Search This Blog

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Darwinism is dead. Rinse and repeat!


The cell is far more complex than the largest and most advanced factory on the planet. We need to make sure we understand that no one completely understands all the workings of the cell. The more we learn, the more complexity we find. Organisms are not tinkertoys.

Those of you kind enough to read my blog, forgive me for posting this article again but some brainwashed Darwinists do not seem to have understood the article so I must highlight a few portions for them. Here we go one more time...I will insert some comments in blue so you know it is me and not the very highly qualified Dr. Williams, whose bio is below followed by the article in question. I will bold some portions of the article that pertain to my comments.


Alexander Williams, B.Sc., M.Sc.(Hons), Th.C., Dip.C.S., ThL.

Botanist (Australia)



Facilitated variation: a new paradigm emerges in biology

by Alex Williams

Facilitated variation is the first comprehensive theory of how life works at the molecular level, published in 2005 by systems biologists Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart in their book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwins Dilemma. It is a very powerful theory, is supported by a great deal of evidence, and the authors have made it easy to understand. It identifies two basic components of heredity: (a) conserved core processes of cellular structure, function and body plan organization;

In other words, the organism is designed to continue to be the organism. The cell runs the show and while variations are allowed and often preferred those variations are limited by the cell.

and (b) modular regulatory mechanisms that are built in special ways that allow them to be easily rearranged (like ® Lego blocks) into new combinations to generate variable offspring. Evolvability is thus built-in, and the pre-existing molecular machinery facilitates the incorporation of new DNA sequence changes that occur via recombinations and mutations. The question of origin becomes especially acute under this new theory because the conserved core processes and the modular regulatory mechanisms have to already be in place before any evolution can occur. The new molecular evidence shows virtually all the main components of neo-Darwinian theory are wrong.


Thus, when you commenters begin to give me all your "this is how genes work" propaganda I know you have not read and understood this article because the way you think genetics work has been falsified.


Distal-less gene

Figure 1. The Distal-less gene is generally used in insect embryo, leg and wing development and has a switch for each of these functions (e.g. the fly, top panel). In butterflies (bottom panel), it has an extra switch that turns it ON to produce wing spots. Gene switches are easily disabled by mutation so this rules out a mutational origin for new switches.

Scientific literature is currently drowning in information about the molecular mechanisms of life, but most people are unable to appreciate what it all means—so vast is the amount, so highly specialized in each reported study, and so obscured by the necessary but incomprehensible jargon. The publication in 2005 of the first comprehensive and easily readable theory of how it all works—Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart’s The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma1—thus marks a great milestone in the history of biology. Kirschner is Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School and Gerhart is Professor of Systems Biology at UC Berkley Medical School.2

In this article, I shall show how Kirschner and Gerhart’s theory signals the emergence of a new paradigm in biology by contrasting it with origin-of-life experiments and neo-Darwinian theory, and will augment it with some more recent research findings.

Life and non-life

To appreciate what life looks like at the molecular level we need some background understanding of the gap between life and non-life, and how originating events may have filled that gap. According to neo-Darwinian theory, life evolves in small steps. Genes produce organisms, and mutations in genes produce changes in organisms. Those changes that survive the ‘sieve’ of natural selection provide the required small steps that turn one kind of life into another. Population biology experiments are claimed to have validated this theory for many different kinds of genetic traits.

Extrapolating this theory backwards, life must have also arisen in small steps via natural chemical events in the environment. Nobel Prize winning biochemist Christian de Duve has clearly summarized most of the necessary events in his book, Singularities: Landmarks on the Pathways of Life.3 There is, yet, no experimental evidence for a stepwise neo-Darwinian originating mechanism, so de Duve’s singularities are what we might colloquially call ‘brick walls’.

Living organisms have two main components: (a) enzyme-mediated biochemistry and (b) information-based regulatory processes. Which came first? De Duve favours an ‘enzymes first’ model because the information-based systems are so optimal and specialized that he believes some process of selection was needed to separate out the spectacularly clean (100% purity) components from the ‘dirty gemisch’ (impure mixture) of the environment.

However, physicist Hubert Yockey has studied information in biology for 50 years and persuasively argues that because life has no reverse code for transferring information from proteins to RNA or DNA then it is impossible for life to have arisen in a ‘proteins first’ scenario. The information must have come first. The simplest code would have been a binary (two-letter) alphabet but all life works upon a more complex four-letter alphabet, so Yockey concludes that the question of origin is undecidable.4 This is not a necessary conclusion however, and appears to be no more than a ruse to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion that life may have been intelligently designed.

So Yockey and De Duve have a chicken and egg problem in spades. Neither of them can see a way for life to have begun without a source for the information, but they are smart enough and honest enough to admit this.


Life in molecular detail: the new paradigm

Against this background, we can now look to the summary model of how life works as given by Kirschner and Gerhart (I shall refer to it as the KG model). They identify two major components:

  • conserved core processes of cell structure, function, and body plans;
  • core processes are regulated in modular ways (like ® Lego blocks) that can be easily rearranged into new combinations, to be used in new times, places and amounts to generate variable offspring.

Evolvability is thus built-in. The existing modular structure and its regulatory systems facilitates the incorporation of changes in DNA sequences (produced by recombinations and mutations) into functionally viable offspring that can adapt to new environments. KG theory is claimed to be a largely complete molecular explanation for how natural variation and natural selection produce all the variety of life on Earth—Darwin’s theory, according to the authors, is now a validated whole.

Ah, Darwinists get exited here...is this going to be good news for Darwinists?

A new view of heredity

Neo-Darwinists view heredity as being all about genetics. For example, the official journal of the Genetics Society is called Heredity. But genetics is all about change and we have discovered so many ways in which organisms can change that we are now faced with a huge unanswered question: how do they manage to stay (approximately) the same, generation after generation? As the late Stephen Jay Gould maintained throughout his career in paleontology—stasis, not change, is the major feature of natural history.5

Neo-Darwinism has no answer to this challenge for two reasons: (a) genes and chromosomes can be mutated at any and every position so there is no limit to the potential for change, and (b) the agents of change (mutations and environment) are beyond the organism’s control.

Evolution occurs not primarily by changing DNA sequences, as neo-Darwinists assume, but by rearrangement of switching circuits.

But KG theory does give us an answer—the conserved core processes remain the same during reproduction. When a mother passes on an egg cell to its offspring, that cell contains everything required by the offspring in its architecture and machinery. The DNA sequences provide for the manufacture of more raw materials for the embryo to go through its development process, but the actual architecture and machinery itself is provided by the mother.

Think on this now. The mother is the foundation of the offspring.

The new outer membrane of the embryo is just that of the mother’s cell extended with more of the same material. The new cytoskeleton is just the mother’s cytoskeleton extended with new material. The new organelles are the mother’s organelles that replicate independently of the chromosomes. The new membranes are the mother’s membranes extended with more of the same material.

Here is a big problem for Darwinists. Pay attention now. The mother is in charge of the offspring and so the offspring is going to be the same kind of organism as the mother.

During the early stages of embryogenesis, the new chromosome set is entirely shut down and all the groundwork of the embryo is laid by thousands of different RNA types supplied by the mother. Only after this groundwork is laid does the new chromosome set become active and the mother’s RNAs are degraded and recycled.

The variability that is built-in to this heredity process is the modular gene regulation and signaling networks. A suitable analogy might be a house and its network of power, plumbing and communications channels and interfaces. The wiring and piping are built into the house structure, but there are numerous interface points to which a wide variety of household appliances can be attached, detached and rearranged. It is the combination of devices plugged into this network that provides the variation, and the house with its plumbing and wiring system that provides the stasis. To what extent the ‘house’ itself can be varied is yet to be determined.

So are you getting this? The mother provides the basis for the offspring and while their may be variables the offspring will still be the same kind of animal as the mother.

Conserved core processes

Chapter 7 of Kirschner and Gerhart’s book summarizes this subject so I will simply quote selectively from it. My additions or summaries are in square brackets:

‘Conserved core processes [typically consist of] several protein components [on average about 5, maximum probably about 300], conserved in their [amino acid] sequence. Their function is to generate the phenotype from the genotype. These processes arose historically in a few intermittent waves of innovation.

‘On the lineage towards humans, these innovations include:

  • the processes in the first bacteria [all the machinery in a bacterial cell],
  • [the processes in] the first eukaryotes [all the machinery in a eukaryote cell],
  • [the processes in] the first multi-cellular organisms [cooperation between cells, specialization of structure and function of different cells, and integration of specialized cell complexes into functional organs and organisms],
  • [the processes in] large bilateral body plans in metazoans (including chordates and vertebrates),
  • [the processes in] neural crest cells in vertebrates [which allow diversification of the head region],
  • [the processes in] limbs in the first land animals,
  • [the processes in] the neocortex [the key region of brain development].
I have to jump in here because the authors are suggesting how macroevolution must have happened if it happened. Although throughout the article they give several reasons why such a thing did NOT take place. But what cracks me up is that commenters got all up in arms because I was expecting bacteria to "jump domains" and how ludicrous this would be. Yet this is exactly what Darwinists insist must have happened on the way to more complex organisms.




Notice that the authors do not even begin to consider that there are four distinct sources of energy that various organisms draw sustenance from so that there had to have been at least four different beginnings to life by chance if life by chance is indeed possible and of course there is NO evidence for this. We have plants that draw energy from the sun and then animals that get their energy directly or indirectly from plants. We have two other forms of life deep in the oceans that get their energy from earth sources apart from the sun and there are two forms of these so a total of four distinct life forms at a minimum had to have all just happened. Just happened is an integral part of what Darwinists call science, you know.

‘Most evolutionary change in the metazoa [multi-celled animals] since the Cambrian has come not from changes of the core processes themselves or from new processes, but from regulatory changes affecting the deployment of the core processes. These regulatory changes alter the time, place, circumstance and amount of gene expression …

‘The core processes are built in special ways to allow them to be easily linked together in new combinations … these special properties include:

(a) Weak linkage, a property particularly of signal transduction [detection and response] and transcription [copying]. … the response is maximally prepared and ready to be triggered [by a GO or STOP signal].

(b) Exploratory behavior, a property of [cellular processes and populations of organisms] … the capacity to generate an unlimited number of outcome states [which are] built to be receptive to the [selective] agent [that will serve] as a stabilizing force, selecting one state among the large number of states generated.

(c) Compartmentation, a property of embryonic spatial organization and cell type control. [Compartmentation has] facilitated a large increase in the complexity of anatomy and physiology without a corresponding increase in the complexity of the conserved core processes.

‘Generation of variation is facilitated principally by:

  • reducing the lethality of mutations,
  • reducing the number of mutations needed to produce novelty, and
  • increasing the genetic diversity in the population by suppressing lethality [and thus allowing the mutations to be stored and inherited].
‘Robustness [is] at the centre of our theory … the conserved core processes are built [robustly] to give sufficient outputs despite altered conditions and inputs. [The properties] of robustness, flexibility and versatility are [needed] to enable the core processes to work together … the organism as a whole is … a poised response system … It responds to mutation by making changes it is largely prepared in advance to make. … Genetic variation or mutation does not have to be creative; it only needs to trigger the creativity built into the conserved mechanisms.
‘All the special properties of the conserved core processes had to evolve before regulatory evolution could escalate, for if the components of different processes were to interfere with one another in the new combinations, such expression would afford no benefit.
‘Facilitated variation assumes the availability of [the conserved core processes]. The evolution of these processes and properties would seem to be the primary events of evolution, requiring high novelty. … Once the conserved processes were available, though, the possibility of variation by regulatory shuffling and gating of these processes was unleashed, and shuffling and gating were much simpler than inventing the processes.
‘The main accomplishment of the theory of facilitated variation is to see the organism as playing a central role in determining the nature and degree of variation … We think the organism is so constituted that its own random genetic variation can evoke complex phenotypic change.’


They say that "they think" this but their findings falsify this supposition.


Further relevant comments from Chapter 8 include:

‘ … evolvability … is the greatest adaptation of all … Variation is facilitated largely because so much novelty is available in what is already possessed by the organism’ (pp. 252, 273).
‘The theory of facilitated variation opens up a new set of questions about the origins of the conserved core processes … [they] may have emerged together as a suite, for we know of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite. … The most obscure origination of a core process is the creation of the first prokaryotic cell. The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved’ (pp. 253, 256).

Again, although the authors of this article that Dr. Williams is quoting are coming from a supposition of Darwinism, they are astounded to find that their discoveries do not fit into Darwinism at all and in fact support the ID supposition instead. They are "baffled."

They are baffled, of course, because they are beginning with a Darwinist world view and cannot allow their minds to grasp any other idea. Now if life was designed by a Creator God who is able to create remarkably complex organisms and a huge and magnificent Universe that was designed specifically to provide a big sandbox within which the Earth could provide a sandbox within which man could live and learn. Naturalism falls apart at the singularity at the beginning of a supposed Big Band and at the point life would begin and at the place where supposedly one form of life becomes another form. These three areas are the places where Darwinists begin to write fairy tales like the Brothers Grimm and leave actual science behind. If you want to listen to the propaganda and fairy tale telling at full bore, go to the Discovery Channel and listen to the intonations of Oprah Winfrey and she not only propagandizes about global warming (which we now know is a bunch of made-up bunk) but the magic ability of animals to evolve. They decide to get bigger or smaller or grow longer limbs or the ability to fly just because they want to and the NEED to evolve. Animals are magic! They change whenever they need to change.

Invisible anatomy

Kirschner and Gerhart coined the term ‘invisible anatomy’ to describe the regulatory circuits that produce the visible anatomy. To construct an adult from a zygote, the zygote must first build a phylotypic embryo—a mass of cells with highly conserved form, which is the same right across its phylum. This philotypic stage is divided into numerous, largely independent, 3-dimensional compartments within which different gene switching networks are wired up in different ways appropriate for the unique developmental cascade that will subsequently occur in each compartment.

But the signal network is not instructive, it is permissive—it does not tell the circuits what to do, it merely releases or represses the already built-in abilities of cells to do whatever needs to be done. Humans have about 300 compartments in their phylotypic embryo. That means there must be least 300 different circuits—developmental programs for body segments—that can be activated or repressed in every cell.

Okay, Darwinists? How do you get past this aspect of Darwinism debunked?

Switching networks

Gene switches are extremely complex devices,

Figure 2. Gene switches are extremely complex devices, comparable in their complexity and precision to a Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation device. Part (a) shows the essential parts in the switch, which begin with the signal inputs A and B, and end with the gene product in the form of protein. Part (b) shows some (not all) of the signal systems involved in programmed cell death (apoptosis). Just as the GPS device integrates the information from many different satellites, so the gene switch must integrate the information from many different signal cascades. (Part (b) from Bell25).

The main difference between neo-Darwinian and KG theory is that the former views genes as having a continual effect on organisms, whereas the molecular reality is that genes only work when they are switched ON. This is a profound difference. Everything in KG theory flows from this fact. Evolution occurs not primarily by changing DNA sequences, as neo-Darwinists assume, but by rearrangement of switching circuits.

Woolf, are you getting this? Turning the key, hearing the noise and moving the gear thingy is not the way automobiles work under the hood. Maybe from the outside it looks that way? The same is true of genetic material. It does not control, it is controlled!

Gene switches are sections of DNA on the chromosome usually near to where the gene is situated (figure 1). One gene may be involved in ten or more stages in development and it will have a separate switch for each stage. Sean Carroll, a leading researcher in this field, says, ‘animal bodies [are] built—piece by piece, stripe by stripe, bone by bone—by constellations of switches distributed all over the genome [emphasis added].’6 Evolution occurs primarily by adding or deleting switches, for this is the only way to change the organism while leaving the gene itself undamaged by mutation so that it can continue to function normally in its many other roles. Carroll considers this concept to be ‘perhaps the most important, most fundamental insight from evolutionary developmental biology.’7

In fact, it is a fundamental insight that pretty well falsifies evolution.

