Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Vole "evolution"- support for Drs Denton & Sermonti?

Dr Denton tells us that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do not determine it.

Dr Sermonti tells us that we do not know what makes a cat a cat other than the successful mating of a tom with a she cat.

Rodent's bizarre traits deepen mystery of genetics, evolution:

The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.

Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:

•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.

•In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.

•In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.

A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.

"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.

In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.

Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.



Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.

In “The Deniable Darwin” David Berlinski puts it this way:

SWIMMING IN the soundless sea, the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull. The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. Pause. And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years.

This exchange should be deeply embarrassing to evolutionary biologists. And yet, time and again, biologists do explain the survival of an organism by reference to its fitness and the fitness of an organism by reference to its survival, the friction between concepts kindling nothing more illuminating than the observation that some creatures have been around for a very long time. “Those individuals that have the most offspring,” writes Ernst Mayr, the distinguished zoologist, “are by definition . . . the fittest ones.” And in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra states that “[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitness-leaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature.”

This is not a parody of evolutionary thinking; it is evolutionary thinking.Que sera, sera.

23 Comments:

  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Where is all of this going?

    The Oracle of Delphi proclaimed no one was wiser than Socrates. This has been interpreted to mean the wisest man is the one who knows he knows nothing.

    Ok, point taken.

    Where do we go from here?

    We could attempt to compare and contrast our personal proposals to see which ones make more sense, even as we concede we don't "know" if any of the proposals are true.

    Do you want to do that?

     
  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Joe,
    Where is all of this going?


    When is a man not a man?

    (when he is walking down the street and he turns into a store)

    How can you tell when a card game is over at a leper colony?

    (everyone throws in their hands)

    How can you tell when the party is over when at a leper colony?


    (all the finger bowls are FULL)


    It was the very first day of first-grade when little Billy ran up to little Danny and asked him if he knew what a "penis" was:

    "Hey Danny, what's a penis?"

    Danny thought long & hard then replied-"Gee Billy I don't know but my Dad says I can ask him anything so I will ask him when I get home."

    When the bell rang @ 3PM Danny took off for home to ask his Dad. His Dad was already home watching some game and drinking a beer.

    "Daddy, what's a penis?"

    His father sets down the beer and says=- "Well come in the bathroom son and I will show ya!"

    They go into the bathroom and Danny's father whips it out and proclaims "Son, that's a penis. As a matter of fact it is a perfect penis!"

    Danny couldn't sleep that whole night. In the morning he took off for school. Billy was waiting for him at the gate.

    "Did you find out?"

    "Yup- everybody gather around"

    Once all were present Danny whipped it out and proclaimed "This is a penis. As a matter of fact if it was 2 inches shorter it would be a perfect penis!"

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    So you WANT to have a pissing contest!

    It's your blog.

     
  • At 10:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    So you WANT to have a pissing contest!

    Distance, quantity or quality?

    Ya see I like posting the data and then discussing its ramifications.

    Take the OP of this thread. The ramification being perhaps changes to the genome can't afford the changes required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Because of ethical considerations, I am posting that I am waiting for some sign that either you or John A. Davison is interested in having a level-playing-field discussion.

     
  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave,

    Yeah- Level playing field- right.

    Who decides when the field is level?

    And actually one can't get any more level than discussing published data- like the data linked to in this thread's OP. The data that pretty much demonstrates evolutionism is nonsense such that you have to rely on theatrics.

     
  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Who decides when the field is level?"

    You aren't required to be fair on your own blog. But if you intend to create a level playing field, that would mean that your comments and comments of those you are debating with are treated equally. For instance, comments should not be made to disappear or subject to long delays because you don't like them.

    joe g: "And actually one can't get any more level than discussing published data- like the data linked to in this thread's OP. The data that pretty much demonstrates evolutionism is nonsense such that you have to rely on theatrics."

    Um, the study found that voles are the fastest evolving mammal, hardly supporting your assertion.

     
  • At 6:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Um, the study found that voles are the fastest evolving mammal, hardly supporting your assertion.

    The fact that all that "evolution" only led to voles from voles despite the genetic changes should tell any objective person that the morphological differences required by evolutionism can't be accounted for via mutations to a genome.


    And to me a "level playing field" is providing the SAME level of data/ evidence is support of one's premise.

     
  • At 6:26 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe wrote...
    "And to me a 'level playing field' is providing the SAME level of data/ evidence is support of one's premise."

    Then provide it.

    Your stated premise is based on "information content". Does non-living matter have information content?

     
  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "And to me a "level playing field" is providing the SAME level of data/ evidence is support of one's premise."

    Never played sports, huh? By analogy, a level playing field does not imply the same playing ability or plan, but that no one team will have an uphill advantage.

    I think you should make it clear whether you have suppressed any of my posts, or any of thought provoker's posts. If you think you need such a handicap, this should be made explicit.

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "And to me a "level playing field" is providing the SAME level of data/ evidence is support of one's premise."

    Zachriel:
    Never played sports, huh?

    I participated in sports pretty much my whole life.

    Zachriel:
    By analogy, a level playing field does not imply the same playing ability or plan, but that no one team will have an uphill advantage.

    Actually in sports a level playing field is when EVERYONE on that field plays by the SAME rules.

