Next step? Censorship... I can't wait!
See it all going down here. Some of you might find the blogger's name familiar - Collin Brendemuehl.
Here is how it is going so far, blog commments only (I've omitted comments by anyone but myself and Brendemuehl for brevity). What Brendemuehl wrote is in italics:
Are there 10 million random genetic changes needed to take place from, say, an ancient little rodent to today's human? Just a round figure for the sake of argument.
Why not use a rational number instead of one that you pulled form thin air, most likely as a means of 'proving' what you already "believe"? You say you present the 10 million figure just for the sake of argument, but do you really think that there are 10 million substantive trait differences between a mouse-like rodent and a human? What are they? Can you make a list of, say, 1,000?My bet is that you cannot do even half that before you start repeating yourself.
So do you really think that you can find a major genetic trait shift (on average) every 6 generations? Hardly. There is not enough time!
When you establish unrealistic ground rules, of course your results will
look silly. That was your intent, was it not?
Let's try another route: Lucy is 3.9 million years old and (again, for the sake of argument) pretty close to human structure. That means very few changes from Lucy to today and a greater number of generational changes from Yucatan to Lucy. Again, not enough time!
A baseless assertion devoid of logic or rationale, and premsied on a totally fabricated foundation. Wonderful argumentation!
9:40 AM
Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:It is a hypothetical.But I don't see any reasonable way to get the number of trait changes in a mere 1000.
I had asked you to name 1000 of the millions of changes you believe exist. You did not even try. You see no 'reasonable' way to get a human rom a rodent in 1000 trait changes, but you ave not even explained what you mean by trait. You are just tossing big numbers around as if they mean something. And what ARE the trait changes you speak of, and how many mutations would it take to produce them? You seem to know. You think that there are 'millions' of trait changes between humans and rodents, yet you cannot even list a few of them. I was not saying that there ARE 1000, I was asking if you could actually list 1000 of the millions you say exist.
10M is not an unreasonable hypothetical figure when you talk about the complexity of genetics.
10 M what? Trait changes? Please explain what you mean by a trait. But sure, let us talk about the complexity of genetics. I just taught the genetics unit in my anatomy class this past week. Again I ask - How many mutations are requred to produce specific trait changes, as you call them? Do all trait changes require the same number of mutational changes? I fail to see why 10 M mutations is a 'reasonable amount' devoid of any rationale or explanation. Oh - and are we talking about fixed beneficial mutations, or phenotype-altering mutations in general?
But it's also not simple changes -- there is not a simple path from rodent to human. There are gene combinations and all sorts of other hypotheses related to these processes. Throw in natural selection and you add more possibility for loss.
Of course it is not simple. There is nearly no limit to what direction an evolutionary process could take. But human from rodent was not a goal. In fact, there is NO goal at all. What we see is simply what happened.
That's a field in which you are apparently strong. But for the sake of *your* position let's say it's a mere 1M. That's still a real change every 60 generations, which is also outside the scope of common Darwinian and neo-Darwinian calculations.
Please show some of these 'neo-Darwinian' calculations you speak of. Where did you get your generation numbers from? You will need to establish, in order for your positon to have any merit, at the very least:1. How many trait differences in 'kind' and not degree there actually are e.g., changes in the density of hair on the skin is a difference in degree, hair from no hair is a difference in 'kind'; differences in degree can be caused by neutral variation and other non-beneficial changes).
2. How many mutations would have been required for each such change.
It would also be helpful to know the population sizes involved and the generation times of the ancestral groups, but 1 and 2 above are the bare minumum that your position must have in order to be taken seriously at all. Simply 'not believing' it is insufficient.
Again, the numbers, even your more modest numbers, don't seem to add up.
I'm sorry - I provided no numbers. YOU did.
Now, if you enlighten me (the post was clear about my wish to hear a real alternative (see paragraph 2), I'm all ears. But make it realistic, please.
An alternative to what?I am unsure why a greater requisite for realism is placed on me when your numbers appear to have been pulled from thin air and to be premised not on any knowledge of genetics, but on an awe of large numbers. Rodents diverged from the rest of the placental mammals some 80 million years ago (depending on the source and the specific branching pattern employed, between 55-125 MYA). In terms of real anatomy and physiology, there is relatively little in terms of 'new' traits that primates possess that rodents do not.If there really are 10 M 'trait changes', what are they? And why is 80 odd million years not enough time?You cannot just toss out numbers and call it an argument.
6:57 PM
Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
I'm wanting to see "the work" where the number of necessary changes are clarified and the changes are identified.
That does not appear to be what you wrote in your blog post. YOU presented numbers of changes, YOU should identify them and then explain how many mutations would be required to produce them. It is YOUR argument.
That is why I raised a hypotheticall and asked for a clarification as to the reliability of such an estimation.
I'd say that the 'estimation' is orders of magnitude off. It is folly to claim that there are some certain number of traits to account for when no real definition of 'trait' is provided or suggested.
My assertion is for the purpose of gaining clarification. I'm *wanting* someone to show any real or apparent error and not just say that it's wrong.
Why is pointing out the wrongness wrong? I do not pretend to know exactly how many trait differences there are between humans and a rodent ancestor in part because I do not know what traits the rodent ancestor possessed. Do you?But I do not feel that unless someone proves me wrong, I can make any assertion I want to on the subject. Human and mouse genomes differ by some 60%, 10x the difference between humans and chimps. This number is right about what would be expected had humans and mice diverged for a common ancestral population about 75 MYA ( see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/305/5683/525.pdf). So what exactly are you looking to get corrected on specifically?
7:14 PM
Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
You asked me to name 10M changes?
Do you read the things you reply to? I ask in all sincerity, for I specifically asked - and later reiterated - if you could name 1,000 of the 10 M you proposed. I don't think that is too much to ask.
How many gene changes for walking upright?
Good question. Do you know? If not, it seems to me that tossing out numbers like 10 M are just BS.
For arms, hands, size, shape, intellect.
Do mice not have arms? Hands (as such)? This is why I asked about
differences in kind and not degree. Mouse forepaws have the same basic skeletal structure as a human hand does, just in different proportions and a slightly different configuration. How many mutations did it require to get a mouse-like forepaw to a human-like hand? Couldn't tell you, but personally, I would not feel comfortable tossing out numbers if I did not have a good reason to do so.
The minimalist approach of classic Darwinism is inadequate.
So you say, but do you really think just making things up is adequate?
Allow me to provide an example of why I do not believe some enormous number of beneficial mutational changes are required to alter the basic vertebrate body plan. I do not present this as an example of evolution, nor as an example of a beneficial mutation. I merely present it as an example of how small genetic changes can produce large phenotypic differences. There is a gene in humans that encodes one of the receptors for fibroblast growth factor. This particular gene is called FGFR-3. A single point mutation in this gene that alters an amino acid produces a form of achondroplasia (dwarfism). This is not a developmental 'programming' gene like the HOX genes, it is just a gene for a receptor that would be found on certain types of cells.
Yet this mutation produces disproportionate limb growth, reduction in the number of interphalangeal joints, and characteristic facial features. All from one little single nucleotide change. Now imagine what sorts of changes could occur as the result of minor changes in genes associated with, say, pelvis formation or neocortex growth. There is a big difference between gross genome structure changes and the acquisition of beneficial mutations.
8:21 AM
Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
We know that "arm" is not a simple 1-gene change. You have bone
structure, muscle structure, vessel structure, valves, everything including the
attributes of strength, size, shape, color, etc., with the various nuances of
each such as thickness, cell structure, etc.
