In my book The Great Paradox of Science, chapter 1 has the title Did dinosaurs have tea parties? in which I speculate about possible dinosaur culture.
We think of many of the dinosaurs as impressive in their size and the way they dominated the world in their time, roaming freely over the Earth with everything as their prey and with few predators to fear. But we don’t associate them with any culture. We don’t associate them with discovering fire or building homes or creating artifacts such as pottery and tools for their use.
But [how do] we know that they didn’t do any of these things. Could it be that they were actually more advanced than we give them credit for and did at least some of those things but that all the evidence has disappeared over the long time since they were wiped out?
…After all, humans have been around for a mere two million years (and modern humans only for 200,000 years) and thus produced all these things in a much shorter period than the dinosaurs who roamed the Earth for around 150 million years. Why do we believe that dinosaurs did not do anything at all during that time other than eat, sleep, and reproduce? Why could it not be that they too developed some kind of society, however rudimentary, whose traces have disappeared in the 65 million years that have elapsed since they went extinct?
I did not try to answer these questions, merely using those musings to argue that it is to science that we turn to attempt to answer what we may think of initially as unanswerable questions, leading up to the main thesis of the book as to why science works so well even though the theories we develop to answer those questions may not necessarily be true.
It turns out that the TV show Prehistoric Planet draws upon the collective expertise of paleo-ecologists, paleo-climatologists, paleo-ethologists, and fossil experts to suggest that in addition to learning about what dinosaurs looked like, we may even be able to deduce specific complex behaviors that they engaged in, such as that dinosaurs may have used fire in some ways.
In the TV show Prehistoric Planet, where computer-generated dinosaur images are presented like any other nature documentary, “filmed” as they hunt and mate, there is one scene where an atrociraptor picks up a burning twig. The feathered raptor raises the branch to its coat, and Sir David Attenborough explains that the raptor is using the smoke to expel parasites that hide in the feathers.
…There’s even another scene later in the show where another raptor uses a burning twig to actually spread the forest fire further, driving prey out of their hiding spots.
…[Consulting paleontologist Darren] Naish said this information comes in three main buckets – the traditional fossil record, which grows by a fossil every week, computer-generated models of these animals, and observations of living creatures. In the case of the pyromaniac raptor, Naish said that the assumptions about its behavior were made by watching the raptor’s closest living descendants – hunting birds.
“Quite a long list of predatory birds – kites and falcons and hawks – they’ve been reported to pick up burning sticks and move them around to spread fire, and these birds have also been reported to grab burning sticks and deliberately treat their feathers with smoke,” Naish said.
“It is an extrapolation to show in an extinct dinosaur, but it’s one that we can justify.”
…[Consulting paleontologist Victoria] Arbour focuses on ankylosaur, a beast of a dino covered in armored scale and wielding a hammer tail. In the show, one of these ancient creatures munches down on some charcoal left smoldering the wake of a forest fire – a scene pulled from the contents of a fossil’s stomach and the knowledge that tasty young ferns are among the first to sprout up after a blaze.
Dinosaurs are already a source of endless fascination. Imagine how much more so if we learn that they had quite complex lives.
No one is more excited than I that we hairless apes are finally starting to recognize that we are not unique in the world in having personalities and discovering that objects in our world can be used as tools to better our lives. In particular, I am in awe of corvid intelligence. I don’t know why the owl became a symbol of wisdom, I think JRR Tolkien got it more correct in The Hobbit, it’s the wise old raven you should listen to, not the owl.
Nevertheless, I am pretty skeptical of this idea that non-human animals use fire as a tool. I have never seen anything on TV or elsewhere to demonstrate this. Fire is not an object, it is a process. Furthermore, it is a rare occurrance (although, less rare today than it was when I was a child) and it is difficult to experiment with because it destroys a lot of things. You can’t look at a burning clump of grass or a bit of dead wood then go back to your nest and dream about some way you might alter the fire’s process and then come back the next morning to test your hypothesis, the fire would have either burned out or moved away by then. I’m pretty sure no non-human has ever started a fire intentionally. So, how can birds (and by extension, dinosaurs) get the “lab hours” to figure out what fire can do and what it can’t?
moarscienceplz,
Having seen a video of a crow sliding down a snowy roof on a plastic lid not by accident but for fun a few times, it doesn’t seem farfetched to me that a bird would observe tasty snacks (potential preys) fleeing from a fire started by a wind blown lit twig and be capable of reproducing this by picking up a burning twig and dropping it somewhere to get the tasty snacks instead of just waiting around for the wind to do the job.
Jean,
Yes, I agree that a corvid WHO UNDERSTOOD HOW FIRE WORKS might well do such a thing. My objection is how a creature with no hands, no ability to make fire, covered in flammable feathers, and (apparently) no ability to receive detailed knowlege of past generations’ knowlege of fire, figure out how to use fire as a tool in the first place.
I wish the documentary had been more cautious in its wording. Something like Mano’s heading would have been much more suitable than a blunt assertion.
Argument from personal incredulity is what creationists do?
We have credible observations of birds doing this. Mano is not putting you on.
@5
Links, please?
Argument from personal credulity is what ufologists do.
Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia, Bonta et al. Journal of Ethnobiology 37.
Took me about 10 times longer to copy and paste the link and reference that it did to find it…
moarinstructionsonhowtousegoogleplz
Caracaras are mentioned in Dunc’s link as a raptor that has been observed spreading fires.
They are highly intelligent, but also very unusual birds in general.
I think the scientists are really stretching to ascribe a rare modern bird behavior of spreading fire to its remote ancestors.
https://www.audubon.org/news/unraveling-mystery-caracara
Sorry for borking the quote. It’s clear without the fancy markup, but sheesh my eyes.
[I fixed it.-Mano]
OK, it does seem that occasionally this fire spreading does happen intentionally. Apparently, some corvids, which I have already acknowledged are very intelligent, live long enough in areas that experience multiple wildfires to observe that fire flushes out edible small creatures, and that flaming twigs that fall off of trees onto unburnt grass can start new fires. Occasionally, an individual bird will have the penny drop, as the Brits like to say, and will then try to carry a burning twig to an unburnt area to start a new fire. They seem to do this very badly, often burning themselves in the process.
To call this a tool using behavior is technically true, but there seems to be no evidence that it is a behavior that is passed to younger generations, and thus to back-date it to dinosaurs is a huge stretch, as Tethys pointed out.
Furthermore, where is the evidence for smoking parasites off of one’s feather-covered body?
Here’s something that I stumbled over that I think the firehawk researchers didn’t know about to mention:
Crows Causing Fire
Steller’s Jay Anting with Tobacco Smoke
A Review of the Anting-Behaviour of Passerine Birds
@ 12 moarscienceplz
I don’t know about no raptors, but birds definitely pass knowledge on down the generations. I’ve seen it myself often in the local birdlife. Parents take the squarking younsters on feild trips to feed them, showing them how to forage, and shoveling the food in their gobs until, as they get older they do it themselves under the parents’ supervision. They’re also taught where all the good local food spots are.
They then grow up and do the same with their kids.
That fire spreading is a learned behaviour seems far more plausible to me than your scenario of all these individual birds reinventing the wheel.
Let me remind everyone that the title of the post is, “Dinosaurs may have used fire”.
Yes, birds are smart. Yes, birds teach their young lots of important things. Yes, some birds have figured out how to use human-caused, and in a few cases, nature-caused fire to their benefit.
THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT DINOSAURS MAY HAVE USED FIRE!
Since birds are dinosaurs, it follows that dinosaurs do, in fact, use fire.
But of course, you meant non-avian dinosaurs before their extinction. Well, even you can see that “may have” is a term with very wide latitude. And for that matter, so is “use”, in the broadest sense.
If a clever species of non-avian theropods refrains from panicking, and instead waits for panicked prey to flee a lightning-strike fire right into their claws, is it “using” the fire? Some might say “no”, but others might say “yes” (opportunistic use is still use).
#2 Jean
But play behaviour is not the behaviour being attributed to dinosaurs in the docco; neither is fire hunting. “…an atrociraptor picks up a burning twig. The feathered raptor raises the branch to its coat, and Sir David Attenborough explains that the raptor is using the smoke to expel parasites that hide in the feathers.”
___
Owlmirror
In a conversation in which both birds and dinosaurs are mentioned, ‘dinosaur’ can be safely assumed to refer to the non-avian kind. Contextual interpretation is a lost skill apparently.
And as for dinosaur’s using fire, compare the language used in the documentary:
To that used by the consulting paleontologist:
Much less assertive, rather than stating it as fact it is clearly identified as an extrapolation from current animals.
“Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it’s unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.
“It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology,” said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/736897
I don’t remember anyone ever saying “modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs.” I thought the consensus was that birds are descended from SMALLER AMPHIBIANS OR REPTILES. Not all reptiles were dinosaurs, and they didn’t all eat meat either.
Anything else you want to be wrong about, skippy?
Dinosaurs may have used fire
…to smoke cigarettes. That’s why they went extinct.
* cough *
#19 tx
I marvel that you think your quote is at all relevant to this conversation on dinosaur behaviour and dinosaur use of fire in particular. Also I wonder if you even understand what the implications of this research might be. It does not cast doubt on the descent of birds from dinosaurs.
Okay, I stand slightly corrected, thank you. Still not sure what pippy’s point is though…
txpiper is basically linking to an 2009 paper by a BANDit, where BAND stands for “Birds Are Not Dinosaurs”. BANDits are a very small handful of ornithologists who disagree with the consensus by experts (paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, dinosaur specialists, almost all other ornithologists, etc) that birds are, indeed, descendants of the lineage of theropod dinosaurs. But their arguments against the consensus fail when examined by the actual experts, as can be deduced by the fact that they haven’t made any headway in popular science reporting. I mean, it’s 2022. Wouldn’t this amazing overturning of the scientific consensus have been at least somewhere in the news?
When this first came out, Darren Naish (whom you may note is mentioned in the OP) posted about this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110303235955/https://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/birds_cannot_be_dinosaurs.php
Much, much more detail before and after this. Are you interested in the anatomy of avians and non-avian dinosaurs, and the inside baseball of evolutionary biology? Go read TetZoo!
And the commentators to the TetZoo post include David Marjanović, for those that recognize him from Pharyngula.
I think txpiper’s point was something along the lines of: Scientists disagree that birds are dinosaurs, therefore, [non-sequitur goes here], birds are not dinosaurs, therefore, [bigger non-sequitur goes here] birds and dinosaurs were separate baraminim created 6000 years ago and traveled together on Noah’s Ark. Take that, evolutionists!
@ 21 Raging Bee
Ah! So that’s what “stone the crows” means. 🙂
Some plants play with fire.
There is actually very little similarity between birds and their supposed theropod reptile ancestors. A lot of attention is paid to the (silly) issue of feathers. This article mentions that there are “193 genes known to be involved in feather development”.
Cladistics and plumage aside, the real issue, which is conspicuously never mentioned, should be about the process that allegedly produced novel avian physiology.
Okay, tell us what you know about this process that’s “conspicuously never mentioned.” Because quite frankly, the only thing I know of that’s “conspicuously never mentioned” is your point.
Aha, as suspected txpiper though that paper threw doubt evolution, even though the text he quoted explicitly accepts evolution. Silly.
Birds are alleged? Funny, I was just observing an alleged hummingbird, who was getting quite annoyed at the bumblebees who are also just trying to get their breakfast.
Txpiper fails to grasp that “193 genes” are physiology. They are physically present. They are countable. Complaining that science doesn’t have a way to time travel in order to sample the ancestral Dino genomes to compare with bird genomes is really silly. Science is 100% confident that birds have feathers, and that birds are Dinosaurs.
Science once stated that Dinos are reptiles. That has been disproved by physiology, within my lifetime. Science was not discredited by new evidence, which is the huge advantage of fact based reasoning.
It can evolve.
” “193 genes” are physiology. They are physically present. They are countable.”
.
Feathers are versatile, extremely complex structures. Once upon a time, there were no information-bearing feather genes. They didn’t just assemble themselves because some enigmatic theropod needed to stay warm, attract a mate, or fly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather#Evolution
The Wikipedia entry for feather evolution, true to form, does not mention mutations.
Once upon a time, there weren’t any therapods. Go back far enough, and there aren’t even any land animals or plants, because the sun was a deadly laser. The sea was full of life however, which did colonize land and start evolving into all the extinct and extant life forms documented by various sciences.
All that is required is a few billion years of time and self replicating cells.
Um, the very title of that section is “Evolution”.
It’s an entry, as you have apprehended successfully, about “feather evolution”.
It’s evident you accept the concept of feather evolution, since you don’t dispute the article’s contents.
Sure, you dispute its supposed lacuna, but hey. Progress.
Next brief glance for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
(No such lacuna there 😉 )
Obsessing over the word mutation got boring multiple threads ago. At least the OP is dinosaurs, but I’m nearly 100% certain that nobody here cares if txpiper doesn’t believe in natural selection or the genetic variation within a population.
Feathers have multiple possible evolutionary paths, but all of them start with a dinosaur.
If you read the wiki on feather evolution it goes into great detail on the multiple earlier dinosaurs that had fuzzy fluff, but no flight feathers. Archosaurs might be the ancestor for all three types of feathers.
#34 tx “The Wikipedia entry for feather evolution, true to form, does not mention mutations.”
Why would it, given wikipedia pages are summaries of subjects and not research? How could it, when we have not been able to find enough preserved avian DNA to sequence any ancient species, let alone the multitudes of species required to track the pathway of such a multi-gene phenotype feature?
It would be beneficial to you if you actually read that section, especially ‘evolutionary stages’. This portion documents morphologic and functional changes in the structures which have been preserved -- the feathers themselves.
“Why would it[?]”
.
Well, because if you are explaining feather evolution, the process responsible for that evolution is relevant. Mutations and selection (also not mentioned in the article) are how feathers supposedly evolved.
But the real reason they never want to mention this process, is because it would ruin the narrative:
.
”As the two stepsisters and the stepmother depart to the ball, Cinderella cries in despair. Her Fairy godmother magically appears and immediately begins to transform a pumpkin into a golden carriage, mice into horses, a rat into a coachman, and lizards into footmen.”
.
See, you can’t bring up technical issues about the process behind pumpkins, mice, rats and lizards become something else. It would spoil the story. You just have to assume that the selection fairy godmother, and the selection pressure of being cold, lonely or unable to fly, will cause feathers to evolve, and birds can go to the ball.
I see you ignored every point made in my previous comment. Why don’t you read it again, and respond to what was said after the first three words.
“Why don’t you read it again…[?]”
.
Why don’t you explain how random mutations produced (or repurposed) the genes associated with feathers?
As mentioned, that would require sequencing historic avian species. We have not found enough historic DNA to even approach that. Will you read it this time?
Already have.
Same reason as a self-winding watch winds itself via random movements.
(Ratchet effect)
A middle-aged woman came into our office yesterday (unfortunately while I was out) to ask about how solar panels work when the sun is obscured by chemtrails. I am not making this up. This actually happened yesterday.
The poor dear believes that clouds are the result of some nefarious plot [by THEM no doubt] to poison the earth.
I wouldn’t want to disabuse her of her ‘narrative’ with anything scientific like the explanation from the bible which tells us that clouds are the dust from gods feet.
By the same token, I don’t want to spoil the narrative that god made everything in six days by revealing that he did so using the exact same method as that used by Cinderella’s fairy godmother in appearing out of thin air and transforming vegetables, rodents and reptiles into a transportation device and some servants, a transformation that spontaneously reversed at the stroke of midnight. You know, it is right there in the story, where it says that she magically appeared?
But back to a subject closer to the OP, it is quite possible that ‘firehawks’ in Australia learned the practice of fire-spreading from humans. Contrary to the opinion of biblical literalists and txpiper, modern humans have lived in Australia for at least 50 millennia and have, for much of that time, made extensive use of fire for land management particularly in those areas where the ‘firehawks’ have been observed. The birds may have discovered it independently, but we just don’t know for sure.
Here are a couple of examples of avian intelligence from New Zealand.
The Kea (an alpine parrot) -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W7hEUGtv4U
A crow and water displacement -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04
txpiper:
You are, of course, wrong.
Here’s the theropod family tree. It’s in multiple parts because the entire clade is actually very diverse. There are also helpful listings of the skeletal characteristics that distinguish them.
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/handouts/104Theropoda.pdf
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/handouts/104Neotheropoda.pdf
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/handouts/104Coelurosauria.pdf
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/handouts/104Eumaniraptora.pdf
Now, I suppose that diversity makes it look like those that are closer to the “base” of the tree have “very little similarity” to those near Aves — but are you really going to argue that those near Aves “have very little similarity” to Aves? Does Archaeopteryx have “very little similarity” to Aves? How about Deinonychosauria? Where should the tree be “cut”, and have those on one side be the “bird” baramin, and those on the other be “unrelated” theropod baraminim?
I seem to recall that BANDits have been given a similar challenge, and, unsurprisingly, give confused responses. They say that Archaeopteryx is birdlike enough to be on the bird side, but when the similarity of Deinonychosauria to Archaeopteryx is pointed out, will extend “birdlike” to Deinonychosauria as well, or something like that. As with you, confused ideology clouds their thinking.
Say, are you one of those goofy creationists who agrees with Ken Ham that many of the diverse theropod dinosaurs in the phylogeny survived the (non-existent) global flood to become the “dragons” of legend, despite the fact that not a single sliver of (non-avian) theropod bone has ever shown up in an archaeological midden, or as a trophy in any historical archive? I mean, there was a recent analysis of the spread of jungle-fowl becoming modern chickens a few thousand years ago; if they can find chickens, they should also find some non-avian theropods that were the size of chickens, or even larger, right?
A biological trait that is currently unique among a group which was shared with putative ancestors and relatives is “silly” as part of an argument for ancestry and relatedness?
The relevance of this to your argument is unclear.
