54 AM
Oh, and you can't posit a designer without providing separate evidence for that designer. If your designer is god, you must provide physical evidence for god separate from any creations he made. So, why don't you prove your god first, then worry about his design.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 9:58 AM
Comments of Nerd of Redhead:
Lenski's computer-based experiments actually support my arguments here quite nicely. The searching out of sequence space is able to work quite well on very low levels of functional complexity, or when computer programmers artificially set up the location of beneficial sequences within sequence space so that they are closely spaced enough for a random search to get across the non-beneficial gaps.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/computerevolution.html
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 6, 2009 10:00 AM
I have an MA, which means I'm four places higher than a mere MD.
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 10:02 AM
Magic, especially magic of God, a.k.a., whatever it is that Intelligent Design proponents yammer on and on and on about, but never get around to describing. You need to suppress your natural and taught skills of curiosity and scientific inquiry, while replacing them with a fake warm, fuzzy feeling that you nurture with your overinflated sense of self righteous sense of entitlement and feelings of malicious resentment over being snubbed by the scientific community for having discarded your desire to do actual science.Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 10:06 AM
Comments by Kel OM:
Evolution, as far as the production of a novel functionally beneficial system, doesn't happen until after random mutations happen to discover, by pure chance, beneficial sequence in sequence space. After this happens, NS can kick in and preferentially select this new beneficial sequence for survival within the gene pool.
The question is, what are the odds of success? How long will it likely take for random mutations to find a qualitatively novel beneficial sequence from a given collection of starting points? Well, the answer to that question depends upon the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space.
You see, it isn't enough to simply argue that evolution happens because it happens. That's not an explanation in support of the likelihood of the mechanism of RM/NS to have done the job.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 10:07 AM
Sorry, you missed the point, but that is too be expected from a mere MD. Three separate mutations over 34,000 generations causing the bacteria to be able to feed on citrate and not just glucose. Failure to comprehend the point, or deliberately missing the point. Neither behavior on your part helps your cause here. We sniff out frauds with ease do to our large amount of practice. Sniff, I smell a IDiot. You need to bring your "A" game to this blog. So far, "D" game.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 10:08 AM
Come on now Stanton, I've been asking these questions for months. I'm just looking for answers, and no matter how many times I ask them not a single creationist has either answered the questions or corrected the premises under which I asked the questions.
They don't seem too hard to answer, nor do they seem unrepresentative of the scientific process. Though if I'm wrong, please correct me.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 10:17 AM
Re: Comments by Kel OM:
Ok, but I must warn you that my theory of ID is somewhat different from most IDists.
I'm not arguing that "God did it". I'm arguing that at least a human level of intelligence was required to do it.
It the same as the basis for detecting the need for intelligent activity behind certain forensic phenomena or anthropologic discoveries, or even SETI.
For example, say the Mars land rover comes across a 10 x 10 x 10 meter highly symmetrical polished granite cube. Do you not think that such a discovery would hit the front page of every major newspaper in the world? The implications of at least human-level ID would be quite clear. Why? Because, there is no other known force of non-deliberate or mindless nature that come remotely close to producing such a high degree of symmetry of that particular type with the material of granite. The only known force of nature that is able to do such a thing is at least human-level ID.
This is the basis of all scientific theories of ID - to include SETI, anthropology, forensics, etc. If you can show that the phenomenon in question goes well beyond any known force of non-deliberate non-intelligent nature while also being within the realm of at least human-level creative potential, you have yourself a very good basis for a truly scientific ID hypothesis that carries with it a high degree of predictive value.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 10:24 AM
Re: Comments of Nerd of Redhead:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 6, 2009 10:32 AM
Sean Pittman is doing the old God of the Gaps shuck and jive.
And where did this "at least human level of intelligence" arise? Did some other "at least human level of intelligence" create it? Is it turtles all the way down?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 10:34 AM
Show your evidence. This is a new one.But if you really have something, I suggest Science or Nature, not here, so you can maintain priority. After all, anything you mention here will not receive innovator credit, and a possible Nobel Prize. Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is the only way to ensure that. If someone beats you into print, they get priority.
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 10:34 AM
Sean, "my listed threshold". So who are you? God? Dictator of the World.? This is the science equivalent of me saying, "Bring me jesus's death warrant signed by Pilate or we have to conclude he is imaginary." And then heal an amputee on TV. The 1000 a.a. criteria is arbitrary and set up so it would be difficult to find examples.
Qualitately novel systems are rare but not unheard of. This is because evolution works with what is available. Changes are generally stepwise and small as most mutations might change one amino acid at a time. There aren't going to be many examples of novel 1000 amino acid systems appearing suddenly. But evolution doesn't say that there will. In fact it says the exact opposite. You aren't criticizing evolution, you are torching a straw man.
You have set up a strawman and then murdered it, a common fundie tactic. You are also doing the Gish gallop, tossing huge amounts of lies, fallacies, strrawmen, and barely coherent statements against the wall and hoping some of it sticks. It is incredibly dishonest but when you are trying to cram a 13.7 billion year old universe into two pages of bronze age mythology that's all you have.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 10:37 AM
Okay, so I agree that there are potential mutations that could in any circumstance give a benefit to the organism, and thus be subject to selection. But how can we work this out? Is the mutation that occurs after the fact the only possible mutation that could have occurred to give such a benefit? i.e. I'm wondering how we can look at a mutation after the fact and work out it's probability any more than we can with a poker hand. It might be wildly improbable that any given hand comes about, but still a hand has to happen.This is why I think that sequence space is misleading. There's no goals in evolution, there's only what survives. A certain amount survive each generation, far less than the number of offspring, so over many generations even with a large genome surely radically improbable mutations would happen by pure chance. And when that happens, it's only takes a small number of generations to spread through a population. You only need the mutation once if you do it early enough. Then contingency is the deciding factor.
But what does this prove about natural selection? To me, nothing at all. Descent with modification provides an ample means for accumulation of beneficial or neutral mutations over time. So however improbable any given mutation is, the fact is that we are talking about populations where mutations do happen every generation and an innumerable number of generations taking place between the distant past and where the measurement takes place.
To me, this means that evolution doesn't really have a search space. It's just modification after modification. It just so happens that the deleterious nature of bad modifications and the finite resources in a potentially exponential growth of organisms competing means that there would be some mutations that ultimately mean that the process has the appearance of a best first search - and ultimately the illusion of design. But of course appearances are deceptive ;)
And the population size, and the time over which it takes, and the influence of outside organisms competing for similar resources, etc. completely agree, it's not enough to assert that evolution happens because it happens. Rather the anatomical, genetic, fossil record, and biogeographic distribution of life (among many other lines of evidence) all attest to common ancestry and to evolution. As for natural selection being a mechanism, then that does require experiment and observation to see. And again, the scientific literature is not barren with examples of testing just that, so you have plenty to pick from in seeing that in action. One example I heard just today was about the Deer Mouse, and that 8000 years ago there was a shift in the Nebraska environment leading to sand dunes. Now 4000 years ago there was a mutation that gave the normally dark brown mouse a light brown fur - making it more adaptive to the new environment.Of course, that is but one example and there are many out there which I'm sure you're familiar with. One of my favourite evidences for natural selection is looking at the genetic code between us and chimpanzees - that we can tell what genes were selected against because their mutation rates were higher than what to expect from genetic drift.
But to get back on point, it's nothing short of scientific truth to say that we evolved. The evidence for evolution in general and for common ancestry is overwhelming. As for the mechanisms at play, those are less certain but there is at least to some extent natural selection involved. But as to what extent natural selection played versus genetic drift, gene flow or horizontal gene transfer (or any unknown mechanism) I can't say. If you have a proposed mechanism that is previously unknown to the scientific literature then please present it.
There's no point in sitting on what would cause a potential paradigm shift in scientific thought. Propose a mechanism, propose tests that would potentially verify or falsify such a mechanism and present your findings to the scientific community. I for one would love to see a shift in scientific thinking, it's a lot more interesting that way. I'm not married to natural selection any more than I am to special relativity or the heliocentric solar system. So please present your case and your evidence for what mechanisms are at play in the change in life over time.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 10:39 AM
Re: Comments by Tis Himself:
It is "turtles all the way down" since higher-level information only comes from even higher level information. This is the result of the concept of meaningful/functional informational entropy.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 10:45 AM
Ah, the informational entropy nonsense. Informational entropy doesn't matter with natural selection. And anyway, cells are little biochemical factories, and don't understand the concept of informational entropy. They do understand the concept of thermodynamic entropy, and they follow the rules. There is no connection between thermodynamic entropy and informational entropy, other than the latter was given a bad moniker.Still no evidence like citations to the peer reviewed literature presented to back up inane and insane claims. And the IDiots wonder why scientists don't take them seriously? The only way to be taken seriously is to play by the rules of science, where evidence, not assertions, rule.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 10:52 AM
Re: Comments by Raven:
There are lots of examples. Every living thing contains lots of such systems. Remembers, most such systems use more than one protein. The problem is that there aren't plenty of examples of systems that require more than 1000 fairly specified amino acid residues (fsaars), but that no such system has ever been seen to evolve in real time. Beyond this, there is a stalling out effect of evolutionary potential as this threshold is approached.
Qualitatively novel systems are not rare, but common. There are hundreds of examples of qualitatively novel single protein enzymes evolving.
The problem is that an appeal to quantitative changes doesn't help to explain the origin of qualitative differences. A quantitative change is very easy to achieve via RM/NS. A qualitative change is much much more difficult because it means having to take steps off the starting point island (an island made up of a collection of sequences with the same qualitative function) and into the vastness of the surrounding sequence space.
I've just asked a very simple question: What are the odds of the mechanism of RM/NS being successful at different levels of functional complexity? You really have no idea. You just assume that the odds are "good enough" to have done the job. The problem with this assumption is that it isn't backed up by statistical analysis or predictive value and therefore isn't real science.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 10:54 AM
Quack quack quack quack quack!
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 10:58 AM
The fact that Intelligent Design proponents lack the ability or even the desire to set up even the most rudimentary test to detect the comings and goings of The Intelligent Designer, aka, "God" as described in the King James' translation of the Bible, beyond yammering about how life as we, pitiful mortals, know it somehow needed an intelligence to boost it up somehow, is one of the many reasons why Intelligent Design never was a science to begin with (besides the fact that it was intended to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for Creationism).Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 11:03 AM
Don't care either way, no matter what you say it would be one better than any "IDist" has actually answered (either to me or in the academic literature) Fair enough. Though I can't help but think of Shermer's last law: "Any sufficiently advanced ETI is indistinguishable from God." I've got to say that I agree with you to an extent that we can detect design. After all, evolution has wired us to detect agency in the world - it's essential for our social interactions and ability to know physical causality. But I can't help but notice that you didn't actually address the questions themselves.Maybe I'm being harsh on you, that your conjecture is still in the speculative stage and you haven't yet solidified that into a testable hypothesis. And if I'm pushing you to explain something you're not yet ready to, I apologise in advance. But to me this is a question of mechanisms involved. Like I said in an earlier post, the evidence that we evolved is overwhelming, that common ancestry is incredibly well established through many independent lines of evidence. So what we are talking about is how, and it seems that it would be a fair assessment of your posts that you're talking about that too. Even if I disagree with your characterisation of natural selection, you're still talking mechanisms of change. Again, please sing out if I'm misrepresenting you.
So if there was an ETI that played a part in the process of life, what part did it play? Did it just seed life and be done with it? Did it stay and play artificial selector the way we have done with many different life-forms? Did it play mutator and tinker with the genetic code to give it beneficial mutations? Or did it do something else entirely? This is what I want to know, what role does the designer play in this notion of design you have?
And just how did a designer of such intelligence come about in the first place? After all, it is being proposed (again please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you) that we're too improbable to have evolved through natural forces. Wouldn't the same apply to the designer too? Or would that designer have a designer of its own? Would we get a regress to almost infinite complexity where the ultimate being seeded lesser beings? Surely at one stage in the regress there needs to be a process that can build a designer from the ground up.
I'm not trying to push that latter issue though, it's a secondary thought, and I do apologise if it comes off as hostile or dismissive. But to get back to my main point, it's that surely the questions of what mechanisms are at play is what needs to be addressed in order for ID to be valid. If those mechanisms can be addressed then tested for, then I for one welcome our new designer overlord(s).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 11:04 AM
Still no citations to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Ergo, whatever IDiotic woo our doctor troll is asserting, is obviously not scientific. He is wearing invisible clothes. We know it, but he thinks he is nicely clad in fine raiment for all to see. Evidence, and the ability to cite and use it. Tha is what separates the adults from the children, and scientists from the IDiots.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 6, 2009 11:05 AM
In other words, GODDIDIT. Thank you for finally admitting that you're not some kind of IDer but a genuine creationist.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 11:11 AM
How do you resolve this infinite recursion ?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 11:14 AM
And on that note, I'm off to bed. It's after 1am here and I have to get up for work in less than 6 hours time. Sean, I'm really not trying to be antagonistic in my posts and I'm genuinely curious as to what you can propose and how we can test for it. Because in the end, my main drive on this planet is to find out what I can about the universe as much as possible before I die. If that means that in my lifetime, natural selection will be overturned for some new mechanism - then so be it. Like I said, natural selection means as much to me as any other proposed mechanism in science. I'll be as sad to see it go as I would electroweak interaction.
So if you have a genuine scientific revolution on your hands, then I'll be incredibly excited to see it. Though I would urge you that if you have something major to share it with academia via Nature or Science. After all, no matter how much you can convince the layman of something, if you want it to be considered science then you have to convince the scientists.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 11:15 AM
Re: Comments by Kel OM:
We can get a very good idea as to the likely ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space without actually knowing all of them or even their specific locations. This ratio can then be used to give a very good idea, with high predictive value, the average number of mutations needed to achieve success - regardless of the starting point(s).
But there is a goal for the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS. That goal is to find new beneficial sequences. The success rate of this goal can be determined based on knowing the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets in sequence space.
The argument that what exists is what has survived the evolutionary process simply assumes the evolutionary mechanism to be true without actually considering the likelihood of this notion. The mechanism itself cannot simply be assumed to have worked in order to be science based. There has to be some sort of statistical analysis to support the notion that this mechanism was the likely mechanism to have done the job.
The argument that "surely radically improbable mutations would happen by pure chance" isn't a scientific argument. The question is, how many? and how often? Well, the answer to such questions again depends upon the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences.
For example, I could argue that it is possible for Cal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to win the California Lottery 10 times in a row - by pure chance. However, who would actually believe that only pure chance was in play if this were ever to happen? Most would believe some sort of deliberate design was involved - right? But why? Because the odds of this happening by pure chance are so extremely remote - that's why.
And, the odds of success by RM/NS beyond the 1000aa structural threshold level are much much less likely than the odds of Arnold winning the CA Lottery 10 times in a row.
That's just it. The number of generations which could have taken place on this planet over the course of ~4 billion years is not "innumerable". It is quite numerable and the resulting number is far far too tiny to have remotely done the job. Even at the relatively lowly level of a 1000aa minimum trillions upon trillions of years would have been required.
For more details, see the following Link:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 11:16 AM
Sorry you are wrong. Cancer cell drug rsistance usually involves deregulation of function rather than loss "of a structural element to work." One common one is the MDR pump which is upregulated by regulatory mutations or gene amplificiation, abstract below. Methotrexate resistance is mediated by changes in DHFR, usually amplification, sometimes high km mutations. Radiation resistance involves increases in DNA repair system proteins. Sometimes transport specificities are altered.
The more important point is dismissing cancer as a "very low level examples" of evolution while admitting that it is in fact, evolution. The current model for cancer is an evolutionary one. Cells lose growth control, evade host defenses, become immortal and apoptosis resistant, gain the ability to metastasize, become resistant to every treatment thrown at them, and when we run out of options, the patients dies. A process that will kill 100 million of the 300 million citizens alive today in the USA.
The number of changes along the way is an area of active research. By DNA sequencing and microarrays, it is looking like 10 to 20 mutations are involved, start to finish. Whether this is low level or not is an opinion and an assertion. Most researchers in the field wouldn't agree even thought they desperately wish it was. Everyone wants better treatments for obvious reasons.
Boiled down, you are claiming that microevolution occurs but macroevolution is impossible. The old and standard creationist claim and it is false. We have a few examples of macroevolution in real time. Try adriatic lizards which evolved a new internal organ, Tasmanian devil facial tumor, or canine transmissable venereal tumor. We wouldn't expect many. Macroevolution generally works on time scales much longer than human life spans.
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 11:16 AM
Kel, my dearest, if you're asking questions with the specific intent that will be answered by Creationists, or, Designer forbid, Intelligent Design proponents in a logical, scientifically sensible manner, I strongly recommend that you change your handle to "Flying Figgy Fruitcake," and spend your next vacation in a nice, quiet place with padded walls.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 11:22 AM
Re: Comments by Tis Himself:
Of course I'm a creationist. However, one doesn't have to believe in God or even know the origin of the human-level designer before one can adequately and scientifically propose that only an agent with at least human-level intelligence could produce certain types of phenomena in the natural world.
For example, SETI scientists don't have to know anything about the origin of their aliens before they can know that their aliens must have at least human-level intelligence to produce certain types of radiosignals. They don't have to know who or what made these aliens in order to know that they are intelligent to at least the human level of intelligence.
So, you see, this whole "who made the designer" argument is just a red herring that adds nothing to such conversations.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 11:24 AM
Pitman, without evidence from the peer reviewed literature, you have nothing. Your site is meaningless in a scientific debate, as your data has not been vetted by experts in the fields. Which is the purpose of peer review, to be a quality control check on your data and methods, and ensure your methods and conclusions are scientific. No evidence, nothing but assertions. Welcome to IDiot
sciencewoo.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 11:33 AM
Again, I would contend not (arrgh, I need to get to sleep), rather that it's just survival on a generation to generation base. This is why I'm saying you're looking at it the wrong way, because there is no goal beyond survival. It's just that the potential exponential growth of a population is kept in check by finite resources, meaning that competition between organisms for those finite resources will mean that if there were any beneficial mutations then those would rapidly spread vertically over but a few generations. The further back in time we go, the more contingency that is needed to predict us.What I'm saying is this: There will be change. The process of life demands there be change - mutations occur and they are heritable. That is unavoidable. So when we talk about change over time, it doesn't matter about how many mutations are "beneficial" since beneficial is contingent on the environment. It could be that many different mutations are beneficial in different ways and allow for exploiting different resources. It just makes no sense to talk about it as a search space.
As for rates of mutations, what we can see in dogs in just the last 15000 years should be an indicator of the potential. Just as the rapid evolution of cichlid populations in Lake Victoria in Africa in the last 2 million years or so should demonstrate how quickly mutations work. Of course, there's always looking at the genome and seeing how many mutations affect certain genes as opposed to background drift as seen in pseudogenes. I mean, those three points all seem like good starting positions).
And now I'm going to bed, damn SIWOTI!
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 11:39 AM
Re: Comments by Raven:
Deregulation is often based on a loss of the regulatory elements of the system. There are many such examples of resistances being based on a complete loss or disruption of regulatory targets of various therapies. Beyond this, changes in the degree of regulation are not qualitative changes, but are quantitative changes. You can't evolve a system like a flagellar motility system by such qualitative changes to what already exists in the genome of a historically non-flagellate bacterial colony.
This is low-level because cancers are based on a series of losses of previously established control or regulatory elements. Such losses are very easy to explain via RM/NS.
It's not like I don't know about the causes of cancer. I'm a pathologist after all with a sub-specialty in hematopathology. One of the papers I published on Hodgkin Lymphoma formed the basis for reclassification of this malignancy in the latest WHO classification of lymphomas.
Again, your tumor examples are not based on the evolution of any qualitatively new structural system, but are based on losses of regulation or quantitative changes to what was already there. You're not going to build something like a flagellar motility system this way.
Your lizard example is actually an example of turning on a system that was already there in the historical genetic options for the lizard gene pool. It is like cavefish who have lost the ability to grow eyes getting this ability back again via a single reversion mutation - a reactivation of something that was already there.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 11:42 AM
Still nothing but assertions from the IDiot. Never mind that the burden of proof is upon him, and without evidence he has nothing. But I think he knows that. Otherwise, he would not be here wasting his time, and would be writing that scientific paper for his Nobel Prize...
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 11:43 AM
Re: Comments by Nerd of Redhead:
I'm just asking a simple question. If you know how to answer it, great. Otherwise, it seems like you can only let someone else do your thinking for you. You can't seem to even evaluate ideas unless someone from a mainstream peer reviewed publication tells you its Ok. Care to even try to think for yourself?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 11:44 AM
Getting it wrong again. You keep claiming beneficial mutations are loss of function. Some are, many are not.
I gave 4 examples of beneficial mutations known in humans off the top of my head. Delta32CCR is los of function but beneficial nonetheless given the HIV is almost 100% fatal without treatment. Adult lactase, alpha amylase, and A1 Milano are regulatory mutations or changes in function
Antibiotic resistance is far more complex than just
"loss of a pre-established interaction between the virus and its target. " To put it simply, antibiotic resistance can involve a complex evolutionary process where detox enzymes and systems in soil bacteria become transposable elements, hop on plasmids, and self transfer with the plasmids around the biosphere. They also form into gangs and one can see 5 or 10 different systems on the same RTF. There is a vast literature dating back decades on this, and no, it isn't worth while quoting it when you keep getting basic points wrong and ignoring others.
Beneficial mutations exist and are common in any sysem we look at. They are serious problems for us in medicine and the basis of our agricultural systems which feed 6.7 billion people.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 11:53 AM
Re: Comments by Raven:
And, as noted for you already, your examples of qualitatively novel functional systems that aren't based on a loss of something else don't come even close to the minimum 1000aa structural threshold requirement.
Most forms of antibiotic resistance are indeed based on a loss of a pre-established system or interaction.
Now, you are correct to not that not all forms of antibiotic resistance are achieved in this manner. However, those examples that are based on the acquisition of novel enzymatic elements are all low-level examples, not one of which comes even close to the level of a 1000aa system where all the elements must work together in a specific arrangement at the same time.
You mention enzymatic cascading systems which are comprised of multiple enzymes acting in concert. Such cascading systems are not high level systems because they do not require the specific 3D orientation of all of the parts in the cascade at the same time. Such cascading systems are not significantly more functionally complex or difficult to find in sequence space compared to the largest single part of the system that does require specific arrangement at the same time (usually the largest single-protein enzyme in the cascade).
Beneficial mutations do exist, but not when it comes to producing qualitatively novel systems beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity (to include multi-protein systems). There are no such examples in literature.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 6, 2009 11:55 AM
A quantitative change is very easy to achieve via RM/NS. A qualitative change is much much more difficult because it means having to take steps off the starting point island (an island made up of a collection of sequences with the same qualitative function) and into the vastness of the surrounding sequence space. - Sean Pitman M.D.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this garbage, it's still garbage. You keep assuming that there are only point mutations. We knowgene duplication occurs. We large proteins consist of functional domains separated by "filler" of which the exact sequence is not important. We know there are mechanisms - insertion, deletion, transposition - that allow these domains to be recombined into novel domain-level sequences - thus, in your "search space", there are ways of jumping between the "islands" that are likely to include entirely new and potentially useful proteins.
Look, here's the abstract from a recent paper. You're an M.D. (I truly pity your patients if you are in clinical practice), so you presumably have access to PubMed and can get the whole paper. Read it. Try to stretch your clearly very limited intellect to understand it.
Biochem J. 2009 Apr 1;419(1):15-28.Click here to read Links
Genomic and structural aspects of protein evolution.
Chothia C, Gough J.
"It has been known for more than 35 years that, during evolution, new proteins are formed by gene duplications, sequence and structural divergence and, in many cases, gene combinations. The genome projects have produced complete, or almost complete, descriptions of the protein repertoires of over 600 distinct organisms. Analyses of these data have dramatically increased our understanding of the formation of new proteins. At the present time, we can accurately trace the evolutionary relationships of about half the proteins found in most genomes, and it is these proteins that we discuss in the present review. Usually, the units of evolution are protein domains that are duplicated, diverge and form combinations. Small proteins contain one domain, and large proteins contain combinations of two or more domains. Domains descended from a common ancestor are clustered into superfamilies. In most genomes, the net growth of superfamily members means that more than 90% of domains are duplicates. In a section on domain duplications, we discuss the number of currently known superfamilies, their size and distribution, and superfamily expansions related to biological complexity and to specific lineages. In a section on divergence, we describe how sequences and structures diverge, the changes in stability produced by acceptable mutations, and the nature of functional divergence and selection. In a section on domain combinations, we discuss their general nature, the sequential order of domains, how combinations modify function, and the extraordinary variety of the domain combinations found in different genomes. We conclude with a brief note on other forms of protein evolution and speculations of the origins of the duplication, divergence and combination processes."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 11:55 AM
I do. I've been a scientist for 30+ years and a skeptic for 20+. I know how to think. I know what evidence is and what it means, and I know how to identity woo. Unlike you.I'll explain it to you again, since you appear to be dense. Scientific peer review is a quality control check on the data, methods, and conclusions of a paper, so there is a secondary check that they are following the rules of science. These checks are why scientists tend to be very honest with each other. No assertion they make will go unchecked. Now, if you are going to overturn evolution, a well established scientific theory with hundreds of thousands of papers supporting it, both directly and indirectly, that can only be done with more science. Not with your vague unevidenced assertions in a blog. So, until you publish a paper in the peer reviewed journals, you have nothing. I have been trying to get you to be more scientific. Your failure to do so tells me all I need to know about your lack of honesty and intellectual integrity.
So, why won't you write a scientific paper?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 12:10 PM
Re: Comments by Knockgoats:
Where did I assume that there are only point mutations? There are lots of different types of mutations. The problem isn't that huge steps within sequence space are impossible (they clearly are possible). The problem is with your notion that these large leaps across sequence space are any more likely to land upon a novel beneficial island than are point mutations. The odds of success are essentially the same either way. Do the math.
For example, say we have a field that is 100 km x 100 km. Within this field with unknown locations are 10 target locations that each measure 1 m square. How many random steps taken by a blind man with a stride length of 1 meter will it take to find the first target? How many steps will it take for a blind man with a stride of 10 meters to find the first target? - with a stride of 100 meters?
You see, the size of the mutational step doesn't matter when it comes to the odds of success...
You do realize that the authors of this paper, and almost all others like it, base their assumptions on sequence homologies? - not on the odds that the mechanism of RM/NS is remotely likely to have done the job. It is simply assumed by such authors that this mechanism did the job without actually considering the odds.
The similarities aren't the important part of the problem. It is the minimum structural differences between otherwise homologous systems that are the problem. These minimum required differences form the non-beneficial "gap" across which NS cannot guide the RMs. It is this minimum likely Hamming gap distance that is the problem for the mechanism of RM/NS.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 12:10 PM
I guess we are not allowed to know how Pitman explains the origins of the "human-like" intelligence that created life on Earth, or of the intelligence that must have created that intelligence, or the intelligence that created the intelligence that created us and so on.
He denies evolution explains our origins, but is not being honest when he says he has an alternative explanation. He merely changes the problem requiring explanation and refuses to explain how he solves the new problem. By invoking an infinite recursion he just seems to hope it will go away and people will stop noticing what he has done. Well sorry,, we ain't that stupid.
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 12:13 PM
Going in circles here. Evolution works by taking what is already there and changing it. That is the essence of the theory. By steps, microevolution, because mutations occur usually one at a time. Microevolution X N=macroevolution.
That is simply the common fallacy, Argument from Ignorance and Personal Incredulity How do you know that? You don't. There is a lot of literature on flagellar evolution and every thing we have found indicates it evolved like everything else. It reduces to, "I can't see how my foot evolved, so god exists."
How long did it take the flagella to evolve? Who knows, this system is billions of years old. We could guess it took millions of years or longer. We've been carefully looking at evolution for less than a century. We've never seen continents collide from plate tectonics, mountain ranges building, ice ages happen, stars forming from interstellar clouds and so on. Many phenomena occur on timescales vastly longer than human lifespans.
To cite one well known example. Wolves evolved into dogs over about 10,000 years. We know this from historical records and archeological remains. Some zoologist still classify them as the same species because they interbreed easily.
So it took 10,000 years to turn a wolf into a chihauhau. Did anyone see it? No, people don't live that long. Did it happen? Of course.
I realize these examples may be problems for you. Many creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old. That means you have to ignore most of modern geology, astronomy, physics and so on.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 12:16 PM
Re: Comments by Matt Penfold:
As I've already noted earlier in this thread, one doesn't have to know the origin of the human-level intelligence in order to know that at least human-level intelligence is needed to produce certain types of natural phenomena.
SETI scientists don't need to know the actual origin of their the alien intelligences that they are looking for. They could have been produced by a Flying Spaghetti Monster for all they really know. However, the fact that certain types of radiosignals clearly require the input of at least human-level intelligence can be determined with a very high degree of predictive value - regardless of the origin of the intelligent aliens who produced the artificial signals.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 12:20 PM
Sean going Woo Woo Woo, but producing no evidence to back up his assertions. I wonder why? The real wonder is why he continues to bore us with his woo. Nobody is biting, and he has nothing we haven't seen before.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 12:21 PM
Pitman,
You miss my point.
You will still need to explain where the "human-like" intelligence came from. You do not allow for evolution to evolve intelligence, so how do you explain where it came from ?
It has to be the result of natural processes in the end, no matter how many iterations you go through to get there. You have riled any kind of god, so what it is ?
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 12:23 PM
You heard an owl, Nerd? I was sure I heard a duck.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 12:24 PM
Should read "ruled out ...."
Posted by: IaMoL | September 6, 2009 12:24 PM
Obviously you have no idea what natural phenomena actually means, Herr Doktor. Jesus, I sure as hell hope you're not a practicing physician.Posted by: Rick R | September 6, 2009 12:26 PM
I'm quoting this post from 'strange gods bless 'merica' from another thread-
"My observation of Intelligent Design in general is that it is a conservative political movement with stereotypical goals like restoring prayer to the public schools and outlawing homosexuality. Some would go further, putting all non-Christians under jizya, and ultimately smashing modern liberal Christianity. Cdesign proponentsism is nothing more than a tactic for getting Bible study back into the schools. So most of these people, the ones who take over local school boards, could not tell you what irreducible complexity is in the first place, because they don't care."
So please Sean, just get with the evangelizing already. The sciencey stuff is just making you (and your god) look stoopid.
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 12:30 PM
:So what is wrong with that? Evolution was accepted by the scientific community a century ago. It is one the the best, most thoroughly tested theories we have. The attacks on evolution are almost entirely by xian and moslem religious extremists who keep trying to cram a huge universe into 2 pages of mythology.
As some point you stop wasting time reinventing the wheel and instead use the wheel for what it can do. That point was long before I was born.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 12:33 PM
Hmmm...A crockaduck perhaps? ;)Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 12:34 PM
However, you fail to realize that the main difference between SETI researchers and Intelligent Design proponents is that SETI researchers set up criteria to help them recognize "intelligently designed signals," while, in marked contrast, Intelligent Design proponents simply point and shout "I don't understand this, so no one else will comprehend it, either, ergo, INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN"Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 12:35 PM
Re: Comments by Raven:
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 6, 2009 12:39 PM
Some sort of intelligence is necessary to recognize natural phenomena. Geez, are you one of those doctors that uses magnets and beeswax for curing ailments?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 12:43 PM
Pitman,
Just so we are clear about your motives, can you confirm you rule out any kind of supernatural explanation for the origin of this "human-like" intelligence, and that specifically can you confirm that do not see a role for any entity that would normally be considered to god like ? In other words can you confirm that you rile any non natural explanation for the intelligence ?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 12:48 PM
Re: Comments by Stanton:
What are the criteria set up by SETI to detect an artificial signal? Do you know?
The SETI criteria are:
1. Find a signal that is very unlikely to be produced by any known non-intelligent force of nature.
2. See if this signal is within the creative powers of at least human level intelligence and technology.
Those are the two criteria upon which SETI is based.
So, you see, SETI is in fact based on a "gaps" argument. They don't know how any non-deliberate force of nature could produce the type of signal that they are looking for. Does this mean that mindless nature is in fact unable to produce such a signal? - known with absolute certainty? Of course not. Science isn't about demonstrating absolute proof or certainty. Science is about making predictions based on limited in formation which carry the best predictive power given this limited starting point.
This means, of course, that all of science is based on crossing the gaps - of making leaps of faith if you please across gaps in knowledge that are yet to be known with any sort of certainty.
Exactly the same logical basis is used in my version of ID - and in all scientific searches for ID in any field of science (i.e., forensics, anthropology, SETI, etc.).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 12:54 PM
Re: Comments by Matt Penfold:
I think it is impossible for humans to prove the need for the omnipotent or the supernatural - for the simple reason that we are natural and cannot understand, much less prove, beyond what is naturally given to us to understand.
