Chromosome counts and evolution
It seems that people are so busy debating about intelligent design that they do not have time to consider other scientific challenges to evolution theory, if they are even aware that other scientific challenges exist. It seems that all I see in the news is ID, ID, and more ID. The Darwinists have created a "contrived dualism" of their own -- they are saying that if ID is false, then Darwinism must be true. Two non-ID challenges to evolution theory that have already been discussed in this blog concern co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.
Another non-ID challenge to evolution theory are the questions concerning the mechanisms and genetic effects of the evolution of different chromosome counts in different species and varieties of species. The Talkorigins website tries to give some answers to these questions, but these answers are not adequate. Talkorigins says that chromosome counts can change by the breakup or joining of individual chromosomes or by the phenomenon called "polyploidy" where multiple copies of all the chromosomes are created, but this does not seem to be a good explanation for the great variation in chromosome counts (Talkorigins gives examples as low as 5 and as high as 512). Also, these means of changing the chromosome count could not contribute much to evolution because no new genetic material is created -- in particular, organisms created by polyploidy are similar to their parents. Also, polyploidal organisms are often sterile, and in any case polyploidy would initially be a barrier to sexual reproduction. Furthermore, polyploidy would create great problems in future evolution because there is not just one set of genes but multiple sets of genes that must evolve through genetic variation, and the issue of dominant and recessive genes would arise in such future evolution.
Another non-ID challenge to evolution theory are the questions concerning the mechanisms and genetic effects of the evolution of different chromosome counts in different species and varieties of species. The Talkorigins website tries to give some answers to these questions, but these answers are not adequate. Talkorigins says that chromosome counts can change by the breakup or joining of individual chromosomes or by the phenomenon called "polyploidy" where multiple copies of all the chromosomes are created, but this does not seem to be a good explanation for the great variation in chromosome counts (Talkorigins gives examples as low as 5 and as high as 512). Also, these means of changing the chromosome count could not contribute much to evolution because no new genetic material is created -- in particular, organisms created by polyploidy are similar to their parents. Also, polyploidal organisms are often sterile, and in any case polyploidy would initially be a barrier to sexual reproduction. Furthermore, polyploidy would create great problems in future evolution because there is not just one set of genes but multiple sets of genes that must evolve through genetic variation, and the issue of dominant and recessive genes would arise in such future evolution.
Labels: Non-ID criticisms of evolution
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/29/2006 08:06:00 AM
29 Comments:
You are correct that any disproof of ID does not mean a proof of evolution. Congratulations! Then again even a blind pig does occasionally find an acorn.
Unfortunately you follow this with a demonstration that, as with many subjects, you know nothing about evolutionary theory.
Very little new information has been produced durimg evolution just as absolutely no new information is produced during ontogeny. Evolution involved primarily the derepression of pre-existing front-loaded developmental potentials. What is unknown is how many separate times the programs had to be written.
Incidentally, evolution is finished and has been for a very long time, at least two million years at the genus level and probably at least 50,000 years at the species level. Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Pierre Grasse did, even Julian Huxley, author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" did and so have I.
I also doubt that half the existing plant species are polyploid. What is the source for that conclusion? Besides. that is one of the best ways to bring evolution to a standstill.
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
I love it so!
Chris Hyland
You have not answered my question which is what is the source claiming that half the present fauna is polyploid? How about it?
I am well aware of all the present day work that supports both the PEH and all those scientists who have made it possible. I have presented it in hard copy as i am sure you are aware. If Spravid Dinger hadn't purged it in a fit of blatant undisguised personal pique, I could direct the whole sequence to you at the Uncommon Descent side board.
If he continues to defy my request that it be reinstated I will continue to expose both him and his master for what they really are, nasty, insecure, anti-intellectual, unethical, despicable trash. Why don't you join me in that ultimatum?
Thanks for posting.
I love it so!
Chris Hyland said ( Sunday, April 30, 2006 3:27:02 PM ) --
>>>>Considering in some species we see examples of genome duplication events, and about half of land plant species are polyploid, I am not sure I see the problem here. It is duplication plus change that creates the new 'information'.<<<<
There are a number of problems and issues here, some of which I described in my opening post --
(1) Can the mechanisms for changing chromosome count -- polyploidy, the breakup and joining of individual chromosomes, and "aneuploidy" (described in Wikipedia as a duplication of only some of the chromosomes ) -- account for the tremendous variation in chromosome counts among organisms?
