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

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Descent with Modification- What gets Modified?

-

Evolutionitwits love to use the phrase "descent with modification" when talking about their "theory".

They say that you are a modified version of your parents, thinking that proves their case.

However when pressed they never say what gets modified.

Sure they will give very vague answers like "the DNA gets modified" or "the existing structures get modified", but never do they tell us any details.

And that is because they don't have any idea whether or not the transformation required are even possible.

Take for example the human foot.

It is very different than all other extant primate feet.

No one knows whether or not the human foot could "evolve" from a non-human foot with an opposable big toe.

This year is the 150th anniversary for the release of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and we still don't have any idea if those transformations are even possible.

There isn't any genetic gata which we could use to test that premise of descent with modification can lead to the diversity of life from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

Yet the "theory" of evolution is considered scientific.

Go figure...

53 Comments:

  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Seriously? What gets modified? Slow day?

     
  • At 7:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Seriously, you don't have any idea what gets modified.

    For EXAMPLE human feet- what got modified in a non-human primate that allowed for the transformation from feet with an opposable big toe designed for grasping to our feet which are designed for running?

     
  • At 9:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    genetics, Joe. Look it up. Mutations happened. Mutations are modifications. It's not very difficult.

     
  • At 7:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I understand genetics Erik.

    I also understand mutations.

    What no one knows if whether or not any mutations can allow for the transformations required.

    Mutations to what part of the genome caused the feet the change?

    Please be specific so that it can be tested- that is we should be able to take a chimp embryo and alter it in the way you say and produce a chimp with human feet.

    But thank you for proving my point- you don't have a clue.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Andrea Bottaro said the following on the panda's thumb:

    "Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements."

    IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”.

    Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!

    I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.

     
  • At 6:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hmmmm. This is a different discussion all of a sudden.

    It starts out all "no one knows what gets modified, OMG like it's a mystery, what the hell is it that gets changed. Like OMG!!!!"

    Now it's all "right we know that genes get modified, but that's not important."

    Maybe you should try to understand the questions you want to know the answers to, um.... before typing.

     
  • At 9:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This is a different discussion all of a sudden.

    Only in your little demented mind of course.

    Now it's all "right we know that genes get modified, but that's not important."

    1- We don't know which genes

    2- We don't know if modifying any genes will do the trick.

    IOW saying "the DNA gets modified" is useless if you don't know what sequences.

    Ya see if you don't know what sequences get modified then you cannot test your claim.

    This is all covered in the OP so nothing has changed.

    So maybe you should actually read what it is you are responding to.

    Or did you read but but not understand it?

     
  • At 9:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Sure they will give very vague answers like "the DNA gets modified" or "the existing structures get modified", but never do they tell us any details.

    And that is because they don't have any idea whether or not the transformation required are even possible.


    And as predicted clownie chimes in with:

    genetics, Joe. Look it up. Mutations happened. Mutations are modifications.

    Mutations to what?

    The DNA!!! Look it up!

    Yes, mutations happen but have never been observed to build useful protein machinery and construct new body plans.

    Oh now you want the mutations to do something.

    Yes that is where the modification part comes in.

    Supposedly it is the modifications to the DNA which was enough to account for the diversity of life from some unknown populations of single-celled organisms.

    However no one knows if any amount of DNA modification can do such a thing.

    Magical Mystery Mutations.

    That is all you have.

    Deal with it.

     
  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. It's a different discussion. Thanks for admitting that you've moved the goalposts.

    "We don't know which genes."

    Well, duh. That's what makes evolution possible, Joe. Mutations are random. If we knew beforehand what genes were going to mutate, it wouldn't be random. Thanks for the laugh.

    "We don't know if modifying any genes will do the trick."

    Thanks for being purposefully vague. What trick are you talking about? Be specific.

     
  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, And let's admit now that we do know WHAT gets modified. Or are we going to argue about mutations?

     
  • At 7:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How is it a different discussion?

    I take it you did not read the OP.

    Or are you admitting that you are too stupid to understand it?

    We have no idea what gets modified clownie.

    Just saying "mutations" proves my point.

    Just saying "genes" proves my point.

    Just saying "DNA" proves my point.

    So we do NOT know what gets modified beyond very vague assertions.

    What trick?

    The trick is actually building things- changing body plans- you know the type of tricks mutations are supposed to be able to produce.

    IOW clownie as I have been saying for decades your position is not scientific because it cannot be tested.

    It cannot be tested because we don't have any idea if any amount of mutations can cause the transformations required by your position.

