Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Applying the Scientific Method to the anti-ID position

The following is what has been presented as "the scientific method"*:

1-Observe some aspect of the universe
2-Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3-Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4-Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5-Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions”

The question is How can we apply the aforementioned "scientific method" to the anti-ID position?

I will strat it off:

1-We observe that the Earth appears to be unique in that it has and supports complex living organisms. We have also observed other systems and it does appear that our solar system is also unique in that those other systems are not like ours.

Now let's see if any anti-IDists chime in to fill in the rest of the steps such that in the end we have some sort of scientific inference for their position.

Don't like cosmology? OK here is one from biology:

1- We observe a diversity of living organisms on this planet. We also observe a diversity in the fossil record.


Now let's see if any anti-IDists will chime in to fill in the rest of the steps such that in the end we have some sort of scientific inference for their position.

My prediction- no one will or what will be presented will be absolute nonsense. I say that because it is obvious the anti-IDists are nothing but intellectual cowards. Who like the cowardly monlies they mimic, can only sit up high in their trees and hurl stuff at the people trying to figure out the reality behind our existence.



* for the record I agree with the NCSE supported UBerkley site which states:

There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”


But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom “concludes” and never “proves.”

56 Comments:

  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Hurling insults at your readers isn't a smart idea. Do you treat your customers in the same way? No? Why not?

    Right on your point 1: how many other solar systems have we examined for Earth-sized planets? The answer, my friend, is none. We don't have observational capabilities for that, let alone examining the presence of complex life. So, I'm afraid we just don't have any data to support your hypothesis.

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "We observe that the Earth appears to be unique"

    "APPEARS TO BE"

    LOL @ question-begging tard.

    Note: Idist can't even do step 1.

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you Rich for once again fulfilling my prediction.

    Also "The Privileged Planet" made it through all 5 steps.

    Had you been able to pull your head out of your ass long enough to read the book, as opposed to talking out of your ass, you would have known that.

    And yes Rich, even according to two non-ID scientists- Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, the Earth appears to be very unique. But again you would have to take you head out of your ass long enough to read "Rare Earth":

    The main conclusion of Rare Earth is that Earth is a very special place. Many circumstances and events had to happen just right for Earth to remain a healthy habitat for advanced life. It appears that our planet won the comic lottery and we should cherish our very special place and time in the Universe.

    But I thank you for once again demonstrating that you are an intellectual coward.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    How many planets are there, Joe?
    How many have we visited?
    What statistical confidence do we have based on these numbers?

    Please show your workings.

    I am delighted you're involved in the ID movement, Joe. PLEASE ask for moderation at Uncommon Descent.

     
  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oleg:
    Hurling insults at your readers isn't a smart idea.

    I make observations and respond according to my experience. IOW I call them as I see them.


    My experience tells me that all anti-IDists are intellectual cowards. And both you and Rich are proving that to be true.

    And yes if I had a customer who was an asshole I would tell him/ her.

    Right on your point 1: how many other solar systems have we examined for Earth-sized planets? The answer, my friend, is none.

    We have found other systems. And none of them are comparable to ours.

    We don't have observational capabilities for that, let alone examining the presence of complex life.

    There are scientists who disagree with that. Of course we can detect if a planet has complex living organisms. We look for the tell-tale signatures we get from light- ie the color of reflected light.

    So, I'm afraid we just don't have any data to support your hypothesis.

    Umm try reading "Rare Earth". It's not only my hypothesis but the hypothesis of two non-ID scientists.

    then there is the History Channel which has been airing a series on "The Universe". All the scientists on it agree with the hypothesis in the OP.

    Neither one of you has to use what I started. By all means start your own. Just make sure that it is based on the anti-ID materialistic position- ie no teleology allowed. And please be sure that any proposed mechanism can be tested.

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Why do you continue to demonstrate you intellectual cowardness?

    IOW why can't you just put down a hypothesis based on the anti-ID position?

    Isd it because you are too stupid or because the anti-ID position doesn't even warrant one?

    Ya see Rich, we know what it takes just to sustain complex living organisms. This science has confirmed.

    And again Rich, there are non-ID scientists who agree with the premise the Earth is unique and they have the science to back them up- as does "The Privileged Planet".