(2) Changing the chromosome count by any of these mechanisms does not create any new genetic material. New organisms created by polyploidy are similar to their parents.
(3) The Wikipedia article on polyploidy says that polyploidy is rare in the higher animals. The phenomenon of polyploidy primarily affects plants and a few of the lower animals.
(4) Polyploidy often causes problems, such as prenatal death and reproductive problems, as discussed in the section titled "Examples" in the Wikipedia article on polyploidy.
(5) Polyploidy complicates future evolution because there are multiple sets of genes and generally only one gene in a set would be affected by mutation, so the issue of dominance and recessiveness of genes arises. Also, if there had been a lot of genome duplication in the past, it seems that we would see more gene duplication today. In the section titled "paleopolyploidy," the Wikipedia article on polyploidy identifies a few organisms that appear to have had a genome duplication event in the past.
Such questions should not be lightly dismissed, as the Talkorigins website often does, or as the plaintiffs did in the Dover trial by dumping 59 references in front of defense expert witness Michael Behe.
Wikipedia has often been ridiculed as allegedly being a Mickey-Mouse reference, but often it provides the only brief and comprehensive introductions to many subjects. It is generally accurate and often provides a good list of references. In a recent study, it was found to be about as accurate on scientific subjects as the vaunted Encyclopedia Britannica.
Chris Hyland said ( Sunday, April 30, 2006 4:37:26 PM ) --
>>>>I was under the impression that polyploid plants are generally more robust and larger than diploids, and they are not always sterile, this is certainly what I was taught.<<<<
Yes, the Wikipedia article on polyploidy says, "Polyploid plants in general are more robust and more sturdy than diploids." I thought that polyploidal included diploidy, but apparently polyploidy is considered to consist of more than two copies.
>>> How would you define information as it relates to genotype and phenotype?<<<<
I would just repeat the definitions of "genotype" and "phenotype."
>>>>OT: I was wondering after reading the comments over at UD regarding junk DNA what your hypothesis predicts in this regard? Also have you read anything by Sean Carrol?<<<<
I have not looked at this stuff yet.
I don't believe that any DNA is "junk."
Chris
Show me a new gene aquiring a new function through polyploidy or any other mechanism. That is just more Darwinian mysticism. Polyploidy is just another example of an evolutionary dead end. Evolution is finished and until everyone accepts that there is no hope for a meaningful discussion. People believe what they want to believe and the hell with the truth. Now if I am wrong show me the evidence but don't just say it is so. That won't wash and that dog can't hunt.
I love it so!
Just for fun Chris, why don't you give your summary? I have never been much impressed with buck passing. I especially want specific proofs of what I have questioned, namely, a new gene aquiring a new function. Do we have more genes than a chimp? Which ones and what is the evidence? We seem to have the same amount of DNA don't we? If I am wrong I will be happy to admit it. I'm from Wisconsin and I have to be showed. I don't question gene duplication. It is the new function that I don't get. Please explain it to me. Grasse also believed in new gene production but he did not present any specific examples.
The only reason that I question it is because I don't feel it is required by the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I feel simple reorganization is all that WAS required. Again, I could be wrong but evolution never HAD anything to do with selection either for or against any specific genes, new or old. Of that I feel pretty certain. The entire scenario was purely endogenous. It is all over anyway.
I love it so!
Chris Hyland said ( Monday, May 01, 2006 5:33:47 AM ) --
>>>>>"Changing the chromosome count by any of these mechanisms does not create any new genetic material. New organisms created by polyploidy are similar to their parents."
Yes but then there are two copies of many genes, which allow one copy to mutate and aquire a new function, this is where the new information comes from.<<<<<
But the same mutations can occur in unduplicated chromosomes while avoiding the issue of gene dominance/recessiveness (you later said that you suspect that this is a significant issue) and other hassles involved in polyploidy.