Figure 1 illustrates evolution-by-switch-addition by showing how butterfly wing spots are produced by adding a new wing-spot switch to an existing gene Distal-less that is already involved in development of the insect embryo, leg and wing.8

Gene switches are very complex devices. Carroll compares them to a Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite-navigating device that integrates information from many different satellites to calculate the correct output in a given situation. Gene switches likewise give ‘exquisite geographic specificity [from the built-in logic] … the makeup of every switch is different [and] the physical integrity of switches is very important to normal development. If a switch is disrupted or broken by mutation, then the proper inputs are not integrated.’9

The reason why genes only work by being either fully ON or OFF is very easy to understand—because a part-formed transcript would become useless junk in a crowded cell. Only fully formed transcripts are useable, and when they are not wanted, the gene needs to be turned OFF so that it will not clog up the heavily crowded cell with unwanted transcripts.

So switches are extremely complex and yet the only way Darwinism works is for switches to appear out of thin air and insert themselves into the organism.

Figure 2 outlines the components of a gene switch that uses negative feedback as its control mechanism. The molecules involved in switches are called ‘transcription factors’ and can be activators (that send a GO message) or repressors (that send a STOP message). If a repressor is repressed then STOP STOP = GO.

Uri Alon at the Weizmann Institute has researched switches and signal networks and found two main types:10

Switches associated with signal reception and response, which act over metabolic time scales of seconds. These include: single factor regulation, negative autoregulation, positive autoregulation, feed-forward loops (FFL) of both positive and negative kind, multi-output FFLs that regulate numerous genes simultaneously, single-input modules, and dense overlapping regulons that can regulate one or hundreds of output genes, and they can have one or hundreds of inputs from various sources.

Switches associated with development over the lifetime of the organism. These include: positive feedback loops, negative feedback loops, diamond networks, multi-layer diamond networks, and feed-forward loops that combine into large networks.

Switches are readily disabled by mutation, so Alon addressed the question of whether systems such as FFLs evolved from duplication of an ancestral FFL. The answer appears to be no, because apparently homologous genes are usually regulated by transcription factors that are so different that they are classed into completely different families. Evolution must have converged independently on the same regulation circuits over and over again.

This is perhaps explained by the fact that

‘ … transcription networks seem to rewire rapidly: it takes only a few mutations to remove the binding site of a regulator in a given promoter, and thereby lose an arrow in a network. Hence, even closely related organisms often have different network motifs to regulate a given gene, provided that they live in different environments … One hypothesis is that the network[s] are selected according to the computations that are required in the environment of each species.’10

This latter finding seems to agree with KG theory, that switching circuit modularity provides the major source of natural variation. Another important confirmation of the concept is the Savageau demand rule. This experimentally observed rule is that frequently needed genes tend to be regulated by activators, while rarely needed genes tend to be regulated by repressors. It has been shown that a strategy in which errors are minimized leads to the Savageau demand rule.11 That is, errors (mutations and imprecise biochemical reactions) are minimized in the search for useful circuit combinations.

The problem here is that it is observed that mutations can remove switches and thus the organism can lose genetic material, but there is no observed process which adds new information to the cell. So therefore we see no way for macroevolution to have happened.

Embryonic switching patterns

We are now in a position to illustrate embryogenesis, in broad outline, as a series of switching events. The ‘geography’ or ground-plan for each organism is established during the early divisions of the zygote. Important geographical factors include:

  • Inside (endoderm and mesoderm) and outside (ectoderm)
  • Head (mouth and brain end) and tail (anal end)
  • Left and right (in bilateral animals)
  • Front and back (in bilateral animals).

These geographical circuits are positive feedback loops that shunt irreversibly into, for example, ‘tail OFF and head ON’ mode. The comparable circuit in the tail end shunts irreversibly into the ‘tail ON and head OFF’ state. In all descendents of these cells, later instructions will pass through these circuits so that, for example, when the instruction is given to build a limb, the state of the geographical circuits will ensure that a forelimb is produced at the head end and a hind limb is produced at the tail end.

Within our group of bilaterians, the vertebrates, further circuitry is linked up within this three-dimensional ground-plan so that by the ‘phylotypic stage’ all the embryos look remarkably similar (drawings of which Haeckel infamously fudged to make look even more similar than they really are). The similarity is no coincidence, however, because all vertebrate embryos are patterned by exactly the same set of genes, as shown in figure 3. All the genes up to hox6 regulate brain and head development, and those from hox7 to cad regulate spinal cord and body development.

By this stage, the vertebrate embryos consist of about 300 largely independent compartments, and further development occurs according to a separate switching cascade in each compartment. The body-patterning genes shown in figure 3 create these compartments via single-input circuits that have multiple thresholds of interaction with the ground-plan circuits (inside-outside, head-tail, left-right, front-back) and the body differentiating genes (those that produce limbs, ears, ribs, etc.).

Autopoietic control

Life is controlled by coded information. The overall purpose of that information appears to be survival, and in particular, survival via variable reproduction. KG theory says that organisms are built to vary, and it could not be any other way because brittle life, like Paley’s metal watch, would malfunction under the first impact of either internal or external impediment. Rather ‘the organism as a whole is a … poised response system [ready to make] changes it is largely prepared in advance to make’ (KG, p. 226).

phylotypic stage

Figure 3. At the ‘phylotypic’ stage, embryos of all vertebrates are organized into independent developmental segments by the same set of conserved core genes, operating in the same sequence from head to tail. The names of the genes are listed in order for the fish, frog, bird and mouse embryos. Human embryos are organized in the same way. (Redrawn from information in Kirchner and Gerhart, p. 268).

But protein-coding information of DNA is clearly not the only information operating in cells. A gene only gives the linear sequence of amino acids in a protein, yet its key function is the result of its 3-dimensional shape, not its linear sequence. Many different amino acids could substitute into the linear sequence without reducing its functionality, but the 3-D shape is very tightly constrained, yet cannot be predicted from its linear sequence. Proteins can fold in numerous different ways, so there must be extra information somewhere else that guides the folding process. Special molecules called chaperones guide the folding process, so there must be folding information built-in to the chaperones. They can also detect and correct mis-folded proteins, and they can detect when a protein is mis-folded beyond repair and have it marked for degradation and recycling.

So creatures are badly designed? Sounds like pretty good design to me. Processes are controlled by information that these scientists cannot even comprehend.

Autopoietic decision making during embryogenesis is of the ‘if … then … ’ kind familiar to computer programmers. Embryonic cells make decisions based upon three kinds of information: (a) instructions from the mother (mRNAs in the egg cytoplasm), (b) conditions within the cell itself, and (c) information from its immediate neighbours. Thus, if a cell has all its specialization circuits in OFF mode, and it has its polarity circuit in an ON state, and it has only one neighbouring cell, then it concludes that it is in the two-cell state of embryogenesis so it will divide and switch ON its bilateral circuits but keep all its specialization circuits in OFF mode.

At a later stage, if there are no longer any instructions from the mother, and the cell’s specialized liver circuit is ON and all its neighbours are liver cells, and the embryogenesis circuitry is OFF and the fetal circuitry is ON, then the cell will divide and reproduce an identical copy of itself to allow the liver to grow in size until birth stage.

In later life, the autopoietic system will ensure that maintenance and repairs are carried out to keep the cell functioning properly. But when the telomere ‘clock’ says that time has run out, it will trigger a release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria into the cytoplasm which will set the apoptosome into action to dismantle the cell and recycle its contents.12

Evidence supporting the theory

neo-Darwinian theory, genes produce organisms,  and  mutations in genes produce new kinds of organisms

Figure 4. In neo-Darwinian theory, genes produce organisms, and mutations in genes produce new kinds of organisms. In facilitated variation theory, genes are used by cells to construct organisms, and mutations in genes are used by cells to produce variations in progeny. The crucial difference between the the theories is the central role of the cell, rather than the genes, in producing the organism.

The primary difference between neo-Darwinism and KG theory is that the former puts genes in control of heredity and thus evolution, while the latter puts the cell in control. Figure 4 illustrates this crucial difference.

Are you listening guys? Darwin IS dead.

The molecular evidence is clearly in favour of cell control. A recent intensive study of transcription activity in a 1% sample of the human genome found an astonishing amount of unexpected activity. Virtually the whole genome is transcribed, in both directions (both strands of the DNA double helix), in multiple copies (on average 5 in gene regions and 7 in non-gene regions) that overlap by an average 10 to 50 times the size of a typical gene. The best predictor of where and when this transcription takes place is just one factor—chromatin structure.13 Chromatin is the complex of DNA and protein that super-coils the long thin DNA into short fat chromosomes, and it must be uncoiled in order for transcription to occur.

The same conclusion—that chromatin structure lies at the heart of transcription activity—was arrived at via study of the relationship between chromatin and nuclear pores.14 In eukaryotes, chromosomes are housed in the nucleus, and access to and from the nucleus is very closely controlled via special structures called the nuclear pore complex (NPC). Transcription only occurs at the inner opening of these NPCs. The relevant chromosome must be brought to a pore and the transcription site correctly aligned. The DNA is unwound from its scaffold proteins, then the histone coils are twisted around to expose the copy region, the double-helix is unzipped, and the transcription machinery produces an RNA copy of the DNA. The transcript is checked for accuracy and corrected if necessary (or degraded if faulty beyond repair) then the RNA is tagged for export out through the NPC and to its destination in the cell. The DNA is then silenced again by being zipped up and rewound onto its histone and scaffold protein chromatin structures. So DNA is normally in a form analogous to a closed book. When the cell wants some information it opens the book, copies the relevant section, and then closes the book again. DNA does not control this process—it is kept in storage until it is needed. The cell is clearly in control.

The second major difference between KG theory and neo-Darwinism is in the way genes act upon organisms. In the classic case of Darwin’s Gal├ípagos finches, neo-Darwinian theory explains the variation in finch beak size and shape via mutations and natural selection acting repeatedly over a long period of time. Many small changes must occur independently in the upper and lower beaks, in the adjacent skull, and in the head muscles, to coordinate and order them all into the necessarily viable intermediate beaks of the birds that need to survive throughout the period of divergence.

In contrast, recent experimental work suggests that just two regulatory changes are involved. The bone morphology protein BMP4 when expressed earlier or later in embryogenesis causes broad or narrow beak development,15 and more or less of the calcium regulator protein calmodulin produces long or short beaks, respectively.16 Gerhart and Kirschner17 cite this as experimental validation of their theory. The whole craniofacial developmental process is compartmented and coordinated by a modular regulatory system that can be easily rewired ‘with a few regulatory mutations’ (KG, p. 236) to produce new features that are readily integrated into the already-prepared, robust, conserved-core-process-based system. Field observations confirm that such changes take place rapidly across just a few generations.18

So in other words Darwin was simply in error. He did postulate that natural selection was a process observed in organisms but did not understand that selection was simply part of the designed features of the organism and that variation happens quickly because it is expected and coded into the organism already.

More neo-Darwinian errors

Life consists of conserved core processes and modular regulatory circuits but all the conserved processes had to be present before regulatory adaptation could take place pointing to intelligent design.

The neo-Darwinian genetic theory of heredity assumed that characteristics of organisms are coded on genes with roughly a ‘one-gene-to-one-character’ correspondence. As organisms evolved to greater complexity, more genes were added via gene duplication and subsequent independent mutation of the extra copy into useful new characters.19 More complex organisms were thus expected to carry more genes than less complex ones. Furthermore, lineages that diverged early in the history of life would have mutated at virtually every locus, making them quite unlike at the genetic level. This led Ernst Mayr to state in his 1963 book Animal Species and Evolution ‘the search for homologous genes [derived from the same ancestor] is quite futile except in very close relatives.’20

These predictions have all been dramatic(ly) falsified by molecular discoveries:

  • There is no one-to-one correspondence between genes and characters. Most genes are pleiotropic—they affect many different parts and stages of life. And all but the most trivial characters are determined by large numbers of genes—50% to 80% of the entire genome is required for many bodily functions in vertebrates.21
  • Genetic information structures are not linear, but interleaved, producing multiple overlapping transcripts. Moreover, the exons (DNA segments that directly code for protein segments) in a gene are not specific to that gene but can participate in modular fashion with up to 33 different genes on as many as 14 different chromosomes.22
  • There is no correlation between organism complexity and gene number. Rice and crayfish carry more genes than humans.
  • Homologous genes occur right across the spectrum of life. About 20% of the human genome is homologous with bacteria, about 50% is homologous with eukaryotes (fungi, plants, animals), about 80% is homologous across the animal kingdom, and about 99% is homologous across all the vertebrates, leaving only about 1% that is uniquely human.23 About 500 genes are ‘immortal’ and have not changed at all in their key functional sequences across the whole history of life.24

So in other words the evidence indicates the signature of one Designer who created a design template for life, a palette if you will, from which great multitudes of living creatures of all sizes and shapes and kinds were made. However not only are there vast numbers of organisms but they all work together to compose ecosystems that in one way or another encompass the globe, a marvelous masterpiece by a great Artist we call God.

One of the most serious errors—that will need a lot of undoing—is the vast amount of molecular taxonomy that has been based upon the idea that ‘junk DNA’ provides us with a record of past mutations and thus acts as a ‘molecular clock.’ We now know that non-protein-coding DNA is more active in the cell than genes.

So this is why I have pointed out to you commenters that you have to rethink Darwinism altogether. Almost everything you have taught and believed about genetics has been falsified.

According to KG theory, molecular taxonomy can only work correctly by comparing ‘hidden anatomies’ across taxa, not DNA sequences. To understand hidden anatomy we will have to find the regulatory code. New aspects of gene regulation are being reported daily, but so far, no one has been able to put together the complete code for a whole organism.

Conclusion

Let’s stand back consider the big picture of how life works at the molecular level.

Life consists of conserved core processes and modular regulatory circuits. All the special properties of the conserved processes had to be in place before regulatory evolution could take place. Where did they come from? ‘They may have emerged together as a suite, for we know of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite.’

‘The novelty and complexity of the cell [the most important conserved core processes that has modular regulatory circuitry built-in] is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved.’

A living organism is ‘a poised response system [that] responds to mutation by making changes it is largely prepared in advance to make.’ ‘Genetic variation or mutation does not have to be creative; it only needs to trigger the creativity built into the conserved mechanisms.’ It could not be otherwise, because invariable life would soon become extinct.

Who will be game enough to say the words? Only intelligent design can explain such data. There are no naturalistic explanations.

So says Dr. Williams and so I say also. Now you Darwinists have to give up all your genetic babble and rethink. You say I do not understand what I post and I am not able to understand what you say. I think I have proved these charges to be untrue and I now challenge you to come up with answers.