    However for people like you, who don't know anything, no amount of scientific data will ever be enough. You are so dense you are a black hole of ideas. Sciemntific data goes in and is never heard from again.

    So please run along and wallow in your ignorance and stupidity.

    Or keep posting so that people will see you for the pinhead you are.

    Thank you.

     
  • At 5:12 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    you might want to read this entry on Wikipedia for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet

    From it you will learn that there are many methods for detecting extrasolar planets. However, none of them provides us with any information about the planet's atmosphere. Most of the methods are indirect: astronomers observe the behavior of a star and from that deduce the presence of an unseen planet nearby. Unsurprisingly, these methods allow the detection of mostly very large (Jupiter-sized) planets. The smallest ones discovered so far have the mass exceeding that of the Earth by a factor of 20 or so.

    So, as I said previously, we don't yet have capabilities for detecting Earth-like planets and won't be able to detect the presence of life for the foreseeable future. Therefore your assertions are baseless.

    I have no desire to continue the dialog with a rude, obnoxious, and militantly ignorant person like you. All the best, my friend.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Rich, if you think that we have to visit a planet in order to determine whether or not it is inhabited by complex living organisms, you are a hopeless retard without any idea of how science is conducted nor what scientists can determine just by observation- no matter how distant that observation is.

    So again I thank you.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Okay Joe, how would know without observation, for a potential planet billions of light years away? I (and NASA) would love to know, and there's probably a Nobel Prize in it for you. Take all the time you need.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wikipedia? The only people who trust Wikipedia are the people who can't find anything else to support their nonsense.

    However Oleg, we do know what it takes to sustain complex living organisms. There are 20 factors and counting.

    Of all the extrasolar planets discovered so far not one resembles Earth. And from all the systems discovered so far it appears that circular orbits are in the minority.

    Ya see in order to get an earth-like planet you need a star similar to our Sun. Only about 4% of the satrs in our galaxy fit that bill.

    Then you have to figure what % of those are within the galactic habitable zone.

    But anyway I take you are not going to provide a hypothesis- either cosmological or biological, based on the anti-ID position.

    That you insist on distracting from the OP shows your true colors.

    Thank you.

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Focus on the OP, if you are capable, and produce a testable hypothesis based on the anti-ID position.

    If you continue to refuse that request you will continue to demonstrate the fact you are an intellectual coward.

     
  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh, Joe means 'life pretty much identical to life on earth'. I'll bet there are no black swans either, Joe.

    Your grasp of science has no opposable thumbs, Joe.

     
  • At 5:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh, Joe means 'life pretty much identical to life on earth'.

    No Rich, that is not what I mean. I never said nor implied such a thing.

    However Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming:

    "Our finding that animal locomotion adheres to constructal theory tells us that -- even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again," Marden said.

    Ya see Rich I have forgotten more than you will ever know- and I don't forget much.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So you understand every conceivable configuration of life Joe. Well done.

    Homesian fallacy pt 2.

     
  • At 6:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No Rich. I just go with what the science demonstrates.

    No more off-toic comments will be allowed.

    Either you provide a testable hypothesis for the anti-ID position or go play with yourself.

     
  • At 7:09 PM, Blogger uriel said…

    Well, I cant say what you may or may not have forgotten about other topics, I can say for certain that you've forgotten what the article on constructal theory is about- the physics of _locomotion_.

    Not possible alternative biochemistries of life, not what types of alternate ecology might allow for life to arise, and certainly not anything to do with whether or not the "galatic habitable zone" is even vaguely supportable.

    Locomotion. Nothing more.

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Let's see- there is absolutely no data what-so-ever that any other biochemistry- besides what we have on Earth- is even viable. All evidence and scientific data support the premise that carbon-based life is all there is and can be.

    G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200

    Galactic habitable zones are supported by peer-reviewed science.

    So Uriel, do you have ANYTHING that would support the anti-ID position or are you just another spewer of unsupported nonsense?

     
  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Care to tell us if we can determine that there is or is not life on any planets orbiting Epsilon Eridani? Could we determine this by observation from Earth?

     
  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tell you what blipey- you present a testable hypothesis based on the anti-ID position and I will see what I can do to answer you questions.

    Start with the origin of living organisms- give us a testable hypothesis that would show that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic, ie stochastic, processes.