>>>>In many other cases however individual genes and even whole chromosomes can be silenced. <<<<
I wonder if this gene "silencing" is confused with gene dominance and recessiveness. Also, I am surprised that in the scientific discussions I have seen about the evolutionary effects of chromosome duplication and sexual reproduction's gene recombination, I have not seen any specific mention of the issue of gene dominance and recessiveness, which plays a crucial role in hereditary diseases and defects, including sex-linked diseases and defects ---- see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_diseases
-- and --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_linkage
>>>>"In the section titled "paleopolyploidy," the Wikipedia article on polyploidy identifies a few organisms that appear to have had a genome duplication event in the past.
Such questions should not be lightly dismissed"
They aren't, I think Kenneth Wolfe from Trinity College Dublin is the main person looking at the duplication in yeast and applying it to animals.<<<<<
When I said "Such questions should not be lightly dismissed," I was referring to all the questions and issues I raised, not just the one cited above.
>>>>"Wikipedia has often been ridiculed as allegedly being a Mickey-Mouse reference, but often it provides the only brief and comprehensive introductions to many subjects."
I agree, I use it quite a lot to brush up on my computer science. Nature says it's on average as accurate as the encyclopedia and has the advantage that it can be updated by experts.<<<<<<
Yes, but the problem is that it can be updated by the wrong "experts." Also, I wonder where Wikipedia gets all the volunteers who write all these great articles.
>>>>"I don't believe that any DNA is "junk." When a rearrangement occurs and new genes are activated, presumably others are repressed? Or does it not work that way? <<<<<
That statement, "I don't believe that any DNA is 'junk', " is JAD's. I have not looked at this issue of "junk" DNA yet. As for myself, I am still wondering about the relationship between gene silencing (or repression) and gene dominance & recessiveness.
Chris Hyland said ( Monday, May 01, 2006 11:26:11 AM ) --
>>>>This is a good overview:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=449868
<<<<<
I am disturbed that this article does not discuss the issue of gene dominance & recessiveness (at least not under that name).
=================================
Actually, when I first became involved in discussing the evolution controversy, I never expected to become so involved in technical scientific discussions. I am not a biologist, I did not take biology in college, and I cannot even remember studying evolution in high school (evolution was just something we took for granted) -- I am just learning as I go along. Originally, my primary interest was in promoting open scientific inquiry, but as I learn more about the science, I am becoming increasingly aware of how deep the controversy is, both actually and potentially. And the controversy extends far beyond ID. Because of all the recent hoopla about ID, a lot of people think that the controversy is just about ID.
"Originally, my primary interest was in promoting open scientific inquiry"
But ID *has* no science! All it has is the *opinion* that things look designed, therefore they are designed. And IDers won't do science, even when groups like the Templeton Foundation offer them research money.
We already have perfectly open scientific enquiry, but that's not good enough for people who want an unsubstantiated opinion of theirs to get special treatment and go straight into classrooms because they dreamt it up as a fundie-friendly rival to evolution.
"I am becoming increasingly aware of how deep the controversy is, both actually and potentially. And the controversy extends far beyond ID. Because of all the recent hoopla about ID, a lot of people think that the controversy is just about ID. "
ID is only controversial because it's being pushed by an extremely vocal minority, who have an even smaller minority of scientists with relevant qualifications.
Ben said ( 5/01/2006 02:21:01 PM ) ---
>>>>>>"Originally, my primary interest was in promoting open scientific inquiry"
But ID *has* no science! All it has is the *opinion* that things look designed, therefore they are designed.<<<<<<<
That simply is not true -- it is not just a matter of an "opinion that things look designed." The study of irreducible complexity is a scientific determination of whether particular biological systems can be reduced to simpler systems and still be functional.
>>>>And IDers won't do science, even when groups like the Templeton Foundation offer them research money.<<<<<
Research on ID is being done -- if not by the advocates of ID themselves, then by the opponents of ID. See -- http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3416&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage
>>>>We already have perfectly open scientific enquiry,<<<<<
We do not have open scientific inquiry -- not in Dover and Cobb County, where all challenges to evolution theory are banned from public-school science classrooms, nor in the colleges, where one professor brazenly boasted that he would vote against granting tenure to any faculty member who espouses ID. The fact that he apparently felt safe about making such a boast speaks volumes about the suppression of ID in colleges and universities -- See http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1081
>>>>>but that's not good enough for people who want an unsubstantiated opinion of theirs to get special treatment and go straight into classrooms because they dreamt it up as a fundie-friendly rival to evolution.<<<<<
Because ID is "fundie-friendly," it has been getting more attention than it otherwise would have. However, fundie-friendliness alone is not sufficient grounds for banning something from public schools as a government endorsement of religion. Courses in the bible-as-literature are "fundie-friendly," yet they are permitted in public schools. And Christmas trees are "fundie-friendly," yet we have national Christmas trees in Washington, DC.
