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

Monday, December 17, 2007

Alternative Hypotheses Using the Same Evidence

OK I'm back and I have given some thought to Lenny Flank's hypothesis which was supposed support the anti-ID position of accumulated genetic accidents given rise to the diversity of living organisms- Lenny, and Rich H- who brought the hypothesis to my attention, appear to think that evidence for universal common descent is evidence for a mechanism. Dr Behe made it clear in "The Edge of Evolution" that is not so.

But anyway I took Lenny's proposed hypothesis and used it to support two view-points which are in opposition toi the anti-ID PoV.

Alternative hypotheses using the same evidence:

Designed to evolve hypothesis:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
If Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, then they show also share common ERV’s from the time of the ancestor and before
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. Journal entry
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Research is ongoing to uncover the pre-programmed genetic algorithm.

Convergence hypothesis- separately Created Baramins converging on similar genetic markers:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Convergence and a common mechanism best explain the observations
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
If Humans and chimps share common ERVs, then they should also share a common mechanism
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. Journal entry
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

ERVs insert and subsequently transpose due to a common mechanism- that being similar ERVs will infect similar genomes and subsequent transpositions will end up in the same locations in similar genomes.

What Creationists say about ERVs

Research is ongoing to identify the common mechanism.

The broken vitamin C gene is an indication of convergence. That being that neither chimps nor humans required the internal manufacture of vitamin C once the initial populations started getting enough vitamin C epigenetically- ie through eating foods which contained enough to sustain the individuals in the population..

The chromosome fusion was an act of Creation to genetically isolate the populations.

Research is ongoing to uncover the originally Created Kinds.

28 Comments:

  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "If Humans and chimps share a common mechanism, then they should also share common ERV’s "

    Non sequitur.

     
  • At 6:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks Rich- My wording was backwards.

    I will change it in the OP to read:

    If Humans and chimps share a common ERVs, then they should also share a common mechanism

     
  • At 9:09 PM, Blogger Endoplasmic said…

    Don't forget that hampsters also have the broken vitamin C gene. I guess that means that chimps and hampsters share a common ancestor.

    HT: Dembski/Wells

     
  • At 10:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'd agree, although I think the mechanism is evolution.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Evolution is a RESULT, not a mechanism:

    UBerkley site on Evolution:

    This is why “need,” “try,” and “want” are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not “want” or “try” to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism “needs.” Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

    That site is sponsored by the NCSE.

    So I thank you for proving you don't even understand the basic concept. And if you can't even get the basic concept correct why should anyone believe anything else you say about the subject?

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you Endoplasmic!!!- that bit of info adds credence to my convergence hypothesis.

    (cue CCR music and fade)

     
  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Enjoy:

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter?printable=true

     
  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wait, wait, wait. You're claiming credit for predicting common ancestry? Wow.

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong again clowny. I take it you are still unable to comprehend what I post.

    Ya see clowny UCD is a prediction of the designed to evolve scenario.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    What was the point in linking to "The New Yorker"?

    There isn't anything in that article that refutes anything I posted.

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Do you still think that "evolution" is a mechanism?

    That in and of itself is more than enough to demonstrate you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

    And that the best you can do is to provide a bare link without anything else to show that A) you understand what the article contains and B) how it refutes anything I have posted, further cements the deal that you are clueless.

    A common mechanism in separately Created Kinds still explains the data pertaining to ERVs.

    In order for universal common descent to have any merit there must be some way to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. And in order for the anti-ID scenario of UCD to have any merit it must account for those differences via culled genetic accidents.

    So the bottom line is UCD is assumed and all data is then shoe-horned into that assumption. Culled genetic accidents are also assumed. But there isn't any way to test those assumptions.

     
  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Designed to evolve? Okay, so you accept evolution. You have some beef with abiogenesis, presumably. And the original life had *all* the information in it for all future life? Are you one of those 'you can't make new information' types?

     
  • At 1:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "What was the point in linking to "The New Yorker"?

    There isn't anything in that article that refutes anything I posted.
    "

    Did you read it Joe?

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Here are some mechanisms:

    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/mutationbg.cfm

    Now, how does the 'designer' get his 'design' implemented?

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Designed to evolve?

    That's what I said.

    Okay, so you accept evolution.

    I have always accepted evolution.

    What I don't accept is what evolutionitwits are doing with it.

    You do realize that "evolution" is different than universal common descent. Don't you?

    You have some beef with abiogenesis, presumably.

    I have many "beefs". One is with abiogenesis- which I laid out. The other beefs have to do with the extent populations can "evolve".