The reason that very few people specify the process of mutations, selection, and drift when talking about bird evolution is that it is already understood by those writing about it and (usually) by those reading about it. It’s the same reason that no-one who says “I drove from [city A] to [city B]” ever includes “…by starting the car, putting it into gear, pressing the accelerator, braking at signaled stops and traffic slowdowns, turning the steering wheel at corners and bends…” and so on and so forth. They might mention specific route information if it’s relevant, but they never include the low-level details of actual driving.
And of course, if describing someone else’s driving, it may not be known what exactly they did. But if you don’t know exactly when someone braked and when they accelerated, or which route they took exactly, or when they stopped for gas, does that mean that they teleported instead? Does absence of details always imply magic? If not, why should it do so with evolution?
So now txpippy is saying feathers are “irreducibly complex?” What a joke. Dismissed.
It isn’t just the feathers:
.
“Feather follicles have to be connected with muscles and nerve fibers, so they can be integrated into the physiology of the whole organism.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15272383/
“The smooth muscles in the skin include a series of minute feather muscles, usually a pair running from a feather follicle to each of the four surrounding follicles. Some of these muscles act to raise the feathers, others to depress them.”
https://www.britannica.com/animal/bird-animal/Muscles-and-organs
.
The special replication errors that would have to occur for systems like that to accidentally develop would be fantastically rare. Actually, if you apply any kind of metric to it, reptile to bird evolution looks stupid, which is why nobody will do that.
First, pippy, “systems” don’t just “accidentally develop” from scratch; they develop INCREMENTALLY, over MANY GENERATIONS, with each improvement being a small, and not at all improbable, modification of what was there before. We see this in the increasing complexity of eyes, and also in the transition from swim-bladders to lungs.
And second, a population of millions, if not billions, of a particular species makes beneficial improvements far more likely within that species.
I’m sure you’ve heard all this already, since your objection is just another form of a very old PRATT. So the question is, are you too stupid to understand the explanations you’ve surely heard before, or to dishonest and cowardly to admit you’ve heard them?
Nobody in science claims that “reptile to bird” is how birds evolved. Reptiles, crocodilians, and birds are all descended from dinosaurs.
Scales and feathers both evolved from the same ancestral genes. Take a look at a chickens legs if you want to claim birds lack reptilian scales.
Noticing all the mammals covered in fur, wool, and hair might help to understand how the same ancestral trait can evolve over time into multiple variants of skin covering keratin.
^ No, dinosaurs and crocodilians are descended from reptiles.
“I’m sure you’ve heard all this already…”
.
I’ve heard all kinds of religious beliefs many times. But I’ve never heard or seen anything that actually explains how random replication errors incrementally produced hyper-complex, integrated, functioning biological systems. And I have looked, and asked lots of people, about this supposed process.
You sound very confident that this has happened countless millions of times. Just guessing, how many germ line mutations and generations would you suppose had to occur to incrementally produce and configure the proteins necessary to get “feather follicles that have to be connected with muscles and nerve fibers, so they can be integrated into the physiology of the whole organism”?
When those “minute feather muscles, usually a pair running from a feather follicle to each of the four surrounding follicles” evolved, would it have been one muscle at a time, or a pair, or the whole works in one lick? Was there a time when birds could raise their feathers, but not lower them? Did the neuro connections, the control center in the brain, and blood capillaries evolve at the same time?
Surely you can see why these questions need to be asked and answered. See, as things get more complicated, parsimony fades away, and trite declarations like yours start to sound really stupid. And you don’t want to look stupid, do you?
That’s why the discipline of biology exists, which asks and answers those questions. The discipline the very basics of which you dare not understand, as it would conflict with your belief in a puny God.
Not everyone is as dedicated to it as you, that much is true.
(So, what do you think of flat-earthers? 😉 )
I realized my wording of the relationship between Dino’s and reptiles is inaccurate right after I pushed post. Here is a better summary, courtesy of UCSB;
The wiki on feather development discusses multiple fossil crocodilians and feathered dinosaurs in its detailed synopsis of the pathway from scales to feathered modern birds.
“That’s why the discipline of biology exists, which asks and answers those questions.”
.
Then you should be able to repeat the answers. Did you understand the questions? Would you like me to rephrase?
.
“So, what do you think of flat-earthers?”
Belief in a flat earth is a myth perpetuated by people like you, who don’t know any better.
“According to Stephen Jay Gould, “there never was a period of ‘flat Earth darkness’ among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference”.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
==
From 31:
“Science once stated that Dinos are reptiles. That has been disproved by physiology, within my lifetime. Science was not discredited by new evidence, which is the huge advantage of fact based reasoning.”
Why do you imagine that?
I’m neither a collection of millions of scientists each expert in at least one sub-discipline, nor an archive of the accumulated knowledge gained over a century of research.
(I could say the same about geology or physics or any other scientific discipline)
<snicker>
Me, I think flat-earthers are basically the same as you, at least in looking stupid due to their stupid belief.
So, what do you think of people who deny the germ theory of disease? 😉
“Why do you imagine that?”
.
Because I’ve asked questions like these before, many times. You are demonstrating that they haven’t been answered, John.
Science has added to its understanding of the evolution of feathers and birds via fossil finds of dinosaurs with feathers.
Updating cladistics to accommodate new fossil evidence that proved that some Dino’s were not cold blooded reptiles is not a problem. Science is not a set of dogmatic beliefs. All birds are dinosaurs and reptiles, but modern reptiles aren’t birds, and do not descend from dinosaurs.
You imagine I should be able to elucidate a century-and-a-half of accumulated scientific research in a manner acceptable to you, because you’ve been asked that question many times?
Huh. Logic is clearly not your strong suit.
(But your science denialism is second-to-none, so there’s that)
—
Since you appear to like Britannica, here’s a quotation for you:
(https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/The-cultural-impact-of-evolutionary-theory)
(Obs, geology and cosmology are also utterly wrong in your estimation, among many other disciplines that — in reality — interlock and underpin our scientific understanding of nature)
I’ve heard all kinds of religious beliefs many times. But I’ve never heard or seen anything that actually explains how random replication errors incrementally produced hyper-complex, integrated, functioning biological systems. And I have looked, and asked lots of people, about this supposed process.
First, just because a gaggle of religious bigots can’t or won’t understand how a particular organ in a particular species evolved, doesn’t mean the entire theory of evolution is false. If you really want to prove it’s false, you have to come up with an alternative hypothesis/model that explains all the phenomena you’re quibbling about and much, much more better than the current theory. And no, “my religion sez…” doesn’t count — other people have very different creation stories, and theirs don’t count either.
And second, it’s perfectly obvious that, like all the other cdesign proponentsists we’ve heard from (please explain the origin and significance of that phrase), you’re ignoring the answers you get, asking people who aren’t really able to answer, or demanding detailed explanations and then dozing off when you get them. Your continued banging-on about “random replication errors,” despite being corrected on that gross oversimplification, strongly implies that you either cannot or will not understand any of it.
Your arguments from (deliberate) ignorance are not at all new. We’ve heard it all before, and you’re not fooling anyone.
Belief in a flat earth is a myth perpetuated by people like you, who don’t know any better.
Looks like txpipsqueak is starting to lose his cool at the mention of flat-earthers, and is now resorting to flailing insults. Offhand, I’m guessing that’s because he knows that flat-earthers share exactly the same simpleminded obscurantist religious mindset as cdesign proponentsists, and that’s deeply revealing and embarrassing to the latter group. I remember Ken Ham getting embarrassed and defensive about that link too.
#51 tx “Surely you can see why these questions need to be asked and answered.”
Sure, and scientists would certainly be thrilled to have multiple pristine DNA samples in each and every line of ancestry but such a treasure trove has not been found. And yes, that is the level of data required to satisfy your (deliberately?) absurd demand -- the complete genetic history of feather development; every mutation for every gene involved. Or earlier, the complete genetic history of DNA itself -- such a modest demand.
You know very well such requests are not answerable, and that is why you ask. You want to ask unanswerable questions, specifically so that you can say you asked explanations of evolution believers but did not receive an answer. Your actions are chosen to determine the outcome you want.
Interestingly, this hyperscepticism is not extended to your own explanations for how things work: god made it that way. No detail needed, just magic.
I mistakenly believed that four links wouldn’t get a comment sent to automoderation. Oh, well. And I belatedly remembered that there’s a way to get an arbitrary number of URLs into a comment, as long as they’re not links (so they have to be copy-pasted). I’ll see if that still works
@Tethys: The links @45 go to Thomas Holtz’s Dinosaur Evolution course site, where the top-level URL is:
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/104Syl.htmlThe page for the origin of dinosaurs is
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104dinorise.htmland the slide is:
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/handouts/104Archosauria.pdfxkcd has, of course, addressed the dinosaur/bird issue more than once:
https://xkcd.com/867/https://xkcd.com/1211/@txpiper:
That’s the wrong WikiP page to quote from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs
“scientists would certainly be thrilled to have multiple pristine DNA samples”
.
DNA samples are not necessary to appraise the mutation/selection paradigm. All you have to do is list the reasons why it isn’t a realistic process, and there are plenty of those. I suspect you have already thought about this, and that is why you will not attempt to explain how it is actually supposed to work. It should be the biggest float in the evolutionary parade, and you don’t want to talk about it. Nobody does. That’s why it is never mentioned.
All those citations about evolutionary computing (using that very process) are too much for you to consider.
(It indeed is a realistic process — but only in reality. Your inner life is your own)
I guess no encyclopedia has it right but since you appear to like Britannica, here’s a quotation for you (same link as above):
Sadly for creationists, comparative DNA analysis now allows science to see genomes and those mutations which txpippy claims can’t exist.
It’s also true that science has never found a shred of evidence for creator gods or worldwide floods, though txpippy believes those two stories are infallible because Bible. However, the Bible was written by people who believed keeping your goats in a pen would make their kids develop stripes from the shadows cast by fencing.
I’m going to believe the science, as it’s pretty simple to confirm selection works by the way humans selectively breed and grow multiple plants and animals.
#64 tx “DNA samples are not necessary to appraise the mutation/selection paradigm.”
You are lying, possibly even to yourself. Every time the basic premise is explained to you -- random mutation, non-random retention, massively parallel process etc., you meet it with a demand for no less than the complete genetic story of a trait, mutation by mutation.
Examples:
whaaaaaat, that wasn’t in the preview!
Owlmirror @62
Yes, I read some of them. (Thanks!) I was referring to the wiki on feather development that txpiper had linked, but clearly did not read before starting up his sad refrain about mutations. It’s the same technique he used with sedimentary rocks according to Brittanica.
Cladistics is an ever evolving field regardless of which Kingdom of life is being analyzed.
All azaleas are rhododendrons, but not all rhododendrons are azaleas.
All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs were birds.
The only part that becomes somewhat confusing is keeping birds in Reptiles, even though they aren’t cold blooded like the other reptiles.
Here is a short video and article that touches on dinosaur feathers and color patterns. Their reconstructed pittocosaurus is adorable!
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-to-bring-a-dinosaur-to-life-in-technicolour.html
The same way Lamborghinis assemble themselves:
.
“By the standards of biological molecules, ribosomes are immense. Though visible only through lenses of the most powerful microscopes, comparing most other biological molecules to this behemoth is like comparing a tricycle to a jumbo jet. Having spent years gazing at the detailed structure of the ribosome, Prof. Steinberg pondered how such an immense and complex structure could have assembled itself from smaller building blocks that existed on the early Earth.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105324.htm
All you have to do is list the reasons why it isn’t a realistic process…
Yeah, that’s how we debunk the Bible.
The Steinberg paper that txpiper linked is very interesting. It doesn’t mention Lamborghinis, but it does provide a working model for the chemical assembly process that resulted in ribosomes.
No response to anything raised so far, just move on to the next squirm. The standard method of all defenders of intellectually empty positions. In this thread alone: birds are not descended from dinosaurs ==> feathers cannot have evolved ==> wikipedia fails to detail the entire history of every gene involved in feather development ==> muscles associated with feathers cannot have evolved ==> standard teleological argument. What
wondersbullshit will tomorrow bring us?“It doesn’t mention Lamborghinis, but it does provide a working model for the chemical assembly process”
.
And of course, it provides no such thing. All it does is illustrate that educated people with respectable IQ’s can function at the level of imbeciles.
So sayeth the person that believes molecules act with intent and that everything was created by a being with magic powers.
it provides no such thing
This is the paragraph that follows the one txpiper quoted above.
Physics, chemistry, and mathematical modeling are all well proven sciences. Claiming Professor Steinberg is an imbecile isn’t even a weak argument, not to mention very unchristian of you.
“had to be assembled…in a very specific order…an ordered series of steps”
.
Professor Steinberg’s amazing discovery just adds more complications to the ridiculous idea that hyper-complex machines can build themselves, for no reason. These is below stupid. Coincidental self-assembly can’t even appeal to the dull idea of beneficial mutations.
=
“very unchristian of you”
.
If Christianity is true, then it is about terrible consequences that are the result of conscious, deliberate intellectual failure. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” is not rare.
Frank Turek often asks people “If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?”. It is surprising how many people say “No!”, indicating that the truth is actually not the issue at all.
A lie of omission is a lie. I’m sure some priest has calculated the amount of sin incurred by breaking a commandment. Catholics have a whole range of sins that weren’t ever mentioned by my Pastor.
Does St. Peter keep track of those sins, or does this omniscient god have some other form of record keeping so they can render judgement on your soul?
Leaving aside that there is no such thing as “the Christianity” — there are at least tens of thousands of sects and denominations and so forth — but rather “a Christianity”, and leaving aside that none of them can be true (because it’s incoherent and self-contradictory), the issue at hand is that by far the largest proportion of Christians aren’t Biblical literalists and feel no need to reject a great many scientific disciplines.
So, for you and those other fools who reject science, it’s not about whether Christianity (of whatever flavour) is true, but whether the Babble should be interpreted literally.
TLDR: there’s nothing about Christianity that necessitates science denialism.
There was a recent story in Australian news:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-31/meet-the-people-who-swapped-careers-in-science-for-the-church/101273246
No response to anything raised so far, just move on to the next squirm.
So why do we bother responding to such an obvious bullshitter? It’s plainly obvious he’s not here to say anything factual, useful or even coherent — he’s only here to waste our time and goad us into responding to him on his own terms. And it’s equally obvious that he’ll keep on ignoring every comment that directly refutes any of his claims, so trying to argue rationally with him is just a waste of time and energy. And whatever we do, he’ll call it a victory for him and his worldview: if we respond to him, it’ll be “atheistic scientists are taking creationist objections seriously!” and if we ignore him, it’ll be “atheistic scientists are ignoring us because they can’t bear to admit we’re right!” Either way, he wins, by making himself the center of attention, by changing the subject of a thread at his own whim, and by goading us into wasting our time, day after day, thread after thread. His entire shtick is nothing more than a con-game, and one of the first rules of con-artistry is NEVER STOP TALKING. He’ll die with the lie no matter how painstakingly or how many times we disprove it.
And no, pretending we’re convincing a larger audience is pure self-deception: anyone on txpipsqueak’s side who reads any of this will simply skip away from our refutations and pretend they never heard them.
Raging Bee, I’m having fun, if nothing else.
(Like a dog with a bone, I am.
May not be any nutrition in it, but chomping on it is nonetheless satisfying)
I note that I very much suspect Mano’s patience is being tested.
(On the other hand, no interjection from Mano so far, so that’s a sort of tacit assent)
I try not to over-indulge, but I could literally respond to each and every claim the YEC makes; for example:
In reality, most Christians figure there is a reason: God, with its infinite power and prescience and whatnot, set up a Creation where mutations and selections amazingly create hyper-complex machines over the eons.
As demonstrated by science.
(God works in mysterious ways)
I’ve enjoyed reading the actual science and various new discoveries in fossils over the multiple txpiper threads, so hopefully all the links that refute him (including the cherry-picked bits) are not entirely wasted pixels.
“As demonstrated by science.”
.
Demonstrated? What did Professor Steinberg demonstrate? And when has the thundering creative power of mutations/selection been demonstrated?
Raging Bee. I agree, and yet it is fun slowly driving past a slow txpiper car-crash to have a gawk at the latest injuries.
I don’t know if txpioper noticed, but they are actually a Young-Earth Creationist. The fact that their main point of contention is that they consider the sciences of geology, biology, genetics, evolution, and any number of other specialities to be unscientific* exhibits an hypocrisy of a height proportional to the pile of unscientific bullshit they are standing atop ( the bible).
*unless of course the ‘truth’ of the scriptures is the premise to prove, in which case it is valid science.
Hahahaha. That is funny.
when has the power of mutations/ selection been demonstrated?
Here is just one proof of concept, from the article txpiper linked @28
Such synecdoche! Such spineless sidestepping!
[Professor Steinberg] ≠ [science]
Heh.
The answer has been provided to you time and again: evolutionary computing.
You conspicuously ignore the answer, every single time.
(You can’t evolve, but can you adapt? 😉 )
“When they compared these bird-specific genes with the list of 193 genes known to be involved in feather development, they found that these data sets overlapped completely.”
.
And that demonstrates that these data sets overlapped completely, and that’s all that it demonstrates. Genetically, humans are 60% identical to chickens, fruit flies and bananas. Knowing that does not demonstrate a developmental process.
Knowing that does not demonstrate a developmental process.
You did not ask about the developmental process. The overlap between those 193 genes for feathers and genes unique to birds is exactly what you asked for. An example of the results of ‘the power of mutation/selection”.
The only other group of animals that had feathers are the mutated reptiles we call dinosaurs, all of which went extinct except for birds. That is the process of selection.
Who said for no reason? If you put two reactive molecules next to each other, they will react as determined by the relevant forces. And it has been demonstrated that many molecules necessary to life will inevitably occur in a natural environment, with no need for meddling. Or do you also think magnets attract things “for no reason”?
You have no reason not to know this, as you went to the article in the first place to quote it… with relevant bits missing ( your #71). Then (comment #77) Tethys pointed out the explanatory paragraph immediately following the one you quoted, which you surely would have read. Finally, you even replied (#78) with excepts of said paragraph, with all explanatory bits removed.
