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

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

A Vole is Still a Vole- Refuting McCarthy, Evidence Against Microevolution Accumulating to Macroevolution

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless. They think that they can just declare that accumulations of microevolution can become macroevolution. That is untestable bullshit and there is evidence against it- Voles- A lot of micro but no macro

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 and macroevolution

posted by Joe G @ 9:00 AM  

26 Comments:

  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Two million years is not that long of a time in evolutionary terms. It's estimated that the common ancestor between humans and chimps lived about 6 million years ago and much of their genomes are the same.

    Mutations being random and all evolution moves in fits and starts. Unpredictable.

    From the design point of view . . . what's the point of all the chromosomal changes with little visible results? I'm assuming you'll say that all the genome chances are due to design. But I doubt you'll offer up a prediction of what is in the Vole genome future. Even though design would have a goal wouldn't it?

     

  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! No one knows how much time is enough and hiding behind father time's skirt is not scientific.

    Thank you for continuing to prove yours is a position that is outside of science.

    From the design point of view . . . what's the point of all the chromosomal changes with little visible results?

    Well the design does not boil down to DNA, just as I have been saying for years.

     

  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A generation for a vole is mere weeks, whereas for humans it is over a decade. That means 2 million years for voles is more than 6 million for humans, evolutionary speaking. Evolution being all about generation times.

    Jerad the mathguy missed that

     

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "LoL! No one knows how much time is enough and hiding behind father time's skirt is not scientific."

    Well, there are fossils which give general ideas of how quickly new forms arise. And there are empirically supported estimates of mutation rates.

    "Thank you for continuing to prove yours is a position that is outside of science."

    You're very welcome.

    "Well the design does not boil down to DNA, just as I have been saying for years."

    True but you have yet to show any control mechanism aside from DNA. AND you have yet to explain the design point of all the intermediate forms preserved in the fossil record.

    "A generation for a vole is mere weeks, whereas for humans it is over a decade. That means 2 million years for voles is more than 6 million for humans, evolutionary speaking. Evolution being all about generation times.

    Jerad the mathguy missed that"

    Mutations are random. Evolution occurs in fits and starts. So?

    Species that are well adapted to their niche will tend to be resistant to change. That is, the selection pressure is strongly in favour of NOT changing.

    You seem most interested in trying to exploit any possible small flaw in the theory rather than looking for big, overall problems.

     

  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, there are fossils which give general ideas of how quickly new forms arise.

    Wrong, fossils cannot do that.

    And there are empirically supported estimates of mutation rates.

    So what? You are still hiding behind father time. It is all you have.

    True but you have yet to show any control mechanism aside from DNA.

    DNA is inert. You are ignorant.

    AND you have yet to explain the design point of all the intermediate forms preserved in the fossil record.

    Umm blind process can't get beyond prokaryotes so forget the fossil record.

    Mutations are random. Evolution occurs in fits and starts. So?

    Non-sequitur and most likely false.

    You seem most interested in trying to exploit any possible small flaw in the theory rather than looking for big, overall problems

    LoL! The big overall problem is the "theory" is basically evidence free. It cannot be modelled and it produces no testable predictions. It is also useless as a research heuristic.

    So fuck you

     

  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger skeptic said…

    IDiots are so clueless. The think they can just declare that systems are irreducibly complex. That is untestable bullshit.

     

  • At 6:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Irreducible complexity is testable, has een tested and demonstrated to exist. And evos have been trying to show that materialistic processes can produce it. That means educated evos understand IC exists.

     

  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Species that are well adapted to their niche will tend to be resistant to change. That is, the selection pressure is strongly in favour of NOT changing.

    Whatever. The OP is about VOLES and voles have been changing 60-100 faster than the avergae vertebrate.

     

  • At 2:42 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Well, there are fossils which give general ideas of how quickly new forms arise.'

    Wrong, fossils cannot do that."

    Of course you can. You can use objective dating techniques to determine about when they existed.

    " 'And there are empirically supported estimates of mutation rates.'