However, we humans can hypothesize, with very good predictive value, the need for the input of at least natural levels of what most would call intelligence - at least at if not a good bit beyond, the human level of natural intelligence.
None of the examples of artifacts that I've listed so far would clearly require the input of anything other than human-level intelligence and technology.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Damian | September 6, 2009 12:55 PM
With all due respect, Mr Pittman, you're simply regurgitating probability arguments that have been debunked, again and again.
Now, do you have anything new to add that hasn't already been shown to be an example of "an after-the-fact assessment of probability, which is unreliable without a very careful consideration of all possible alternate contingencies", or did you really expect us to buy those arguments?
I suspect that we're not the people that you wish to convince, or else, why haven't you published your "findings"?
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 12:56 PM
:That isn't true at all. A lot of clinically important antibiotic resistance is by plasmids carrying antibiotic resistance genes.
The abstract above shows kanamycin, gentamycin, and neomycin are inactivated by a phosphotranserase. Chloramphenicol is inactivated by an acetyl transferase. Penicillin class drugs are commonly hydrolyzed by an enzyme system.
It is more correct to say many or most forms of antibiotic resistance are caused by acquisition by pathogens of novel metabolic systems that evolved in response to widespread use of antibiotics. This is basic infectious disease medical research.
You keep staring evolution in the face with cancer, drug resistance, emergence of novel and predicted pathogens such as swine flu and then try to say this is low level evolution and it isn't important.
Over the time scales of the earth's history low level evolution becomes high level evolution. And even "low level evolution" is crtical to humans.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 12:57 PM
Quack, what do you hope to accomplish here?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 1:02 PM
Re: Comments by Raven:
So what is wrong with that? Evolution was accepted by the scientific community a century ago. It is one the the best, most thoroughly tested theories we have. The attacks on evolution are almost entirely by xian and moslem religious extremists who keep trying to cram a huge universe into 2 pages of mythology.
As some point you stop wasting time reinventing the wheel and instead use the wheel for what it can do. That point was long before I was born.
We are talking about the understanding of the proposed mechanism of evolution - i.e., RM/NS. Believing that change happened over time is one thing. Having a good understanding of the mechanism by which such changes are theorized to have taken place is quite another...
You can't really use the wheel to much effectiveness at all if you don't really have a good understanding of how the wheel really works.
If you don't have any clue as to the statistical odds of the success of your mechanism at various levels of functional complexity, which you clearly do not, then your notions regarding this mechanism aren't really based on much more than guesswork.
Sorry, but assumptions and blind guesses don't produce statistically useful predictive value. In short, it ain't science.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 1:09 PM
Still nothing but assertions and no evidence from Sean. Just like he is bullshitting us.
That is you Sean, assumptions and blind guess. You have nothing to back you up. Your statistics are meaningless compared to the real scientific evidence. Your failure to understand that says you have no idea of how science is done.Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 1:10 PM
Re: Comments by Raven:
We are talking about the understanding of the proposed mechanism of evolution - i.e., RM/NS. Believing that change happened over time is one thing. Having a good understanding of the mechanism by which such changes are theorized to have taken place is quite another...
You can't really use the wheel to much effectiveness at all if you don't really have a good understanding of how the wheel really works.
If you don't have any clue as to the statistical odds of the success of your mechanism at various levels of functional complexity, which you clearly do not, then your notions regarding this mechanism aren't really based on much more than guesswork.
Sorry, but assumptions and blind guesses don't produce statistically useful predictive value. In short, it ain't science.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 1:11 PM
:Oh Gee. Let's rename evolution and then we can say it can occur. Darwinian evolution is mendelian variation of pre-existing options within a large gene pool. With natural selection making the choices. There is no such thing as a static pool of options. Humans show 150 mutations per generation. As dogs are mammals quite similar to us in genomics, it is likely to be the same.
The wolf to dog transition is evolution, defined as life changing through time. There is very little difference, if any, between artificial selection and natural selection.
.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 1:11 PM
So do you have an explanation as to the origins of this intelligence ?
I note you have still not explained how you avoided the infinite recursion that your explanation requires. Your human-like intelligence would also require human-like intelligence to create it, and that intelligence would also require human like intelligence and so on. You are not explaining things by invoking the first intelligence, just shifting the problem.
You have a very real problem here, in that your explanation requires infinite resources for an infinite number of intelligent entities and yet the universe is not infinite.
It would seem it is not only biology of which you are profoundly ignorant, but physics and cosmology as well.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 6, 2009 1:12 PM
I stop watching for a couple of days and come back to this.
Sean, you graduated from Loma Linda, an SDA school, and you're arguing for ID - and you expect us to take seriously your claim that you're arguing for the designer to be a "human-level intelligence"?
If you aren't arguing that the designer is God, if you aren't trying merely to bolster your belief in your particular iteration of Christianity, I'll eat my hat.
Either this is your version of the Wedge, or you're arguing that the level of design, by virtue of requiring nothing higher than a "human-level intelligence", is so obvious that we are "without excuse" for not recognizing God's handiwork (as the Christians who come here love to tell us) - in which case, you're simply another Christian troll with nothing new and nothing of value to say.
Either way - get to the point. Reveal your underlying motives.
Posted by: Sastra | September 6, 2009 1:13 PM
Sean Pitman, MD #413 wrote:
When we examine something to determine whether or not it was deliberately put together by an intelligent entity, we try to find things which would not have occurred naturally. A stone which has been carved into a tool will show signs of artificial shaping. A stuffed toy rabbit differs from a natural rabbit. We contrast the artificial with the natural by looking for familiar signs of tampering.
You're trying to figure out whether natural items are really artificial by contrasting them with ... what? Nothing familiar.
You can't talk about "intelligence" as if it were a thing in itself. It's an adjective. It modifies a noun. And if nature is itself an artifact, then both concepts becomes meaningless.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 1:24 PM
Re: Comments by Raven:
Darwinian evolution isn't the same thing as Mendelian variation. Mendelian variation can take place without any novel systems entering the gene pool of allelic options. You can't get a lizard to turn into a bird using pure Mendelian variation since Mendelian variation is based upon the concept of a vast, but fixed and finite, pool of options.
Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is based on the idea that the fixed pool of Mendelian options can be qualitatively modified. And, it can be modified, but not when it comes to qualitative additions to the pool beyond very low levels of functional complexity (i.e., beyond the 1000 fsaar level).
This is the reason why changes in phenotypic expression that are primarily based on Mendelian variation can happen very very rapidly (in just a few generations) because nothing really new has to be found within sequence space - it's already there. Function-based selection is indeed in play, and there is no significant difference between natural and human-based selection as you rightly point out. The difference, however, is based on what already exists, preformed, in the genomic pool of allelic options. If it already exists, it can be found and given enhanced expression within the population very very rapidly via Mendelian mechanisms alone.
Ironically, it is Mendelian variation that was responsible for most of Darwin's own observations of "evolution in action" - not the actual evolution of something truly new, in a qualitative sense, within the gene pool of options.
We're really talking about gene pool evolution here you know; not simply about the different degrees of phenotypic expression of the same static gene pool of pre-established options. You do grasp this very important difference? - right?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 1:27 PM
:That is good to know. We do use the wheel of evolution every day and it works very well. To take one of countless examples but a current one.
The A2009 swine flu was predicted a priori long before it occurred using evolution.
It is here.
I and a few dozen other scientists predicted it would become Tamiflu resistant. Done.
This resistance should spread through the virus population within a few years. Hasn't happened yet so we will see.
The swine flu will antigenically drift. A prediction but a safe one.
The swine flu will displace the seasonal H1N1. A prediction and not a safe one but we will see.
Evolution is critical in medicine and agriculture. We understand the wheel well enough to increase life spans 30 years in a century and feed 6.7 billion people.
And there is a lot of research to understand the wheel even better.
Suppose you find out that god is behind the evolution of emerging pathogens such as HIV, swine flu, SARs and so on. And keeps coming up with effective drug resistance transfer plasmids with 5 or 10 different novel drug inactivation pathways. Then what?
.
Posted by: Sean Pitman | September 6, 2009 1:30 PM
Re: Comments of Shastra:
Of course those phenomena that are proposed to be truly artificial or artifactual must be compared with something that is known to be within the realm of at least human level intelligence, creativity, and technology. This at least part of the basis of SETI after all - as I've already noted in this thread.
Nothing I've listed here in this forum as clearly artificial is beyond the realm of what humans have and are creating.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 1:32 PM
Buzz, Darwinian evolution is only a small subset of evolution, and PZ only spends a few minutes per term on it in his biology classes. Modern synthesis, the 150 year improvement up on Darwin, is what is used today. If you can't get your terminology right, you can't get anything right. Sean, the more you talk, the less coherent you become...Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 1:39 PM
Like most creationists, Pitman is stuck with C19th science.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 1:44 PM
Re: Comments by Raven:
Great! That's easy. I predicted the same thing. However, the basis of our predictions is quite different. Your prediction is based on the fact that you've seen evolution before at this level of complexity. My prediction is based on a statistical understanding of why evolution is so easy and so rapid at such low levels of functional complexity.
Same here. The basis of most forms of resistance is very low level - about as low as you can get. It usually is based on the loss of some pre-established system or interaction or the up or down regulation of some pre-existing system in a qualitative sense. All of these methods are very easy to achieve via RM/NS.
I agree! But for very different reasons...
I agree. But that doesn't mean you understand the statistical reason why the wheel works or doesn't work. You don't understand the nature of sequence space and how the ratios of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial change, exponentially, within this space in line with minimum structural threshold requirements.
ID is not needed to explain such low levels of functional complexity. Just because human disease and various forms of drug resistance are indeed based on low-level evolution in action, doesn't mean that the extrapolation of such low level activities to all levels of functional complexity is a tenable extrapolation. It isn't. There are statistical reasons for this - reasons which it might be of some interest to you if you would at least try to consider them.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 1:47 PM
Sure, do you? There is no such thing as a static gene pool. Mutations are common.
We can't say how many mutations it took to turn a wolf into a dog. But likely there were many along the way. The chihauhau genotype wasn't just lurking in the wolf gene pool waiting for someone to select it out of the entire gene pool by selective breeding.
We can say how many mutations it takes to turn a normal cell into an end stage metastatic tumor cell. It is a stepwise process with different mutations and selections along the way and number runs around 10 to 20.
.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 1:51 PM
Re: Comments of Nerd of Redhead:
The "Modern Synthesis", last I checked, still supports the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS as the most likely explanation of the diversity of living things. Is that not so?
So, please, lets not get off base here. This particular discussion is entirely about the supposed scientific support for this particular mechanism. Where is it? Where is the statistical arguments supporting this mechanism beyond very low levels of functional complexity (i.e., beyond the 1000 fsaar level in particular)?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 1:55 PM
Pitman,
What publications do you have in the field of evolution ?
You do scientific research in the field right ? Or do you think you know better than the professionals ?
I note you only claim to have a medical degree ? Is that just an oversight, or do you not have an advanced degree in evolutionary biology ?
What I am basically saying is cite your publications or shut up.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 1:59 PM
The chihauhau genotype was indeed lurking in the wolf gene pool waiting for someone to select it out of the entire gene pool by selective breeding. That is exactly what I'm saying. No significantly novel allelic elements with qualitatively unique functions were needed to produce the chihuahua expression of the doggy gene pool.
And yes, for many types of neoplasms, we do know exactly how many mutational events it takes to create the neoplasm. Often it is just one point mutation. Sometimes it take more mutations for certain types of cancer. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that an entirely static gene pool can be used to produce variations from wolf-like to chihuahua-like dogs.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 6, 2009 2:00 PM
What paper are you citing as the source for this claim ?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 2:03 PM
Raven,
While mutations certainly do occur quite commonly in the doggy gene pool, they are by no means needed to produce most of the vast variations in phenotypic expressions that we see in dogs. These variations are almost exclusively the result of variable expressions of a static allelic pool of options.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: DaveL | September 6, 2009 2:25 PM
Sean,
I was unfamiliar with your 'fsaar' metric so I began looking it up on google. Strangely, I have yet to find a single instance of the term not connected with your name. Note: not "connected with the ID movement", connected with you, specifically.
Does this metric correspond to anything actually in current use within the bioinformatics community? Can you show us some papers where this metric has been computed for things like antibiotic and Tamiflu resistance? If I name a protein, could you give us an example of calculating its fsaar complexity? How about for something like a regulatory pathway? An anatomical structure?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 2:35 PM
Sean, try the peer reviewed scientific literature, found at institutions of higher learning around the world. You are extremely unfamiliar with its contents.
You have cited nothing, ergo you have no evidence. You avoid scientific evidence like the plague, and by not doing your homework, can claim ignorance. We know better, and the burden of proof is upon you, and you have failed to provide any evidence, and are instead trying the religious technique of I am right until you prove me wrong. Then you apply extreme skepticism to anything we say. That shows your dishonest and lack of intellectual integrity. You bear false witness. That doesn't work in science. Put up your evidence, through peer review, in order to substantiate your assertions, or you shut up. That is real science, where honesty and intellectual integrity is found.
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 2:35 PM
Well, we will have to disagree here and leave it at that. I've got to get things done outside of cyberspace soon.
Our data says that the chihauhau genome lurking in the static wolf gene pool is wrong.
1. Mutations are common. Each dog will have 150/generation. This BTW is a lower estimate. The genome sequencers only looked for point mutations and we know insertions, deletions, and duplications are also common and cause notable effects such as in Huntingtons and fragile X syndrome.
2. So where did all this cryptic variation in the wolf gene pool come from? I'm sure there was and is some. From random mutations and genetic drift. Saying the gene pool has lots of variation just puts the random mutations back a step.
3. What is limiting in evolution is most likely not mutations anyway but selective pressure. When large areas of the ecology open up, we always see rapid adaptive radiations of species. The dinosaurs all die in an asteroid mishap, and quite quickly an old but obscure group of ratlike vertebrates, the mammals take over the planet. A fruit fly makes it to Hawaii, and soon enough there are many closely related species. Or the Cichlid fish in African lakes. Dogs throw their future in with the dominant species on the planet and soon enough there are dozens of breeds.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 2:37 PM
Neat! That makes it easy to track the quack.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html
Scroll down to "Re: Protein Sequence Flexibility - Sean's evasions"
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 6, 2009 3:16 PM
I haven't read beyond comment 280 yet, but I can't restrain myself anymore. :o)
I've never seen one mentioning the use of the first person.
Now that's interesting. The Caphtorim are the Cretans.
From where??? Perhaps Tübingen in Germany? I hope not.
You see… I don't think evolution has ever produced anything really novel. It's always just the same old plus a few mutations.
And out of which orifice did you pull that "1000 aa" figure? Many proteins are much smaller than this, and their active centers are smaller by another order of magnitude or more.
And then you boast about your doctorate?
Moron.
Besides… I'm not sure about the USA, but in most countries a doctorate in medicine (or law) isn't the same as a doctorate in another field; it's the same as a Master's or even just a Bachelor's in another field, with the only difference that medicine students who get that far automatically get the title of "Dr." – without ever having had to demonstrate that they understand what science is, let alone having had to demonstrate that they can do some.
Why? The same DNA, practically the same repair mechanisms…
You seem unaware that footprints, bones, and plant matter require three different conditions for fossilization. For instance, plant matter preservation is helped by acidity, while bones are dissolved; footprints require a wet surface that lies around long enough to harden, while bones and plants require fast deposition; and so on.
Dude, if this stuff were so simple that any ignorant creationist could understand it, why is taphonomy an entire science?
Easy: the similarity of life is arranged in a tree shape. Not a tape, not a circle, not a disk, but a tree.
How come? Why are there transitional forms between birds and dromaeosaurids, but not between birds and insects? Why between whales and hippos, but not whales and sharks or whales and bats or whales and humans or whales and ginkgo trees? Why?
The simplest explanation is descent with heritable modification… which is how the term "evolution" is defined.
Tiktaalik is significant because adds a very short branch to a small, previously barren area of this tree.
Why don't we think it's an actual ancestor of all limbed vertebrates (us included), even though it has the right age for that? Because it has a few extra features that wouldn't be expected in such an ancestor. (One is the extra-long axis of its paired fins: two more elements than usual.) The simplest explanation is that it branched off and evolved on its own (for a short time).
This is not true. The meiotic machinery simply isn't as picky as you, unspokenly and probably unawarely, assume. A fusion chromosome can fairly easily pair up with two single chromosomes during meiosis – unless it's too different from the single ones, which was not yet the case.
A lot of what sounds obvious is completely wrong.
Yes. The real reason is that the fusion chromosome of donkeys is – now – too different from the corresponding separate chromosomes of horses.
Also, you put that "almost" in there. If fusion chromosomes are as a matter of principle incapable of pairing up with their constituents, why are there any exceptions at all?
Dude, there are paleontologists here (like me) who had some geology in their first years at university. There are even outright geologists here. And then you come up with such a half-truth?
The Lower and Middle Jurassic footprint-containing sediments from the southwestern USA are all fossil sand dunes. The whole area was a desert with an annual supermonsoon ("supermonsoon" as in "supercontinent", you see).
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 3:16 PM
Sean Pitman, have you done experiments where you have been able to breed chihuahua like animals from wolves while determining that these neo-chihuahuas are not the result of mutations, or have you identified exactly where chihuahuas and other dog breeds lurk within the wolf genome?
If you have not done either, then why make such ridiculous proclamations?
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 6, 2009 3:39 PM
I see that Sean still won't disclose the identity of the "designer".
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 6, 2009 3:52 PM
"You need to suppress your natural and taught skills of curiosity and scientific inquiry, while replacing them with a fake warm, fuzzy feeling that you nurture with your overinflated sense of self righteous sense of entitlement and feelings of malicious resentment over being snubbed by the scientific community for having discarded your desire to do actual science. "
Stanton for Molly.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 6, 2009 3:53 PM
From the Adventist's website:
God's greatest desire is for you to see a clear picture of His character. When you see Him clearly, you will find His love irresistible.
Sean M.D. is another Seventh-Day Adventist lying for Jebus, Who da thought?
(BTW Isn't it funny none of the MDs or PhDs here list their credentials as an appeal to authority?)
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 5:28 PM
Gesundheit, Rey.
Posted by: tresmal | September 6, 2009 6:00 PM
Terrible analogy. First notice that it assumes missing by a cm is the same as missing by km. It would be more realistic if these targets were at the bottom of broad depressions (like the bowling ball on a trampoline type 2D representations of how mass affects spacetime)so that once you were in the right neighborhood you would quickly find you way to the target. Also since most proteins are variations on a relatively small number of themes, the targets should be clustered so that once you found one it would be a relatively short and easy search for another.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 6:27 PM
From what I've read of Sean Pitman's persistent posting, his argument seems the following:
"It's all to complex, mutation / natural selection cannot generate complexity, therefore Goddidit".
Not really evidence for design, as far as I can tell he hasn't proposed a mechanism for change. All he can do is whenever a mutation leads to a survival advantage is pointed out to him is say that it's not enough. That's not hypothesising, that's just using one's personal incredulity at the process to say God did it!
Again I ask, what is the mechanism under which the designer acts? You seem to be ignoring that question, instead talking about the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution. Regardless of the ability of Darwinian evolution to explain life, it doesn't make a case for whatever you say. At best your argument changes the answer from "natural selection" to "The mechanisms at work are unknown". Until you propose a mechanism and provide positive evidence for such a mechanism, you just have religion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 6:39 PM
Kel, you nailed it. He complains about evilution, but has presented absolutely no fully formed alternative, complete with evidence to back it up. It's the old creationist idea, if evilution is wrong, I must be right. They, including Sean, can't even show the first part is true. Which is pathetic in its own right. And for the second, anything beyond "goddidit" is beyond their abilities. The plane tickets to Stockholm are safe from the likes of Dr. Pitman.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 6:39 PM
I find it pretty telling Sean that when asked to actually make a case for your position, you could only descend into nebulous reasoning. Why are you spending so much time talking about the limitations of "RM/NS" instead of making a positive case for your conjecture? i.e. making a testable hypothesis. Can you even explain what the mechanism is that you are proposing beyond "God did it"?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 7:12 PM
Re: Comments by Raven:
And what data would that be? Consider that "Most dog breeds have been created in a few generations..."
Elaine A. Ostrandera, Kenine E. Comstocka, The domestic dog genome, Current Biology, Volume 14, Issue 3, 3 February 2004, Pages R98-R99
This means that most breeds of dogs are not dependent upon functionally relevant mutations, but upon variable expression of what already exists in the starting gene pool of phenotypic options.
Mutations are indeed very common - more like 200-300/generation. However, as you noted yourself, the majority of these are functionally neutral or very nearly neutral. And, of those that are functionally significant, the vast majority are detrimental. Obviously, this means that if most breeds of dogs are produced very rapidly, most of these breeds are not dependent on novel functional mutations.
Or am I missing something here?
That's a lovely assumption which assumes, a priori, that your mechanism RM/NS was in fact responsible for all biosystem diversity. This is exactly what is in question in this particular discussion. How do you know that your extrapolations of low-level examples of RM/NS in action are just as likely beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity?
You can put all the selective pressure you want on any kind of living population and it will not produce any qualitatively novel system of function for you which has a minimum structural threshold requirement of more than 1000 fairly specified amino acid residues.
Even at fairly low levels of functional complexity one can start to see this effect at work. For example, Barry Hall in his well-known experiments with E. coli and lactase evolution noted that his double mutant bacteria did not again evolve a lactase enzyme despite high mutation rates and an environment that was very strongly favoring the lactase function - despite tens of thousands of generations under observation. Frustrated, Hall himself noted that these bacteria seemed to have "Limited evolutionary potential".
Now, what was it that produced this limitation? Obviously, the gap distance between anything that was already in the gene pool and the next closest usable lactase sequence in sequence space was farther away than one or two or even three or four character changes at minimum.
This likely minimum Hamming gap distance only increases as the level of functional complexity increases. It doesn't stay the same.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 7:19 PM
Re: Comments by Kel OM:
As I've already noted a couple of times in this thread, there are two basic requirements for scientifically supporting an ID hypothesis of any kind. First, one must show that there is no known non-deliberate force of nature that can come even close to producing the phenomenon in question. The second part is to show that the phenomenon in question is within at least human-level creativity and technological production.
That's the basis of ID detection for anthropology, forensics, and SETI. If someone could show how non-deliberate forces of nature could easily produce the types of radiosignals that SETI scientists claim to be clearly artificial, that evidence would falsify the current basis of SETI. The very same thing is true of my position for ID behind certain biological features. If someone could show how a non-deliberate force of nature, like RM/NS, could likely produce these features, that evidence would falsify my ID hypothesis. It's as simple as that...
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 7:32 PM
I am a Seventh-day Adventist. That's always been quite clear.
I may be confused and I may be wrong, but I really believe the stuff I'm saying and my questions are sincere questions. There really is no need to even try to lie here. I have no need to convince anyone of my own personal ideas. I don't think one's position on the issue of origins makes a person good or bad. This isn't inherently a matter of salvation contrary to the notions of some Christians. I personally believe that there will be a lot of very surprised atheist in heaven someday. I sure hope so since several of my very best friends are either atheistic or agnostic. I'm only here to test my own ideas out for my own benefit - not yours.
Also, I list my real name and background, not as an appeal to authority, but for informational purposes. After all, I know a few garbage collectors and a number of barbers who have it far more together than most MDs - and Ph.D.s for that matter.
I just think it is nice, on the flip side of the coin, to have at least a little background on the person you're having a conversation with. I know most of you guys in this forum like to use tags instead of your real names and background, but I personally find it nicer to know real names and at least a brief educational background...
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 6, 2009 7:33 PM
The second part is to show that the phenomenon in question is within at least human-level creativity and technological production.
So, you're arguing for panspermia? Why do I find that unlikely?
WHO, Sean? WHO is the designer?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 7:42 PM
Still no evidence from Sean. He is either unable to unwilling to produce it. That is the same a saying he is a fraud. I'll put up my full analysis later...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 6, 2009 7:45 PM
Except that our model includes changes over billions of years. Evolutionary theory has only been under observation for slightly over 150 years.
You are essentially saying that, because you don't see a tree grow a new branch in an afternoon, new branches must be affixed by invisible tree-branch fairies while no-one is looking.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 6, 2009 7:45 PM
Josh has already addressed this, but let me just point out that I've spent two or three weeks in Crayssac in southwestern France, the place where most of the currently known pterosaur tracks come from. The tracks there occur on each of millimeter-thin limestone layers. Each of those layers was deposited by an incoming tide. Guess how many of them there are – it's a limestone quarry.
Walking on a beach obviously cuts it. Under special conditions, yes – but that simply means "lime mud that dries in the sun and becomes hard enough that the next tide deposits the next layer above it without disturbing it".
Trivial.
Fossil footprints aren't uncommon. They're more common than fossil bones.
Posted by: Carlie | September 6, 2009 7:55 PM
I know most of you guys in this forum like to use tags instead of your real names and background, but I personally find it nicer to know real names and at least a brief educational background...
Why real names? When you are never going to encounter these people outside of the internet, what does it matter what they're called?
And asking for "at least a brief educational background" sounds an awful lot like a little superiority complex dig at anyone who isn't at least an MD like you. It completely contradicts your previous statement that garbage collectors and barbers can know more than Ph.D.s. In fact, it sounds like you have your bases covered - if anyone doesn't have an equivalent degree to you, you can claim that they just don't have the right education; however, if they have higher degrees than you do, you can claim that it really doesn't matter, since garbage collectors know just as much as they do. I've just been following this one without commenting, but man. As a biology Ph.D. who comes from a blue-collar family, I can say that makes you sound like a pretentious jerk from both ends of the educational spectrum.
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2009 7:56 PM
Can you quote the section from this paper that states that dog breeds are/were not derived from the ancestral wolf by the selection and preservation of mutants that struck ancient humans' fancy, and or produce a quote from this paper that says where they found "chihuahua" lurking inside of the wolf genome?
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 7:57 PM
Quack, why don't you submit your fsaarence for peer review and then get back to us?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 6, 2009 8:07 PM
Matt Penfold #307
In a similar vein, he insists on an "at least human intelligence" but doesn't really mean it.
Sean Pitman, M.D. #386
Yep, GODDIDIT. However, Pitman's god is sort of a generic, kinda bright but not necessarily omniscient tinkerer who plays with life for grins and giggles.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 8:10 PM
Here's my analysis:
Con man:
1. Makes assertions without evidence.
2. Tries to control information by supplying very little
3. Avoids any third party verification of assertions.
4. Essentially demands trust in his assertions and data.
Scientist.
1. All assertions are backed by evidence.
2. Publishes information for critique and verification.
3. Cites third parties where possible
4. Expects to have to prove all assertions, and will do so.
Sean
1. Makes assertions without evidence
2. Tries to control information by not supplying any
3. Avoids any citation of the peer reviewed literature.
4. Expects us to accept his assertions.
Sean, you are a con man, id est liar and bullshitter. You had your chance to convince us, but wasted it.
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 8:27 PM
I presented the data which you ignored. You do that a lot and have been doing it for years. You have a history on the internet and have been called on it many times. It is dishonest but creationist are always dishonest. You are also a YEC who believes the earth is 6,000 years old and Noah had a boatload full of dinosaurs. You also have a history of attacking other faculty members at SDA universities. Routine, Xians always hate other xians and fight among themselves.
Sure a lot of modern dog breeds are recent. So where did these come from? Older dog breeds. Not wolves. The archeological record and historical records indicate that dogs were already diverse many thousands of years ago.
"but upon variable expression of what already exists in the starting gene pool of phenotypic options.". The starting pool for modern dog breeds is our large worldwide gene pool of older dog breeds. So where did all that genetic variation in our worldwide pool of dog breeds come from? Random mutation and natural selection
Something tells me you don't believe mutations can be beneficial and are afraid to state it because it is scientifically simply wrong.. Standard YEC cult doctrine is that all species includng human were genetically perfect before the fall and have been going down hill ever since. You are a YEC. QEC
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 8:50 PM
Again, you're not talking about a mechanism for how it happens. We have scientific observations about the history of life; the fossil record, the genetic code, the relative morphology, etc. These need to be explained under a mechanism - something that you're not proposing. But let's address the two steps that you're proposing.
This argument is a "God of the gaps". To demonstrate the fallacious nature of this logic, consider the planet. 300 years ago when Newton was explaining the laws of motion that God hath laid out, he could not see how it was possible for stars or planets to form. Does this mean that a designer did it? Of course not, because now we have observations on how celestial bodies form.So even if natural selection cannot account for life (again, I contend that you're misunderstanding the process), it does not follow that the designer did it. It's a poor God-of-the-gaps argument, and that doesn't cut it.
How do you show this? By tautology? That if a designer did it, the designer must be of at least equal intelligence to humanity? Or do you show evidence that demonstrates that a designer is there? If it's the former, then you're doing the "just so" argument that you charge evolutionists with. If it's the latter, where's the evidence?Again, I can't help but notice that you haven't proposed a mechanism. Again, you're not even trying to explain the observations that we see in palaeontology, genetics, anatomy, ethology, zoology, etc. You're just asserting that Natural Selection can't do it. But what can cause that? You're just avoiding answering the very simple questions that would show that your conjecture would turn into a valid hypothesis.
What I find so vapid about intelligent design (or any other form of creationism) is that the whole endeavour is to aspire to a non-answer: "God did it". How did the designer(s) act on earth? Did the designer(s) make exact species? Did they seed life at a starting point and leave it alone? Is the designer(s) still acting as a part of the natural process? What should we expect to see in the fossil record / genetic code that would be clear indications of design? Why can't you answer what is a very simple question?
Posted by: raven | September 6, 2009 8:51 PM
There is a compelling reason for that and no one sane will use their real names. We get death threats constantly from fundie xians I long ago lost count and PZ Myers gets dozens a day sometimes. Evolutionary biologists and their supporters have been fired, beaten up, threatened, and one was knifed to death by fundie xian creationists. There is a never ending stream of news stories about xian cultists and kooks killing people for one reason or another.
Not that many years ago I had a group of scammers come after me, They found out who I was. To make a long story short, after some ugly death threats, the FBI picked them up and charged them with felonies. What I didn't know was that they had threatened other people as well and the feds were already after them for a lot of reasons.
A year or so ago, had trouble again with a different group. To make a longer story short, a sophisticated, highly illegal spyware program was found on our computer system. A genius of a forensic computer expert traced it to back to them.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 9:44 PM
My name's Kel and I'm an alcoholi... wait, wrong place.What would be served in knowing my surname or exact qualifications? Would it make my argument any more or less valid whether I had a Ph.D in molecular genetics or dropped out of school when I was 14? Giving you my qualifications would only mean you can go to the man...
But if you must know, I have a degree in computer science. I've spent a lot of time learning about and writing search algorithms, so I know from first-hand experience that what you are talking about is full of shit. Mutation + selection can produce solutions incredibly quickly and elegantly - exponentially faster than chance. This is why I say evolution gives the illusion of a best-first search algorithm; illusion being the key word.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself OM | September 6, 2009 9:50 PM
Since my real name is Augustus Xenophon Buttmunch-Pickleheimer, I prefer to use a pseudonym.
As far as edumacation goes, I is a GsD (grade school dropout) 'cause I got disgustipated with being in the same class as Pappy and one class ahead of Grandpappy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 9:56 PM
Sean, you are chatting with people all over the world, aged between teenager and AARP card holder, with education from still in school to PhD/MD. That is all you really need to know. From your behavior online we have you tagged for what you are and why you avoid any evidence...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself OM | September 6, 2009 10:09 PM
Many of us regulars here have given personal data in drips and drabs. If you look in past threads, you'll find my birthplace, my previous employer and why I left that job, my education (that's even mentioned in this thread), what I did when in the military and even which unit I spent most of my time attached to, and various other tid-bits about me. It's easy to learn something about some of the other regulars here, for instance Nerd of Redhead's wife's hair color and Janine OMnivore's favorite mode of transportation.
Posted by: tresmal | September 6, 2009 10:12 PM
Am I missing something, or is Dr. Pitman's argument nothing more than a combination of the lottery fallacy and irreducible complexity?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 6, 2009 10:17 PM
At least Dr. Sean isn't using the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 10:26 PM
Re: Comments by tresmal:
That's correct. My arguments are indeed based on a form of IC combined with the odds of hitting upon systems that have different minimum structural threshold requirements. The only real difference between my version of IC and Behe's is that I look at all functional systems as being IC - just to different degrees or levels. Not all systems are created equal. Some systems have a higher minimum structural requirement before they will start to work to any useful/selectable level. Such systems happen to be much more rare in sequence space and therefore that much harder to find via any form of random search regardless of the starting point(s) of the search.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 10:31 PM
Still no evidence from Sean. What a waste of a post. We don't give a shit about his inane ideas without evidence. Of course, all creobots simply can't provide evidence, since they know they will be amply and deservedly refuted...