Your comments are very instructive as to the lengths of dishonesty a creationist will (must?) go to to avoid any learning.
Demonstrate your god.
___
#81 Raging
I enjoy that he is being forced to squirm, chased from stupid argument to stupid argument by people pointing out all the holes in what he says. I enjoy being one of those people. And then I enjoy pointing out to him all the points he’s had to abandon.
The only places I can see any god type influence on 3.8 billion years of life evolving is the regular impacts that create mass extinctions.
The initial spark that created the first living cells is the other tiny gap that science has not quite figured out.
Why couldn’t this creator god simply ‘zap’ the chemical soup with microscopic life, and then let time and evolution take its course? Lob in a few asteroid strikes, some cold cycles, tectonic plates moving continents, etc, and you have a creation story that is entirely consistent with the age of the planet, and it’s history as documented by science.
“The initial spark that created the first living cells is the other tiny gap that science has not quite figured out.”
.
Yes, just a tiny gap. I believe the minimum gene set to live and replicate is somewhere around 200. All they had to do was self-assemble themselves, along with machines like the ribosome, in some kind of membrane envelope and it’s off to the races. I’m surprised they aren’t selling origin-of-life kits in Walmart.
Shorter txpiper is the usual YEC whine: “too complex for me therefore impossible”.
Holms: Yeah, that’s the basis for the “design inference:” if it’s too complex for a creationist to understand, and a scientist can’t explain it satisfactorily to the creationist in less than a minute (without using fancy sciencey words), then it must have been “designed.”
I try to be kind to txpiper, and think of him like my elderly Mennonite relatives. They are very religious, and never attended school beyond eighth grade. However their intellectual honesty won’t allow them to dismiss science, and they aren’t YECs though they do believe in Noah’s flood and creator gods.
I suspect that the first living microorganisms were the results of extraterrestrial impact into a warm sea of chemical soup.
As it’s not apparent how humans could recreate that scale of energy without damaging the planet, I don’t think we are anywhere near origin of life science kits. The crystal growing kits do contain some of the necessary ingredients but where are you going to get an asteroid?
Yeah, well, txpipsqueak has long ago shown he’s nowhere near your relatives in the intellectual-honesty department. FWIW, I think you’ve shown him more than enough true Christian charity for a decade or two.
As for how life began, there were certainly a lot of “extraterrestrial impacts” back when the planets were first being formed; so if that can create microorganisms, there’d be plenty of chances for that to happen.
Raging Bee
I appreciate that, thanks! I’ve certainly had plenty of practice at kindly explaining how evolution via natural selection did result in humans, and that humans are animals/not the direct descendants of monkeys.
If they want to believe that their God was involved in mutating an ape into a human, I’m not going to argue. I will argue when they claim things that are simply false beliefs about science.
These are people who enthusiastically embraced motorized farm equipment, selective breeding, and the wonder of the polio vaccine, so they aren’t going to claim science is lying, or that natural selection can’t possibly produce novel organisms.
“I suspect that the first living microorganisms were the results of extraterrestrial impact into a warm sea of chemical soup/As for how life began, there were certainly a lot of “extraterrestrial impacts” back when the planets were first being formed…”
.
I don’t see how anyone could argue with this kind of science. How could life not form in a 70,000 mph collision?
Ideas like this also illustrate why you should keep your children out of public schools.
As science has amassed a large body of evidence of the late bombardment, the early seas, effects of radiation, and shown that asteroids can contain the necessary chemical elements of RNA, logic implies that all of those conditions were involved in the first living cells.
Why would schools teach about genetic polymorphisms in the late seventies, as the science that allows us to sequence DNA and see genes was not invented until 1977?
Ideas like this also illustrate why you should keep your children out of public schools.
And responses like yours illustrate why you should keep your children out of Christian madrassas.
Prove yourself more intelligent than ANYONE I’ve known who went to public schools, and maybe I’ll take your bashing of public schools seriously.
To counter the AR-15 end-of-life-kits that they already sell?
txpiper. You are aware that simple heat energy can affect assembly of complex molecules from simpler chemicals, no? Did you sleep through high-school chemistry, or is high-school-level chemistry the mark of satan in texan public schools, so those textbooks have been burned to protect god-fearing simpletons from the sins of science?
The accretion phase in the development of the earth was long before fragile cells existed. It is the phase when the chemicals from which life arose were forged.
And you do know that organic molecules and water are present in what I understand is the first returned sample of an asteroid in space?
https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/about-us/news/organic-materials-essential-for-life-on-earth-are-found-for-the-first-time-on-the-surface-of-an-asteroid#:~:text=New%20research%20from%20Royal%20Holloway,been%20found%20on%20an%20asteroid.
“txpiper. You are aware…”
.
I’m aware that super-complex things do not assemble themselves. It takes all kinds of inculcation to get a person to become detached from reality and start believing otherwise.
You’ve never seen snowflakes?
Here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2009/jan/07/1
(Yeah, yeah… your puny God makes each one by hand, poofs them into existence)
If in doubt, declare it impossible by any means except magic. The best part? Magic explanations don’t need any evidence -- take that, science nerds!
The 4-Dimensional Design of DNA
This article talks about some of the stuff Dr. Carter mentions in the DNA video above:
.
“The work illuminates basic facts about the genome’s 3-D structure, including that it forms around 10,000 loops. It also sheds light on how genome structure influences gene expression, as looping DNA brings promoters and enhancers into close proximity.”
https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/dna-loop-the-loops-36222
Everything is 4-dimensional; 3 space, 1 time.
BTW, here: https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-biggest-genome-ever
The apotheosis of Creation, are those flowers.
Much, much more functional than that of puny humans.
(When they die, they go to Flower Heaven!)
txpiper
Yes I absolutely agree. It in fact only takes one.
Don’t forget that you believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago by a magic fairy godfather whose very existence has no reasonable explanation.
Oh wait. That’s right. Reason doesn’t play into it does it. Reason goes against your god. He wants you to believe without question.
Your behaviour here indicates that you haven’t the intellectual honesty or courage to appraise your own beliefs critically, as evidenced by your very own words I have quoted above.
Yes, pippy, molecules are 3D. You get a participation trophy!
I’m aware that super-complex things do not assemble themselves.
Can you cite or quote any evolutionary biologist actually saying that’s how evolution works? Of course you can’t — you know as well as we do that the only way you can pretend you know anything about evolution is by misrepresenting it, over and over, probably for the rest of your sad excuse for a life.
I marvel that tx keeps linking things which only bolster the position of evolution. Yes, there are vast amounts of data digging into the complexity of even molecular scale processes. Does he even realise how this undermines his ‘irreducible complexity’ position? Apparently not.
And of course this contrasts sharply with hiw own YEC position, which has never and will never conduct research into any of its own claims. Explanations relying on magic are an admission of an inability to explain, and hence are also an admission of defeat.
“Don’t forget that you believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago…”
.
And don’t you forget that your inferior beliefs say that your brain was produced by errors, that humans are no more valuable than cockroaches, and that your life is meaningless and utterly futile.
==
“Can you cite or quote any evolutionary biologist actually saying that’s how evolution works?”
.
Self-assembly of complex molecular machines like ribosome is a prebiotic problem, so it is out of the realm of biology. The Professor Steinberg who “pondered how such an immense and complex structure [as ribosome] could have assembled itself from smaller building blocks that existed on the early Earth” in the article I linked to above, is a biochemist.
If you are actually interested in origin of life obstacles and issues, James Tour can help you. But I think science is just a word you like to use.
The topic is Dinosaurs, not “every scientific proof that txpiper doesn’t want to believe”.
Clearly he is aware of prebiotic RNA and DNA but insists that his opinion outweighs centuries of scientific research.
It’s a copying error when organisms double their entire genome, but the offspring with polyploidy still manage to grow and reproduce.
Science only needs one proof to dismiss the opinion that reshuffling a genome into a novel arrangement is impossible. In fact, we can now look at those genes directly, and discovered that novel mutations are found in every genome.
It is hard to accept that nature values cockroaches exactly as much as humans, but reality doesn’t deal in dominion and creator gods that left zero evidence of their existence.
“YEC position, which has never and will never conduct research into any of its own claims.”
.
Everybody works with the same data. The rationale behind the conclusions is what is important. Yours are poor because the truth is not what you are actually interested in. The constant parameter for you is atheism, so you’ll believe anything, no matter how absurd, that gets you there. That is the difference between you and the founders of the disciplines. and these scientists.
txpiper, every other thread you infest has me noting how you switch from evolution (change in genome over time) to abiogenesis (the origin of life), which are of course entirely different things.
(This one is no exception)
The constant parameter for you is atheism,
Scientific evidence is my constant parameter.
Since the god left zero evidence, I am forced to conclude that either
A. God shot an asteroid at the early earth and created living cells.
B. God did not create anything, despite the imaginative tales found within the Bible.
Atheism really does not need to be involved in those options. Plenty of scientists are also believers in Gods.
Wriggle and squirm, now we move to abiogenesis.
Every claim you make of evolution demonstrates how little you know of it. No, brains are produced by successes -- mutations which conferred a benefit, causing their retention over generations and propagation throughout the population. Notice also that the chronic misunderstanding goes only one way -- we have to correct your misstatements about evolution, but you don’t have to correct us on creationism. We get your beliefs to an extent that is not returned.
Wrong. Research into the origin of life is an area which concerns chemistry, geology, astronomy, and of course biology.
Also, Response to James Tour: 700 Papers and Still Clueless (Part 1 of 2).
___
#115 tx
“Everybody works with the same data.” No, creationists reject almost all biology data.
“[Your conclusions] are poor because the truth is not what you are actually interested in. The constant parameter for you is atheism, so you’ll believe anything, no matter how absurd, that gets you there.” Creationism is explicitly the product of religion, specifically bible literalism; science deals solely with physical evidence.
Every accusation is a confession.
James Tour
Lol, another lying YEcreationist who happens to have a degree in synthetic chemistry is your source?! Argument from authority is a classic fallacy.
He certainly spends a lot of energy claiming we can’t even make the molecules, even though we have built machines that make lipids and proteins to order, automatically. (Something that it is impossible for the liar to not know, seeing as that’s his actual area of science expertise).
Good grief, txpiper.
The constant parameter for you is the bible, so you believe absurd nonsense, while ignoring the mountain of evidence that contradicts that pathetic old book, all the while claiming that any science that contradicts that pathetic old book is unscientific if it does not seek to prove that pathetic old book.
How stupid are you?
You openly profess to a belief in the degeneration of your gods original perfect genome. You therefore believe that YOUR brain is the result of errors while dismissing evolution because you believe it is the result of errors.
How stupid are you?
You have not earned the right to call me a gomer, you dumbass.
On the topic of Dinosaurs, I wonder if whoever wrote this paragraph has misunderstood the paleontologist.
In the show, one of these ancient creatures munches down on some charcoal left smoldering the wake of a forest fire – a scene pulled from the contents of a fossil’s stomach and the knowledge that tasty young ferns are among the first to sprout up after a blaze
An Ankylosaur consuming some charcoal in the process of uprooting and eating young ferns seems highly likely. Ferns grow readily in decayed/ burnt wood after fires. I doubt they ate burning coals. They aren’t dragons.
Everybody works with the same data.
Yet another PRATT from a lying hack who knows he’s full of shit and is running out of both talking-points and energy.
Tethys,
“we have built machines that make lipids and proteins to order, automatically”
.
What are you talking about here?
You could research it yourself txpiper. The debunking video posted by Holms @ 118 covers it too.
Gene engineering is a common technology that humans use every day. Here is an even faster machine that makes proteins to order.
https://news.mit.edu/2020/faster-protein-synthesis-0528
tuatara,
“You openly profess to a belief in the degeneration of your gods original perfect genome.”
.
Nick Lane thinks death is an evolutionary innovation. I assume that he, and you, would think that mutations are continuing to improve the human genome.
I believe that the original human genome was perfect, designed to not die, and that death was a deliberate modification. I believe that the human genome at large is slowly decaying because of accumulating mutations
=
“You therefore believe that YOUR brain is the result of errors while dismissing evolution because you believe it is the result of errors.”
.
I do not believe that errors built the human brain. Intellectual failures are the fault of the user. There is no reason to believe that complex things assemble themselves, or that random errors can build complex systems. People choose to believe foolish ideas because of irrational a priori commitments.
Who cares what you believe, txpipsqueak? Your beliefs certainly haven’t done you any good, or made you a better person, so reciting them here like it’s an official creed doesn’t do you any good either.
No, I do not considered death an evolutionary adaptation; yes, evolution is continuing even on the human genome. I for one don’t know who that is, or have any interest in what he says about any random topic.
So you agree with tuatara’s summary of your position: you believe humans -- and human brains -- are the product of “the degeneration of your gods original perfect genome.”
There is ample evidence that this is exactly what happens. Here is a discussion with examples, and here is how you can find many more discussions and examples. Replace the terms ‘amino acid’ for other molecular terms as you wish to see more and more discussions.
In this thread, the only beliefs lacking the justification of collected data are those stated by… you. All you have is “I believe” to support your ridiculous anti-science religion, while we have the accumulated data of centuries of research.
So txpiper, you do believe that the original ‘human genome’ was immortal and had death deliberately introduced by your god.
Did your petulant god decide that he had made us too much like him (when he perfectly imaged his wicked sinfulness in us) and wanted to punish us for being so much like him, so made us suffer debilitating ailments and death, so that we would love him?
You tantrum-throwing god is a pathetic excuse for divinity.
In fact he is a fucking moron. He is one reason why “if christianity were true” I would still reject it. I don’t want to spend a moment in his company, and certainly not eternity, thank you very much. People like you is another reason why I would not take it up. I wouldn’t have a beer with you so why would I want to share eternal life with you?
FYI, it might surprise you that, empirically, ‘death’ occurs for an organism when it is eaten by another. Death was not an innovation. It was an inevitable outcome for life and is likely the reason why immortality was not innovated.
You may be right about one thing though. You could be logical proof of your theory about the degenerate brain.
Holms,
“I for one don’t know who [Nick Lane] is, or have any interest in what he says about any random topic.”
.
He is quite well known, and actually right up your alley. I’ve seen one of his books on a shelf behind Professor Myers in one of his videos. I’m sure you would enjoy reading what he has to say, or watching one of his videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nick+lane
=
“I do not considered death an evolutionary adaptation…”
Lane devotes a chapter in one of his books to this subject. I’ve only read the online introduction, but it is interesting reading.
===
“He is one reason why “if christianity were true” I would still reject it.”
.
I was pretty sure that you would. It is apparent that what you like is more important than what is true.
It is apparent that what you like is more important than what is true.
Fool who ignores everything that doesn’t support his personal beliefs says what?
As I already stated, I do not have any interest in his take on any topic. The majority of biologists do not consider death to be an adaptation, nor do I see any reason to think that.
The only way one could consider death an “adaptation,” is if we believe that it’s possible for species to be immortal, but those that were got into some kind of trouble because of it, so only mortal and killable species survived. Which is, of course, ridiculous, because there’s no evidence that it’s even possible for any kind of life-form to live forever. Biological organisms simply break down over time due to normal wear and tear, just like even the best man-made machines. That’s not an “adaptation,” that’s just an inescapable condition, like humans not being able to survive on the surface of Venus.
Nick Lane is not a creationist, he is a evolutionary biochemist and award winning author.
I am certain that he does not believe that death is an adaptation as txpiper claims. His book is about the Krebs cycle.
“There ’s more than an element of Greek tragedy, for example, about the mayflies, which live for months as larvae, before metamorphosing into adults lacking in mouthparts and digestive tract. Even the few species that live out their single orgiastic day are fated soon to starve. What about the Pacific salmon, which migrate hundreds of miles to the streams of their birth, wherein their hormonally charged frenzy is cut short by a catastrophic demise and death within days? Or the Queen bee, who shows no sign of her age for sixteen years, until finally her supply of sperm runs dry, whereupon she is torn apart by her own daughters? Or the twelve-hour copulation frenzy of the Australian marsupial mouse, culminating in death by depression and exhaustion, which can be prevented by castration? Tragedy or comedy, this is certainly dramatic. These animals are as much the pawns of fate as Oedipus himself. Death is not only inevitable; it is controlled by the fates, programmed into the very fabric of life….On the face of it, death is a perplexing ‘invention’: natural selection normally acts at the level of individual organisms, and it’s hard to see how my death will benefit me, or what Pacific salmon gain from falling to pieces, or black widow spiders from being cannibalised. But it is equally plain that death is far from accidental, and it certainly evolved for the benefit of individuals (or rather, their selfish genes, in Richard Dawkins’s unforgettable phrase) soon after the dawn of life itself.”
Death happens to stars too, it doesn’t qualify as an adaptation. It’s a side effect of linear time.
The black widow and salmon are examples of adaptation. Female widows who eat their male have far more fertile eggs than spiders who don’t get a meal along with a sperm packet. Thus it does benefit the male to feed his mate, if the result is 25% more spiderlings with his DNA.
Octopi have evolved a special arm that can break away, to avoid becoming dinner.
Death after reproducing is not the selective pressure involved in those examples.
txpiper, you do not know much about me and I would like to keep it that way.
The truth us that there is zero evidence that your god is anything more than a fictional character, but there is abundant evidence in his fictional life story that he is a lying, petulent, untrustworthy, murderous, mysogenistic fictional arsehole not deserving of respect.
How any sane human can worship him is beyond my ken, but perhaps that points to something….
#134 tx
That’s nice. I had no interest in his take on death, and I still don’t.
@134: And all that purple prose proves…what, exactly?
It proves that txpiper has read the blurb for a book. If all that nonsense about death is an example of Nick Lanes writing style, I don’t have any interest in reading more of his book.
Apoptosis is programmed cell death. We might quibble about the reason for it, but the idea of programmed organism death shouldn’t be that hard to digest.