    So what? You are still hiding behind father time. It is all you have."

    Who's hiding? Undirected descent is slow. What's the problem? Unless you think that we cannot 'do' science unless we were there.

    " 'True but you have yet to show any control mechanism aside from DNA.'

    DNA is inert. You are ignorant."

    You know what I mean. You keep implying there is some unknown, undefined and undetected 'extra programming' which affect gene expression. And that mutations aren't random. But you can't support either contention.

    "Umm blind process can't get beyond prokaryotes so forget the fossil record."

    Uh huh. Because you choose to deny the implications of the evidence. And your model can't explain the fossil record at all.

    " 'Mutations are random. Evolution occurs in fits and starts. So?'

    Non-sequitur and most likely false."

    Your grasp of the science gets more and more tenuous.

    "LoL! The big overall problem is the "theory" is basically evidence free. It cannot be modelled and it produces no testable predictions. It is also useless as a research heuristic."

    It can predict what type of forms can be found in geologic layers. There are thousands of scientists researching aspects of evolutionary theory. You're just pouting.

    "So fuck you"

    No thanks, I'm a heterosexual.

    "LoL! Irreducible complexity is testable, has een tested and demonstrated to exist. And evos have been trying to show that materialistic processes can produce it. That means educated evos understand IC exists."

    Not quite true. No biological system has been proven to be IC. Even Dr Behe has admitted that he can't prove it. He said that he can't say for absolutely sure that the systems he's investigated didn't arise via purely natural processes. He just says it's extremely improbable.

    "Whatever. The OP is about VOLES and voles have been changing 60-100 faster than the avergae vertebrate."

    Changing in certain ways. If they're very well adapted to their environmental niche then the environmental selection pressures will keep them fairly locked in. Like sharks.

     

  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    When fossils existed does not tell us when the organism first arrived. You are an imbecile.

    YOU cannot support unguided evolution.

    There isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes. There isn't even a way to model such a thing.

    IOW there isn't any science to grasp, moron.

    And unguided evolution doesn't predict any fossils- you are either a fool or dishonest.

    Yes IC has been demonstrated. That is why evos have spent time and money to show materialistic processes can produce it. Dr Behe never said anything of the kind- you are lying.

    That he does not categorically deny that blind processes cannot produce IC doesn't mean IC doesn't exist- you are an idiot.

    Not one evo can come up with a testable model for IC evolving via blind processes- no science at all.

    And if voles were well adapted then they wouldn't be evolving faster than most other verts. You are just so fucking stupid it hurts.

     

  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "When fossils existed does not tell us when the organism first arrived. You are an imbecile."

    No, but they tell us when they were around. It gives rough boundaries. And when you don't see certain fossils in certain layers then a progression can be constructed.

    "YOU cannot support unguided evolution."

    You can't find evidence of an agent responsible for what we see in the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic records.

    "There isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes. There isn't even a way to model such a thing."

    Of course there is evidence, genomic. The model is very simple.

    "IOW there isn't any science to grasp, moron."

    Observation, interpolation of fossil layers, dating techniques, dendrochronology, genome mapping, morphological analysis, bio-geographic analysis, etc. Plus now we are able to tinker with genetics AND observe long term genomic changes in labs.

    "And unguided evolution doesn't predict any fossils- you are either a fool or dishonest."

    Tiktaalik. Something much like it was predicted to be in a certain layer and, it was.

    "Yes IC has been demonstrated. That is why evos have spent time and money to show materialistic processes can produce it. Dr Behe never said anything of the kind- you are lying."

    I can't find the exact quote (but I'll keep looking) but I do not that in Darwin's Black Box Dr Behe does agree that random mutations exist and that some level of evolution occurs:

    "That is not to say that random mutation is a myth or that Darwinism fails to explain anything (it explains microevolution very nicely)"

    And

    "To say that Darwinian evolution cannot explain everything in nature is not to say that evolution, random mutation, and natural selection do not occur; they have been observed" p175

    "That he does not categorically deny that blind processes cannot produce IC doesn't mean IC doesn't exist- you are an idiot. "

    True, but it hasn't been proven to exist in biological systems. Only a few people make that claim.