Chris Hyland wrote ( 5/01/2006 02:01:48 PM ) --
Chris,
I don't know if you noticed, but one of your comments was repeated, five seconds apart. I think that this might be caused by hitting the "publish" button twice in succession. I did this once in frustration when my comment was slow to post, then found that my comment was posted twice.
>>>>I think one of the first examples of experimentaly observed protein differentiation was the evolution beta-galactosidase activity in Ecoli that had their lac operons deleted, from a protein that does not originlly activity......(etc., etc., etc. )<<<<<<
All of this discussion is of course way over my head. I presume that you are a biologist.
>>>>>>The fun part comes with genome duplications, and ther combinatorial nature of genetic interactions, so we get twice the number of genes and quadruple the number of interactions......... A good example is the duplication of the HOX clusters in vertebrates, which allows for better control of development in vertebrates as opposed to invertebrates.<<<<<
However, according to the Wikipedia article on polyploidy, genome duplication appears to be primarily a phenomenon of plants and a few lower animals. The only viable vertebrate examples given are salamanders, lizards, and one species of mammal --
"Examples in animals are more common in the ‘lower’ forms such as flatworms, leeches, and brine shrimp. Reproduction is often by parthenogenesis since polyploid animals are often sterile. Polyploid salamanders and lizards are also quite common and parthenogenetic. While mammalian liver cells are polyploid, rare instances of polyploid mammals are known, but most often result in prenatal death. Presently, the only known exception to this rule is an octodontid rodent of Argentina's harsh desert regions known as the Red Viscacha-Rat." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
Also, the Wikipedia article's section on "paleopolyploidy" says, "All eukaryotes probably have experienced a polyploidy event at some point in their evolutionary history." However, if this is true, then it seems that we should be seeing more gene duplication today than we actually see.
Chris Hyland said ( Monday, May 01, 2006 3:35:35 PM ) --
>>>>"I wonder if this gene "silencing" is confused with gene dominance and recessiveness."
No it's different. You seem to assume that people looking at gene duplications have ignored this and it is a problem for the theory well this is not the case.<<<<
If it is different, then I wonder why that article on the evolutionary effects of gene duplication did not mention gene dominance/recessiveness. If gene dominance/recessiveness is not a factor, then the article should have explained why. It would have also helped if the article had described the difference between gene "silencing" and gene dominance/recessiveness. I am not a biologist, but I immediately recognized the relevance of the gene dominance/recessiveness issue where there are two or more similar genes. Even though the article was directed at scientists, the author should have assumed that the reader was not necessarily familiar with all the issues involved.
>>>>>"Originally, my primary interest was in promoting open scientific inquiry, but as I learn more about the science, I am becoming increasingly aware of how deep the controversy is, both actually and potentially."
Do you think that scientists are purposefully ignoring evidence that contradicts evolution? I haven't seen evidence of that. <<<<<
I think that it is fairly obvious that scientists gloss over the weaknesses in evolution theory, particularly when presenting the theory to the general public.
Chris
Of course I don't beliee any serious scientist is ignoring evidence that supports evolution. What they are ignoring is any evidence that conflicts with the Darwinian fairy tale. By them I mean the vast majority of the academics who are liberal realativist atheists and the idea that evolution was planned is anathema to them. They also suffer from the persistent illusion that phylogeny had an extrinsic cause. It doesn't and never did have any more than does ontogeny. Both ontogeny and phylogeny have been driven EXCLUSIVELY from within by endogenous forces yet to be understood. While we cannot yet identify them, there is no question in my mind that such internal factors have been the primary if not the sole cause both of organic evolution and embryonic development.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
"However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind..."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 209
So much for the objectivity of the Darwinian mind. They realy can't help it as they were "prescribed" with that condition or, if you prefer, they were "born that way." What's the difference? None as far as I can see.