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Erik Pratt rests his case with Magical Mystery Mutations.

    Now you know why the vast majority of people do not accept the theory of evolution.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Three things are needed to build something: parts, plans, and process.

    If all that science knows is the fact that genes specify proteins, then science is an extremely long way from demonstrating that evolution as now envisioned is possible.

    How are proteins organiized into tissues? How are tissues organized into organs? How are organs organized into body plans? How are all the various organs supplied with nutrients? How are all the waste products eliminated from the body?

    What about the "system engineering" required. All the various parts have to work together as a coordinated whole.

    If there are any articles that address this problem, I would appreciate knowing about them.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do we agree that genes get modified or not? Really, it will be hard to have a discussion if we can't agree on that. You started off with "we don't know what gets modified". Then you moved on to "genes get modified". So, where are we? What's the official stance?

     
  • At 6:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do we agree that genes get modified or not?

    Sure and my point is that saying that is meaningless.

    Are you that fucking stupid?

    I will demonstrate-

    What genes were modified to change the primate foot from one with an opposable big toe (for grasping) to one with a big toe in line with the others (for running)?

    The only answer is "no one knows".

    Another demonstration:

    What genes were modified in invertebrates to give rise to vertebrates?

    Again "no one knows".

    No one knows if any amount of genetic modification can account for the transformations required.

     
  • At 8:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doublee,

    I told you already-

    Magical Mystery Mutations ;)

     
  • At 6:41 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Good. Now let's agree that "we don't know what gets modified" is totally incorrect.

     
  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    When someone states that "genes get modified" that is proof they don't know what gets modified.

    They are just guessing that modifying genes can create the changes required.

    Ya see there aren't any specifics, no details, just vague claims.

    And those vague claims cannot be verified because they are, well, vague.

    We cannot test the claim that modified genes allowed for the diversity of life from some unknown population of single-celled organisms.

    However it is obvious that you have your head so far up your ass that you cannot grasp that concept.

    So I thank you for helping me prove my point.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Erik, "The Island of Dr Moreau" is NOT a true story...

     
  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, um...we don't know that genes get modified?

    If I say that baseball players hit home runs, I do know that baseball players hit home runs, right? Or do I not know that? This is very confusing.

     
  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ummm, we know that genes get modified.

    What we don't know is whether or not modifying genes can account for the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of single-celled organisms.

    I will demonstrate-

    What genes were modified to change the primate foot from one with an opposable big toe (for grasping) to one with a big toe in line with the others (for running)?

    The only answer is "no one knows".

    Another demonstration:

    What genes were modified in invertebrates to give rise to vertebrates?

    Again "no one knows".

    No one knows if any amount of genetic modification can account for the transformations required.


    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    JoeG: Ummm, we know that genes get modified.

    JoeG, earlier: when pressed they never say what gets modified.

    How can these two things be equally true?

    If I know that baseball players hit home runs, do I know that baseball players hit home runs?

    You gotta start small, Joe.

     
  • At 11:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JoeG: Ummm, we know that genes get modified.

    JoeG, earlier: when pressed they never say what gets modified.


    How can these two things be equally true?

    As I have already said, starting with the OP, saying "genes" get modified is meaningless.

    It is meaningless because it is vague, meaning totally lacking in anything remotely testable.

    It is meaningless because no one knows if modified genes can account for all the transformations required.

    I even provided a demonstration, ie EXAMPLES, which you, being an ignorant clown, duly ignored.

    I will demonstrate-

    What genes were modified to change the primate foot from one with an opposable big toe (for grasping) to one with a big toe in line with the others (for running)?

    The only answer is "no one knows".

    Another demonstration:

    What genes were modified in invertebrates to give rise to vertebrates?

    Again "no one knows".

    No one knows if any amount of genetic modification can account for the transformations required.


    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 11:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You gotta start small, Joe.

    They don't get any smaller than you.

    And thanks for continuing to prove my point.

     
  • At 4:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Come on, Joe. You have to start with the small things and work up from there. So, Yes or No? Are we in agreement that genes get modified? And, if so, are we in agreement that "we don't know what gets modified" is bogus? "What" being equal to "genes" here.

     
  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So I take it that you don't understand English.

    And you sure as hell don't know what gets modified.

    If you did you would have answered my questions.

    What genes were modified to change the primate foot from one with an opposable big toe (for grasping) to one with a big toe in line with the others (for running)?

    and

    What genes were modified in invertebrates to give rise to vertebrates?