    "Not one evo can come up with a testable model for IC evolving via blind processes- no science at all."

    Even Dr Behe says you can test IC:

    ""In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."

    "And if voles were well adapted then they wouldn't be evolving faster than most other verts. You are just so fucking stupid it hurts."

    But, as you pointed out, they're still voles. So, there is little pressure for them to change.

     

  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "There isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes. There isn't even a way to model such a thing."

    Of course there is evidence, genomic.

    Liar.

    Observation, interpolation of fossil layers, dating techniques, dendrochronology, genome mapping, morphological analysis, bio-geographic analysis, etc. Plus now we are able to tinker with genetics AND observe long term genomic changes in labs.

    Nothing that supports unguided evolution.

    Tiktaalik was not a prediction of unguided evolution. Not only that it wasn't even found in the right strata to be what they were looking for.

    I can't find the exact quote (but I'll keep looking) but I do not that in Darwin's Black Box Dr Behe does agree that random mutations exist and that some level of evolution occurs:

    So what? It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant ass.

    IC has been proven to exist in biological systems. That is why evos are trying to find blind processes that can produce them.

    And yes I know that IC is testable- I have been saying that for years. However it is still a fact that no one can model IC arising via blind processes

    And the voles have changed. The point is there isn't any mechanism that can evolve them into something other than voles.

     

  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Yes IC has been demonstrated. That is why evos have spent time and money to show materialistic processes can produce it. Dr Behe never said anything of the kind- you are lying."

    From Darwin's Black Box:

    “Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route” (p.40).

    Here's another quote regarding Dr Behe's view of the evidence for evolution:

    "For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

    He also thinks evolutionary theory does have some explanatory power:

    "Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.

    I quite like this summary criticism of some of Dr Behe's assertions:

    "Behe greatly overestimates the difficulty of developing a binding site, ignores the fact that the majority of 10,000 binding sites in modern vertebrates are duplicate copies of each other, with there being only a much smaller number of basic binding motifs and ignores the fact that most of these basic binding motifs were developed in rapidly dividing single celled organisms with very large populations. Far from protein–protein binding pointing to an unknown designer, protein binding sites point directly to descent with modification and the "tinkering" of natural selection." - Ian Musgrave

     

  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I know what Behe said, Jerad. Nothing helps unguided evolution.

    Binding sites? Really? Too bad unguided evolution cannot account for metazoans, let alone vertebrates. Musgrave is just another evonbabbler with no evidence to support his claims.

    Your desperation is really funny though.

     

  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans

    How is that evidence for common ancestry? Heck convergence can explain the same data.

     

  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I know what Behe said, Jerad. Nothing helps unguided evolution."

    Dr Behe says it has some explanatory power (denied by you) and can explain some things to his satisfaction. So you disagree with him.

    "Binding sites? Really? Too bad unguided evolution cannot account for metazoans, let alone vertebrates. Musgrave is just another evonbabbler with no evidence to support his claims."

    So, you don't understand the discussion of binding sites. Figures.

    "Your desperation is really funny though."

    I'm not desperate at all. My side isn't clinging to a narrow ledge based on a few papers and non-peer reviewed books by people not working in biology.

    " 'For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans'

    How is that evidence for common ancestry? Heck convergence can explain the same data."

    Don't ask me, ask Dr Behe. He said it. If you disagree with him you'd best talk to him about it. I thought you read his books.

     

  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "How is that evidence for common ancestry? Heck convergence can explain the same data."

    So you accept evolutionary convergence! Excellent.

     

  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Behe says it has some explanatory power (denied by you) and can explain some things to his satisfaction. So you disagree with him.

    I never said bwe doesn't have any explanatory power. I said it doesn't do what evos say.

    So, you don't understand the discussion of binding sites.

    Cowardly non-sequitur.

    I'm not desperate at all.

    You must be. You position doesn't have anything so you are forced to flail about like a little child throwing a tantrum.