I guess you missed the very informative point in my last reply - a single
point mutation in one gene altered ALL of those things in the limbs and head of the individual. You do NOT, in fact, need specific mutations to alter every part of a limb. That is just naive folk science.
Set up a chart and you'll see that 1000 is a very small
number.
A chart of what?
These things, it is proposed, came very gradually over millions of years. I'm merely suggesting that the proposed amount of time is inadequate.
I know, and you have offered exactly ZERO rationale, evidence, of
explanation for your position. You just toss out a huge number and say that there is not enough time. Sure you obliquely refer to some 'Darwinism calculations' or whatever it was, but you don't say what those are even after I asked for clarification. Your implied position on the apparent need for mutations for each and every part of an arm, for example, is not premised on any real understanding of genetics or development, rather a 'folk science' belief about how genes and organisms operate. You will continue to 'disbelieve' in the issue until you actually make an attempt to understand what it is really about.
Classic Darwinism is based on observation and, as I said, is
simplistic. The use of molecular biology is neo-Darwinian.
I see no relevance to anything for that statement.
It seems counter-productive to evolutionary biology to propose radical
changes from single genes instead of long, slow changes as the theory
supposes.
Did you even try to understand the points I made? You might be better
off getting your information on genetics, development, and evolution from actual geneticists and evolutionary biologists than from religious philosophers (Plantinga)and the like. Your replies are disjointed and you do not even attempt to address the details. It is almost as if you don't really want the answers you claim to.
But maybe I am wrong, and you will soon provide a list of trait changes
between the LCA of rodents and humans, how many mutations would have been required to get those changes, etc.
12:31 PMCollin Brendemuehl said...
Dopple,You refuse to study the material or do the
work. Your trolling is tiresome. Enjoy your week.
5:22 PM
Boonton said...
Pot, Kettle, Black
9:07 AM
Doppelganger said...
Collin comically writes:
Dopple,You refuse to study the material or do the work. Your trolling
is tiresome. Enjoy your week.
How quaint, how creationist. Collin, my doctorate is in Anatomy and Cell Biology and my graduate research was on the molecular evolution of primates. My papers are cited by the Tree of Life web project and one of my papers has been cited more than all of Dembski's and Wells' actual peer reviewed publications combined. That I do not accept your bland, unsupported assertions at face value is not a rational excuse for accusing me of 'trolling' and not understanding the issues. It is not my fault that your ignorance of development and genetics and evolution has led you to propose absurd scenarios and even more absurd 'challenges'. If you feel that labelling my comments as trolling is a good way to avoid admitting that you are in over your head, well, so be it. Pride and hubris seem to be requisite qualities for internet creationists. I took the time to check out your comments on Brayton's and Rosenhouse's blogs, and it would appear that only one of us qualifies as a troll, and it is not me.
If you ever feel able to actually produce valid, meaningful numbers for
your scenarios as opposed to things pulled out of thin air and premised on a poor understanding of biology, or worse, on your understanding of the issues via creationist books and essays, let me know and I will gladly discuss it with you.
Until then, I plan to document this exchange on my blog.
9:32 AM
Lots of irony and hypocrisy in there so far....
Note - Brendemuehl has also accused the other active commenter there of trolling. Apparently, the creationist uses this tactic of labelling and accusing people of trolling when he realizes that he can no longer keep up with the level of technical sophistication sought by his opponants.
26 comments:
As I said to another commenter, misrepresentation is one of our finer tools. When you misrepresent my comments you help me.
I proposed a query and a situation. You, the PhD, instead of answering the question, attacked the question. Was it an invalid question? Why? That was not your approach. Instead you delve into "creationist" slurs and avoid answering the question.
I'm still waiting. Maybe your readers are as well.
Perhaps you can actually demonstrate where the misrepresentation is?
In fact, I showed where the question became folly. I explained why it was an invalid question - you apparently didn't get it.
You failed to respond to any of the requests for clarification I presented. You ignored the explanations I provided. You pretended that I asked you for a list of 10 million changes when I asked and reiterated that I wanted to see if you could provide 0.01% of the 'trait changes' you suggested were in evidence, and you failed to even attempt it. I explain why requiring some huge number of specific changes is naive, you ignore it and call me a troll.
You claim that 'neo-Darwinian' calculations cannot account for the numbers you present, I ask you to present the calculations, you ignore the request. I ask where your claim of 60 trait changes per generation came from, no reply.
Yes, I have a PhD., and I explained what was wrong with your 'questions', but you are a creationist, and you get your information from fellow creationists, and you know you must be right. I'm sure my readers see this, and are more intrerested in seeing you address the questions I asked and the clarifications I provided and the explanations I gave than they are in seeing me fall for your bait.
Misrepresentation #1: I'm not a 6KY creationist. That's what creationist (like Ken Ham) means. Special creation is one thing. 6,000 years is another.
Misrepresentation #2: You've not been censored. You're just being childish.
Your explanations were particulars. I've been asking fora model all along. Still waiting.
I gave the numbers in the post. Perhaps you read it?
You assumed a certain belief system (misrepresentation #3). I have one, but what I was asking for was a solution.
An arm does not sprout from a leg. That's a given.
But what would it *hypothetically* (and that was the whole point of the numbers, which you ignored) take for a leg to become an arm? Let's start by changing:
1. circulatory system
2. bone structure
3. muscles
4. skin
5. foot/hand
Each of these has a variety of qualities that need to change.
Let's list a few. There are more, but this is a good start.
1. circulatory system
1.1 Vessel size
1.2 vessel capacity
1.3 valve strength
1.4 elasticity
2. bone structure
2.1 formulation
2.2 thickness
2.3 marrow capacity
2.4 strength
3. muscles
3.1 tendon strength
3.2 size
3.3 strength
3.4 oxygenation
4. skin
4.1 sweat capacity
4.2 elasticity
4.3 hair capacity
4.4 coloration
5. foot/hand
5.1 Shape
5.2 Nails
5.3 Surface
5.4 Thumb behavior
There are more and more properties we might list. This 20 can easily expand to 1000 by adding digestive system, head, respiratory system, locomotion, mental capacity, and more. And if a gene change takes us not from beginning to end (like a simple on-off switch) but along a gradual set of thousands of changes over millions of years, we have those millions of changes needed. Make sense?
Got that alternative model anywhere handy?
Collin writes:
Misrepresentation #1: I'm not a 6KY creationist. That's what creationist (like Ken Ham) means. Special creation is one thing. 6,000 years is another.
Please point out where I stated that you were a YEC. Surley you czan do this, for you woul dnot want to be seen doing what you accused me of doing.
Misrepresentation #2: You've not been censored. You're just being childish.
I did not say that I had been censored. I wondered if that was next. I had asked on your blog if you actually read the things you respond to, and I ask that again.
Your explanations were particulars. I've been asking fora model all along. Still waiting.
Yeah, those particulars are irrelevant. Better to just toss out numbers based on speculations.
I gave the numbers in the post. Perhaps you read it?
Indeed I did, and I pointed out repeatedly how the numbers you provided seemed to have no basis in reality. Did you read those comments? It seems not.
You assumed a certain belief system (misrepresentation #3). I have one, but what I was asking for was a solution.
Again I ask for you to show where I claimed you were a YEC.
