Evolutionary* Gaps for Larry Moran
-
*This refers to unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
Larry Moran is such a chump when it comes to unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution he really believes the only gap left to fill is @ the origin of life. This post is going to name many more gaps that unguided evolution cannot fill.
1- The gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is real and cannot be bridged by unguided evolutionary processes. Evos don't have a methodology to test the claim that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes via blind and mindless processes.
2- The gap between single-celled eukaryotes and metazoans is the next gap that unguided evolution cannot fill. Unguided evolution cannot account for meiosis. And without that you don't get metazoans. Evos don't have a methodology to test the claim that meiosis evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.
3- The gap between metazoans without an skeleton and those with an endoskeleton or exoskeleton. Skeletons require articulated joints. Articulated joints require something like muscle to move them. And muscles need stimulation in the form of electricity to do anything. All out of the reach of unguided evolution. And again they don't have a methodology to test for such a thing.
4- Then there are all the gaps between all the living organisms. And given the peer-reviewed paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations", unguided evolution doesn't have enough time if it started @ the conception of the universe. Just color vision- a duplicated opsin gene and then specific changes to that new gene- is out of the reach of unguided evolution as it requires more than two specific mutations.
Larry Moran has drank from the tard Kool-Aid and is saying all sorts of unscientific bullshit. And if pressed all he will do is ban you and continue to lie like the fat punk that he is.
*This refers to unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
Larry Moran is such a chump when it comes to unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution he really believes the only gap left to fill is @ the origin of life. This post is going to name many more gaps that unguided evolution cannot fill.
1- The gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is real and cannot be bridged by unguided evolutionary processes. Evos don't have a methodology to test the claim that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes via blind and mindless processes.
2- The gap between single-celled eukaryotes and metazoans is the next gap that unguided evolution cannot fill. Unguided evolution cannot account for meiosis. And without that you don't get metazoans. Evos don't have a methodology to test the claim that meiosis evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.
3- The gap between metazoans without an skeleton and those with an endoskeleton or exoskeleton. Skeletons require articulated joints. Articulated joints require something like muscle to move them. And muscles need stimulation in the form of electricity to do anything. All out of the reach of unguided evolution. And again they don't have a methodology to test for such a thing.
4- Then there are all the gaps between all the living organisms. And given the peer-reviewed paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations", unguided evolution doesn't have enough time if it started @ the conception of the universe. Just color vision- a duplicated opsin gene and then specific changes to that new gene- is out of the reach of unguided evolution as it requires more than two specific mutations.
Larry Moran has drank from the tard Kool-Aid and is saying all sorts of unscientific bullshit. And if pressed all he will do is ban you and continue to lie like the fat punk that he is.
posted by Joe G @ 9:25 AM
30 Comments:
At 5:27 PM,
JV said…
Have you actually read "Waiting for Two Mutations"?
https://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501
I'm asking because I don't think it says what you think it says. Here's some quotes from the paper:
"Fortunately, in biological reality, the match of a regulatory protein to the target sequence does not have to be exact for binding to occur. Biological reality is complicated, with the acceptable sequences for binding described by position weight matrices that indicate the flexibility at different points in the sequence. To simplify, we assume that binding will occur to any eight-letter word that has seven letters in common with the target word. If we do this, then the mean waiting time reduces to ∼60,000 years."
"To be precise, the last argument shows that it takes a long time to wait for two prespecified mutations with the indicated probabilities. The probability of a seven of eight match to a specified eight-letter word is 8(3/4)(1/4)7 ≈ 3.7 × 10−4, so in a 1-kb stretch of DNA there is likely to be only one such match. However, Lynch (2007, see p. 805) notes that transcription factor binding sites can be found within a larger regulatory region (104 – 106 bp) in humans. If one can search for the new target sequence in 104 – 106 bp, then there are many more chances. Indeed since (1/4)8 ≈ 1.6 × 10−5, then in 106 bp we expect to find 16 copies of the eight-letter word."
Not the condition: PRESPECIFIED mutations.