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 10:36 PM
Re: Comments by DavidL,
I am indeed the only one on the internet who uses the term "fsaar". However, this abbreviation represents a concept that isn't very difficult to understand. As already noted, it stands for Fairy Specified Amino Acid Residues. In other words, every system of function has a minimum structural threshold requirement below which it will not work. This structural threshold consists of both a minimum size and a minimum degree of sequence specificity (i.e., a certain degree of rigidity) before the type of function in question can be realized to any selectable degree.
For example, take a lactase enzyme. What is the smallest number of amino acids that would be needed in a fairly specific arrangement to produce the lactase function to some selectable advantage in a lactose rich environment for a bacterium? Could it be done with just 10aa? - in any arrangement? No. How about 100aa? No. How about 200aa? It seems like the most likely minimum is around 350aa.
And, every beneficial system has its own minimum. Some are higher than others and are therefore on a higher level of what I call "functional complexity".
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 10:41 PM
Yawn, still no evidence, just assertions. Until this changes Sean, you have absolutely no hope of convincing this blog of anything you say.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 6, 2009 10:43 PM
Oh. My. Fucking. Scott. Usually believers don't admit to believing in fairies.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 10:49 PM
So why can't these beneficial systems come from modofications on other systems that perform a different beneficial function? Why can't these beneficials be the result of bi-products of successful systems, i.e. spandrels?You see, this is the problem of trying to prove by definition. It's nothing more than matching your own personal incredulity. It's say "I can't see how this could evolve, therefore this didn't evolve". And what's your solution to it? You have none, you haven't presented a mechanism on how to solve this. You've just played a God-of-the-gaps and you're expecting us to swallow it.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 6, 2009 11:11 PM
Re: Comments by Raven:
Where did you present the data? You simply listed off the mutation rate for dogs - a rate I essentially agree with. Did you not see my comments noting that the vast majority of these mutations are either neutral or nearly so and that most of those that make any functional difference are detrimental? Yet, we still get breeds of dogs very quickly - without the need for any sort of functional mutations.
Your argument that the original genetic potential for most of the major morphologic differences in dog diversity had been produced by RM/NS is simply a bald assertion on your part. You have absolutely no basis for this claim as far as I can tell - outside of simply assuming that it happened as you imagine.
As I originally noted for you, "most dog breeds were developed in the last 200 years... [and] much of the information necessary to make different breeds of domestic dogs may have been already represented in the total wolf gene pool... [In short] we can indeed say that the wolf gene pool was "frontloaded" with the dogs genome."
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=43
Of course, the origin of this "frontloading" of diversity potential is argued to have been RM/NS. But, again, this notion is based on nothing more but blind faith - not actual demonstration or statistical analysis when it comes to the actual potential of the mechanism of RM/NS itself.
Now I know there is a very strong tendency among many evolutionists to wish to attack the intelligence, education, background, motives, or even the basic morality of anyone who happens to disagree with evolution. This is a great ad hominem tactic. But it really is beneath anyone who actually has the clear advantage of overwhelming evidence.
In any case, I can assure you that I've been as open and honest and upfront with you as I know how to be. I've even given you my real name, a link to my website, educational background, and religious affiliation. I don't see how much more open and honest I can be.
I am a young-life creationist as already noted. But, I've never attacked or personally slandered SDA faculty members at any university to my knowledge. I've always noted that I think even those professors with which I strongly disagree on this or that topic are almost universally good morally upright men and woman.
Again, this isn't a personal issue. Just because I disagree with you on this topic doesn't mean I think you're anything other than a good sincere honest human being. I'm not sure why so many in this forum seem to be so worked up and angry with anyone who even suggests a disagreement that there is foaming and frothing at the mouth? Why all this pent up anger and outrage?
We are talking about the origin of dog breeds. Most modern breeds were developed very quickly within the last 200 years. Even given your argument of the divergence of the dog from the wolf some 15,000 years ago, this isn't enough time to base the origin of the genetic potential for diversity with the mechanism of RM/NS - for the reasons already noted above.
Very unlikely since most mutations are neutral and those that are functional almost all detrimental.
Mutations can be beneficial - as I've noted for you many times already. They just aren't beneficial beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
Beyond this, there is very good evidence suggesting that the human gene pool, along with all slowly reproducing species, is indeed headed downhill...
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html#Detrimental
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 11:16 PM
Still no real evidence Sean. Linking to yourself is bad form. Given your unevidenced assertions, your link is worthless. It is no doubt unscientific, since you have absolutely no idea of how to do science. You just lie to make the results come out the way you want it to. You are wasting your time here. We have your number as a con man.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 6, 2009 11:28 PM
Dear Brother Sean,
Ooopsie! I fear you let the cat out of the bag with your explanation that "fsaar" stand for "Fairy Specified Amino Acid Residues". WE might know that God had a hand in putting all this together...but to most atheists He's just one in a long line of sky fairies that humans invent to try to explain what they couldn't. I think your slip is what Freud would have called a parapraxis, but some might also refer to as errant honesty.
One other thing I noticed is that "fsaar" sounds a lot like the noise that an old person's bowel makes when he or she is trying not to reveal that they have a problem with chronic, recurring flatulence. Did you happen to conceive of the notion while sitting on the toilet?
But good on you, Brother Sean, for coming up with your own acronym and then bruiting it about as if it were universal scientific parlance. While we're at it, want to add a couple of mine to go with "fsaar"? There's:
"anus"—another nitwit up-fucking science
AND
"crappers"—"creationists routinely avoiding publishing papers everyone regards seriously"
Got any more?
Yours acronymoniously
Smoggy
Posted by: Sean Pitman | September 6, 2009 11:30 PM
Re: Comments by Kel OM:
You're forgetting the second part of the argument - - that the phenomenon is well within human creative abilities and technology.
Beyond this, give the veracity of your argument here, SETI would be impossible because it is also based on a "God of the gaps" argument - i.e., the concept that no known non-deliberate force of nature comes remotely close to producing the types of radio signals that SETI scientists are looking for.
You obviously don't understand that gap arguments are the basis of all scientific hypotheses and theories. In other words, a gap argument is simply another name for saying that you've yet to discover anything that counters your hypothesis. It is always possible to falsify the ID-only argument just as it is always possible to falsify the SETI argument for certain types of radio signals being clearly artificial. All you have to do is show that a mindless mechanism is likely to be able to do the job and you've just falsified SETI - and ID in general.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: DaveL | September 6, 2009 11:33 PM
For pity's sake, 'most likely minimum'? Where did this 'most likely minimum' come from in the case of lactase? Is there or is there not an actual method for calculating or measuring this quantity? Show your work. If you're going to start making demands that evolutionary biologists demonstrate evolutionary change in the lab amounting to a 'fsaar threshold of x', then you had bloody well have a more objective method of figuring out x than pulling numbers out of your hat.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 11:36 PM
Still no evidence by Sean. And continually bring up SETI has nothing to do with your inane ideas, and is only showing you in a bad light, where you are avoiding showing any evidence.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 6, 2009 11:36 PM
Sean Pitman, is it possible to identify which subgroups are accumulating deleterious mutations at faster rates than others?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 6, 2009 11:55 PM
We can build planets and genetically replicating organisms from scratch? It sounds like I've been taken out of reality and into a Douglas Adams novel. Is your name Slartibartfast by chance? If so, I want to congratulate you on your work with the coastline of Norway, truly stunning! You keep talking about SETI, while I've avoided this I think it's finally time to address this notion of the science behind SETI.SETI is not impossible because we know that the universe that can harbour life with the utilisation of technology i.e. us. SETI isn't just anomoly hunting, they are searching for specific patterns that cannot have a natural cause. Of course, if they do find a previously unknown pattern with a natural cause, they don't still call it alien. i.e. LGM1
SETI has restricted parameters that it is searching for, and if they find a signal that has previously no known natural cause, then it doesn't follow automatically they have discovered alien life. Again, see Little Green Men 1.
What are you doing? What is your proposed mechanism? SETI is looking for intelligence elsewhere in the universe and has yet not found it. You're playing a game of definitions and declaring that "God did it". You can't compare what you're doing with SETI because you haven't made a hypothesis. You're not searching for answers, you're not looking for evidence that supports or finding mechanisms to potentially falsify what you say - all you have is "We exist, we're complex. Therefore Yahweh"
Again, the limitation here is your personal incredulity to understand natural selection. Though that's no surprise, I've come to expect such intellectual dishonesty from creationists. It would be like me saying "I can't see how Jesus could have walked on water, therefore Jesus is not the son of God". If you want to talk about SETI, how about you emulate the paramaters that SETI imposes on itself in order to remain objective?
That's an incredible bastardisation of Popperian falsification. You're forgetting the predictive nature of scientific theories. You don't win in science just because you haven't been falsified. If I said that goblins cause electroweak interaction, this doesn't stand because it hasn't been falsified. It's the predictive nature of a hypothesis that gives it support. Positive claims require positive evidence.Take the Higgs Boson. It's being searched for at different ranges, and each time it is not found it tells us something about the nature of nature. How is the higgs boson going to be validated? If it turns up. It's not waiting to be falsified, rather it needs evidence of its own existence.
You need positive evidence to support claims. The fossil record evidence for evolution is not that a fossil hasn't turned out in the wrong order yet, but the evidence that we have found. Of course something turning up in the wrong order - like a mammal in precambrian rock - would have something to say about the validity. The feathered dinosaurs aren't evidence just because they don't falsify evolution - they support it!
Posted by: Stanton | September 7, 2009 12:06 AM
Especially since SETI operates in a fashion extremely contrary to Intelligent DesignTheory, in that the SETI researchers focus on stars that they assume are old enough to support planets that support sentient life capable of producing radio waves and other telecommunication feedback, in other words, they have an idea of what to look for.Intelligent Design proponents, on the other hand, have no idea of what to look for: in fact, all they do when they bother to go through the motions of doing pretend-science is throw up their hands and say/whine "I can't conceive of how this biological phenomenon could have evolved, therefore, no one else can conceive of how it could have evolve, THEREFORE
GODDESIGNERDIDIT" Then they return to the writing of their crap pseudoscience books, and conferencing on how to exalt God while sabotaging science education to make society into a Jesus-friendly theocracy.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 12:08 AM
Science begins with the null hypothesis and builds from there. It's the opposite to a God-of-the-gaps argument, it doesn't assume that an idea is true until there is substantial evidence to support it. And even then there's always the possibility of it being overthrown in the future when a better explanation comes along.
You're not doing that, you're doing the opposite of science. You're not even proposing a mechanism of how the designer(s) acts!
Posted by: Stanton | September 7, 2009 12:17 AM
My Flying Figgy Fruitcake, I mean, Kel, do remember we're talking with a guy who thinks that garbage collectors and barbers are more respectable than people who went to colleges and universities to get PhDs or MDs.Posted by: strange gods before me | September 7, 2009 12:23 AM
Yeah I'm going to have to agree with Sean there. Some barbers and garbage collectors are much more respectable.
Posted by: Stanton | September 7, 2009 12:30 AM
Compared to Sean, yes, barbers and garbage collectors are more respectable. Tend to be saner and more truthful, at the very least.Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 7, 2009 12:32 AM
Sweeney Todd was a barber AND he had a marvelous way of dealing with garbage.
Need a trim Sean?
Posted by: Bravus | September 7, 2009 12:33 AM
Small correction - didn't he say barbers and garbage collectors are *more knowledgable* than MDs and PhDs? I mean 'respectable' is very much in the eye of the beholder, but 'more knowledgable'?
Posted by: Bravus | September 7, 2009 12:41 AM
Hmm, OK, what he actually said (when I checked) was 'have it far more together'. Not really sure what that means...
Posted by: Rick R | September 7, 2009 12:57 AM
I love IDiots. All that 'intellectual firepower' focused on trying to look sciency. And yet the courts still keep upholding that darned First Amendment.
That must really burn your ass, huh Sean?
Posted by: raven | September 7, 2009 1:07 AM
Did a little more than that. Your letter which is too long to post objects to the teaching of evolution in biology classes at LSU. It doesn't say it outright but what could LSU do? Fire them and hire creationists? It wouldn't be biology then, it would be ancient mythology.
This is common in xian sects. Infighting followed by schisms. Didn't know much about the SDA but from wikipedia and other sources, it seems that they have and are having both. The Branch Davidians and Armstrong's WCG were both schisms.
This might be OK with you but after 2,000 years of it in xianity, up until recently accompanied by massive bloodshed, many people have gotten sick of it and grown up.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 1:17 AM
Sean Pitman is quite amusing. With his argument about human level intelligence designing life, he his edging close to the mormon idea of becoming gods and making planets. Perhaps Sean should go to the Pareidolia for the godless thread and seek out jjn. They should swap ideas.
Posted by: raven | September 7, 2009 1:33 AM
...This is the genetic entropy of Sandford or Ham's babbling. Straight creationist lie. There is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. The available evidence from the human genome project, abstract above, is the exact opposite. Human evolution is speeding up for a variety of reasons.
This is the difference between science and religion. The human genome project was a lot of clever people spending lots of money to discover lots of new things and then build on them. Religion just gets it wrong and then makes up lies as long as it can. 26% of the fundie xians still think the sun orbits the earth 450 years after Copernicus.
If you think the earth is 6,000 years old, you have to ignore most of science's data. With that sort of religious mental straightjacket, you can never see the truth. We have a fairly complete fossil record of human evolution going back millions of years but according to creationists, it doesn't exist and never happened. Some of them even deny that there ever was a stone age since there isn't room in the mythology for one.
Posted by: Malcolm | September 7, 2009 3:10 AM
Sean,
[Emphasis mine]
In order to determine which sequences would be beneficial, you would need to know precisely what each sequence would do.
If you have some way of predicting this, there is definitely a Nobel prize in it for you.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 7:00 AM
Re: Comments by Kel OM:
SETI scientists assume that there are no non-deliberate sources of the types of radio signals that they are looking for for the very simple reason that none have been found and there is no known mechanism for their production - outside of intelligent design.
There is indeed always the possibility that this artifact-only theory for certain types of radio signals could be overthrown given additional future information. That's the nature of science. All theories are potentially falsifiable.
Yet, when it comes to proposing ID behind certain biological features, you seem to demand absolute proof. Well, that's not science. That's impossible in science. All that science demands to support the ID hypothesis is a demonstration that there are no known sources of non-deliberate origin and that the feature in question is within the realm of at least human-level intelligent production. That's it.
There is no fundamental difference here from what SETI scientists are proposing.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 7:19 AM
Re: Comments of Stanton:
That's not all. SETI scientists also assume that there are no likely non-deliberate sources of the types of radio signals that they are looking for within such star systems. That assumption is based only on the fact that such a source is not known nor is the basis for how such a source might work known. This doesn't mean that such a source is absolutely impossible. It might be discovered in the future and thereby falsify the SETI hypothesis. However, for now, it isn't know. It is a "gaps" argument.
This is like a situation where Arnold Schwarzenegger wins the California lottery 100 times in a row and evolutionists say, "We've gotta keep looking for a way that this could reasonably happen without deliberate design."
How long are you going to keep looking before you can recognize the obvious? - given that the statistical viability for your mechanism of RM/NS is essentially nil this side of trillions upon trillions of years at just the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 7:29 AM
Re: Comments by Kel OM:
Look what you just wrote... You wrote that SETI scientists are looking for specific patterns [in radio signals] that cannot have a natural cause.
How do they know that such patterns absolutely cannot have a non-deliberate natural cause? Upon what is this knowledge based? Is it some sort of absolute knowledge?
Of course not. It is a potentially falsifiable prediction based on limited information that produces limited, but useful, predictive value. It is a "gaps" argument - a type of "god of the gaps" argument if you will. They don't know what else besides human-level intelligence could produce such signals, so they plug in ID to answer the question as to the origin of such signals - because this is the only *known* source of such phenomena. It doesn't mean that SETI scientists know with absolute certainty that nothing else could do the job. Hello! This is what makes their argument potentially falsifiable and therefore truly scientific.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: John Morales | September 7, 2009 7:32 AM
Sean,
Actually, there is.
SETI candidate signals are not even theoretically possible to be generated by natural processes; whilst putative ID processes have an evidenced and theoretically justified natural genesis (evolution).
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 7:33 AM
No, you fool, I'm demanding that you postulate a fucking mechanism. Is that really so hard to grasp? Where have I asked in any of my posts for absolute proof? No, I'm asking for a mechanism by which the designer operates and evidence to support such a mechanism. That is not absolute proof, that is the bare minimum a hypothesis needs to be called as such. Until such time all you have is conjecture. That's not an answer to anything. That's just saying "No known mechanism, therefore Goddidit". You're just trying to say "God did it" by pure virtue of complaining (wrongly I might add) that natural selection cannot work. Yet despite numerous examples of natural selection working both in the wild and in the laboratory, you still maintain that NS cannot work.Yet natural selection is a mechanism, it's a proposal of action. You're not proposing a mechanism, you're proposing nothing. Your answer is an absence of an answer - it's "No known mechanism, therefore Goddidit". This isn't an answer, you're not explaining a single thing about nature. Science is about explaining how. How did the designer do it? What mechanisms were involved? You don't answer that question, and I don't think you can. Your whole argument is an argument to nothing. It doesn't explain anything about biology except "God did it"
Posted by: DaveL | September 7, 2009 7:35 AM
Sean,
Are you avoiding my question? Is there or is there not a method for calculating or measuring fsaar complexity? How do you arrive at your figures?
It certainly seems as if you're using wholly invented numbers and an imaginary metric to give a false veneer of scientific precision to what is really nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 7, 2009 7:39 AM
This is a complete waste of time. There's no point in countering Sean's arguments; he'll never acquiesce. He has too much to lose. The goal of the scientist is to discern the nature of reality through objective analysis of empirical evidence. The goal of the believer is to continue to believe - period. Whatever obfuscation or cognitive dissonance is necessary to keep the illusion going is justified.
Sean keeps referring to SETI and repeating "human-level intelligence" over and over, like a mantra - but I'll wager dollars to doughnuts he isn't arguing for panspermia. If he had a shred of honesty, he'd simply say "Goddidit" and get it over with.
Evolutionary biologists and their supporters have been fired, beaten up, threatened, and one was knifed to death by fundie xian creationists.
Raven,
Seriously? Who was killed?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 7:43 AM
I see Sean doesn't understand that most scientists are smarter than him, and have already taken things into account. Which would explain his blathering about SETI, which has nothing to do with his inane ideas, what ever they are. Still no evidence presented to back his assertions. Con man game in full force. We have your number as a con man and crank Sean. Go and find some people interested in what you have to say. They don't post here.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 7:43 AM
No known cause. Again, I refer to Little Green Men 1. First thought as a sign of extra-terrestrial intelligence - now realised to be a certain type of dead star.
Actually, SETI is proposing a mechanism for such signals, it is based off our understanding of electromagnetic theory and how to generate it into "information". Again, what mechanism are you proposing to test design? You're not proposing one. You're basically saying "We exist, therefore God" because you can't understand how Natural Selection works. You're personal incredulity is not evidence that there is a designer.Please stop making me defend SETI, especially from your straw man arguments. What you are doing is not the same as SETI, SETI is proposing a mechanism, proposing stringent requirements for what meets that mechanism and is working to those. You haven't proposed a mechanism, you're avoiding proposing a mechanism. Notice that SETI hasn't announced that they have found life yet? Yet you're confident despite lacking everything beyond a superficial similarity that you're correct. Again, what mechanism do you have? Your personal incredulity at natural selection is not a mechanism, so please stop asserting that just because you don't understand how natural selection works that it means that your deity exists.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 7, 2009 7:48 AM
Sean,
You're saying that because something doesn't match your invented standards of complexity - a standard unsupported by anyone else in the entire world - that evolution (despite all the evidence to the contrary) hasn't happened?
Interesting is one word for it. Are you familiar with the concept of a strawman?
If anyone ever proposed evolution was like picking 8 numbers from 45 (or whatever your lottery odds are) 100 times in a row, then yes you'd have a right to make that claim. But, funnily enough, no-one's ever said that's how evolution works.
If the Governator got to play the lottery by picking one number out until he got the eight he wanted (the 'winning' numbers) - being able to put back the ones he didn't each time - and sat around for long enough to do that 100 times then you'd have something vaguely close to what has occurred with evolution. It'd take a long time, sure, but we've had 4.5 billion years.
But that's what happens when you don't limit your mind to such a point that you can only count as high as 6,000.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 7:48 AM
Re: Comments by DavidL:
Posted by: John Morales | September 7, 2009 7:49 AM
Jeff, I remember one specific example (a drunken act) here in Oz.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 7:52 AM
Sean, we are the wrong people to blather to. If you have a scientific idea, write and submit that paper to a peer reviewed journal. Your failure to do so, and your continual inane blathering, is telling me you know you have nothing scientific, and are just attempting a con job. Otherwise, the hard evidence would be cited by you.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 7, 2009 7:54 AM
The problem isn't that huge steps within sequence space are impossible (they clearly are possible). The problem is with your notion that these large leaps across sequence space are any more likely to land upon a novel beneficial island than are point mutations. The odds of success are essentially the same either way. Do the math. - Sean Pitman, M.D.
No, they are not: you are falsely assuming that the space of possible sequences has no structure. Proteins are potentially useful largely because certain amino acid sequences reliably adopt particualar shapes that allow those proteins to catalyse specific chemical reactions. So a deletion, insertion or translocation can form a novel protein which catalyses a novel combination of reactions, and can thus alter the network of chemical reactions within the cell. The paper I cited, like many others, provides copious evidence that this is how most novel proteins - and in particular, the large proteins you claim cannot be formed by natural selection - arose. Point mutations may fine-tune proteins, or - and this is how their evolutionary history is deduced - they may have no effect on the protein's operation, thus enabling us to reconstruct its evolutionary history. You are being utterly dishonest in pretending that it is only the homologies evolutionary biologists make use of - or maybe it's just invincible ignorance.
Incidentally, modern evolutionary theory does not say that random mutation and natural selection are solely responsible for evolved complexity: sexual selection, drift, molecular drive, lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis are all believed to have played a role. So, indeed, has intelligent design - very recently, in the form of human activities. Before that, there is absolutely no evidence for it whatever. None. Not a shred.
All that science demands to support the ID hypothesis is a demonstration that there are no known sources of non-deliberate origin and that the feature in question is within the realm of at least human-level intelligent production. That's it.
There is no fundamental difference here from what SETI scientists are proposing. - Sean Pitman M.D.
More utter garbage. There is no scientific "ID hypothesis", just as there is no "SETI hypothesis" in the sense that there are no known radio sources that suggest intelligent origin; and so SETI scientist is claiming that any currently known features of the electromagnetic radiation reaching Earth require explanation in those terms. All SETI scientists (as opposed to pseudo-scientific UFOlogists) insist that it would be necessary to find features that are clearly impossible to produce without deliberate intent before they could even provisionally be assigned to nonhuman intelligences.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 7:56 AM
Re: Comments by Matt Penfold:
"In conclusion, we can indeed say that the wolf gene pool was "frontloaded" with the dogs genome..."
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=43
Now, this is not to say that functional mutations have not occurred in the dog gene pool. They have at a likely rate of ~ 3/individual/generation (excluding the 200+ that are not functionally significant). However, most of these resulted in either a loss of a pre-existing functional system, or a quantitative alteration in the degree of function of a pre-existing system. Qualitatively novel system were not added to the doggy gene pool via RM/NS beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 8:09 AM
Still nothing but repeated blather from Sean. Evidently he loves to hear himself talking. His lack of understanding of basic science and scientific methods makes us laugh at him. Sean, we laugh at you. You are funny with all your inane can't move on blather.
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2009 8:10 AM
No, they are not: you are falsely assuming that the space of possible sequences has no structure.
IDiologist falsely assumes strawman and reveals utter ignorance of what he is talking about, news at 11:00...
Posted by: DaveL | September 7, 2009 8:16 AM
What information is that, pray tell? In other words, you do not have a calculable, usable metric, and you do just make up the numbers as you go along. Yet somehow, those evil evolutionary biologists aren't interested in your work. I'm stunned, truly.
I read the section. Absolute garbage. Durston starts by assuming all possible proteins fulfilling a particular function must be of the same length, which is ludicrous because we know it it's remotely the case. Take lactase, for example:
http://macromoleculeinsights.com/lactase.php
Neither does he show his work on how he determines which amino acid substitutions are viable in his examples. Again, it seems the numbers are pulled out of his hat. Again, I'm not surprised to find the bioinformatics journals are not brimming with uses for Durston's FSC.
Tell me, what is the FSC of nylonase? Do you not count that as a high-FSC evolutionary event because it's a relatively small change from existing precursors? If so, why don't you or Durston take the existence of small-distance precursors into account in your metrics? Durston goes off about probability assuming amino acids assembled together at random (but with a predetermined length).
So in conclusion, it seems my impression of you was accurate. In short, you're making up numbers and making up metrics in order to hide the fact you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: John Morales | September 7, 2009 8:20 AM
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2009 8:23 AM
Neither does he show his work on how he determines which amino acid substitutions are viable in his examples.
IDiologist reveals he doesn't know what science is, news at 11:00...
In other news, dog bites man, bigfoot has big feet...
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 8:24 AM
Re: Comments by Knockgoats:
The odds that a multicharacter (indel) mutation will hit upon a qualitativley novel beneficial island within sequence space is directly related to the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences. The "structure" of sequence space doesn't help you out here. There are vastly more non-viable potential combinations or concatenations vs. the relatively tiny number of stable much less beneficial combinations.
The reason for this is further explained by Cui et al.:
So, you see, your notion that sequence space is structured so that pre-existing viable sequences can easily combine with each other to end up on novel beneficial sequences simply isn't true. It isn't even likely that such combinations will end up on structurally stable much less beneficial sequences.
Sexual selection, drift, molecular drive, and lateral gene transfer are all methods of transferring what already exists. These are not methods to produce something functionally new to begin with.
Also, you wouldn't be able to detect the need for intelligent input behind any biological system outside of seeing it directly assembled by ID. In other words, the only reason you now recognize that certain features are the result of human manipulation is because you've seen in directly.
If there were no SETI hypothesis there would be no basis for an actual search for ETI. So, this is why they are in fact proposing that certain types of radio signals would be very unlikely to be produced by any non-deliberate natural process. You argue that only if such features are clearly impossible to be produced without deliberate intent would SETI have an argument. Of course, as you know, nothing is absolutely impossible in science. Science doesn't produce any absolute knowledge. It only produces predictive value based on currently available knowledge, which is always limited. Such theories are always potentially falsifiable as a result.
So, there is really no significant difference from what I'm proposing vs. the basis of SETI science. I'm saying that certain biological features are essentially impossible to produce without the input of at least human level intelligence - the same argument SETI is using for certain types of radio signals.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 8:37 AM
Re: Comments by John Morales:
Specifically note the following comments from this article:
Note that this nicely supports what I've just said:
"However, most of these resulted in either a loss of a pre-existing functional system, or a quantitative alteration in the degree of function of a pre-existing system."
A mutation that increases or decreases the effect of IGF1 produces a *quantitative* effect on a pre-established functional system. This is not a *qualitative* difference in the genome.
As an aside, Nathan B. Sutter is my second cousin - a very good guy.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: John Morales | September 7, 2009 8:50 AM
Sean, you've left out the next paragraph from your quote (my emphasis):
Seems to me that with enough of these changes, speciation will occur. As it is, you can (I hope) find it obvious that these two breeds are unable to (for obvious mechanical reasons!) mate and procreate.
Note this has occurred only in the time mankind has been breeding canines — a few thousand years at most. Note too that natural selection has had hundreds of millions of years in which to operate.
Admittedly, this is anthropogenic rather than natural selection, but the principle (selection) is the same.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 7, 2009 8:50 AM
If I didn't know better, I would think that you were just making definitions up in an ad hoc manner to avoid coming to a conclusion which contradicted your a priori wishes.
[Greg Erwin]
The random quote seems quite appropriate.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 8:50 AM
Re: Comments by David L.
The number is experimentally determined. It isn't a calculable minimum. This doesn't mean that the concept of a minimum structural requirement isn't quite obvious or useful. It is.
Again, Durston's estimates are based on experimental data. The length really isn't much of an issue when it comes to determining degrees of sequence flexibilities because this has a lot to do with overall stability. The vast majority of potential sequences in sequence space will not be stable. Also, Durston's estimates are right in line with other estimates of specificity produced via experimental extrapolations by those such as Yockey, Sauer, Olson, Max, etc.
The numbers are not made up. They are based on the best experimental evidence that is currently available. These hypotheses are therefore open to potential falsification with future data - as are all viable scientific hypotheses.
All you have to do is present additional information that proves me wrong. Do you have such information?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: DaveL | September 7, 2009 8:54 AM
Where?! Where and how was it experimentally determined? Notice I included the word "measured" along with "calculated" to allow for just such an approach, but there's still no evidence this is actually being done. It's not just that there are no calculations- there are also no citations of experimental results!
Please, oh please, tell me how you experimentally search this vast sequence space for all the possible proteins capable of performing a given function.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:01 AM
*sigh* still nothing more than conjecture from the blathering creationist. NoR gets flack for his style, but I can see now why he does it. Engaging such a fool (yes I'm talking about you Sean) is a pointless waste of time. He has nothing, and he'll keep on pretending that his incredulity at natural selection is proof of God because that's all he has. No intellectual honesty whatsoever, though I've sadly come to expect that from pretty much everyone these days.
No mechanism, only bad logic and personal incredulity. Thinks he knows better than the millions of people who actually study and do research on the matter - all because he can play a game of definitions. Another pathetic dishonest hack for Jesus.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:01 AM
Re: Comments by John Morales:
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:01 AM
Still no hard evidence from Sean to back up his claims. Claims without evidence are bullshit Sean. Show your methods and methodology in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and you might have a point. Until then, you are following the con man/crank model of posting.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:05 AM
Re: Comments by John Morales:
The type of selection is indeed essentially the same since it is function-based. Also, speciation, as most understand this term, is indeed possible via the mechanism of RM/NS.
The problem, however, is that the concept of a "species" is very subjective. It isn't necessarily based on any qualitatively novel functional difference within the respective gene pools under consideration. Quite often animals that are classified in different species groups can produce viable and virile offspring. Even a mix between a chihuahua and a Great Dane, if the fertilization process was helped along a bit, would produce a viable and fertile offspring.
So, the modern definition of a unique "species" isn't really based on the entry of any truly new, qualitatively new, functional system within the gene pool. This means that different "species" groups may in fact share the same basic kind of gene pool - with regard to qualitative functional potential. In this sense, I have no problem with there being a clear common ancestor of horses and donkeys and zebras. All of these "species" clearly share the same "kind" of gene pool - in a qualitative sense.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:11 AM
Yet speciation has been observed, not to mention each stage of the process towards speciation has been seen. Are you honestly going to harp on about the definition instead of the process which is meant in the genetic sense? Are you going to deny that genetic barriers have been observed that prevent the successful reproduction of organisms?Because this seems once again to miss the point. These are mechanisms proposed by evolutionary forces - that is genetic barriers prevent vertical gene transfer and lead to isolation where mutations will accumulate. The fact of the matter is that any form of reproductive barrier at all (even if it isn't 100%) validates the theory of evolution.
Are you going to propose a mechanism by which the designer operates yet? Because I see you harping on about the mechanisms for evolution without so much as proposing one that will explain the observations as seen in the fossil record, genetic code, biogeographic distribution, anatomy, morphology, and observations of mutation, selection, adaptation and speciation. Why aren't you even trying to explain what is observed?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 7, 2009 9:13 AM
Sean says, "SETI scientists assume that there are no non-deliberate sources of the types of radio signals that they are looking for..."
Actually, they assume no such thing. Rather they are looking for signals with characteristics that would be highly unlikely to arise by chance or by known natural processes.
And in any case what ID is asserting is something very different and inherently unscientific. By asserting the existence of a creator who can DO ANYTHING and does intervene in the normal operations of the Universe, they are positing a theory that has an unlimited number of adjustable parameters. Even when said creator does not intervene, there is a decision NOT TO intervene--and that is a parameter in the theory. One can demonstrate using information theory (for example the Akaike Information Criterion) that such a theory can never under any circumstances be considered scientific. ID is not and cannot be science, which must concern itself with naturalistic causes. Or would you presume to make it a study of divine psychology?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:13 AM
Re: Comments by David L:
The smallest known functional functional lactase is several hundred residues in size. Could there be smaller lactases somewhere in sequence space? Yes. That's what makes this hypothesis falsifiable.