Hey foolish one, it’s called ‘programmed’ because it is an organised, tidy process taking place when the cell was given the correct stimulus by your own body, and ‘programmed’ seemed an apt descriptor to the researchers uncovering this. More to the point, the death of a cell in a multicellular body being described as ‘programmed’ has nothing to do with the death of an organism.
And he seems to conflate cell death with organism death. What a jucking foke.
Deliberate, programmed death can even extend to populations. In this 2008 article, Lane notes that:
“Most models of marine systems simply put that mortality down to bad luck. They tacitly assume that phytoplankton are in principle immortal, but in practice always seem to be eaten by zooplankton, wiped out by viral infections or starved by nutrient deprivation. But Falkowski thinks that there is more to it than that. Phytoplankton don’t just dissolve when neglected in the lab. Vast marine blooms, too, can disappear overnight. If that process is indeed a manifestation of programmed cell death, then it has implications that not only touch on the global nutrient cycling, but also foreshadow the ultimate causes of our own mortality. The phytoplankton of the ancient oceans might have been some of the first creatures to learn how to die.”
=
He goes on the explain how some viruses apparently commandeer the death mechanism to their advantage, and that cells will react collectively to a viral invasion by using death as their tactic:
.
“…Last year, Bidle and Falkowski showed that viral replication can be blocked by inhibiting the death apparatus of the coccolithophore E. huxleyi, implying that the virus usually uses the system to kill the cell when death is to its advantage.
The odd thing is that sometimes the cells may want to turn the death programme on when the viruses want to keep it turned off. If cells can kill themselves more quickly than suits their viral invaders, they can thwart the viral spread. As most plankton in a bloom are near identical genetically, from the perspective of their genes, a die-off that creates enough scorched earth to stop the viral advance can make sense.
To understand this as self-sacrifice, though, might be to oversimplify. “It is at least as much murder as suicide,” says Vardi. “It definitely blurs the boundary between altruism and selfishness.” Vardi has found that injured phytoplankton release mediators — he calls them ‘infochemicals’ — into their surroundings. In response, damaged cells overproduce reactive oxygen species, activating the death apparatus…”
.
Sortof reminds me of the story of the Jews at Masada, though the tactic was to frustrate the enemy rather than kill them.
They tacitly assume that phytoplankton are in principle immortal…
Who’s “they,” and on what grounds do they make such an assumption? (Not that “in principle immortal” really means anything.)
…To understand this as self-sacrifice, though, might be to oversimplify…
Ya think?!
“Who’s “they,” ”
The article identifies them as “most models of marine systems”.
.
“on what grounds do they make such an assumption? (Not that “in principle immortal” really means anything.)”
In the context of the subject, immortal just means that the demise of phytoplankton is usually due to being “eaten by zooplankton, wiped out by viral infections or starved by nutrient deprivation”. It is not talking about living forever. He has just mentioned that “Dying, though, is something phytoplankton do a great deal of.”
.
“…To understand this as self-sacrifice, though, might be to oversimplify…
Ya think?!”
I can see why anyone who believes bio-logical things were designed/created/developed by random mutations might struggle with the idea of deliberate death mechanisms being selected for.
White blood cells generally die after consuming a foreign cell, and both are removed from your body. It is what immune systems do.
Cells dying in no way implies that death mechanisms are being selected for. All of your body parts are constantly growing new cells to replace the old cells. You would not be alive if you didn’t.
Anthropomorphizing cells as wanting anything, or having selfish motivations is utter nonsense.
I can see why anyone who believes bio-logical things were designed/created/developed by….
The word you are looking for is evolved.
Life evolved. Evolution is a continuous force of nature, which led to a huge diversity of life forms over 3.8 billion years of time.
Sneering at others because you can’t prove your beliefs is so typical of the brain dead YECs.
“White blood cells generally die after consuming a foreign cell, and both are removed from your body….cells..wanting anything, or having selfish motivations is utter nonsense”
.
So, how would you characterize the role that wbc’s play? Are they like soldiers fighting enemy invaders that threaten the host organism? Border patrol agents doing their duty? Kamikazes sacrificing themselves for the homeland? Bigots who just don’t like foreigners? Just hungry?
--
” It is what immune systems do”
.
But once upon a time, there were no immune systems. What “continuous force of nature” organized and developed these selfless systems?
I bet txpiper is not happy that he can’t comment on PZs post about Nick Lane.
white blood cells
Endosymbionts are fascinating! I remember being scolded for noticing that there seemed to be bits of plant cell anatomy in my animal cell during microscope lab in HS biology.
There are many things (formerly?) classified as algae that don’t actually fit neatly into either the plant or animal category. Humans might not like the idea that they are part slime mold, or that our guts require bacterial symbionts to function properly, but it’s also a basic fact of life.
tx
In this thread alone, you have moved from
-- birds are not descended from dinosaurs
-- feathers cannot have evolved
-- wikipedia fails to detail the entire history of every gene involved in feather development
-- muscles associated with feathers cannot have evolved
-- argument from design
-- abiogenesis
-- organisms are imperfect but used to be perfect and immortal
-- death is an evolved adaptation
-- descriptions of apoptosis contain the word ‘programmed’ -- intent!
You spend no more than three posts on each one before abandoning it for the next desperate reach. You have no susbstance to your arguments, only a scattering of headlines you’ve seen from biology that caught your eye. You quote scientists when they say something convenient to you, but you never acknowledge that the rest of what that person says is very inconvenient for your position, and that all of the inconvenient stuff was derived from the same meticulous, evidence-driven research process as the bits you poach from them. Notably, you never acknowledge their pro-evolution, anti-creationism stance.
You have nothing from science but soundbites.
___
#146 Tethys “White blood cells generally die after consuming a foreign cell”
No they don’t. Bacteria are extremely numerous, and professional phagocytes are very good at killing many many bacteria before dying. If that were not the case we would be in a great deal of trouble, as infecting bacteria easily outnumber our immune system cells at the site of infection.
___
#148 back to tx
“But once upon a time, there were no immune systems. What “continuous force of nature” organized and developed these selfless systems?”
Selection pressure. Non-random selection, i.e. filtering for organisms that were better able to survive predation / parasitism / infection, caused the proliferation of defence mechanisms throughout populations over time.
Holms
No they don’t. Bacteria are extremely numerous, and professional phagocytes are very good at killing many many bacteria before dying.
Ok, good to know that white blood cells engulf multiple foreign cells before they die and are excreted. I’ve always thought of them as domesticated amoebas rather than an army.
“I bet txpiper is not happy that he can’t comment on PZs post about Nick Lane.”
.
Not to comment, but I would ask questions that evolution lackeys will never bring up. You can bet your socks that Professor Myers is not going to dwell on this particular segment of Lane’s (enjoyable) presentations:
.
“…it’s basically like a hydroelectric dam, where the membrane is equivalent to the dam, the proton reservoir, if you like, is equivalent to the reservoir, and the ATP synthase, well, it’s a rotating motor, its an extraordinary protein. This is another reason why biochemists don’t like to ask “why?”. How on earth does something with that majesty evolve? It’s plainly a product of genes and natural selection, and so on but when I think about these questions, I’m wondering about how did it arise in the first place. It’s a strange fact, but basically all life on earth works this way. This way of generating electricity is as universally conserved as the genetic code itself. This is how cells work. Bacteria work this way. Archaea work this way. Plants, animals, everything works this way, so there’s something profoundly important about how it works, and yet it’s it’s very difficult to wrestle with in terms of how does it happen.”
.
Sorry, Nick. But ATP synthase is not plainly a product of genes and natural selection, but there is no shortage of people who will believe and repeat that kind of canned pulp. Natural selection occurs in populations. Such prebiotic things had to be around before there could be any phenotypes, or populations. Ditto for ribosome.
That is, anyone who accepts modern science.
(That is, also, the vast majority of Christians)
Heh. You don’t even know just how much you don’t know.
tx with a sterling example of the YEC habit of picking bits of what a scientist says, and rejecting the rest. You found a bit that was useful for your anti-evolution stance, and said “nope” to everything else.
Such prebiotic things had to be around before there could be any phenotypes, or populations.
Yes, which is why PZ titled his post ‘Metabolism First’.
As to the rest of your objections, I can only point out that “Why?” is a different question than “How?” Why is chemistry? Why is gravity? Why is life? Sometimes things simply exist.
————
Scientists have managed to create protocells by mimicking conditions found within alkaline vents.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191104112437.htm
“Yes, which is why PZ titled his post ‘Metabolism First’.”
.
Right. Just swapping chickens in a chicken first/egg first problem bigger than Dallas.
=
“By creating protocells in hot, alkaline seawater…”
.
Using the term ‘protocell’ for what they are talking about is like calling a brick a protoshoppingmall. This is just about something that resembles the envelope of a cell wall:
“The creation of protocells has been an important step, as they can be seen as the most basic form of a cell, consisting of just a bilayer membrane around an aqueous solution — a cell with a defined boundary and inner compartment….
The researchers found that molecules with longer carbon chains needed heat in order to form themselves into a vesicle (protocell).”
.
If you like those kind of stories, Lane co-authored this exciting list of miracles back in 2009.
“You found a bit that was useful for your anti-evolution stance…”
.
I found a bit that was truthful. The kind of bit that you are unable to notice.
Right. Just swapping chickens in a chicken first/egg first problem bigger than Dallas.
You can answer yourself, as you posed the supposed problem @152
”Such prebiotic things had to be around before there could be any phenotypes, or populations.”
Protocells are one step closer to understanding how the prebiotic things became biotic. The various theories for abiogenesis are all in basic agreement about the necessary steps involved, but disagree on the how and where.
I see txpipsqueak is now down to pretending he’s a “brave hero” asking questions about things us terrified evilutionists allegedly don’t dare even speak of, even though actual scientists have, in fact, been speaking of and writing about them for some time. All he has left is bluster and “I double-dog-dare ya” and “everyone’s scared of me ‘cuz they all know I’m right!” What a joke. This creationist twit really needs to get out of his fantasy-world and get a job already.
#157 tx
You characterise the small excerpts you like as “truthful”, implying everything else supporting evolution is a lie. So, my description of you holds: “the YEC habit of picking bits of what a scientist says, and rejecting the rest.”
What amuses me most is how I’ve already noted that it’s a rather small minority of Christians (outside of the USA, which of course is an outlier) are so silly as to dismiss the sciences in order to sustain their magical beliefs.
Everything he says about his favoured enemy, the “atheists”, is equally applicable to those Christians.
(Kinda sad, really)
“picking bits of what a scientist says, and rejecting the rest”
.
More like separating the religious stuff from the actual science. Professor Lane, origin of life fantasy aside, is a masterful communicator. I don’t understand how anyone interested in bio-sciences would not find what he has to say interesting.
But of course!
Molecular biology? Pshaw.
Biochemistry, chemiosmosis? Bah.
I mean, sure. Poetic language, numinous overtones — that’s what he does, as a science communicator.
Most people are a bit like you, txpiper.
They seek meaning, they seek wonder.
(You might not know about Carl Sagan, but he was similar. The wonder of Creation! [not the actual term used])
BTW, since you’ve just posted and presumably are monitoring this thread, what is it about the reality and success of evolutionary computing that makes you so loath to even try to dismiss it?
(silence can speak volumes)
Ah, you all see my wisdom in banning txpiper from my blog? He goes on and on, an automatic rejection machine for any evolutionary explanation.
He also doesn’t read. “I believe the minimum gene set to live and replicate is somewhere around 200,” he says, while quoting bits and pieces of Lane that he doesn’t comprehend. The metabolism first model proposes that protocells had no genes, that they carried out biochemistry with simple metabolites. He also describes how the genetic code could have arisen from the catalytic activity of nucleotides. And, of course, he’s happy to report that much of that chemistry has been replicated in the lab.
As another example of his incomprehension:
At the time feathers differentiate, the dermis is rich with pluripotent mesenchyme — all it takes is a single change in gene expression to trigger differentiation of some of the cells into muscle. There’s a whole vast literature on developmental organization sensory and muscular tissues. As for innervation, the nervous system is an incredibly plastic organ that responds to environmental stimuli to rewire itself. Did you know that if you transplant an eye primordium to the tail of a tadpole it will form a functioning visual organ and send nerves all the way up the spinal cord to connect to the optic tectum in the brain?
All of his comments are like that. He farts them out effortlessly, pungent with ignorance and stupidity, and addressing them would take hours of time — to no good result. He’ll just ignore efforts to educate him and poop out another stinking pile.
#162 tx
…Said the young Earth creationist. How exactly are you qualified to know that difference, when you have no biology education and an a priori adherence to an especially backwards religion? You only have one move: “This disagrees with what I believe therefore it is wrong.”
Professor Myers,
“He goes on and on, an automatic rejection machine for any evolutionary explanation.”
.
You don’t actually provide evolutionary explanations. You usually just make announcements, sometimes about things that are just made up. Like this:
.
“The metabolism first model proposes that protocells had no genes, that they carried out biochemistry with simple metabolites.”
.
You are not talking about biology that anyone knows anything about. This is all imaginary. There is no basis for such a hypothesis.
Your post illustrates what you mean by an evolutionary explantation:
.
“At the time feathers differentiate, the dermis is rich with pluripotent mesenchyme — all it takes is a single change in gene expression to trigger differentiation of some of the cells into muscle. There’s a whole vast literature on developmental organization sensory and muscular tissues. As for innervation, the nervous system is an incredibly plastic organ that responds to environmental stimuli to rewire itself. Did you know that if you transplant an eye primordium to the tail of a tadpole it will form a functioning visual organ and send nerves all the way up the spinal cord to connect to the optic tectum in the brain?”
.
And, so what? You only explain a little about the biology of what is there, and what happens. You didn’t quite get around to explaining how the muscles, or incredibly plastic nervous system, evolved.
This happens a lot in the “whole vast literature”. Papers might be titled The Evolution of Something that just talk about form and function, not how Something actually evolved. Very often, they don’t even mention mutations, which are the supposed actual source of alteration and development. You, Professor Myers, will never, ever undertake the task of explaining how random DNA replication errors and natural selection actually built any biological specialty.
.
Here is another proclamation of yours:
“Evolution isn’s sequential. It’s massively parallel. Massively. Humans have about 20,000 genes, and all of them are evolving at once, with trial runs in about 7 billion individuals. New variants are arising all the time, and then they’re tested to destruction in multiple combinations over time. Scrap your weird idea that the pieces of a complex system must be developed one at a time — they can’t, and all of them are being constantly tinkered with. It is the most badly designed scientific experiment or engineering program ever, with no controls and every variable getting randomly tweaked at random intervals. So don’t be surprised that multiple elements are getting juggled.”
.
There is no science to support this nonsense. You made it up. You had to.
Random mutations do not happen with monotonous regularity so that your theory will work. You should be embarrassed.
While you’re visiting, perhaps you’d like to address the formation of ATP. Do you agree with Nick’s assessment that it is “plainly a product of genes and natural selection”? What does your evolutionary explanation for functional molecular machines look like?
Accusing a scientist of making up science is both rude, and simply shows that txpiper has no interest in learning anything about the topics he demands explanations on, he just wants negative attention.
JAQ in order to make asinine claims is a very sad way to spend your life.
Maybe you could learn basic cell biology, and the difference between evolutionary biochemistry, and evolutionary biology?
Here is a video with truly amazing microphotography of a type of cell called an Amoeba. Bonus footage of a macrophage WBC is included.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vlANF-v9lb0
#167 tx
Yes he does, and yes many other have done here and elsewhere. The problem is, you immediately shift the goalposts from ‘evolutionary explanation’ to ‘mutation by mutation account of every gene involved’, as demonstrated a few lines later in that same post:
txpippy: do you demand step-by-step explanations of exactly how a given bit of information is transmitted from one computer to another via the Internet, before accepting that the Internet exists and works? Do you demand detailed descriptions of how every part of a given car interacts with all the other parts before test-driving the car? Do you demand to know the exact chain of biochemical reactions by which a prescription drug works before taking it to cure a debilitating disease? Somehow I don’t think you’d even seriously consider doing any of those things. So stop pretending you have to be told every single step of the evolution of every single part of every single species before you can accept the current theory of evolution. If you’re too stuck-up and babyish to let yourself learn something outside your simple religious beliefs, that’s your problem, not ours; and you’re not important enough to be worth ANY of he coddling and hand-holding you’re demanding.
It appears that Professor Myers is still preoccupied with creationists, and will be asking (from a safe distance) some hard-hitting questions about the flood this Saturday.
.
“how is it there’s no evidence of your global flood?”
Like 100,000,000 cubic miles of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers? I guess this is a can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees deal.
=
“How do you account for the current genetic diversity if we’re all descended from 8 people 4000 years ago?”
He would probably find dog shows fascinating and confusing. Most breeds are less than 150 years old. I bet if he dug up a fossilized Chihuahua and a Rottweiler, he’d think they were different species.
=
“giving me imagined details from the imaginary life of an imaginary character…..”
Imaginary. Like fantasy biology that can’t be demonstrated or explained: “The metabolism first model proposes that protocells had no genes, that they carried out biochemistry with simple metabolites”.
PRATTs @171 dismissed.
#171
Your reference for that figure did not back up your claimed global flood.
Question conspicuously not answered. Explain, in the detail you demand of others explaining evolution.
Multiple stages of which have been demonstrated, and others calculated by modelling the expected chemistry, and therefore are not imaginary.
100,000,000 cubic miles? Whatever the cubic volume of sedimentary bedrock on earth, the fact that they all contain fossils of vastly different ages is actually what disproved any notions of worldwide floods and a 6000 year old Earth quite conclusively.
I bet if he dug up a fossilized Chihuahua and a Rottweiler….
You do realize that PZ is not a Paleontologist or any of the specialized Biologists who study things like mammals or marine life?