Discussing Dr Behe's Edge of Evolution:
"Arguing that (i) there are 1 trillion parasitic cells in an infected person, (ii) there are 1 billion infected persons on the planet, and (ii) chloroquine resistance has arisen only 10 times in the past 50 years, he concludes that the odds of one parasite developing resistance to chloroquine, an event he calls a chloroquine complexity cluster (CCC), are ∼1 in 1020. Ignoring the fact that humans and P. falciparum have different mutation rates, he then concludes that “On the average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait a hundred million times ten million years” (Behe 2007, p. 61), which is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given.
Indeed his error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N = 106 and μ1 = μ2 = 10−9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with Math having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600."
Again note the PRESPECIFIED qualification.
At 5:28 PM,
JV said…
To continue:
"We are certainly not the first to have criticized Behe's work. Lynch (2005) has written a rebuttal to Behe and Snoke (2004), which is widely cited by proponents of intelligent design (see the Wikipedia entry on Michael Behe). Behe and Snoke (2004) consider evolutionary steps that require changes in two amino acids and argue that to become fixed in 108 generations would require a population size of 109. One obvious problem with their analysis is that they do their calculations for N = 1 individual, ignoring the population genetic effects that produce the factor of Math. Lynch (2005) also raises other objections."
"For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral. This theoretical result is consistent with the observation of rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila and gives some insight into how these changes might have happened."
If you're going to cite a paper then you need to address all it's results and conclusions.
At 9:33 PM,
Joe G said…
I have actually read it. And, unlike you, I have actually understood it.
The conclusions pertain to a BINDING site. With a duplicated opsin gene you would need a new binding site AND several specific changes in the gene itself, just to get color vision. And that doesn't pertain to any populations that can reproduce as rapidly as fruit flies.
The prespecified changes are those which will do the job. So one would be the duplication of the right gene. Then you need all of those other prespecified changes. All the while hoping that no fuck-up changes happen.
Not just any changes will bring about color vision. Only specific, ie prespecified, changes will do.
Also this:
This theoretical result is consistent with the observation of rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila and gives some insight into how these changes might have happened. is question-begging as it assumes said turnover is due to blind and mindless processes and not something that was designed in to the organisms coding.
At 2:36 AM,
JV said…
This theoretical result is consistent with the observation of rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila and gives some insight into how these changes might have happened. is question-begging as it assumes said turnover is due to blind and mindless processes and not something that was designed in to the organisms coding.
The result matches observation . . . so it's a good model. Which means whatever assumptions are made they contribute to a good model.
I have yet to see a mathematical model which accounts for guidance that matches observations. But I'm willing to look.
At 8:39 AM,
Joe G said…
I have yet to see any model of unguided evolution. I have yet to see any methodology to test the claims of unguided evolution. I have yet to see any predictions borne from unguided evolution. I have yet to see a scientific theory of unguided evolution.
You have nothing but denial, Jerad. And that you ignored the bulk of my response tells me it was correct. So thank you.
At 7:24 PM,
JV said…
This paper presents a good model of unguided evolution. In a very particular view, granted.
Where is the guided model? Let's see it. Is there one? At any level? In any context?
At 2:09 AM,
JV said…
The result presented in the paper matches observation. Sounds like good science to me. That is the point isn't it?
And, again, I have yet to see anyone even trying to present a mathematical model which accounts for guidance that matches observations. You continue to deny other people's work but have none of your own to present. As usual.
At 8:49 AM,
Joe G said…
JV:
This paper presents a good model of unguided evolution.
The paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" all but proves unguided evolution is total nonsense with respect to producing the diversity of life. The paper proves tat color vision is well beyond the scope of unguided evolution.
Where is the guided model?
Genetic algorithms.
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
JV:
The result presented in the paper matches observation.
Does it? They don't even understand what they are observing.
And, again, I have yet to see anyone even trying to present a mathematical model which accounts for guidance that matches observations.
There isn't any unguided model for the evolution of any proteins nor protein structures.
You continue to deny other people's work but have none of your own to present.
I don't deny their work. I love their work as it proves unguided evolution is total nonsense.
And genetic algorithms demonstrate the power of guided evolution.
At 9:21 AM,
JV said…
And genetic algorithms demonstrate the power of guided evolution.
Can you use one to simulate the development of colour vision?