You claim to be 'asking' for a solution, yet what you really did was present absurd scenarios and 'demand' that someone provide something better. When I explained that your 'demand' was absurd, you just kept going.
An arm does not sprout from a leg. That's a given.
'Arms' and 'legs' are both appendages which exhibit substantial homology.
But what would it *hypothetically* (and that was the whole point of the numbers, which you ignored) take for a leg to become an arm?
I did not ignore it, I explained how your position seems to be naive 'folk genetics', and this reply from you cements that.
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the structutre of limbs in general, and appear to think that a quadruped's limbs are all the same, such that the 'leg' of a quadruped has to 'change' to become an arm. Which m,akes me wonder if you have ever seen a cat ro a dog. Have you? Are their forelimbs the exact same as their hindlimbs?
Let's start by changing:
1. circulatory system
2. bone structure
3. muscles
4. skin
5. foot/hand
Each of these has a variety of qualities that need to change.
Let's list a few. There are more, but this is a good start.
1. circulatory system
1.1 Vessel size
1.2 vessel capacity
1.3 valve strength
1.4 elasticity
2. bone structure
2.1 formulation
2.2 thickness
2.3 marrow capacity
2.4 strength
3. muscles
3.1 tendon strength
3.2 size
3.3 strength
3.4 oxygenation
4. skin
4.1 sweat capacity
4.2 elasticity
4.3 hair capacity
4.4 coloration
5. foot/hand
5.1 Shape
5.2 Nails
5.3 Surface
5.4 Thumb behavior
There are more and more properties we might list. This 20 can easily expand to 1000 by adding digestive system, head, respiratory system, locomotion, mental capacity, and more.
And doing so merely demonstrates that you totally ignroed the posts I left on your blog and that you DO in fact beleive that each and every structure within a limb (or any organ system) must require their own suite of specific changes.
That is naive.
Let me point out a few physiological issues before I delve into the true shortcomings.
You mention things like valve strength and bone strength. Did you know that bone and muscle strength CHANGE thoughout your life? That is why, for example, people who have injuries requiring prolonged bedrest end up with wekaer muscles and bones. That is why people with borken limbs have atrophied bone and muscle when their cast is removed. That is why newborns have limbs of the same mass. Bone and muscle strength are a function in part of the physical stresses put upon them.
But back to your major shortcoming - I guess I will have to write it again and hope that is sinks in this time:
There is a gene in humans that encodes one of the receptors for fibroblast growth factor. This particular gene is called FGFR-3. A single point mutation in this gene that alters an amino acid produces a form of achondroplasia (dwarfism). This is not a developmental 'programming' gene like the HOX genes, it is just a gene for a receptor that would be found on certain types of cells.
Yet this mutation produces disproportionate limb growth, reduction in the number of interphalangeal joints, and characteristic facial features. All from one little single nucleotide change. Now imagine what sorts of changes could occur as the result of minor changes in genes associated with, say, pelvis formation or neocortex growth. There is a big difference between gross genome structure changes and the acquisition of beneficial mutations.
A single point mutation in ONE GENE produces all the things on your list except for things that do not seem relevant like 'sweat capacity' and such.
And if a gene change takes us not from beginning to end (like a simple on-off switch) but along a gradual set of thousands of changes over millions of years, we have those millions of changes needed. Make sense?
Not at all.
As indicated by the FGFR-3 example, one gene can influence many structures. Now consider another gene having similar-scale effects. And another. And another. Each and every aspect of every structure within, say,a limb does NOT in fact require its own series of mutations. I hope that much is clear. And since each and every part does not erequire a series of mutations, I hope it is also clear that a proposed 10 million changes between a rodent-primate ancestor and modern humans is not premised on a reasoned study of genetics and development.
Got that alternative model anywhere handy?
Now for a closer look at some of the 'trait changes' listed:
1. circulatory system
1.1 Vessel size
1.2 vessel capacity
Vessel size dictates vessel capacity.
1.3 valve strength
1.4 elasticity
How does a small vessel differ in elasticity from a large one?
2. bone structure
2.1 formulation
What does 'formulation' mean? Are you saying that the bone of a rodent-human common ancestor had different bone chemistry? if so, please document this.
2.2 thickness
Cortical bone thickness has both genetic and environmental influences.
2.3 marrow capacity
A larger bone will have a greater marrow capcity.
2.4 strength
Thicker bone is stronger. You cannot alter the nature fo bone ot make it stronger. All vertebrate bone is essentially laid out the same way. Only way to make it stronger is to make it thicker.
3. muscles
3.1 tendon strength
The proetin fibers in tendons have the same tensile strength. Thicjker tendons are stronger, larger muscles therefore have larger tendons.
3.2 size
3.3 strength
Muscle strength is a function of it's size. Larger muscles are stonger.
3.4 oxygenation
More active muscles produce greater capillarity. Unused muscles lose it. Oxygenation in a muscles is a physiological response, not a genetic one.
4. skin
4.1 sweat capacity
4.2 elasticity
How is rodent skin different from primate skin in elasticity?
4.3 hair capacity
4.4 coloration
5. foot/hand
5.1 Shape
Rodent hands and feet are different already.
5.2 Nails
Nails are simply flat claws.
5.3 Surface
5.4 Thumb behavior
Most of these were double dipping or physiological as opposed to geneological trait changes.
Just as I predicted, excpet much worse. I had predicted that you could not name 500 without repeating yourself, and you could not name 20 without doing so.
"Creationist" is usually used to mean YEC. Sort of a convention.
Everything has components with their various attributes. I only tried to list a few. All of the attributes of each component and its various properties would need to change. Isn't that what evolution is all about?
Let's follow that and ask how the new traits come into existence. It's not that an organ came into existence because of some need for it, but the gene had to come into existence in order to develop the organ. It must first be encoded in order to exist. Correct?
Now, if you're suggesting that flipping a simple gene can change a leg into an arm, or a claw into a nail, or increase brain capacity by magnitudes, or some other simple method, I'm all ears. I gave you suitable examples and your PhD response is to say that I've not given enough instead of presenting a suitable model that would explain the long process.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, that genetic molecular biology might have this great a knowledge base.
Do you really think that you can flip a gene and change a claw into a nail, consisten with your example? That's just a Hopeful Monster Feature Subset claiming to be science.
Your dependence on a small subset of your science seems to be limiting the scope of your inquiry. I'm just asking questions but the answers do not seem to be fitting into the regular evolutionary proposition.
Collin writes:
Creationist" is usually used to mean YEC. Sort of a convention.
Concession accepted.
Everything has components with their various attributes. I only tried to list a few. All of the attributes of each component and its various properties would need to change. Isn't that what evolution is all about?
This is like talking to a brick wall....
Did you, or did you not read my entry on the FFR-3 gene?
Let's follow that and ask how the new traits come into existence.
New traits are modifications of pre-existing traits. This is why I've asked you about anatomy and such.
It's not that an organ came into existence because of some need for it, but the gene had to come into existence in order to develop the organ. It must first be encoded in order to exist. Correct?
Are you shifting goal posts on me?
Your original claims regarded human from a rodent-human ancestor, now you are talking about new genes coming into existence. Is this a concession on your rodent-human question?
Now, if you're suggesting that flipping a simple gene can change a leg into an arm, or a claw into a nail, or increase brain capacity by magnitudes, or some other simple method, I'm all ears.
Unless you plan on reading the things I write for comprehension, don't bother repsonding.