The same goes for systems like the multi-protein flagellar motility system. This system seems to have a minimum structural threshold requirement of over 30 proteins, each of which with an average of a couple hundred specifically arranged amino acid residues. Could this number be reduced a bit? Maybe, but I doubt anyone would argue that this system could be produced with less than 1000 specifically coded residue positions.
See my point? Or, are you just trying to be obtuse? Do you seriously argue the fact that different types of functional systems clearly have different minimum structural threshold requirements? Please...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: raven | September 7, 2009 9:16 AM
Religious fanatics are all the same. They discover that it is much easier to persecute or kill someone than to convert them and then the blood flows. Sean Pitman wants to fire the biology department at LSU according to his letter. He is upset that the biology department teaches biology. It may happen. According to the net, there are many factions in the SDA and some think it will split apart. That happens constantly in xianity, why there are 38,000 sects and climbing.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:17 AM
Still no mechanism being proposed by the creationist fool, no attempt to explain the fossil record, genetic code, biogeographic distribution of life, morphology, anatomy, or observations of mutation and selection leading to adaptation. No mechanisms proposed means that his views are no more than conjecture - there wholly to justify believing in an old book of mythology.
Couldn't even answer the very simple question of "what did the designer do" - quite pathetic
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 7, 2009 9:20 AM
First things first, I'm pretty damn sure all dogs are the same species.
Second, I don't think animals in different species groups can produce hybrids. Members of the same species group sometimes can, such as horses and donkeys producing mules.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 7, 2009 9:23 AM
What the...?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:23 AM
Re: Comments by Ray-in-Dilbert:
Yes indeed. Now, tell me, how do SETI scientists determine at certain types of radio signals would be "highly unlikely" to arise by any non-deliberate natural process? Hmmm? Do they know this for sure? - with 100% certainty? No. They don't. They only "know" what is already known - which is limited information.
I'm saying exactly the same thing about certain biological features - that they are "highly unlikely to arise by chance or by known natural processes". It is exactly the same argument using your own words...
If you had read my posts earlier in this thread, you would note that I'm not arguing for a requirement for an omnipotent or supernatural creator or designer. I'm arguing for the idea that at least human-level intelligence and creativity was required. This form of ID can be proposed in a very scientific manner and is done all the time by mainstream scientists (i.e., forensics, anthropology, and SETI).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:24 AM
Not only are they the same species, but they are a subspecies of grey wolf. ;)Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:24 AM
Still nothing but assertions by Sean. And he thinks we believe anything he has to say without evidence? Lights on, nobody home...
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:30 AM
Again, how is this anything more than your personal incredulity of natural selection evidence that the process cannot work?And again, how is this argument any different to Newton's 300 years ago that God made the solar system because there's no known process that can do it?
This line of thinking is wrong, and you pointing to a scientific experiment that has not yielded a positive result is you grasping at straws. There are plenty of scientists who regard SETI as non-scientific, the process has yet to yield a single positive result - yet you hold it up as if its thinking and yours (which is superficial at best) validates the faulty logic which can evidentially seen to be dead wrong?
Regardless of what you say about Natural Selection, your line of argument is bad logic. Please stop persisting with such a logical abortion, it only serves to demonstrate your lack of evidence.
Posted by: DaveL | September 7, 2009 9:32 AM
So no one has actually experimentally determined any minimum size for anything, have they? There is no experimental measurement any more than there is a calculation for fsaar complexity.
You can very well hypothesize that the smallest functional lactase has a length N, but that hypothesis does not constitute an observation. What you, Durston, and others of your ilk are doing is, if we're being charitable, attempting to use hypotheses as if they were foundational facts on which to rest a case against evolution. The less charitable interpretations are, shall we say, more colourful.
Another completely invented 'minimum'. Sorry, I'm not interested.
The problem is that nobody, including you, actually has presented any way of determining what these minima are, but for some reason you go around pretending that you have. It's truly mind boggling to see the confidence ID theorists have of having found all or nearly all possible proteins or systems that fill a certain function, then point to the size of the search space to claim such a functional protein could not be found by chance in a trillion years. How then, did you determine all the known versions had been found?
You do not have a point. You have a bunch of hypotheses (to put it mildly) which you present as data points along a metric that has never, apparently, actually been measured or calculated for anything.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:37 AM
Still no mechanisms from the creationist, it's amazing the amount of effort put into a non-answer. What does proposing a designer tell us about anything in biology? It doesn't tell us a damn thing unless it produces a mechanism under which to act. But this is never about what biology says...
...this is a religious argument. This is about the consequences of there being a god, this is why creationists don't need to propose a mechanism because the mechanism doesn't matter to them. They want the basis by which to have moral control over others, a means in which to validate their holy book as being an absolute in a time when science has all but destroyed any reason at all for a designer. That this has consequences for morality, it has consequences for meaning - and it's those which make the creationist appeal to a designer in the most nebulous way they can get away with.
Sean here has avoided time and time again proposing a mechanism of how the designer operates in the process of life, he's avoiding actually making any testable assertion that would take his conjecture to a falsifiable hypothesis. And of course he would, his beliefs are at stake. Whereas there are plenty of scientists and theologians who can reconcile God and evolution, the design argument is one that has to be guarded from possible falsification because it can and would be brutalised if there ever was a prediction in the lab. It's almost a resignation that they are too aware the emperor has no clothes.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 7, 2009 9:39 AM
Ex being a breeder let me tell you that does not work.
Interesting anatomical comparisons to be drawn for humans no doubt, but in dogs, sorry, no go.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:44 AM
The Lord hath delivered him into my hands ;)The flagellum has maybe 50 proteins or so, but each of those proteins can be seen performing other functions in the bacteria. i.e. the incredibly complex system is a composite of smaller parts that together make up the whole. What a surprise, evolution can and does account for building complexity by descent with modification.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 7, 2009 9:50 AM
It can't be reasonably proposed when there's a known, demonstrated natural explanation. The SETI people aren't saying that if we find stars in other parts of the universe they are likely to have been designed, because they understand the natural processes of star formation.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:52 AM
Re: Comments by Captain Mike:
Great! - even chihuahuas and Great Danes that can't mate with each other for obvious practical reasons? Should tell you something about the subjective nature of the term "species".
And, you would be mistaken.
Horses and donkeys are classified as different "species". And, many other animals also classified as different "species" can mate and produce viable and often virile offspring. Some examples include:
Horses and Zebras: Zorses
Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears: Pizzlies
Lions and Tigers: Ligers
Etc...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Drosera | September 7, 2009 9:53 AM
Sean,
If I understand your reasoning correctly, you say that the complexity of a certain protein is equal to the size (measured in number of amino acids) of the smallest protein or set of proteins that would be capable to perform the same function. This is what you call fsaar complexity, right?
And now you keep stating things like this:
How on earth can you know that?
Don’t you realize that, by your own definition, an actual protein of, say, 1000 amino acids may have a complexity of just 100? There is no reason whatsoever that any evolved protein should have a length equal to its complexity. It better not be, because in that case any point deletion would destroy the function of the protein. Some redundancy is not a bad idea. It may well be impossible for evolution to come up with a protein having complexity 1000 that is less than 1000,000 amino acids long. Do you know such proteins?
Your complexity definition (is it really yours?) reminds me strongly of Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity.
Maybe you should go to this website and try to answer the five questions about K-C complexity.
Please come back here and report your answers.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:55 AM
Still nothing but assertions. It's like Sean has nothing but assertions. But we already knew that. Enough with the assertions Sean, show us the hard evidence. Or is it really vaporware?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:56 AM
Re: Comments by SC:
Your point? If a natural process of formation is understood, then of course the ID-only hypothesis is falsified at that point. Haven't I been saying this very thing myself?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 7, 2009 10:00 AM
Sean Pitman, is it possible to identify which subgroups are accumulating deleterious mutations at faster rates than others?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 7, 2009 10:03 AM
Evolution is understood, you block of granite.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 7, 2009 10:04 AM
You're misunderstanding the concept of species groups.
Horses and Zebras can mate, yes. Because they are - despite being members of different species - part of the same species group.
Dogs are genetically the same species, and as Kel points out above, are a subspecies of grey wolves. Note that dogs and wolves can breed, as they are part of the same species group.
Posted by: BdN | September 7, 2009 10:07 AM
For an interesting discussion about the "species" concept, see John Wilkin's old post (or buy his book!).
But I don't think "subjective" is an appropriate word here...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 10:08 AM
You keep lying to yourself that we don't understand natural processes. We do. You don't. You were falsified before you even posted here had you bothered to do an appropriate review of the literature. But then, if you actually knew how to do science, you wouldn't be posting here, but rather writing papers for publication. You have nothing but blather.Posted by: Jeff
|
September 7, 2009 10:12 AM
Thanks for the links.
Raven,
I had a brief exchange online a couple of years ago with a biology professor at Calvin. I can't remember his name. He knew PZ, if I recall. He claimed the van Till incident was blown way out of proportion, that he wasn't actually persecuted. He told me the biology dept. at Calvin supports the teaching of evolution with no hassle from the administration.
Blake also mentions a guy at Wheaton. Mike Clawson, Hemant's friend, told me the bio dept. at Wheaton also teaches evolution.
Still, the examples given, taken collectively, are horrifying. Confirms what I've been saying for some time - fundamentalists cannot be reasoned with; they can only be subjugated.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:13 AM
Re: Comments by Drosera:
Right... minimum size combined with a certain set degree of minimum specificity.
I'm looking at systems of function and the minimum structural requirements needed to achieve a particular type of function (in a qualitative sense). Once this minimum is achieved, additional modifications are easily achieved via RM/NS.
The hard part for RM/NS is hitting at least the edge of a novel beneficial island in the vastness of sequence space. However, once at least the edge of a beneficial island is detected, movement around the island, to include the addition of more residues to the system and quantitative modifications are very easy for RM/NS to produce in relatively short order.
The reason for this is that most mutations to a protein-based system that is already functional have functional effects which can be quickly directed by NS up or down the quantitative ladder of functionality.
I've actually thought a fair bit about KCC. I've even had a couple E-mail conversations with Chaitin himself. Here are a few of my thoughts on KCC:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html
In short, KCC is not the same thing as my definition of meaningful/functional complexity. KCC deals more with maximum information transfer, which is very closely tied to concepts of randomness or chaos. KCC does not deal with the concepts of function or meaning or the minimum degrees of size or specificity needed to achieve different levels of function or meaning.
However, the concept of informational entropy is interesting in this regard. There is an increase in meaningful/functional informational entropy as a system interacts with random noise (i.e., random mutations). This increased entropy, or chaos, is somewhat counterbalanced by the force of NS. NS is indeed a stabilizing force of nature for functional biosystem complexity, but it is not a very creative force beyond very low levels of functional complexity - - because of the exponentially expanding non-beneficial gap problem.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Stanton | September 7, 2009 10:13 AM
Actually, people have been trying to tell you that SETI researchers operate very differently than Intelligent Design proponents, in that SETI researchers actually have a genuine, sincere idea of what they're looking for, and they do not throw up their hands and go "GODDESIGNERDIDIT" whenever they come across something they don't understand, and they don't spend their time trying to sabotage science education in order to make society Jesus-friendly.And then there's the problem of how you refuse to postulate any way of how to detect intelligent design. You still haven't even explained to us how you know that dog breeds were derived from wolves without mutations.
Are you too busy proselytizing at us for
GODTHE DESIGNER to care about that?Posted by: raven | September 7, 2009 10:14 AM
For anyone interested, it is possible and common to evolve functional proteins from random sequences by random mutation and selection, in vitro evolution. In this case, they generated a DNA binding protein with 4 generations of selection. Enzyme activities have been evolved with similar technology, the antibodies with catalytic activity, abzymes.
Where the creationists blunder is in assuming that protein sequences are fixed and critical. From phylogentic analysis and experiments, what is important is overall shape and critical active site amino acids. Many proteins are housekeeping proteins, widely found in all organisms. As you move away from humans they diverge in amino acid sequence consistent with phylogentic distance until the overall sequence homology is low. But they all still work just fine.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 10:18 AM
Still nothing but a self reference to his non-scientific web site. Bad form Sean. In science if third party data is available, it should be cited too. The fact that you appear to have the only data is telling. And in not a good way for your argument. It fits with the con man/crank methodology.
Posted by: DaveL | September 7, 2009 10:21 AM
Sean Pitman,
I regret to inform you that your the Seventh Day Adventist faith has been mathematically shown to be incapable of leading to your salvation.
It may seem shocking, I know, but an emerging branch of theology, known as Quantitative Religion ('QR') has been making great strides in the mathematical measurement of religious truth. In order to lead to salvation, a faith tradition must have a Pitman Godicity Quotient (PGQ) in excess of 1000.
To date, nobody has ever shown that the PGQ of the SDA church could possibly be anything more than a couple hundred. In fact only the Roman Catholic church, with a PGQ of 1500, qualifies as leading to salvation.
You might wonder how these numbers were calculated. The fact is these figures are hypotheses based on the very best information, and should be considered as authoritative until someone else can provide a more precise value for the PGQ. It's possible that the SDA might score slightly higher and the RC church slightly lower in the final analysis, but these would likely be small adjustments.
I look forward to your conversion.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:22 AM
Re: Comments by Stanton:
But SETI scientist do indeed throw up their hands and say, "I don't know how any non-intelligent force of nature could produce these types of radiosignals. Therefore, they must be the result of at least human-level ID because that is the only force of nature that I know which can produce these radiosignals."
This is the SETI argument - like it or not.
Even mainstream scientists argue that the information for the 400 modern dog breeds was largely "front-loaded" into the ancestral gene pool. Did you miss that part of the thread?
As far as a way to detect the need for the input of ID, it is exactly the same basic argument as SETI scientists use. There is no difference.
Come on now... at least try to pay attention to some of the ground that has been covered several times already in this thread...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 7, 2009 10:27 AM
Sean Pittman says, "I'm arguing for the idea that at least human-level intelligence and creativity was required. This form of ID can be proposed in a very scientific manner and is done all the time by mainstream scientists (i.e., forensics, anthropology, and SETI)."
Actually, you would have the exact same problem--you've introduced the psychology of an unknown intelligence into the equation. We still have to wonder where they have intervened, where not and why. And we must wonder this without benefit of being able to study said intelligence.
You are appealing to the unknown (and probably the unknowable) as an explanation of the unknown--ant that is inherently unscientific.
You also do not understand the criteria the SETI folks are using. They are looking at information content of the signal, and that is demonstrably unlikely to arise by chance.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:29 AM
Re: Comments by DavidL:
That's correct. Mathematically or otherwise, religious ideas or opinions about "truth" don't save anyone. Motive is what saves a person, not knowledge.
Cute ; )
The problem is that many systems of function are known to exist that require far greater than 1000 fsaars at minimum. Take the famous flagellar motility system, for example. This system clearly requires a minimum structure that uses far more than 1000 fsaars - more than 5000+ fsaars at minimum.
Is this argument absolutely provable - 100%? No. It is potentially falsifiable. However, for now, it carries with it a very high degree of predictive value and therefore scientific usefulness as a predictive tool.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:34 AM
Re: Comments by SC:
Now that is what is being debated here isn't it...
Now try to follow this. I know you can do it if you try.
The argument being presented by many of the evolutionists in this forum is that even if the mechanism of RM/NS were demonstrated to be incapable of producing certain biological features, that this demonstration would not contribute or support any sort of ID-only hypothesis or theory.
That's the argument. This argument is clearly mistaken because it is this very same argument that forms the basis of mainstream scientific searches for ID - to include forensics, anthropology, and yes, even SETI.
Now, was that so difficult? ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Rorschach | September 7, 2009 10:39 AM
Smug creationist is being smug.
Now there's a surprise.
Define "certain biological features" please.
Oh,and btw,
Sean Pitman, meet swine flu.
Swine flu, meet Sean Pitman !
Posted by: DaveL | September 7, 2009 10:43 AM
Actually, that is not known. You have neither calculated this number nor verified it experimentally. In fact, it seems to be something you just made up. That's the point.
It's not that it isn't provable, it's that it isn't even really an argument in the first place. You made up a metric of complexity, made up some numbers to go with it, then expect the scientific community to set to work jumping through the hoops in your head. It isn't going to happen.
Bullshit. What have you predicted with this?
Posted by: raven | September 7, 2009 10:45 AM
The link in my list goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has fuller documentation and links to the original stories. From what I read about van Til, it sounded like a nightmare. The cults can be pretty vicious, another scientist was excommunicated by one for not believing the earth was 6,000 years old.
What happened at Calvin was a typical internal xian witch hunt. Why it didn't end with the symbolic burning at the stake was that van Til and his supporters won. And yeah, Calvin has evolutionary biologists and teaches evolution. They may all go to hell but no one has been struck by lightning yet.
At Wheaton, Boyanatz was an anthropologist IIRC. Someone objected to him not explaiming human origins as starting with two people and a talking snake and he was fired.
They supposedly teach evolution at UT Permian. It didn't help Gwen Pearson who was threatened with death and beaten up. She quit and moved north.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:46 AM
Re: Comments by Ray-in-Dilbert:
SETI doesn't know anything about their proposed alien designers via any sort of direct observation either - only via studying their radio signals.
Not according to SETI scientists it isn't.
Not everything about the signals is unknown. There are a few things that are known - such as the fact that there is no known non-intelligent source for such signals and that at least human-level intelligence and technology is capable of producing them. That's at least something...
You're mistaken. They aren't actually looking for information content. They are actually looking for a narrow band signal - kind of like a monotone unwavering whistle.
But, your basic argument is correct. SETI scientists are looking for something that they think is unlikely to arise by chance or by any non-deliberate force of nature. That's quite true.
And, you guessed it, I'm proposing exactly the same thing for certain types of biological features... "information content that is demonstrably unlikely to arise by chance" or by any known non-deliberate/intelligent force of nature.
It is the very same argument. It is the SETI argument simply adapted for other features besides radio signals. There is no difference in the argument itself...
The only real argument you evolutionists have left would be to present evidence that there is some sort of viable non-intelligent mechanism that can *likely* explain the biosystems I'm presenting - - with at least some reasonable, calculated, predictive value...
Otherwise, what do you have? besides bald assertions and just-so stories? Where is the real scientific basis for your proposed mechanism of RM/NS?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:54 AM
Re: Comments of David L:
Take it up with the likes of Kenneth Miller and many others who publish the argument that the flagellar motility system does in fact seem to require the simultaneous and specifically arranged contributions of well over 30 different structural proteins (Miller argues for 40). That is equivalent to well over 5000 fsaars or codons of DNA.
This isn't an unreasonable or baseless concept - that is if you approach it with a candid mind that isn't actually trying to reach for straws or anything else upon which to disagree with the downright obvious...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: SC, OM | September 7, 2009 10:55 AM
This response to a hypothetical (the actualization of which I do not acknowledge) is essentially correct. "Hypothesis" and "theory" have a specific meaning in science (think specific, positive claims and predictions; evidence; disproving), which isn't the same as "ignorance" or "speculation." But again, your musings are irrelevant because the mechanisms or evolution are known and demonstrated in multiple lines of scientific research.
No, it isn't. Show me where you think this is the case in mainstream forensic science, for example. Offer two concrete examples.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 7, 2009 10:57 AM
What we need more of is fsaarence.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 7, 2009 10:59 AM
You must be kidding...
Bald assertions and just-so stories is the only thing you have. Are you projecting, or something?
Where is your proposed mechanism? You don't even have one. You have nothing that could be considered a scientific hypothesis. All you have is speculation.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 7, 2009 11:06 AM
The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're impervious to evidence and reason.
In the century and a half of converging evidence across numerous scientific disciplines with none falsifying the ToE, it's demonstrated predictive value, experiments showing it in operation, the success of medical technologies based on it,...
But take away all of that, and what do we have? Huh?
I agree with people above. This joker is just a waste of time at this point. I wish there were an e-equivalent of piling books on the witness stand...
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 11:08 AM
Re: Comments by Kel:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
You evidently haven't thought about this much.
First off, not all of the proteins in the flagellar system are homologous to other proteins doing other functions. Beyond this, it wouldn't matter if every single protein was in fact significantly homologous to other proteins in other systems. The hard part for RM/NS is getting them together to work to produce a qualitatively novel united function in a specific arrangement that will not work at all to produce useful flagellar motility until the minimum structural threshold requirement is achieved - i.e., well beyond 5000 fsaars.
The odds of this happening, even given your homology argument, are essentially nil this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time - even when you propose an evolutionary pathway of beneficial intermediate steppingstone functions.
How is that? Because of the vastly greater number of ways that the underlying DNA sequences could be mutated that would not link up properly to produce the flagellar system - or any of the proposed intermediate beneficial steppingstones along the evolutionary pathway toward a functional flagellar motility system. The steppingstones are simply way way too far apart for the non-beneficial gaps to be crossed in what anyone would consider a reasonable amount of time.
Statistically, it just doesn't work... sorry. I suggest you sit down and actually do some odds analysis for yourself instead of using pure imagination. I know, that means actually producing a scientific basis for your notions. A novel approach to be sure...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 7, 2009 11:10 AM
Quack,
I have Finding Darwin's God in my hands right now, and in chapter 5, Miller is arguing quite the opposite:
"A phone call to any biologist who had ever actually studied cilia and flagella would have told Behe that he's wrong in his contention that the 9+2 structure is the only way to make a working cilium or flagellum. Comparative studies on a wide variety of organisms (as in Figure 5.2) show that there are many ways to make a working cilium or flagellum without some of the parts that Behe seems to believe are essential. ... What we actually see among cilia and flagella in nature is something entirely consistent with Darwin's call for numerous gradations from the simple to the complex. ... The existence of so many simpler molecular machines in protozoans and eels and gall midges shows that Behe's central thesis, that the flagellum could not have 'functional precursors,' is disproved, and that's that."
Posted by: DaveL | September 7, 2009 11:13 AM
What's downright obvious is that you've calculated nothing, measured nothing, and predicted nothing, yet expect scientists to measure their resutls against your wholly contrived 'metric'.
We're not going to play ball, for a very simple reason. If the quantity you want to compare can't be calculated, if there's no practicable way to measure it, there's no way your requirement can be met, no matter what we see evolve. How many amino acids does nylonase have? How many proteins are involved in vancomycin resistance? It doesn't matter- you can always claim that they don't meet your requirement because there's really no way to apply your metric objectively.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 11:16 AM
Still nothing but assertions from Sean. That makes you and your whole argument weaker than tissue paper Sean. Good hard evidence is needed to convince this crowd, and that hard evidence is nowhere to be seen. You are wasting your time here. We live to refute IDiots like you, and we have done so even if you can't admit it, so you aren't wasting ours. You need to find greener pastures for your sophomoric ideas.
Posted by: Drosera | September 7, 2009 11:20 AM
Sean,
Of course it doesn't. K-C complexity is well defined, even though it is extremely hard to calculate in practice. Your functional complexity is completely undefined and therefore impossible to calculate. This is because function depends on the environment. Every measure of functional complexity would be relative to a fully specified environment. It is therefore essentially a hopeless task to give a measure that applies to every possible environment.
You should really go to that website that I linked to @545. One of the commenters there has basically the same ideas about 'functional Kolmogorov complexity' as you have. You will notice that his ideas don't get much applause.
You have nothing to show. Nothing at all. You keep suggesting that evolution would be equivalent to the proverbial storm that creates a Boing 747 from a scrap yard. It isn't.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 7, 2009 11:30 AM
Sean, what you are proposing is inherently unscientific if not anti-scientific. Have you really thought this through. Why would you not propose the same solution for every problem you didn't understand (e.g. GODDIDIT or THEALIENSDUNIT)? Had you started doing so in the 1940s, we wouldn't know about DNA and had you done so in the 1700s, we wouldn't have science at all.
The most productive models of scientific inquiry these days are probabilistic. I cannot imagine how you would construct a probability distribution for divine/alien intervention
Of course, the most persuasive argument against your approach is the tremendous success of naturalistic science--it works. Meanwhile, your approach does not even suggest productive avenues of research for the future. Each discovery is a dead end. It is the antithesis of science.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 11:56 AM
Re: Comments by Captain Mike:
Again, this all seems rather subjective to me. After all, there are examples of viable hybrids between animals classified in different *genus* groups:
Mountain Lion (Puma) and Ocelot (Leopardus): Pumalot
http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/pumaocelot-female.jpg
Mountain Lion (Puma) and leopard (Panthera): Pumapard
http://z.hubpages.com/u/160447_f260.jpg
Mountain lion (Puma) and Lynx (Lynx): Lionx (maybe)
Bengals are also an inter-genus hybrid of the the common house cat (Felis catus) and the Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis).
There are a number of plant inter-genus hybrids as well.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 12:32 PM
Re: Comments by Strange Gods:
This is a quote regarding Eukaryotic flagellum, not the rotary Prokaryotic flagellar motility system. They aren't remotely the same.
The *rotary* flagellar motility system usually is quoted as using around 50 different structural proteins. Miller often uses this number in his lectures when he is talking about the importance of the TTSS system as a steppingstone toward rotary flagellar evolution (i.e., "Remove 40 of the 50 parts and what do you have left? something non-functional? No! What you have is the TTSS system, and it is fully functional!" - KM).
Of course, there are places where Miller argues for as few as 30 structural parts and 20 other non-structural proteins to assist in the assembly process. Others, such as biologist Ian Musgrave, have argued for a minimum of around 21 structural proteins with an additional 20 or so non-structural proteins to help with assembly. But, this is as low as I've seen anyone present a reasonable argument for a rotary bacterial flagellum.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Evolving%20Highly%20Complex%20Functions
Regardless of any reference to the likely minimum requirement, it is quite clear to the candid mind that the minimum threshold is substantially above the 1000 fsaar threshold and no such system, or even steppingstone within such a system, has ever been shown to evolve in real time nor have the odds been calculated or even estimated as to how long it would *likely* take to evolve any system at such a level of functional complexity via RM/NS alone. Even given 4.5 billion years of time, what are the odds? No one here has the foggiest idea. Yet, this is called "science"? Really?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: frozen_midwest | September 7, 2009 12:36 PM
Shorter version of the last few hundred posts:
Sean is playing calvinball
Everyone else is playing baseball
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 12:41 PM
Sean, still more assertions without any evidence. And your website doesn't count as evidence. As a 30+ year practitioner of science, I can state with much more authority than you can muster that any relationship between your methods and scientific methodology and logic is purely coincidental. You have offered no real evidence to back up your inane assertions, which only makes you look rather like a IDiot clown. If you want us to do anything other than laugh at you, which we have been doing for a couple of days now, is for you to give up on us. Take your specious and unscientific logic on the road.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 12:43 PM
Re: Comments by Frozen Midwest:
I guess if you call just-so stories, bald assertions, and applying different rules for SETI scientists vs. IDists "baseball", you've got a really interesting game going on which would put Calvin to shame ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 12:47 PM
Sean, you are playing Calvinball. No evidence, just assertions. Shifting Goalposts, ignoring rebuttals. Yep, you are a true CRANK.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 7, 2009 12:48 PM
Look at you, moving the goalposts. You said "flagellar motility system". So I quoted Miller on flagellar motility systems.
I note also that you don't have Miller agreeing with you anywhere that there are no functional steps between the TTSS and the flagellum.
You're an extremely dishonest quack. Can Seventh Day Adventists go to Hell for lying?
Posted by: IaMoL | September 7, 2009 12:48 PM
Since Ian Musgrave posts here from time to time perhaps he can make sense of this fsaar threshold Sean keeps rattling on about. (I'm betting Sean has made up the concept)
Posted by: IaMoL | September 7, 2009 12:55 PM
Pathological Narcissism (aka Kwok Syndrome):
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love (megalomania)
3. Believes they are "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
10. Is named Sean Pitman, M.D.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 12:56 PM
Re: Nerd of Redhead:
Do you have an actual argument? Hmmmm? Only these tiresome unhelpful pejoratives in response to a very simple question?:
What are the odds of your mechanism producing any qualitatively novel system which has a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 fsaars? Do you have any idea? Any actual statistical basis for your assumptions regarding this mechanism? - some actual calculated predictive value? If not, why not?
I know, the usual response from someone who has no idea how to answer a simple question is to come up with some lame attempt at a personal attack... please. I know you feel threatened or you wouldn't even feel the need to respond with your predictable pejoratives, but I'm sure you can do better than this - especially given your age and background...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 1:10 PM
Re: Comments by Strange Gods:
I deeply apologize if you didn't clearly understand from the context of my posts, to include repeated postings of my own website dealing with the rotary prokaryotic flagellum in particular, that I was in fact talking about the rotary flagellum.
There are many reasonable steppingstones between the TTSS system and the flagellar system. It is just that none of these are remotely close enough together for RM/NS to cross this side of trillions of years of time. And, not one of these steps has been demonstrated in real time to boot - not even a single step.
Beyond this, it is very interesting to note that it has been proven that the TTSS system evolved from the fully formed flagellar system - not the other way around. That's right, the TTSS system is an example of downhill evolution - a much much easier form of evolution than going the other way around.
Only if we do so deliberately ; )
Come on now. Why try to play semantics here? Where does that get you? You know I did not intent to trick your or to use misleading language. So, why even pretend like I did? Why this need to paint everyone who disagrees with evolution as morally corrupt, even evil, person? Can't anyone simply be honestly wrong anymore? I don't think you guys are dishonest or insincere or anything other than genuinely good people. So, why not give me the same benefit of the doubt? Oh, I know, because you already know that all creationists are inherently evil - not just wrong, but evil as well. Got it ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Drosera | September 7, 2009 1:19 PM
Sean,
No, you should first give a rigorous definition of your fsaar threshold, and then demonstrate that the '1000 fsaar' system arose in one step from a system with a very much lower threshold. After that you are entitled to ask this question. Not now.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 1:20 PM
That is what I keep asking you Sean. My argument is that you have no argument. You have failed your scientific duty to prove yourself with hard core evidence. In spite of everybody responding to you demand that evidence. You have presented no mechanism. You have cited no literature to back up your assertions. You are tiresome in your lack of understanding how to put forth a scientific argument. Science, U R doin' it 'rong!If your argument is not scientific, quit pretending it is. Guess what. Everybody responding to you knows you are not being scientific. So you have nothing but you inane and illogical assertions, which we find tiresome. Time to take your show on the road. Nobody is buying.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 7, 2009 1:24 PM
Sean.
You've been asked again and again. You continue to ignore it. How do you get to your fsaar idea? Show the research. Show the work. Otherwise you're just babbling. You're just like Stuart Pivar.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 7, 2009 1:25 PM
applying different rules for SETI scientists vs. IDists "baseball" - Sean Pitman, M.D.
Why do you keep lying about this, Pitman? It's so utterly ridiculous. IDists continually (and falsely) claim they have identified phenomena that must have been intelligently designed. SETI scientists have never done so. The correct comparison is between IDiots and UFOlogists.
They are actually looking for a narrow band signal - kind of like a monotone unwavering whistle. - Sean Pitman M.D.
While such an unwavering whistle might be the first sign of an extraterrestrail intelligence, here's what Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute says about it:
"its [sic] possible that there exists some still-undiscovered, natural astrophysical phenomenon that could produce narrow-band signals. While finding such a phenomenon might not chill the spine to quite the same low temperature as finding E.T., it would still be tremendously interesting, and probably worth tenure at your local institution of higher learning."
So, finding such a narrow-band signal would not be sufficient to identify the source as intelligence. If SETI scientists, or anyone else, were to claim they had discovered ET on the basis of such a signal, I assure you that their claim would be greeted with great scepticism - you may recall there was an ET "false alarm" when the first pulsar was detected. But the IDiots, of course, have nothing even of that kind - only the argument from personal incredulity, which is all you have presented here.
The argument being presented by many of the evolutionists in this forum is that even if the mechanism of RM/NS were demonstrated to be incapable of producing certain biological features, that this demonstration would not contribute or support any sort of ID-only hypothesis or theory.
Of course it wouldn't, because no such theory exists. If one ever does, and is shown to be useful in motivating a coherent research programme, then the situation would change. This is exactly what happened with the theory of endosymbiotic origins of eukaryotes. Margulis and colleagues did the hard work of developing a detailed theory, using that theory to direct their empirical work, and showing that the theory accounted for empirical data better than the rival theory - that eukaryotes arose purely by random mutation and natural selection from a single prokaryotic ancestor. For example, Margulis's theory implied that all eukaryotes have ancestors with mitochondria. This has now been confirmed, although at the time her theory was proposed, it was generally believed that Giardia, for example, had no such ancestors.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 7, 2009 1:33 PM
It sure as hell doesn't, Nerd. But I'm having some fun wandering through it... Sean reminds me of Alan C.