Related articles

Further reading

References (no links included)

  1. Kirschner, M.W. and Gerhart, J.C., The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2005.
  2. Lightner, J., Designed to inhabit the earth, a review of The Plausibility of Life by Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, Journal of Creation 22(1):33–36, 2008.
  3. De Duve, C., Singularities: Landmarks on the Pathways of Life, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005.
  4. Yockey, H.P., Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, MA, 2005, Chs.3, 13.
  5. Gould, S.J., The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Harvard University Press, 2001, MA, p.749.
  6. Carroll, ref. 8, p. 111.
  7. Carroll, S.B., Evolution at Two Levels: On Genes and Form, PLoS Biology 3(7):1159–1166, 2005; p.1162.
  8. Carroll, S.B., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo-Devo, Norton, New York, 2005.
  9. Carroll, ref. 8, pp.114–118, 124.
  10. Alon, U., Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:450–461, 2007.
  11. Shinar, G., Dekel, E., Tlusty, T. and Alon, U., Rules for biological regulation based on error minimization, PNAS 103(11):3999–4004, 2006.
  12. Riedl, S.J. and Salvesen, G.S., The apoptosome: signalling platform of cell death, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8:405–413, 2007.
  13. Birney, E. et al., Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature 447:799–816, 2007.
  14. Akhtar, A. and Gasser, S.M., The nuclear envelope and transcriptional control, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:507–517, 2007.
  15. Abzhanov, A., Protas, M., Grant, B.R., Grant, P.R. and Tabin, C.J., Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin’s finches, Science 305(5689):1462–1465, 2004.
  16. Abzhanov, A., Kuo, W.P., Hartmann, C., Grant, B.R., Grant, P.R. and Tabin, C.J., The calmodulin pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwin’s finches, Nature 442:563–567, 2006.
  17. Gerhart, J. and Kirschner, M., The theory of facilitated variation, PNAS 104:8582–8589, 2007.
  18. Grant, P.R., Ecology and Evolution of Darwin’s Finches, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1999.
  19. Ohno, S., Evolution by Gene Duplication. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970.
  20. Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, p. 78, 2006.
  21. Lein, E.S. et al., Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain, Nature 445:168–176, 2007.
  22. Kapranov, P., Willingham, A.T. and Gingeras, T.R., Genome-wide transcription and the implications for genomic organization, Nature Reviews Genetics, published online 8 May 2007.
  23. Lewin, B., Molecular Biology, MBIO-3.14 More complex species evolve by adding new gene functions, , 2 September 2006.
  24. Carroll, ref.20, p.79.
  25. Bell, P., Apoptosis: cell ‘death’ reveals creation, Journal of Creation 16(1):90–102, 2002; .

141 comments:

Human Ape said...

OK, so you don't think scientists have provided enough evidence for what you call macroevolution, and if I understand you correctly, you don't think the development of the first simple living cells was a natural process.

Virtually all biologists would disagree with you, but let's pretend you are right about everything.

So now what we need, instead of evidence AGAINST scientific ideas, is evidence FOR your alternative idea, which I assume involves a supernatural magician (god) doing its thing with a magic wand.

Got any evidence FOR your magic that does not require your complaints AGAINST science?

Thanks.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

Human Ape said...

Sorry, one more thing.

20. Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, p. 78, 2006.

You really should read this book. I read it, and I can't imagine anyone else reading it and still being an evolution-denier, unless of course they had some religious boundary they were not able to cross.

I noticed you're a Christian, and that just might be your problem.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar wrote: "Now you Darwinists have to give up all your genetic babble and rethink. You say I do not understand what I post and I am not able to understand what you say. I think I have proved these charges to be untrue..."

[shrug] I don't.

You still don't get it. All that this new work does is demonstrate that the source of variation in organisms is (perhaps) more complicated than we thought it was. But Darwin never specified where variations came from. How could he? He didn't know where it came from. He simply accepted the demonstrable fact that variations do occur, and used that plus the equally demonstrable fact of natural selection to build his theory of biological evolution.

Radar wrote: "Here is a big problem for Darwinists."

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

"The mother is in charge of the offspring and so the offspring is going to be the same kind of organism as the mother."

Non sequitur. Even if the first clause was correct -- which it isn't -- the second clause does not logically follow for two reasons. One is that you haven't defined what a "kind" is, so it's impossible to tell if parent and offspring are in fact "the same kind." The other is that once the offspring's own genes take over, it will develop differently from the mother in some ways. And from the father.

Furthermore, even if you're correct that the offspring is "the same kind" as the mother, that doesn't mean it's the same "kind" as its grandparents, or its great-grandparents, or its (great^10)grandparents. Evolution does not occur within individual organisms. It occurs across multiple generations of organisms that form a single population.

WomanHonorThyself said...

I will have to re read a few time!..lol..wow..quite the post my friend!

radar said...

I don't expect the brainwashed to understand this or to admit it if they do. But Angel? Read it over about three times and you will have it. Simply speaking, the organism is designed to preserve the organism.

Oh, what is a kind? A Baramin. You are welcome.

A Creator God is logical and not magic. Random chance going around making wonderful things happen over and over, the Evolution Fairy? Now THAT is truly unlikely!

Anonymous said...

Let's have a look at the odds:

Evidence for Evolution, part III

Time to lay off the brainwashing, Radar. :-D

Human Ape said...

A Creator God is logical and not magic. Random chance going around making wonderful things happen over and over, the Evolution Fairy? Now THAT is truly unlikely!

Creating a species out of nothing is the mother of all magic tricks. Why would you want to deny that? You're not fooling anyone here.

Magical creation is logical? What? That's so nutty I will just hope you were joking. This is, by the way, the 21st century, not the Dark Ages.

And every single biologist in the world would agree with your "Random chance not likely to make wonderful things".

But of course natural selection is NOT random, and anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology should at least know that.

Well, at least you know it now, so I hope you don't keep repeating that misconception over and over again until the end of time like most evolution-deniers do.

Of course all mutations are random, but obviously there's nothing random about favorable mutations being selected. Please tell me I don't have to explain this extremely simple concept any more.

I'm a bit concerned you would use the words "Evolution Fairy". Am I talking to an adult or a five year old?

This is from my blog:

Christians have a big problem and that problem is evolutionary biology. If they deny evolution they look like uneducated morons. If they accept the established truth of evolution, then they are admitting their magical god fairy never had anything to do. What Christians should do is accept evolution (which is a basic scientific fact) and throw out their idiotic Christian death cult.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

A big part of growing up is learning new ideas, and being extremely happy about finding out you have been wrong all your life, because now you won't be wrong in the future. People who cling to old ideas, no matter how evidence-free those ideas are, have not grown up yet.

Human Ape said...

I don't expect the brainwashed to understand this or to admit it if they do.

All the world's biologists are brainwashed?

Are you sure you want to insult biologists, including the molecular biologists who work at MIT and Harvard?

Perhaps you should go to MIT and tell the biology department there they are brainwashed, and you are smarter than they are.

This quote is from my blog:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov

Anonymous said...

I like your angle Human Ape. Keep it up. Although, at this point, I suspect Radar may just run away and hide from your comments. He's been doing A TON of tap dancing lately, so I'm going to assume he's a little tired right now. Oh, and prepare to be called a Darwinist troll. ;)

Radar, is there even a twinge of humility somewhere in that big mostly unused brain of yours that says, "hey, perhaps I don't know as much as individuals who have spent their entire lives studying these topics"? It is beyond ridiculous for you to make the kind of assertions you do from where you stand. Why do you think you are in a position to criticize these people? As an atheist, you dismiss my comments on the bible because of my perspective, right? Even if you ignore your supreme ignorance and complete lack of education in any of these areas, why is it that you feel that your perspective (the bible before any other evidence) doesn't disqualify you making relevant comments on the topic of evolution? What's good for the goose should be good or the gander, no?

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"But of course natural selection is NOT random, and anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology should at least know that."

except natural selection has nothing to do with how life was actually formed, so your sarcastic statement has little relevance.

"Creating a species out of nothing is the mother of all magic tricks."

So what was the universe created out of then? There was something there before?

j said...

So what was the universe created out of then? There was something there before?

Multivac's Ultimate Answer seems to apply:

"There is insufficient data for a meaningful response."

Anonymous said...

@Radar:

You said:

Oh, what is a kind? A Baramin. You are welcome.

OK, but Bara-Min means "created kind". So you're not actually answering the question.

So, what actually IS a 'kind'?

radar said...

First off, God or notgod, the cellular structure and the reproductive process demonstrates intentionality, complexity and design. That is not a worldview statement, it is an evidentiary statement.

Second, what most scientists profess to believe and what is true does not necessarily coincide. Scientists research and learn new things and often it takes years, generations even, to arrive at the truth. Pasteur proved what others began to believe, that life does not come from non-life. Want to show me who ever reversed that decision?

Isaac Asimov thought panspermia was an answer, so quoting him does not bother me.

Finally, ALL the biologists and etc do NOT believe in Darwinism. Some of the best brains on the planet believe in ID or creation. In any event not one of you can give me a factual response you are just saying NOT really loud, which is worthless.

radar said...

Canucklehead, I do not go around claiming fantastic expertise, but I am a member of a couple of scientific societies and have had far more formal training than did either Lyell or Darwin, if you want to get right down to it. If you count up all my years of college and tech schools I have about seven years of post-high school education and certifications in more than one field. I am smart enough to understand the intricacies of that last article I posted and smart enough to recognize that not one of you has addressed EVIDENCE in it yet.

radar said...

More on Asimov, who was an interesting writer if not a bad origins scientist. Isaac recognized that organisms had design features and proposed that life came here riding on asteroids or comets or was left here by space aliens. Dawkins said much the same thing. But putting the question off to an unknown part of the Universe is actually dodging the question.

You Darwinists have not adjusted your arguments yet because you have not recognized the cell as being in charge of reproduction over and above DNA.

creeper said...

"First off, God or notgod, the cellular structure and the reproductive process demonstrates intentionality, complexity and design. That is not a worldview statement, it is an evidentiary statement."

Wrong. It demonstrates complexity and function. Those are facts. "Intentionality" and "design" are already attempts to muddy the waters and leap to an as yet unwarranted conclusion - they are indeed parts of a worldview statement.

"Second, what most scientists profess to believe and what is true does not necessarily coincide. Scientists research and learn new things and often it takes years, generations even, to arrive at the truth."

Fair enough.

"Pasteur"

Uh-oh.

"proved what others began to believe, that life does not come from non-life. Want to show me who ever reversed that decision?"

Back to the made-up "law of abiogenesis", Radar. Sorry, but this is just pathetic. How many times have we explained this to you, Radar? What Pasteur proved (as apparently it wasn't well known in his day) was that certain advanced forms of lives (say, fungi or mice) did not spring from nothing. Which happens to be true.

But what Pasteur did not prove by any stretch of the imagination (but what you in your stunning ignorance continue to claim as the truth) is that any kind of life does not come from non-life.

If you think it is even possible to prove such a thing, and if you actually think Pasteur did prove it, then please show us where you think he did this.

Nobody ever "reversed that decision" (weird phrasing, it's not like it was a court case) or in other words, nobody ever disproved it, because what Pasteur actually said happens to be true, and what you think or at least claim Pasteur actually said is a complete fiction in your own head.

"Finally, ALL the biologists and etc do NOT believe in Darwinism. Some of the best brains on the planet believe in ID or creation."

And many more don't believe in ID or creation. So a basic "who's got the bigger brain" contest isn't going to get us anywhere, is it? We're stuck with evidence and logical arguments based on observable evidence. Too bad for you.

"In any event not one of you can give me a factual response you are just saying NOT really loud, which is worthless."

Factual response to what exactly? And isn't your whole blog "just saying NOT really loud, which is worthless", accompanied by a truckload of pasted articles you don't understand?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Radar, it seems to me you're making it awfully easy on yourself here by reposting this article, availing yourself of the opportunity to rid yourself of the comments on the previous one, some of which were highly relevant and which you did not respond to.

I'll put those in the comments here in a moment.

"I have to jump in here because the authors are suggesting how macroevolution must have happened if it happened."

Which is handy, because the fact that macroevolution did take place is really not a matter of controversy any more, seeing as it is supported extensively by the fossil record in conjunction with genetic evidence. Nothing you've ever posted on your blog has put a dent in that.

"But what cracks me up is that commenters got all up in arms because I was expecting bacteria to "jump domains" and how ludicrous this would be."

Now you're misrepresenting what I said. Your ridiculous claim was that the theory of evolution was falsified because bacteria did not turn into something other than bacteria in a limited lab experiment, exposing a vast ignorance of both biology and the theory of evolution.

The fact that you have the gall to bring that up again only goes to show that you're so ignorant about this that you don't even understand how utterly wrong your claim was.

"Yet this is exactly what Darwinists insist must have happened on the way to more complex organisms."



No, "Darwinists" do not claim that bacteria turn into something other than bacteria in a lab experiment. Read up on the experiment, read up on the theory of evolution, read up on classification, have a good think about this, and then get back to us.

"If you count up all my years of college and tech schools I have about seven years of post-high school education and certifications in more than one field. I am smart enough to understand the intricacies of that last article I posted and smart enough to recognize that not one of you has addressed EVIDENCE in it yet."

Seeing as you mistake any sign of complexity as an automatic slam-dunk for creationism and have still not grasped why your bacteria claim was so outlandish, I think it's pretty clear you're not as smart as you evidently like to think you are.

Lyell and Darwin spent decades studying this stuff. Yes, you have access to vastly more information than they did, but you make very poor use of it.

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper, since you read the rock records incorrectly on purpose, you present "proof" of macroevolution that observation does not find. In fact you have no proof of macroevolution at all.

Secondly, it seems I understand the article much better than you do because the arguments falsify most of standard Neo-Darwinist arguments for how macroevolution must have happened and I have yet to see one that fits in with this evidence. Not that it is really new, we have known this for years but the general public has not yet heard it. Why? Because it hurts the Darwinist cause. So do "living fossils" and dinosaurs found with remains rather than just fossilization and various folds, interbeds, crossbeds, flip flops and megebraccias in the rock layers.

Pasteur proved to the satisfaction of all at the time that life comes from life and no one has been able to disprove that, whether you wish to call it biogenesis or abiogenesis. Not having a way to get to the cell is a fatal flaw of Darwinism, before we even get to the complexity, design and intentionality. You have almost no science at all, just a slick marketing campaign.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar wrote: "Isaac Asimov thought panspermia was an answer, "

This was news to me, so I ran a quick websearch on "Asimov panspermia". Lo and behold, the top result was a creationist site that quoted Asimov as an authority against panspermia. Most of the next page or so of results were similar.

radar said...

A word to readers who do not comment. Please go back and reread this post if you have questions. There are a few Darwin apologists out there who have taught their followers to do the following:

Try to change the subject

Call names

Claim macroevolution is proven

Claim all scientists believe it

Claim the ID or creationist blogger or source is dumb

Link to intentionally false websites like talk origins.

radar said...

Asimov wrote two books that used panspermia as an explanation for life on planet Earth. Jokester and There Breeds A Man. Frances Crick and Fred Hoyle also considered Panspermia as an answer.

In fairness to Asimov, in later life he decided that life could not have arrived on an asteroid or comet due to ultraviolet light so he did say that undirected panspermia was not workable. But he did write about directed panspermia. So he was possibly of the same mind as Dawkins in that aliens could have come and seeded life here. But then maybe the evolution fairy had a space ship, eh?

radar said...

So, Human Ape, just what was the process by which life came from non-life? The entire world wants to know?

creeper said...

"Asimov wrote two books that used panspermia as an explanation for life on planet Earth. Jokester and There Breeds A Man."

Umm, those are both science fiction stories. You claimed that "Isaac Asimov thought panspermia was an answer".

You do understand the difference between science fiction and non-fiction science, right?...

-- creeper

creeper said...

I've noticed that some of the commenters crawling out of the woodwork lately weren't on your side, so maybe the silent ones in the background aren't all on your side as you like to believe.

"Call names"

Yep, it's the blogosphere, and there's plenty of name-calling in all directions. Note it's not a one-sided phenomenon.

"Claim macroevolution is proven"

That macroevolution takes place is confirmed to such an extent that it's considered fact. I know that clashes with your insistence to interpret a small part of the Bible literally, but that's just too bad.