Based on Morphology both sets of bones would be identified as dogs. DNA analyses would yield the exact breed. Science is not a conspiracy against superstitious numptys.
txpiper. You obviously find dogs fascinating and confusing. The myriad resultant dog types from selective breeding over a century or two is ample evidence of massive changes in morphology being possible from very small changes to a genome. To me that is evidence of evolution being a more probable proposition than your sky-fairy.
I know that your imaginary superhero has purged you of imagination, but do try to imagine getting that tiny female chihuahua and that giant male great dane to successfully mate. They may well still be the same species, but in practical terms they might as well not be. Then try to imagine the result of 50,000 years of chihuahua and great danes not ever breeding and other genetic changes creeping in due to natural selection. Oh year, I forgot. you believe that he earth is only 6,000 years old because bible-science! so cannot imagine 50,000 years, and I guess that you believe that jesus is coming to destroy everything any day now so the earth will not survive another 50,000 years.
Praise-be the loving jesus who will happily murder everyone who does not cede their soul to him. It sounds a bit too fascist for me, but fascists like you (who would happily execute the people that you don’t like before you will give up your guns for money) lap it up. You disgust me.
BTW, what happens to the poor little chihuahua when she cannot get a life-saving emergency abortion in texas? Oh yeah, same outcome as that 10-year old rape victim because christofascist texas doesn’t give a fuck about any life other than human males and human foetuses. You would probably find their suffering entertaining, and maybe even have a little wank over it.
chihuahua and great dane? No need to imagine.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chihuahua+and+great+dane&tbm=isch
Had a mate who had a chihuahua (“Gizmo”) — the only one I know is not a neurotic, yappy thing. As in, it does yap, but actually needs some sort of perceived reason for it.
A bit like a cat; would jump on your lap, walk around it (I’m not a big guy, either), then find a spot and curl up. Amazing. Well, not when it came to eating stuff; dogs are most definitely not cats in that regard.
So that there is an existence proof that not all small, yappy dogs are stupidly neurotic aggressive yappy little things. Exception that proves the rule and all that.
…
Where were we? Oh yeah, something about geologists not knowing geology, and biologists not knowing biology, and physicists not knowing physics, and so forth. txpiper of course knows better than all of them, because stoopid scientists can’t accept the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.
“Multiple stages of which have been demonstrated, and others calculated by modelling the expected chemistry, and therefore are not imaginary.”
.
Nah. The genetics first and metabolism first camps have falsified each other. Professor Myers is just going with, what seems like to him, the less stupid of two competing stupid ideas. It’s the way evolutionary science works.
=
“sedimentary bedrock on earth, the fact that they all contain fossils of vastly different ages…”
.
That is the assumption. But it forces the vastly stupid conclusion that original bio-material from a triceratops horn can last for 70 million years.
If I recall correctly, Mark Armitage was fired not long after publishing this paper.
=
“you believe that jesus is coming to destroy everything any day now”
.
Lots of things are involved in the end times scenario. (It is looking like climate hysteria will be helping to bring on the famine He mentioned.) In the overview, Israel is the centerpiece. When Isaac Newton wrote commentaries on the books of Daniel and the Revelation, he recognized that the return of the chosen people to their land would somehow be facilitated:
“…it may perhaps come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity, and give occasion to it; and lastly, that this rebuilding of Jerusalem and the waste places of Judah is predicted…..”
It actually took an international guilt complex over the holocaust of War 2 to bring it about. Most prophecy students recognize the restoration of national Israel as a critical historical benchmark, but nobody knows how close we actually are. It is hard to not notice that a considerable amount of staging is occurring right now.
“geologists not knowing geology, and biologists not knowing biology, and physicists not knowing physics, and so forth”
.
It depends on which PhD’s you prefer to believe, and how they interpret the data. In The Secret Code of Creation, Jason Lisle talks about natural and mathematical fractals, Mandelbrot Sets, Barnsley Ferns and the infinite mind of God. This is heady, mind-blowing stuff, not for the shallow or incurious.
#178
No they haven’t. If one of them is right, then the other is wrong; only an idiot would think that means both are wrong. What other sage rebuttal do you have in store for us? No doubt packed with technical detail, as befits dismissing entire categories of science. Let’s see:
Ah. They’re just… stupid. No reason given.
No, its actually the conclusion of a vast body of data. Arriving at a conclusion on the basis of data is categorically not an ‘assumption’. Do you even know what the word means?
Again, do you know what the word assumption means? If there is a documented example of that, then it is not an assumption.
You elide much in that brief comment. On the one hand, 99% or so of scientists; on the other, 1% or less. Hmmm, tough choice.
Lots of things are involved in the end times scenario…
“THE” end times scenario? Are you really so stupid as to believe there’s only ever been one? Or do you just not have the guts to admit your religion comes up with at least one new scenario as soon as the last one proves false? Y’all have been doing this since Jesus buggered off to Heaven, and you haven’t learned squat from your own history.
When Isaac Newton wrote commentaries on the books of Daniel…
Daniel? That’s the book that predicted an Antichrist very similar to Donald Trump. If you absolutely insisting on being dumb enough to take all that End Times crap seriously, you should at least take Daniel seriously in this regard, and ask yourself which side you’re really on. Or, you know, maybe just fuck off to bed and stop pestering the grownups…?
Txpip thinks reality is whatever he says it is, as do all creationist rutabagas. Citing another lying creationist who gets paid by other lying creationists isn’t slightly convincing.
About Jason Lisle:
183 GOTO 55
(Not the best chatbot out there)
The “End times scenario”.
Is that an example of your”science”?
And you have the nerve to accuse us of believing made up bullshit. Look in fucking mirror you idiot. You will see all that you deride is right there.
You are a waste of time.
it forces the vastly stupid conclusion that original bio-material from a triceratops horn can last for 70 million years.
Yes, it is vastly stupid to think that the bony horns and frill of a Triceratops would not be preserved along with the rest of the skull.
None of their known fossils are quite that old, so it would be quite surprising to find 70 million year old Triceratops horns.
Triceratops, with its three horns and bony frill around the back of its head, is one of the most recognizable dinosaurs. Its name is a combination of the Greek syllables tri-, meaning “three,” kéras, meaning “horn,” and ops, meaning “face.” The dinosaur roamed North America about 67 million to 65 million years ago, during the end of the Cretaceous Period.
“you have the nerve to accuse us of believing made up…”
.
Well, I couldn’t make the prophecy stuff up, tuatara. And I don’t need to. The phrase is used dozens of times in both testaments: “It is written….”. And there’s lots of it.
==
“About Jason Lisle”
.
He’s pretty smooth, huh? I can see where a plotted Mandelbrot set might be unsettling for you.
=
“The dinosaur roamed North America about 67 million to 65 million years ago, during the end of the Cretaceous Period.”
.
I see. So, where were they before that? Is this one of those forms that just “appear” in the fossil record?
The notion of stretchy tissue being 67 million to 65 million years old sort of taxes common sense, doesn’t it?
Deliberately obtuse questions are tedious, since the only tissues in triceratops horns is permineralized bones. It’s very common.
Fractal geometry isn’t any more magical than sacred geometry. Dynamic systems tend to form ordered patterns which humans often find esthetically pleasing. Snowflakes are lovely!
“Mein Kampf” is also written. Your point…?
Well, it is a known fact that human beings can evolve into chatbots.
(Existence proof right here)
“the only tissues in triceratops horns is permineralized bones”
.
No. I’m sorry Tethys, but this isn’t like your asteroid impact idea. This is real, by-the-method, observable science. Watch the video yourself. You can skip past the scary intro, and see the decalcified tissues starting around 4:50. At about the 6:00 mark, Anderson shows samples from the interior of the horn that didn’t require decalcifying. You may need to take a break before it shows the osteocytes and the electron microcroscopy stuff.
=
” “Mein Kampf” is also written. Your point…?”
.
lol…maybe you should sit this one out.
Human chatbot:
Nah. It’s all good.
You’ll keep doing exactly the same thing, asking exactly the same questions, wondering about science all getting it wrong (radioisotope dating? bah!), expressing incredulity that observed reality utterly shits all over your edited version of an edited version of a collection of old texts, many of which were culled from the collection because the contradictions were even more evident. Because common sense says the magickal mystery maker poofed everything into existence quite recently.
I of course know damn well that “It is written” is a naked appeal to authority, and an idiom for “It is the word of Dog” among the (rather small) proportion of Christian Biblical literalists.
(Behold! Thus it is written: that your small sect of science-deniers present as wilfully stupid)
You know how it goes.
The atheist gets to the pearly gates, the fearsome Guardian Angel says “Come and be yourself, do what you want, be what you want, so long as you hurt not others”.
Nearby, a Young Earth Creationist sidles up, and says “O Mighty One, here is your true and faithful servant, who heeded not the warnings of the sages and of the prophets, here for the reward of a good and faithful life”.
Quoth the Angel to YEC: “You listened to the words of fools and powermongers, you oppressed people in the name of Dawg, you heeded not reality, and you did it all for fear of punishment and for desire for reward! Get thee hence!”
And Lo! The YEC did cringe away, as the mighty visage of the Angel fixed him in its implacable grace and cast him out.
Quoth the Angel to atheist: “You did the best you could, with what you knew. You did not listen to the words of those who would have you believe a fantasy. Enter, and be welcome to Heaven”.
(So it is written)
Looky thar, it’s a whole circle jerk of creationists who break commandments. I would prefer to walk over hot coals than watch more liars claim nonsense about dinosaurs.
(There are three shifts; the Guardian Angel, the Lurker at the Gate, and the Watcher by the Threshold. Not that bad, in their off-time, but when on the job — Oy!)
“your edited version of an edited version of a collection of old texts, many of which were culled from the collection because the contradictions were even more evident”
.
This is what you believe, not what you know. It’s an extension of the bronze-age goat herders mantra. You heard someone else say something like this, you liked what you heard, and now you repeat it. There is plenty of serious scholarship that says you are ignorant, and wrong.
=
“I of course know damn well that “It is written” is a naked appeal to authority”
.
“It is written” just repels tuatara’s belief that someone is making this stuff up. Prophecy begins in Genesis, ends in Revelation and is an essential element in just about every book in between. You might not like it, but there is no place to hide from it. They call them prophets for a reason.
John of Patmos (author of revelations) was banished from Rome because he was a raving lunatic who refused to stop bothering the public about his end times delusional beliefs.
He very possibly had syphilis, as the insanity is a symptom.
Patmos was a leper colony. John would starve himself in a cave, where he hallucinated. This resulted in the extra insane book of delusions
called Revelations.
Nowadays he would get some nice drugs and electroshock treatment for his mental illnesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon
Bah, what do historians know? History was poofed into existence but a few thousand years ago!
(BTW, the Tanakh was iron-age; the earlier myths they syncretised were the bronze-age stuff; hey, did you know that Jawa — um, Jahweh — had a wife, back in the day? Part of a pantheon, with different tribes having different patron deities)
“Repels”? Heh.
But hey, it’s your belief system. If you want to claim it’s other than what it evidently is, feel free — it will fit the pattern, anyway.
But do note you assert that “It is written” is not an idiom for the Word of God as written in Scripture, it’s just something repellent. So it is written.
(Now, there’s prophesy for you! Back in the day, someone coined the phrase just to repel tuatara’s belief that someone is making this stuff up; how it might do that is left to faith 😉 )
Many things have been written by humans, txpiper. It is what people do (ever since we invented writing), and we do so under many pseudonyms.
It is written in many places that christianity is bullshit and it is written in many places that the bible is bullshit.
It is written that t***p is a crook, and it is written that t***p is the best thing since sliced bread.
It has even been written that you are an idiot.
“It is writren” is not remerkable to me. What is written in the bible is no more truthful than any ancient creation myth that has already been discarded as nonsense (often considered nonsence by xians, which is rather ironic).
Yeah, right, the Christian idiot who’s been dead wrong about everything is talking about “serious scholarship.” Bless his little heart. I hope he wises up before Jesus tells him “Depart from me, I never knew you.” (That’s also written, remember?)
#186
It used to, until documented examples were discovered by independent teams.
___
#194
drums in the deep
we cannot get out
___
#195 back to the incredibly unaware
A better description of yourself will be difficult to find. Do you also look in the mirror and think the face staring back at you is someone else?
We are at 201 comments and have now covered cell biology, evolutionary biochemistry, and geology.
Astrobiology and physics are also needed to explain how life originated.
We observe that matter tends to self-order and have invented fractal geometry to describe this phenomena. There is an entire branch of specialized physics that deals with electromagnetism and plasma fields.
If you compare the model of the magnetic fields of a planet to the structure of a cell, you might notice that they are very similar.
Plasma is a very odd state of matter, but the late bombardment would have repeatedly created plasma fields in earths oceans.
I didn’t take any higher physics in school, but it seems like a logical conclusion that non-living bubbles of amino acids formed abiotic protocells, which then became magnetized into self replicating ion pumps.
Maybe Mano can explain how applying an electrical current to an ocean full of active chemistry creates ordered matter? It’s fascinating, but the math and physics involved are highly complex.
Tethys @#201,
Abiogenesis is way out of my league but I think it is safe to say that it has shifted from being a mystery that scientists have no idea as to how to even begin addressing to a puzzle to be solved, and that is a major transition towards creating a viable paradigm. Some interesting studies can be found at Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin by Robert M. Hazen (2005), What is Life? by Addy Pross (2012), and Ricardo, Alonso, and Jack W. Szostak. 2009. “The Origin of Life on Earth: Fresh Clues Hint at How the First Living Organisms Arose from Inanimate Matter” in Scientific American 301
(September): 54–61, 2009 at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-life-on-earth/
“It is written” just repels tuatara’s belief that someone is making this stuff up.
No it doesn’t; it just means someone wrote down what they’d made up.
“it seems like a logical conclusion that non-living bubbles of amino acids formed abiotic protocells, which then became magnetized into self replicating ion pumps.”
.
That is only desperately hopeful. It isn’t logical at all.
Michael Denton described the complexity of a living cell several years ago:
““To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.
We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units.
The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometre in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell. …
“We would see around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine--that is one single functional protein molecule--would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century. …
“We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology”
Thanks Mano! The SA article references several of the concepts we have presented to txpiper as rebuttals to his assertions about biochemistry.
However, while many of them mention comets and asteroids as the source of various chemicals and water, none of them seem to take into account the effects of repeatedly turning entire oceans into a superconducting charged plasma field.
Plasma physics and magneto hydrodynamic systems are the areas where I am not very knowledgeable, and attempting to learn more about Plasma is difficult when all the explanations are complex differential equations rather than words.
Electrical activity is a property of living cells, but positing their beginnings in a quantum plasma field which induced their order sounds like something out of Star Trek.
Life arising from a plasma field does explain the chirality of living cells, which seems to be inherent in the geometry of the cell itself, rather than a genetic property.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5104503/#!po=15.0000
Hey txpiper, I really don’t need to hear more of your silly assertions and pleas for attention.
You can believe any illogical superstition you want.
The model of the forces involved in an MHD systems found under Structures in this Wiki pretty much looks like a cell, because those same forces were what ordered and induced electromagnetism in the matter within the cells.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
And now txpippy is going back to that other old creationist blither-point, comparing living cells to factories. Which I guess is kinda easy to do, if you’ve never seen the inside of either.
Heh.
https://neo.life/2021/06/rethinking-the-biology-as-machine-metaphor/
(I do love the quacks quacking)
They’ve just made their way back to ideas pretty much indistinguishable from spontaneous generation. I guess once the line between what is possible and what is impossible is sufficiently blurred, it is inevitable.
=
Nobody is trying to fake you out, John. Motors are machines.
Michael John Denton is a British-Australian proponent of intelligent design and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
Cells aren’t machines so bloviating about their magical design is quite pointless.
Heh.
No. Point is, you are taking metaphor literally.
—
One thing I’ve noticed about self-proclaimed Babble literalists is how they cherry pick what is supposedly literal.
For example:
Luke 6:29-30
29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic[a] either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
(Christians are well-known for turning the other cheek, Crusades and Inquisitions and Guns for Jesus freaks aside)
For example:
Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
(Christians are well-known for hating their own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes. Well, other than those I’ve met and those I’ve heard about and the history books)
etc.
But poofing the universe into existence a few thousand years ago?
Quite literal. Took 7 days, and the last one was a rest day (hard work for puny gods).
Well, other than the contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2, which are carefully explained away as a difference in emphasis rather than timings.
Etc.
—
Of course not. What could be more logical than a magical being (itself uncreated and most certainly unevolved) poofing cells into existence a few thousand years ago?
(Because this is how science goes: “And here, a miracle occurs”)
—
This is the fun time, before Mano calls time. 🙂
Tethys, don’t stoop to the level of our YEC.
Hey may be a loonie, but he knows his biochemistry.
Same article:
Notable is how txpiper has no qualms about citing scientific authority and cherry-picking it when imaginining it supports their magical worldview; why do the same sort selective quoting?
Was Denton’s description inaccurate or exaggerated?
.
“Cells aren’t machines so bloviating about their magical design is quite pointless.”
Calling them machines is inadequate because it loses track of the complexity involved.
Science is indistinguishable from magic, if you don’t understand even the most basic concepts of everything from geology to microbiology to physics.
In reading about protein dynamics, I came across the subgrouping of ‘Dark Proteons’ which again reads like something from Star Trek and astrophysics rather than biology.
‘Motor’ proteins and Inherently Disordered Proteins are linked in the equally fascinating Wiki on Dark Proteomes. Microphysics might be a better analogy for the dynamics involved in cell biology. In effect, every cell is a tiny body in space, with its own inherent magnetic fields which self order the matter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_proteome
Yes indeed, in both cases, except in the evocative, allegorical, metaphorical, poetic sense.
You know, like “The sky got angrier” or “The cogs and gears of the justice system began to grind” or “She died of a broken heart” or “A city is a living organism”. That type of thing.
And, did you even look at the article?
Here, for you: “Denton described himself as an agnostic.”
—
Always has amused me when people can’t see beyond the embedded teleological metaphors in our language.