    You still think that your stupidity and ignorance are meaningful discourse.

    Ya see clownie saying "genes get modified" doesn't say anything for the reasons provided.

     
  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Are we in agreement that genes get modified? Yes or no. Are we in agreement that the statement "we don't know what gets modified" is in direct opposition to the statement "we know that genes get modified"? Yes or no.

    We have to start here, Joe. Otherwise the conversation becomes:

    1. We know that hydrogen atoms fuse.

    2. We know how the universe was created.

    Obviously bogus, but this is exactly the conversation you are setting up. So, let's start with the small things.

     
  • At 6:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Start small asshole- read the OP.

    Then try answering the two questions you keep ignoring as if your ignorance means something.

     
  • At 11:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    genes get modified, yes? we know this, yes?

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the OP:

    Evolutionitwits love to use the phrase "descent with modification" when talking about their "theory".

    They say that you are a modified version of your parents, thinking that proves their case.

    However when pressed they never say what gets modified.

    Sure they will give very vague answers like "the DNA gets modified" or "the existing structures get modified", but never do they tell us any details.


    Genes are sequences of DNA, yes?

    We know genes are sequences of DNA, yes?

    So saying "genes get modified" is vague and useless, yes?

    As examples of why it is vague and useless I presented you with two questions (which you continue to ignore as if your ignorance is meaningful discourse):

    What genes were modified to change the primate foot from one with an opposable big toe (for grasping) to one with a big toe in line with the others (for running)?

    and

    What genes were modified in invertebrates to give rise to vertebrates?

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hydrogen fuses into helium. I now have a complete understanding of the creation of the universe.

    Perhaps you should re-evaluate what starting small means, Joe.

     
  • At 10:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hydrogen fuses into helium.

    Not always.

    I now have a complete understanding of the creation of the universe.

    Good for you.

    Perhaps you could publish your complete understanding.

    Perhaps you should re-evaluate what starting small means, Joe.

    Perhaps you should re-evaluate your reading comprehension...

     
  • At 11:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, yes. Little self-evaluation, many insults. Keep pushing the boundaries of intelligent reasoning, Joe. You're doing a good thing...it is the best medicine.

     
  • At 12:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ah yes, keep blaming me because you cannot comprehend what I post.

    Thank you for proving my point...

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    What genes get modified to change an opposable big toe into an aligned big toe? The answer to that question is only part of the problem.

    Contrary to many an evolutionist who writes that "it is easy to imagine..." some evolutionary sequence, I find it difficult to imagine a gradual step-by-step process for the repositioning of the big toe, wherein each step has a selective advantage.

    It's either that or all the right genes changed at once. A big toe that makes it both difficult to grasp or climb, and difficult to run doesn't make much sense to me

    Come to think of it, why is it an advantage to outrun your enimies rather than outclimb them? I notice that both types of feet exist today.

    How can you even test such an idea?

     
  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doublee,

    One of the problems is we don't even know if it's "in the genes".

    And yes it is funny how evolutionists conflate imagination with data.

     
  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why do you buy an argument that is merely "I find it hard to believe..."?

    Is that really convincing? It doesn't strike you as odd to hold that argument up as a shining example of reasoning?

    For that to be a decent argument, wouldn't you have to be able to imagine everything? And since the argument starts with a statement admitting a certain inability to imagine even one thing, doesn't it collapse immediately?

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Why do you buy an argument that is merely "I find it hard to believe..."?

    I don't.

    Why do you buy an argument that doesn't have any support?

    And when imagination replaces evidence science is lost.

     
  • At 11:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you agree with me that Doublee's comment is a giant steaming pile?...

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Your interpretation of Doublee is a giant steaming pile.

    Doublee never said "I find it hard to believe...".

    Doublee finds it "difficult to imagine a gradual step-by-step process for the repositioning of the big toe, wherein each step has a selective advantage."

    And that is most likely because no one knows whether or not such a transformation is even possible.

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. Doublee finds something hard to believe. That is what the phrase difficult to imagine means, Joe. So, we agree. Why can't you just say it?

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

    Doublee finds something hard to believe.

    That could be but that isn't what Doublee said.

    That is what the phrase difficult to imagine means, Joe.

    I can imagine things that I find hard to believe.

    I have seen things that I still have a hard time believing.

    IOW it is obvious what you think the phrase means isn't what it means at all.

    So the bottom line is you should just use the same words as the person you are "quoting".

    Oh that's right, if you did that you couldn't put your imbecilic spin on things.

    And without that spin you can't "win".