"Claim all scientists believe it"

Could you provide a link to such a claim? Or did you mean reference to a consensus among most scientists?

"Claim the ID or creationist blogger or source is dumb"

That's usually just the icing on the cake: if you make a claim that leaves no other conclusion than that you lack knowledge in certain areas (or alternatively are a brazen liar - but I gather you don't like that conclusion too much, so we have to go with the alternative), then it's fair to point that out.

"Link to intentionally false websites like talk origins."

-> This from the guy who links to an intentionally false website called Family Reserch Center, even though its lies have been pointed out to him... Sorry Radar, you're no longer in a position to use that talking point.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"creeper, since you read the rock records incorrectly on purpose, you present "proof" of macroevolution that observation does not find. In fact you have no proof of macroevolution at all."

Hmm, there's actually quite a lot of evidence both for macroevolution and an old Earth, large chunks have been presented to you. Again, you're engaging in psychological projection when you claim that "You have almost no science at all, just a slick marketing campaign". If the facts were actually on your side and lined up with your interpretation of your creation myth, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

But since you accuse me here of "reading the rock records incorrectly on purpose", let's take you up on that. You recently made this claim:

All dating methods thought up by Darwinists and Naturalists ignore the idea of the Flood and all of them have major flaws and questions. One will find this out if one studies the evidence presented by both sides (all three sides, depending on how you look at it). For every method that presents old ages there is another method that shows a very young earth. Creationists have been very successful finding dating methods that are not likely skewed by a Flood event and those methods give us young ages."


Okay then:

1. What are the methods (plural) that indicate a very young Earth?

2. Why are all the results indicated by all dating methods that do indicate an old Earth interpreted falsely, and how should they have been interpreted and why?

You've previously taken a stab both at dendrochronology (tree rings) and ice core layers and failed completely at both, so I'm curious if you've made any progress.

Looking forward to your elucidations.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Pasteur proved to the satisfaction of all at the time that life comes from life and no one has been able to disprove that, whether you wish to call it biogenesis or abiogenesis"

An excellent example of your reluctance to read the comments on your own blog. Are you being deceptive on purpose (i.e. a liar), or do you not get what Pasteur did?

What Pasteur proved (as apparently it wasn't well known in his day) was that certain advanced forms of lives (say, fungi or mice) did not spring from nothing. Which happens to be true.

But what Pasteur did not prove by any stretch of the imagination (but what you in your stunning ignorance continue to claim as the truth) is that any kind of life does not come from non-life.

Indeed, how could he have proven such a thing?

-- creeper

highboy said...

Wait, I'm confused. In regards to the formation of our universe, it was stated above that the idea of a species being created out of nothing was just dumb. As I asked in response earlier, exactly what was the first species created out of then?

Anonymous said...

Radar hilariously says,

"First off, God or notgod, the cellular structure and the reproductive process demonstrates intentionality, complexity and design. That is not a worldview statement, it is an evidentiary statement."

LOL LOL LOL. Radar this is almost as laughable as your "Darwinist priests" line. For your assertion to be true, there would have to exist, some non-theist scientists that hold this belief. Can you point to a single "scientist" that argues "cellular structure and the reproductive process demonstrates intentionality, complexity and design", yet also doesn't ascribe to YOUR theistic worldview? Even one person Radar? If no one like this exists, how can you possibly state that this is where the evidence leads? For me, these are the types of flat out lies that we've been talking about recently and that you like to tell over and over on this blog. You have stated in the past that your "truth seeking" starts with the premise that the Bible is the literal word of god, and that anything that contradicts said magic book therefore must be false. So when you say stuff like the quote above you lie like a rug buddy, like a rug.

Man, it boggles my mind to think about just how you got your overinflated ego. Did your mother completely dote on you as a child or something. Just as an FYI, membership in a "scientific society", does not equate to "formal" science education in any way, and the fact that you would include that as proof of your "smarts", well, it just speaks to my ego point above. But you didn't even stop there, you say "If you count up all my years of college and tech schools I have about seven years of post-high school education and certifications in more than one field." Do I even need to comment on this silliness? Wow Radar, one, or more "tech" classes and you'll practically be a medical doctor. Do I even need to point out to you that classes in completely unrelated fields do nothing to bolster your scientific credentials?

Oh and Radar, please stop flattering yourself by speaking to "readers who do not comment", especially ones that would even consider agreeing with you, because as a Darwinist, I'm just not going to believe they exist without some, you know, "evidence".

- Canucklehead.

P.S. - What did Angel do to you, man? I mean, telling her to read through the entire post "3 times" seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me. Why don't you suggest she waterboard herself while she's at it?

scohen said...

"Wait, I'm confused. In regards to the formation of our universe, it was stated above that the idea of a species being created out of nothing was just dumb. As I asked in response earlier, exactly what was the first species created out of then?"

First off, no one called it dumb, it wasn't referred to as 'magic'.

The short answer is that we don't know.
What was referred to as magic was the idea that all species were created fully formed ex-nihlio.

It's important to separate three things in this discussion:

1. The creation of the universe
2. The beginning of life
3. The evolution of life.

They're wholly unconnected. That life evolves has nothing to do with how it was created.

Speaking very generally, the origin of the universe is studied by physicists while evolution is studied by biologists.

Anonymous said...

I found some of your pictures blank you may try to re-post them.

Very technical article I guess far to complex for your commenter s. What I understand is the cell is pre-programed to switch on or off functional variations in response to environmental stimuli but no new information is actually added. So that all variations within the boundaries of the basic organism will be viable and able to reproduce. Sounds like a plan to me. dogma

highboy said...

"They're wholly unconnected. That life evolves has nothing to do with how it was created.

Speaking very generally, the origin of the universe is studied by physicists while evolution is studied by biologists."

Thanks scohen, but that was my point when I stated that natural selection has nothing to do with the beginning of life, so pointing out that natural selection isn't random bears little on the discussion of origins. I'm not a science whiz by any stretch but I know cosmology and evolution are two different subjects entirely.

radar said...

So much to say - I was reading Asimov 45 years ago or so. I am aware that he wrote fiction. I am aware that he also believed in panspermia as a possibility until he investigated and decided that undirected panspermia was not possible. Directed Panspermia is still something some Darwinists resort to.

FRC posted one wrong number that could have easily been a fat finger. Talk Origins has refused to change posted information that has been refuted and GK will not change it. Now I agreed with you, creeper, when you said their number was wrong (million not billion) but you cannot get much mileage from that. So there is no comparison.

I hardly think that pointing out a lack of evidentiary content is being personal, scohen.

radar said...

It's important to separate three things in this discussion:

1. The creation of the universe
2. The beginning of life
3. The evolution of life.

They're wholly unconnected. That life evolves has nothing to do with how it was created.

Speaking very generally, the origin of the universe is studied by physicists while evolution is studied by biologists.


Yes and no. A Naturalist worldview has to have the answer to all three in a cohesive view of the Universe in terms of existence and meaning or lack thereof.

Creation ex nihilo is indeed what a creationist believes, that God created all things from nothing and if you want to get technical created the concept of nothing. All matter, energy, form, intelligence, you name it, including time was created by God.

Naturalists in fact substitute blind chance for God. They then fudge the math because statistically this is completely impossible, so they resort to the idea of millions upon millions of universes so that surely in ONE of them all this stuff just happened.

How is that reasonable? Why is that more scientific than God created? Isaac Newton thought that a Creator God was in fact a very good answer and made sense of the study of the nature of things.

My worldview has a First Cause and a plausible answer for every piece of evidence out there and naturalism simply does not get to say that. Back to work!

Jon Woolf said...

"Breeds There A Man?" isn't even a book. It's a short story. One of my favorite Asimov stories, actually, as it shows quite a bit of originality.

I never read "Jokester." I should probably change that. The notion of aliens creating humanity as a way to explore the concept of humor definitely tickles my funny bone.

Radar wrote: "I am aware that he also believed in panspermia as a possibility until he investigated and decided that undirected panspermia was not possible."

So like a true scientist (which in fact he was, with a PhD and everything), when he encountered facts which contradicted his theories, he changed his theories. You could learn from his example, Radar...

"Directed Panspermia is still something some Darwinists resort to."

Such as? Most of the evolution-defenders I know reject panspermia because it doesn't solve the problem of abiogenesis. It only relocates it.

radar said...

Oh one more thing. Baramin is the official terminology for a kind. A kind is an animal form that produces like forms which can all mate with each other as originally created. If there is a tremendous amount of information loss within isolated communities some descendents of a Baramin may lose their ability to reproduce with each other or will only produce sterile offspring. As we get more facile with DNA we will be able to separate out all organisms by kind.

Linnaeus, who was a Christian, did try to set up a system of identification of kinds and his ideas are used for the classification system scientist utilize today. But they think of animals as having evolved from simpler kinds rather than grouping them by kind so it has devolved.

I am quite confident that further research into the cell will conclude that the transformation of one kind of animal or plant into another kind never happens and in fact cannot happen. So far that has been the observation.

radar said...

This is so addicting. One more quick break from work:

You cannot get away from random if you take God out of the equation and take design out of the equation. Natural selection is not a power and it is not a force, like gravity. Natural selection is an observation of the reproductive process of organisms that allows for the organism to react to or adjust to changes in environment and it now makes sense why it can happen so quickly.

Information written into the coding mechanism of the organism allows the organism to adjust. If you do not accept that information is involved then you depend on blind chance but now that we have looked under the hood of organisms we see that there is deliberate design and coding involved here.

Not one of you has proposed any means of information being there unless that information was input by an intelligent source. This is why Crick decided to depend on panspermia, why Hoyle and Wickersham (sp?) did as well. They could see even back in those days that chance could not account for a process that was obviously designed. No matter how badly you wish to believe that there is no God, for whatever reason, then you have to blind yourself to the way organisms actually exist and reproduce.

radar said...

No, Woolf, YOU should learn from his example. I have in fact done that, being a Darwinist who changed his beliefs when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You, however, are confronted with overwhelming evidence and cling tight to Darwinism anyway.

creeper said...

"FRC posted one wrong number that could have easily been a fat finger. Talk Origins has refused to change posted information that has been refuted and GK will not change it. Now I agreed with you, creeper, when you said their number was wrong (million not billion) but you cannot get much mileage from that. So there is no comparison."

You see, Radar, when you say something that is a flat-out untruth...

... and you're made aware of it...

... and you repeat the untruth...

... and you're made aware of it along with the fact that you were made aware of it and didn't address it and that it's not just a typo...

... and you repeat the untruth...

... and you're made aware of it along with the fact that you were made aware of it and didn't address it and that it's not just a typo...

... and you repeat the untruth...

... that's where I have to just conclude that you're a brazen liar.

Sure, it's possible that you're that incredibly arrogant that you don't read any of the responses to your blog comments (do you read them, Radar, seriously, do you?). It's possible, yes, but in that case I want to hear you say it. Say that you didn't read any of the responses, just couldn't be bothered to.

The fact is that this was not just a matter of a "fat finger", a typo, a "billion" instead of a "million" (which by itself reduces the argument that FRC person was making to something rather petty), but that they were substantively wrong in the entire claim.

This was pointed out rather quickly in the comments on the post in question:

First, the only amount approximating this in the article is 410 million, not billion.

Second, only 70 million of that is intended for something alleged by the authors to be a "tool to promote homosexuality".

Third, the program in question is intended to combat bullying.


That's right, the Family Research Center claimed that a $70 million program to combat bullying was a $410 billion tool to promote homosexuality. That's a pretty friggin' huge lie, a nasty whopper, not a "fat finger" by any stretch of the imagination.

And here you are, endorsing that website, and belittling this horrendous lie as a typo, which it so clearly is not.

So when it comes to dismissing entire websites because you claim they post lies, you have absolutely zero credibility as long as you continue to endorse this website and refuse to correct the lie in question in full. Yes, I know you only posted it, but even for posted lies an update indicating that it contains a whopper of a lie is warranted. What was that you were muttering about bloggers being honest? Live up to your claim.

Now, on to Talk Origins. You claim that "Talk Origins has refused to change posted information that has been refuted and GK will not change it". What is the posted information that has been "refuted" that they've refused to change? Given that you seem to think all kinds of things are refuted just because you've been able to paste articles that vaguely make opposing claims, we'll have to take this claim with a big chunk of salt.

But seriously, what was it?

I did a quick google on your website and found this post, in which you, yes you, Radar, said this:

"I am going to withdraw my charge against Talk Origins that they post things they know have been refuted. Until such time as I want to go back there or research past notes to look for anything documented, I won't claim that they do anything like that. I will just say that I don't like the site and leave it at that."

I couldn't find any markup to put that in big red flashing neon lights, sorry.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar,

Put up or shut up


Bet you can't do it (just like you can't get your engineers to prove Harnett's maths is correct, ha ha).

creeper said...

"I have in fact done that, being a Darwinist who changed his beliefs when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Judging by the things you've said on this blog, you knew very little about biology and evolution to begin with, so it's not surprising you were so easily swayed.

Unfortunately that doesn't add up to the tribute to your open-mindedness that you seem to think it is.

-- creeper

radar said...

Well I did find they did in fact keep information up that was untrue so I went back to saying they are unreliable. I also said Dr. Dino was unreliable. And only one person keeps talking about that FRC number, creeper, and that is you. I have not repeated it and you are the only one publicizing it. What is your agenda here?

radar said...

Here is the proof for Talk Origins. I have challenged them and they know this is false so there you go.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

radar said...

So there is proof that I did find that talk origins does indeed post false information and refuses to change it.

Again? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

scohen said...

HB:
"I'm not a science whiz by any stretch but I know cosmology and evolution are two different subjects entirely"

That was for Radar's edification, he conflates the two constantly.


"Creation ex nihilo is indeed what a creationist believes"

And that's pretty much where creationism (at least YEC) falls apart. There's no separation between cosmology and the creation of the earth and its life.

"They then fudge the math"

That's quite a claim for a couple reasons. Do you have an example of fudged math, and if you did, how could you understand it? Admittedly, you're not a math wiz.

"so they resort to the idea of millions upon millions of universes so that surely in ONE of them all this stuff just happened."

That's a big misrepresentation of the naturalist position.

"Why is that more scientific than God created? "

Because there is evidence to support the hypothesis of the big bang. We're going back to the old saw again:
When has the inclusion of the supernatural benefitted science?

Answer that question, and you get the prize.

"Isaac Newton"

Why do you get the exclusive right to speak for the greats? Isaac Newton lived several hundred years ago and almost a hundred years before Darwin. I don't know why you bring him up, are you saying that if he lived today he'd reject evolution as a theory? That's an awful large reach if that's what you're implying.

"My worldview has a First Cause and a plausible answer for every piece of evidence out there"

It has an uncaused first cause and its answers --"floating vegetation mats" "perfect flood sorting" -- are hardly plausible. You accept god being eternal much like physicists accept the universe (multiverse?) being eternal.

creeper said...

"And only one person keeps talking about that FRC number, creeper, and that is you. I have not repeated it and you are the only one publicizing it. What is your agenda here?"

And there you are lying about it again, pretending it's just about a number. See my previous comment on this. You're merely confirming everything I said about your behavior there.

What is my agenda? To point out your utter hypocrisy in endorsing a website that blatantly lies while having pretended many times to have a problem with another website (TO) for allegedly the same reason. I really didn't think I was being vague about that.