At 9:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Can you use one to simulate the development of colour vision?
Sure. Once you have a target all you need is the mechanism to get there. And that mechanism is reproduction with variation until the target is reached
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
It would be as easy as Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" algorithm.
At 3:45 PM,
JV said…
Go on then, show us.
At 3:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Why do you always have to make this personal? All that is required is that it can be done. And it would be as easy as what Dawkins wrote.
And if a GA can't do it then it never happened, dipshit.
At 1:39 AM,
JV said…
Why do you always have to make this personal? All that is required is that it can be done. And it would be as easy as what Dawkins wrote.
Alright, if you can't demonstrate it can anyone else? Either it can be done or it can't.
And if a GA can't do it then it never happened, dipshit.
Let's see if a GA can do it first.
And then let's see if living systems have the necessary 'software' to carry out such a procedure.
At 6:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Again, YOU have NOTHING but you belligerent ignorance. And if you want to see me write the program then get your cowardly ass over to the US and meet me. Or shut the fuck up.
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
At 7:21 AM,
JV said…
Again, YOU have NOTHING but you belligerent ignorance. And if you want to see me write the program then get your cowardly ass over to the US and meet me. Or shut the fuck up.
There already are GA programs. Do you know how to use them?
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
You made a claim, can you support it? It's up to you to establish what you said. And then we can consider whether there is the necessary coding in natural systems to accomplish the same thing.
At 7:26 AM,
Joe G said…
There already are GA programs. Do you know how to use them?
Yes there are and yes I do. Do you have a point?
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
Jerad FAILed, as usual
And evos NEVER establish what they say. You can't even show how nature can produce coded systems. Yours is a non-starter.
At 12:18 PM,
JV said…
Yes there are and yes I do. Do you have a point?
Then show us your claim is correct. It would be quite a feather in your cap, obviously.
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
I didn't make that claim, you did. I don't have to do the work for you. It's not my fault you've overstepped your abilities.
And evos NEVER establish what they say. You can't even show how nature can produce coded systems. Yours is a non-starter.
Interestingly enough, you don't know how the supposed coded systems came about either. You say they were designed but you don't know when or how or by whom. And you're not even trying to find out. Because, apparently, the vast majority of working scientists disagree with you.
The ID community has enough resources to pursue those issues independently. They could publish a journal if they had anything to publish. You can whine and stamp your feet but it's your own side that's dragging theirs.
If you really want to change peoples' minds then instead of whining DO SOME RESEARCH. Convince people with new results. Use a GA algorithm and prove your points.
At 1:34 PM,
Joe G said…
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
Interestingly enough, you don't know how the supposed coded systems came about either.
By means of intelligent design.
Publish? You don't even have a scientific theory! You don't have a methodology to test your side's claims. And most people accept ID and reject evolutionism.
At 3:14 PM,
JV said…
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
You made a claim, so far . . . you cannot support it.
By means of intelligent design.
What does that mean? Who? When? How? For what purpose?
Why would some undefined and undetected identity decide to create life on our planet via guided processes? How would they implement such a scheme? Why did it take billions of years? Why couldn't they shortchange that process?
You've got lots of questions which no one in the ID camp cares to address but which are perfectly reasonable.
Publish? You don't even have a scientific theory! You don't have a methodology to test your side's claims. And most people accept ID and reject evolutionism.
You completely ignore all the issues I bring up. I don't blame you, the ID community is doing nothing, zero, to support any kind of research. What's curious to me is that you aren't mature enough to admit it. When I bring it up you just ignore the issue entirely. You must know it's true . . . why don't you admit it? Too schooled in the rhetoric? Unable to work outside the proscribed box? What is the reason?
You don't do any research. You can't point to any real ID research or a research agenda. You seemingly can't use a GA. You are desperately trying to avoid admitting that you can't back up your GA claims. Let alone the follow-up: finding the coding in living systems similar to a GA which would explain that kind of design.
You should talk to the Discovery Institute. Or the gurus at Uncommon Descent. They are letting you down. They are doing nothing except whipping up descent. They are not supporting you at all. They take money from you when you buy their books and they do nothing. Where is that money going? Have you tried following that money? If you're right then following the money would only make you look better. You do care about the truth don't you?