    It also helps distract from the fact you can't support your position.

     
  • At 10:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You're a fucking douchebag, Joe. This, of course, doesn't mean what you think it means. You see where people might get confused....

     
  • At 10:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why don't you ask doublee what "I find it difficult to imagine" means. I guess you'll be surprised.

     
  • At 7:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You're still the fucking shit that douches clean out.

    And that means exactly what it says.

    As for asking Doublee, well that is what YOU should have done BEFORE you twisted what was posted.

    Only a douche-drip like you would say to ask what someone means after telling everyone what they mean.

     
  • At 7:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Boy, douche-drip is such a vague term, Joe. It's hard to tell what you mean.

    Anywho...how about discussing why you give credence to arguments against ToE that are merely statements of incredulity?

     
  • At 6:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    how about discussing why you give credence to arguments against ToE that are merely statements of incredulity?

    I don't.

    I take it that you cannot understand what I post.

    Why do you give credence to the ToE when there isn't any data which demonstrates that the transformations required are even possible?

    IOW why do you, Erk Pratt, just blindly follow others?

     
  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do you like doublee's argument?

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey asks:
    Do you like doublee's argument?

    Doublee:
    Three things are needed to build something: parts, plans, and process.

    If all that science knows is the fact that genes specify proteins, then science is an extremely long way from demonstrating that evolution as now envisioned is possible.

    How are proteins organiized into tissues? How are tissues organized into organs? How are organs organized into body plans? How are all the various organs supplied with nutrients? How are all the waste products eliminated from the body?

    What about the "system engineering" required. All the various parts have to work together as a coordinated whole.

    If there are any articles that address this problem, I would appreciate knowing about them.


    Looks good to me.

    I have noticed that you have not been able to address any part of what Doublee posted.

    Doubleee went on to say:

    What genes get modified to change an opposable big toe into an aligned big toe? The answer to that question is only part of the problem.

    Contrary to many an evolutionist who writes that "it is easy to imagine..." some evolutionary sequence, I find it difficult to imagine a gradual step-by-step process for the repositioning of the big toe, wherein each step has a selective advantage.

    It's either that or all the right genes changed at once. A big toe that makes it both difficult to grasp or climb, and difficult to run doesn't make much sense to me

    Come to think of it, why is it an advantage to outrun your enimies rather than outclimb them? I notice that both types of feet exist today.

    How can you even test such an idea?


    And all you did was harp on a very small part of that- and you had to change the wording to make it mean something else.

    So before you go asking if I like something you first have to demonstrate that you understand it.

    So far you have failed to do so.

    BTW if YOU don't like Doublee's argument all YOU have to do is to actually provide some scientific data which refutes it.

    If you cannot do that then all your "argument" boils down to is the refusal to accept the design inference no matter what.

    Do you like that argument?

     
  • At 5:12 PM, Blogger Jack said…

    CALCA, COL9A2, TNF1, hDBP, WNT2, MATN3, ADAM12, GNAS, TRAF, NRP2, OXTR, LIRF, HSP90, IGFBP1, CALCR, hDBP, IL6, TNF1, ANKH, LRCH1, GNAS, CALCA, WNT2, OXTR and NPP

    wow, going to scientific commons is sooooooo difficult

     
  • At 6:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Jack!

    What is your point?

    Are you saying that modifying the genes you listed gave rise to the diversity of life from some unknown populations of single-celled organisms?

    The tumor necrosis factors changed the body forms?

    WTF Jack?

     
  • At 10:15 PM, Blogger Jack said…

    You asked "what got modified in a non-human primate that allowed for the transformation from feet with an opposable big toe designed for grasping to our feet which are designed for running?"

    I told you the genes associated with foot development that are different in humans and chimps because I thought you were asking an honest question. But obviously you believe your refusal to search pubmed or scientific commons is an actual argument.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    what got modified in a non-human primate that allowed for the transformation from feet with an opposable big toe designed for grasping to our feet which are designed for running?"

    Jack
    I told you the genes associated with foot development that are different in humans and chimps because I thought you were asking an honest question.

    You didn't say that Jack.

    You just listed some genes and factors.

    NOW you are telling me that those are the genes and factors (some listed twice) are associated with foot development.

    Great.

    Now we should be able to take a chimp embryo and make the changes in those genes and factors and get a chimp with a human foot.

    OR take a human embryo and make the changes and get a chimp's foot.

    BTW HSP90 is a heat shock protein that helps other proteins retain there shape under stress, such as heat.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home