I'll gladly draw your readers' attention to it every time you make any comments about bloggers supposedly being honest or your journalistic ethics/experience or how you don't trust some website because they didn't retract something you didn't like.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Here is the proof for Talk Origins. I have challenged them and they know this is false so there you go.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html"


1. Which part of it is false?

2. What is your basis for the claim that "they know this is false"?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"It has an uncaused first cause and its answers --"floating vegetation mats" "perfect flood sorting" -- are hardly plausible."

Especially "perfect flood sorting" so far even lacks anything approaching a plausible hypothesis, let alone "evidence" of any kind.

Maybe it has something to do with those new dating methods that Radar was coyly hinting at...

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, what is false on the talk.origins page about the Acambaro dinosaur figurines?

Not one of you has proposed any means of information being there unless that information was input by an intelligent source.

I have. Several times. Here it is again, though perhaps in a slightly different wording: New genetic information enters a genome via mutations of existing genes.

I have in fact done that, being a Darwinist who changed his beliefs when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Well now, I wouldn't say that. At least, whatever "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" is not particularly noticeable on this blog. Like I said before, all I've seen here is the same old stuff.

What you sound like is somebody who accepted evolutionary theory without really understanding it, because it's what you were taught in school. Then you converted to a fundamentalist variant of Christianity for personal reasons, and accepted young-Earth creationism because it was what your new faith told you and you didn't have the necessary background to question it. Now you continue to defend creationism because to do otherwise would be to admit a massive mistake, and you can't bring yourself to do that.

IAMB said...

Wait... Creeper, Cohen and Highboy all under one roof again???

Did I miss the announcement about a reunion tour or something?

creeper said...

IAMB, welcome back! And is your brother coming back too sometime?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"What you sound like is somebody who accepted evolutionary theory without really understanding it, because it's what you were taught in school. Then you converted to a fundamentalist variant of Christianity for personal reasons, and accepted young-Earth creationism because it was what your new faith told you and you didn't have the necessary background to question it. Now you continue to defend creationism because to do otherwise would be to admit a massive mistake, and you can't bring yourself to do that."

Yep, that pretty much nails it right there.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"You accept god being eternal much like physicists accept the universe (multiverse?) being eternal."

Do physicists have any empirical evidence that the universe is eternal? For the Big Bang to have a natural explanation, or cause, the explanation would have to be observable (or maybe testable is the right word) in the natural realm. Most naturalists I've debated just seem to assume that all phenomena has a natural explanation, without really any evidence, since that evidence would be impossible to come by.

IAMB said...

I've been pretty busy the last year, so not really any time for the blogging (which is not necessarily a bad thing... keeps my stress down). Just popped in here to see if anything has changed... not much, apparently.

Anyway, I don't think my brother will be around... he doesn't do any internet arguing anymore. In fact, I'm not sure he's stopped by Radar's place in months. I'll ask him when I get a chance.

radar said...

I must say I find it astounding that pretty much everything Darwinists have claimed about the way genes operate has been turned upside down and they just keep on keeping on anyway. I suppose for some people it would not matter what evidence is uncovered.

You can all say and think as you will but I did leave Darwin and come to creation by taking a journey through the evidence. My side has much more evidentiary support.

A Big Bang has no explanation. The matter in the Universe now does not have the mass/gravity to someday retract and rebang. The initial singularity at the beginning is a place even Hawking does not dare go because it is inexplicable by naturalists. You still get everything by nothing.

I say God did it.

You say nothing did it.

Life from non-life is also inexplicable. I say God did it.

You say nothing did it.

Finally, you say things evolve. I say they vary. The evidence is on my side. We see rapid variation but we never see macroevolution.

radar said...

Hi, IAMB, I should have acknowledged your appearance!

scohen said...

"Do physicists have any empirical evidence that the universe is eternal? "

Honestly, I'm not a physicist, but from what I've read we only have evidence for what we can observe. Namely that the big bang happened 13.75 or so billion years ago. Time, being part of space didn't really behave the same way 'before' the big bang. From what I've heard asking what happened before the big bang is akin to asking how tall a year is.

I can also ask if anyone has any empirical evidence for god being eternal.

"For the Big Bang to have a natural explanation, or cause, the explanation would have to be observable (or maybe testable is the right word) in the natural realm."

Fair enough. In the past 50 years we've gone from having a hypothesis to being able to observe thousandths of a second after the big bang.
That said, it's quite possible we'll never know. As for being testable, that's probably right out as well considering the scales we're dealing with.

"For the Big Bang to have a natural explanation, or cause, the explanation would have to be observable (or maybe testable is the right word) in the natural realm."

Also fair. Science hasn't really had much use for the supernatural since it's by definition not reproducible or testable. Radar has an open question that concerns this.

Radar:
"The matter in the Universe now does not have the mass/gravity to someday retract and rebang. "

Think on this for a while. The big bang explains *why* this is so in great detail.
And so what? Does the big bang theory state that the only way for a universe to form is by a singularity to explode? I think m-brane theory has something to say here.

"You say nothing did it."

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say nothing did it, I say we don't know. I'm fine with that and don't feel the need to make stuff up to fill the gap in our knowledge. It's quite arrogant (and wrong) to say we know things when we don't.

"Finally, you say things evolve. I say they vary. The evidence is on my side"

They do both, actually.
And no, the evidence is not on your side. If it were, I would have been a microcreation major.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar wrote: I did leave Darwin and come to creation by taking a journey through the evidence.

I'm sorry, Radar, but I just don't believe you. If you actually understood evolutionary theory, you wouldn't say the things you say about it. If you actually understood geology, you wouldn't say the things you say about the age of the Earth. Likewise for palaeontology, and genetics, and most of the other fields of science that you try to twist into support for YEC.

It is possible to know the evidence, and deal fairly with the evidence, and still be a creationist. I've met such people. But you're not anything like them. They acknowledge that right now, an old Earth and evolution are the best scientific explanations available for the evidence we have. They reconcile this with their creationism by holding out hope for some new discovery that will turn everything we think we know on its head. But they're honest enough to admit that no such discovery has been made.

You, on the other hand, pour forth an endless stream of typical creationist arguments, all of which were discredited long ago, and none of which are even remotely convincing to someone who actually does know the evidence. There's nothing original at all in your claims. Nothing to indicate that you even understand your own arguments, much less those of the other side.

radar said...

scohen, the singularity is at the beginning of the Big Bang and not before. No one has an explanation for the beginning microseconds of the bang, which if you believe various astrophysicists seems as if it would have had to have been a controlled event. Dr. Hugh Ross (with whom I disagree on most things) is a theistic long ager who believes that God controlled and used the BB to create all things and presents arguments that the BB had to have been controlled.

I don't buy it.

Woolf, believe what you want but you keep saying the same things over and over and never address the new information. Barack Obama says if we all understood the HCB we would like that, too. Meanwhile Caterpillar and other large companies prepare for the layoffs and a great depression looms. I do not believe in socialism and I do not believe in Darwinism and both of these are informed opinions.

radar said...

Human Ape. Yes I have posted a great number of reasons why God is a better alternative than the Evolution Fairy.

The fine-tuning of the Universe and the planet.

The evidence against the atmosphere being even 50,000 years old.

The Sun, being a star, would not have supported life 500 million years ago. Stars are not in stasis.

The Bible. It has a reasonable account of creation and a worldwide flood. Virtually every culture has a creation event and a flood event chinese-telephoned but Genesis is logical.

The geneologies of man are consistent with the Bible.

The human population would extrapolate back only about 4000 some years, not hundreds of thousands of years. We would all be standing on each other's heads!

There is more, that is a good start.

highboy said...

"I can also ask if anyone has any empirical evidence for god being eternal."

Nobody is saying that the Christian worldview is 100% backed by empirical scientific evidence though, which is the difference. The naturalist (not saying you are one, I have no idea what you claim) however is still operating under an assumption, and only an assumption, that there is no such thing as supernatural phenomena. This is a problem for the naturalist when one considers that whatever or whomever caused the big bang did so outside the realm of the natural order, because there was no natural order, thus making it supernatural.

Jon Woolf said...

Woolf, believe what you want but you keep saying the same things over and over and never address the new information.

Except when I do, and you promptly ignore it. Gets very tiresome after a while. And it's one of the things that tags you as a standard-issue creationist.

I do not believe in socialism and I do not believe in Darwinism and both of these are informed opinions.

Doesn't sound like it to me. At least, not the Darwinism part. Radar, I know you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution, because you say things about it that simply aren't true.

The fine-tuning of the Universe and the planet.

The anthropic principle. Fine teleology, but poor statistics. You can't generalize from a sample of one.

The evidence against the atmosphere being even 50,000 years old.

Such as?

The Sun, being a star, would not have supported life 500 million years ago.

The Sun is a main-sequence yellow star of spectral class G2V. As such, its estimated lifespan is 10 billion years.

The Bible. It has a reasonable account of creation and a worldwide flood. Virtually every culture has a creation event and a flood event chinese-telephoned but Genesis is logical.

Genesis is no more logical than any other creation story, and rather less than some.

(Query: 'chinese-telephoned'?)

The human population would extrapolate back only about 4000 some years, not hundreds of thousands of years.

Have you ever heard of 'population control mechanisms?' In the case of humans, the most common ones are disease, famine, and war. Any one of them could wipe out large nubmers of people in months or even days -- like the Black Death, which cut Europe's population by at least a third in just a few years. Or smallpox and related diseases, which wiped out anywhere from fifty to ninety percent of Amerinds. In elder days it wasn't uncommon for a man and woman to have three kids, lose two of them to famine, have four more, and lose three of those to disease. Seven children born, only two survive -- exactly the replacement rate. No net population gain.

There is more, that is a good start.

Doesn't look like it to me. Like I said before: there's nothing new here, Radar. It's all tripe, nonsense and doubletalk. If you had actually studied any of the subjects involved, you wouldn't be offering these as serious arguments.

Jon Woolf said...

highboy wrote: This is a problem for the naturalist when one considers that whatever or whomever caused the big bang did so outside the realm of the natural order,

Only if you take an unnecessarily limited view of what constitutes "the natural order." Personally, I try not to.

As for the Big Bang and the origin of the Universe, I personally suspect there's something drastically wrong with our current models, and what actually happened is seriously unlike what we currently think happened. When one encounters an apparent paradox, such as the nonsensical question of "what happened before the Big Bang", it's a very good indication that your theories are missing something major. Nature does not permit paradoxes. If you think you've found a paradox, generally it's your understanding that is at fault, not Nature.

scohen said...

"This is a problem for the naturalist when one considers that whatever or whomever caused the big bang did so outside the realm of the natural order, because there was no natural order, thus making it supernatural."

Unless it itself was a natural process, as in m-brane collisions (string theory though). In science, "we don't know" is an acceptable placeholder for an answer.
It's also important to note that just because there was no time in this universe doesn't mean that there was no natural order.
I think the burden of proof re: natural/supernatural is on the people who believe in the supernatural. The natural has been repeatedly shown to exist, the supernatural --not so much. If you want to include it, you'll (not you Highboy, but supernaturalists) will have to demonstrate it.

Back to Radar:

"No one has an explanation for the beginning microseconds of the bang, which if you believe various astrophysicists seems as if it would have had to have been a controlled event"

Really? Who says it has to be a controlled event? The release of millions of times of all the energy in the universe was a controlled event?

You've got to be joking.

Doesn't inflation cover the before the big bang? And by explaining the singularity, do you mean 'explaining how the laws of nature work *inside* the singularity'?

Do you think that quantum gravity will be forever elusive, and that's where god is?

Besides, you don't believe in the big bang anyway, correct?

scohen said...

"I do not believe in socialism"

Not even a little bit?
You don't like firemen, police, public water, roads and libraries?

All are pretty darn socialist.

Personally, I'm a big fan of all of the above.

scohen said...

"Nature does not permit paradoxes. If you think you've found a paradox, generally it's your understanding that is at fault, not Nature."

Wow Woolf, you almost exactly paraphrased Maimonides, who said that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.

Maybe that could be food for thought for radar.

Yes, the standard model is an inelegant mess, but it is just a model, and what evidence we have supports it. Hunches are nice, but they're just that.
Hopefully, there will be some exciting new discoveries by the LHC that could fill in some of the holes.

radar said...

scohen, you are somehow confusing community with socialism. You do realize that Americans used to make the roads, the homes, the schools, the churches, the factories and etc. without help from the Federal government? This is not an accusation so let me phrase it this way: The last time you read the Constitution where did you see that the government was charged with any of those things?

We would be much better off if states were given back their jobs and the feds would stick to their tasks and let Americans live freely.

We do not have the right to jobs, we have the right to pursue them. We do not the right to health care and houses and cars and televisions and cell phones and a paycheck. We have a right to pursue a job and make money to buy a car and a house and to get health insurance and life insurance if we choose. We do not have a right to be given stuff by the government. This entitlement mentality being passed off as freedom is how nations are destroyed. History teaches us this. Why are so many unwilling to learn?

radar said...

Yes, schohen, you have me off topic. But seriously equating a police department with socialism? First, our police are paid by local taxes by the local government. Our fire department is all volunteer. Our town workers are hired to work and work for a paycheck.

My state has a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and we do it. The federal government is now a hindrance to the people of Indiana so that we have been requesting our AG, Greg Zoeller, to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare under Article ten (and he did). If we win, you can thank us later. If we don't you will probably be too busy trying to pay your bills to spend so much time on the internet.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I just had to chime in here. John couldn't be more right with this gem that bears repeating,

"What you sound like is somebody who accepted evolutionary theory without really understanding it, because it's what you were taught in school. Then you converted to a fundamentalist variant of Christianity for personal reasons, and accepted young-Earth creationism because it was what your new faith told you and you didn't have the necessary background to question it. Now you continue to defend creationism because to do otherwise would be to admit a massive mistake, and you can't bring yourself to do that."

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"It's also important to note that just because there was no time in this universe doesn't mean that there was no natural order. "

If there was, it would be observable/testable. If not, it would be wrong to simply assume it was there in the first place. There is no explanation for our physical reality that can be found within itself as a result. For that explanation, or first cause, you'd have to look outside.

scohen said...

"For that explanation, or first cause, you'd have to look outside."

By that if you mean you have to look outside of our *universe*, then you're on the right track, though the term 'first cause' is probably not appropriate.

highboy said...

"By that if you mean you have to look outside of our *universe*, then you're on the right track, though the term 'first cause' is probably not appropriate."

Why?

scohen said...

"scohen, you are somehow confusing community with socialism"

Got it. Community is socialism that you approve of.

"Americans used to make the roads, the homes, the schools, the churches, the factories and etc"

And now swedes make the roads? Ahh, you mean the government makes the roads. Weren't the roads quite bad when the citizenry made them? I made no such comment for factories, churches, etc.

"The last time you read the Constitution where did you see that the government was charged with any of those things"

Well, considering that *which branch* of government is irrelevant to determine if something is socialist in nature the constitution doesn't enter in to it, but I read it a week ago and I remember something about interstate commerce which seems awfully pertinent to the highway system.

"We would be much better off if states were given back their jobs and the feds would stick to their tasks"

So something is only socialist if the federal government bankrolls it? Strange.

"Our fire department is all volunteer"

Maybe yours is, but mine is all professional. Somehow I think I'll take the pros. They're also *very* socialist, what with all that putting out fires regardless of where they happen and not charging for it.

Let's put it this way, are the police department, fire department and roads capitalist?

Nope.

scohen said...

"Why?"

Alright, first caveat is that we're highly theoretical here.

So when you're talking about the formation of the universe, there's nothing that prevents it from being a cyclical event (in some hypotheses).

I suppose the existence of the metaverse could be a first cause, but at that point we're out of physics and into philosophy, as there's no proof.

From what I understand, the only way supernaturalists escape the question of first cause is to define god as eternal. Otherwise, they have the same problem: Who or what created god? Then who or what created what created god, and on and on.