At 4:48 PM,
Joe G said…
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
Jerad the ignorant ass lives in a world of denial.
What does that mean?
The same thing it means in archaeology, moron.
You've got lots of questions which no one in the ID camp cares to address but which are perfectly reasonable.
They aren't reasonable in an ID context.
You completely ignore all the issues I bring up.
You bring up irrelevant issues.
And look, assface, your side has nothing but bluffing liars such as yourself.
Good luck with that
You don't even have a scientific theory! You don't have a methodology to test your side's claims. And most people accept ID and reject evolutionism.
At 12:37 AM,
JV said…
But please, do tell me what would prevent a GA from finding a prespecified amino acid sequence. If you can't do that then your objection just proves that you are an ignorant ass.
You made a claim which you cannot support. I do not have to do the work for you. I guess you can't do the work. And besides, you don't think I'm capable of doing science so would you trust anything I said?
You made a claim, it's up to you to support it.
The same thing it means in archaeology, moron.
In archaeology design is done by humans. And we usually know about when. And we generally have at least some plausible ideas of how. ID has no clue of who, when or how. And no one seems to care. Weird. No designer means no design means your design inference is wrong.
They aren't reasonable in an ID context.
Gee, normal scientist would be very interested in who, when, how, etc. How come no one in ID cares?
You don't even have a scientific theory! You don't have a methodology to test your side's claims. And most people accept ID and reject evolutionism.
You should work on your claim: you said you could use a GA to show how a complicated biological system could come about via design. I'd like to see that.
At 8:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Look, assface, if a GA can find a specific sentence it can find a specific amino acid sequence. You have to be a total asshole to not understand that.
In archaeology design is done by humans.
That is the assumption, anyway. But that is not a who, dumbass.
ID has no clue of who, when or how.
That is not ID. ID is about the design.
Gee, normal scientist would be very interested in who, when, how, etc.
And yet their position is all about the how and they don't have a fucking clue you loser bastard.
How come no one in ID cares?
Because it has NOTHING to do with ID.
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski
and
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene
Jerad loves sloppy thinking
At 10:10 AM,
JV said…
Look, assface, if a GA can find a specific sentence it can find a specific amino acid sequence. You have to be a total asshole to not understand that.
Starting with what? Nothing? How many iterations would it take? Is that commensurate with observed data? That's why I want to see it done. AND, if it is a good model of observed data then where is the programming in the world that's holding the algorithm?
That is the assumption, anyway. But that is not a who, dumbass.
I never said 'who' meant a particular being. But at least a class of being(s).
And yet their position is all about the how and they don't have a fucking clue you loser bastard.
We know a lot more now than we did 150 years ago. And progress is being made every day.
Because it has NOTHING to do with ID.
Well, I guess you can pack everything up and go home then. You think you've found design; you have no plans or intentions of doing anything else; might as well call it a day then. No need for publications or journals or research agendas. You can summarise ID in a few pages so you don't even need textbooks.
Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?
Because we disagree with the design inference and want to know if you have more evidence? You don't and you're not even looking. Nothing more to say is there?
AND I find it completely shocking that ID proponents express zero interest in drawing inferences about the how and when at least. That's why people say ID is a science stopper: it's not leading to more science.
It all makes people suspect that ID is just a tactic for bringing God into the science curriculum. You're not doing any science! You're not even interested.
At 10:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Starting with what?
An opsin gene, duh.
I never said 'who' meant a particular being. But at least a class of being(s).
Then saying non-humans is sufficient for ID.
We know a lot more now than we did 150 years ago.
With respect to biology, yes. With respect to evolutionism, no.
And how many times do I have to explain this to you? We STUDY the design so we can better understand it. We want to understand it so we can better maintain and repair it. And we may even be able to replicate it.
Because we disagree with the design inference and want to know if you have more evidence?
No, loser. You want absolute proof. No one cares what you disagree with because you don't have a scientifically viable alternative.
AND I find it completely shocking that ID proponents express zero interest in drawing inferences about the how and when at least.
Unbelievable. Your side is all about the how and yet no one is looking into that.