Unless you plan to actually respond to the things I write and not keep bringing up new tangents, do not waste my time.
I gave you suitable examples and your PhD response is to say that I've not given enough instead of presenting a suitable model that would explain the long process.
My PhD response was to explain that your position is naive and premised on folk genetics. Your monotonous non-PhD writings are to make the same basic claims over and over.
You keep talking about 'long process' and new model when the fact of the matter is that standard old mutation (of many sorts) and selection (of many sorts) and neutral drift etc., explains it all quite nicely. That you refuse to accept this does not indicate that the model is inadequate, it just means you don't get.
Now please stop with the 'PhD' stuff - creationists often try to trot that out as if I would waste my time trying to teach some internet pseudoexpert on everything the things they should know.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, that genetic molecular biology might have this great a knowledge base.
It looks more like you assume that your naive take on molecular genetics and evolution has merit.
Do you really think that you can flip a gene and change a claw into a nail, consisten with your example? That's just a Hopeful Monster Feature Subset claiming to be science.
If you have all the answers, why are you pretending to be asking for them?
Sorry, I've seen your take on 'horeful monsters' and you don't seem able to grasp the technicalities of the molecular genetics involved. If you think that transitioning a claw into a nail is a 'hopeful monster' then you are not worth the effort. Are you aware that there are several species of primates with both claws and nails? No, of course not. You think it is a hopeful monster...
Your dependence on a small subset of your science seems to be limiting the scope of your inquiry.
And your ignorance of the entire field seems to have emboldened you in an unwarranted manner, and you act as if you understand more than you do. Classic Dunning-Kruger datum point.
Of course, I cannot help it that your narrow strip of pseudoknowledge forces you to characterize all changes as hopeful monters. You'd be better off not relying on religious philosophers for your information on science.
I'm just asking questions but the answers do not seem to be fitting into the regular evolutionary proposition.
I don't think you understand the evolutionary position.
How can a person actually think that a claw into a nail is a macromutation ala the Hopeful Monster? How can a person who pretends to be knowlegible actually think that arms and legs are totally different and that to get an arm from a leg is a macromutation?
Before you ask the big questions, you might want to start with some basics.
Are you shifting goal posts on me?
I'm not shifting goal posts at all. (Maybe the question was too complicated.) If you're going to maintain a low level of complexity change (a high level of simplicity) between a rodent and a human then of course the more complex changes present a challenge to simplicity. One of these is the formation of new traits. In a simple process how are new organs added? Again, the classic Darwinian observation method is too simple (you'd probably agree). But you're in the neo-Darwinian world of genetic sciences so the should be more complex. You should have a real solution to the question, not an example from which extrapolation is expected.
Of course a gene may have multiple effects. That's not a problem. What is a problem is the suggestion that you can boil down the change from rodent to human in as few as a relative handful of changes. If you can go from a rodent to a human with a few thousand miniscule changes, I want to see it. (I began by asking for an answer to prove me wrong.)
If you have all the answers, why are you pretending to be asking for them?
If your questions are beyond challenge, why do you claim science? Isn't it really just another religious orthodoxy?
I'll go back to the basic question and see if you can address it with substance instead of attacking the question. (You could have proposed an alternate, better question instead of attacking me personally. But that would be too easy and you might not have found it as enjoyable.) So this time I'll be much more specific: Do you have a functional model theory that can show how any part of a rodent would become any part of a human over time? Can you show the process of genetic change, in all its fine detail, that would take a leg and turn it into an arm? That's all I'm asking -- what are the known steps in the process, how many are there, and when did they occur? You've talked of one gene's behavior generally (and generalizations don't cut it) but not in any detail about the model.
If you think that transitioning a claw into a nail is a 'hopeful monster' then you are not worth the effort.
If you think such a major change can be accomplished in one short step, then that seems to be exactly what you are proposing.
There. I've asked the question again, twice. I hope that's clear enough. If you can provide something real, I'll read it.
Collin writes:
I'm not shifting goal posts at all.
So, asking where new genes come from is the same as wondering how many 'trait changes' seperate a human from a human-rodent ancestor?
Bizarre.
(Maybe the question was too complicated.)
No, it is just that the asker doesn't understand that asking where new genes come from is in fact susbtantively different than wondering about the traits seperating a human from a
rodent-human ancestor.
If you're going to maintain a low level of complexity change (a high level of simplicity) between a rodent and a human then of course the more complex changes present a challenge to simplicity.
It seems you are injecting your subjective beliefs into the issue. Rodents are "simple", we are "complex", so surely the changes must be super-duper complex.
When one insists that the results of fairly 'simple' mechanisms are too complex for the 'simple' mechanisms to work, then no amount of evidence will inform them.
One of these is the formation of new traits. In a simple process how are new organs added? Again, the classic Darwinian observation method is too simple (you'd probably agree). But you're in the neo-Darwinian world of genetic sciences so the should be more complex.
Do you have any idea how ridiculouos the things you write are? WHY should things be 'more complex'? You utterly fail to understand why I asked some of the things I did, such as how many mutations are required to produce the trait changes you refer to and what are the changes that in kind and not of degree - the things you listed previously, by the way, were ALL of degree, not kind, i.e., none of them were "new".
I also asked you to define trait - and you did not. What do you actually mean by 'new trait'?
And please this time actually try to do it - list the "new traits" seperating a human from a rodent-human ancestor. But this time, do not double dip.
You should have a real solution to the question, not an example from which extrapolation is expected.
WHAT QUESTION? Why should anyone have the specific answer to your vacuous, naive question?
I already stated quite clearly that I have no idea how many 'trait changes' there are and the fact that you have failed to define what you mean and give real examples makes it all the more impossible to say. YOU, on the other hand, provided some rather dubious numbers and some vacuouos 'suppport' for them (neither of which you seem able to actgually explain, as I asked a couple of times and was ignored), but have been unable to produce the 'model' or the 'calcualtions' you used to derive any of them.
Of course a gene may have multiple effects. That's not a problem. What is a problem is the suggestion that you can boil down the change from rodent to human in as few as a relative handful of changes.
WHY is that a problem? Because you simply can't believe it? You have offered no rationale, no explanation, not even speculation as to why it might be a 'problem', you merely assert that it is. Maybe to religious philosophers merely asserting something counts, but I am sorry, in sciniece assertions only count if you can explain and support them.
If you can go from a rodent to a human with a few thousand miniscule changes, I want to see it.
As I have repeatedly stated, I have no idea how many changes it took. As I am not makinng a claim in that regards, I fail to see why I would be expected to present my numbers. YOU, on the other hand, have presented numbers and cannot support their veracity or validity. You say you toss them out for discussion and merely want a correction. Well, I explained that your number is almost certainly way off and provided just one example for why (not for extrapolation purposes, you really must not read what I write) this is so. You claim that tjhere is not enough time given your made-up number, but you ignore that the differences between extant mouse and human genomes is right about what would be expected given a divergence of somewhere in the 75 million year ago range. Why do you ignore these things? For rhetorical purposes?
(I began by asking for an answer to prove me wrong.)
I showed why your PREMISE was wrong. I do not understand why that is not sufficient. Say I declared that it is impossible to get 35 miles per gallon in a car because soda pop doesn't combust with enough energy and you point out that cars don't run on soda pop - would I be justified in insisting that you demonstrate that in fact cars can get 35 MPG using soda pop?
If you have all the answers, why are you pretending to be asking for them?