    If you can't do that then try single-celled organisms "evolving" into metazoans via non-telic, ie stochaistic, processes.

    If you can't do that try humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor and account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed via non-telic, ie stochastic, processes.

    Remember it must make predictions based on the mechanism and be testable.

    Got that- good luck and good night...

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This is very telling:

    Either you provide a testable hypothesis for the anti-ID position or go play with yourself.

    When givne a choice, support your PoV or go play with yourself, Rich chose to go play with himself!

    RotFLMAO!!!!!

    You go Rich- If you can't support your position here there is no reason to think you will do so on any other forum.

    Thank you for helping me expose the anti-ID position for what it is- a sham, a scam and void of science, man.

     
  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    With thanks to Lenny Flank:

    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. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026
    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
    Research is ongoing…


    You'll be showing the ID version to us next, you soft git?

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lenny Flank is a useless tool and here is why:

    1- The alleged hypothesis doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. Therefore it is not a hypothesis that supports non-telic, ie stochastic, processes.

    Every mutation, by evolutionary standards, is a genetic accident. Some of those accidents are kept and some are lost. Therefore you have to show that culled genetic accidents are responsible.

    2- Chromosomal fusion – ie differing number of chromosomes- ore often than not, leads to reproductive isolation. And if it did not in this case we would see humans and chimps with differing numbers of chromosomes. IOW we should see chimps with 27 and humans with 27. The only humans to have 27 are some with Down’s Syndrom. Meaning the same event had to have occurred in a male and female of the same species and in the same population. It is either that or there was quite a bit of inbreeding going on. Which, come to think of it, is very apparent in evolutionitwits.

    Chromosome 2 fusion- Allan McNeil, Cornell Univ. states the the alleged fusion would have caused some genetic isolation. If true that means that at least TWO, one male, one female, would have to have the same configuration or that config would not get passed on.

    So I asked:
    “Would this fusion event have to occur within at least two members- one male, one female- of the same population in order for it to have any chance of getting passed on?”

    Allan responded with:
    In a word, no. All that would need to happen to make this possible would be for two first-degree relatives carrying the translocation to mate and have offspring.

    "In a word, no" but then he agrees with me!

    Is there any way we can go into the lab to reproduce this alleged fusion event? What did this alleged fusion do to allow it to be kept as opposed to being lost?

    3- There is no way to test the premise that an ERV can be inserted into a genome and then hang around intact enough over millions of generations to be used as a genetic marker. That they persist is a sign that A) they are not ERVs and B) Have a function.

    In the end, pertaing to ERVs, all you have is that “they look like ERVs to me”. If that passes for science then “It looks designed” also passes.

    Both common design and convergence explain genetic similarities. And genetic differences do not explain the physiological and anatomical differences:


    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.

    See alsoThe anti-ID position is not based on scientific methodology- an admission

    In the end Lenny’s hypothesis does not exclude Dr Behe’s premise that organisms were designed to evolve.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene

    1- Why would a broken vitamin C gene be selected for? IOW how did it get through the sieve?

    2- Why would a broken gene stay intact enough over millions of generations such that it could be used as a genetic marker- all the while changes are taking place that create profound physiological and anatomical differences?

    Now if you could form a testable hypothesis that explains the physiological and anatomical differences, then you would be on to something.

    1- We observe that chimps and humans, although somewhat similar have physiological and anatomical differences. For example the chimp has an opposable big toe, humans do not.

    2- ?
    3- ?
    4- ?
    5- ?

    Ya see Rich, you and your ilk can't even explain that simple difference even though both genomes have been sequenced.

    That alone should tell you how vacuous the theory of evolution is.

    And by all means continue the research. So far the more we have found out the better for ID.

     
  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You clearly don't understand what ERV's are. If they were whole, they'd be functional. They are fragments, so its safe to say some degradation *has* happened.

    Special.

    From Pharyngula:

    "Not quite. What we see in humans is a classic instance of a Robertsonian translocation. These happen quite often—1 in 900 births bear a fusion of this kind—and they cause no immediate problems at all. The affected individual has a full and normal genetic complement; it's just that two of their chromosomes are stuck together. It can cause reduced fertility, but is unlikely (except in some known, specific cases) to lead to offspring with a genetic disease."