How the fuck are we supposed to determine how something is done that is way above our intellectual capacity to do?
And science doesn't care if God did it. Science only cares about reality- as in the reality of how we came to be.
And don't talk about science, Jerad. You are an ignorant ass when it comes to the subject.
At 11:20 AM,
JV said…
An opsin gene, duh.
Okay, and then you'd specify a target where you need two or more specific mutations. Put in the natural mutation rate which allows all the base pairs in the gene to mutate yes? How many 'children' per generation? (You're trying to model life after all.) And then you let it go and keep track of all the descendants matching them with your target. And when you get a 'hit' you count the number of generations and see how that compares with real life to see if it's a good model.
Sounds good! You should do it.
Then saying non-humans is sufficient for ID.
All the non-humans we know of aren't capable of that kind of design. So . . . are there any non-humans capable of such a thing? None we know of.
And how many times do I have to explain this to you? We STUDY the design so we can better understand it. We want to understand it so we can better maintain and repair it. And we may even be able to replicate it.
But mainstream science is doing that already! Except for assuming design of course.
No, loser. You want absolute proof. No one cares what you disagree with because you don't have a scientifically viable alternative.
I don't want absolute proof. I want something more than your highly contested design inference. At least some further possibilities that can be checked out. But you present nothing.
Your side is all about the how and yet no one is looking into that.
Everyone is looking into that. You just think they're not.
How the fuck are we supposed to determine how something is done that is way above our intellectual capacity to do?
I thought you said a GA (which we have and you say you can use) is a good start. So work with that. But you are showing one assumption at least: that the designer(s) are much more intelligent than us. That's saying something about the 'who' at least.
And science doesn't care if God did it.
Of course it cares! But so far there's been no real indication God is anything but mythical.
And don't talk about science, Jerad. You are an ignorant ass when it comes to the subject.
Well do some science and show me how it's done then.
At 11:27 AM,
Joe G said…
All the non-humans we know of aren't capable of that kind of design.
Then there must be some that we don't know of. Again, your side has NOTHING to explain what we observe.
But mainstream science is doing that already!
And they SUCK at it because they don't understand what they are looking at.
I don't want absolute proof.
Liar
Everyone is looking into that.
Liar
Of course it cares!
Liar
Well do some science and show me how it's done then.
Get an education. That would be a start.
The science of ID is in the detection and study of design. And that is by far more than your side has.
And humans have synthesized a genome. That is by far more than anyone has ever observed nature doing. If that isn't good enough for you than nothing will be.
At 11:47 AM,
JV said…
Then there must be some that we don't know of.
Where are they? How do you know they exist? Where are their ships and tools and living quarters and rubbish piles? Why don't we hear their communications?
And they SUCK at it because they don't understand what they are looking at.
Okay, where are the ID papers doing those things then?
And humans have synthesized a genome. That is by far more than anyone has ever observed nature doing. If that isn't good enough for you than nothing will be.
No one is claiming nature 'synthesises' genomes. They . . . develop? them over millions of years of 'selection' based on common descent with variation.
So, are you going to conduct the GA investigation or not? I'm guessing not. So we don't know where it is a good model of observed data. Oh well.
See, I think that would be productive area of ID research and is anyone doing that? Nope. Is anyone interested in doing that? Apparently not. It doesn't take a lot of money or expensive equipment or support of any kind. But no one is doing it.
At 11:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Wow. We know they exist because the DESIGN exists. And you have NOTHING to explain it. So get stuffed, loser.
Okay, where are the ID papers doing those things then?
Where are your side's papers, hypocrite?
No one is claiming nature 'synthesises' genomes.
Of course it had to, moron. And your side says it, dipshit.
They . . . develop? them over millions of years of 'selection' based on common descent with variation.
That's the untestable propaganda, anyway.
So, are you going to conduct the GA investigation or not?
For what? You need it, not me.
See, I think that would be productive area of ID research...
I don't. It's a given that it can be done. There isn't anything that prevents it.
And again your hypocrisy is showing. Your side has all of the resources and nothing to show for it.
But anyway- get back to the OP and stop hijacking the thread, asshole. You have already choked on the "pre-specification" part.
Post a Comment
<< Home