I have simply carried the matter to its natural conclusion, namely that internal factors have been the SOLE causes for both ontogeny and phylogeny. The environment never had anything to do with either evolution or development beyond providing a stimulus for derepressing what was internally conceivable. Evolution is all over anyway and we are the final product. I have still to hear either about a younger mammal species than Homo sapiens or a documentable example of any species producing a new species as defined by an offspring with which it cannot produce a fertile hybrid, the only true measure of species prduction. True physiological species cannot produce fertile hybrids when crossed. It is still the best criterion for speciation and the process is simply no longer in operation beyond the production of intraspecific, freely intetbreeding varieties. Many life forms can't even manage that.
I don't even issue these challenges any more. The nonexistent reponses have grown deafening with significance.
I hope that answers your question.
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
I love it so!
It seems that all I see in the news is ID, ID, and more ID
-What the fuck news channel do you watch, Fundy news, absolutely, utterly one sided?
I love it (up the bunger) so
I presented evidence for Intelligent Design 22 years ago when Spravid Dinger and Dilliam Wembski and the rest of the amateurs were still in their infancy. Stay there. The real world of experimental science passed you blowhards by long ago.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudimemts."
ibid, page 406
Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"Allelic mutations never had anything to do with creative evolution."
John A. Davison
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable"
ibid
"Both ontogeny and phylogeny always proceeded entirely independent of the external environment. Only ontogeny remains."
ibid
"Kiss my ass."
ibid
I love it so!
"That simply is not true -- it is not just a matter of an "opinion that things look designed." The study of irreducible complexity is a scientific determination of whether particular biological systems can be reduced to simpler systems and still be functional."
Can you list any such systems that have been conclusively demonstrated to be IC?
"Research on ID is being done -- if not by the advocates of ID themselves, then by the opponents of ID. See -- http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3416&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage"
Leaving aside the the credibility of something from the DI, this seems pretty damn flimsy to challenge evolution on.
"We do not have open scientific inquiry -- not in Dover and Cobb County, where all challenges to evolution theory are banned from public-school science classrooms"
To be exact, unscientific challenges motivated by religious fundamentalism are.
"one professor brazenly boasted that he would vote against granting tenure to any faculty member who espouses ID. The fact that he apparently felt safe about making such a boast speaks volumes about the suppression of ID in colleges and universities -- See http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1081"
And what about all the schools and colleges where teaching evolution is being supressed by fundie parents, students, or teachers concerned about said parents and students?
>>>>>but that's not good enough for people who want an unsubstantiated opinion of theirs to get special treatment and go straight into classrooms because they dreamt it up as a fundie-friendly rival to evolution.<<<<<
"Because ID is "fundie-friendly," it has been getting more attention than it otherwise would have. However, fundie-friendliness alone is not sufficient grounds for banning something from public schools as a government endorsement of religion. Courses in the bible-as-literature are "fundie-friendly," yet they are permitted in public schools. And Christmas trees are "fundie-friendly," yet we have national Christmas trees in Washington, DC."
I grant you that the Bible can be given a place in literature classes, due to its influence on literature. But it doesn't deserve a place in science classes because it doesn't have any science!
"We do not have open scientific inquiry -- not in Dover and Cobb County, where all challenges to evolution theory are banned from public-school science classrooms"
Oh, my word ... the internationally famous research institute at Dover High can no longer do original research into ID!
Wait ... wait ... high school ... they don't do research (scientific inquiry) ... they TEACH KIDS!
Gee, Larry, are high school science classes where ID advocates want to do their "research"? Name a real science that is based on research done in high school science classes.
C'mon. Name one!
The Tuesday, May 2, 2006, 10:13:24 AM comment by johnadavidson is vintage Spravid Dinger as far as I am concerned. If not Dinger just some other cowardly swine. What is the difference when you can't tell them apart? Carry on, because -
"Pigs is pigs."
anonymous
I love it so!
Anonymous said ( Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:59:47 AM ) --
>>>>"We do not have open scientific inquiry -- not in Dover and Cobb County, where all challenges to evolution theory are banned from public-school science classrooms"
Oh, my word ... the internationally famous research institute at Dover High can no longer do original research into ID!<<<<<
Well, this "internationally famous research institute" does not do any original scientific research, so there is no reason to teach any science at all in Dover High, is there?