No. Calling them machines is inadequate because it implies design and purpose; if only you mob would realise the most basic of the logical flaws in your conceit: you posit the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker that then proceeded to make the universe (“Creation”) which then somehow resulted in life (“Creatures”); whereas the proposed scientific explanations begin with the universe and its unfolding from time primeval, leaving aside the additional complication.
In short: if everything is created, what created the creator of everything?
Most of the proponents of ID employed by the DI have real degrees in science John. It’s not cherry picking to automatically discredit anyone based on their association with the Discovery Institute. The biochemists seem particularly prone to describing cell functions in miraculous and magical terminology, but there is nothing magical about magnetic polarity or ion pumps.
Anyway, perhaps I’m being harsh.
So, for our YEC, the true wonder of cells (and it’s quite the impressive video!)
Tethys,
I’ve been around FTB since its inception (and even before, in SB, and even before, at PZ’s original blog. I know that.
I also know it’s a paid job.
(They get paid to come up with pabulum for their employers)
—
Again, point was that txpiper will, if possible, try to use scientific authority whenever possible to support their stupid conceit that’s akin to flat-earth.
(Obviously, that quotation is not exactly a scientific paper, though it is from a qualified scientist.
Don’t ask me my opinion of Michiu Kaku or Paul Davies, for example.
Woo abides)
#204 tx
In this thread alone, you’ve brought up then abandoned:
birds are not descended from dinosaurs ==> feathers cannot have evolved ==> wikipedia fails to detail the entire history of every gene involved in feather development ==> muscles associated with feathers cannot have evolved ==> standard teleological argument ==> abiogenesis ==> death is a corruption of original design and here’s a scientist that I will pretend supports this ==> the description of apoptosis includes the word ‘programmed’ therefore design…
And now back to your old standby, irreducible complexity! Oh and of course the entire course of silliness has been interspersed with “[X established fact] is stooopid, because it just is”.
Squirmy squirm, wriggle and dodge.
#209 “Motors are machines.”
I’m sure this felt like a meaningful distinction to make, but given that John just pointed out the word ‘machine’ is frequently used to describe natural processes without any implication of design, it falls flat. The comment you are replying to debunked the point you wanted to make, yet you still went ahead with it.
You are dumb.
“the embedded teleological metaphors in our language”
.
Metaphors in the language isn’t the problem. Your teleological problems are about things like usefulness, intent, function and purpose. Organized systems, machines, complexes, devices and mechanisms do not conceive, design and assemble themselves. You want to try again explaining how random DNA replication errors configured the superior oblique pulley arrangement that enables your eyes to rotate so you can read this?
It follows that your
CreatorIntelligent Designer did not conceive, design or assemble themselves.Therefore, your claim boils down to it being created by something else, which was itself created by something else, and so forth ad infinitum
Heh.
<snicker>
Already have, umpteen times.
Same way that genetic algorithms and evolutionary computing works; by exploring the possibility space and allowing beneficial random changes to tend to persist and the converse for detrimental changes.
In short, trial-and-error.
Something you clearly cannot grasp.
I also know it’s a paid job
Yes, which is why I noted that txpipers latest cited scientific authority is affiliated with the Discovery institute, so why are you explaining this or claiming I’m cherry picking?
John Again, point was that txpiper will, if possible, try to use scientific authority whenever possible to support their stupid conceit that’s akin to flat-earth.
Yes, I have vetted three examples in this thread alone by my recollection. Dr Steinburg is the only one was cited who is not a DI member, though txpiper did misrepresent his science paper and elided the parts of his research that contradicted his design claims about evolutionary biochemistry.
Tethys:
Because you presented an excerpt that was entirely about his affiliation, while (at least to me) conspicuously avoiding his credentials and expertise in his former vocation.
(You mention the bad, but not the good.
You mention what supports your point, but not what does not)
—
Anyway, your choice whether or not to do that sort of thing.
Me, I do like to not be vulnerable to such criticisms.
John
You are the sole critic, which requires you missing every single comment I have made over this thread. However, you somehow feel a need to explain basic logic to me. It is quite mystifying.
I read Dr Steinburgs work, and quoted the parts that were elided by txpiper. After 200 comments of circular drivel, I think merely noting the DI affiliation of cited source is sufficient.
Tethys:
So, when I quoted you, I missed the comment, in your estimation?
(And, are you trying to insinuate that if only one person is critical, the criticism is thereby invalid? Surely not!)
I think it’s doing basically the same type of thing as txpiper.
And, so, you deserve the same sort of response.
(You do get that was my criticism, right?
Though I was gentler with you, for reasons)
—
But hey, go ahead. Your choice.
(Perhaps I was too allusive, bringing up Michiu Kaku and Paul Davies.
Their woo is not due to lack of knowledge, either)
Now, where we?
Ah yes, Biblical literalism.
Matthew 19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Luke 6:30
“Give to everyone who asks of you,” Jesus said, “and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back”.
(I’ve somehow failed to notice how Christians sell what they have and give it to the poor, and never seek to take back what is taken from them. Christians never sue!)
@John
Dismissing a source entirely in a comment thread due to its lack trustworthiness is in no way cherry picking, so your criticism is baseless trolling.
That which is asserted without evidence applies equally to both critiques, and txpipers sources.
After all this time, you still think our claim involves design? We don’t have to explain ‘design’ in nature, as we do not posit such a thing. That’s your own paradigm intruding while you attempt to summarise our position, you seem unable to escape it.
In nice small sentences: we posit assembly due to stochastic interplay between forces. Random mutations plus non-random retention. Evolution as cumulative iteration on prior forms.
Ahem.
Same article:
You dismissed him for lack of trustworthiness, txpiper quoted him because of his trustworthiness. Thing is, txpiper quoted him because of his expertise, and you did not dispute his expertise.
Listen to yourself!
So. You want to get disputatious. I can accommodate you.
I fucking used your very own reference which you yourself adduced as evidence!
You have already cited the evidence upon which my critique was based, I just noted your notable elision; wherefore any assertion without evidence on my part?
It’s there in the article, it’s not mentioned in your comment, and you did not properly dispute txpiper’s point, but rather indulged in a simplistic ad hom.
—
Hey. Did you know I adopted ‘truth machine’ as my sifu, back in the day?
(Nobody is safe)
“Already have, umpteen times.
Same way that genetic algorithms and evolutionary computing works; by exploring the possibility space and allowing beneficial random changes to tend to persist and the converse for detrimental changes.
In short, trial-and-error.”
.
I don’t think simulating an unguided, random process by using agents and computers, or invoking algorithmic rules, is reasonable. But can you actually apply this trial and error exploration to the development of anything? How would evolutionary computing simultaneously develop the superior oblique muscle and the trochlea pulley? Can you use your imagination and describe the beneficial mutations that would be doing the persisting?
Now, don’t get excited and claim that I’m asking you for the history of DNA all the way back to the time when the asteroid hit the warm sea of chemical soup. Let’s just focus on this one little subsystem, and ignore skull, nerves and blood supply for now. Once upon a time, there was no superior oblique, or a cartilage loop for it to pass through. But somehow, mutations generated the information necessary to define the muscle, and the trochlea, and configure, position and fasten them so that they would work together (but not teleologically, of course). Can you explain how?
Not simulating the process — actually employing the process.
Which you obstinately claims does not and cannot work, though it does.
Heh. You really can’t fathom the concept, can you.
Evolutionary computing is proof that the process works, but it’s just a meta-algorithm, instantiated differently.
It is evident to me that, even if I could (obviously, I am not an evolutionary biologist), you would just deny it and say it makes no sense.
See, part of your problem is that you have to repudiate the idea of Deep Time.
You’ve already ignored the info I provided as to the basis for radioisotope dating, though I chose a specifically Christian-friendly explanation by a Christian.
Here is the explanation again:
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
I know you will repudiate, because the science (physics, in this case) though well-established shows results that disagree with your conceit.
I know you will also repudiate dendrochronology, too, since even tree rings record exceeds your silly book’s timeline.
You want to understand any of this stuff, you can’t go around dismissing established science because you either don’t like the results or you can’t understand them.
Fact is, you will not believe anything that requires a longer time period than your fable has it. You are clearly trying to ask a rhetorical question, which just as clearly a form of saying “I don’t and I can’t and I won’t believe any of that ever”.
You can’t take even baby steps towards knowledge.
You’re impervious to new information if it conflicts with your primitive beliefs.
Really, it’s a very stupid thing to do. But it becomes you.
“It is evident to me that, even if I could (obviously, I am not an evolutionary biologist)”
.
So, you can’t. And neither can evolutionary biologists. You can confirm that by asking them. There are probably several nearby in the FTB’s.
The problem isn’t insufficient specialized education, or lack of imagination. The problem is that the notion of random errors generating complex genetic definitions is stupid. Errors simply cannot design pulley systems. Things like that do not happen, and deep time doesn’t help.
I’ve pointed out before that the mutations/selection idea is not something that was discovered. It is just the only available option. There are no alternate sources for genetic information that you can tolerate. You are forced by creed to believe something asinine.
Not errors — random changes.
You really can’t grasp that method of exploring possibility space, can you?
Anyway, bet you’re wrong.
<clickety-click>
Here: https://cjme.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s10033-021-00548-5
Huh. Waddayano. That took me a few seconds.
Um, what you’ve been claiming all along is that it makes no sense, that it can’t work, that it doesn’t happen. Reality is for the rest of us, but not for you.
Sure. The liar always thinks others lie, the cheat that others cheat, and you think other’s beliefs are an asinine creed.
Your psychological projection is on display again.
(If reality is asinine, then so be it)
Anyway, as a Bible literalist, surely you’ve sold your possessions and given them to the poor, so you have no possessions. Right? :>
Hey, what’s it like hating your own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even your own life?
Is it fun?
Actually, this is fun.
Mark 12:31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
In short, one has to hate their family and one’s own life, and also hate everyone’s life too.
So it is written.
(What was that about asinine creeds?)
Isaiah 11:12:
“And gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
Earth has four corners.
So it is written.
“obviously, I am not an evolutionary biologist”
.
Yeah, you’re not exactly pegging the meter as a theologian, either.
“Isaiah 11:12:
“And gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” ”
.
Try on verse 11.
Mate! I’m damn well quoting the Bible, those are the written words.
Either you take them literally, or you take them metaphorically.
But you’re a literalist, no?
—
But yes, I’m yanking your chain a bit. Did you notice I’ve been using different translations of the Bible?
There’s not a Bible, there are many Bibles.
Because, instead of converging on truths as does science, mythos is naturally schismatic and diverges into splinter sects. Tens of thousands of Christianity, right now.
(Is it the “pillars of the Earth”, or is it the “foundations of the Earth”?
Different words for different babbles)
—
I’m not doing either exegesis or eisegesis, am I?
I’m quoting and taking the quotes literally. Your very own schtick.
(See how silly that looks, when one does not pick and choose what to take literally?)
Perhaps a little levity.
Joke by Emo Philips:
How have you proven that? You demand detailed proofs from us, but provide none yourself. So, why can’t evolution produce a pulley system? With detail beyond ‘because it can’t’ or ‘because that’s stupid’ if you don’t mind.
Oops, that was replying to #232.
1 Samuel 18:27
David rose up and went, he and his men, and struck down two hundred men among the Philistines. Then David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. So Saul gave him Michal his daughter for a wife.
Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Foreskins
(So it is written)
Genesis 17:11
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
So it is written.
(Lots of Bible verses about foreskins.
Weird obsession by the Creator of the universe, but it is what it is)
BTW, no penis, no foreskin.
(Kinda patriarchal, doncha think?)
Ezekiel 1:15–21; Ezekiel 3:13; Ezekiel 10:9–19; Ezekiel 11:22
(To summarise:)
Cherubim have four faces: that of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a human. They have straight legs, four wings, and bull hooves for feet that gleam like polished brass. One set of wings covers their body, and the other is used for flight.
(So it is written)
[I’ll get around to Leviticus, soon. Because it’s kinda funny, the Babble]
The problem is that the notion of random errors generating complex genetic definitions is stupid.
Yes, that’s a stupid notion — and you know what’s even stupider? People like you who think (or pretend to think) that that’s what biologists actually believe.
Seriously, we’ve corrected you MANY times on this mistake of yours, and you keep on repeating it; which just proves you’re nothing but an attention-hogging simpleton.
“How have you proven that?”
.
Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation.
There is no alternate source for new genetic information. Every organ, system, specialized feature and species is the result of an accumulation of random mutations. New genes and gene variants do not just appear. They are, somehow, the result of mutations. That is the theory, and that is the claim. It is the claimant responsibility to prove the claim.
I do not believe such nonsense, but you are stuck with it. You have no option.
Why would anyone think there are alternate options to observed reality? Despite txpiper having the intellectual capability of a rutabaga, unique genetic mutations are in every genome, and we know that is exactly how individuals develop novel traits that are then inherited by their offspring.
“and we know”
.
You are not talking about what is actually known. That is only what you believe. We know what mutations can really do. What is actually known is observed reality, like this:
“The fundamental processes involved in the mechanism of hearing seem to be controlled by hundreds of genes and hereditary hearing impairment may be caused by a large variety of genetic mutations in different genes.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20114151/
Genes are complex, purposeful, functional things. Nobody has observed genes being accidentally built. You have to be a deluxe sucker to believe that hundreds of hearing-related genes working in concert are the result of random errors.
“Purposeful?” Can you prove their “purpose?” Of course not. You are not talking about what is actually known. That is only what you believe.
Genes are bits of coding DNA. They have exactly the same purpose as a virus. To replicate themselves. Deafness doesn’t stop reproduction from happening, so all of it’s claimed irreducible complexity isn’t even relevant.
#250 tx
mutations providing new function has been proven beyond doubt, but I seem to recall you dismissing the demonstrations of this out of hand ‘because stoopid’ or ‘nope doesn’t count’. Hence asking you to make an argument against it beyond those, even though I was pretty certain it was a waste of time to check.
I was confident you had no more sophisticated argument beyond those, and you have not changed my evaluation.
You have to be a deluxe sucker to believe that hundreds of hearing-related genes working in concert are the result of random errors.
Repetitive troll is Repetitive troll is Repetitive troll is …
“Emily Standen is a scientist at the University of Ottawa, who studies Polypterus senegalus, AKA the Senegal bichir, a fish that not only has gills but also primitive lungs. Regular polypterus can breathe air at the surface, but they are “much more content” living underwater, she says. But when Standen took Polypterus that had spent their first few weeks of life in water, and subsequently raised them on land, their bodies began to change immediately. The bones in their fins elongated and became sharper, able to pull them along dry land with the help of wider joint sockets and larger muscles. Their necks softened. Their primordial lungs expanded and their other organs shifted to accommodate them. Their entire appearance transformed. “They resembled the transition species you see in the fossil record, partway between sea and land,” Standen told me. According to the traditional theory of evolution, this kind of change takes millions of years. But, says Armin Moczek, an extended synthesis proponent, the Senegal bichir “is adapting to land in a single generation”. He sounded almost proud of the fish.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
Heh.
An insinuated false equivalence between provisional theories and supposedly revealed knowledge.
And, of course, the revealingly ignorant conflation of adaptation and evolution.
It’s like watching somebody repeatedly running head first into a cliff.
do we need a new theory of evolution
Evolutionary theory predicts that the individuals in a population with mutations which enhance the ability to adapt, will gain a positive selection advantage over time, so we do not need to do anything but quote the fish raising Scientist.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/walking-bichir-fish-may-reveal-how-vertebrates-moved-onto-land-1.2748483
When exercising, the muscles you work out are the ones that grow. This fish has already adapted to aquatic and dry life, and heavy exposure to one exercised those elements of its physiology. Nothing special, and certainly nothing that undermines evolution as we know it.
The fish experiment just shows that neither random mutations or natural selection were involved in the adaptations. The information was already in the genome. This just adds absurdity to the dull idea of errors building complicated systems.
It is evidently true that, to an idiot, the “fish experiment” just shows that neither random mutations or natural selection were involved in the adaptations.
(Don’t try it at home with your goldfish, kiddies!)
Bichar have multiple adaptations that allow them to walk on land, breathe, and survive in very shallow water.
The scientists are far more excited by the anatomical similarity between the Bichars that were raised in water 2mm deep so they couldn’t float, and ancient fossil fishes that also had proto-legs and could walk on land.
I should note (I probably already have, but not in this thread) how txpiper keeps calling changes in the genome ‘errors’.
Those that are the result of non-identical replication are (which are not the entire cause genomic changes) “errors” in the sense that the replication was not perfect, but are just “changes” in the sense that the newly-formed genome differs from the original genome.
(Without change, no improvement can occur)
#261 tx
Already explained, but you don’t have any grasp of evolutionary concepts whatsoever so you didn’t get it; maybe using human analogies will get through (but probably not).
If you look at a human of average build, and then look at a bodybuilder, there are obvious differences yet you wouldn’t consider this single-generation speciation or any other thing which undermines evolutionary models. This is simply an example of someone using the potential muscle development the species at large has.
If you look at another human born and raised near sea level, then look at someone born and raised in a very high altitude, there are differences in oxygenation efficiency and resilience to low pressure, and again this is not a single-generation adaptive change. The differences are entirely due to long term exposure to an unusual environment.
“txpiper keeps calling changes in the genome ‘errors’.”
.
You can call them balloons, or flowers if you like. But they are errors. The words error or mistake occur more than 30 times in this short Nature education article about mutations. Maybe you should contact them and tell them you find that characterization offensive.
But what you should be offended by are the enzymes the article repeatedly mentions. They function in the interest of fidelity during the replication process to prevent the errors that you believe piled up until new organs and bio-systems were serving their purpose, another word that hurts your feelings.
One of these days, you should think about at least one of the many monumental chicken first/egg first problems that molest your theory. The origin of replication enzymes would be a good place to start.
No, you stupid git, they’re variations. Calling them “errors” implies some sort of plan, design or standard from which each variation is an unintended and unwanted deviation. And since you can’t prove the existence of any actual design or conscious intent, let alone a “designer” who’d be deciding which variations are “errors,” according to their conscious intent, then you can’t really call any variation an “error.”