    Ya see Rich there still isn't ANY scientific data which cam account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. IOW we don't even know if such a transformation is even possible.

    And the original life had *all* the information in it for all future life?

    That is a possibility. And it is very stupid to disallow any possibility "just because", and that is what evolutionitwits do on a daily basis.

    Are you one of those 'you can't make new information' types?

    "New" information has nothing to do with it. An INCREASE of information and informattion from scratch are other stories and those have yet to be demonstrated.

    One new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research and that was in HIV which isn't even considered to be a living organism.

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Yes I read the article in "The New Yorker". Now either you can make your case or you cannot.

    Here is your opportunity. I am saying there isn't anything in that article which refutes what I have posted. If you think otherwise, make your case.

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now, how does the 'designer' get his 'design' implemented?

    One way would be via the designed genetic algorithm- non-random mutations- "built-in responses to environmental cues" (Dr Spetner).

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW clowny- I assumed common ancestry and then provided a "designed to evolve" hypothesis.

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is also very telling that I asked Rich to make his case using his linked article and he has not done so.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No Joe, its very telling that you don't promote my posts for days so I lose interest. You can fix that.


    So the first proto-life had the blueprints for all other life in it's single celled design?

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

    No Joe, its very telling that you don't promote my posts for days so I lose interest.

    Rich, your short posts are full of lies and nonsense.

    Also I have a life- you need to get one.

    Now you have had days to make your case and still didn't do so.

    THAT is very telling.

    So the first proto-life had the blueprints for all other life in it's single celled design?

    I have already answered that Rich. Are you too stupid to remember my response?

    Or do you think if you slightly change the wording of your question that my response will change?

    But I understand you are in a hopeless position:

    One new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research and that was in HIV which isn't even considered to be a living organism.

    If that is all you can muster then it is easy to see why your position is unscientific.

     
  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "So the first proto-life had the blueprints for all other life in it's single celled design?"

    It's a simple question, Joe, that you're avoiding.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "So the first proto-life had the blueprints for all other life in it's single celled design?"

    It's a simple question, Joe, that you're avoiding.


    Umm how can I avoid something I have already answered?

    Here it is AGAIN- seeing that you are too stupid to just re-read the comments in this thread to find it:

    Rich originally asked:
    And the original life had *all* the information in it for all future life?

    to which I responded:
    That is a possibility. And it is very stupid to disallow any possibility "just because", and that is what evolutionitwits do on a daily basis.

    Also no one knows what the original living organisms were. So far science has not uncovered any data which demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms. IOW science at least appears to oppose universal common descent from single-celled organisms.

    The premise of UCD cannot even be tested. And as I have demonstrated I can take an alleged anti-ID hypothesis and turn it into an ID hypothesis and a special creation hypothesis.

    IOW Rich it fully appears that your position has nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "That is a possibility"


    well why don't you get off your arse, form a hypothesis, go off and test and and get back to us, between fixing fridges? That way you'll have done some science, and your are a top, top sciency type by your own admission.

    Tell me which peer reviewed Journal I should be looking in!

    Thanks!

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    well why don't you get off your arse, form a hypothesis, go off and test and and get back to us, between fixing fridges? That way you'll have done some science, and your are a top, top sciency type by your own admission.

    Gee Rich I have asked you to provide a hypothesis for your anti-ID position and you have FAILED to do so.

    It is also obvious that your position is beyond testing- that is there isn't any way to test any of the premises made.

    BTW there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    Therefore we should stop putting that nonsense (that chimps and humans share a common ancestor) into biology textboooks.

    If we apply your logic you should stand by that removal- no hypthesis and no way to test the premise.

    IOW Rich once again the anti-IDists aks things of ID that his anti-ID position cannot muster.

    Double-standards anyone?

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    my goodness you are a tard.

    "BTW there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans."

    I think that they have genetic differences is quite well documented, Joe.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich proves that he cannot comprehend what was posted- IOW he is very stupid:

    "BTW there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans."

    Rich responds with:
    I think that they have genetic differences is quite well documented, Joe.

    Are you stupid or dishonest? Perhaps both- I asked for an accounting of PHYSIOLOGICAL and ANATOMICAL differences and you answer with "genetic differences are well documented".

    That response would have been OK if you had been able to account for the physiological and anatomical differences via those genetic differences. However NO ONE can- yet. My prediction is that no one will ever be able to do so.

    What we do know is there can be genetic differences, even a different number of chromosomes and not one physiological or anatomical difference can be observed:

    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. Add this to the data on bacteria and the limits of evolution should be obvious.

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    One question-

    Do you still think that evolution is a mechanism?

    Lol!!!!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home