Remember the Morrison Formation? Well, I'm just going to leave this here to give you an idea of what we're dealing with:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Morrison%20Formation
And a quote:
Yeah...
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2009 1:39 PM
IDiologist reveals self as religious cult fundamentalist with ulterior motives, news at 11:00...
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 7, 2009 1:41 PM
Quack,
I don't know why you expect people to click through to your own website. When a person is citing himself in an argument, there's no reason to click on the citations, because it's already certain that they're going to be self-serving.
Asserts the fsaarentist.
Why do you expect evolution to follow the same path twice? Why do you expect to be able to see real-time evolution along the particular lines you're looking for? Unlike the first time around, there are now organisms taking up all the intermediate niches, and they're already better adapted than the new mutations would be. Surely you've thought of this...
What quackery. There's no such thing as "downhill evolution" or "uphill evolution." The TTSS system is adapted to the organism's needs.
I do believe that you are deliberately and willfully ignorant. I consider that dishonest. However, I don't think that makes you evil. I'm not the one who believes myths about a demigod sending liars to Hell. If I were in charge, I would not burn and torture you for being dishonest.
So keep that in mind when you compare our views of morality. You believe that I deserve to go to Hell (and/or have my soul annihilated) for being an atheist. I would let you into Heaven even though I think you're a contemptible jackass.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 7, 2009 1:42 PM
Oh for crying out loud.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 7, 2009 1:55 PM
Josh, this is just for you:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Varves
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 2:09 PM
*oh-oh, Morrison formation, varves, Josh. Ducks for cover.*
Posted by: frozen_midwest | September 7, 2009 2:16 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how a discussion about intelligent design vs. evolution turned into intelligent design vs. SETI. What are/were the transitional forms?
Can we do high-energy physics vs. linguistics next? Please? PLEASE?
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2009 2:37 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how a discussion about intelligent design vs. evolution turned into intelligent design vs. SETI. What are/were the transitional forms?
There weren't any transitional forms. It just kinda "poofed" into the thread. An IDiologist introduced it as a part of the vast weight of scientific evidence that opposes naturalism. It was "poofed" into the thread by the miracle of bald assertion.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 7, 2009 2:48 PM
No kidding. I don't even know where to begin. Dania, I love you, but I don't know why you would do that to me. I went and looked...damn. No strawmen there at all, eh, Sean?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 7, 2009 2:59 PM
I think that's it.
I think Dr Pitman's fsaaronly evolve from scratch by insertion mutations, insertion of one codon after another, till the hundreds to thousands that account for the length of the protein are reached.
Dr Pitman has demonstrated that he knows full well that other types of mutation exist: deletions, substitutions, chromosome mutations, lateral gene transfer, gene duplications, genome duplications (…yeah, he hasn't mentioned all of those, but most). Nonetheless, as far as I can tell, his fsaar argument blithely assumes that only insertions ever happen.
If I'm right, this is so stupid that it took us all the way to comment 589 to understand what is actually being argued. No wonder we were talking past each other!
See, Dr Pitman, proteins haven't ever evolved from scratch as far as we can tell. They originate from mutations, mostly substitutions, in the genes for other proteins, or in very rare cases (like icefish antifreeze protein) from mutations to junk DNA. To wit:
How could lactase have evolved? Why not from saccharase or maltase or something, plus a few point mutations that changed the affinities to different substrates? Perhaps 10 such mutations, maybe less; almost certainly not 100 or more.
You are trying to calculate the probability of "macroevolution" and come to the result that it can't exist. Guess what! There is indeed no such thing as "macroevolution"! There are no separate mechanisms at work; it's just "microevolution" accumulating over time.
While they were right for completely wrong reasons, the 19th-century philosophers who believed "natura non facit saltus" did happen to be right.
Now, on to the details (by different authors) in chronological order.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
A poster was wrong on the Internet. News at 11.
Why was he/she/it/squid wrong? Because it's possible to lose ERVs. You cannot do phylogenetics (family-tree reconstruction) with just one character; you need to use a total-evidence approach.
Come on, that's just embarrassing. First, there is no progress in evolution. Evolution goes wherever selection leads it, and selection is done by the environment. The changing environment. A mutation that is beneficial in one environment is always harmful in some other environment, and vice versa.
Besides, aren't you conflating two completely different kinds of "improvement"?
Which is, funnily enough, completely unbiblical. It is written that the Throne of God is perched on the highest point of the sky dome (which consists of some kind of transparent metal), i. e., a few km straight above my head.
(Of course, this probably contradicts that place in Genesis 1 where it says there's water above the sky. Is God aquatic? Then why does He walk around on the sky, as is also written, instead of just swimming? Is He that much heavier than water? Inquiring minds want to know! <yawn>)
Wrong. We can see which genes have been under stabilizing selection because their net mutation rates – their rates of preservation of mutations, that is – have been lower than average; and we can see which genes have been under directional selection because their net mutation rates have been higher than average.
The usual creationist claim of frontloading, right? Fine. Testable. Sequence those lizards and show me that the allele for gut valves 1) was already there and 2) is recessive.
This black-and-white thinking is ridiculously simplistic. There is such a thing as "almost perfect", you see, and there is such a thing as "good enough". Rather than imagining a flat plain with a few dots on it, imagine a hilly landscape.
The term fitness landscape has been in use for decades. It's rather baffling… no, to be honest, it's expected of creationists to talk about evolutionary ecology without even knowing that the field exists.
Sort of. That's how pulsars were discovered: they found a periodic radio signal that they could only explain as intelligently designed, and then someone pointed out that that's exactly what neutron stars are expected to do if their rotation axis stands at certain angles to the Earth. Lo & behold, there is indeed a neutron star where the LGM-1 signal comes from.
The gap got smaller.
Emphasis mine: the completely undefined word "significantly" is the escape from an already falsified claim.
Dr Pitman, you forgot the weasel word.
You assert that the wolf-dog gene pool is "entirely static" (emphasis above mine).
You assert that no mutations happen to wolf/dog genes whatsoever.
That's ridiculous.
Many of the mutations that have led to new dog breeds are indeed detrimental in the sense that they lead to phenotypes that wouldn't survive for long in the wild. Have you seen a photo of a bulldog skull? Painful to look at. Happy googling.
That's not some exaggeration, it's true.
You see, Dr Pitman, the prediction of shape and function of a protein from its sequence alone is one of the hottest areas of research in all of molecular biology. It hasn't got very far, because the methods so far discovered are all extremely calculation-intensive.
There is no such thing as "a *qualitative* difference in the genome". One mutation happens after another.
You're building strawmen, and you don't even notice.
The length is an issue, because it's fucking ridiculous to assume it has to be constant.
For crying out loud, you can fuse the entire Green Fluorescent Protein to either end of almost any protein, and it still functions as if nothing had happened!!! This is being done every day, because it's an extremely convenient method of finding out where in a cell a particular protein is located.
There is no such thing as a "'kind' of gene pool, you baraminologist. The difference between the differences between a horse and a zebra and a horse and a tapir or rhino is quantitative: a number of mutations since the common ancestor some 55 million years ago.
I think I see your point now. It's stupid.
There are 147 of them as of February 2009. They have nothing in common except the word "species". Depending on the species concept, there are from 101 to 249 endemic bird species in Mexico, for instance.
Indeed. None of the ranks – kingdom, class, order, family, genus, and so on – has a definition, except for "species", which has 147 contradictory ones last time someone counted.
Guessing that "TTSS" means "Type III secretion system", why is that "downhill" rather than "uphill" or "meandering along in a plain"?
Believers in progress in evolution have often tried to define complexity. Never worked. Has been abandoned.
:-o
Man.
Dude, Dr Pitman, if you don't know that the Morrison Fm contains the floors of playa lakes and that it contains paleosols, fossil soils, why do you shoot your mouth off about it?
If you don't know that the Morrison Fm has the marine Sundance Fm below it and the continental Cedar Mountain Fm above it, why do you shoot your mouth off about it?
Have you no shame? Do you never feel embarrassment?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Oh, and… one thing: I notice a complete lack of any response to comment 440. How come, Dr Pitman? I think I raised a few points in there that deserved some discussion. Do you disagree?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 7, 2009 3:12 PM
Oops, I bungled my second paragraph. Here is it again:
Also, I should have mentioned that the Cedar Mountain Fm is Early Cretaceous in age and contains Early Cretaceous dinosaurs and mammals, similar to but distinguishable from the Late Jurassic dinosaurs and mammals of the Late Jurassic Morrison Fm. How is that possible, when both were deposited by the same Flood?
Questions, questions, questions.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
:-D
Can of course happen, but is usually statistically improbable, because there's more than one way to skin most cats.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 7, 2009 3:25 PM
Intelligent Design
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
Clearly because they both have a similar word in their titles they both have to be taken equally, even though one is a search for extraterrestrials while the other is asserting that
Godsome intelligent designer made all life on Earth. I mean, it can't possibly be an attempt to attach the reputability of actual science onto his religious beliefs.Pitman,
Sheesh, do you believe God to be omnipotent or supernatural?
It's been mentioned here before that the believers have a God they show when doing their apologetics and one they worship in private. The public face is some sort of mysterious Deist-like being. The other is the personal God of the bible that answers their prayers. It's fundamentally dishonest.
The forensics and anthropology analogy is false since we know human beings exist and that they commit crimes/leave behind artifacts, while the same cannot be said of the "intelligent designer". The SETI analogy has already been dealt with.
If you have real examples of biological processes that couldn't arise naturally present them here. One has to wonder if you had great evidence why you would be wasting time with this SETI analogy nonsense.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 7, 2009 3:33 PM
Stupid Design explained
This means ID can no longer be regarded as falsified. B-)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 7, 2009 3:38 PM
Creationist quote-mining:
So, macroevolution is false and one species cannot evolve into another.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 7, 2009 4:21 PM
Strangely enough, addition of the missing > restored the missing text, but failed to turn the formatting off. ~:-|
Except by "microevolution", or evolution for short. See above on the 147 definitions of "species".
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2009 4:28 PM
M.D. IDeologist creationist thinks he has "the drop" on professional geologists. Wow, I never saw that one coming from a mile away. Who would have ever guessed that one.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 7, 2009 4:28 PM
If I were to go there, however, let's just check out the first paragraph:
Okay, first sentence:
If you pop into Google, and search under "geological column," you'll notice that the first 10 hits are almost all creationist sites (indeed, as are about 50% of the next 10 hits). A reason for this is that The Geological ColumnTM, while an interesting concept to teach the idea of how geologic time(1, 2) is recorded in the rock record(3), isn't really useful for much more than that. Creationists spend a lot of time worrying about The Geological ColumnTM. We don't. The concept of how time is recorded in the rocks is what's important. The column is a tool that helps us teach this concept to students and laypeople. This tool(4) is not the same thing as local stratigraphic columns made for the purposes of research. The strat columns that I often reference in the papers that I cite in comments on this blog(5) are not The Geological ColumnTM. The Geological ColumnTM is a concept. Stratigraphic columns are graphic depictions of the stratigraphy of a specific area. They are not the same thing as The Geological ColumnTM. Creationists often conflate the two. Doing so only illustrates their ignorance.
Second sentence:
Really? Where is it stated that The Geological ColumnTM includes only sedimentological formations? Do you have a citation for this? Here is where the creationist slight of hand vis a vis The Geological ColumnTM comes in. What formed over millions or even billions of years, Sean? Individual beds (what you guys can't seem to stop calling strata)? Individual formations? What are these "layers of sedimentary rock," because my that context is critical. Without that context, you're putting words in our mouths (this is why I spent so much text on sentence 1...). We might be saying that certain formations represent more than a million years worth of depositional history. But this is certainly not true across all formations. We pretty much never say that individual beds take that long to form. And billions of years? Seriously? Show me where we are asserting this. If you're trying to say that we're asserting that Earth's rock record preserves billions of years of history, then yes, we are asserting this. However, that's not the same thing as saying that layers of the geological column formed over billions of years (see 2). This is science; accuracy matters.Third sentence:
I love how this is put out there as though it were some sort of weakness... It's a teaching concept. No model of the solar system includes every asteroid and comet, either... No. This is missing the point. See above.The rest of the paragraph is more or less okay as written, if we acknowledge that the concept of the column is wrong throughout. The whole paragraph is basically an assault on several strawmen.
And that's what I have to say about paragraph...one.
References and Notes
1. As diagrammed here: http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.pdf
2. No, (1), which is the geologic time scale, is not the same thing as The Geological ColumnTM. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between the two probably shouldn't be writing web pages or blog posts about topics in geology and paleontology.
3. Yes, this is how we use it.
4. The Geological ColumnTM
5. For example, see page 266 here: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polsen/newark_gechron/smoot_olsen_88_sm.pdf
Posted by: Malcolm | September 7, 2009 4:29 PM
Damn!
I got up this morning full of hope that the quack would have spilled the beans on exactly how he determines which mutations are going to be beneficial.
Actually, just knowing which will produce soluble proteins would have been good.
It would have been great to be able to go to work and tell the boss that there was no need for any more expression trials.
Oh well. Off to work. Have fun with the troll.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 7, 2009 4:31 PM
Recent paper on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum; conclusion: its genes evolved from a single ancestral gene via duplication.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html.Abstract of a chapter in the recent book
Volff J-N (ed): Gene and Protein Evolution. Genome Dyn. Basel, Karger, 2007, vol 3, pp 30-47
Bacterial Flagella and Type III Secretion: Case Studies in the Evolution of Complexity: Pallen M, Gophna U
"Bacterial flagella at first sight appear uniquely sophisticated in structure, so much so that they have even been considered ‘irreducibly complex’ by the intelligent design movement. However, a more detailed analysis reveals that these remarkable pieces of molecular machinery are the product of processes that are fully compatible with Darwinian evolution. In this chapter we present evidence for such processes, based on a review of experimental studies, molecular phylogeny and microbial genomics. Several processes have played important roles in flagellar evolution: self-assembly of simple repeating subunits, gene duplication with subsequent divergence, recruitment of elements from other systems (‘molecular bricolage’), and recombination. We also discuss additional tentative new assignments of homology (FliG with MgtE, FliO with YscJ). In conclusion, rather than providing evidence of intelligent design, flagellar and non-flagellar Type III secretion systems instead provide excellent case studies in the evolution of complex systems from simpler components."
So Sean Pitman M.D. is bullshitting as per usual.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 7, 2009 4:59 PM
I love you too, but I had to share that with someone... And upon reading #609, I'm glad I shared. :)
Posted by: SC, OM | September 7, 2009 5:02 PM
This is fun. I've only read the first few sections,* but some of the argument seems to boil down to "The evidence for evolution is good. Too good."
*canceled my plans in order to work, and if I get too distracted by this I'll feel guilty toward both my friend and myself.**
**will nevertheless much appreciate and greatly enjoy reading others' shredding of the essay.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 7, 2009 5:06 PM
I'm still trying to clean my eyeballs...
Posted by: frozen_midwest | September 7, 2009 5:35 PM
/blockquote There weren't any transitional forms. It just kinda "poofed" into the thread. /blockquote
Whoaaaaa - an example of punctuated equilibrium. Must be, it's too inane to be intelligent design.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 7, 2009 5:51 PM
Yeah, sorry. That site is awful.
He also has articles on ice cores, dendrochronology, radiometric dating and more. I don't think I want to read them, though. I read the ones I linked to, the abiogenesis one, and... this one. I'm afraid it was too much for me... My head hurts...
Sean, how can someone be so wrong about so many things on so many different levels in one single website?
Posted by: Josh
|
September 7, 2009 5:57 PM
I had to go grab some wine, just to be able to continue. Did you get the C-14 part below the part you just linked to...?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 7, 2009 6:12 PM
I say we take this conversation to the thread that will not die. It's been awhile since we've had a creationist there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 7, 2009 6:17 PM
In post #470 I wrote:
I acknowledge that I was wrong. His Pitmanity does use personal incredulity as a basis for arguing against evilution.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 6:20 PM
You just don't get it, do you? You're complaining about evolution not being able to put together complex structures, but when one points out that complex structures are a combination of smaller complex structures, you still claim it's all too complex.Scientists are providing you with a mechanism, and you're still playing the "God of the gaps". The fact is, those gaps have been filled, and it's only your personal incredulity standing in the way. But keep going, you're ravings are as good as a geocentrist talking about the ether.
Don't you get it Sean? When you play a God of the gaps, the only thing standing in the way of you understanding is your own personal incredulity. You simply are asserting that the gap is not filled, while almost every single biologist out there is saying that it is - and backing it up with evidence. Can the flagellum be built through incremental parts? Of course it can, we can recognise the parts of the flagellum being proteins that form other functions. So when you talk about the 50 or so proteins that need to come together, all that's really required is the 5 or so "protein components" - drastically reducing the complexity needed. And those components, only a few proteins in them each. And given bacteria spawn every few hours and the sheer number of bacteria... well you do the maths.
This is why I say you don't understand natural selection, and you're deliberately misunderstanding it because you've played the God of the gaps. Evolution has provided a mechanism in how to generate complexity, your gawd is falsified. It's people like you who make it damn easy to be an atheist. I keep hearing from moderates "have an open mind, you can't disprove God" but then theists like you come about whose God is a substitute for human ignorance. Your position rests entirely on us not understanding the process of life, and as such you don't have a case. You're peddling ignorance - as I said above because the moral and existential consequences are contingent on you not understanding the process.
Posted by: tresmal | September 7, 2009 6:33 PM
Am I the only one here wondering about this "fsaar" business? (snicker)
Would this (very) hypothetical example count as a 1000 fsaar novelty? :
1. We start with Lenski's citrate utilizing bacteria. Dr. Pitman accepts this as a perfectly reasonable example of "microevolution". As I understand it these bugs always had the ability to metabolize citrate, they didn't have the ability to import it from outside the cell. I could look it up but my crippling laziness is acting up and I just can't be bothered. Anyway assuming just a single protein here and consulting no less an authority than my ass, I'll assume that this protein has 200aa.
So 200aa
2. I'll posit that in addition to useful quantities of citrate in the environment, there are even greater quantities of a chemical; R-cit which has an easily cleavable citrate group. An enzyme that cleaves R-cit would increase the local supply of citrate and therefore be useful. The evolution of this enzyme would be another example of microevolution and therefore should be considered plausible. I'll assume that this enzyme also has 200aa.
So 400 aa
3. As useful as #2 is, much of its output is dispersed to the surrounding medium. A protein that bound the R-cit cleaving enzyme to the citrate importing enzyme (another bit of microevolution) would increase the yield significantly. Once again I'll assume 200aa.
So 600aa
4. Even after evolving #3 much of the citrate cleaved by the R-cit cleaving enzyme is going to be lost to the surrounding medium. An enzyme that directly transferred the citrate from the R-cit cleaving enzyme to the citrate importing enzyme would eventually raise the yield to 100%.
Another 200aa.
So 800aa
5.Meanwhile in the cell, citrate is beginning to accumulate. So much in fact that it becomes useful to regulate it. An enzyme that is activated by the first product of citrate metabolism and shuts off the citrate importing enzyme would be the simplest way to do that. 200 more aa.
So 1000aa
But wait! There's more! This system regulated like this would still have the R-cit cleaving enzyme and the citrate transferring enzyme wasting effort providing citrate the cell didn't want. So the system evolves regulatory features (which would probably, but not necessarily, involve more enzymes or additional aas to the enzymes already present, so I won't count them)so that the citrate importing enzyme activates the citrate transferring enzyme which activates the R-cit cleaving enzyme. This system is now irreducibly complex.
As far as the lost function of the genes exapted for this system, there are a number of known ways for nature to deal with this. One is that these novel genes could be the product of gene duplication. Another stems from the fact that bacteria have an extended genome. By starting out with a bacterial monoculture Lenski actually stacked the deck against Evolution. In nature the original genes would not be lost as other bacteria would still have them and by way of trading plasmids and conjugation these genes would still be available to the R-cit utilizing bacteria.
The end result here is a strain of bacteria with a novel 1000aa complex achieved without loss of function. Am I right here or did I completely misunderstand this "fsaar" business?
Posted by: Trip the Space Parasite | September 7, 2009 6:59 PM
It looks like Pitman's model absolutely requires the fitness landscape to consist of tiny islands of viability widely scattered across a sea of doom, with the difficulty of leaping between islands increasing as the dimensionality of the landscape increases. It is my understanding that Pitman is exactly wrong in this, and that as the dimensionality increases it becomes more likely that two high points will be connected by a viable path (roughly, the more directions you can leave any given point in, the more likely it is that one or more of them will be viable).
raven @ #556 seems to support this.
Can someone who knows the relevant mathematics comment?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 7, 2009 7:17 PM
With faith, all things are possible. Eyes are blinkered from reality, lies are accepted as truth, and scientific concepts can be misused - or, as in the case of Sean Pitman MD* and his fsaar specification, used without any scientific basis at all - in an attempt to distort or confuse the unwary and/or provide hope for the similarly eager to continue the shared delusion (or delugion) they call religion.
Praise Jesus!
*Most Deluded? Moronic Delugionist?
Posted by: Dania
|
September 7, 2009 7:18 PM
I had to step away from the computer for a while, but still, I don't think I'll be able to continue today. I desperately need some sleep. My brain is refusing to work.
Well, I don't understand if he understands radiocarbon dating at all... But I guess I'll have to read his article on it tomorrow. I have no idea if he thinks C-14 dating is reliable or not.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 7, 2009 7:22 PM
Yeah...I'm going to have to read it again to really figure out what he's on about.
Damn delugionists. I had writing to do today.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 7, 2009 7:37 PM
So true. So true...
Apparently it's even possible to brag about being a doctor of medicine when talking about geology.
<sigh>
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 7, 2009 7:42 PM
There's no getting through to this guy. He's into presuppositional apologetics, he's notorious, and he's been on the exact same refrain for literally years. There is fun to be had at his expense, of course. Can we feed him so much bread that he bursts?
Posted by: Josh
|
September 7, 2009 7:43 PM
Yep--it would be like you and I starting a website where we pontificated about optical physics. Wonderful...
Posted by: Opus | September 7, 2009 7:44 PM
After reading through the garbage from the MD, and thinking back on other discussions in which YECs and other varieties of denialist spewed forth their delusions, I realized that we need another new DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Denialist Disorders.
I've got the 'doctor' pegged as a pseudo-intellectual auto-eroticist with exhibitionist tendencies.
Of course most of the denialists fall into this group, so I guess the DSM-DD needs more work.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 8:03 PM
Ah, that explains the picture of Facilis the Fallacious Fool that kept popping into my head while reading his posts. The "I got you by definition" feel, even if the definition had no basis in reality. The extreme skepticism, and avoidance of anything that might impinge upon his inane assertions is typical. That observation explains a lot. Thanks SGBM.Posted by: Carlie | September 7, 2009 8:29 PM
And to make a puny contribution to Josh at #609, there is also the matter of ice cores. Ice cores are indeed annual deposits, and can be seen forming every year, yet there are cores with much more than 6,000 deposits ( older popular article, white paper ). Unfortunately it's behind restricted access, but this article from American Scientist a few years ago was a very nice enumeration of all of the geology that Flood Delusionism fails to properly address.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 8:33 PM
Of course you should feel that, it's how intelligent design works. Behe and his irreducible complexity, Dembski and his specified complity, this tard with his functional complexity. You make an argument on pure definitions and win by default.One cannot help but feel like we are Achilles in a race with the tortoise (creationism). Here we out outrunning creationism and there's Zeno on the sidelines (in this case represented by Sean) yelling that we cannot overtake the tortoise because of the infinite number of points we'd have to cross. Meanwhile we've finished the race and the tortoise has barely moved from its original position.
Posted by: frozen_midwest | September 7, 2009 8:41 PM
Related to dog-wolf trait modifications through domestication:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment
(or google 'siberian fox experiment' if you don't have a subscription to American Scientist)
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 8:55 PM
Re: Comments by Trip the Space Parasite:
You're mistaken. With higher dimensionality, the number of non-viable possibilities increases at a far greater rate than the number of viable options. Statistically, at higher levels of functional complexity, the beneficial islands are indeed completely surrounded, on all "sides", by vast numbers of non-beneficial sequences. The non-beneficial gaps grow truly enormous beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level and quickly become statistically uncrossable in any sort of reasonable amount of time.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 7, 2009 9:04 PM
I'm guessing Sean Pitman's never played Bridge.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:13 PM
Re: Comments by Raven #556:
Of course. This is because simply binding to DNA is very easy to improve upon since this sort of functionality can be achieved in a stepwise manner where almost every single additional character match can be selected in a positive manner - as in Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" algorithm. In other words, this is evolution by template matching. Each successful match to a pre-established sequence will be selectable. This is very much how improved antibody matching to a foreign antigen is evolved over just a few generations of B-cells in the immune system.
The problem with this type of evolution is that template matching cannot be used to produce something like a flagellar motility system. This means that the likely minimum Hamming distance between viable steppingstones isn't going to be one character change wide each time. The minimum likely distance is going to be much much larger beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity.
As for the generation of ABzymes and the like, this type of demonstration is also quite easy because of the relative commonality of low-level systems in low-level sequence space. Such ABzymes do not require more than a few hundred residues at minimum and are usually very loosely specified for minimum selectable functionality.
This is also true. However, this is because the islands is sequence space have many long neutral or near neutral branches that can be traversed by random mutational drift without any substantive loss of function. This does not mean that these islands are therefore not restricted in size. They are. It also does not mean that these islands are not more and more isolated in sequence space at higher and higher levels of minimum structural threshold requirements - they are.
In short, just because different points on the same island can be expressed without a signficant loss of function is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:24 PM
Sean, still with your religious presuppositional nonsense masquerading as pseudoscience. No evidence presented. All religious, and not scientific argument in sight, despite your claim to the contrary. You have no chance of convincing us of anything, as we are onto your lies. Keep your lies coming. We love to laugh at godbot, creobots, and IDiots who think they can pull one over on us. Bwahahahahaha. Your best course is to fade into the bandwidth.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:27 PM
Re: Comments by Drosera:
You don't need to calculate the FC for every possible environment because all environments produce the same pattern of exponentially declining beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence spaces at higher and higher levels. All a change in the environment would do would be to shift the location of some of the islands, but without any substantive change in the ratio of islands vs. non-islands. Therefore, the FC remains the same.
FC is very easy to define. It is the minimum size and specificity requirement needed to achieve a particular type of functionality to a particular level of activity. This definition is independent of the environment. The environment only determines if the functionality in question would be beneficial or not. Again, this determination doesn't change the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial for a given level of FC.
Again, that's probably because KCC is not at all related to FC. They are completely different concepts.
I've never said that evolution is equivalent to producing a 747 from a scrap yard. The starting point for the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS is not a random pile of junk. The starting point is a vast and well-ordered informationally rich gene pool of functional options. The problem isn't the starting point. The problem is the fact that higher and higher level systems become exponentially more and more widely separated in sequence space. That's the problem and this problem is a demonstrable fact.
All you have to do to see the reality of this problem is to do a BLAST search for functional protein-based systems (to include multi-protein systems) and note that as the minimum structural threshold requirement increases, so does the minimum number required differences - i.e., the Hamming Gap distance.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:34 PM
It's called contingency. Again, you're thinking about it all wrong. But that's hardly surprising because your entire arguments rests on you thinking about it wrong. This is what happens when you make a God-of-the-gaps, your entire arguments is there to keep that gap.Propose a mechanism damn it!
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:43 PM
Re: Comments by David Marjanović #602:
Correct. Lactase, when it evolves in real time, usually evolves from some other pre-formed sequence that is very similar to a potentially beneficial lactase sequence in sequence space - usually only a single character change different that can be produced with one point mutation.
Your suggestion that insertion mutations or other forms of indel or multi-character mutations solve the gap problem at higher levels of functional complexity simply isn't true. The odds that pre-existing sequences will combine with each other to hit upon higher level systems are not significantly better than the odds that a similar number of point mutation will be successful. The odds of success are essentially the same either way. The reason for this is because there are so many more non-viable ways that pre-existing sequences could be combined vs. the very limited number of viable combinations.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 9:52 PM
Re: Comments by David Marjanović #602:
The fitness landscape is indeed either flat or has holes or death traps in it for the majority of its surface except for those rare regions that are occupied by beneficial clusters of sequences of a particular type that form an island which rises above the surrounding flat and pitted landscape.
This is the reason why most mutations are neutral or very near neutral and why the vast majority of those that have functional effects are detrimental.
You really need to do some reading up on the nature of the fitness landscape. It isn't smoothly hilly between beneficial islands like you imagine. The intervening terrain isn't gradually beneficial at all.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Stanton | September 7, 2009 9:54 PM
The only problem is, my Flying Figgy Fruitcake, is that if Sean does propose a mechanism, he will be.Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:02 PM
One more question for David Marjanović:
In your posts you often respond to a mix of stuff that I wrote and address me by name while also quoting and responding to a lot of stuff that I didn't write as if I wrote it. Why do you do that?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: IaMoL | September 7, 2009 10:07 PM
Propose a mechanism, Doc.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 7, 2009 10:09 PM
Re: Comments by Kel #639:
What do you mean by "contingency"? How does "contigency" help to explain the exponentially expanding non-beneficial gap problem?
Obviously, the mechanism I'm proposing is driven by at least human-level intelligent design and technology - which is known to work at such levels since it is being used as we speak to produce such levels of functional complexity. The mechanism of RM/NS doesn't come close.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 10:16 PM
Still no evidence from Sean. But then, what can a presuppositionalist liar and bullshitter do other than to avoid the evidence that will refute their presuppositions. They avoid reality like the plague, like Sean's god is a figment of his delusional imagination and his babble is a work of fiction. No way will reality encroach upon his delusions.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 7, 2009 10:19 PM
Scene:Sean Pitman playing bridge; he is the first player dealt to.
Pitman: Frowns. Looks at cards, then up at the dealer. Wait a minute - I'm going to calculate the odds of you dealing me this exact hand - (Grabs calculator; punches in numbers) - Aha! The chances are 1 in 635,013,559,600. It's impossible that this hand could have been dealt by chance! You must be cheating! Deal again, swine!
Posted by: Stanton | September 7, 2009 10:29 PM
You haven't proposed anything other than "I don't know, therefore GOD/DESIGNERDIDIT"If you're not going to propose an alternative, please go away.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 10:37 PM
That's not a mechanism, you're still not answering how a designer operates in the process. A watch may have a watchmaker, but it doesn't answer the question of how a watch gets made. I'm asking you how the designer operates, and you're still not answering that - you're only interested in saying that there is a designer, and like I'm challenged you over and over this is because how it happens is irrelevant to the moral and existential implications of there actually being one. Asserting that Natural Selection cannot work just shows your own shortcomings in understanding natural selection. Demonstrate that natural selection cannot work, move away from your game of definitions and actually show some evidence in the real world. Your objection is akin to Zeno's objection that Achilles will never catch the tortoise.Besides, time and time again it's been shown that your argument is fallacious - if you take away natural selection you aren't left with designer; you're left with nothing. You're not seeking to explain the fossil record, the genetic code, the morphology, anatomy, etc. You're just asserting that Natural Selection cannot do it without proposing a mechanism of what can. You still have no mechanism, so the best you can possibly do is disprove one option.
To put it another way, if this argument were being made 200 years ago, it wouldn't be between natural selection and design, rather between Lamarkian evolution and design. Does the inadequacy of Lamark's mechanism to account for what we see in life mean that design is true? Of course not, it just means that it is unknown. You're playing a false dichotomy, and as such your entire arguments rests on you not understanding natural selection.
And this is why you will never waver from your position, you're pushing a logically fallacious argument and thinking that it's enough to be convincing. Like I've maintained throughout, even if natural selection cannot account for everything in biology (indeed it doesn't, there are other known mechanisms at play) then it doesn't follow that designer did it anymore than 200 years ago that if acquired traits aren't heritable then a designer did it.
Your entire argument is logically bankrupt, it's completely unscientific and you're entire justification for such a poor argument is to validate a dogmatic belief. Now you could try to rectify that, propose a testable and potentially falsifiable mechanism and actually do research on the matter. This way you'll have more than conjecture and you'd have an evidential place on which to stand.
Natural selection has this evidential backing, there have been numerous studies of selection leading to adaption, the mechanism has been validated. Your argument rests on the mechanism not to scale up, and that's the complete opposite of science.
Sean, if you have something then please actually do some science on the matter. Propose a mechanism, do the experiments, publish your findings in anonymous peer review for others to criticise. Because what you're doing now? It's not going to convince anyone other than the scientifically illiterate.