First cause is a philosophical matryoshka doll.

Jon Woolf said...

Scohen: WRT the 'socialism' discussion: as with Radar and his harping on "information in genes," I think the first barrier here is the semantic one. What, exactly, is socialism? And how does it differ from "community action?"

highboy said...

"I suppose the existence of the metaverse could be a first cause, but at that point we're out of physics and into philosophy, as there's no proof.

From what I understand, the only way supernaturalists escape the question of first cause is to define god as eternal. Otherwise, they have the same problem: Who or what created god? Then who or what created what created god, and on and on.

First cause is a philosophical matryoshka doll."

It doesn't mean its not worth examining right? My point is that as you say, there is no proof, and scientifically speaking, there won't be any. Science is only about what is observable/testable in the natural order, and science would be out of line to simply say and assume that there is some natural explanation without evidence. Its the exact debate I've been having on my own website, in that saying there is a natural explanation that we are incapable of ever proving is just a round about way of saying its supernatural. It happened outside our natural order.

As for who created God: you're right, its an endless circle of thought. But its no more hard to come to grips with than nature being eternal yes? Neither of us has any more evidence than the other that nature/God are eternal. To deal with an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent God being eternal, because such a being would obviously be far enough above us that there will be certain things about Him we don't understand.

To the point of socialism: I think everyone here knows exactly what radar is talking about. A small degree of socialism, in the purest sense of the word, is impossible, even in our republican government, if we're going by strict definition. Where I think radar (and myself) differ is that the federal government as outlined in our Constitution is not suppose to have the power that it is attempted to wield now. States are suppose to have that power (which is where you police, fire department, etc. get most of their money, and then local taxes) Our Constitution makes law enforcement and our protection its priority, the social programs run by the federal government are not.

scohen said...

"It doesn't mean its not worth examining right"

In my opinion, it makes it rather uninteresting unless you're baked. Just my opinion though, I also don't like sports, so consider the source.

"in that saying there is a natural explanation that we are incapable of ever proving is just a round about way of saying its supernatural."

Ahh, I think I see the problem. I don't think science is saying that it will *never* be able to be studied, it's just outside of our ability to do so right now. Last year, the higgs boson was outside of our ability to confirm or deny it, but now (today in fact) it's not. Heck, 50 years ago, the big bang was *well* outside of our ability to study it --not so much any more.

"Neither of us has any more evidence than the other that nature/God are eternal"

By nature, I assume you're saying the metaverse, because our universe certainly began (though that might not have been the first time) but there's one distinction: There's a lot more evidence for the existence of our universe and nature than for an omniscient, omnipotent god that cares about humans. (Atheism disclaimer: Just calling it like I see it, I have no idea if there is or is not a god.)

Also, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because something started the universe that it's omniscient and omnipotent. Hypothetically speaking, suppose we can create big bangs in an empty universe cell in the metaverse. It doesn't follow that we have any domain or control over what we did, being in a different universe and all.

scohen said...

Socialism:

HB, when you said:
"A small degree of socialism, in the purest sense of the word, is impossible, even in our republican government"

Did you mean possible instead? Because unless I'm drastically mistaken, I don't think that our economic system was prescribed under our founding documents.

So you don't think I'm a dyed in the wool socialist, I *like* capitalism, but like every solution I've ever encountered, it doesn't solve every problem.

The disagreement over this seems rather nuanced then. Basically what you're saying is that individual states could pass the healthcare bill and that would be within their power.
Also, the federal government has limits placed upon its power (I completely agree there) and these limits prevent it from enacting social programs like HCR.

Am I right in those assumptions?

If so, are social security and medicare unconstitutional?

We don't have to discuss this tangent on this post btw, so don't feel obligated to respond.

highboy said...

"In my opinion, it makes it rather uninteresting unless you're baked. Just my opinion though, I also don't like sports, so consider the source."

and with heroes like Joe Montana, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, and Bill Walsh to brag about, you don't like sports. That's like having a Shelby Mustang and never taking it out of the garage. LOL.

"Ahh, I think I see the problem. I don't think science is saying that it will *never* be able to be studied, it's just outside of our ability to do so right now. Last year, the higgs boson was outside of our ability to confirm or deny it, but now (today in fact) it's not. Heck, 50 years ago, the big bang was *well* outside of our ability to study it --not so much any more."

If its outside the natural order, science will not be able to study it, because it can only study that which is in the natural order. Before the natural order, what order was there?

"Also, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because something started the universe that it's omniscient and omnipotent. Hypothetically speaking, suppose we can create big bangs in an empty universe cell in the metaverse. It doesn't follow that we have any domain or control over what we did, being in a different universe and all."

I'm not saying God is eternal because He created the universe, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Its also an assumption that there is even more than one universe, or a metaverse, which is the point I've been making all along. The naturalist is making loads of assumptions where the worldview is suppose to be based on empirical evidence.

"Did you mean possible instead?"

Yes I did actually. That was a grammatical error on my part, which should clear up that masterpiece of confusion.

"The disagreement over this seems rather nuanced then. Basically what you're saying is that individual states could pass the healthcare bill and that would be within their power.
Also, the federal government has limits placed upon its power (I completely agree there) and these limits prevent it from enacting social programs like HCR.

Am I right in those assumptions?

If so, are social security and medicare unconstitutional?

We don't have to discuss this tangent on this post btw, so don't feel obligated to respond."

I can make it quick in response to everything quoted there: yes.

Jon Woolf said...

scohen wrote: HB, when you said:
"A small degree of socialism, in the purest sense of the word, is impossible, even in our republican government"

Did you mean possible instead? Because unless I'm drastically mistaken, I don't think that our economic system was prescribed under our founding documents.


Actually, I think the word he wanted was inevitable. Because if you define 'socialism' as 'anything done by the community acting as a whole, for the benefit of all' then indeed, some small degree of socialism is inevitable in a democracy. There are certain services that only a central authority can provide effectively.

scohen said...

"and with heroes like Joe Montana, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, and Bill Walsh to brag about"

Well, that's the funny thing as a fairly recent transplant, I don't feel the connection to those guys that I feel to Bernie Kosar, Kevin Mack, Clay Matthews and Gerald McNeil. Those were the guys I grew up with even though my favorite part of the football game was when they showed the 2:00 clock at the end. That meant there was only 30 minutes left!
It took me several months to figure out why people were wearing giants hats.

Loved the analogy though even though there are plenty of people who keep their GT350s in the garage. Yeah, I don't get that either.

"Its also an assumption that there is even more than one universe, or a metaverse"

Yes, but it's only a hypothesis, and it is falsifiable. I don't act on that hypothesis at all.

"The naturalist is making loads of assumptions where the worldview is suppose to be based on empirical evidence"

As far as I can tell the naturalist makes one assumption and that is that her senses are sufficient to understand nature.

The hypothetical multiverse/metaverse are simply that: hypothetical constructs that seem to answer several outstanding questions, much like string theory.

"Yes"
Fair enough. At least I understand your position now. I disagree, but I understand. Very states' rights.

radar said...

Funny how this comment thread has wandered. I have a buddy who has four or five exceedingly rare Firebirds. He completely restores them and I mean frame on up bolt to trim. He sometimes sells one for an immense profit. He rarely drives one and when he does? Just one of them. He also has a big old truck with awesome surround sound that he drives most of the time and a beater boat to commute.

He has more money in cars than I have in everything. But he rarely does more than look at them or work on them. Me? I have a lot of 20-ish kids still at home so I have four cars but they all get used. If the kids moved out we would go down to either two or one.
Different strokes, I guess.

I once had the original Mustang and also a Maxwell Smart Sunbeam Alpine sports car with wire wheels, red, black convertible top, etc. I suppose if I had one of those I might garage them and only take them out on weekends?

radar said...

First cause does not have to be a cycle because of time implications.

If you think on God, consider a being greater than time and space who invented time and space. There was no "before" God decided to create all things. If God was and is self-existent outside of and beyond time and material then He is a supernatural being, granted, but the idea of "being" from our frame of reference would not have been in existence until time itself was created.

Such strong evidence for design in organisms begs science to give up their hopes for a random cause. The random cannot account for the highly and in fact ridiculously complex. When science refuses to look beyond the material world they put themselves into a monkey puzzle, in my opinion, and will waste untold hours and years and decades of research trying to prove the unprovable instead of operational science that could save and improve lives.

scohen said...

"I once had the original Mustang and also a Maxwell Smart Sunbeam Alpine"

Neat! My dad had a bunch of awesome cars. I've only had two cars myself (three if you count the one I had in high school, a 1987 Buick Somerset with a manual transmission), being more of a motorcycle kind of guy. Now that's an evolved mode of transportation. Cars lean the wrong way!
Just went out for a ride on Sunday for the first time in a while and man was I rusty, but it was good to get out. I feel very lucky that I have a 10 month riding season here with incredible roads to match. California definitely has a large advantage over Ohio in that respect.

highboy said...

I think that's the first time I discussed that whole naturalism/supernaturalism and actually reached the end with someone, and scohen of all people. That was badass.

radar said...

Oh yeah, I had that Sunbeam when I lived in Monterey, Ca and in San Jose. Wound up getting rid of it and getting a VW Camper Bus with wood paneling, sink, icebox, closet, fold-out table, fold-out bed and all that stuff. Even got air scoops to help that little air-cooled engine.

But the Sunbeam on 101 was awesome and I suppose on a bike it is one notch better? Ocean, rocks, curves, weird trees, iceplants, sea lions, sea otters, comorants...good times!

radar said...

Well as we wind down to the end of this conversation I am no doubt going to get back to the beginning of all things.

No, Mr. Woolf, do not argue against the straw man of ignorance. Argue the evidence. If you just point and say "radar doesn't understand evolution" instead of answering the questions that the post raised then the neutral observer will correctly say that you are avoiding the argument.

I say that macroevolution has never been observed and I know that is correct and so do you. It has been INFERRED by your assumptions about the rock layers and the fossils therein.

I say rapid speciation has been observed and you cannot refute that.

I say that organisms have the appearance of being intricately designed and I cannot see how you refute that, either. You just would prefer not to go there.

I say that the fossil record is a testimony to a world wide flood. I also think my evidence is better than yours. Here our opinions will differ and neither of us will win on this point because I have a jib to every jab you present.

So in the end it comes down to the microscopic, in fact, sub-microscopic world of the cell. If macroevolution can find an explanation for design then they will then be able to try to work back from there. But here at the frontier of microbiology and biochemistry Darwin is in big trouble.

highboy said...

"But here at the frontier of microbiology and biochemistry Darwin is in big trouble."

I have more in common with Darwin than I thought then.

Jon Woolf said...

If you just point and say "radar doesn't understand evolution" instead of answering the questions that the post raised...

Radar, I've tried to answer your questions. You ignore me. I've also demonstrated quite conclusively that you don't understand evolutionary theory, and so your claims about it simply shouldn't be taken seriously. Allow me to demonstrate:

I say rapid speciation has been observed and you cannot refute that.

Why would I want to refute that?

I say that organisms have the appearance of being intricately designed and I cannot see how you refute that, either.

I've never tried to refute that. What I have challenged is your claim that the appearance of design in living organisms means that those organisms actually were designed.

Both evolution and creationism predict that there will be some instances of excellent 'design' and many instances of competent 'design.' So finding instances of good 'design' in Nature tells us nothing useful. However, evolution predicts there will also be cases of bad 'design,' and sometimes cases of truly awful, horrid 'design.' Creationism predicts there will not be such cases ... unless you want to argue that your god is a twisted, diseased sadist who would inflict bad designs on his creations purely for his own pleasure.

When we look around in nature, what do we find? Plenty of cases of bad 'design.' The panda's thumb. The mating habits of the kakapo. The human throat and larynx. The placement of the human prostate gland. The method of birth among placental mammals. The inefficient digestive system of many herbivores. The genetic bottleneck in cheetahs. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So, evolution makes a successful prediction here, and creationism does not.

I say that the fossil record is a testimony to a world wide flood. I also think my evidence is better than yours.

And you're wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of demonstrable fact. Predictions based on the theory of a worldwide Flood fail, quite spectacularly. Predictions based on conventional geology succeed. That's why geologists abandoned the idea of a global Flood in favor of Lyellian geology more than two hundred years ago.

The question of sorting alone is enough to falsify the Flood hypothesis. The fossils in the geological record are not sorted the way a flood would sort them. QED, there was no flood.

highboy said...

"But here at the frontier of microbiology and biochemistry Darwin is in big trouble."

So I have more in common with Darwin than I thought.

radar said...

Anyone who has closely followed this blog knows that I have presented a great deal of evidence that creation is NOT full of bad design and that the rock layers are predictive of a flood.

Woolf may disagree and he does but do not for one minute believe he has the facts on his side because he does not. Time and time again the argument that animals are poorly designed is shown to be wrong.

Do yourself a favor, Woolf, and quit trying to deny that the rock records do not reflect a flood event on a factual basis. It may be your opinion but hydrologists recognize too many flood indicators for you to pretend you are presenting fact.

When your argument is that most scientists believe something then you have left fact behind and gone to opinion. When you claim that design of animals is wrong you again resort to opinion.

radar said...

Woolf, the problem is in part you see design as attainable, both "good" and "bad" by accident. You either have a designer or an accident. But accidents don't design. You need to shake your head and refocus on that part, that is where you go wrong. No way does all this design and all these incredible systems and all the specific instructions animals have programmed into them just happen.

Anonymous said...

It has been said many many times Radar, but seriously this is just getting so very pathetic. It's time to put up of shut up on the whole "global flood" issue. Per above,

Radar: "I say that the fossil record is a testimony to a world wide flood. I also think my evidence is better than yours."

Jon Woolf: "And you're wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of demonstrable fact. Predictions based on the theory of a worldwide Flood fail, quite spectacularly. Predictions based on conventional geology succeed. That's why geologists abandoned the idea of a global Flood in favor of Lyellian geology more than two hundred years ago.

The question of sorting alone is enough to falsify the Flood hypothesis. The fossils in the geological record are not sorted the way a flood would sort them. QED, there was no flood."

Why don't you actually show us some testable YEC hypothesis on the question of sorting? If it exists, like you say it does, then this should be easy. If it doesn't then your lack of proof is just more evidence of your constant lying to justify that pesky religious conversion of yours that Jon alluded to earlier. Lets hear from those YEC "hydrologists" you're always talking about. Where are they and what are their names? So far you have presented absolutely nothing concrete on this topic. Nothing at all. Just more bad tap dancing as usual. Put up or shut up Radar, otherwise you are just another lying liar, like some of your dishonest brethren on the right.

I wish you would just stop running away Radar. The same questions have been asked of you over and over and over, yet you would rather refuse, confuse and excuse, than actually address these very relevant queries. You claim that Jon can't answer your questions yet, just like he pointed out, you completely ignore his requests to actually debate the issues, any issue. Stop constantly reverting back to your tired "where did life come from?" and directly answer the questions asked of you (we've all said "we don't know" and aside from having NOTHING to do with the topics at hand, it really isn't a big deal at all to anyone but you, and maybe Tim). Like with creeper's request for a YEC hypothesis relative to ice core layers, and how hundreds of thousands of layers might have formed in the 6000 years you guys believe the world has been in existence, you are really embarrassing yourself here Radar. Which, I suppose, might explain why you have already buried this post under more fluff posts about scary Obama and Socialism (another topic you seem to know nothing about).

- Canucklehead

highboy said...

"So far you have presented absolutely nothing concrete on this topic. Nothing at all. Just more bad tap dancing as usual. Put up or shut up Radar, otherwise you are just another lying liar, like some of your dishonest brethren on the right."