If your questions are beyond challenge, why do you claim science? Isn't it really just another religious orthodoxy?
Ah, yes, of course, it comes out. The old 'evolution is just a religion like creationism, so we are on equal footing" nonsense.
Where on earth did I write or imply that my 'questions' are beyond challnege? How is explaining that you are asking the wrong questions religious orthodoxy?
Is this the type of 'argumentation' that religious philosophers and photographers think is the most rational?
I'll go back to the basic question and see if you can address it with substance instead of attacking the question.
Funny how you assume your 'question' had merit in the first place.
(You could have proposed an alternate, better question instead of attacking me personally. But that would be too easy and you might not have found it as enjoyable.)
I did not attaqck you personally at all. Creatinists often feel the need ot make such martyrdom claims. Must make them feel special or something.
So this time I'll be much more specific: Do you have a functional model theory that can show how any part of a rodent would become any part of a human over time?
Humans did not evolve from rodents, sorry.
Can you show the process of genetic change, in all its fine detail, that would take a leg and turn it into an arm?
Why do you keep ignorinng the facts?
Why do you still seem to think that legs and arms are the same in the first place?
A rodent's 'arm' is as different form it's 'leg' as our arms are form our legs. Like I have said repeatedly - you are not asking legitimate questions. Do not expect substantive answers to non-substantive questions.
That's all I'm asking -- what are the known steps in the process, how many are there, and when did they occur?
Sure - I will answer those when you explain in detail how Yahweh made DNA and when.
You keep asking questions that I have already told you I have no answers for - nobody has answers fo rhtem, yet you keep asking as if you think you are making a point.
You've talked of one gene's behavior generally (and generalizations don't cut it) but not in any detail about the model.
How general is the fact that the bone length, muscle size, circulatory system changes, tendon changes, etc. were all altered by that one mutation?
It is apparently too much for you to handle because your folk genetics tells you that each and every part of a limb must have it's own genetic control system. And you are wrong. Refing an incorrect and naive question will not make it substantive.
If you think that transitioning a claw into a nail is a 'hopeful monster' then you are not worth the effort.
If you think such a major change can be accomplished in one short step, then that seems to be exactly what you are proposing.
A claw to a nail is a "major change"?
Incredibe...
There. I've asked the question again, twice. I hope that's clear enough. If you can provide something real, I'll read it.
The reality is you still are too underinformed on the subject matter to even formulate a valid question.
The 'model' for the underlying mechanism for the genetic changes that would produce a human from a rodent-human ancestor is the same model that the neo-Darwinian synthesis and it's addenda proposed - and as I have already written and you ignored - mutations (of various types) producing variation acted upon by selection (or various types) and/or via neutral effects such as drift.
Which specific changes took place? Couldn't tell you - I have not seen the mouse genome and I do not have the time to run an anlysis on the 3-odd billion bases of the human and mouse genomes for you.
When did they occur? I do not care to research the rodent-primate ancestor to primate fossil record to try to find out.
I'm not sure if it is funny or sad (or both) to see creationists ask these "questions" 1. as if the questions have merit 2. as if they understand the material enough to ask meritous questions 3. as if their question, unanswered, somehow props up their religious philosophy.
You still have not explainned what you mean by 'trait change'. You still have not explaine dhow many genetic changes you think such changes require. You still have not explained what 'calculations' and such you referred to. I cannot even try to help you ask legitimate questions until you answer these questins.
5:48 PM
My question was specific and yet you persist in not even recognizing that a new feature is a trait. The silliness of your response is telling.
Things should be viewed as complex because they are. If you insist that they are so simple then you probably still recognize "junk" DNA.
The question has been stated multiple times: GIVE ME A RAL MODEL. Not a point to extrapolate. Not a simplified conjecture. Not avoidance.
Why is over-simplification a problem? Because you cannot turn a rodent into a human by flipping a few genes. Reality is why. You cannot take that route and be considered thoughtful.
I didn't say "evolution is just a religion" but I am saying that you're treating it with the same level of respect. It's a similie. An explanation of that can be found in Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality for clarification.
I don't feel too special. Just taking note of your behavior.
Humans did not evolve from rodents, sorry.
Hmmm. It's standard conjecture that after the Yucatan impact which wiped out the dinosaurs that the only remaining mammals were rodents or something similar.
Yes, one gene can alter multiple items. But are they all beneficial, dominant, transmittable? Darwinism requires something very small in nearly indiscernable steps. Yes, a claw to a nail is a major change.
"3-odd billion bases" in the genome? Good info. It means that a LOT needs to change. Not all 3-odd billion, but maybe 10 million? 0.3%? Now it seems that 10M is not too much of a reach.
It appears that, though my question is misinformed (due to some lack of information), it is also very clear that there are issues which you are not able to answer or are even ready to acknowledge.
I don't think your inability to answer a question discredits the theory. It only discredits your ability to support it.
Collin writes:
My question was specific and yet you persist in not even recognizing that a new feature is a trait. The silliness of your response is telling.
I always get a kick out of it when people who are attempting to argue way beyond their abilities try to act condescending.
Let us try to get something straight – the things you listed as ‘new traits’ are in fact not new at all, they are modifications of pre-existing traits. A human arm is not a ‘new’ trait or new feature, it is a modified ‘old’ feature. The rodent-human ancestor had an arm. The mammal-reptile ancestor had an arm. Even the lobe-finned fishes had pectoral girdles and proximal bones homologous to the bones of an arm.
When I say you are not even asking a legitimate question, I mean it, but you are unable to recognize why, and continue to engage in these ‘I’m so smart, this evo-PhD is just dumb’ schtick. Pure Dunning-Kruger.
Things should be viewed as complex because they are. If you insist that they are so simple then you probably still recognize "junk" DNA.
How are things determined to be “complex”? Tell us all Collin, how did you determine this? What are the parameters? What are the criteria for judging something ‘complex’? And why does this complexity require a complex means of production? Which is more complex – a microchip or the mechanical devices that manufacture them?
And of course I still recognize “junk DNA”. It is not my fault that the media and the average layman confuse and conflate terms and definitions and try to make much ado about nothing. Unlike the average non-scientist creationist, I have actually seen it. I can actually read and understand the primary source literature and do not have to rely on dumbed-down hyperbolic press releases or the even dumber-dumbed-down professional creationist disinformation campaigns surrounding the issue.
Sorry.
The question has been stated multiple times: GIVE ME A RAL MODEL. Not a point to extrapolate. Not a simplified conjecture. Not avoidance.
And I have given you a real model repeatedly, you do not accept it and so continue on as if none were given.
Why is over-simplification a problem? Because you cannot turn a rodent into a human by flipping a few genes. Reality is why. You cannot take that route and be considered thoughtful.
That is a mighty assertion devoid of rationale, evidence, or even speculation as to why. Yours is just the anthropocentric lay creationist’s assertion premised on a lack of relevant understanding and a desire to be ‘special’ in Nature. You have offered nothing in terms of why a ‘rodent’ cannot “turn into” a human by ‘flipping’ a few genes (your continual use of folk terminology demonstrates the extent of your relevant knowledge).
You cannot take the route of merely asserting this without having any attempt at explanation and be taken seriously by anyone that has more than a passing understanding of the issues. You do not like the fact that some huge number of beneficial “new traits” was likely NOT required to get a human from a rodent-human ancestor in some 75 million years, and the only reason you do not like it is because you must believe that if evolution were true, there would HAVE TO BE such a huge number because we are so much more “complex” than rodents. Yours is the layman’s folk science reasoning.