    Oops. Biologist 1 : 'Fridge repairman 0

     
  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So I take it that you have no idea whether or not there is life on a planet orbiting Epsilon Eridani?

     
  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    I have forgotten more about ERVs than you will ever know.

    1- The theory of evolution didn't predict ERVs.

    2- There is no reason to expect any part of an ERV would be intact enough after millions of generations to used as a genetic marker.

    3- There could be alternative explanations- 1- that they are not ERVs but part of the code that we don't understand; 2- That the are ERVs and their position can be explained by a common mechanism. That is similar segments attach to similar sequences of host DNA.

    IOW using ERVs is just a play on our ignorance. But I understand that is all you have.

    4- Evidence of UCD is NOT and NEVER WILL BE evidence for a mechanism. And I asked for a testable hypothesis for the MECHANISM.

    BTW Allan McNeil is a evolutionary biologist from Cornell University.

    Reduced fertility- did you get that? Is natural selection now preserving shit that isn't quite up to snuff? The concept is getting more and more useless every day.

    We should call it survival of whatever survives.

    Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you can't think for yourself and have to run off to Lenny and Co. for help.

    Precious, very precious.

    Joe 1- Rich the blow-hole 0

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Although people with these translocations have only 45 chromosomes in each of their cells, all essential genetic material is present, and they appear normal. Their children, however, may either be normal and carry the fusion chromosome, or they may inherit a missing or extra long arm of an acrocentric chromosome.

    So where are the chimps with 47 chromosomes? The humans with 47 have Down's syndrome.

    Robertson's trans gives us a human with 45. That is going the wrong way.

    IOW if the fusion event didn't cause reproductive isolation then the chimp population should be littered with chimps with 47 and 48.

    Humans should be littered with people with 47 and 46. Yet the humans with 47 have Down's. There aren't any normal humans with 47. And 45 is going the wrong way- you need a normal human with 47.

    IOW blowhole you don't have a clue when it comes to genetics.

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW I can repair refrigerators. Did you have a point?

    I can repair anything that is man-made. Anything. And again- did you have a point?

    The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Here we go, dippy Joe.

    >>I have forgotten more about ERVs than you will ever know.
    Really Joe? How come you don’t understand them then?

    >>1- The theory of evolution didn't predict ERVs.
    No, it didn’t. But I said if e had a common ancestor with Chimps then we should also have common ERV fragments. And we do.

    >>2- There is no reason to expect any part of an ERV would be intact enough after millions of generations to used as a genetic marker.
    Don’t you usually bang on about mutations being rare?
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T39-402KBCD-Y&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=02ce9913b90c75d94a820ce15b31cb2a

    >>3- There could be alternative explanations- 1- that they are not ERVs but part of the code that we don't understand; 2- That the are ERVs and their position can be explained by a common mechanism. That is similar segments attach to similar sequences of host DNA.

    IOW using ERVs is just a play on our ignorance. But I understand that is all you have.

    Or 4. Goddidit. He put fragments of viruses in genomes to test your faith. That’s also possible in the Joe G hand waving fashion!

    >>4- Evidence of UCD is NOT and NEVER WILL BE evidence for a mechanism. And I asked for a testable hypothesis for the MECHANISM.
    You asked me for a hypothesis, but now you want to drive? I see.

    >>BTW Allan McNeil is a evolutionary biologist from Cornell University.

    I know. I have corresponded with him many times, but sadly have yet to meet him.

    >>Reduced fertility- did you get that? Is natural selection now preserving shit that isn't quite up to snuff? The concept is getting more and more useless every day.
    Ah, creationist misrepresentation. Classic. The actual text “It can cause reduced fertility” IT CAN. NOT, IT DOES / IT ALWAYS. LEARN. TO. READ.

    >>We should call it survival of whatever survives.
    If you like.

    >>Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you can't think for yourself and have to run off to Lenny and Co. for help.
    Oh Joe, you’re using words I’ve already seen in the dictionary, you small minded mimic. I’m interested in factual representation, which is independent of the messengers. But I do credit my sources.

    Speaking of which, the lovely Abbie, Slayer of the former scientist Michael Behe, has this:
    http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/index-to-common-creationist-claims.html
    It would seem all your arguments are regurgitated, Joe. So Sad.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    You can take it up your ass for all that I care.