Should string theory and cold fusion not be discussed or mentioned in public-school science classes just because these ideas are not fully accepted in the scientific community? Furthermore, should astrology and alchemy not be taught in public schools just for the students own information ?
ID is something that people should know about just because it is a big controversy today, even in the scientific community ( though a lot of scientists deny it ). Why should the students be expected to learn about ID from their parents, many of whom are uneducated, illiterate, can't speak English, and/or don't know beans about ID and evolution theory? Or why should students be expected to learn about ID in Sunday school ? A lot of public-school students don't go to Sunday school. And isn't telling students that they should learn about ID in Sunday school a promotion of religion ?
Chris Hyland said ( Wednesday, May 03, 2006 3:05:00 AM ) --
>>>>I personally think ID should be mentioned,<<<<<
Good -- if you think that, then you must think that the Dover and Cobb County decisions were wrong.
>>>> but I'd really like to here your reasoning as to why you think there is a scientific controversy.<<<<<
If you think that there is no scientific controversy about Darwinism, then why are you wasting your time commenting on this blog ?
Actually, teaching ID in public schools should not need to be justified by convincing a judge that there is a big controversy in the scientific community. Judges should not be deciding what scientific ideas should be taught in public schools.
Judge Jones said that ID is just repackaged creationism. In the USA, creationism is usually defined as being based on the bible. Show me where the bible mentions intelligent design and irrreducible complexity, let alone such things as bacterial flagella and blood-clotting cascades. So how is ID just repackaged creationism?
Larry or anyone else for that matter.
A past Intelligent Design is NOT repackaged creationism. It has been recognized as fundamental by some of the greatest minds in the history science. It is obvious everywhere in the universe by anyone with half a brain. Chance never had anything to do with anything.
Just what the hell do you think Einstein meant when he said:
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
He died a convinced determinist and will I. That is what the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is all about in case no one realizes it and apparently they don't. Write that down too. Write it down and repeat it aloud until you fill up your cortical blackboards with it because it is the bloody undeniable truth. And remember who told it to you.
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
How do you like all them fermented Greek olives with all them cute little plastic swords stuck in them? I hope they give you all the runs!
I love it so!
Chris
You just don't get it do you.
There is no controversy. All there is is a lot of ego-gratifying pontificating by a bunch of lawyers, theologians. engineers and religious fanatics, not a real scientist in the whole damn lot.
I want you or anyone else to name a single real scientist of note who ever was so ignorant as to question that the universe had been designed from beginning to end.
Thn ID crowd of which only Behe is a real scentist put ID up for debate. We all know what happens when something is offered for debate. Debate teams spring up like mushrooms and nothing ever gets resolved. Debates are like that. I thought everybody knew that. Look at the mileage clowns like Dilliam Wembski, Wonathan Jells, Richael Muse and Jillip Phonson have gotten out of contributing absolutely nothing to our understanding of evolution. And who are these experts? A Baptist theologian, a moonie philospher, a bufoon philosopher and a deranged Bible banging lawyer in that order, not a scientist in the lot. They crank out book after book contributing nothing but money to their egomaniacal mystical pockets, gaining notoriety as they go and attracting adoring followers like meat attracts flies. Christ, it makes me want to barf. It is the same with the Darwinians. Their spokespersons have never been scientists either. Look at them. Mernst Ayr whose only tangible contribution was his personal assassination of thousands of poor birds in the 1920's, whose carcasses he shipped off to museums where they stink up the shelves with the carcinogenic smell of borax and moth balls. What a joke he was, the pontificating old fool.
Then we have Gephen J. Stould down the hall who spent all his life glued to his endowed chair, cranking out book after book of Darwinian science fiction. Finally, trhe cream lof the crop, the last of the "three stooges" of the Darwinian fairy tale, Sir Dichard Rawkins, seriously presenting such as absurdities as selfish genes, blind watchmakers and climbers of improbable mountains. What a trio they have been, not a scientist in the lot.
Look at the followers these people have been able to enlist by the thousands. They are all nothing but snake oil salesmen.
Montgaigne said it all:
"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Well nobody ever gulled me or any of my sources.
There now. I feel a little better.
I love it so!