I didn't say "evolution is just a religion" but I am saying that you're treating it with the same level of respect. It's a similie. An explanation of that can be found in Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality for clarification.
OK, I am treating evolution like a religion because I expect more than unsubstantiated assertions to be employed in arguments being made against it. Whatever… Folk psychology/theology AND folk science…
Humans did not evolve from rodents, sorry.
Hmmm. It's standard conjecture that after the Yucatan impact which wiped out the dinosaurs that the only remaining mammals were rodents or something similar.
Something similar. Hmmm…. Something rodent-like is not a rodent.
Yes, one gene can alter multiple items. But are they all beneficial, dominant, transmittable? Darwinism requires something very small in nearly indiscernable steps.
Your knowledge of ‘Darwinism’ is comparable to your knowledge of genetics which is to say nearly non-existent. All changes need not e beneficial to produce speciation or trait alterations. I thought I had mentioned as much, not that it matters. You know all…
Yes, a claw to a nail is a major change.
Sorry, no, a claw to a nail is inconsequential. You claiming that it is a major change demonstrates your naivete. Sorry.
"3-odd billion bases" in the genome? Good info. It means that a LOT needs to change. Not all 3-odd billion, but maybe 10 million? 0.3%? Now it seems that 10M is not too much of a reach.
About 40% of the rat and human genome is identical. 60% is different. Much of that difference is in indels and chromosomal and segmental duplications and such. The problem lies in your simplistic grasp of what the change indicates. You will doubtless insist that all the change must be beneficial mutations and that each such mutation represents a ‘new trait change’, and you will be as wrong now as you were when you first asked your ‘question.’
As I have already explained, the single point mutation in the FGFR-3 gene produces ‘major’ changes in all 4 limbs and everything in them. No huge number of changes is required to get the limb of a dwarf from the limb of a non-dwarf. I did not present that for purposes of extrapolation, I presented that to demonstrate the fact that huge number of specific mutations are in fact NOT required for each and every structure in a limb as you so ignorantly and naively insisted and apparently continue to do.
It appears that, though my question is misinformed (due to some lack of information), it is also very clear that there are issues which you are not able to answer or are even ready to acknowledge.
Of course I am unable to answer everything. I am not an underinformed creationist that insists I know more than I do. You have presented nothing that I would need to acknowledge. I feel no need to acknowledge folk science nonsense as legitimate, sorry.
I don't think your inability to answer a question discredits the theory. It only discredits your ability to support it.
I see. So I must have an answer right now to every question that any hack might ever ask, regardless of how absurd or uninformed the question is, and if I cannot, I must be unable to support the theory. Brilliant deduction. If we do not know everything, we must know nothing.
Typical creationist gibberish – ask stupid, uninformed ‘questions’ and when you are told how stupid and uninformed the question is and how your ignorance of the subject drove you to ask such a question, declare that because the question wasn’t answered (even though it was) that there must not be any way to support the theory.
Stop littering this site with your gibberish until you gain a basic understanding of the issues please.
Of course you are uninformed.
If you're willing to pick up Naturalism Defeated? and read Jerry Fodor (he's on your side) and the reast, you'll see one of the significant problems with your meaningless naturalism. The position your propose just doesn't sit with reality.
You're correct that I don't know molecular biology.
You're wrong to suggest that what you are doing exists outside of a greater world view. Such a naive outlook is unbecoming gibberish. And it clutters your blog. (Every decent philosophy student reading this will understand. Maybe someday you will.)
Amazing...
Collin the creationist photographer admits he does not understand molecular biology, but still seems to believe that his silly "questions" have merit.
One can always tell when a creationist is out of his or her element - they start yammering about philosophy.
Sorry, Mr.Wizard - philosophy does nto negate reality. Philosophy does not negate logical inferences form data. Philosophy does not justify employing one's ignorance to claim a superior worldview.
The fact that you ran away from your ignorant claims is an implicit concession of defeat.
Now go watch "Expelled" again and wallow in your self-imposed ignorance.
One can always tell when a mere technician does not understand the implications his efforts when he avoids dealing with the context. Sorry, Dopple, but there are no "brute facts", no matter how much you insist.
You seem to be afraid to even read the peole on *your side* who disagree with you. That is quite unenlightened.
The was no claim to any alternate reality. Non sequitur. (Or is that too much of a philosophical concept for you?) Looks more like you're afraid of the subject, afraid that a challenge to your framework of naturalism might force you to reframe your evolutionary arguments. But then, what can one expect.
"Logical inferences"? Are you pretending that evolutionary biology (not simply *molecular biology*) is deductive? Or does the difference between *inductive* and *deductive* reasoning get in the way of your conclusions?
The joker returns.....
One can always tell when a mere technician does not understand the implications his efforts when he avoids dealing with the context.
It is ironic that the creationist photographer brings up context when I pointed out on more than one occasion that he ignored it in previous replies. Further, it is so creationist of him to try to denigrate my profession by referring to me as a 'mere technician.' Cute, but pretty clearly little more than envious hubris.
Sorry, Dopple, but there are no "brute facts", no matter how much you insist.
Your denial of facts is not evidence that they do not exist.
You seem to be afraid to even read the peole on *your side* who disagree with you. That is quite unenlightened.
Where is that in evidence? Which people? Even if this vacuous unsupported claim had merit, I was unaware that I was required to agree with all on 'my side' - I know that is standard conservative creationism mind control, but the rational world does not require lock-step agreement on all issues.
The was no claim to any alternate reality. Non sequitur.
A most revealing bit of projection from the creationist photographer - nowhere in what he replied to did I menition, indicate, or imply any such thing. A 'worldview' is not an alternate reality.
(Or is that too much of a philosophical concept for you?)
As I have indicated - philosophical gibberish is the refuge of those with no evidence on their side.
Looks more like you're afraid of the subject, afraid that a challenge to your framework of naturalism might force you to reframe your evolutionary arguments.
Yup - you got me. I am so afraid that naive, uninformed assertions presented as "questions" will force me to abandon my philosophical presuppositions that I feel the need to present objective evidence to fight against the overwhelming opinions presented by the not-even-a- technician creationist.
But then, what can one expect.
"Logical inferences"? Are you pretending that evolutionary biology (not simply *molecular biology*) is deductive? Or does the difference between *inductive* and *deductive* reasoning get in the way of your conclusions?
It is both, actually. The theory itself was produced primarily via inductive reasoning, whereas the experiments and observations premised on it are deductive.
It is a shame that you are too uniderinformed and overly opinionated to understand this.
What is your creationism?
It is inductive or deductive? Or is it just arguments via assertion and analogy?
I still eagerly await your amazing evidence indicating how many mutations are required to produce specific phenotypic changes, such that you assertions presented as 'questions' are worthy of consideration.
Somehow, I don't think I will ever get a straight answer.
That is the creationist way.
The joker returns.....
Looks like they don't teach civility at your institution.
... creationist ...
As I said earlier, the conventional definition is the 6,000 year view, which I reject.
Yet you persist. Going back to my first comment in this thread, this is one of those
misrepresentations that makes you look, well, illiterate.
... to denigrate my profession by referring to me as a 'mere technician.'
I used the term with a clear context. You've avoided any examination of your side's
own theory-making process and its results. If you're not doing the theory then you
are a technician. Nothing derrogatory, just descriptive.