Posted by: Trip the Space Parasite | September 8, 2009 1:04 AM
Doctor Sean Pitman, M! D! @ #634:
As I understand it, the ratio of "open" neighbors to "blocked" neighbors (in reality it's neither that binary nor that deterministic, but never mind for now) isn't important; it's the number of paths leading away from each point that matters. As long as there's a path from A to B, mutation+selection can follow it just fine, regardless of how thin the path is compared to the whole fitness landscape. The ratio of good to bad volumes of the landscape only matters if you're picking points at random from the whole landscape, which, creationist mendacity notwithstanding, is not what evolution does.
Again, I'd appreciate it if someone who knows something about the relevant mathematics could comment, even if it's just to tell me I obviously understand math every bit as well as Pitman understands geology.
Posted by: Trip the Space Parasite | September 8, 2009 1:37 AM
Ah hah, this is what I was thinking of: Nearly Neutral Networks and Holey Adaptive Landscapes.
In particular, look at the two circular figures about 2/3 of the way down the page. The upper one is what Pitman thinks the fitness landscape looks like, but the lower one is what it's really like.
Posted by: Malcolm | September 8, 2009 2:07 AM
Sean,
How do you know which sequences are beneficial?
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 4:40 AM
The problem is the fact that higher and higher level systems become exponentially more and more widely separated in sequence space. That's the problem and this problem is a demonstrable fact.
All you have to do to see the reality of this problem is to do a BLAST search for functional protein-based systems (to include multi-protein systems) and note that as the minimum structural threshold requirement increases, so does the minimum number required differences - i.e., the Hamming Gap distance. Sean Pitman M.D.
You continue to ignore the crucial fact, confirmed by copious work on the structure and evolutionary history of proteins, that mutation and need not and does not explore the search space by moving exclusively to nearby points; and that the faraway points it does move to are intrinsically likely to be potentially useful proteins, because they are reached by deleting or repeating functional domains from an existing protein, or recombining functional domains from existing proteins - hence almost inevitably producing a protein which catalyses a novel combination of reactions. All your babble about sequence space and Hamming gap distance is a complete irrelevance - which is no doubt why you have never been able to publish any of this bilge in peer-reviewed journals.
Posted by: Drosera | September 8, 2009 6:55 AM
Sean @638,
The level of activity is clearly influenced by external factors, e.g. temperature, viscosity, presence of competing enzymes, etc. So you do need to specify the environment. Your functional complexity is just as hard to measure as it is to calculate the amount of meaningful information in a string of text.
Not with so many words. But your arguments from irreducible complexity and 1000 fsaar thresholds are analogous, wouldn’t you say?
You have still not demonstrated anything that can not be explained through the known mechanisms of mutation, recombination, gene duplication, etc.
This is all quibbling, however. Your main problem is that you don’t understand the basic point of evolution, which is that it builds upon what is already there. Bacteria didn’t decide one day that it would be nice to have a flagellum, causing a very complex structure to poof into existence. As people have explained to you over and over again, things like a flagellum evolve from pre-existing components in feasible steps. Even if some of these steps are a priori unlikely, the enormous amount of time and the enormous number of individuals make the steps possible. To borrow a phrase from Gould, rewind the tape of life to an earlier time, and maybe bacteria would not have evolved a flagellum at all, or a very different one.
You have been asked several times what your proposed alternative mechanism to evolution is. Would it be far off the mark to say that it is Little Green Men who visit Earth from time to time to add a complex component here and there in the genome of existing organisms?
Posted by: 386sx | September 8, 2009 7:36 AM
IDiologist makes exciting discovery of prehistoric highly advanced civilization, and doesn't care who or what they may have been, not even the slightest bit curious, news at 11:00...
Other news... water is wet, sun rises east...
Posted by: Dania
|
September 8, 2009 7:41 AM
Except that you're not proposing any mechanism. "The designer(s) did it" is not a mechanism. How, Sean? How does/did the designer(s) operate? You'll be proposing a mechanism when you answer that question. So far, and despite Kel's insistence, you have done no such thing. You're just wasting your time...
Posted by: 386sx | September 8, 2009 7:45 AM
Except that you're not proposing any mechanism. "The designer(s) did it" is not a mechanism. How, Sean? How does/did the designer(s) operate?
IDiologist not even the slightest bit curious about the mechanism behind how God does the "miracle" thang, news at 11:00...
Posted by: Alan B | September 8, 2009 8:38 AM
#624, #625
Since Dr Sean Pitman, M.D. likes to know who is contributing to this thread, let me tell him my first name is Alan, my surname begins with B and I do not think he has a "need to know" about the rest. I am 64, retired from a career as an industrial chemist in the electricity generating industry, finishing up working as a senior chemist at a nuclear power station. I have had a life-long interest in geology and I am currently a student with the Open University in the UK, coming towards the end of a degree in geosciences so I will finish as as a (BSc)squared. This included a level 3 (final year) module in evolution.
As a result, I know some radiochemistry but I would not dream of calling myself an expert on C-14 dating. I know enough to know that the greatest care has to be taken with contamination and that calibration is crucial because some of the simplistic assumptions made by those without expertise in the field are not valid.
I have read some of the web page by Dr Sean Pitman, M.D. entitled "C 14" at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
I cannot work out at whom the page is aimed - it seems a mixture of grade school level (well below K-12) and the enthusiastic amateur. The purpose is unclear. It is as if the author(s) were throwing everything they had picked up onto the screen without drawing any clear conclusions. Possibly, it is to reduce confidence in what is a nuanced and carefully executed piece of measurement and by so doing, casting doubt on other, unrelated, dating methods.
The text is tediously repetitve, especially when referring to how the isotopes of Carbon differ. While there is little actually wrong (but see below) much of it leaves this chemist squirming. I certainly would never use the term "carbon skeleton" but I suppose an M.D. can use whatever jargon he wants - just don't expect a chemist to be enthused. I personally would have thought "body" or "bodies" would have been adequate.
I don't have the time to analyse this piece of radiochemistry. If I was reviewing a report by one of my staff in my last job I would have put a red line through it and told them to have another go because it was not leaving my Department over my signature!
I am not a fan of Wikipedia but in this case I will make an exception.
From the Wiki article on C-14:
From the Wiki radiocarbon dating article:
.C 14 Webpage: 6 parts in 1000, Reality: 1 part in 10^12.
Where did ~0.6% come from? This is so far out it screams to me as being wrong. It makes me wonder why the author(s) did not instantly check and change this nonsense figure.
This section goes back to the start and hammers on about isotopes etc. Leave it be ...
Incidentally, while the use of a superscript number before the C for the mass number is excellent, I have never, anywhere, seen the use "C 14" by a scientist. Always it has been "C-14". Even Wiki gets it consistently correct.
I won't go any further. The schoolboy errors. The lack of understanding about atmospheric radiochemistry. The inability to handle standard scientific nomenclature. These all worry me. This is all about science and science is about getting such details correct - it gives confidence to the reader. Typing errors are one thing, deep errors like isotopic proportions out by multiple orders of magnitude suggests the author is far adrift from an in depth understanding of his subject.
Why should I go any further? The rest of the web page MAY be totally, 100% correct. But I would have to check every single item before I could have any confidence in the material. And why should I bother when there are excellent article on radiocarbon dating by acknowledged experts in the peer-reviewed literature?
Message to Dianna and Josh - suit yourself but I wouldn't bother to even read the webpage!
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 9:22 AM
Would Computer Science with work in search algorithms count? If so, I can run you down on the basics.As long as there is a path from A to B, even brute force would get you there. But brute force is an incredibly slow, and the biggest the search space increases the complexity by a factorial!
I'm not sure if this is directly answering your question, but it seems that to do it brute force or wait for chance (even if cumulated) won't guarantee you a solution very quickly. In programming search algorithms, there is selection criteria applied at each step of the way to speed things up, it's an estimation of how long it takes to get to the goal. But random mutation / natural selection doesn't have goals as such, so it seems like Darwinian evolution is gone under sheer improbability...
...but this is where natural selection comes into play. The algorithm has a potentially exponentially-increasing population (i.e. parents have more children than survive) fighting for a finite set of resources in a hostile environment. What this does is create what looks like a best-first search, that is under whatever criteria the environment and competition among the population is decided upon will mean that any advantageous mutation will rise to the top and be inherited while those that are disadvantageous will fall away.
It's important to remember that the process has no goal, but the environment has selection factors that help with survival and reproduction. In this sense, specialisations are easy to see - like ant or termite eaters with long sticky tongues to get termites out of ant colonies. Or the eye evolving to see in the peak black-body spectrum of the sun as it is filtered through the atmosphere. Camouflage, sonic navigation, etc. Yet there are no goals, only what is advantageous or neutral. The end result is looking like what navigates an improbable search path in an extraordinary small number of steps - it has the illusion of a best-first search.
But what Moronic Douche here keeps doing wrong is looking at the end product and working out the improbability of each step instead of looking at the process in action. Each step of the way the process works - a few survive while the vast majority die off. Repeat a few trillion times and you're bound to have massive diversity and wildly different end points from the starting point. It wouldn't be brute force, as at each point only what survives continues in the process. At the end of the day, you have a completely unpredictable system and an ever-shifting "search space" for the next generation.
To look at it as a search space is all wrong, evolution is not a process to get from A to B. It to us looks like it gets from A to B because we are looking at the end product. We are seeing things at B. But really B is just the current iteration of the process of survival. What helps an organism survives gets carried on, what hinders it doesn't. It's really not that hard to understand, but when your entire argument rests on the process being wrong as it does for Moronic Douche here, then of course you're going to use any justification you can to demonstrate it to be fallacious - in this case come up with some ridiculous notion called functional complexity and say it can't be achieved by mutation and selection alone. That's what happens when you put goals in that simply aren't there...
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 9:38 AM
To be fair to him, he has no incentive whatsoever to answer me. Of course, it seems he won't answer it because he has no incentive beyond me to answer it either; because this is never about evolution. This is about the moral and existential implications of whether God exists. Moronic Douche doesn't need a mechanism, as the neo-creationist mantra goes: "if it looks designed, then it's designed." And since design implies designer, nothing else needs to be said.The entire "intellectual" enterprise around intelligent design is one huge argument to say nothing!
Posted by: Dania
|
September 8, 2009 9:53 AM
Alan B, thanks for your comment.
I've only skimmed the page and I agree with your statement. The purpose is not immediately clear. But I think that if you scroll down to the section titled "A Sudden Historical Decrease in Carbon 12" you'll see what he's trying to get at*. As usual, it all comes down to a "global catastrophe".
Anyway, I've already had enough of his site. I don't feel like reading any further.
*Not that any of it makes sense, but making sense is clearly not one of his goals.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 10:00 AM
This whole line of thought has reminded me of H Allen Orr's review of No Free Lunch
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 10:07 AM
Re: Comment by Wowbagger #647:
And the odds of any particular 10aa sequence is 1 in 20^10 or 1e13. Yet the odds of hitting upon something is 100%.
You're very cleaver! Oh, now this solves everything for me! ; )
Come on now. Do you really think this is the first time someone has brought up this particular argument?
The problem, you see, is that the odds of hitting upon something in sequence space are indeed 100%. However, the odds of hitting upon something beneficial are not 100% - not even close. That is why most mutations are either neutral or detrimental. And, these odds increase, exponentially, with increasing levels of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 10:16 AM
Do you think you're the first person to give that objection to evolution? Hell, I've seen it by three different creationists in the last week on this site alone.But since you're into repeating nonsense ad nauseum, why won't you grant the same privilege for others? We can continue this exercise in futility and it won't do a thing to change the arguments on either side. It's nothing more than mental masturbation on account of all concerned. For me, I'm just glad that after a stressful day of dealing with incompetence at work that I can get on the internet and be reminded that I could work with a lot worse...
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 10:25 AM
Re: Comments by Kel #649:
The moral and existential implications are up to you. All the basic ID hypothesis does is demonstrate the high degree of predictive value of the ID-only hypothesis on at least the human level of intelligence and creativity.
Yet, you are asking for exactly how the watch was made - what particular methods did the designer us? That information isn't necessary before one can adequately detect design. All that needs to be known is what methods could have been used by a designer with access to at least human level intelligence and creativity.
SETI scientists, if they ever did find the artificial radio signal that they are looking for would not know exactly how it was produced. All they would know is how it could have been produced, in various ways, by Intelligent Design, but not by any known mindless force of nature.
The same thing is true in forensics. Say you found a human body that had been cleanly and sharply cut into four equal parts, and the parts laid out symmetrically, each with a 10 cm distance from the other parts. The clear implication is the input of ID behind this scene - i.e., a true murder scene. Why? Because no known non-deliberate natural process is likely to produce such a scene and because there are many known mechanisms by which an intelligent designer, a human designer in this case, could produce such a scene. Knowing the particular mechanism that was actually used is simply not necessary to know that this scene was deliberately produced.
Another example is the intricate geometric crop circles that first started appearing in England. There are many ways that such crop circles can be produced by ID. There are no known ways that such crop circles could be produced by non-intelligent nature. And, knowing the exact mechanism that was actually used is not needed before one can be quite certain, with a high degree of predictive value, that these crop circles were indeed deliberately designed.
Again, you're asking for something that does not need to be known before the ID hypothesis can be well supported by in a scientific manner.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 10:29 AM
Isn't a funny tell that Sean Pitman M.D. goes off over Wowbagger's analogy but says nothing about Alan B's take on his description of C-14?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 10:31 AM
Quack quack quack.
If you postulate an intelligence that designed all life, you have to explain why that intelligence is not even more improbable than the products of its design. Otherwise you've made the problem more complex, not less, and you're going in the opposite direction from a solution.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 10:36 AM
Re: Comments by Trip the Space Parasite #650:
The paths to success do exist. In fact, very short paths to success do exist even at very high levels of functional complexity. The problem is that there are so many more paths that do not lead to success. That's the problem. Which path to choose? A random choice is most likely not going to pick the right path on the first try - or even on the trillionth trillionth try. That's the problem.
So, you see, while it is quite possible to pick the right path, it is very very unlikely this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 10:39 AM
Strange gods before me, Sean Pitman M.D. just might cut himself handling Occam's Razor.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 8, 2009 10:39 AM
Way back in #386, Sean wrote:
I'm still not seeing how this is a question that we can simply ignore, any more than I see how "how do we falsify the designer" as being a question that we can ignore.
I agree that "who made the aliens" is probably something that we can ignore with respect to SETI, at least right now. But to my knowledge, no one is suggesting that the intelligence SETI is searching for can be used to explain natural phenomena. We're not expecting that this intelligence, should evidence of it ever be found, will then be offered up as an explanation for gravity. SETI is, to my understanding, simply a hunt. At this point, who cares how the intelligence came about? Our time would be better spent postulating the origins of the Hutts. If we find some evidence that cannot be explained in any other way, and we postulate an intelligent cause, then it will be time to worry about how that cause came to be, among other things*.
If, however, someone were asserting that SETI is going to reveal an intelligence whose actions provide The TrueTM explanation for cosmological redshift, you'd better believe that people would be asking lots of questions about the nature of the intelligence. If we must keep this rather tortured SETI analogy going, then I think this is closer to what ID is doing: they want us to see them as analogous to SETI, but instead of hunting for evidence of hooloovoos, they're skipping that step with some slight of hand** and trying to get us to buy that this shade of blue is the only explanation for black holes***.
*And at that point, I suspect the origins of the intelligence are going to be immediately on the table--I figure it's probably gonna be about the next question after "what is causing this signal" and "where is the location of the source of this signal?"
**If you only understood the math a little better, you'd see the shade, right there at 494.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999343Xnm****
***And, of course, they want Hooloovoo Black Hole
TheoryFantasy taught in schools as science.****X? Oh, X is the key to the whole thing...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 10:42 AM
Janine, Vile Bitch, OM
Quite. In order to support ID in the first place, you have to have already mastered the skill of twisting and mis-representing arguments in a way that can support your pre-supposed position and ignoring completely those that you can't.
I've been following this thread and I see nothing from Pitman that hasn't been attempted here before, with the same predictable results.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 10:45 AM
Still no evidence from Sean, and he is back to the refuted SETI analogy. What an unscientific dweeb.
Sean, in science the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate your ideas, and back them with evidence. One does not tear down other ideas, but just shows the superiority of yours. You also must be transparent in your presentation of your ideas and methodology. Your presentations here, since you are only interested in tearing down the opposition, are opaque and your data is essentially a black box that you control the information of. That is why real scientists like myself demand peer reviewed publications to believe what you say. The publication process requires you to transparent. Which you are avoiding like the plague. That cries con man/crank to all who read your posts.
If you claim intelligent designer, you need to demonstrate independent evidence for the designer, starting with proposition that the designer doesn't exist. You also need to demonstrate how the designer came to be. Presuppositions are not allowed. For example, the designer evolve on planets from generation 1 stars is scientific, but always existing is forbidden until you provide evidence for that presupposition.
The burden of proof is still upon you Sean. You have done nothing to ding evolution in the slightest, since science from peer reviewed journals is needed to do that, and you have demonstrated no evidence for your ideas. Failure, failure, and more failure.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 10:47 AM
Re: Comments by Trip the Space Parasite #651:
These are neutral or nearly neutral networks. That's the problem. They aren't sequentially beneficial networks between beneficial islands within sequence space. This argument basically says that there are flat places within sequence space all over the place which can be traversed without stepping in the death pits or valleys of sequence space.
That's true. Most mutations are neutral or near neutral. Much of sequence space is indeed flat in between the rare beneficial islands sequences. Functionally neutral or "flat" sequence space is therefore open to random walk searches. However, this doesn't help find qualitatively novel beneficial sequences any faster. Why not? Because the force of NS is not involved in the guidance of searching out neutral sequence space. The odds of success are therefore not improved and still decrease exponentially with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
This about it just a bit. If your notion was actually correct, we'd see successful evolution at higher levels of complexity just as commonly as we see it at very low levels of functional complexity. However, in reality, there isn't even one example of evolution in action beyond the 1000 fsaar level. Why might that be given the validity of your thinking here?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 8, 2009 10:48 AM
You know, if I had evidence that a designer was involved in certain biological processes I'd be presenting that evidence, rather than invoking SETI, forensics and crop circles.
Yes, there are areas of science where "intelligence" has an effect. No one is debating that. The question is whether life on Earth is one of those areas (at least where it's clear humans haven't been doing the manipulating). Someone saying the motions of the planets and asteroids was an "intelligent designer playing 3D pool" wouldn't be making a case by citing SETI, forensics and crop circles.
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to accept extraterrestrials as the "intelligent designer" [showing the value of both SETI and ID!]? Why or why not?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 10:50 AM
Again, getting out of actually saying anything that can move beyond conjecture to a hypothesis. It's amazing reading 5 paragraphs where you argue your absence of actually saying anything. But again, I come to expect that from creationists.I ask you to propose a mechanism as there are certain facts about biology that are there to be explained now. Certain structures that are formed, certain patterns that can be seen, anomalies, physiological traits, fossils, etc. Ever heard the phrase "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing"? If you could get your head away from SETI (again, remember what SETI is, what they are doing and what they've concluded) you'd see that my objections to your point have nothing to do with SETI. I'll spell them out again:
1. Your position is illogical, if you made this argument 200 years ago you could replace RM/NS with LE and your argument would be just as wrong then as it is now as it would be 300 years ago if you were talking about planet formation in the absence of knowledge of stellar formation.
2. A hypothesis has to be able to explain the facts, and you're not proposing anything in order to see whether your conjecture meets the facts. In other words you aren't doing science.
3. You misuse how natural selection works in order to argue against it, that this is the crux of your argument (invalid from point 1) so your entire argument rests on you either not understanding or misusing natural selection. You set it up in such a way that you cannot ever get the process right because the moment you did, your entire argument would break down. As such when people point out how natural selection can build the structures you deem it can't, you constantly play down the important of any experiment that shows it. You're explaining away the evidence to suit your lack of a mechanism.
4. You play a game of definitions, and that is never going to be anything more than sophistry. Like I said above, it feels like you are Zeno calling out to Achilles as he is finishing the race that it is impossible for him to ever catch up to the tortoise.
5. You persistently look for excuses for not providing a mechanism. You mention SETI over and over despite it not winning anyone over here. If you were truly doing the work of SETI then you would be following the evidence to conclusions rather than starting with a conclusion and working back. You would also propose a mechanism, just as SETI is doing. Do you think they are looking for messages created ex nihilo? Of course not, they are using their understanding of the laws of physics and the possible manipulations thereof in order to be able to communicate. That's a mechanism - you're entire mechanism is "Natural selection can't do it, therefore God"
I'm not buying your inability to propose a mechanism, because of those 5 points listed above. And despite your best efforts to argue that you don't need to do any of those, I'm not an idiot and I'm not buying your lame excuses. You don't have a case, if you did you'd be striving to actually do the science that demonstrates your case. But instead you just continue with your illogical (1) nothing explanation (2) based on your misunderstanding of natural processes (3) in order to play a game of definitions (4).
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 8, 2009 10:52 AM
So, you see, this whole "who made the designer" argument is just a red herring that adds nothing to such conversations.
Congratulations, Sean. You've just dismissed 2,500 years of Buddhist philosophy.
Each time I come back to this thread, I think, "Surely they've finished with him by now." Yet here you all are! The mere fact that he blathers on about "human-level intelligence", as though he's hoping somehow to sneak God in the back door, is enough to cause me to dismiss him. Why are you all even bothering with him? You know you aren't going to pierce that Kevlar shield of denial.
Posted by: raven | September 8, 2009 10:55 AM
Sean's mechanism is god and jesus. He is a presuppositionalist creationist.
His model starts out assuming that all genomes were perfect 6,000 years ago. Then a talking snake in Eden convinced 2 humans to eat an apple.
All genomes on the earth are running downhill, deteriorating, which doesn't matter because the Rapture is imminent.
This isn't science, it is cult religion. That is why any attempts to understand what he is explaining are doomed to failure. Have fun trying but don't expect much.
Sean, drop the human level intelligence bafflegab. Human level intelligences don't perform miracles, create universes, or kill off entire planetary biospheres with miles deep layers of water.* Besides the Dishonesty Institute and IDists like wacko Dembski have given it up. They aren't even trying to pretend that they aren't Xian Dominionist Death Cultists or that ID is anything but creationism with a sheet over it.
*Yet. Who knows where science will be 10,000 years from now? We could easily be spreading through the galaxy terraforming planets. Or we could have played at all out nuclear war and be riding bicycles around because some previous civilization used up all the fossil fuels.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 11:00 AM
Kel @ #675...
Really... that was game, set and match.
I see no way Pitman gets around the points you made... but my guess is he will continue his efforts of mis-directed analogies, mis-representation and mis-understanding the process of natural selection, evading the points he can not argue against, and twisting the arguments he can.
Kel, you've pretty much destroyed Pitman's arguments / pre-suppositional assertions with that post, and I can't see giving Pitman much more of a forum here if he can't honestly dispute all of the points you've made.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 11:01 AM
Yawn, Sean can only hide behind his verbal salad, which says nothing by the end of the day. Be scientific Sean, and publish your methodology and data in the peer reviewed literature. Unless, of course, you know it is a pile and crock. But, if that is the case, why can't you just go away?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 11:05 AM
Re: Comments by Knockgoats #653:
The odds that a random combination of functional domains will hit upon a qualitatively novel beneficial system at a higher minimum structural threshold requirement is essentially the same as the odds that a point mutation will hit upon such an island. There simply is no statistical advantage to starting with functional domains or even entire protein-based systems.
As I've already noted in this thread, you need to consider the following paper:
Yan Cui, Wing Hung Wong, Erich Bornberg-Bauer, Hue Sun Chan, Recombinatoric exploration of novel folded structures: A heteropolymer-based model of protein evolutionary landscapes., PNAS, Vol. 99, Issue 2, 809-814, January 22, 2002.
The end of the Cui paper shows that the benefit provided by nonhomologous recombinations of pre-existing domains decreases as the ruggedness (noted as "α" in the figures) of the fitness landscape increases; and a very rugged landscape provides only marginal benefit compared to a less rugged landscape. The concept of "ruggedness" is a situation where the edges of the beneficial islands are sharply defined and are widely separated compared to more gently sloping and more closely spaced islands in sequence space.
So, while there is indeed a statistical advantage to multicharacter mutations, to include crossover mutations as well as cut-and-paste mutations, when it comes to finding novel beneficial islands in sequence space (over point mutations), this advantage becomes dramatically less and less significant at higher and higher levels of functional complexity. Consider that in the Cui paper, the maximum size of protein sequences considered was only 18aa. Obviously, the density of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences and/or structures at this very low level is going to be exponentially greater compared to 1000aa sequence space when considering systems that require at least a fair degree of specificity (as defined above).
Also, while Cui et al say there is a "significant" difference between point mutations and crossovers, it seems that crossovers are only about twice as good as point mutations, even when the landscape is minimally rugged, for finding novel viable structures.
And, as it turns out, the fitness landscape of sequence space gets linearly more and more "rugged" with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. So, the problem of generating novel viable protein-based systems remains just as stark as ever - regardless of if one is considering point mutations or multicharacter mutations of any kind.
So, it seems that rugged (functionally "quantized") landscapes are crippling for both point mutations and non-homologous crossover or "multicharacter" mutations - to essentially the same degree beyond a certain level of landscape "ruggedness". The reason is that a large step, like non-homologous crossover, is far more likely to produce a non-folding, nonfunctional sequence than to a stably folding, functional one.
What I suspect is happening is that requirements for stable folding are becoming so stringent that the probabilities are just too low for recombination to do any good. In other words, perhaps one or more of the needed parental sequences are not present, or the probability is just too small that the correct two will recombine in precisely the right way to produce a functional daughter sequence. The fact that the folding requirements on proteins are indeed very stringent is well supported in the literature - as is the concept that with each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity of the systems in question the rarity of viable sequences increases exponentially as well.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 11:07 AM
Surely he's got some rationality. After all, he's only dismissing natural selection. It's not like he's dismissing that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and saying that the universe is young. After all, we have seen light from galaxies 13.2 billion light years away. If the universe were any younger, we just would not see it. Just as the rate of hydrogen into helium in the sun and the nuclear decay of meteorites age the solar system to a tad under 4.6 billion years. No way would he be promoting such nonsense that it's all just 6000 years old. Just as he wouldn't be dismissing the fossil record off-hand or waving away the precise genetic markers in the genomes of all animals. That would be the complete opposite of explaining the evidence. Any conjecture of such a recent designer as stated in the Bible would be falsified without so much as having to speak of natural selection...No, I give MD here some credit. He's fully accepting of science. Just not natural selection. Because if he was just using natural selection as a wedge to overthrow all science that disagrees with his holy book, then that would make him intellectually dishonest. What's next, is he using "at least as intelligent as humans" as a mask for hiding an alleged omnipotent entity? Preposterous! I won't have you smearing MD's good name. After all, MD doesn't stand for Moronic Douche...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 11:12 AM
Yawn, Sean, you are boring. And utterly incapable of supplying a scientific argument. Your verbal salad is inane, and trying to ding science and evolution is meaningless. You have not demonstrated, only alleged, evidence for your ideas (they aren't even hypotheses). So far, you are still batting 0.000.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 11:21 AM
Pitman
.Sigh... More pre-supposed assertions made by starting with a conclusion and working backwards. Show your peer-reviewed work, Sean...
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 11:22 AM
:) I'm really bad at receiving compliments Agreed. We'll hear the same lame apologetics again , his astounding level of justification for not actually saying anything. I fully agree with you, he has to keep misunderstanding natural selection. Because the glaringly obvious logical flaw of his argument, he needs evolution to be false in order to justify it to himself. You're right, I've put way too much time and effort into refuting him already. If he was genuine I wouldn't feel like there's been some progress. But the fact that he's using such bad logic as the centrality of his argument and not even trying to rectify that suggests that nothing anyone says would get through to him. If he comes back and says something actually worthwhile, something that shows he's willing to engage in more than apologetics, then I'd be more than happy to keep going.Two simple questions and all I get back is a long treatise trying to avoid answering them. He has a conclusion and is looking for justifications, if he doesn't understand the important of mechanisms in the scientific process then he doesn't understand the scientific process and will never break away from sophistry. Keep playing your game of definitions Moronic Douche, maybe you'll find a credulous audience looking to justify a similar belief to your own. Me? I'd prefer to figure out the universe for what it is as what I desire it to be. *checks* Still no Scully in my bed, I suppose it's back to reality...
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 11:22 AM
Re: Drosera #654:
The level of activity say, of a lactase enzyme, can be determined for a given degree of temperature, viscosity, etc. This particular enzyme can also be compared to other lactase enzymes at various parameters that reasonably approximate likely biologically relevant environments - which isn't that hard to do.
In short, it isn't that difficult to get a pretty good idea of the minimum structural threshold requirement for useful lactase activity for a particular bacterial colony within the whole range of conceivable environmental parameters.
Not at all. Just because each type of beneficial system does in fact have a minimum structural threshold requirement doesn't mean that it has to be evolved from scratch. The Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS never starts from scratch. It always starts with what already exists preformed within the gene pool of options - which is a far cry from a scrap yard starting point.
Oh really? Ok, please do explain to me the statistical likelihood of evolving any qualitatively novel beneficial system which requires a minimum of more than 1000 fsaars. What are the odds? What is the likelihood? How much time would be needed, on average? Do you have any idea? If not, upon what do you base your argument that such levels of success are remotely likely for your mechanism?
Of course evolution uses what is already there - when it works that is. Your problem is that you think the steppingstones between lower and higher levels systems are clearly close enough together in sequence space for RMs to cross over in a reasonable amount of time. You refer to these steps as "feasible". That's a very subjective term. Care to define, statistically, just how feasible these steps are? If you do, you will be the very first in all of literature because the steps simply are not feasible at all, statistically, outside of a very vivid imagination.
Could be. As far as the basic ID hypothesis is concerned, the actual identity of the intelligent agent(s) isn't important beyond the fact that at least human-level intelligence was required.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 11:27 AM
Re: Dania #656:
Ask SETI scientists how the ETI would produce artificial radio signals? There are many different ways to do it via ID. There are no known ways that it could likely be done via non-deliberate forces of nature.
That's the point. You don't have to know exactly how it was done, only how it could have been done with a mechanism that would actually have worked.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 11:34 AM
Wow... it took a pretty vivid imagination to have made that statement, Sean... do you understand the definition of "feasible" vs. "probable" or "likely"? Can you point to any observable, testable, falsifiable mechanisms that would be statistically more likely?
Hint: you'll need to provide evidence for the existence of such a mechanism before proposing it... (and round the carousel we go again)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 11:40 AM
What an ignoramous. ETI would send radio signals just like we do. They don't need an imaginary deity to design it for them, or the run it for them. Just like we don't. Your god (designer) doesn't exist as there is no conclusive evidence for one. The evidence your aren't presenting here is not sufficient either. Because you have asserted but not presented any. You are stuck with your presuppositions, which are false.Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 11:46 AM
The odds that a random combination of functional domains will hit upon a qualitatively novel beneficial system at a higher minimum structural threshold requirement is essentially the same as the odds that a point mutation will hit upon such an island. As I've already noted in this thread, you need to consider the following paper:
Yan Cui, Wing Hung Wong, Erich Bornberg-Bauer, Hue Sun Chan, Recombinatoric exploration of novel folded structures: A heteropolymer-based model of protein evolutionary landscapes., PNAS, Vol. 99, Issue 2, 809-814, January 22, 2002. - Sean Pitman M.D.
Here is an extract from your Cui et al citation's conclusion:
"We have presented a simple structure-based study of evolution.
Notwithstanding the present model’s extreme simplicity,
protein-like features such as autonomous folding units arise
naturally from its minimalist construct. Segment analyses suggest
that crossovers can be a much more effective means to explore
new viable sequences than one might have hitherto posited, and
nonhomologous recombination is seen as an efficient tool of
structural innovation."
They also say, just before the conclusion:
"When the landscape is rugged, the number of
sequences explored by point mutations alone is comparable to
that explored by point mutations plus crossovers. This is because
point mutations are more effective in finding a low-mortality
area from an already well populated spot nearby, whereas when
the landscape is rugged many crossover offspring are likely to
end up at high-mortality spots. Even so, Fig. 6B shows the
remarkable result that structural innovation is still enhanced by
crossovers at high ␣ values. This result implies that when the
average selection gradient is high, acting in concert with point
mutations, crossovers can make more efficient use of their
offspring sequences to achieve a higher structural diversity than
a comparable number of sequences explored by point mutations
alone."
So, their findings are the precise opposite of your claim.
When the papers you cite clearly undermine your case, it's time to stop digging the hole you're in, Sean old M.D..