This from the guy with nothing more intelligent to say but to cheer on the rest of those actually arguing the topic. If you had an education of your own, you'd be able to engage radar yourself, instead of just squeezing in your retarded insults between everyone else's post. As for his remarks about socialism, I realize the whole subject is over your head, so I won't waste my time running circles around you.

radar said...

Woolf, unlike yourself I have presented several posts about why the rock record is a record of a flood event and referenced hydrologists like Henry Morris and John Morris and other experts such as John Woodmrappe. Meanwhile you just say no. Based on the multiple thousands of words and pictures and links to articles and attributions to scientists and copied articles I have presented since 2004 on the subject...I have given sound reasons and evidence.

Why don't you start backing up your so-called facts? My blog is my testimony to the fact that I have done so...

radar said...

good grief, Obama first ran for office as a socialist, he is buddies with Bill Ayers and has mentioned Frank Davis and Saul Alinsky as being part of his inspiration. One of his campaign offices had a flippin' Che Guevera flag on the wall! He is now blithely taking over large chunks of the private sector. If Obama is not a socialist then nobody would qualify...

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, you really shouldn't try to comment when you're in a hurry. It leads to some great gaffes. Case in point:

Do yourself a favor, Woolf, and quit trying to deny that the rock records do not reflect a flood event on a factual basis.

I'm the one arguing that the rocks do not reflect a flood event. You're the one denying it. Mayhap you should take your own advice. :-)

Anyone who has closely followed this blog knows that I have presented a great deal of evidence that creation is NOT full of bad design

[shrug] Okay. Pick a case, any case, of suggested bad design, and explain how it's actually good design. You can start with one of the more glaring cases: the myriad of ways in which the birth process can malfunction in mammals, and often does. Most of these could be avoided if the birth passage went under the pelvis and not through it. So, why are female mammals designed the way they are?

You either have a designer or an accident.

Again you mis-state what evolution is. Evolution is not "an accident." Evolution is an iterative process of stepwise improvement. It is neither accident nor intelligent design. It lies in between those two extremes.

I have presented several posts about why the rock record is a record of a flood event and referenced hydrologists like Henry Morris and John Morris and other experts such as John Woodmrappe.

All three of these men are demonstrable liars, convicted out of their own typewriters. For example: Morris the Elder bungled his account of the Lewis Overthrust in The Genesis Flood. Morris the Younger was taken in by the Jammal Ark hoax, and has defended the ludicrous claim that the Paluxy River tracks show dinosaurs and men walking side by side. John Woodmorappe collected a few hundred anomalous radiometric dates and presented them as proof that radiometric dating doesn't work, when his few hundred anomalies were collected from thousands of papers that include tens of thousands of dates. 100 "anomalies" out of 1000 measurements is significant; 100 "anomalies" out of 100,000 measurements is not.

Meanwhile, I have accomplished nothing of note in the field ...

... well, except for writing a four-page web-article on the geology of Grand Canyon that has been used as a reference in college geology classes. (The link is about halfway down -- search for my last name) Oh, and an article on radiometric dating that a JPL physicist favorably linked and described as "radiometric dating for dummies" (I think that means he liked it).

So you see, Radar, you only read stuff that others have written, and repeat it. I've written stuff that others have then linked and quoted. Which of us wins that comparison, eh?

radar said...

Too busy at work to do this right now obviously. Arguing against myself? Hahahaha! Off to work!

highboy said...

"Most of these could be avoided if the birth passage went under the pelvis and not through it."

How has this been tested?

"Evolution is an iterative process of stepwise improvement."

So why all the cases of bad design? Where is the improvement? Also, if the formation of our universe is random, how is it that evolution is not? How did a random event create a system or process so ridiculously complex in which organisms can evolve and adapt? Your describing a natural process that has a purpose in a naturalist world that has no purpose.

Anonymous said...

Tim, comments surrounding my education really don't have much weight coming from a guy who went to "Bible College". And in "worthless" Canada, no less. There must be a story there, by the way. Perhaps your marks weren't good enough to attend Jesus school in your home country (although, one can only imagine just how dumb someone would have to be for that to happen)? But you'd think the finest (LOL) religious educations could be fund in the US, no?

Asking Radar to answer questions he's been asked over and over again is very relevant on this blog. And to this post in particular. You say I'm cheerleading for my side, yet here you are again, on Radar's blog, (not your own angry little blog of course), doing nothing but defending Radar, not to mention trying desperately to prove your manliness. Oh, and, of course, let the world know that you can really talk a mean game when it comes to "religious morals". A topic only a guy who hates sports (sorry scohen, but seriously, WTF?) has any interest in engaging you in. Other than when Jon schooled you in a previous thread, don't forget. As has been said before, Radar can speak for himself, unless he's asked you to come in here to try to "protect" him but that would just be weird.

As I have said already, I post here the way I do because of Radar's own online demeanor and of course because of his constant lies. Unlike you, I don't profess to be an expert in areas where I clearly am not one. Talk to me about my own industry or about running a business, raising children, hockey, or mixed martial arts though, and you're in real trouble. So save the insults buddy, you're just wasting your time. That said, what with all your posting lately, it looks like you might have a ton of free time on your hands. So maybe you're not "wasting" anything. Other than an opportunity to pull those kids of yours back above the poverty line, I suppose.

- Canucklehead

Anonymous said...

What a freaking hypocrite you are Tim. From the most recent post on highboy's own blog,

"So as frustrating as it is when our values, faith, and logical reasoning are constantly mocked and ridiculed, its important to remember that when Jesus was questioned and mocked, He spoke the truth and only the truth, and did so with unconditional love."

Nice to see you walking the walk Highboy.

Come on Tim, show ME some of this Love you talk about. Because, frankly, I have never seen it. Ever.

- Canucklehead

Anonymous said...

Radar says "Obama... is buddies with Bill Ayers". Ah, so you just want to lie some more then? Fine be that way. Oh and it looks like you might have forgotten that it was Bush that spearheaded the bailouts not Obama. Surprised you have forgotten about that already. Time for some more "tech" courses, I guess.

You guys trade in lies and stupidity, yet you pretend to be blind to it. Man, religion sure makes people do crazy things.

- Canucklehead

Anonymous said...

Tim says,
"Also, if the formation of our universe is random, how is it that evolution is not?"
What do these two things have to do with each other Tim, other than combining in a question posed by you to make you look foolish? Why don't you maybe read what Jon has already wrote before asking meaningless stuff like this? From Jon's last comment, just above, and from many other postings on this blog,

"Evolution is not "an accident." Evolution is an iterative process of stepwise improvement. It is neither accident nor intelligent design. It lies in between those two extremes."

Read it. Understand it. Evolution really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend for such a self professed intelligent, hard-working, guy. Unless you've maybe got a touch of those chromosomal problems you like to bark about so often.

- Canucklehead

scohen said...

"A topic only a guy who hates sports (sorry scohen, but seriously, WTF?)"

Tim and I were discussing naturalism vs. supernaturalism, not morality. I also didn't say I hate sports, merely that I don't like them. Let me clarify: I don't like sports that involve a ball. For example, I'm a pretty big fan of MotoGP (but not NASCAR...blech). That said, I usually watch two football games per year (OSU vs. Michigan and the super bowl).
I don't know why I don't like sports --even as a child, they never interested me. I'm much more interested in doing something sporty (skiing, whitewater kayaking, motorcycling) then spending time watching a game. I'll go to a baseball game if someone asks, but that's pretty much just for the beer.

highboy said...

"Tim, comments surrounding my education really don't have much weight coming from a guy who went to "Bible College". And in "worthless" Canada, no less." There must be a story there, by the way. Perhaps your marks weren't good enough to attend Jesus school in your home country (although, one can only imagine just how dumb someone would have to be for that to happen)? But you'd think the finest (LOL) religious educations could be fund in the US, no?"

Actually the one in Canada is one of the most prestigious, but as for normal college you're correct. 15 out of the top 20 colleges are all in the U.S, none of them are in Canada. Go figure.

"Other than when Jon schooled you in a previous thread, don't forget."

If you mean repeating yourself over and over again and then refusing to answer yeah, he sure did "school" me.

"Other than an opportunity to pull those kids of yours back above the poverty line, I suppose."

This from the guy who can't survive without his government paying his way for healthcare. LOL.

"Come on Tim, show ME some of this Love you talk about. Because, frankly, I have never seen it. Ever."

Tough love. The truth will set you free canuck.

"Ah, so you just want to lie some more then? Fine be that way. Oh and it looks like you might have forgotten that it was Bush that spearheaded the bailouts not Obama. Surprised you have forgotten about that already. Time for some more "tech" courses, I guess.

You guys trade in lies and stupidity, yet you pretend to be blind to it. Man, religion sure makes people do crazy things."

So in other words, you're denying verifiable evidence that Obama publicly supported the bailouts, passed a ridiculous stimulus, and just took ever one sixth of our economy? Exactly what definition of "socialist" are you reading?

"Read it. Understand it. Evolution really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend for such a self professed intelligent, hard-working, guy. Unless you've maybe got a touch of those chromosomal problems you like to bark about so often."

What's the matter, can't answer? Sounds to me like you have enough trouble understanding evolution yourself. You're such a little kid? Do you realize just in your last 3 posts you've not made one argument of your own? Not once since you've started commenting here actually. I'd love to see you just one time actually argue a point of your own, instead of giving Jon and Co. internet hand jobs all day long.

"Talk to me about my own industry or about running a business, raising children, hockey, or mixed martial arts though, and you're in real trouble"

Yeah, and I'd believe you too. LOL. Go ahead, copy and paste someone else's response again canuck to show me how smart you are and tell me I got "schooled". LOL.

highboy said...

"I'll go to a baseball game if someone asks, but that's pretty much just for the beer."

Beer prices at a baseball game are simply insane. If you just want to drink hell, go to a sports bar.

Anonymous said...

Oh and Timmy, regarding your little "How has this been tested?" question to Jon relative to the mammalian birth process, why don't you ask Radar this question when it comes to the YEC theories on flood sorting and ice core layers? Because while, I'm guessing that Jon likely has an answer for you based in science, should he choose to engage you, Radar has no answer whatsoever to these questions. Doesn't it bother you a little bit that the very proof you seek from Jon when it comes to his statements (you know, to produce a testable hypothesis), is nowhere to be found when it comes to the arguments of the guy you are "defending".

- Canucklehead.

PS - Radar, making statements like this "Based on the multiple thousands of words and pictures and links to articles and attributions to scientists and copied articles I have presented since 2004 on the subject...I have given sound reasons and evidence" again, shows you to be one big liar. I mean, while you certainly have posted whole helluva' lot of words on this blog, the fact that you simply state that you have provided "sound reasons and evidence" does not make it true. Come on Radar, show us a link to your best post on the topic. Give us even one to go from. This is your blog Kimbal, as I said before, it really is time to put up or shut up.

scohen said...

"How has this been tested?"
It doesn't really need to be tested; if you route the birth canal below the pelvis, you don't hit the obstruction of the pelvis itself. The birth canal is a great example of a good-enough design in quadrupeds that is absolutely horrific in humans. We have the smallest pelvic girdle *and* the largest cranium size (proportionally, of course) in the animal kingdom. Witness the difficulty of birth.

"So why all the cases of bad design?"

Unlike canuck, I'm going to assume that you're asking a genuine question and will answer.
The reason is that evolution's success criterion can be summed up as: "Good enough to get you to breeding age and disseminate your genes". Perfection, or even competent design is not a requirement. Interestingly, creationism would predict the exact opposite since we it posits that were designed by a perfect being.

"Where is the improvement?"
The improvement is a slow process that when is subject to the above constraints can hit what are called 'local maximum', that are 'good enough' *and* inelegant. That's why we see so much inelegance throughout nature. My favorite being rectal pads in insects, which compensate for their ummm... leaky... digestive system.

"Also, if the formation of our universe is random, how is it that evolution is not?"

Randomness, entropy, heat, is the dominant condition of the universe, but that doesn't disallow order. The formation of stars is a well known, simple (yeah, I'm glossing over that one a lot) process that relies solely on gravity, yet results in a huge local increase of order. Evolution works within the framework of life, which expends energy to keep things relatively ordered. As I've shown with my genetic algorithm example, a process can start out with random information and using nothing but selection, produce a more ordered result.

"How did a random event create a system or process so ridiculously complex in which organisms can evolve and adapt?"

Simply put, we don't know. However, to look at a present day cell (as many creationists do) and state that this is how the first cells must have functioned isn't exactly fair. Also, this deals more with abiogenesis rather than evolution.

"Your describing a natural process that has a purpose in a naturalist world that has no purpose."

An organism's "purpose" is to perpetuate its genes. Selection is the way that better genes continue in a population over time. Evolution doesn't have a 'purpose' or 'goal' in mind.

I think this last point is a semantic one, where the word 'purpose' at least to me is synonymous with 'intent', as if there's some overseer that has a goal in mind.

Anonymous said...

@ Scohen

Re: Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism over morality, sorry, I must have fallen asleep there for a little while. ;)

Oh and how about sports with a puck?

- Canucklehead

Jon Woolf said...

scohen wrote: That said, I usually watch two football games per year (OSU vs. Michigan and the super bowl).

The Army-Navy Game is usually worth watching too -- not so much for the gameplay as for the spirit messages scattered throughout. Some of those are better than Super Bowl ads.

It doesn't really need to be tested; if you route the birth canal below the pelvis, you don't hit the obstruction of the pelvis itself. The birth canal is a great example of a good-enough design in quadrupeds that is absolutely horrific in humans.

Yeah, that about covers it. Most birth problems in mammals are caused by mispresentation of the fetus. Humans add the problem of the baby's oversize cranium. If the fetus didn't have to pass through the mother's pelvis, most of those problems just wouldn't be problems anymore.

James Herriot's four books are (among many other things) an excellent introduction to the problems faced by a large-animal veterinarian. Many of his stories about sheep and cattle orbit around birthing problems. Very educational, although not for the squeamish.

Anonymous said...

Oh highboy, you so funny.

You say, "Actually the one in Canada is one of the most prestigious". So you're saying that you had to come to lowly old Canada for the best education in your field? Awesome. Go Canada. By-the-way, where were the other 5 "colleges" in the "top 20" you referred to, located? Because even if one or two was in Canada we'd be doing alright based on the fact your population is 10 times our size.

You say, "This from the guy who can't survive without his government paying his way for healthcare". Um, you are aware that we just, you know, get health care up here, right? I didn't actually ask for it. And as I pointed out in the past, I actually pay quite a bit for it through taxes. Although I really do like the system itself. Tell me Tim, did you feel like less of a man when you used the health care system while you were living up here? And did you offer to pay the government back for any services you or your family scammed from us?

You say "tough love", I say "giant d-bag". To each their own I guess.

You say, "So in other words, you're denying verifiable evidence that Obama publicly supported the bailouts, passed a ridiculous stimulus, and just took ever one sixth of our economy". Actually I was specifically referring to the "buddies with Bill Ayers" line. I even quoted it, you reading comprehension master, you. And I was merely pointing out the fact that the investment by the US Government in the financial system was done under a Republican president to address problems caused by 8 years of inattention and deregulation, under George W. Bush by Allan Greenspan.

You say, I "can't answer", I say, it's already been answered, dummy. I figured you missed it the first time. Oh and dude, if you don't like my "nothing" posts, why don't you just ignore them? Instead of trying to refute every little point? I know, I know! It's because they're just too awesome to ignore.

You also say I'm a "little kid" but according to your blogger profile I'm actually slightly older than you. So, respect your elders, you punk.