Where is that in evidence? Which people?
I gave you the book and one of the noted authors, whose name you would recognize,
and dit written mostly by people on *your side* and a worthwhile read.
But the question of literacy again rears its ugly head.
http://www.amazon.com/Naturalism-Defeated-Plantingas-Evolutionary-Argument/dp/0801487633/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211646500&sr=8-1
nowhere in what he replied to did I menition, indicate, or imply any such thing
Yes. You spoke of negating reality.
You said: philosophy does nto negate reality.
Maybe memory is more a problem than literacy.
Yup - you got me. I am so afraid that naive, uninformed assertions presented as "questions" will force me to abandon my philosophical presuppositions that I feel the need to present objective evidence to fight against the overwhelming opinions presented by the not-even-a- technician creationist.
You seem afraid of those on your side who are both theoraticians and technicians.
They know their stuff better than any one else.
Please learn from your own side.
It is both, actually. The theory itself was produced primarily via inductive reasoning, whereas the experiments and observations premised on it are deductive.
You're half way. But it's not quite so simple.
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/05/evolution-is-apologetic-for-naturalism.html
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/05/naturalism-with-hint-of-positivism.html
It is a shame that you are too uniderinformed and overly opinionated to understand this.
What is your creationism?
It is inductive or deductive? Or is it just arguments via assertion and analogy?
I still eagerly await your amazing evidence indicating how many mutations are required to produce specific phenotypic changes, such that you assertions presented as 'questions' are worthy of consideration.
Somehow, I don't think I will ever get a straight answer.
That is the creationist way.
Strange. Where did you get the idea that Revelation is subject to the scientific method?
And where do you get the metaphysical assumption that any scientific method become the source for Truth?
You've asked a nonsense question that is the equivalent of the classic
"Can God make a rock so big that He can't move it?"
You won't find an honest philosophy prof @ your institution who will accept as legitimate
the premise of your inquiry.
Is this the same level of "logic" that you bring to your tests?
From long ago:
You failed to respond to any of the requests for clarification I presented. You ignored the explanations I provided. You pretended that I asked you for a list of 10 million changes when I asked and reiterated that I wanted to see if you could provide 0.01% of the 'trait changes' you suggested were in evidence, and you failed to even attempt it. I explain why requiring some huge number of specific changes is naive, you ignore it and call me a troll.
You claim that 'neo-Darwinian' calculations cannot account for the numbers you present, I ask you to present the calculations, you ignore the request. I ask where your claim of 60 trait changes per generation came from, no reply.
Still no worthwhile answers, just whining and nonsense. As usual.
*********************
The joker returns.....
Looks like they don't teach civility at your institution.
Ah, here we go...
Apparently they do not teach humility at your church.
... creationist ...
As I said earlier, the conventional definition is the 6,000 year view, which I reject.
Yet you persist.
I do not feel constrained by your personal definitions. Those that reject evolution on religious grounds are creationists of one sort or another. Deal with it.
Going back to my first comment in this thread, this is one of those misrepresentations that makes you look, well, illiterate.
I don't think you know what illiterate means. Again, I do nto feel constrained by your idiosyncratic definitions. Deal with it.
Of course, your insistence that altering a claw to a nail is a "major" change makes you look, well, like a folk science using rube.
... to denigrate my profession by referring to me as a 'mere technician.'
I used the term with a clear context. You've avoided any examination of your side's
own theory-making process and its results. If you're not doing the theory then you
are a technician. Nothing derrogatory, just descriptive.
Um, no. I suggest you look up the term "technician." You may also want to learn what a theorist does. You seem to have an aversion to using terms appropriately. It makes you look, well, illiterate.
Where is that in evidence? Which people?
I gave you the book and one of the noted authors, whose name you would recognize,
and dit written mostly by people on *your side* and a worthwhile read.
But the question of literacy again rears its ugly head.
http://www.amazon.com/Naturalism-Defeated-Plantingas-Evolutionary-Argument/dp/0801487633/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211646500&sr=8-1
So, let's get this straight - because I have not read a book on a subject that I care little about, about criticisms of the arguments of a religious philosopher who tries to claim that 'naturalism' is disproved by evolution, whose claims, among other things, consist of naive 'probability calculations' and whose arguments were long ago demolished by Elliot Sober and others, I am illiterate?
This accusation from a fellow who actually accepts Plantinga's naive drivel?
nowhere in what he replied to did I menition, indicate, or imply any such thing
Yes. You spoke of negating reality.
You said: philosophy does nto negate reality.
Maybe memory is more a problem than literacy.
And maybe arrogance is a bigger problem with you than ignorance.
But I said nothing about alternate realities as you indicated. It seems comprehension and simple intellectuial honesty is a bit much for the Plantinga loving creationist.
Here, let me recap that actual exchange:
The non-scientist creationsit wrote:
The position your propose just doesn't sit with reality.
I replied that philosophy does not negate reality, and you yammer on about "The was no claim to any alternate reality."
Incredible. Illiterate, indeed.
Yup - you got me. I am so afraid that naive, uninformed assertions presented as "questions" will force me to abandon my philosophical presuppositions that I feel the need to present objective evidence to fight against the overwhelming opinions presented by the not-even-a- technician creationist.
You seem afraid of those on your side who are both theoraticians and technicians.
They know their stuff better than any one else.
Please learn from your own side.
Their 'stuff' will not negate my stuff, or anyone else's. You still do not seem to get that reality is not altered by philosophical viewpoints. Maybe you will learn that one day.
It is both, actually. The theory itself was produced primarily via inductive reasoning, whereas the experiments and observations premised on it are deductive.
You're half way. But it's not quite so simple.
LOL!
Right - like I think the musings of a photographer will 'learn me' on philosophizin'....
It is a shame that you are too uniderinformed and overly opinionated to understand this.
What is your creationism?
It is inductive or deductive? Or is it just arguments via assertion and analogy?
I still eagerly await your amazing evidence indicating how many mutations are required to produce specific phenotypic changes, such that you assertions presented as 'questions' are worthy of consideration.
Somehow, I don't think I will ever get a straight answer.
That is the creationist way.
Strange. Where did you get the idea that Revelation is subject to the scientific method?
Revelation is mythology. I expect all claims to reality to be subject to basic empirical science. Otherwise, it is just tall tales.
And where do you get the metaphysical assumption that any scientific method become the source for Truth?
Where do you get the metaphysical assumption that Revelation is true?
For it is but an assumption.
You've asked a nonsense question that is the equivalent of the classic
"Can God make a rock so big that He can't move it?"
So you admit that your beliefs are jsut metaphysical assumptions/presuppostions.
You won't find an honest philosophy prof @ your institution who will accept as legitimate
the premise of your inquiry.
And you won't find an honest scie3ntist that gives a crap about your philosophical nonsense.
Is this the same level of "logic" that you bring to your tests?
Ah, yes - the sleazy creationist always seems to find a way to impugn the evolutionist's abilities.
How nice of them.
One will notice that, as seems to be par for the course, the creationist has not even attempted to address the mere technical issues that his original naive 'questions' brought up.
Here, let's recap, in no particualr order:
How are things determined to be “complex”? Tell us all Collin, how did you determine this? What are the parameters? What are the criteria for judging something ‘complex’? And why does this complexity require a complex means of production? Which is more complex – a microchip or the mechanical devices that manufacture them?