The science makes correct predictions about reality, and explains the origin of species quite elegantly.
Templating is not magic woo, but txpipe isn’t worth engaging as he doesn’t have a brain.
“…they’re variations. Calling them “errors” implies some sort of plan, design or standard from which each variation is an unintended and unwanted deviation.”
.
“The cellular proteome performs highly varied functions to sustain life. Since most of these functions require proteins to fold properly, they can be impaired by mutations that affect protein structure, leading to diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, cystic fibrosis, and Lynch syndrome.”
Normal people will think that proteins rendered dysfunctional by mutations are not just variations.
Heh.
Same old same old. Another Point Refuted A Thousand Times.
Fact: everyone is a mutant.
Whyever would a normal person imagine that every generation is more degenerate than its progenitor generation
Whyever would a normal person imagine that, over time, the genome has been getting more and more dysfunctional?
Do you have any idea of how many generations of degeneration have passed in even in the puny timespan your mythos allows for life?
(You imagine you are even slightly normal? What with your religous block towards science?)
Normal people don’t think that mutations are only beneficial or only detrimental.
In fact, normal people understand that many mutations that are not detrimental enough to impede reproduction are passed to the next generation in exactly the same way mutations that are beneficial are passed down the generations.
I know that you find it hard to believe, but mutations do not just give us Alzheimer’s disease, cystic fibrosis, and Lynch syndrome. They also give us opposable thumbs, a large brain and, unfortunately, religious people like you too.
Oh yeah, do you not own a mirror?
“They also give us opposable thumbs, a large brain”
.
Yeah, I recall reading that an Australopithecus brain was only about 35% the size of ours. They think the enlargement happened on account of gene dupes. Do you think that could happen again? I’m supposing that skull expansion had to evolve separately, huh?
Looks like our cretinist troll is running out of things to call “irreducibly complex.”
#272
You still think large changes happen in one step?
Dynamic systems have parallel processes. Even a piping engineer should be able to understand basic physics.
“You still think large changes happen in one step?”
.
I don’t think they happened at all. But you do. How many steps do you think it took for modern humans to accidentally acquire a 1400cc brain (and a matching upscale skull)?
Australopithecus afarensis is usually believed to be a direct ancestor. They had about a 500cc brain around 4 million supposed years ago. Using 15 years, that would be about 266,000 generations. You’d have to divide that number by the interval between happy mutations. One of Lenski’s E coli cultures was able to use an alternate food source after 31,500 generations, but using that as a metric would mean around 9 helpful replication errors @100cc each. You probably have something more gradual in mind, but you have to consider time for radiation and fixation to occur.
Hasn’t somebody worked all this out by now?
“Even a piping engineer should be able to understand basic physics.”
.
Even a child can figure out that dynamic systems don’t develop themselves.
I know people that did the modifications to this test stand for the SSME’s. Those were the days.
How many steps did it take for humans to accidentally acquire a 1400cc brain and skull?
Starting from the LCA of humans and the other primates and using a chimpanzee as a proxy, it took about 6 million years, approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences, and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
“35 million single nucleotide differences, and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions.”
.
So, surely not 35 million SNP’s. This article says that “…the number of insertions and deletions are 5 million. The total amount of insertions and deletions is 90 Mb.”
So, how many generations, and how many random, beneficial variation steps?
290 GOTO 51
Holms @274
To which txpiper…
Hahaha. Oh but you do, txpiper, because you believe the bible, the beginning of which tells of supposed massive changes happening in the blink of an eye.
How long would it take to detail 5 million steps individually, even if we could reconstruct such a thing from the fossil record?
How would knowing the entire process alter anything about irrational YEC beliefs that deny humans evolved, because of reasons?
Heh, Tethys… for one thing, it would give txpiper 5 million opportunities to say “nah, I don’t believe it”. After all, argumentum ad ignorantiam constitutes the entirety of their case.
Taxonomically, the specific form is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
“How long would it take to detail 5 million steps individually, even if we could reconstruct such a thing…?”
.
Quite a while.
But you said above that:
“starting from the LCA of humans and the other primates…it took about 6 million years”.
5 million steps in 6 million years means 1.2 years per step. I think you might be over-optimistic about how often friendly DNA copy errors actually occur.
In Australian news media:
Saccorhytus, a creature with a mouth but no anus, is now believed to be an ecdysoszoan and not our oldest ancestor
(Not an ecdysiast)
—
To be up-front, this is an experiment to settle a hypothesis.
I did throw out an approximate time for the split between humans, and our closest living relative the chimpanzee. Asking for a step by step explanation of every gene difference that has occurred over that time is asinine, as txpippy is well aware.
Since humans and chimps both exist, it is very safe to assume that all those differences have evolved after that split. Molecular genomics is not voodoo.
Several years ago, Professor Myers included “A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates” in this post.
He doesn’t seem to give much thought to mutations as they are pertinent to evolution, but if you think about how many supposed beneficial errors had to occur to develop all this stuff, it taxes the imagination.
DERMAL FEATURES
Naked skin (sparse pelage)
Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
In “hairy skin” region:
– Thick epidermis
– Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
– Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
Large content of elastic fiber in skin
Thermoregulatory sweating
Richly vascularized dermis
Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
Dermal melanocytes absent
Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids
FACIAL FEATURES
Lightly pigmented eyes common
Protruding, cartilaginous mucous nose
Narrow eye opening
Short, thick upper lip
Philtrum/cleft lip
Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
Eyebrows
Heavy eyelashes
Earlobes
FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
Seventh cervical vertebrae:
– long dorsal spine
– transverse foramens
Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
More lumbar vertebrae
Fewer sacral vertebrae
More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
Centralized spine
Short pelvis relative to body length
Sides of pelvis turn forward
Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
Massive gluteal muscles
Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
Femur:
– Condyles equal in size
– Knock-kneed
– Elliptical condyles
– Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
– Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
– Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
Short malleolus medialis
Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
Narrow pelvic outlet
ORGANS
Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines
Mesenteric arterial arcades
Multipyramidal kidneys
Heart auricles level
Tricuspid valve of heart
Laryngeal sacs absent
Vocal ligaments
Prostate encircles urethra
Bulbo-urethral glands present
Os penis (baculum) absent.
Hymen
Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
Ischial callosities absent
Nipples low on chest
Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
Labia majora
CRANIAL FEATURES
Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
Well-developed system of emissary veins
Enlarged nasal bones
Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
Styloid process
Large occipital condyles
Primitive premolar
Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
Thick tooth enamel
Helical chewing
BEHAVIORAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL
Nocturnal activity
Particular about place of defecation
Good swimmer, no fear of water
Extended male copulation time
Female orgasm
Short menstrual cycle
Snuggling
Tears
Alcoholism
Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
RARE OR ABSENT IN NONHUMAN PRIMATES:
Heart attack
Atherosclerosis
Cancer (melanoma)
That’s a whole lotta evolvin goin on….
it taxes the imagination
It doesn’t require imagination to notice there are physical differences between different animals.
Wow, what an idiot.
txpiper: You do realise PZ is roundly mocking what you quoted in that post, doncha?
(Thing is, your stupid — and I literally and unambiguously mean stupid — technique of pulling some quote from some text regardless of context doesn’t work outside your kin)
This is a good example, because you only have a finite amount of time to work with. You can’t appeal to “billions of years of evolution”.
But time is just one problem. There are plenty of other obstacles and complications, starting with the enzymes that are there to detect and remove the random errors that all the supposed evolving depends on. And it actually gets worse from there. In fact, there is not a single thing that makes mutations/selection look like a plausible, believable process.
I most definitely can. Because I’m not a wilful ignoramus.
You can disbelieve in isotopes and atoms and how they work all you want.
—
So.
What about the tower of Babel in the Babble? Literal, right?
Heh. I take the name of the (ahem) Lord in vain, you take it in vein.
(We’re so alike!)
#276, 285 tx
Oh look, Mr. Reasonable Requests is asking for another mutation-by-mutation account of a large change yet again. I wonder if he will deny, yet again, that he is asking for such detail?
Oh and as usual, forgets the inherent parallelism evolution. If he doesn’t want to learn something, he doesn’t learn it. A priori convictions and all that.
___
#281 tuatara
Yebbut, religious explanations don’t need to be logical. They reserve uncaused causes and outright magic as their whole schtick, so standards of evidence and logic are something only science needs to deal with.
___
#284 John
He even uses ‘taxes the imagination’ as a rebuttal!
Well, txpiper is clearly no autodidact.
My tentative hypothesis is that this result is likely due to home-schooling.
(Genesis 30:37-39).
txpiper, this is the method proposed in the dribble for breeding striped or spotted herds.
I am not a gamblimg man, but if I believed that I had an eternal soul (I don’t) I would bet it on the method given above as ineffectual.
Your god tells you that you must believe all of his words, or none. As a believer you must therefore believe the above mentioned method works, no?
And if it works for goats, and sheep and cattle, shouldn’t it work for the human flock too? You know, jesus-sheep like you?
Just asking.
Holms @294
Yes, but we gotta keep asking, because, unlikely as it may be, one day it might make them stop and think about their own beliefs for a change.
It would take approximately 15 years to list 5 million steps @ 1 minute per step. That’s assuming you did nothing else but sleep, eat, and write the list of unknown genetic steps between modern humans and the first humans.
Luckily we can sequence our living cousins genomes, and focus on the 4% of variance between them to understand human evolution. Although there have been great strides in sequencing ancient DNA, we still don’t have complete genomes for either Neanderthals or Denisovans. There is evidence that they had 23 chromosomes with a fused chromosome 2 just as we do.
Wiki:
Chromosome 2 is the second-largest human chromosome, spanning more than 242 million base pairs and representing almost eight percent of the total DNA in human cells.
There is a great deal of detail on individual genes in the wiki, should txpipe have any honest desire to know each step in detail.
“What about the tower of Babel in the Babble? Literal, right?”
.
Of course. But you should hear the details from an archaeologist, not me.
==
“As a believer you must therefore believe the above mentioned method works, no?”
.
Well, no. Not for me. But as the father of the sons who would establish the tribes of Israel, Jacob was a special case. His story is necessarily unique, and we expect that their story will become very important again, perhaps soon.
I suppose that probably doesn’t sit very well with someone who believes that, after millions of top-shelf, miracle mutations, he has the same net value as a cockroach.
“It would take approximately 15 years to list 5 million steps @ 1 minute per step.”
.
I’m sure, but you needn’t feign hardship. I only asked “how many generations, and how many random, beneficial variation steps?” I’m just interested in working numbers, so reasoned guesses are adequate. But taking into account Professor Myers’ list, it might take you a few minutes to do the reasoning.
How often do you think beneficial mutations actually happen?
Archaeology? Pah. That discipline documents human inhabitation for far far longer than your literalist reading Christian mythos allows.
Besides, you gave me your answer. Yes, you reckon it’s quite literal.
<snigger>
(Puny god)
I predicted my #290 which you clearly do not apprehend.
It is quite evident that you (a) did not read the post you cited, or (b) you are lying in the most stupid way possible, or (c) you truly are the dolt you pretend to be.
None of the options are flattering, “And you don’t want to look stupid, do you?”
Heh.
Kinda sad, really.
Ha, na cockroaches are a more important species here than us pal.
Some cockroaches are better than many USAian xians too -- some actually care for their young after they are born.
Your attempt at insult is about as effective as prayers to your imaginary overlord.
“It is quite evident that you (a) did not read the post you cited…”
.
The post is irrelevant. I was only interested in the list. That’s a lot of ground for random errors to cover in 6 million years, huh?
Have you put any thought into where the heck those replication enzymes came from?
Foolish lying dumbass.
I was only interested in the list
Except you are so damn stupid that you still have not realized that PZ did not write that list ! Yet another creationist dumbass like txpip wrote it thinking it’s a valid list of differences.
Even a child might notice that snuggling is not genetic, or unique to humans.
#299 tx
The method doesn’t work now, but did back then? Lame punt. But I otherwise your only other option would be to admit your book of stories should not be taken literally.
Also notable is the total lack of detail in your explanation, strongly contrasting with the high detail you demand from proponents of actual science.
…and non-random selection. Plus massive parallelism. Vital omissions, obviously deliberate given how many times you’ve been reminded of them.
“PZ did not write that list ! Yet another creationist dumbass like txpip wrote it…”
.
Eugene McCarthy is not a creationist. And if you disagree with any particular thing on his list, you can just ignore it. I think most of the characteristics are valid.
Getting back to the problem, six million years might not be enough time. To find out, you’ll have to provide some realistic assumed values:
-For each acceptable entry on the list, how many mutations would be involved?
-How long would it take for each incremental change to become fixed in a population?
-How often would the complimentary replication errors occur?
-How many characteristics can evolve simultaneously?
There are several formidable complicating factors to consider, but those should get you started. If you’re objective and honest, it won’t take long for you to understand why nobody wants to do these kinds of exercises.
“complimentary replication errors”
LOL
And how is that being objective and honest? In fact, how is “god dun it” objective and honest?
This is entirely rhetorical (because I already know the answer), but have you ever actually read the
bibledribble objectively and honestly?Of course txpip could just go read the entire post and comments attached to the imagined list of human traits (which aren’t the same as genes) that he is currently fixated on, rather than demanding explanations and step by step assembly instructions for all of human evolution.
Life evolved from non living matter, and the process is continuous. Religions are simply wrong and any god worth the title isn’t going to hold a grudge for ignoring trivial dogma about floods.
Tethys,
As admitted by txpiper, one can just take the “honest” and “objective” path and simply ignore the bits that one doesn’t agree with.
How satisfying it is to have such an honest admission from them.
“the imagined list of human traits (which aren’t the same as genes) that he is currently fixated on, rather than demanding explanations and step by step assembly instructions for all of human evolution.”
.
You must have finally started to put the mutations/selection deal to the test, huh? Six million years is just not enough time for 5 million steps, is it?
Like a stuck record, back when vinyl was a thing.
#308 tx
The entire foundation of creationist thinking in a single sentence, and straight from the horse’s mouth.
More like an annoying sibling with ADHD who is putting lots of effort into ‘not touching’ you.
315 comments in this thread alone, and he is still burbling nonsense about his inability to understand basics like replication errors, as if that will change how anything evolved.
“Put simply, a scientific theory is created by following the scientific method. First, a scientist observes a phenomenon. Next, they research all known information about this phenomenon. Then, the scientist will develop a hypothesis, or a possible explanation of the phenomenon based on what they have observed and researched. The hypothesis will be tested and a conclusion will be reached stating that the hypothesis can either be disproved or cannot be disproved through testing.”
.
The testing part is of course, very important.
.
“The philosopher Karl Popper argued that falsifiability rather than confirmation is at the heart of science. Popper believed that the main role of the experimental scientist is to test hypotheses, find that many are false and discard them.”
.
Philosophical and emotional over-investment can make discarding falsified ideas very difficult.
#317 tx
No doubt then you tested your own belief in the bible, which you take literally except for the bits that you don’t take literally. Maybe the bits you don’t take literally are the bits that failed your mystery testing regime. Let’s hear about it.
…Said the bible literalist in defence of his religious faith.
Honestly, you ought to vet what you say for its ironic content before hitting post.
“the bits you don’t take literally…Let’s hear about it.”
.
This has never been an issue for me, or for anyone I consider a serious scholar. Context dictates. In my experience, when people declare something to be metaphorical, it is usually because they’re embarrassed, uninformed or just too big for their liberal academic britches.
“Context dictates.”
So, you now insinuate that at least some bits of the Babble are indeed metaphorical, even for such as you.
(Careful, you’re getting close to the edge)
Genesis, of course, is not at all metaphorical.
So some portions of the bible are literally true, other portions are not as determined by your personal interpretation. And those portions that are not true are not even metaphors for anything, making them truly useless junk.
That’s quite the admission.
“some portions of the bible are literally true, other portions are not”
.
I don’t believe this.
Then is it all literally true?
“23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.”
So it is written.
If you’re objective and honest, it won’t take long for you to understand why nobody wants to do these kinds of exercises.
Actually, if there was a good chance of getting recognized for a paradigm-shifting breakthrough, it would be hard to understand why any serious scientist would NOT want to “do these kinds of exercises.” Has anyone seriously pursued this line of reasoning and come up with a substantive refutation of modern evolutionary theory? Some actual citations would be helpful here; and if you can’t come up with any, then you should be willing to explain why.
“Has anyone seriously pursued this line of reasoning and come up with a substantive refutation…?”
.
That is backwards.
.
“First, a scientist observes a phenomenon. Next, they research all known information about this phenomenon. Then, the scientist will develop a hypothesis, or a possible explanation of the phenomenon based on what they have observed and researched.”
.
The observation, and all known information is supposed to accompany the hypothesis. It is not up to the skeptic to prove that Elvis sightings are false. The claimant is supposed to present evidence that supports the claim.
I notice you are suddenly coy about your bible. Is it all true or not? You’ve wavered on this a touch.
And if you posit that the bible is true -- especially genesis -- then it is on you to substantiate the claims it makes.
txpiper @ 317
txpiper @327
The sceptic is supposed to weigh all the evidence not just the evidence that they choose not to ignore.
A 6,000 year age of the earth is falsified by nuclear physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology and anthropology to name a few.
But then, as you freely admit….
Lol.
“…if you posit that the bible is true — especially genesis — then it is on you to substantiate the claims it makes.”
.
I accept that Genesis is accurate history. There are some things to consider, like differences between the Masoretic texts, the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts. But recognized, understandable things like that aside, I believe it is an actual account of actual characters and actual events. I believe science and prophetic circumstances support my belief. There is definitely faith involved, the same faith that the founders of the disciplines had.
I do not have the kind of faith that it takes to believe in neo-spontaneous generation, or that random events can assemble hyper-complex, hyper-functional organs, systems or features.
“A 6,000 year age of the earth is falsified by nuclear physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology and anthropology…”
.