    However it is obvious that you are an intellectual and yellow-bellied coward.

    Nobody cares what you say Erik Pratt of Aurora, MO.

    You're just a freak in clown make-up.

    I told you I would answer your question as soon as you show you can stay on-topic.

    As a matter of fact I have a post ready to do just that. Its release depends on your ability to focus and actually respond to the OP by presenting a testable hypothesis for your anti-ID position.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    To have an anti-ID position I would have to know what the ID position is. Since no one has yet presented such an hypothesis, I don't know exactly why I would be anti-it.

    PS. I have no idea where Aurora, MO is. Try again.

     
  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    It is obvious that you are too stupid to even understand English.

    So let me help you:

    3- There is no way to test the premise that an ERV can be inserted into a genome and then hang around intact enough over millions of generations to be used as a genetic marker. That they persist is a sign that A) they are not ERVs and B) Have a function.

    Got that Rich? Intact enough does not mean totally intact. It means a piece is left that can be used as a genetic marker.

    Also convergence, common design and common mechanism also explain the similarity in those DNA sequences.

    2 points- 1- evidence for UCD is NOT evidence of a mechanism. I asked for a way to test the mechanism and 2- genetic similarity can be explained by something other than UCD

    In the end, pertaing to ERVs, all you have is that “they look like ERVs to me”. If that passes for science then “It looks designed” also passes.

    Both common design and convergence explain genetic similarities. And genetic differences do not explain the physiological and anatomical differences.

    Got that moron?

    Abbie Smith- Wow she gave us ONE new protein-to-protein binding site in all the research that has been conducted. ONE and that ONE is in HIV which isn't even considered a living organism.

    And actually, if you could read, I asked for a hypothesis with a testable mechanism.

    The hypothsis you gave is OK with Behe's designed to evolve thesis.

    IOW you obviously are too stupid to even follow along.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So how come they can take ERV fragments, tie them together and make a working retrovirus?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15280487&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. Don't forget to pick up your consolation tinfoil hat on the way out.

     
  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So how come they can take ERV fragments, tie them together and make a working retrovirus?

    Scientists can make a working virus from scratch. All it takes is the right sequence.

    And I am more than sure that a scientist can take fragments of an organism's DNA and make a virus with it.

    That doesn't mean the DNA from the organism was a virus at one time.

     
  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And even if those fragments were a virus that still doesn't support UCD. Convergence and a common mechanism can also explain their existence.

    Population genetics tells us even the most beneficial mutation will get lost as opposed to becoming fixed.

    And here you are insisting that some worthless piece of DNA not only bcame fixed in one population but also was powerful enough to hang around intact enough all the while a muriad of other changes occured to give rise to the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    Ya see Rich, in order to use ERVs as evidence for UCD you have to be able to demonstrate the above is even plausible.

    As I originally said:

    3- There is no way to test the premise that an ERV can be inserted into a genome and then hang around intact enough over millions of generations to be used as a genetic marker.

    IOW it is an untestable premise. And without any way of determining whether or not the physiological and anatomical differenbces can be accounted for via any amount of culled genetic accidents, all you have is an argument from ignorance.

    But that is what evolutionitwits count on- our ignorance to what can and can't be accomplished via accumualted mutations.

    And voles pretty much prove that physiology and anatomy are independent of genome.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    To have an anti-ID position I would have to know what the ID position is.

    So you are pleading ignorance. Then why bother posting if the best you can do is to argue from ignorance?

    Since no one has yet presented such an hypothesis, I don't know exactly why I would be anti-it.

    Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

    Ya see clowny all you have to do is to present a hypothesis that would show your position- the modern theory of evolution- is scientific. That means a hypothesis that contains a way to test the proposed mechanism- culled genetic accidents.

    However I know why you would rather stall and spew your ignorant rideden diatribe.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now how about it Rich?

    Are you going to present a hypothesis with a testable mechanism or am I to infer that your position cannot muster such a hypothesis?

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, I linked you to a paper showing ERV mutation rates. They are quite small, as you will hopefully be able to read.