(I note in passing that the paper is not directly relevant to the argument I was making, which concerned the larger-scale structure of proteins as sequences of functional domains.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 8, 2009 11:52 AM
Not just "when it evolves in real time".
What? You are the one whose argument implicitly assumes that only insertions happen. I brought up substitutions!
You're misunderstanding me. (Why am I not surprised.)
Excluding synonymous mutations (you know, those between different codons for the same amino acid), the fitness landscape is not flat. It consists of deep pits and high mountains.
Now, you forgot to take two things into account:
1) Not only the very tops of the mountains are viable. To get from one mountain to another, it's enough to hit that other mountain at all; you don't need to land at the very top. Natural selection will take you closer to the top later.
2) Gene duplication. This common event makes two redundant copies of one gene. It's enough if one of the copies stays on a mountain. The other is free to mutate all the way down into a valley without impacting the fitness of the organism – and if it's in a valley, it can traverse it, till it happens to find itself on the next mountain above the viability line!
It even occurs that the whole genome is duplicated. We ordinary jawed vertebrates have 2 such duplications in our history, teleost fishes have a third; the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but not Schizosaccharomyces pombe, also has one in its recent history, and so on. This creates lots and lots of pseudogenes, sure, but some walk through the valley of death and ascend the hill on the other side…
3) Alternative splicing and provirus excision errors leading to domain shuffling, see comment 653.
These are among the reasons why your 1000 fsaar limit is easily recognizable as fictitious.
"Life will find a way."
– Jurassic Park
Sorry, I don't mean to imply that. I usually try to write a single reply to everything on the entire thread that has happened since I last visited, because that already takes long enough!
Besides, what's really important is what I'm replying to (which is why I always quote that). Who wrote the stuff I'm replying to doesn't actually matter. Sure, I try to get that right when I write a paper, so people can trace it to the original publication, but in a blog? What for? Science isn't about the people who do it. I'm not replying to people, I'm replying to ideas.
Incidentally, this is also why it's so close to irrelevant who any of us is (and why so many of us use nicknames or pseudonyms even if they have professorships to brag about). For the record, I'm using my real name, and you can find me in Google Scholar if you're curious, but none of that matters; what matters is whether what I write is demonstrably wrong.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Bingo! We have a winner.
Dr Pitman, please make sure you read and understand the whole thing.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 11:59 AM
Re: Kel #662:
Of course evolution isn't trying to reach a specific target. However, it is "trying" to reach targets. If it doesn't reach any target at all, functional evolution doesn't happen - period.
So, the question is, what are the odds of reaching at least one of many possible targets? - at various levels of minimum target structural threshold requirements?
That's the real question here. And, surprise surprise, the odds of hitting higher level targets isn't the same as the odds of hitting lower level targets via random searches.
Yet, those like Kel and Redhead keep swearing and using the usual pejoratives instead of actually dealing with this very obvious statistical problem...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 12:03 PM
Janine, you're right. We don't know if he's handy with a scalpel.
Hey Sean, I hope you have malpractice insurance. God has a bad reputation as a vexatious litigant.
It's true, I heard it in the book of Judges.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 12:06 PM
Re: Janine #666:
Hey, give me a break why don'tcha? There's only one of me and many of you guys.
It just so happens that Alan B was right. He picked up a couple of typos and other minor mistakes - for which I'm very appreciative ; )
Wowbagger's analogy, on the other hand, wasn't even close...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Josh
|
September 8, 2009 12:17 PM
The SETI folks are trying to find evidence that there is ETI.
What it appears that you're doing is more akin to: assuming that ETI is there because you see it as a better explanation for the non-functional eyes of blind cave fish than NS because you have probability concerns regarding NS.
How is this the same thing?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 12:18 PM
What statistical problem? You have alleged this problem, but you have not presented the data in a transparent manner for your allegation to be confirmed. That is your problem, and why you must publish your methodology and data in the peer reviewed literature first. Which you fail to do, in place of arguing futilely with us. Until you do so, your allegations are considered false by parsimony. Welcome to real science. Evolution does just fine without your imaginary designer. And without your approval. Oh, and with natural selection taking place, your whole argument falls apart, as the beneficial is selected for. That is the real science. You can't admit that, since it would mean your designer is need and/or doesn't exist. Doesn't exist is right.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 8, 2009 12:26 PM
Wrong.
Land anywhere in the fitness landscape. If the place you happened to land on is at all viable, mutation and natural selection will pull you all the way to the top of the mountain you're on (not in a straight path, but still) – and there it will stay as long as the mountaintop remains a mountaintop (environments change – a lot of geology is going on in fitness landscapes).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Are you sure? There are several points that he has shut up about. Note the complete lack of any response to, say, comment 440 – I interpret that as agreement. B-)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Don't you see that this falsifies your entire 1000 fsaar argument? Because… that argument does start at the scrapyard. It assumes that every single of those 1000 fsaar must be the result of a mutation. And that's simply not the case.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 12:35 PM
Re: David Marjanović #690:
My argument takes into account all forms of mutations - to include substitutions.
You're misunderstanding me. (Why am I not surprised.)
Excluding synonymous mutations (you know, those between different codons for the same amino acid), the fitness landscape is not flat. It consists of deep pits and high mountains.
For a given level of functional complexity, the majority of sequence space is comprised of deep pits or flat areas. Very few areas are comprised of mountains or increasing slopes. And, the rarity of these islands or mountains increases exponentially with each increase of functional complexity. That's the entire problem.
This is correct. This is what I've been saying all along. The whole goal is to hit just the edge of the island or "mountain" as you call it. The top of the mountain isn't the goal. Hitting the island anywhere, anywhere at all, is the goal. After the edge of the island is discovered, getting to the top of the mountain is easy for RM/NS.
Posted by: Walton | September 8, 2009 12:36 PM
strange gods, I've replied to you over on the Texan thread.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 12:43 PM
Re: David Marjanović #690:
My argument takes into account all forms of mutations - to include substitutions.
For a given level of functional complexity, the majority of sequence space is comprised of deep pits or flat areas. Very few areas are comprised of mountains or increasing slopes. And, the rarity of these islands or mountains increases exponentially with each increase of functional complexity. That's the entire problem.
This is correct. This is what I've been saying all along. The whole goal is to hit just the edge of the island or "mountain" as you call it. The top of the mountain isn't the goal. Hitting the island anywhere, anywhere at all, is the goal. After the edge of the island is discovered, getting to the top of the mountain is easy for RM/NS.
All this does is make another sequence able to perform a random walk into sequence space along a flat functionally neutral surface until, until another island edge is detected. Only at this point will the directive force of NS be able to enter the picture.
The problem, again, is that the odds of success depend upon the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space. The number of beneficial sequences includes those sequences that are only a little bit beneficial (i.e., those sequences at the base of the mountain). However, slightly beneficial they may be, they are included in the number of beneficial sequences. Still, the number of beneficial sequences is dwarfed by the number of neutral or detrimental sequences. And, this very small ratio is made exponentially smaller and smaller with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
Again, all duplications do is make more of the same thing - more random walkers. You think this might help, and it does a tiny little bit, but not to any significant degree. All it does is increase the population of random walkers. This population has an upper limit. In order to keep up with the exponentially decreasing odds, you'd have to increase the number of random walkers exponentially. That simply isn't feasible beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level. Why not? Because, in order to keep up with the odds and make the mechanism of RM/NS likely to achieve success at this level and beyond, in a reasonable amount if time, you'd have to have a gene pool the size of all the atoms in many universes.
Not beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity it won't. Again I ask you, what are the odds? - Do you have even a rough idea? Or, are these bald assertions of blind faith the very best you have?
Then why use my name is association with ideas that I have nothing to do with? There is an implication there, regardless of if you intended it or not...
Allen Orr's review does not consider the problem of the exponentially expanding non-beneficial gaps at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 8, 2009 12:49 PM
Sean says, "Yet, those like Kel and Redhead keep swearing and using the usual pejoratives instead of actually dealing with this very obvious statistical problem..."
Actuall, Sean, you are the one who has a statistical problem--and it's the way you are approaching the statistics. All metrics we can use to decide between two theories or hypotheses are comparative--and yet you are only concerning yourself with the probability according to one model and assuming the design model has probability 1. However, your "design" model posits the existence of an "intelligent agent" that is unobserved and for which we have no evidence. How are we to assign a probability for the existence of such an agent? Are they living critters based on carbon and DNA like you and me? Angels? Deities? Seems to me that until you can present evidence upon which we can base a probability, your hypothesis is a nonstarter.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 1:01 PM
Re: Knockgoats #689:
Not when the sequence space is "rugged". The more "rugged" the sequence space, the more and more equivalent the odds of success of a crossover mutation with a point mutation.
Increased ruggedness can be produced by a more widely separated distance between the edge of one island and its next closest neighboring island. As this distance increases, the odds of success of a crossover mutation are essentially the same as a random point mutation.
Consider also that the "significant" advantage gained by crossover mutations in 18aa sequence space with low ruggedness was only double that of point mutations.
I can't help it if you aren't understanding the basic concept of the paper and how it applies to sequences spaces with greater and greater "ruggedness" or separation of rarer and rare islands in sequence space.
But is is quite relevant. You are arguing, basically, that starting with larger proteins made up of functional domains that it is quite easy to combine these domains in various ways so as to produce higher levels of functional complexity in relatively short order. Well, this paper and others like it show that combinations or substitutions of pre-existing proteins and domains are far far more likely to be non-viable and unstable much less beneficial combinations.
The odds of success, again, are not significantly greater than point mutations at higher levels of functional complexity due to the exponentially expanding non-beneficial gap problem...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 1:07 PM
Again, all allegations with no supporting evidence by Sean. He is wasting his posts rather than showing how smart he is by citing the peer reviewed literature. You aren't doing science Sean, you are doing religion. We know that. And we will not accept your inane testament. You need to acknowledge that. Your god doesn't exist, and science doesn't need it anyway, which is your problem.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 8, 2009 1:16 PM
Re: David Marjanović #696:
It doesn't start with a scrapyard because it assumes that no novel 1000aa system needs to be built from scratch (i.e., a completely random sequence). It assumes that the actually Hamming gap distance is much shorter than 1000 differences.
The likely distance between something that already exists within a genome a the next closest potentially beneficial 1000 fsaar sequence is only 50 or so fairly specified residues differences.
Beyond this, you comment that my assumption is wrong that every single novel system of function can only be produced by a mutation. You say that this is "simply not the case". Well, let me ask you, if you don't have a particular type of functional system in a given genome, how on Earth do you get it there without a mutation of some kind?
Now, don't come back with some sort of argument about horizontal transfer by plasmids and the like. Horizontal transfer is not the evolution of something truly new within the overall pool of options. It is simply the transfer of something that was pre-formed somewhere else.
This particular topic is about how to produce truly new stuff at higher and higher levels of functional complexity via RM/NS.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Dania
|
September 8, 2009 1:20 PM
If asked, they could at least propose a mechanism. They know it's possible to produce artificial radio signals. They know how to do it. SETI scientists simply assume that other extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations (if they exist) could have discovered how to do it, just like we did.
How is this analogous to ID?
I'm not asking for the exact mechanism. I'm asking you to propose a possible (and falsifiable) mechanism that explains better the facts that the ToE currently explains. Can you do it?
Posted by: Dania
|
September 8, 2009 1:36 PM
If minor mistakes were your only problem...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Still no evidence produced by Sean. You don't get it Sean, your testament isn't evidence. Your web site isn't evidence. So all you have is your verbal salad, which proves nothing in and of itself. That is why you need to take the step of attempting to publish your methodology and results in the peer reviwed scientific literature. If you are simply unable do so, because you know your methods are unscientific, just admit it and go away. Or just write and submit the paper. You can keep firing your blanks at the edifice of evolution. You aren't disturbing it, or our confidence in science and the scientific method one iota. We are laughing at your futile efforts.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 1:38 PM
Pitman's been asked this several times and has thus far evaded the quesiton (I asked him this question at #687 also). He wants to use statistic probability to throw out natural selection and thus the ToE in general, by asserting the the probabilities are so low... however when pressed to identify a mechanism that provides a better explanation, one that doesn't pre-suppose an unobservable, untestable, un-falsifiable magical entity as designer, he falls silent, and reverts to sputtering out piss-poor analogies like SETI and forensics.
So just answer the question, Sean... can you provide a mechanism that is statistically more likely than natural selection? One that is observable, testable, and falsifiable?
Posted by: Josh
|
September 8, 2009 1:47 PM
It's also got to be predictive and explain the observations that we see.
You know, things like:
How does ID explain the non-functional eyes of blind cave fish better than the ToE does?
How does ID explain the morphological changes seen over time in the planktonic diatom Rhizosolenia better than the ToE does?
How does ID explain the morphological changes seen over time in derived theropod dinosaurs better than the ToE does?
etc.
etc.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 1:55 PM
Josh at #708
Agreed... and agree with everything you followed that with... but without the ability to even observe or test the mechanism, its predictive capabilities are merely a matter of conjecture... so I guess I felt it superfluous to include it.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 8, 2009 2:30 PM
Shit...that's an excellent point. Okay, let's let that stand as superfluous.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 2:36 PM
Well, keep it in your hip pocket, because we will need to bring it back out if such a mechanism is in fact proposed...
The important part is that to this point, the question stands unanswered, as I suspect it will remain.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 2:59 PM
I can't help it if you aren't understanding the basic concept of the paper and how it applies to sequences spaces with greater and greater "ruggedness" or separation of rarer and rare islands in sequence space. - Sean Pitman M.D.
I couldn't have put it better myself, Sean. If you take the trouble to use google scholar to check out papers that refer to Cui et al, I think you will find that they agree with my interpretation. For example, in this review article, (50) is the Cui paper:
More than the sum of their parts:
on the evolution of proteins
from peptides
̈
Johannes Soding and Andrei N. Lupas
BioEssays 25:837–846, 2003
"At the protein level,
theoretical studies have shown that shuffling of subdomain-
sized modules can vastly accelerate the evolution of folded
structures.(50,51) An experimental study designed to test the
efficiency with which folded proteins could be obtained by
recombination of heterologous fragments found that the
success rate may be as high as one in 107 events.(52) This
would mean, very roughly, given the enormous variations in
population size, generation time and levels of intracellular
recombination, that a bacterial species would be able to create
hundreds to thousands of new folding proteins a year through
the recombination of heterologous genes (illegitimate recom-
bination). Even though only a very small fraction of these will
become established in the population, the cumulative effect
over evolutionary time scales could be substantial."
Note that this refers, correctly, to the Cui paper as being concerned with the subdomain level; hence it is not, as I said, directly relevant to the point I was making about recombining domains. This leads to a more general point: evolution of increased complexity has occurred repeatedly through the emergence of new levels of structure, at which combinations of elements from the next lower level are generated and tested. Hence we have peptides, subdomains, domains, proteins, protein complexes - not to mention the regulatory elements of the genome.
I commend to your attention reference 52 from the review paper:
Novel folded protein domains generated
by combinatorial shuffling of
polypeptide segments
Lutz Riechmann* and Greg Winter
10068 –10073 ͉ PNAS ͉ August 29, 2000 ͉ vol. 97 ͉ no. 18
Here's the abstract:
It has been proposed that the architecture of protein domains has
evolved by the combinatorial assembly and͞or exchange of
smaller polypeptide segments. To investigate this proposal, we
fused DNA encoding the N-terminal half of a -barrel domain (from
cold shock protein CspA) with fragmented genomic Escherichia coli
DNA and cloned the repertoire of chimeric polypeptides for display
on filamentous bacteriophage. Phage displaying folded polypep-
tides were selected by proteolysis; in most cases the protease-
resistant chimeric polypeptides comprised genomic segments in
their natural reading frames. Although the genomic segments
appeared to have no sequence homologies with CspA, one of the
originating proteins had the same fold as CspA, but another had a
different fold. Four of the chimeric proteins were expressed as
soluble polypeptides; they formed monomers and exhibited coop-
erative unfolding. Indeed, one of the chimeric proteins contained
a set of very slowly exchanging amides and proved more stable
than CspA itself. These results indicate that native-like proteins can be generated directly by combinatorial segment assembly from
nonhomologous proteins, with implications for theories of the
evolution of new protein folds, as well as providing a means of
creating novel domains and architectures in vitro.
Direct experimental evidnece that at the subdomain level you're talking through an orifice most people reserve for the elimination of solid waste.
Posted by: Trip the Space Parasite | September 8, 2009 3:16 PM
Kel (@ #659),
My comment as written wasn't as clear as it sounded in my head?! Surely that could never happen on the Internet!
Anyway, I think we're on the same page (while Pitman is standing outside the library with an empty gasoline can, a waterlogged matchbook, and a great failure to understand the difference between "perfectly neutral" and "nearly neutral").
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 3:20 PM
Ha! That appears in your comment on my computer as "andor," but when I pasted it into the comment box to ask you about it (didn't think you would try any funny business in a quotation :P) a strange horizontal line appeared between them at the top. I wonder how it'll show up in this comment...
:)
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 8, 2009 3:29 PM
Josh et al.,
Actually, I think predictive power is critical, as it measures the information content of the theory. ID has none. It can at most explain observations post facto. That is why IDiots like Sean are reduced to constructing straw-man models of evolution that cannot explain observed facts. Not much, but it's all they have.
Posted by: Stanton | September 8, 2009 3:41 PM
So are you saying that Lenski's citrate metabolizing Escheria coli, or nylonase-secreting bacteria, or the observed diversification of apple maggot flies are not examples of evolution?So are you also saying that no one ever wins at games of chance, like poker, go fish, or bingo? It does not occur to you that the reason why Kel and Nerd of Redhead use explitives is because you have steadfast refused to propose an alternative mechanism beyond repeated misrepresentation of SETI, and blatant prosletyzing.
...
Furthermore, Sean Pittman, please produce and explain, in detail, an alternative mechanism that detects design and refutes evolutionary biology or please go away
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 3:57 PM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space #715
I don't disagree... I was just sort of explaining to Josh my thought process in not including that criteria... I wouldn't call you wrong for insisting upon it... I have just seen ID proponents try to reason that ID does have predictive capabilities (mainly biblical assertions twisted around and re-interpreted to fit existing conclusions), but what it does not have is any way to test, observe, or falsify any mechanism behind ID. So I tend hold on to the "predictive powers" part as a follow up to any proposed mechanism, specific to that mechanism. Again, just a personal preference, and you are quite correct in what you stated.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 4:22 PM
Note: "one in 107 events" should be "one in 10^7 events" in the extract from Soding and Lupas I quote @712. The perils of copying and pasting!
Posted by: Zarquon | September 8, 2009 4:28 PM
Hey Pittman, if you can't be honest about science, why would anyone believe what you say about your god?
Posted by: Drosera | September 8, 2009 4:58 PM
Sean @685,
On the contrary, this is enormously difficult. By your own definition of functional complexity you would have to examine all possible proteins and sets of proteins that (when combined) are shorter than a lactase molecule, to find out if they could perform the same function. And this under a nearly infinite number of environmental parameter combinations. Ever heard of NP-complete problems? This is probably even worse.
Your other responses to me have already been answered morethan adequately by various posters (thanks).
You keep asking how evolutiuon could come up with a system of 1000 fsaar complexity. I will just pretend that this question is well-defined. Well, how about this:
0, 5, 13, 22, ..., 997, 1000 ?
You will probably say that this is impossible. Proof it. And, echoing Nerd of Redhead, publish your proof in the peer reviewed literature.
Posted by: Josh | September 8, 2009 5:40 PM
Or heck, just give a paper at a technical conference. They happen all the time*; there is pretty much always some abstract deadline approaching somewhere. I've attended creationist talks at several conferences. With the Geological Society of America at least, if you submit a solid abstract, it will get accepted. We obviously don't view conference abstracts in the light that we see peer-reviewed articles, but abstract citations get more respect than websites (or often...books).
*This comment isn't meant to be insulting (indeed, as a medical professional, I'm sure you know this*) ; it just seems germane to throw it out there as a reminder at this point in the discussion.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 8, 2009 5:44 PM
Damn preview. That first sentence should have read:
Posted by: raven | September 8, 2009 5:57 PM
The sequence constraints on functional proteins isn't all that much. We've been able to evolve enzymes routinely. Antibodies are produced by mutations followed by selection, a close analog of evolution. It is routine to make completely novel proteins that are enzymes by what is essentially evolution.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 6:11 PM
Gah, SIWOTI!
Two things:1. I keep swearing? Do you only see the insults and not the huge amounts of substance I posted? Is all you see "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Moronic Douche" OMFSM he's so mean... I've written post after post full of substance, most of which you've ignored and the rest you've written lame apologetics as to why my points don't apply to you. I'm fucking sick of your evasive tactics, I've tried using reason with you, hell I'm still trying to use reason with you. But I've got to the stage where I'm throwing ridicule in because you are so lost inside your idealism that you won't listen to reason. Again I stress that your entire case is based on a logical fallacy, I've pointed this out several times to you and all you can do is talk about SETI - which you conveniently forget that SETI search for signals based on known mechanisms while you are justifying a conclusion in the absence of a mechanism.
2. I've answered the "statistical improbability" several times already, and you haven't bothered to actually have a discussion on what I said. Rather you keep going on about search spaces. I've mentioned that you're looking at the algorithm all wrong several times and given justification of the process. I used the word "contingency" which if you actually knew anything about modern evolutionary theory then you should have come across it. My point? Mutation / selection happens anyway, play the process a few trillion times and something will happen. There's no guarantee that anything will be actually reached (after all, for more than 2 billion years life was unicellular) but to look at what is reached is absurd. Going from point A to B? Evolution doesn't do that. But I explained that above a few times, #659 being an example.
In fact I'll quote from #659:
As long as there is a path from A to B, even brute force would get you there. But brute force is an incredibly slow, and the biggest the search space increases the complexity by a factorial! [I assume that you're familiar with Big-O Notation]
It's important to remember that the process has no goal, but the environment has selection factors that help with survival and reproduction. [] Yet there are no goals, only what is advantageous or neutral. The end result is looking like what navigates an improbable search path in an extraordinary small number of steps - it has the illusion of a best-first search.
But what Moronic Douche here keeps doing wrong is looking at the end product and working out the improbability of each step instead of looking at the process in action. Each step of the way the process works - a few survive while the vast majority die off. Repeat a few trillion times and you're bound to have massive diversity and wildly different end points from the starting point. It wouldn't be brute force, as at each point only what survives continues in the process.
To look at it as a search space is all wrong, evolution is not a process to get from A to B. It to us looks like it gets from A to B because we are looking at the end product. We are seeing things at B. But really B is just the current iteration of the process of survival. What helps an organism survives gets carried on, what hinders it doesn't. It's really not that hard to understand, but when your entire argument rests on the process being wrong as it does for Moronic Douche here, then of course you're going to use any justification you can to demonstrate it to be fallacious - in this case come up with some ridiculous notion called functional complexity and say it can't be achieved by mutation and selection alone. That's what happens when you put goals in that simply aren't there...
I've written my full objections to your argument and style at #675. I couldn't care less if you were the most polite and nicest person I've ever come across, you're argument is demonstratively invalid and I find your complete unwillingness to even acknowledge the logical flaw (let alone your apologetic justification of it) incredibly intellectually dishonest. This I feel as I have laid out several times above is that your entire justification for your beliefs hinge on this flaw so you can't let it go. Though based on your complete inability to understand reason, I'll change Moronic Douche to the more appropriate Mentally Deficient.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 8, 2009 6:28 PM
"Allen Orr's review does not consider the problem of the exponentially expanding non-beneficial gaps at higher and higher levels of functional complexity."
You haven't shown with any research or evidence that there is a problem. You just assert that there is. There is no problem.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 6:35 PM
It also just occurred that he's using misdirection to avoid the problems that I've brought up with his argument. I've explained how evolution can create generate what is statistically improbable, but of course Mentally Deficient here won't actually recognise it because he's playing a game of definitions.This is what happens when you put the cart before the horse, start with the conclusion and you'll never get anywhere. Of course when you're religious and have a presupposition to protect...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 6:42 PM
Poor Sean appears to be like HMB. He has a very low tolerance for anybody to call a spade a spade. He needs his fainting couch. I have made fun of his ideas, but the only personal insult was ignoramus, after he repeated his inane and stupid SETI connect, after the connection had been thoroughly demolished. You were not smart to repeat such blather Sean. You did something non-intelligent and non-cogent, and got called on it, like you should have. Guess what. By internet standards I was positively polite. You need to grow a pair if you attempt to force your IDiot ideas onto a site where you cannot expect a warm reception. That's called being a man.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 8, 2009 6:44 PM
What, a cdesign proponentsist being intellectually dishonest?
That's impossible...
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 9, 2009 4:00 AM
One last thing (this will be the last I swear, damn SIWOTI). Sean Pitman, may you one day see that it's not turtles all the way down ;)
Posted by: 386sx | September 9, 2009 4:02 AM
IDioligist has amazing grasp of probabilities, but won't predict any experiments with them, news at 11:00...
Other shocking news... grass is green, fish breathe under water...
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 9, 2009 4:51 AM
DonExodus2 just released an excellent video explaining explaining why the science points to evolution.
Well worth watching, even if it is just covering basics.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 5:06 AM
My analogy was spot on. You're citing a high level of improbability as an argument for why something can't happen; I showed that because something is highly improbable doesn't mean it can't happen.
Posted by: Stanton | September 9, 2009 8:36 AM
Well, do realize we're dealing with a person who thinks that it is physically impossible for anyone to win at any games of chance, like poker, or bingo, ever.Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 9, 2009 11:01 AM
Re: Stanton and Wowbagger #773:
Is this a joke?
It is also possible to win the California Lottery ten times in a row. But, just because something is possible doesn't make it likely this side of a practical eternity of time.
Science is based on determining likelihoods. Everything is possible, not everything is likely...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 9, 2009 11:59 AM
Re: Raven #723:
As I've noted for you already, the constraints on functional proteins is different depending upon the type of functionality. Not all functionalities are equal with regard to their minimum constraint requirements.
While novel enzymes have indeed been evolved, none of these have ever required more than a few hundred fairly constrained amino acid residue positions at minimum.
Regarding antibiodies, they are indeed modified in their binding capabilities to specific antigen sequences via sequential template matching evolution. This form of evolution happens to follow Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" scenario and is therefore very easy to achieve a high level of template matching in a very short order.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/immunesystem.html
This does not explain how to build systems like a rotary flagellar motility system which require far more than 1000 fsaars at minimum and which cannot be built via template matching.
Your extrapolations from very low-level examples to higher level systems is not based on any sort of actual statistical analysis much less demonstration. It is based on nothing but bravado and just-so story telling.
You baldly assert that it is easy to get homologous systems that already exist within a system to simply link up just right to produce higher and higher level systems of functional complexity. If so, where are your examples beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity? If it so easy to get such linkups to happen, why isn't there even one example of it actually happening in real time. Surely you know of some 1000aa+ system (to include multi-protein systems) linking up with some other system to produce something qualitatively new? Which wasn't already there in the genome before? In real time?
The fact of the matter is that your assumptions that the homologies are homologous enough isn't accurate. The homologies aren't the problem. The problem is the necessary differences before the next higher level of qualitatively novel functionality can be achieved. These minimum required differences or changes to what already exists increases with each increase in the level of functional complexity.
Take, for example, some of the steppingstones suggested in the flagellar evolution pathway. Let's say, for example, that somehow an early colony of bacteria was in fact able to evolve a proto-TTSS system and a proto-flagellar filament system where each system was independently functional in some beneficial manner. At this point, Matzke and you would no doubt argue that it would be a very simple thing to simply stick these two systems together to gain flagellar motility - since they are largely homologous to what is needed in the next step up the flagellar evolution ladder.
Matzke suggests that FliG didn't need to evolve with FliF as part of the export apparatus. How is this explained if FliG is currently required for flagellar assembly? If FliG did not evolve with FliF, then wouldn't it need not only to bind strongly to FliF in a manner that overcomes the sheer forces of the spinning FliG, but also in a way that aids in flagellar assembly? Not only does FliG have to bind to FliF, but it also has to have specificity in place for a certain type of filament monomer. I mean, without the flagellin specificity of FliG, the flagellum does not form. When the flagellum is first starting to form in real life, the MS-ring (FliF) and the C-ring (FliG N-term + FliN + FliM) must form first or the flagellum will not form. That seems just a bit hard to explain using evolutionary mechanisms.
Oh, but maybe it would be easier if FliG was already bound to FliF? - If FliG originally evolved with FliF? Then it would already have filament monomer specificity in place and the flagellar filament could already be in place - right? But, how would motA/B bind to FliG in a beneficial manner then? Quite a number of very specific residues have to be aligned just right in order for the proton-motive force of motA/B to be transferred into FliG torque power - and that is in addition to the simple preferential binding of motA/B to FliG + FliF - right?
In short, either way one looks at it there is more that is needed than simple FliF-FliG binding. What good would FliG specificity be for flagellin if it were not bound to FliF first? And, what good would FliG specificity be for motA/B proton-motive force if it were not bound to motA/B first? This specificity would most certainly involve quite a few additional residue position differences starting from the original "proto" forms. And, most likely, these required differences would not be sequentially beneficial in a way where natural selection could guide them along.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Motorizing%20the%20Flagellum
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 9, 2009 12:37 PM
Re: Knockgoats #712:
Of course they do. They are as firm of believers in the mechanism of RM/NS as you are. It is just that their paper deals with very very low level sequence space (just 18aa) and shows a loss of benefit of crossover mutations vs. point mutations with increasing ruggedness - in line what what I've been saying. And, even the benefits that are realized without significant ruggedness are only double. While certainly significant, this extra advantage does nothing to solve the problem of the exponentially expanding non-beneficial gaps at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
Again, the Cui paper is only dealing with 18aa sequence space - a very very low level. 18aa is hardly enough to produce entire protein domains. My point in referencing the Cui paper was to show a loss of advantage of crossover mutations vs. point mutations with increasing ruggedness of sequence space. Why not at least try to address that point and understand the statistical reasons why this is so?
Beyond this, you simply assert that the evolution of increased complexity has occurred repeatedly, but this simply isn't true when it comes to real time examples beyond the 1000aa minimum structural threshold requirement. There simply are no such examples of proteins or protein complexes arising by any sort of crossover or any other sort of mutational event between pre-existing systems or sequences that produce a minimum structural threshold beyond 1000 fsaars - - not one real-time observable example in all of literature.
Of course native-like proteins can be produced via the combination of non-homologous proteins with similar basic structures. But, again, this has not been done with success beyond very low levels of *functional* complexity. The reason, yet again, is that the odds that pre-existing homologies will be homologous enough to link up just right to produce higher level systems is extremely low this side of trillions of years of time.
By the way, try to just deal with the topic instead of getting sidetracked all the time to talk about those bodily functions that seem to fascinate you for some reason...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 9, 2009 12:45 PM
Re: Kel #729:
It's either turtles all the way up or all the way down - one or the other. You think it is turtles all the way up, which is counter to the observed evidence. Useful functional/meaningful informational complexity simply doesn't come from nothing - which is ultimately where you think it came from. Step back, take a deep breath, and think again... for yourself this time.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 12:58 PM
Sean, still no citations. That means you are WRONG. You are the one who needs to step back, and stop acting reflexively. The question you need to ask yourself is this: if you haven't convinced us with your evidenceless allegations to date, what makes you think continuing such evidenceless alleagations is going to convince us of anything? It isn't. We have your number as a liar and bullshitter. You have been soundly refuted by scientific evidence, your are arguing from a religious perspective, which means you cannot even consider that you might be wrong. And your are. You need to change your tack, and that requires you to go away, and then publish your methods and results in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and then come back. Then, and only then, will you have a chance here.
Posted by: Professor Kent | September 9, 2009 1:01 PM
Sean Pitman, haven't you been warned that masterdebating can cause dementia?
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 1:11 PM
They are as firm of believers in the mechanism of RM/NS as you are. - Sean Pitman M.D.
That's because, unlike you, they are not religious dogmatists; and unlike you, they actually understand the relevant science.
Again, the Cui paper is only dealing with 18aa sequence space - a very very low level. 18aa is hardly enough to produce entire protein domains. - Sean Pitman M.D.
I know that, moron. That's why I pointed out that it was not directly relevant to the point I was making about the domain-level structure of proteins.
Beyond this, you simply assert that the evolution of increased complexity has occurred repeatedly, but this simply isn't true when it comes to real time examples beyond the 1000aa minimum structural threshold requirement. - Sean Pitman M.D.
We haven't actually seen fish evolve into tetrapods in the lab either. However, in both cases, we have copious evidence of the process having occurred; and it has left traces which make no sense at all in terms of intelligent design, but which make excellent sense in terms of random mutation and natural selection: in the case of proteins, local, largely neutral changes in the homologous proteins which are consonant with evolutionary history as deduced from other forms of evidence. You have not tried, nor has any so called "ID scientist", to explain such phenomena - because you know very well you can't.
