How stupid do they think we are?

Posted 3 March 2008 by Ian Musgrave

Jonathan Wells has an article at Evolution News and Views which is, typically for Wells, chock full of misinformation. But, as almost anyone could refute his central contentions with one minute on Wikipedia, you have to wonder just how stupid the Discovery Institute and its Fellows think we are. What has Wells exercised is a report in Science Daily about a team French Scientists that have investigated the three dimensional structure of an enzyme called aminoglycoside acetyltransferase Ib (Maurice et al., 2008). They discovered that aminoglycoside acetyltransferase Ib has a flexible active site which can evolve to accommodate new antibiotics, allowing the bacteria to break these antibiotics down and make them inactive. Most excitingly, they have discovered how this enzyme can evolve to act on synthetic antibiotics that are structurally unrelated to their current substrates. Wells is appalled by the idea that evolutionary biologists might claim some degree of responsibility for this finding, and bends over backwards to demonstrate that evolution has nothing to do with it. However, he completely misrepresents evolution, molecular biology, genetics and history. The bizarre thing is that many of the claims can be disproved with a few moments on Wikipedia.

First, some bacteria happen to have a very complex enzyme (acetyltransferase), the origin of which Darwinism hasn’t really explained. Come to think of it, most cases of antibiotic resistance (including resistance to penicillin) involve complex enzymes, and the only “explanations” for them put forward by Darwinists are untestable just-so stories about imaginary mutations over unimaginable time scales.
— Wells

Aminoglycoside acetyltransferase isn’t particularly complex, it’s a simple 201 amino acid long protein that is a member of a large family of proteins that transfer acetate from Acetyl Coenzyme A to … well, just about anything. For example, many bacteria use these things for adding acetate to biogenic amines such as serotonin (yes, bacteria have serotonin). In this particular case, a mutation to an aminoglycoside acetyltransferase that normally breaks down the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin (and other structurally similar antibiotics) results in an enzyme that can still breakdown aminoglycoside antibiotics, but can now break down structurally unrelated fluoroquinone antibiotics (eg. ciprofloxacin) . Figure 3 from Maurice F, Broutin I, Podglajen I, Benas P, Collatz E, Dardel F. Enzyme structural plasticity and the emergence of broad-spectrum antibiotic resistance. EMBO Rep. 2008 Feb 22; A shows the structure of one of the standard amionglycoside antibiotics, the counter-ion HEPES and ciprofloxacin, B shows how HEPES fits into the standard aminoglycoside acetyltransferase Ib, with important binding sites identified, C shows how the mutant binding sites now fit ciprofloxacin into the enzyme. This is particularly significant, as the wholly synthetic fluoroquinones have never been present in the environment before humans produced them. The first report of metabolic resistance to fluoroquinones was in 2006, so this is a recently evolved mutation. A single mutation is enough to produce an enzyme that can break down fluoroquinones (Robicsek et al, 2006). This shows just how mutable proteins are, and how very simple changes can produce significant novel metabolic pathways. Remember, the enzyme can now act of a wholly synthetic chemical, never present in the environment before, which doesn’t look like the natural substrate for this enzyme. In this particular case, we can easily recreate the mutations that lead to the development of fluoroquinone metabolizing enzymes. Contra Wells, we can explain the origin of this enzyme without hypotheticals. What about penicillin resistance? Beta lactamases, a group of enzymes which break down penicillin, have diverse origins, but most trace their lineage to a group of cell wall synthesis enzymes, the D-Alanine D-Alanine peptidases (which in turn are minor modifications of more general peptidase enzymes). We can test the idea that beta-lactamases originated from D-Alanine D-Alanine peptidases by making the same putative mutations in D-Alanine D-Alanine peptidase and see if we can produce a beta lactamase. In fact, a single mutation is all it takes to convert a D-Alanine D-Alanine peptidase to a beta-lactamase (Peimbert M, Segovia L. 2003). The D-Alanine D-Alanine peptidases have generated a number of different antibiotic resistance proteins. It only takes a single mutation in a D-Alanine D-Alanine peptidase to convert it to a vancomycin resistance enzyme (Park et al 1996). Our understanding of the evolution of antibiotic resistance, far from being predicated on “unlikely mutations over unimaginable times”, is based on very likely mutations over a few decades, that we can, and have, tested experimentally. Now, you just have to go to the original Science Daily report to see Wells is wrong, that the researchers have both the ancestor and the evolved enzyme. No hypothetical mutations needed. If you expend a bit more effort you can go to the linked abstract from the actual paper, or do a Wikipedia search of antibiotic resistance, to see that Wells is is very wrong. Who did Wells think he was fooling?

Yet Mendel’s theory of genetics contradicted Darwin’s, and Darwinists rejected Mendelian genetics for half a century.
— Wells