    IOW right now by using the same rules evolutionism would either be tossed out of science classrooms or ID would have to be let in.

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote...
    "And to me a 'level playing field' is providing the SAME level of data/ evidence is support of one's premise."


    Thought Provoker:
    Then provide it.

    Been there, done that. Now I am waiting to see what the data/ evidence is that supports the anti-ID, ie "sheer-dumb-luck" position.

    For example it stretches credibility to say the earth/Moon system was formed via "sheer-dumb-luck" in light of the data. Yet that is what "science" wants us to believe.

    Then there is Michael Shermer and his ridiculous demands which epitomize the unlevel playing field that anti-IDists insist upon.

     
  • At 10:30 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe said...
    "Been there, done that."

    Maybe with other people, not with me. Which brings up the point (if you haven't guessed by now) I don't care what other people like Michael Shermer say or do. This is between you and me. What is your premise and how does it compare with my premise?

    Could you please verify that you are indeed saying that non-living matter has information content?

    I looks like you are also saying that everything is a result of intelligent design.

    This is an understandable premise. Is it what you are proposing in our debate?

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Actually in sports a level playing field is when EVERYONE on that field plays by the SAME rules."

    Add analogies to your list of things you don't know much about.

    You never responded to my specific concern. I think you should make it clear whether you have suppressed any of my posts, or any of thought provoker's posts. If you think you need such a handicap, this should be made explicit.

     
  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe said...
    "Been there, done that."


    Thought Provoker:
    Maybe with other people, not with me.

    It's all over this blog which makes it for everyone.

    Thought Provoker:
    Which brings up the point (if you haven't guessed by now) I don't care what other people like Michael Shermer say or do.

    I do-> especially when it is very relevant to the topic.

    Thought Provoker:
    This is between you and me.

    Perhaps it is to you but to me it is about "sheer-dumb-luck" vs. ID.

    I am not interested in debating you. I am interested in the data.

     
  • At 8:09 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Do you remember this conversation?

    ME: One of the biggest double-standard that exists envolves defining the terms of the debate (what is "science", what is "Intelligent Design", what is "Evolution")

    ME: For the record, I am more the happy to debate this topic on a level playing field.

    ME: Deal?

    JOE: Deal. I will start a thread that asks "What is evolution?"

    It's your blog, you can try to insist that everything gets defined your way. You might even fool yourself for a while. At least until someone comes along to provoke you into thinking about you are really doing.

    Let me know when you are ready to face a real challenge. You might get to learn even more about yourself.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    It's your blog, you can try to insist that everything gets defined your way.

    Reality sez I define things the way the consensus does. It is you who tries to wiggle out of definitions.

    hought Provoker:
    Let me know when you are ready to face a real challenge.

    Any "real challenge" involving you would just be to get you to realize your folly. I have already pointed it out but obviously you missed it.

    I have already learned enough about you to know that any "debate" with you is useless. As I have stated many times my debate is with those who hold to the "blind watchmaker" thesis- ie "sheer-dumb-luck". You deny the blind watchmaker thesis but then turn around and offer it as one of your "assumptions". IOW you are just too confused for my liking.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Xposted to thought provoker's blog:

    --
    Level playing field, etymology: based on a comparison with a sports competition played on a field that is not level, putting one side at a disadvantage.

    --

    It is clear that joe g will only play on a field where he has the advantage, and has repeatedly suppressed numerous on-topic comments that he has trouble responding to.

    Good luck with that, joe g.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Actually in sports a level playing field is when EVERYONE on that field plays by the SAME rules."

    Zachriel:
    Add analogies to your list of things you don't know much about.


    Which is funny, in a sad way, because you followed it up with:

    Level playing field, etymology: based on a comparison with a sports competition played on a field that is not level, putting one side at a disadvantage.

    And THAT supports what I posted.

    But this deserves another thread.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Zachriel posted...
    "It is clear that joe g will only play on a field where he has the advantage, and has repeatedly suppressed numerous on-topic comments that he has trouble responding to."

    Giving credit where credit is due. Joe appears to have some sense of fair play. He brought up the "double standard" issue. This "level playing field" issue is causing him to stand up and take notice. All and all, he has been better than a lot of other people in the ID/Darwin debate.

    BTW, feel free to cross post to my blog anytime. I only set it up when I got the account to post here. It is open for anyone to post there.

    This has been cross posted to my blog. http://dfcord.blogspot.com/

     
  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    This "level playing field" issue is causing him to stand up and take notice.

    I have noticed an unlevel playing field for quite some time. Now hopefully I am "causing" others to stand up and take notice also.

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    thought provoker: "Giving credit where credit is due. Joe appears to have some sense of fair play."

    As long as Joe G uses his moderation powers to suppress on-topic argument, then he is not being fair. It is not a level playing field.

     
  • At 3:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    As long as Joe G uses his moderation powers to suppress on-topic argument, then he is not being fair.

    And when you deny nested hierarchies as "evidence" for a common designer even though it was thoroughly explained to you but you choose to twist it anyway, you are not being fair.

    When all you ever provide is speculation based on the assumption and call it "science", yet deny any alternatives the same very liberal evidentiary "support", you are not being fair,

    As a matter of fact I see quite a bit of Michael Shermer in most anti-IDists. It shows in their "arguments".

     

Post a Comment

<< Home