    Abstract:


    "The classification of the long terminal repeats (LTRs) of the human endogenous retrovirus HERV-K (HML-2) family was refined according to diagnostic differences between the LTR sequences. The mutation rate was estimated to be approximately equal for LTRs belonging to different families and branches of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs). An average mutation rate value was calculated based on differences between LTRs of the same HERV and was found to be 0.13% per million years (Myr). Using this value, the ages of different LTR groups belonging to the LTR HML-2 subfamily were found to vary from 3 to 50 Myr. Orthologous potential LTR-containing loci from different primate species were PCR amplified using primers corresponding to the genomic sequences flanking LTR integration sites. This allowed us to calculate the phylogenetic times of LTR integrations in primate lineages in the course of the evolution and to demonstrate that they are in good agreement with the LTR ages calculated from the mutation rates. Human-specific integrations for some very young LTRs were demonstrated. The possibility of LTRs and HERVs involvement in the evolution of primates is discussed."

    Next you say millions of generations, remember, these would be Mammalian generations not Viral generations. So Millions may be the wrong word.

    You at least have pack peddled from your claim "There could be alternative explanations- 1- that they are not ERVs but part of the code that we don't understand" - teh cahnces of being able to reverse engineer a Retrovirus from working Genetic code would be long. Maybe UPB long...

    *wink*

    You also claim

    "I have forgotten more about ERVs than you will ever know."

    I'm not seeing it, Joe.

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."

    Sound familiar?

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Our mutual friend Allan Macneil gives us all of these mechanisms:

    Sources of Heritable Variation (both genotypic and phenotypic) Among Individuals in Populations

    Gene Structure (in DNA)
    • single point mutations
    • deletion and insertion (“frame shift”) mutations
    • inversion and translocation mutations
    Gene Expression in Prokaryotes
    • changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding)
    • changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites
    • changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers
    • changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors
    Gene Expression in Eukaryotes
    • changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters)
    • changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs
    • changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs)
    Gene Interactions
    • changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways
    • addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways
    • splitting or combining of biochemical pathways
    • addition or alteration of pleiotropic effects, especially in response to changes in other genes/traits
    Eukaryotic Chromosome Structure
    • gene duplication within chromosomes
    • gene duplication in multiple chromosomes
    • inversions involving one or more genes in one chromosome
    • translocations involving one or more genes between two or more chromosomes
    • deletion/insertion of one or more genes via transposons
    • fusion of two or more chromosomes or chromosome fragments
    • fission of one chromosome into two or more fragments
    • changes in chromosome number via nondisjunction (aneuploidy)
    • changes in chromosome number via autopolyploidy (especially in plants)
    • changes in chromosome number via allopolyploidy (especially in plants)
    Eukaryotic Chromosome Function
    • changes in regulation of multiple genes in a chromosome as a result of the foregoing structural changes
    • changes in gene expression as result of DNA methylation
    • changes in gene expression as result of changes in DNA-histone binding
    Genetic Recombination
    • the exchange of non-identical genetic material between two or more individuals (i.e. sex)
    • lateral gene transfer via plasmids and episomes (especially in prokaryotes)
    • crossing-over (reciprocal and non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in meiosis
    • crossing-over (non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in mitosis
    • Mendelian independent assortment during meiosis
    • hybridization
    Genome Structure and Function
    • genome reorganization and/or reintegration
    • partial or complete genome duplication
    • partial or complete genome fusion
    Development (among multicellular eukaryotes, especially animals)
    • changes in tempo and timing of gene regulation, especially in eukaryotes
    • changes in homeotic gene regulation in eukaryotes
    • genetic imprinting, especially via hormone-mediated DNA methylation
    Symbiosis
    • partial or complete endosymbiosis
    • partial or complete incorporation of unrelated organisms as part of developmental pathways (especially larval forms)
    • changes in presence or absence of mutualists, commensals, and/or parasites
    Behavior/Neurobiology
    • changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community
    • changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment
    • learning (including effects of use and disuse)
    Physiological Ecology
    • changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community
    • changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment

    Could you list out the ID mechanisms for me? Thanks.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fact 1- A virus can be manufactured just by matching a sequence

    Fact 2- That we think we see ERVs in genomes (or fragments of ERVs) means that there is a sequence match.

    Take those two facts together and it is easy to see one can create a virus even if there was no virus originally.