Not according to the scientists that I think are getting it right.
Saying you “accept” a claim does not substantiate it. Especially since you’ve “accepted” several other claims that are clearly false.
And no, my reasoning is not “backwards.” Is there even one substantive peer-reviewed paper that actually establishes that evolution cannot have happened as modern evolutionary theory says it has? Yes or no?
Oh, and if there was a huge body of evidence that Elvis was still alive and going to all those places where he’s been seen, then a skeptic would indeed have a considerable burden to show how all that evidence is false or doesn’t prove what it’s thought to prove, or come up with an alternate hypothesis that explains all those observations better than the pre-existing consensus. That’s where you and your fellow know-nothings stand WRT evolution: you have a huge and longstanding consensus to argue against, not just a handful of wild allegations.
“Is there even one substantive peer-reviewed paper that actually establishes that evolution cannot have happened as modern evolutionary theory says it has?”
.
Still perfectly backwards. What there is not, is even one substantive peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates and explains how random, molecular-level replication errors could produce something like a liver, or bioluminescence. Tethys did a fine job of illustrating why this sappy, unworkable hypothesis has never been tested.
So your answer is no. Got it. You are dismissed.
Obviously, Dog does not in mysterious ways work; rather, it poofs things into existence, and over time they become more and more decrepit.
This is the YEC’s worldview, as quite extensively explained by our specimen.
(*poof!* is how things happened — nothing else makes any sense)
That’s nice, but I asked you to substantiate those claims. You’ve been demanding and receiving explanations, would you have been satisfied with ‘we accept the truth of evolution, and the >99% of scientists we think are getting it right’?
At this point I’m pretty sure txpip can’t even manage basic addition and subtraction since he foolishly imagined every single changed gene between humans and chimps occurred individually and linearly. That single fused chromosome alone accounts for 242 million base pairs.
I suppose Dr. Irving Finkel is not one of the special lying scientists that txpip keeps quoting.
He actually had an ark built according to the instructions in the original story. (Which predates Judaism by 1000 years)
It’s round, has no gopher wood, and they discovered that it was not possible to build it anywhere close to the size specified by God, because physics is a thing.
They did make a functional one 1/3 the size, but the Bible story is based on numerology, magical numbers, and other various superstitions of Mesopotamian cultures.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62653451
Those pesky palaeontologists are at it again (with supporting cast of geologists and nuclear physicists) planting evidence that implies the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
How dare they claim those dinosaur tracks are 113,000,000 years old! And in texas too!
It is all an anti-xian conspiracy of devil-worshippers I tell you!
Next thing you know those damned godless librals, holed up in their natural habitat, the libraries, will be grooming children with tales of all manner of demon fornication like kemistry, gee-ology, and that evil sex-crazed bi-ology (subjects soon to be banned in texan schools if the christo-fascists get their way). Ain’t no learning if it ain’t in the bible.
Burn all the libraries and all the books! Especially all the books that talk of harlots having sex with men whose members are like donkeys with excretions like horses, or promote the killing of babies, of starving a people until they resort to cannibalism, or enslaving women folk after their men are killed, or forcing rape victims to marry their rapists!
Pray to god that he saves us from all this heathen godless libral nastiness.
Or to put it another way. I have had enough of this bullshit and am out of here.
“That’s nice, but I asked you to substantiate those claims.”
.
About Genesis? I noted my reasons. There are PhD’s who can explain the details, but if you are put off by someone like Nick Lane, you will surely not listen to any of them.
I also pointed out that there is faith involved in worldviews, mine or anyone else’s.
==
“he foolishly imagined every single changed gene between humans and chimps occurred individually and linearly. That single fused chromosome alone accounts for 242 million base pairs.”
.
I don’t think I actually did imagine that. But while we’re near chromosome 2, that fusion was a humdinger of a lucky mutation, don’t you think? Do you suppose it all happened in one event? This Wikipedia article about Chimpanzee Genome Project says that:
“The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B.”
So, where do you suppose those 150,000 extra base pairs came from? Don’t tell me, let me guess. Random errors? Who would expect anything else? I mean, if they could produce over a thousand coding genes in human chromosome gene 2, what can they not do?
The fact that humans display a fused chromosome is hard proof that evolution is true.
No other facts are relevant despite the endless caterwauling of ignorant creationists and their poorly transcribed mythos.
Don’t need to guess; what you need to do is read the next two sentences following the bit you’ve quoted, or even just look at the graphic right next to the text in Wikipedia.
(Heh — I know, I know. You think they were *poof*ed into existence miraculously)
if you are put off by someone like Nick Lane, you will surely not listen to any of them.
I also pointed out that there is faith involved in worldviews, mine or anyone else’s.
Ich glaub’ mein Schwein pfeift. Lol.
I also pointed out that there is faith involved in worldviews, mine or anyone else’s.
Really? Please specify exactly what “faith” my atheistic worldview is based on.
Bluff: called.
In my experience, when people declare something to be metaphorical, it is usually because they’re embarrassed, uninformed or just too big for their liberal academic britches.
Wrong as always: many of the people who declare certain bits of the Bible to be metaphorical are neither liberal nor academics nor uninformed nor atheists. “Your experience” must be very narrow indeed. If you have any at all, that is.
Not only that, but their interpretation of the Bible gives them far better insights than any dumbass literalist ever did or could.
this is still going on…
And, now the guy who didn’t understand DNA is directional, is trying to tell us what is or isn’t possible with DNA?
Dude likes to spend a lot of time and energy spouting off about shit he doesn’t understand the most basic concepts of.
#339
Yes, but the problem is your reasons were simply ‘these other people explain, and I believe them’ -- a reason you have rejected from us when we point you to the scientific literature. And so I ask you to explain to the level of detail you demand from us, and you failed. Hell, you didn’t even attempt.
This is called hypocrisy.
“when we point you to the scientific literature”
.
I’ve asked repeatedly for anything published that actually applies the mutations/selection paradigm to anything you want to use to illustrate how it works. You cannot show such a thing. Gallant Professor Myers cannot show such a thing either, because there isn’t such a published thing. The actual operating mechanism of your theory is untested. That should bother you, but it does not because this is not about science or evidence.
Cows cannot jump over the moon, humans cannot run a mile in 19 seconds, original bio-material in a triceratops horn cannot last for 65 million years, and random mutations cannot build complex biology.
348 GOTO 65
Of course, not everyone is quite as obstinately close-minded and inured to reality as our exemplar here, for example: https://geochristian.com/2019/10/04/five-biblical-reasons-i-am-not-a-young-earth-creationist/
(Almost, but not quite)
tx, we’ve pointed out that the data is documented in scientific literature, or it is available from university courses. It is not available in bite size blog comments; only your god myth works in such a simple manner. As a starting point, here are two million results referring to a single historical mutation, chromosome 2 fusion. Here is a bite-size youtube video as an introduction.
I see txpipsqueak couldn’t answer my question @343, or address my refutation of his latest asinine claim @344. This joke’s getting old.
You cannot show such a thing.
What a chucklehead. Yes, we can see the mutations you lying fool, and you’ve had explanations aplenty. Feathers, lactose tolerance, chromosome 2, birds, etc….
1:5 And the light shineth into the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.
“not everyone is quite as obstinately close-minded”
.
I used to accept the gap theory. I don’t agree with old-earthers now, but I don’t often quarrel with them either. I can accept Geochristian’s post script to his article:
“The original title of this article was “Five biblical reasons I am not a young-Earth creationist,” which was a bit misleading as a title. I am not attempting to teach that the Bible does not allow for a young Earth, only that the Bible does not require a young Earth. 3/15/2020”
In my opinion, the data is not in his favor, but the more serious problem is that most OE people also accept other bad ideas.
==
“we’ve pointed out that the data is documented in scientific literature, or it is available from university courses.”
.
No, you haven’t pointed out anything. You just said that. There is no such literature, or you would have linked to it. If there were actual explanations, courageous Professor Myers, or someone like him, would have published an “evolutionary explanation” that actually mentions mutations.
No such analysis has been done, and for a very good reason: It is not possible to even conceive how mutations, reoccurring over countless generations and eons of time, could assemble something functional, like a circulatory system, or tooth enamel, or a pancreas. And random copy errors did not manufacture the 1000+ coding genes in chromosome 2. Complex, purposeful peptide sequences are not accidents. You have been deceived.
In my opinion, the data is not in his favor…
Given how consistently dead-wrong you are about everything, your opinion doesn’t mean squat.
#353
Blatant lie is blatant, I linked to two million results amongst the scientific literature.
You mean like the handy video I linked to?
All your team has is lying.
“two million results amongst the scientific literature”
.
Pick out one that talks about how mutations, reoccurring over countless generations and eons of time, could assemble something functional, like a circulatory system, or tooth enamel, or a pancreas.
The guy in the video does not say how the supposed accidental fusion of ancestral 2A and 2B. Maybe you’d like to go where no sucker like him has gone before and explain how that lucky fusion occurred.
Was it a one-time event? Or, did it take lots of fortuitous mutations to add the extra genes (150,000 base pairs worth) at the fusion site to get ready for the main event? When the fusion finally happened, did a lucky common ancestor grow up altogether superior to his/her peers? How did the next generation work when one parent had the fusion, and the other did not?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
In the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36007034/
In #347, tx asks for an explanation of mutations with respect to ‘anything you want’:
“I’ve asked repeatedly for anything published that actually applies the mutations/selection paradigm to anything you want to use to illustrate how it works.”
I presented an explanation of the specific mutation that gave us chromosome 2. tx then rephrases his request in #356:
“Pick out one that talks about how mutations, reoccurring over countless generations and eons of time, could assemble something functional, like a circulatory system, or tooth enamel, or a pancreas.”
Notice the moved goalposts. From ‘anything’ as an illustrative example, to the full explanation of an entire organ or circulatory system.
tx, why do you persist in being so shallowly dishonest? Is it that you aren’t even aware of it?
Yeah, I told y’all a long time ago it was pointless arguing with a lying escapist idiot like txpiper. He’s living in a world of pure fantasy and delusion, and has no intention of rejoining the real world. All we’re doing here is letting him waste our time, hog our attention, and pretend he’s relevant.
… and having fun.
(You do know you can recuse yourself, RB)
“I presented an explanation of the specific mutation that gave us chromosome 2.”
.
No, you did not. You only assume that some unknown number of random replication errors caused this supposed lucky fusion. And you assume the accidental gene duplications, and the accidental (and curious) positioning of “additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes” that “may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event”.
But then, you believe that all genes are accidental results, so your incisive explanation was not surprising.
Of course, science is complicated and non-intuitive for such as you, txpiper.
The simplest explanation is obviously that a magickal mystery being *POOF*ed the genome (well, all genomes) into existence.
None of this actual sciency thingies to explain it.
(Similarly, lightning is Magical Mystery Master *poofing* the thunderbolts, and the rain is Magical Mystery Master *poofing* the thunderbolts, and so forth.
Magnets? Well, duh. *poof* goes the magnet. There it is, all accounted for.
The tides? Well, duh. *poof* go the tides. Obviously, they cannot be natural.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics? *poof*.
Et cetera ad nauseam)
Oh, mustn’t forget…
“I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”
None of this stupid photons and electromagnetic fields and water particles and refraction and so forth. Nah.
Clearly, it is magic.
(So it is written)
—
In short, txpiper, you are *that* close to plain animism.
But you don’t apprehend that, since you lack context and information.
(Yeah, I know. Mocking wilful ignorance is not admirable — though it is fun)
(stoopid scientists can’t accept the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.)
Nobody is assuming anything about the genes found on chromosome 2. They’ve been physically sequenced, mapped and counted.
We even have time range estimates, so txpip lying that science assumes those mutations, then detailing the specific changes in the next sentence, is quite the feat of falsifying his own argument.
And since you are gazing into the Abyss, txpiper, here:
Bit of a religious power struggle, eventually the priests of YHWH (יהוה) managed a takeover. So the other pantheon deities got sidelined (Moloch and Dagon did not fare well). Basically, the god of the Israelites became the basis for the founding of Judaism.
(Your god, right?
“Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” was the basis of that primacy; clearly, the earliest Israelites acknowledged the pantheon, but Jawa was theirs — and their tribe was not supposed to worship the other mob)
—
But hey, that’s scholarship and history. Not quite the slant the Babble puts on it.
[heh. I know far more about the history of their religion and about the Babble and the history of Christianity than our resident YEC. Of course.
Still, better a YEC than a presup — those are even more robotic]
tx, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you have no biology knowledge whatsoever. Chromosome fusion is a single mutation. All it takes is one improper linkage during normal meiosis crossover.
It is normal to be ignorant of biology if you are not a biologist, just as it is normal to be ignorant of music theory if not a musician or surgical technique if not a surgeon or (etc.); normally we can accept this. The problem you have is when an area of knowledge contradicts your religion, you discard all facts that are inconvenient to your a priori commitment.
Enjoy your codependent relationships then…
“Chromosome fusion is a single mutation.”
.
Only if you believe in accidental miracles:
“…it has also been found that the fusion area that originated our chromosome 2 lacks some regions and sequences that correspond to subtelomeric areas present in the two chromosomes fused in our species. In other words, the fusion must have involved loss and rearrangement of part of the genetic material of the two originally separate chromosomes in the ancestors we have in common with the large apes.”
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/bioscience/the-origin-of-the-human-species-a-chromosome-fusion/
This is an evolutionist source, so they naturally have to agree that humans are the accidental beneficiaries of fortunate mutations, like the ones that expanded the human genome, and caused things like this:
“…several genes in our chromosome 2 that are found near the area of chromosome fusion are expressed more intensely in our species than in that of large apes. These genes are expressed, above all, in highly significant tissues and organs, such as the brain and the gonads…”
Of course, with monotonous reliability, they do not mention mutations at all.
The excerpted portion does not require multiple mutations. Translocation mutations are often messy, and the DNA trimming mechanisms are haphazard in how the DNA is repaired. This can have the result of novel DNA remaining in place while the original DNA is snipped out as it if were the mistake. These things have all been observed and documented.
Hey idiot, chromosomal fusion is a mutation.
“These things have all been observed and documented.”
.
So, link to this documentation. And just one of those zillions of papers in the literature that talks about how mutations, reoccurring over countless generations and eons of time, could assemble something functional, like a circulatory system, or tooth enamel, or a pancreas.
Argumentum ad nauseum won’t ever change the human founder mutation which is evidenced by our fused chromosome.
If ya don’t like it, complain to your designer, who has a commandment about lying and bearing false witness. Perhaps Lucifer will kindly illuminate why Yahweh mutated some primates into hominids?
#373
I linked to two millions hits in comment #350. And, there you go again, immediately increasing your demand from “anything” which serves to illustrate a mutation causing change, to a demand for the construction of an entire system. You’re not even attempting to disguise your intellectual dishonesty any more.
(http://unspeak.net/intelligent-design/)
“I linked to two millions hits…”
.
But you can’t link to one that explains how mutations, reoccurring over countless generations and eons of time, could assemble something functional, like heart valves, or fingernails, or kidneys. You only claim that the explanations are hidden in dark and deep academia.
The raw truth is that you’ve put some thought into this and realize that you cannot even begin to explain or comprehend the untested operational centerpiece of the theory you believe and adore.
Your education only taught you how to avoid asking questions, exactly the opposite of what actual science is supposed to do. You have been taken in. You have been deceived.
Kinda. See, it’s not quite enough in science to say “and then a miracle happens!”.
And biology is complicated.
cf.
https://learn.org/articles/molecular_genetics_phd_programs.html
“Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic.”
….
“The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’.
Do we have to give up the theory of cosmic inflation and seek a radical alternative? Might alternative theories like the Big Bounce, or abandoning the speed of light provide a solution? Or are such alternatives merely sticking plasters to avoid the more radical conclusion that it is time to give up on the Big Bang altogether?”
https://mindmatters.ai/2022/08/james-webb-space-telescope-shows-big-bang-didnt-happen-wait/
.
Some people will be agitated, but their indignation will fade as they figure out a way to manage the data without disturbing the paradigm. The same thing that happened when they started finding dinosaur soft tissue.
But of course cosmology is another bugbear for txpiper. 🙂
(Is there even a single scientific discipline that txpiper can abide, that concords with his chosen mythos? I very much doubt it)
Let’s see… 12 years or so of primary and secondary education.
4 years or so for tertiary education to the level of Bachelorship.
Then 6 years or so of education to get a PhD.
That’s in each discipline.
(Gotta admire those who don’t know just how very much they don’t know, and pontificate on that basis)
Nevermind cosmology, even simple orbital mechanics is anathema to such as txpiper.
So it is written. 😉
#377
Yet again, as soon as I meet your initial request:
“Anything published” which illustrates mutations in play, you change your request to the much more demanding
Previous demands include the liver, pancreas, tooth enamel, bioluminescence, the entire circulatory system, and even the entire history of DNA! Oh and in case you lie about making that demand again, here it is:
I have delivered an example of the smaller, more manageable request (chromosome 2 fusion literature), and I have explained to you why your larger request is impossible to meet in a comment thread. I’ve even explained your motivation behind your dishonesty. Many others have made similar points. Why do you persist? You only display your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice in service to your a priori commitment in everything you say.
Almost forgot
Reminder: you were asked to substantiate your beliefs, and your response was that there are “PhD’s who can explain the details”.
“Reminder: you were asked to substantiate your beliefs, and your response was that there are “PhD’s who can explain the details”.”
.
Yes, and I have linked to several of them, and will provide more if you are interested. But part of your evolutionary education is about how to be incurious, so you will not be interested.
If you ever find the wherewithal to start with a replication error in a germ cell, and outline how mutations could build some biological feature, I will be happy to introduce you to the problems and obstacles that you have been trained to ignore.
As I have for you. But you ignored them and changed your request.
Already done. Chromosome 2 is the product of a single mutation, as detailed in the literature.
The problems you present are those of ignorance, and they have been dealt with.