And of course I still recognize “junk DNA”. It is not my fault that the media and the average layman confuse and conflate terms and definitions and try to make much ado about nothing. Unlike the average non-scientist creationist, I have actually seen it. I can actually read and understand the primary source literature and do not have to rely on dumbed-down hyperbolic press releases or the even dumber-dumbed-down professional creationist disinformation campaigns surrounding the issue.
Well, that is all I feel like pasting right now - though I will say that I was again tickled by your laughably naive list of 'new traits' and such. Funny stuff.
As for my classes, let me head you off at the pass - I have never had a student present me with silly lists or questions that if unaddressed he/she will consider to be 'proof' of the failure of my abilities or the failure of evolution. And so on...
Sorry.
I said no more comments until you address the issues.
You clearly can't.
You are in over your head and lack the smarts to see that.
Dunning-Krueger datum point.
Looks suspiciously like censorship.
Ironic, isn't it.
It is not I who did not answer a question. It is for you to show how these significant changes that you point out are the same as the minute, almost indiscernable changes of both gradualism and PE.
Wow, interesting to see how unfamiliar Collin is with evolutionary theory, development etc.
The naive statement that in order to lengthen a limb hundreds of changes are needed shows a total lack of understanding of embryological development where veins, bones etc develop under local control and that if a limb develops to be longer, all the other components 'adjust' automatically under local control. There is no overarching 'master' control which tells the individual components when to grow and when to stop. If Collin had spent a little bit of time on this he would have realized that in the plant kingdom for instance, light and water can cause plants and trees to grow taller, does this mean that thousands of genes had to change to enable the now taller plant or tree? Of course not.
Now I understand that developmental biology is 'relatively' new but to ignore it leads invariable to foolish statements. Garbage in, garbage out I say.
Hi PvM,
Ineed.
Colin is a run of the mill pseudo-know-it-all, who seems to think that skimming a few websites is doing "research" and really thinking about things is "studying". Some of his claims and questions exhibit a naivete that one would expect from someone who tries to approach a subject from true ignorance, but with a confidence borne of an irrelevant frame of reference.
Note his many panderings to 'philosophy' and how his main 'arguments' revolve around philosophical musings.
Oh, and Collin the phorographer:
You failed to respond to any of the requests for clarification I presented. You ignored the explanations I provided. You pretended that I asked you for a list of 10 million changes when I asked and reiterated that I wanted to see if you could provide 0.01% of the 'trait changes' you suggested were in evidence, and you failed to even attempt it. I explain why requiring some huge number of specific changes is naive, you ignore it and call me a troll.
You claim that 'neo-Darwinian' calculations cannot account for the numbers you present, I ask you to present the calculations, you ignore the request. I ask where your claim of 60 trait changes per generation came from, no reply.
Until I see your 'comments' addressing at least these things, don't waste my time with your boastful, laughably ignorant drivel.
In a desperate and pathetic attempt to save face, Collin the photogragher rants:
"It is not I who did not answer a question. It is for you to show how these significant changes that you point out are the same as the minute, almost indiscernable changes of both gradualism and PE."
Wow...
First things first - Actually, yes, it IS you that has not answered questions. ANY of the ones I asked. The reason you have not answered the questions are, as best I can tell:
1. you lack the technical knowledge to do so
2. you realize that actually answering them and thinking about the answers shows how naive your original position is, and so will not answer the questions to keep the facade alive
Maybe a little of each? Problem is, of course, one can easily document how you:
1. 'answer' questions with more questions;
2.'answer' questions with red herrings and irrelevant assertions;
3. 'answer' questions with demands that I answer questions that I already did; etc.
Some examples:
I had asked, "Why not use a rational number instead of one that you pulled form thin air, most likely as a means of 'proving' what you already "believe"? ...Can you make a list of, say, 1,000?"
Collin 'answered':
"It is a hypothetical.But I don't see any reasonable way to get the number of trait changes in a mere 1000."
Did that answer my question at all? No.
Collin had written:
"That's still a real change every 60 generations, which is also outside the scope of common Darwinian and neo-Darwinian calculations."
I asked, "Please show some of these 'neo-Darwinian' calculations you speak of. Where did you get your generation numbers from? You will need to establish, in order for your positon to have any merit, at the very least:
1. How many trait differences in 'kind' and not degree there actually are e.g., changes in the density of hair on the skin is a difference in degree, hair from no hair is a difference in 'kind'; differences in degree can be caused by neutral variation and other non-beneficial changes).
2. How many mutations would have been required for each such change.
It would also be helpful to know the population sizes involved and the generation times of the ancestral groups, but 1 and 2 above are the bare minumum that your position must have in order to be taken seriously at all. Simply 'not believing' it is insufficient."
Collin 'answered':
Well, he did not even try.
And those are just a couple of the more egregious tactics just from my original blog post.
On to the rest of Face-saver's rant:
"It is for you to show how these significant changes that you point out are the same as the minute, almost indiscernable changes of both gradualism and PE"
So, Collin wants me to explain how major phenotypic changes such as those caused by the mutationin the FGFR-3 gene are "the same as" those he fantasizes about that are required for 'gradualism and PE.'
Here's a hint - there is no one-to-one input and output fopr genetic change, as I mentioned before. Creationists do not seem able to grasp that. They seem insistent that ALL mutations produce barely noticeable changes. Some produce no obvious changes at all. Some produce more noticeable changes, some produce major changes.
It depends on where the mutaqtion occurs, what type of mutation, etc. Demanding that all the mutations 'required' to account for some aspect of evolution then rejecting relevant informaiton on the subject when the informaiton does not mesh with your naive viewpoints on the matter is the antic of a spoiled, underinformed malcontent who is NOT at all interested in correting their informational deficiencies. Rather, that is the antic of one who thinks they know more than they really do, attemtping to prop up their inflated egos by rejecting all that does not conform to their presuppoitiotns.
Sorry, Collin. You've still not even attempted to address the big issues. You're still in moderation until you do.
"Looks suspiciously like censorship.
Ironic, isn't it.
A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper, not for publication, but to ask a question. I had noticed that a local right-wing pastor of a fundamentalist church had written disinformation-riddled anti-Planned Parenthood letters every 30 days (the paper had a one letter every 30 day policy). I looked through the archives and this pattern had gone on for more than 2 years (I stopped looking beyond 2 years). Not only were his rants repetitive and filled with lies and rumors, but they seemed to be becoming increasingly hostile, openly advocating violence. I asked the editor why she kept publishing his letters, giving this crackpot a soapbox on which to spew lies and hate. She replied that she had no intention of censoring viewpoints. I responded that discretion is not censorship. She didn't like that and would not respond to any more of my emails.
Point is, Collin, I've given you many opportunities to stop the rhetoric, keep on topic, and actually address the issues. You can't seem to do that. SO, I am not going to litter my comment sections with trollish nonsense.
Again, if you can ever muster the smarts to address at the very least these issues:
You failed to respond to any of the requests for clarification I presented. You ignored the explanations I provided. You pretended that I asked you for a list of 10 million changes when I asked and reiterated that I wanted to see if you could provide 0.01% of the 'trait changes' you suggested were in evidence, and you failed to even attempt it. I explain why requiring some huge number of specific changes is naive, you ignore it and call me a troll.
You claim that 'neo-Darwinian' calculations cannot account for the numbers you present, I ask you to present the calculations, you ignore the request. I ask where your claim of 60 trait changes per generation came from, no reply.
Don't waste my time.
Post a Comment