    Next you say millions of generations, remember, these would be Mammalian generations not Viral generations. So Millions may be the wrong word.

    Umm it's alleged that the split- humans/ chimps- occured several MILLION years ago. So yes millions of generations would be correct.

    Also it is quite funny how you think that sexually reproducing organisms can do more in less generations than asexually reproducing organisms can accomplish with more generations.

    Not to mention the fact that asexually reproducing organisms pass on their genetic nmaterial directly to their descendents whereas sexual reproduction organisms throw out 1/2 of their genome.

    IOW with sexual reproduction there isn't any guarantee that even the most beneficial mutation will get passed on. And that is why even the most beneficial mutation has a better chance of being lost than it has of becoming fixed.

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Our mutual friend Allan Macneil gives us all of these mechanisms:

    Read them already. Just how can he or anyone else claim that these mechanisms are in fact genetic accidents?

    IOW as far as he or anyone else knows deletions and insertyions, duplications, translocations, fusions and the rest (anything besides point mutations) are all designed mechanisms!

    IOW they are all part of a non-random process, ie designed.

    Dr. Spetner discussing transposons:

    "The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism [I]random[/I] before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events."


    IOW all you and Allan are doing by claiming his list contains only genetic accidents is arguing from ignorance.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You at least have pack peddled from your claim "There could be alternative explanations- 1- that they are not ERVs but part of the code that we don't understand" - teh cahnces of being able to reverse engineer a Retrovirus from working Genetic code would be long. Maybe UPB long...

    I still stand by that claim. The chances of creating a virus from existing genetic material depends on the scientists doing it.

    Again all they have to do is have a viral sequence to match.

    And guess what? Scientists have already created a virus by matching a viral sequence.

    BTW it is YOU and YOUR ILK who are saying that culled genetic accidents can give rise to the diversity of living organisms.

    That means the ONUS IS on YOU to support that claim.

    Now eiother you can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed or you cannot.

    We have sequenced the chimp and human genomes and we still can't even account for our loss of the opposing big toe.

    IOW the modern theory of evolution is untestable.

    And you keep providing evidence that supports that claim.

    Thank you.

     
  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So we identifty LTR fragments, put them together and get a vurus, but somehow we designed the virus. Okay Joe.


    Its a new (old) virus much more complicated than those fabricated by man.

    You also seem to be having issues with randomness. Mutations are random in terms of the distribution can't be predicted at a granular level with any accuracy. But 'not random' in the sense of Rolling "fish" on a six sided die. They are random, but bound and linked to distributions.

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "BTW it is YOU and YOUR ILK who are saying that culled genetic accidents can give rise to the diversity of living organisms."

    The culled ones are dead and so don't give rise to much, Joe. Clearly you are misrepresenting something(s) there, skippy.

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So we identifty LTR fragments, put them together and get a vurus, but somehow we designed the virus.

    I neither said nor implied that.

    I take it you stuill have reading comprehension issues.

    "BTW it is YOU and YOUR ILK who are saying that culled genetic accidents can give rise to the diversity of living organisms."

    The culled ones are dead and so don't give rise to much, Joe.

    Main entry 1cull
    Pronunciation: \ˈkəl\
    Function: transitive verb
    Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French culier, coillir, from Latin colligere to bind together — more at collect
    Date: 13th century
    1: to select from a group : choose (culled the best passages from the poet's work)
    2: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control

    Did you get that Rich- "to select from a group"

    IOW Rich thanks again for proving you are a stupid fucking moron.

    All you had to do is to look up the word. But you are too stupid to even do that.

     
  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example)."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cull

    Perhaps you should have used "selected", rather than an ambiguous word choice, the most popular interpretation of which argues against your attempted point.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So we identify LTR fragments, put them together and get a virus, but somehow we designed the virus.

    I neither said nor implied that.


    Okay, so what do you mean, Joe?

    Wee see LTR fragments. We stitch them together. Bingo, retrovirus. How did that happen, Joe? Strange that the fragments are common in branches of the tree of life like that.

    Looks like piece of a virus that we had when we were the same species. Piece them together - it a a virus. What a coincidence..

     
  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps you should have used "selected", rather than an ambiguous word choice, the most popular interpretation of which argues against your attempted point.