The reason, yet again, is that the odds that pre-existing homologies will be homologous enough to link up just right to produce higher level systems is extremely low this side of trillions of years of time. - Sean Pitman M.D.
More garbage. You continue to ignore the hierarchical structure of the search space, which means your simplistic calculations are an irrelevance. Considerable stretches of an average multidomain protein are "filler", in which the exact sequence is not important. Hence it is not difficult for insertions, deletions and translocations to produce new proteins which have novel combinations of domains, and hence, will have novel functions.
Tell me, Sean Pitman M.D., have you submitted any of your work to peer-reviewed journals? If so, with what result? If not, why not? After all, if you can show that the known mechanisms cannot have produced existing proteins, there's possibly a Nobel prize in it; certainly a paper in Nature: for that at least, you won't have to produce any evidence for ID or any other additional process. As I've pointed out already, real scientists such as Margulis have been able to show that one leap in complexity - from prokaryotes to eukaryotes - did not occur solely by random mutation and natural selection - showing quite clearly that the closed-mindedness you allege does not exist.
By the way, you arrogant arsehole, you don't get to tell me what language I may or may not use. This is not your blog.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 9, 2009 1:34 PM
OK, Sean. Here's a really basic question: Does probability=0 equate to "impossible"?
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 9, 2009 2:54 PM
Step back, take a deep breath, and think again... for yourself this time.
Oh, this is just too rich! And, frankly, I blame you people, for allowing him to derail this thread for over 500 comments. He should have been sent packing three days ago. It's your own damn fault.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 9, 2009 3:04 PM
No, across any surface, because the sequence is unnecessary. It does not need to stay above the viability level. It can traverse an ocean by walking on its bottom – temporarily becoming a pseudogene – because the other duplicate stays above the viability line.
Correct. Till then, it's mutation and drift.
One more thing: the mountains aren't distributed randomly. Many are close together.
Do you know how many differences there are between the "red" (actually yellow) and the green receptor in your eyes?
Do you know how many differences there are between α- and β-tubulin? One of them has a GTP molecule inbuilt that just sits there and does nothing, because both tubulins are descended from the duplication of a protein with GTPase activity; one of the duplication results retains it, the other retains only its vestiges.
It creates random walkers in the first place. Apart from such duplication results, only junk DNA is able to walk at random – and junk DNA is usually too far away from, say, lacking stop codons in the middle, having a start codon, having a TATA box, promoters, enhancers, and whatnots around it, and so on for being able to mutate into protein-coding gene. It does happen – icefish antifreeze protein –, but it's exceedingly rare.
This is the point where you should start quantifying.
There are no decreasing odds, except in your wrong understanding.
Because you made that level up.
The odds you allegedly calculate ("1000" sounds more like a nice round number randomly pulled out of your ass, but let's give you the benefit of undeserved doubt for the moment) are based on completely wrong assumptions.
I don't! I never implied that any comment of mine has to be a reply to the comments of only one person! I simply didn't think anyone would consider that the default option. When I mention any name, it's meant to be associated with the immediately adjacent quote. I thought that was obvious. Are you new on the Internet, or something?
Besides, your approach has caused you to be 30 to 40 comments behind. As a result, you reply to points that have already been addressed by other people…
That's because no such problem exists. The whole logic behind it is wrong.
That something seems logical, even obvious, to you does not mean it is anywhere near correct. It can just as well mean that you haven't thought your argument through; that it's an argument from personal incredulity and/or from ignorance.
Now it gets interesting. Turns out I've been misunderstanding you. Why do you call your limit "1000" and not "50"?
And what makes you think 50 mutations can't happen? What makes you think 50 is the distance between two mountains, as opposed to being the distance between their peaks?
Finally, where did you get the number 50 from? (Yet another nice round number…)
No, by an insertion mutation. That was part of my misunderstanding that each of the 1000 residues had to be new as opposed to inherited; the only way to achieve that would have been insertions.
Obviously, I fully agree.
But is there such a thing as truly new stuff in biology?
Even deeply fundamental housekeeping genes common to all known cells are descended from duplications that precede the last common ancestor of all known life. To quote a summary:
James A. Lake, Jacqueline A. Servin, Craig W. Herbold & Ryan G. Skophammer (2008): Evidence for a new root of the tree of life, Systematic Biology 57(6), 835–843
p. 836:
Amazing, isn't it? All those different functions, and all performed by proteins whose genes come from repeated duplication and mutation.
The cited references (which I haven't read) are:
M. Hansen, J. Le Nours, E. Johansson, T. Antal, A. Ullrich, M. Löffler & S. Larsen (2004): Inhibitor binding in a class 2 dihydroorotate dehydrogenase causes variations in the membrane-associated N-terminal domain, Protein Science 13, 1031–1042.
D. Lang, R. Thoma, M. Henn-Sax, R. Sterner & M. Wilmanns (2000). Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion, Science 289, 1546–1550.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Because Dr Pitman is so easily confused, I'll make explicit that the next quote is by Josh:
Forget changes. How does ID explain the very existence of Crassigyrinus? Or how does it come to grips with a single champsosaur? Who ordered the baphetids? Ad infinitum vel nauseam.
BTW, Josh, have you noticed how utterly silent Dr Pitman has become on geology? We pointed out his nonsense about the Morrison Fm, and his response is…
<crickets chirping>
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Back to Dr Pitman:
Again, why do you give this number, instead of the much more interesting number of necessary mutations from the next most similar functional protein?
And how did you derive the number of "a few hundred"? Can I see the calculation? Can I see evidence for the starting assumptions?
Real evolution is even easier, because it's enough if it reaches any mountain in the fitness landscape. It doesn't need to reach any particular one. Just something, anything, that increases fitness.
I don't quite understand. All those proteins do bind to each other, just like an abzyme to its substrate…
And what, if anything, do you mean by "real time"?
This is nothing but a lengthy argument from personal incredulity. The "seems" and "most likely" parts strewn in show that you didn't even bother to do any math – you just took something that seemed plausible to you personally and accepted it as true.
That's embarrassing.
Besides, your three scenarios show how limited your imagination is. Has it never occurred to you that an arch built of hewn stones is irreducibly complex? (Take any stone away, and the whole thing falls down in separate pieces.) So, it is completely impossible to build an arch, they all have to be created ex nihilo by the Designer, right? Wrong. We build a scaffold, then we build the arch on it, and then we take the scaffold away.
Much more literal examples of this metaphor happen in evolution, too. The skull of Acanthostega is irreducibly complex in the sense that if you take the preopercular bone out, you leave a hole, which is not good for the fitness of the poor beast. Yet, we lack the preopercular bone. What happened? We can predict that the squamosal and the quadratojugal met underneath the preopercular, making the preopercular a superficial element that was able to be lost without leaving a hole. In other words, we predict the existence of animals with such a superficial preopercular. Enter Whatcheeria and Pederpes, which have that exact condition: both the arch and the scaffold.
I could go on about animals with a double jaw joint, the normal one and the mammalian-only one…
What? Why "only"?
Sounds obvious – but is nothing other than an argument from personal incredulity: "I – precious me – can't imagine how it could have happened, so it didn't happen".
Stop deifying complexity as if you could even just measure it.
Oh, so you're the caricature of a philosopher: you believe that problems can be solved by just thinking about them, without ever bothering to find out what reality is like, without ever acquiring any knowledge about the problem. I see.
First learn. Then you'll have something to think about.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 9, 2009 3:17 PM
Pitman, have you not yet realized how far in over your head you are? You are acting like a belligerent first year bio student convinced that he is smarter than everyone else while clearly demonstrating just how wrong he is. Your arguments have been demolished again and again, and on top of that, you still continue to ignore the multiple requests for an observable, testable, falsifiable alternative mechanism that better explains the observations. You don't have one. End of debate.
So either attempt to publish this drivel in peer reviewed literature, where more experts in the field can continue to rip it to shreds, or shut up about it already... you are demonstrably wrong.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 9, 2009 3:25 PM
Jeff Eyges says, "And, frankly, I blame you people, for allowing him to derail this thread for over 500 comments. He should have been sent packing three days ago. It's your own damn fault."
Aw, c'mon. How often do we get fresh (albeit dense) meat?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 9, 2009 3:35 PM
Besides that, I wouldn't trade the education I'm receiving from Knockgoats, David Marjanovich, et al. for the world... I learn more from the beatings dished out to creotards here than I ever learned in college.
Dr. Pitman, I hope you're appreciating the flogging you're receiving... most people would have to pay unseemly amounts of money for the education you are getting for free...
Posted by: Josh
|
September 9, 2009 3:51 PM
David wrote:
I have, in fact, noticed.
Although to be fair, I haven't even gotten to the Morrison yet. I have yet to get past the nonsense about The Geological ColumnTM.
Posted by: 386sx | September 9, 2009 5:05 PM
But is there such a thing as truly new stuff in biology?
That depends on what he means by "truly new". And, since he is an IDiologist, we of course will never know what he means.
But since he's a creationist, I think we can guess that subconsciously he means "poof!" (Which could mean anything at all, since anything can be "poofed".)
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 9, 2009 6:24 PM
“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"” - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time
You think that evolution creates ex nihilo? Again, I can't stress this enough but it is descent with modification. And the regress takes us back around 3.5 billion years to the first digitally-replicating protocell.Again, you haven't had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that you're premise is logically incorrect. I've written the 5 points in #675 explaining just why I find your argument wrong. I need to think for myself? Okay, here's an original thought: you have built a house out of straw. And evolution is the big bad wolf coming down to blow your house away. So instead of reinforcing your house, you're trying to convince yourself that the wolf can't really blow down the house. Which would have been fine 150 years ago, but now the house has been blown down and the wolf has eaten you, so your final thought as you're being digested is "but that's impossible!"
Posted by: SteveF | September 9, 2009 6:32 PM
The question about publication is an interesting one. I'm not an expert here so I can't evaluate Mr Pitman's claims. Some posters here have made some interesting comments, others have just blustered a bit. What I'd really be interested in seeing is the likes of Sergei Gavrilets take on the work. The only real way of achieving this is for it to be published. Judging by the essay on his site, it really wouldn't take much effort to knock it up into a paper - Mr Pitman lays out his argument in a reasonable degree of detail with some supporting references. His case is seemingly all there, it would just require some tweaking to bring it into an appropriate format for submission. One wonders why he doesn't do this? After all, another creationist who thinks along similar lines (and who Mr Durston references), Kirk Durston, is publishing at least some of his PhD research.
Given the considerable significance of demonstrating the inability of evolution to generate significant complexity, great fame and fortune would inevitably ensue for the person who established this. So why not publish? If all you're going to do is construct a website and argue about it on messageboards you may as well not have bothered. Ultimately the best people to evaluate your arguments are not going to be reading your website Sean and they probably aren't going to be posting here. Why are you avoiding the scrutiny of the scientific community?
Posted by: SteveF | September 9, 2009 6:35 PM
Ooops, this:
"After all, another creationist who thinks along similar lines (and who Mr Durston references), Kirk Durston, is publishing at least some of his PhD research."
should be:
"After all, another creationist who thinks along similar lines (and who Mr Pitman references), Kirk Durston, is publishing at least some of his PhD research."
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 9, 2009 6:45 PM
Observed evidence? Excellent, we can talk fossils, genetics, morphology, etc. But as for I think it's turtles all the way up? All the way up to what? Life began 3.5 billion years ago, which is what the observed evidence says. If you want to talk evidence, fine. Lets talk evidence, I've been waiting for you to talk evidence because all you've done so far is played a game of definitions.Let's talk about the fossil record, about the genetic code and what it shows. Let's talk morphology and anatomy. My position is directly in line with observed evidence, the only counter you have is your own game of definitions - and that's just doing the same thing as Behe or Dembski. Define a pattern that evolution cannot make, claim it is in nature, therefore Goddidit. That doesn't cut it, lets talk evidence. Lets talk predictive hypothesises, experiments that have demonstrated core concepts of evolution. You might think the evidence is on your side, and that's what I've asked from you for dozens of posts. Show me the evidence that supports your position... but you don't, you just fallaciously claim that if natural selection can't cut it then your position wins by default.
But no, that won't fly. Let's talk evidence!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 6:54 PM
Well, his methods and conclusions aren't scientific. And Sean knows this. His has been trying to bluster and blather his way around this insurmountable problem, but it is the core of our rebuttals to him. If he had published, his argument might get listened to.Exactly what I have been telling him for days. But he has his fingers in his ears, is jumping up and down going LALALALALALALLALALALALALA so we can't be heard. Then he hauls out response #14 to answer somebody, thinking he is refuting us. But that doesn't change the problem of his lack of scientific evidence to support his idea, which he has never fully explained either. In short, he is all talk and no evidence. That makes his argument religious, not scientific. Hence, it fails.Posted by: Josh
|
September 9, 2009 6:56 PM
Absolutely. And it would take even less effort to knock out a conference abstract and throw the idea (as a first publication step) out there in a venue where the conversation, begun at the podium, can continue in the hall or in an an eatery for as long as people want.
Posted by: tresmal | September 9, 2009 11:16 PM
Can anyone here - besides Dr. Pitman - explain in plain college level English what his argument is? Or at least what they think it is. I'm reasonably scientifically literate though my knowledge of Information Theory is
virtuallynothing. Does anyone know what a FSAAR is? I know it stands for Fairly (Fairly? Really?) Specified Amino Acid Residue, but what is he really talking about and what is so magical about a thousand of them? I sense some idiosyncratic terminology and idiosyncratic definitions of standard terms. I also sense a number of unspoken, not to mention undefended, premises. Am I right? Anyway, any clarification would be appreciated.Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 9, 2009 11:54 PM
No, no, no. If you look @473 Pitman states that FSAAR is "Fairy Specified Amino Acid Residues". Clearly the intelligent designer is Tinker Bell.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.
Posted by: tresmal | September 10, 2009 1:05 AM
So fairies made the bacterial flagellum? By specifying the right amino acid residues? Well, now that makes sense. I guess we all owe Dr. Pitman an apology.
Posted by: Drosera | September 10, 2009 5:28 AM
Proteins in a cell perform a certain function. Some proteins, when considered as strings of amino acids, are longer than others. Pitman says that there are certain functions that can only be performed by a protein, or a set of collaborating proteins, that consists of at least 1000 amino acids. Any protein (set) that performs that function has, by his definition, a complexity of 1000 sfaar. He claims that such complex proteins can not evolve through mutations and natural selection within a feasible time span*. Therefore, since such complex proteins exist, the intervention of at least human-level intelligence is required to explain their existence. He gives the bacterial flagellum as an example.
I have tried not to misrepresent the good doctor’s position, so he may correct me if necessary.
As you see, it is just the argument from design all over again.
* This is how I interpret his 'real time' requirement.
Posted by: Drosera | September 10, 2009 6:49 AM
sfaar = fsaar
Whatever.
Posted by: Alan B | September 10, 2009 11:55 AM
In #658 I was commenting about the C-14 page on www.detecting design.com when I said:
I have had another look at the site and in particular, the Home Page which has a box saying:
To be fair, therefore, the "C 14" article I was commenting on fitted exactly into what the box said. It never claimed to be any more than a collection of thoughts. Might I suggest to the good Doctor that if he is going to correct the article, he might consider tightening it up and in particular giving it more of a thread and reaching a conclusion. Such as (for example):
Yes, overall C-14 dating is OK but only over the range *** to *** years and only if suitable callibration is available. Or
No, the assumptions are too great and in particular it does not take into account *** which invalidates any measurements that are ***.
Fill in the gaps *** yourself.
Personally, I would have thought this would have been more helpful and constructive but, of course, it is the Doctor's site ...
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 11, 2009 10:20 PM
Re: David Marjanović #743:
It is known that the distribution of beneficial islands is in fact essentially uniform. There is, of course, some clustering, but this effect becomes more and more minimal and essentially negligible beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level.
Your examples of short gap distances are, again, low-level examples that do not require more than a few hundred fsaars at minimum.
Take your example of the various pigments in the photoreceptors of the eye. As you point out, several closely related opsins exist that differ only in a few amino acids and in the wavelengths of light that they absorb most strongly. Humans have four different opsins beside rhodopsin. The photopsins are found in the different types of the cone cells of the retina and are the basis of color vision. They have absorption maxima for yellowish-green (photopsin I), green (photopsin II), and bluish-violet (photopsin III) light. Yet, as it turns out, the minimum structural requirement for these opsons is no more than a few hundred fsaars.
Your example of α- and β-tubulin is also not an example of a short gap distance between qualitatively novel systems beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level. The structures of α- and β-tubulin are basically identical in structure and function: each monomer is formed by a core of two beta-sheets surrounded by alpha-helices. And, neither one requires a minimum structural threshold of more than a few hundred fsaars.
Now, compare these examples with ATP synthase or the flagellar motor. No qualitatively different functional system is known to exist that is within even a few dozen residues differences of such higher-level systems.
See the difference?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 10:30 PM
Quack quack quack quack.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 11, 2009 10:34 PM
More irrelevant and unsubstantiated blather by Sean. You don't get it Sean. Cite the peer reviewed literature for every assertion, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science, not the pseudoscience where you try to create a gap for your imaginary deity. You presupposition that your creator exists is false, just like your irrelevant statistics. Nothing there for a real scientist.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 11, 2009 10:44 PM
"Humans have four different opsins beside rhodopsin. The photopsins are found in the different types of the cone cells of the retina and are the basis of color vision. They have absorption maxima for yellowish-green (photopsin I), green (photopsin II), and bluish-violet (photopsin III) light."
"The structures of α- and β-tubulin are basically identical in structure and function: each monomer is formed by a core of two beta-sheets surrounded by alpha-helices."
You know, if you're going to quote almost verbatim from Wikipedia and Structure, you really should give some attribution.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 11:08 PM
Creationist criminal quacks only have to obey God's laws.
It's okay to flagrantly break copyright law for Jesus.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2009 11:08 PM
Sean, quoting verbatim or almost verbatim without citing the source is plagiarism. A deadly crime in science, where honesty and integrity is required of the practitioners. Don't do that again, otherwise your honesty and integrity is down the tubes for good. Nothing you say can be believed. I speak as a 30+ years worker in science.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 11:19 PM
Also a crime in the United States of America. Though not one that carries the death penalty, there are fines and imprisonment for even the first offense.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 11, 2009 11:21 PM
Sheesh, is "thou shalt not attribute" the 11th commandment or something? Yeah, not all Christians plagiarize, but we've seen a few examples of it here recently (andyet, that fighter pilot that emailed PZ, and now Pitman).
Posted by: raven | September 11, 2009 11:21 PM
Great Cthulhu, of course. Try evo-devo. Developmental biology, Neurobiology. The integrative biology is very young but we have a good start. Despite creationists babble, we can make chickens with teeth by reactivating long dormant pathways left over from when they were theropods. Someone is dissecting how to turn a mouse forelimb into a bat's wing, homologous structures but very different. We still aren't quite sure what encodes memories or how we recall them The nature of consciousness is obscure Abiogenesis now has an in vitro primordial replicator and a ways to go. The up and coming field is synthetically created life forms. Supposedly Venter had the first one ready to roll a year ago but haven't heard anything since.
There is decades and decades of work right there. In medicine, a lot of progress has been made on cancer but still 1 out of 3 people will die from it. Regenerative medicine has a few successes and a long way to go. We don't have a good handle on aging. Ultimately if we did, quasi-immortality might be possible.
Modern science is young, a few hundred years old. Check back in a 1,000 or 10,000 years.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 11, 2009 11:23 PM
Is 'strawscience' a word? Because it seems the Sean 'The Pits' Pitman has spent a great deal
describingpulling from his ass a sciency-sounding concept (fsaar) and pointing out how reality doesn't meet his fantastic (i.e exists only in the mind) standards.Wouldn't that be 'strawscience'?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 12, 2009 12:34 AM
shouldn't that be "undeserved benefit of the doubt"? because I'm thinking he deserves doubting just fine...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 12, 2009 1:06 AM
ditto. if it weren't for the SIWOTI Syndrome of the knowledgeable people here, I'd know virtually nothing about biology or geology.
Posted by: 386sx, Tweety Birdie | September 12, 2009 1:16 AM
It is known that the distribution of beneficial islands is in fact essentially uniform. There is, of course, some clustering, but this effect becomes more and more minimal and essentially negligible beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level.
Okay good enough for me. Sounds like a miracle must have happened somewhere.
Posted by: 386sx, TweetyBird of Happiness | September 12, 2009 1:24 AM
I wondwer how many fsaars it takes for a tongue-eating isopod!! Yechhhh...
Posted by: Stanton | September 12, 2009 1:53 AM
The best way to grow chickens with teeth that I know of would be to graft embryonic mouth gum/tooth tissue into the jaws of embryonic chickens. I don't know if the researchers have gotten them to develop into adulthood yet, or not, though.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 12, 2009 2:38 AM
Sean's argument hasn't changed: "Complex structures exist, I don't think Darwinism can account for it, therefore God did it"
Again, the logic underlying your argument is flawed. No surprise, your aim is religious as opposed to scientific.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 12, 2009 2:49 AM
Now hang on, Kel, that's not fair. Maybe someone at Wikipedia has discovered evidence that evolution cannot happen, and Sean can plagiarize it here. Give him a chance to cut and paste.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 12, 2009 3:10 AM
Don't forget the very important aspect of the argument, which is: 'to hide what is effectively an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity I'll invent a strawman scientific concept (fsaar) with absolutely no basis in reality in an attempt to cover my illogical thinking and make it look like I know what I'm talking about'.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 12, 2009 3:22 AM
meh, I quote from Wikipedia on here. Though when I quote anything, I make mention the source. It's only fair that way.
But as I laid out 102 posts ago, his personal incredulity is not evidence against evolution. And given his illogical position that Darwinism (that is evolution via natural selection) needs to be wrong in order for his theory to be correct then there's no incentive for him to be objective about things. His entire position rests on him not understanding how evolution works.
This is what happens when you play a game of definitions as opposed to doing science. This is one of the reasons why he needs to provide a mechanism, otherwise he'll never be able to break from seeing Natural Selection as inadequate because all he needs to do in his own mind to confirm his own world-view is to demonstrate as such. This is highly illogical, and if he were intellectually honest then he'd admit as such and work towards a more scientific approach for a scientific question...
...but until such time, no matter what he says, he's going to be tainted by the fact that B does not follow from A, that is even if natural selection doesn't turn out to be the major cause of change in life on earth it does not follow that there was a designer involved - just as 200 years ago the same could be said of acquired traits could not be hereditary then a designer did it. But because he thinks that he can prove God by disproving Darwin, then he's going to continue down the same path of thinking that B doesn't follow from A. If all cars aren't red, finding a non-red car does not logically mean that all cars are blue ;)
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 12, 2009 6:33 AM
Of course. As do I. Nothing wrong with quoting with attribution. It can only be legal that way.
Sean told me he was not being deliberately dishonest. But now we know he was lying even when he said that.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 12, 2009 7:14 AM
Though if he quotes from Wikipedia or a scientific paper or some creationist website, it doesn't really matter. The argument is valid or invalid on its own merits. And while he keeps asserting "too complex, therefore designer" his argument won't descend beyond his own personal incredulity. Even if Darwinism (evolution via natural selection0 couldn't account for functional structures, it doesn't follow that a designer did it. His entire premise for arguing is wrong and he look list an example time after time of complex structures and it still wouldn't change that he's not provided a single example for design.
So I'll give a yawn, remain unconvinced at the attempts to complain that Achilles cannot outrun the tortoise when clearly evolution has passed challenge after challenge. When it can predict what fossils are to be found in 375 million year old rock, then it has a validity that no proof by definitions can ever counter.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 12, 2009 11:28 AM
Re: Kel #781:
The argument is indeed valid or invalid on its own merits. It really doesn't matter where it came from. Just wanted to see if anyone would accept the argument at face value. Obviously these passages were quotes from particular references easily found by a simple internet search. The point is that they are valid arguments given what is currently known today about the nature of sequence/structure space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodopsin
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/abs/391199a0.html
Beyond this, most in this forum, to include Kel, do not yet grasp the concept that all scientific theories have an element of incredulity supporting them. SETI scientists, as I've noted before, are obviously quite incredulous at the idea that some non-deliberate force of nature is likely to produce the types of "artificial" radio signals that they are looking for. They simply don't believe that this counter hypothesis is remotely likely. That is why they do in fact believe that only ID is likely to be able to produce these radio signals - since only ID has been known to do it.
It is exactly the same argument in my case.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2009 11:34 AM
No they really tell a lot about your disregard for the truth. And just another wasted post by Sean, the presuppositionalist liar and bullshitter. Your argument is trash, and you are just wasting your time here. Kel listens to real scientists like myself, not unscientific IDiots like you. You need to move on to greener pastures. Nobody is buying your inane and unscientific arguments.Posted by: SC, OM | September 12, 2009 11:48 AM
You're a dishonest jerk, Pitman. It certainly does matter that you took other people's words and presented them as your own. You need to stop doing that. And those words are not arguments or parts of your argument; they are simple descriptions that you've attempted to rope to your ridiculous claims by throwing them into the same paragraph. (And anyone can look at David Marjanović's post @ #743 and judge whether you were really addressing its substance as opposed to simply following a pattern: when someone explains something to you by way of examples, find basic descriptions of these examples and copy them without attribution, then make baseless assertions about "fsaar limits.")
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 12, 2009 11:53 AM
Re: David Marjanović #743:
Too far away? That's the whole question? What is the likely minimum gap distance at various levels of functional complexity? We all agree that if the gap distance from anything within the genome is only a handful of mutational changes away, that the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS is indeed quite statistically viable within a reasonable amount of time.
However, the question I'm asking is, what is the likelihood that anything beneficial that is qualitatively novel will be close enough to find in a reasonable amount of time at various levels of functional complexity? - are the odds the same? Are the different? If they are different, are the different odds predictably different? Do they increase or decrease with increasing functional complexity? If they increase, at what rate do they increase?
So far, you've come back time and again when I've asked such questions with examples of very low level evolution which require no more than a few hundred fsaars at minimum. Not one of your examples has come remotely close to illustrating the evolution of a qualitatively novel 1000 fsaar system.
Your latest anti-freeze example is yet another illustration of very low level evolution which does not require a minimum size of greater than a few hundred residues nor does it require more than a very loose degree of sequence specificity.
While the overall size of the molecule is usually quite large,fish antifreeze is "composed of various numbers of repeats of the basic glycotripeptide unit, Ala-Ala-Thr, with the disaccharide, galactose-N-acetylgalac-tosamine attached to the threonine residues."
http://www.life.illinois.edu/ccheng/Ku%20et%20al_PNAS90.pdf
A string of repeats of three basic characters is at a very low level of sequence specificity.
Try again...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: SC, OM | September 12, 2009 11:54 AM
No, it isn't, as has been explained to you many times over. And since you've now shown yourself to be dishonest in addition to being a repetitive blockhead, I don't know why anyone would bother with you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2009 12:01 PM
Sean still has no scientific evidence, but keeps spouting his presuppostional nonsense like we are really paying attention to his details. Show us physical evidence for your imaginary creator, like an eternally burning bush, or just go away. Otherwise, you are just a delusional fool to think you have anything other than bullshit to offer us. The only way for you to quit lying to us is to quit lying to yourself. That happens when you acknowledge your deity doesn't exist, and you babble is a book of fiction.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 12, 2009 12:02 PM
Re: David Marjanović #743:
The 1000fsaar threshold level of functional complexity is the level beyond which the likely gap distance increases to at least several dozen character differences.
I discuss the reason for this increase in the likely gap distance at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation
An insertion mutation is a mutation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Still nothing scientific Sean. Take your bullshit on the road. It is already refuted, and we know it.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 12, 2009 12:06 PM
Obvious now only because someone bothered to check whether you had plagiarized. You didn't "quote" anything. You incorporated those passages into your own writing and pretended that they were your own words.
Here's what you said; the plagiarized words are in bold:
You copied that from Wikipedia's article directly into a sentence of yours beginning with "As you point out..." to make it look like you wrote the whole thing as a reply to David Marjanović. Your copying would have been a violation of copyright law either way, but by incorporating other people's work into your own sentence, you exhibited the very height of dishonesty; you were very clearly trying to avoid giving even a hint that you were quoting someone else.
Sean, you broke the law. You are a criminal. Your excuse now is that anyone could catch your lawbreaking if they did an internet search. But that does not make it legal or moral; no one should have had to suspect you of criminal behavior in the first place. You violated your readers' trust. In addition, you broke United States federal law. Why are you trying to pretend that you are not a liar and a criminal?
Did the Seventh Day Adventist church teach you that it is okay to lie and cheat and break the law to get ahead in life? Is this how you represent your faith?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 12, 2009 12:09 PM
Re: SC #784:
Oh please. This is just a chat group and I clearly wasn't trying to take credit for the discovery of various types of opsins or tubulins or their various unique characteristics. This information is general knowledge and hopefully one does not need to always reference general knowledge in chat groups. If anyone had asked for the references for such obvious and generally known information, I would have happily provided them.
You guys are desperately reaching for straws here, anything, besides substantively dealing with the actual arguments presented.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2009 12:13 PM
Still nothing but lies, presuppostions, and bullshitting Sean. A totally amoral godbot. You have offered no real science, and appear to be totally incapable of doing so. And you expect real scientists, who are use to honesty and integrity, to listen to your inane blathering? Delusional thinking on your part. You have nothing cogent to say.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 12, 2009 12:16 PM
The information is not protected by law, but the actual words that you used to convey that information are the property of the people who originally put the effort into writing them, the authors of the Wikipedia article and the authors of the Nature article, and as such are protected under copyright law.
Why will you not acknowledge that you broke the law?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 12, 2009 12:18 PM
Re: David Marjanović #743:
All functional systems are IC since all require a minimum size and degree of specificity before the type of system in question will work to any selective advantage.
This is not the say that IC systems cannot evolve in theory. They can evolve and they do evolve. It is just that evolutionary progress in evolving at least the minimum structural threshold requirements needed declines as these minimum requirements increase. This stalling out effect is exponential due to the linear increase in the likely minimum gap distance that exists at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 12, 2009 12:28 PM
Sean Pitman, criminal, M.D., why are you still trying to deny that you broke the law?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2009 12:36 PM
Sean, Sean, still with the unsupported lies and bullshit. We had your number a week ago. Liar, prosuppositionalist, science illiterate, bullshitter, and total amoral IDiot. And collective we includes all the regulars you trying to carry out your con job on. We are laughing at you. Bwahahahahahaahaha. What a delusional fool.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 12, 2009 12:38 PM
Re: Strange Gods #793:
The information is not protected by law, but the actual words that you used to convey that information are the property of the people who originally put the effort into writing them, the authors of the Wikipedia article and the authors of the Nature article, and as such are protected under copyright law.
Why will you not acknowledge that you broke the law?
LOL - in a chatgroup? This group isn't a publication. It is just a forum for friendly discussion. If in a discussion I happen to use the exact words of someone else without carefully referencing each and every case (since I am working very fast here and responding to a great many people in a very short period of time), who cares? You guys are worse than the T.O. crowd and the spelling flames. It didn't cross my mind that anyone would get so worked up over a quick cut-n-paste of this or that quote on a very common idea without reference. It is just a quick comment that helps to illustrate the point in a chat group.
However, if this really does bother you guys this much, I deeply apologize and repent in dust and ashes for this huge oversight and grievous sin and will be very sure to put in detailed references for every quote, no matter how well it is generally known, in the future in this forum...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2009 12:43 PM
Still nothing from Sean. No science, just his delusions. And he expects us to pay attention to him. No way Jose.
NoR, OM PhD Scientist, which trumps MD on all scientific matters.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 12, 2009 1:01 PM
The law cares, Sean.
Try telling the cops "it's just a friendly drive, who cares?" when they pull you over for speeding.
Do you seriously not understand that you broke United States federal law?
The only thing you did to us was violate our trust. But we're not the only ones you betrayed, and your criminal behavior was not directed at us. You can make a donation to Wikipedia at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Now/en
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 12, 2009 4:44 PM
The copy&paste without attribution that you and other creationists do isn't so much a crime as it is an indicator of a poverty of imagination and lack of scruples. Real scientists get it drilled into their heads that being able to trace the provenance of an idea and being able to recognize originality are important...it seems to be a character flaw in creationists that they lack it.
I'm closing this thread since Mr Pitman seems to be running on fumes -- if you must continue, use this open thread where many bored and hungry evilutionists are waiting with bared fangs for just this type of grist. Dare you enter?