Chris Hyland of Panda's Thumb fame I presume.
If you are going to question whether or not the universe is designed, and apparently you are, do me a favor and pretend I do not exist. Thank you very much because if you mean what I think you mean you don't exist either. So don't waste my time and I won't waste yours. Go back to the bunker and say something nasty about me if you have the guts that is. Der Fuhrer does not like to have my name mentioned you know and you know what that means. I'm surprised you even mention it here.
As for Gould and Dawkins, they have done more harm to progress in evolutionary science than any other two figures in the history of science.
Thanks for exposing yourself.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
Who is next?
I love it so!
Chris Hyland said ( Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:45:23 AM ) --
>>>>When I ask a creationist what the definition is they ussually point to Dean Kenyon's definition, which says it is not based on the bible.<<<<<
Dean Kenyon's creationism is more properly called "scientific creationism" or "creation science," which is different from biblical creationism. There are other classifications of creationism, like "young-earth" creationism -- which to many people is just biblical creationism -- and "old-earth" creationism, which could include what is called theistic evolutionism. "Day-age" creationism is an "old-earth" creationism that is based on a non-literal interpretation of the bible. When the word "creationism" is just used alone, I think that most people think of literal biblical creationism, which is the traditional kind of creationism. There are ism's, ism's, and more ism's.
>>>>I have heard people define Darwinism as 'changes in allele frequencies are the main cause of evolution', and say things like 'evolution acts soley on the level of genes' in which case I would say there most definately is a controvesy, I don't agree with those two statements at all. But I would not agree that the controvesy exists that the Discovery Institue would like to exist.<<<<<
What do you mean when you say that you would not agree that the controversy exists that the Discovery Institute would like to exist ? I think that DI's main dispute is just with the notion that evolution was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection.
Chris Hyland said ( Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:50:07 AM ) --
>>>>My interest in this is that if children are taught the current arguments of the ID movement are good science then we will produce a generation of bad scientists.<<<<<
Yes, we keep hearing this tired argument of how teaching kids to question Darwinism is going to turn the USA into a 3rd world country. Oops -- there is no 3rd world anymore. I meant what "3rd world country" used to mean.
Darwinism consists of several parts -- e.g., changes through time, common descent, and the notion that evolution was driven solely by what we now consider to be "natural" causes. The last item is the one that is under the greatest attack and also the one that is the least useful. So if scientists are skeptical of that last item, there is no great loss.
Also, I have frequently pointed out that scientists can use the concepts and tools of evolution theory even while believing that all or part of the theory is untrue. An analogy is the way that electrical engineers use complex-number math to analyze AC circuits -- the complex numbers and the complex-plane vectors bear no direct physical relationships to the physical quantities of the circuits. The impedance vector in particular is quite remote from any physical correspondence to the inductances and capacitances of the circuit -- the impedance vector's imaginary component, the reactance, is a calculated quantity based on the circuit's inductance, capacitance, and AC frequency.
Anyway, how about the non-ID challenges to Darwinism, e.g., challenges concerning co-evolution, chromosome counts, and propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, all of which have been discussed on this blog ? Without a "design," there is no "designer." Without a "designer," there is no god. Without a god, there is no religion. Without a religion, there is no violation of the Constitution's establishment clause. LOL Simple.
Darwinists want everyone to think that all scientific -- or pseudoscientific -- challenges to Darwinism are parts of ID and that ID is the same as creation science. One of the reasons for this, of course, is that ID and creation science are the only allegedly scientific challenges to Darwinism that the courts have expressly banned by name. At the bottom of this comment is the list of "pseudoscience websites" on Panda's Thumb. Several of these websites have "ID," "complexity," and "design" in their names, and others, e.g., Uncommon Descent and Telic Thoughts, are expressly dedicated to promoting ID. Darwinists have set up a "contrived dualism" of their own: they are saying that if ID is false, then Darwinism must be true.
The term "contrived dualism" was apparently coined by McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. The Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says: The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. (pages 21-22), and goes on to say, the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's.... (page 64). But according to this line of reasoning, any challenge to any scientific theory may be considered to be "contrived dualism" because if the challenge is true, then the scientific theory is false. What "contrived dualism" was really supposed to mean is that supposedly there are just two possible explanations for something and hence that if one is shown to be false, then the other must be true, and it is not necessary to independently show that the other explanation is true.