Finally, you have some nerve blasting me for "cutting and pasting" anything, considering the particular blog you are posting said comment on.

- Canucklehead.

PS - By-the-way, Tim, you did get totally schooled by Jon. Pwned in fact.

highboy said...

"Um, you are aware that we just, you know, get health care up here, right? I didn't actually ask for it. And as I pointed out in the past, I actually pay quite a bit for it through taxes. Although I really do like the system itself. Tell me Tim, did you feel like less of a man when you used the health care system while you were living up here? And did you offer to pay the government back for any services you or your family scammed from us?"

1. I'm aware you pay through the nose in taxes.
2. Neither me nor my son got your healthcare while we were up there, and I had to pay out of pocket for the entire pregnancy, regardless of the fact that by your own laws my son should have had duel citizenship.
3. Do you feel like less of a man knowing that we Americans own you?

"You say, I "can't answer", I say, it's already been answered, dummy."

Thank goodness for that, because if it were left up to you, evolution wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

"You also say I'm a "little kid" but according to your blogger profile I'm actually slightly older than you. So, respect your elders, you punk."

You're not older than me. I don't believe you. You're a little kid blogging from his mother's basement getting a chuckle at annoying radar and probably a slew of other blogs. Your called trolls. While the other dissenters here actually have a knowledge about the topics being discussed and have a genuine concern for the overall effect, you simply have nothing better to do. Stick to hockey.

highboy said...

"It doesn't really need to be tested; if you route the birth canal below the pelvis, you don't hit the obstruction of the pelvis itself."

So how would a scientist draw a conclusion from a hypothesis without actually testing it?

highboy said...

"Oh and dude, if you don't like my "nothing" posts, why don't you just ignore them? Instead of trying to refute every little point?"

You're right. Good call. Feeding rats will just keep them coming.

Jon Woolf said...

Highboy, some people are smart and imaginative enough to test a hypothesis in their minds. This is usually known as a "thought experiment."

highboy said...

"Highboy, some people are smart and imaginative enough to test a hypothesis in their minds. This is usually known as a "thought experiment."

Not good enough, not even close to good enough. In other words, we're back to just another assumption. Hardly compelling enough evidence to say that the birth process is "malfunctioning" among mammals, or even an example of bad design. If evolution is the process in which you describe, than the birth process from a naturalist standpoint is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous said...

You're right. Good call. Feeding rats will just keep them coming.

A good and wise intention. Hope you have the willpower and discipline to stick to it.
Canucklehead, I suggest you do exactly the same: stop feeding the rat and it will starve.

Jon Woolf said...

In other words, we're back to just another assumption.

Nah, what it really is is a nonstandard verb conjugation. You know, like "I am firm; you are obstinate; he is a pig-headed fool." In this case, when I (who know something about the topic) say it, it's a thought experiment. If you, who know nothing about the subject, were to say it, then it would be just an assumption.

highboy said...

"You know, like "I am firm; you are obstinate; he is a pig-headed fool." In this case, when I (who know something about the topic) say it, it's a thought experiment. If you, who know nothing about the subject, were to say it, then it would be just an assumption."

Calling it a "thought experiment" is just another way of saying "assumption". You didn't experiment anything. You didn't test anything. Therefore, your conclusion can't be taken seriously.

scohen said...

"In other words, we're back to just another assumption."

Not really, this isn't exactly a assumption given we've seen for centuries how difficult it is for female mammals to give birth --especially humans. We know that the pelvis interferes with birth, getting the birth canal out of the pelvis would help.

"Hardly compelling enough evidence to say that the birth process is "malfunctioning" among mammals, or even an example of bad design."

A more than 1% mortality rate for humans for a process required to perpetuate the species is pretty much the definition of failure. There's a bonus question in there somewhere about why evolution doesn't fix this. *Hint* evolution predicts the answer.

"If evolution is the process in which you describe, than the birth process from a naturalist standpoint is exactly how it should be."

It is what it is, but that doesn't mean it's optimal or even good. It works, but it's not necessarily pretty or efficient. Again, the genetic algorithm example bears this out.

highboy said...

"It is what it is, but that doesn't mean it's optimal or even good. It works, but it's not necessarily pretty or efficient. Again, the genetic algorithm example bears this out."

How do you know its not more efficient than the solution you've come up with that hasn't been tested? Simply assuming that getting the birth canal out of the pelvis would make things easier is hardly compelling. For all science knows, its in the pelvis for a reason. We have no idea what moving the birth canal to a different area might do to the human body.

scohen said...

"How do you know its not more efficient?"

When I was speaking of efficiency, I was referring to general solutions that evolution comes up with. I apologize, that wasn't particularly clear. What we have here is a clear case of a *flaw* which can easily be remedied by moving some parts around a little bit.

"Simply assuming that getting the birth canal out of the pelvis would make things easier is hardly compelling"

When there's an engineering problem like this it's safe to say that eliminating the root cause will improve things drastically. We see how different pelvis structures make birthing easier. No one would argue that dogs have an easier go at birthing than do women. Extrapolate this to its logical end, and you'll have a solution for the problem.

"For all science knows, its in the pelvis for a reason"

It is, there's not a whole lot of selective pressure to move it, and a change like this will take a *very* long time.

There's that word 'reason' again.

"We have no idea what moving the birth canal to a different area might do to the human body"

Debatable, but it would certainly improve delivery, which is what we were talking about here.

This is one of many, examples in humans alone that are poor solutions. Defending all of them via 'we don't know' will get mighty tiring. The blind spot in our eye is another fantastic example. Huge flaw, fixed with a kludge in the brain. Why have this? Squid and octopus don't have this problem.

highboy said...

"It is, there's not a whole lot of selective pressure to move it, and a change like this will take a *very* long time."

Just so we're clear, I wasn't suggesting someone go out and try to remove the birth canal out of the pelvis.

scohen said...

"I wasn't suggesting someone go out and try to remove the birth canal out of the pelvis."

If that's the case, we were absolutely *not* clear. Because of that, I thought you were being mighty unreasonable.

radar said...

The point of this post, which has had a long disjointed and sometimes very entertaining comment thread, was to show that the cell has been proven to be in charge of the replication process rather than DNA, which completely throws all Darwinist teaching about how genes reveal a long evolutionary past.

In fact, the "junk DNA" is not junk, it is more involved in replication than much of the strand that was previously identified as having a role in replication. So Dawkins and others like him who have sought to trace mistakes and throwaways in DNA were walking down a dark dead end. So back to the drawing boards, Darwinists!

Furthermore, the remarkably complexity of cells is now multiplied exponentially by the process of replication, a process unthinkably complex beyond the imagination of scientists of Darwin's day.

No posturing about understanding evolution does commenters any good. I do not care what you believe, how can anyone possibly look into the intricate design of reproductive processes and not see obvious intelligence? Any engineers out there? Is not the process at the microscopic level a thing of beauty? Redundancies and contingencies, just like one would design spacecraft. One human cell is more complex than a spacecraft but they make a good comparison. the cell is designed to produce an organism that adjusts to continually shifting ecosystems with aplomb!

scohen said...

Radar, you might want to read the original article, which seems to say the exact opposite of what your creationist buddy has summarized for you above.

I have no idea how someone reading the above could possibly think that it refutes evolution in any way. In reality, the article does exactly the opposite.

Looks like we have another Hartnett level creationist faker.

highboy said...

"If that's the case, we were absolutely *not* clear. Because of that, I thought you were being mighty unreasonable"

I can be a prick but I'm pretty sure I'll just take your word on this particular case rather than ask you to go hack some woman open to try and reposition her birth canal.

scohen said...

"...hack some woman open to try and reposition her birth canal."

And I was thinking we'd try it on an animal first!

You're cruel!!!

...and oddly enough, my verification is 'morphy'

radar said...

Stop all this BS about me lying. You are trying to take attention away from the issues and you are yourself lying by saying that.

None of you have answered my questions, you try to move the discussion elsewhere.

None of you can explain how so much information can be contained in so tiny a structure and be so complex and so obviously designed.

I do not think I have seen anyone appreciate how these relatively new findings have ruined pretty well any Darwinist thought about DNA.

Shakespeare would say that you commenters on this issue have been "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!"

scohen said...

Who said anything about you lying? The guy that wrote the paper you posted (Alexander Williams) is a creationist faker like Hartnett.

"None of you have answered my questions, you try to move the discussion elsewhere."

What? You posted a paper on facilitated variation, and I posted a paper on facilitated variation written by the people who thought it up. How is this not related? It's *directly related* and completely refutes your point.

"I do not think I have seen anyone appreciate how these relatively new findings have ruined pretty well any Darwinist thought about DNA."

Well, you'll have to also include the discoverers of facilitated variation in that accusation because they don't agree with you one bit. Read the paper I linked to and find out.

"Shakespeare would say that you commenters on this issue have been "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!""

LOL. If a paper written by the people who came up with 'facilitated variation' that refutes your points about it signifies nothing, then nothing anyone can say signifies anything.

radar said...

scohen, I have tried to find some link or web address you posted that refutes Williams. Would you mind putting it up in this comments page? I will read it if you post it.

Jon Woolf said...

Elementary, my dear Radar. Here's the link scohen gave:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8582.long

A very interesting read, scohen; thanks for posting it. I had forgotten just how duplicitous creationists can be; I thought the Williams piece that Radar copied into the source post for this comment-thread was basically accurate, and it was only Radar's interpretation of it that was flawed. I shoulda known better. The paper you linked meshes exquisitely with material I've read previously, about the role of regulatory genes, chemical cascades, ripple effects, and other such phenomena in guiding the development of an organ or organism. It's clear now that this is another case of a creationist source lying through his teeth, and poor Radar not knowing enough to realize he was getting suckered.

radar said...

Ah, now I see. That is an article written before William's from which Williams separated wheat and chaff and produced his. When you take out the "I think" and "I suppose" and "must have happened this way" then you get the jist of the processes observed by the authors and also that provided the basis for the article I posted.

After Easter I am going to follow up with a companion piece that goes beyond this last one.

I thought you had some article that shredded Williams whereas you simply linked a source material for Williams.

scohen said...

"I thought you had some article that shredded Williams whereas you simply linked a source material for Williams."

Let me guess, you didn't read the article I linked to, right?
To put it mildly, Williams's conclusions are unsupported by the evidence.

To put it less mildly, Williams's conclusions are nearly the opposite of those made in the original paper.

radar said...

Yes, William's conclusions are nearly the opposite but both have the same evidence. The authors of that piece are spinning like tops trying to explain how these systems might have somehow evolved but at the base of all of this the conclusions reached by Williams not only make sense but I am going to take this further after Easter.

Those two guys were writing like a college freshman filling a requirement for an 8 page term paper with 3 pages of filler, 4 pages of fluff and tricking up the font size of the periods and commas. In my opinion, anyway. You always have to separate out the speculation from the science in papers like this one.

You cannot read an article, watch a television special or hear a news report regarding origins without encountering millions of years and evolution inserted as statements of fact whereas all of this is wild speculation. Operational science is so far from this I cannot imagine how a math major could sit and listen to Darwinists talk for five minutes without getting up and walking away. Fairy tales are presented as fact. It is just crazy!

radar said...

I wonder sometimes how so many very intelligent people cannot see through this positioning of Darwinism, this weaving of speculation within the thread of solid evidence. Learning about the replication process at the cellular level is fascinating stuff if you weed out the long speculative just-so stories that are attached.

scohen I know that I know that you are a very smart guy and so why do you think that article is an answer to Williams when Williams drew the science out from between the lines of stories and focused on the actual findings? Do you not see all the assumptions that they make and build upon?

Jon Woolf said...

Radar wrote: Operational science is so far from this I cannot imagine how a math major could sit and listen to Darwinists talk for five minutes without getting up and walking away.

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as _hints_ to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.

"All this may make it very difficult for physicists to adapt to most biological research. Physicists are all too apt to look for the wrong sorts of generalizations, to concoct theoretical models that are too neat, too powerful, and too clean. Not surprisingly, these seldom fit well with the data. To produce a really good biological theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelessly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there."

-- from WHAT MAD PURSUIT, by Francis Crick, pp. 138-9.

I find that mathematicians and engineers often have the same problems with evolutionary theory as Crick assigns to physicists. The Bacon/Occam approach to science, which works so well with the physical sciences, fails badly when applied to biology. Where organisms are concerned, the obvious answer is often not the true one.

scohen said...

"The authors of that piece are spinning like tops trying to explain how these systems might have somehow evolved "

The authors of the piece (Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart) are spinning like tops despite:

1. Coming up with the idea in the first place.
2. Writing their article *before* williams did his "thing"
3. Having vastly superior credentials.

Again, Williams is trying to hoodwink you. Looks like it's working too.

"Those two guys were writing like a college freshman filling a requirement for an 8 page term paper with 3 pages of filler, 4 pages of fluff and tricking up the font size of the periods and commas. In my opinion, anyway"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your opinion is really worth squat here. I read the paper and didn't spot filler at all. They wrote a whole *book* on the matter (which williams the dishonest faker cites). I'll bet he's betting you don't read it.

"I cannot imagine how a math major could sit and listen to Darwinists talk for five minutes without getting up and walking away"

Yet they don't have a problem with it. Maybe they know something you don't.
Actually, they do: Math.

scohen said...

"scohen I know that I know that you are a very smart guy"

It's good that you're so sure. I'm not actually that smart, I just filter my posts through a genetic algorithm.

"why do you think that article is an answer to Williams"

I don't think it's an *answer* to williams so much as it's written by the people who had the idea in the first place. They came to a conclusion that makes sense, is supported by a lot of evidence and builds on current knowledge.

Williams, on the other hand, took what Kirschner and Gerhart did and reached a conclusion that was *not* supported by the evidence.

This is akin to einstein explaining general relativity in a paper and some other guy with a masters in engineering writing another paper telling us that object don't accumulate mass when they accelerate.

I'm forced (though it wasn't a hard sell) to side with the authority here. The science in their paper was much better.

creeper said...

"You cannot read an article, watch a television special or hear a news report regarding origins without encountering millions of years and evolution inserted as statements of fact whereas all of this is wild speculation."

Wild speculation, eh? Numerous dating methods accompanied by the fossil record indicate an Earth that is not just millions, but billions of years old, as well as macroevolution taking place over geological time.

I asked you the following upthread, but you chose to ignore it for some reason:

"You recently made this claim:

All dating methods thought up by Darwinists and Naturalists ignore the idea of the Flood and all of them have major flaws and questions. One will find this out if one studies the evidence presented by both sides (all three sides, depending on how you look at it). For every method that presents old ages there is another method that shows a very young earth. Creationists have been very successful finding dating methods that are not likely skewed by a Flood event and those methods give us young ages."

Okay then:

1. What are the methods (plural) that indicate a very young Earth?

2. Why are all the results indicated by all dating methods that do indicate an old Earth interpreted falsely, and how should they have been interpreted and why?

You've previously taken a stab both at dendrochronology (tree rings) and ice core layers and failed completely at both, so I'm curious if you've made any progress."


So how about it?

-- creeper

radar said...

Williams part two after Easter, followed by dating methods and problems. You can all gripe about the two but they will be separate posts so we can separate out the subjects.

creeper said...

"Williams part two after Easter, followed by dating methods and problems. You can all gripe about the two but they will be separate posts so we can separate out the subjects."

Take as many posts as you like, but I think I can see your moving of the goalposts already. I predict you won't spend too long sticking to this claim:

"For every method that presents old ages there is another method that shows a very young earth. Creationists have been very successful finding dating methods that are not likely skewed by a Flood event and those methods give us young ages."

-- creeper