    Umm the most popular definition of "cull", as provided by Merriam-Webster is:

    1: to select from a group : choose (culled the best passages from the poet's work)

    Wikipedia is not recognized as any type of authority. However I knew you would try to pull something out of your ass and use it. So I was prepared:

    Reader’s Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder

    cull
    1- select, choose, or gather from a large quantity or amount (knowledge culled from a book)
    2- pick or gather (flowers, fruit, etc.)

    Webster’s New Century Dictionary:

    to select; to pick out, gather


    From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on “The Edison Laboratory”:

    Most of Edison's successes involved electricity or communication, but throughout the late 1880s and early 1890s the Edison Laboratory's top priority was the magnetic ore-separator. Edison had first worked on the separator when he was searching for platinum for use in the experimental incandescent lamp. The device was supposed to cull platinum from iron-bearing sand.

    Now on to your other piece of stupidity:

    Wee see LTR fragments. We stitch them together. Bingo, retrovirus. How did that happen, Joe?

    It happened EXACTLY as I have already posted.

    ALL one needs to make a virus- of any type- is to match the genetic sequence.

    Here it is AGAIN:

    Fact 1- A virus can be manufactured just by matching a sequence

    Fact 2- That we think we see ERVs in genomes (or fragments of ERVs) means that there is a sequence match.

    Take those two facts together and it is easy to see one can create a virus even if there was no virus originally.

     
  • At 11:55 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wikipedia is current. Books are outdated as soon as they are published, as they are static. Whilst not perfect wikipedia is good. The ID entries are excellent.

    Again, you chose the ambiguous word, not I.

    As for LTR identification, clearly you have no idea.

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One more time:

    Wikipedia is NOT an authority, especially when it comes to defining words. Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, IS an accepted authority when it comes to word definitions.

    The word "cull" is only ambiguous to those without a command of the English language.

    As far as viruses go my comment is spot on. How do I know? I worked in the field pertaining to chemical and biological identification- as in the types of chemical and biological agents that could be manufactured and used as weapons. My speciality was explosives but I worked closely with the scientists in the biological department.

    IOW Rich I will side with reality and reality says:

    Fact 1- A virus can be manufactured just by matching a sequence

    Fact 2- That we think we see ERVs in genomes (or fragments of ERVs) means that there is a sequence match.

    Take those two facts together and it is easy to see one can create a virus even if there was no virus originally.


    If you can't accept that then that is YOUR problem, not mine.

     
  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Anytime you would like to present a TESTABLE hypothesis that supports your anti-ID position, that would be evidence that you are not an intellectual coward and actually understand what is being debated.

    IOW Rich, your hypothesis must be based on accumulated genetic accidents (all mutations in the anti-ID scenario are genetic accidents).

    If you can't do that then that just supports my claim that your position is untestable and as such is not scientific.

     
  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Bacteria evolving to changing environment:

    http://carlzimmer.com/articles/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1184129420&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10&

    Enjoy.

     
  • At 6:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ummm even YECs accept that bacteria can "evolve" into bacteria.

    IOW did you have a point?

    BTW to link to some other website use a href= and place the url after the =. close the tag with /a- HTML tags.

    If you are too stupid to use HTML tags then it is a given you are too stupid to understand biology. It is already a given that you don't understand what is being debated. And arguing from ignorance is not to be mistaken as a refutation.

     
  • At 10:10 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    I was just blog surfing and found myself here. You guys are fascinating! I enjoy the back and forth. You each seem rather certain of your positions, and are willing to fight. Kudos all around.

    And about the word "cull" I have only heard it used in terms of reducing an animal population by shooting them; kangaroo cull, badger cull, and so-on. I think this definition would be considered the most common.

    Peace!

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And about the word "cull" I have only heard it used in terms of reducing an animal population by shooting them; kangaroo cull, badger cull, and so-on. I think this definition would be considered the most common.

    Umm Merriam-Webster is an accepted authority when it comes to word definitions. And MW's #1 definition is 1: to select from a group : choose (culled the best passages from the poet's work)

    Also it should be noted that anti-IDists "fight" not by supporting their position but by nitpicking and misrepresenting the ID position.

    Yet all they have to do for ID to be falsified is to find scientific support for their position.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home