The Dover opinion also says, ID is at bottom premised on a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41(Pennock)), page 71, and -- as shown -- Jones attributed this notion to the testimony of Robert Pennock, an expert witness for the plaintiffs. This statement is utter nonsense -- I have never heard ID proponents make such a claim (though I have heard Darwinists imply the converse). ID is not an alternative to evolution theory in the sense of being a complete scientific explanation of the origin of species -- ID is just one of several challenges to evolution theory, albeit the best-known challenge by far. And I do not pretend that the non-ID challenges presented in this blog (i.e., challenges concerning co-evolution, chromosome counts, and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction) indirectly promote ID by challenging evolution (except to the extent that irreducibly complex systems are involved in co-evolution). So far I have focused mainly on criticizing the procedural actions of Judge Jones (as in my first post, "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity") and have generally ignored his reasoning on the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity, and one of the reasons for that is that I feel that he should not have ruled on those merits in the first place (another reason for my generally ignoring the scientific-merits issue is that I don't want to spread myself too thin). I don't care whether Jones made the "best" analysis of the scientific merits of ID, because to me his analysis is like the allegedly "best" butter that the March Hare put in the Mad Hatter's calendar watch in Alice in Wonderland ---
"Two days wrong!" sighed the Hatter. "I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!" he added looking angrily at the March Hare.
"It was the best butter," the March Hare meekly replied.
"Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well," the Hatter grumbled: "you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife."
The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, "It was the best butter, you know."
From http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VII.html
Well, I never expected to deviate so far and so lengthily from the original topic of this thread, chromosome counts --- but that is why comment threads are called "threads," because threads are flexible. On Panda's Thumb, this kind of comment would probably be bathroom-walled.
===============================
List of "pseudoscience websites" on Panda's Thumb
Access Research Network
Answers in Genesis Ministries
Alex Chiu's Eternal Life Device
Bear Fabrique
Creation Science Evangelism
Design Inference
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
Discovery Institute's Evolution News & Views
Gerald Schroeder
Harun Yahya
IDEA Center
ID The Future
Institute for Creation Research
Intelligent Design Network
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
Reasons To Believe
The Raelian Revolution
Telic Thoughts
Time Cube
Uncommon Descent
Chris Hyland
Anyone who would seriously question that everything in the univers was designed is a damn fool. Got that? Write that down.
Maybe now you will be willing to mention my name at the Bunker where you hang out but I doubt it. You are probably scared stoolless of Der Fuhrer. Everyone else is and all have been warned to never mention my name again. Isn't that precious?.
i love it so!
Chris Hyland again or is it still?
Genes don't evolve and never did. They aren't selfish either. They also had absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution. They do nothing more than code for proteins most of which are functionally identical in all organisms anyway. That is why we are all so very much alike at the gene level. The functional unit for a past evolution has always been the chromosome with the latent information it contained. It was never the particulate gene with all its Mendelian alleles none of which were of any significance beyond the trivial production of intraspecific varieties. I thought everybody knew that by now. How must longer can this madness continue?
I love it so!
JAD, do you know what (Ka/Ks > 1) means?
Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't be babbling those bullsh*t.
But keep it up, at least the fools who have some time to waste here can enjoy your nonsense.
I love you so!
I suspect you do love me. I always suspected Spravid Dinger had a tendency toward homosexuality. Many bullies do. That is how they disguise it.
I love it so!
Chris
What new information are you talking about? The PEH assumes there is NO new information and never was. I see no evidence for new information entering the genome of evolving species, past tense of course. Where did it come from and how did it get in and where is the species specificity in it? I think it was always there or "prescribed" if you prefer. That is the whole thrust of the PEH. If I am wrong it will all come out in the wash but it sure hasn't yet. Until it does I'll stick to my guns.
"Everything is determined... by foces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
I love it so!
It fits just as does the evidence from ontogeny. Ontogeny and phylogeny are intimately related aspects of the same reproductive continuum. Ontogeny remains the ideal model for phylogeny. Both have been driven exclusively from within with virtaully no influence from the environment. Only ontogeny still persists.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
I love it so!
Post a Comment
<< Home