    You haven't posted any evidence, Jerad. That demonstrates desperation.

    As for Behe accepting UCD- he does so despite not being able to explain all of the differencs observed. He uses the canard of similarities = UCD.

    And yes I have known about convergent evolution for decades. Most likely knew about before you were born.

     

  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I never said bwe doesn't have any explanatory power. I said it doesn't do what evos say."

    You said there was no evidence for it. And yet Dr Behe says there is.


    "You must be. You position doesn't have anything so you are forced to flail about like a little child throwing a tantrum."

    Nah, I'm just sitting here with decades of papers and research and experiments and knowledgeable scientists who put their work up for scrutiny by their peers who would like nothing better than to find a hole in their work.

    "As for Behe accepting UCD- he does so despite not being able to explain all of the differencs observed. He uses the canard of similarities = UCD."

    Still, you disagree with him. He says there is evidence for blind watchmaker evolution, you say there isn't. You've said many, many times BWE can't explain anything yet he says it can.

    "And yes I have known about convergent evolution for decades. Most likely knew about before you were born."

    I was born in 1960. I rather suspect I'm older than you.

     

  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I never said there wasn't any evidence for bwe. I even told you tat bwe is very capable at breaking things, deformaties and diseases. There isn't any evidence that it constructs anything. It can take away.

    Nah, I'm just sitting here with decades of papers and research and experiments and knowledgeable scientists who put their work up for scrutiny by their peers who would like nothing better than to find a hole in their work.

    You are full of shit. There isn't any papers supporting bwe producing anything. No bwe research- nothing. You are sad.

    He says there is evidence for blind watchmaker evolution, you say there isn't.

    So you are ignorant or a liar and you think that means something.

     

  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I never said there wasn't any evidence for bwe. I even told you tat bwe is very capable at breaking things, deformaties and diseases. There isn't any evidence that it constructs anything. It can take away."

    "You are full of shit. There isn't any papers supporting bwe producing anything. No bwe research- nothing. You are sad."

    Why don't you do what Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miiler and Jerry Coyne and Michael Shermer (to name a few recent authors) and write out a full, book length statement of what you really do believe and what the implications of your beliefs are. Instead of just being a merchant of doubt put you full opinion out there for people to read.

    " 'He says there is evidence for blind watchmaker evolution, you say there isn't. '

    So you are ignorant or a liar and you think that means something."

    I guess you can't admit that Dr Behe disagrees with you.

     

  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Unbelievable- I have alwat=ys stated that UCD via God is possible. However there isn't any way to scientifically test the claim. All the evidence taht Behe points to can be accounted for by other mechanisms, other than UCD.

    But anyway it appears that you have come to the end of your buffing bullshit.

     

  • At 4:21 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Unbelievable- I have alwat=ys stated that UCD via God is possible. However there isn't any way to scientifically test the claim. All the evidence taht Behe points to can be accounted for by other mechanisms, other than UCD."

    So you're admitting your claim is unscientific.

    i have no argument with faith. I admire sincere people of faith. Who have the true faith to stand up and admit it. They are worthy of praise. Weasley, deceitful deniers are despicable. Worthy of derision.

    "But anyway it appears that you have come to the end of your buffing bullshit."

    Looks like your dodging the fact that you disagree with Dr Behe.

     

  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you're admitting your claim is unscientific.

    Behe's claim is. Your claims are.

    Looks like your dodging the fact that you disagree with Dr Behe.

    Except I don't.

     

  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Looks like Jerad is dodging the fact that he is an evidence-free poseur.

     

  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Poor cowardly crybaby Jerad. His position has nothing- no models, no predictions, no math and no use. And he is so scientifically illiterate, willfully so, for not understanding Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation which say if necessity and chance can explain X then we do not infer X was designed. That means that if Jerad’s position had some support, besides all of the lying evos, ID would be a non-starter. Heck it’s even in ID’s premises that necessity and chance are not sufficient.

    He is so pathetic and desperate that he has to magic natural selection into a designer mimic

     

Post a Comment

<< Home