While Mendels’s theory of genetics didn’t quite contradict Darwins’s theory of genetics (they were both particulate theories, but Darwin's was a somatic cell based theory), it did contradict the most widely held theories of inheritance at the time (blending inheritance - almost no-one accepted Darwin's theory of inheritance, even people who accepted evolution and natural selection). Importantly, Mendel’s theory did support Darwin’s theory of natural selection, by showing how variants would not be lost over time (as they were with blending inheritance). Darwinists didn’t reject Mendel’s theory. Mendel’s theory was originally ignored partly because published in an obscure journal with limited distribution and partly because it attempted a radical mathematical analysis of biology that the few people who read Mendel’s paper did not understand. It was rediscovered by evolutionary biologists in 1900 seeking to understand heredity. Biologists of all stripes rapidly took the theory up. This can all be found at Wikipedia and other online sources, so it is hard to see what Wells is hoping to accomplish with his farrago of nonsense. Mendel’s work was heavily promoted by evolutionary biologists who thought saltation (mutational jumps) drove evolution. The big problem for natural selection was that although Mendelian inheritance explained how favourable traits could persist and not be diluted out, the traits appeared to be binary, you either had a trait or not (incomplete dominance not withstanding). How could it explain traits that appeared to have continuous variation? This was solved between 1918 by statistician RA Fischer and the 30’s by Sewall Wright, JSB Haldane and others, leading to the “Modern synthesis” of the 40’s which fused Darwin’s ideas with population genetics, leading to one of the most fruitful research programs in biology until the modern molecular biology era. In no sense could Darwinian evolutionary biologists be said to “reject” Mendelian inheritance. Indeed Fischer saw biometry as a way of reconciling the discontinuous nature of Mendelian Inheritance with the continuous variation seen in nature. Again, the thing is any body with a computer and access to Wikipedia can find out this history. Who did Wells think he was fooling?

And although an understanding of genetics is important when dealing with antibiotic resistance, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species by natural selection is not.
— Wells

This is the exact opposite of the truth. Mendelian genetics describes the particulate nature of the gene, and how these particulate genes are inherited. Natural selection describes how these particulate genes spread through the population, based on the degree of fitness they provide to the organism. The issue is a bit simpler in bacteria, where there is usually only one copy of a gene. We know that organisms vary, and that mutations will generate new variations, new genes, not previously seen. We know that if there is selection pressure, these genes will spread. We know that if we control the selection pressure (either by using controlled, high doses of antibiotics to ensure all bacteria are wiped out, or by using multiple antibiotics in chronic infections), we can reduce the appearance and spread of resistance genes. We can even predict the emergence of new resistant strains using evolutionary analysis (Delmas et al., 2005; Orencia et al., 2001). All this from understanding evolutionary biology

Third, Dardel and his colleagues made their discovery using protein crystallography. They were not guided by Darwinian evolutionary theory; in fact, they had no need of that hypothesis.
— Wells

No, they understood that the difference between the fluoroquinone metabolizing enzyme and the parent enzyme was due to mutations, so they sought out the sequence differences, and determined how they affected the structure. As well, based on the structural flexibility they determined, they made predictions of the likely ability of the parent and child enzymes to evolve further, novel actions and antibiotic substrates, based on known selection pressures.

So how, exactly, is Darwinian evolution essential to understanding and overcoming antibiotic resistance as the Darwinists claim it is?
— Wells

Understanding how novel mechanisms arise via mutation, understanding how selection pressure makes these mutant genes spread, understanding how to modify selection pressure to reduce/prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes. Understanding the importance of the structural basis of the target mutations. That’s how. You can intelligently design your antibiotic all you like, make it fit snugly into its target enzyme, make it resistant to degradation by the current crop of degradation enzymes. But if you don’t take account of the evolutionary potential of the bacterial enzymes and the target enzyme, and understand how resistance spreads, then your intelligently designed antibiotic is toast before it even gets through clinical trials (crunchy, tasty and easily broken down). update: Orac has weighed in on this article as well. PZ Myers mentions it as well. References:

Delmas J, Robin F, Carvalho F, Mongaret C, Bonnet R. Prediction of the evolution of ceftazidime resistance in extended-spectrum β-lactamase CTX-M-9. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 731–738.

Orencia MC, Yoon JS, Ness JE, Stemmer WPC, Stevens RC. Predicting the emergence of antibiotic resistance by directed evolution and structural analysis. Nat Struct Biol 2001; 8: 238–242.

Park IS, Lin CH, Walsh CT. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry. 1996 Aug 13;35(32):10464-71.

Peimbert M, Segovia L. Evolutionary engineering of a beta-Lactamase activity on a D-Ala D-Ala transpeptidase fold. Protein Eng. 2003 Jan;16(1):27-35.

Robicsek A, Strahilevitz J, Jacoby GA, Macielag M, Abbanat D, Park CH, Bush K, Hooper DC. Fluoroquinolone-modifying enzyme: a new adaptation of a common aminoglycoside acetyltransferase. Nat Med. 2006 Jan;12(1):83-8. Epub 2005 Dec 20.

Maurice F, Broutin I, Podglajen I, Benas P, Collatz E, Dardel F. Enzyme structural plasticity and the emergence of broad-spectrum antibiotic resistance. EMBO Rep. 2008 Feb 22;

210 Comments

Nigel D · 3 March 2008

Ian, I get the feeling that Wells is preaching to the choir. He does not care whether we are convinced or not - he is simply restating a fistful of lies as if it in some way rebutted the inspired work reported in the Sience Daily article. That way his constituency can feel all warm and fuzzy without having to go through the tedium of first trying to understand the article in Science Daily, and then having to do all their own quote-mining. Additional to this parag:

Wells is appalled by the idea that evolutionary biologists might claim some degree of responsibility for this finding, and bends over backwards to demonstrate that evolution has nothing to do with it. However, he completely misrepresents evolution, molecular biology, genetics and history. The bizarre thing is that many of the claims can be disproved with a few moments on Wikipedia.

I think he must also be misrepresenting organic chemistry, too. He certainly has no understanding of the behaviour of any organic molecules, whether simple (like HEPES) or complex. BTW, for the uninitiated, HEPES is an abbreviation of Hydroxyethyl-piperazine ethanesulphonate.

rimpal · 3 March 2008

Fisking Wells? Such fun, like shooting fish in a barrel

Ravilyn Sanders · 3 March 2008

Dembski, Wells, Behe and their cohorts probably know that we, the pro science folks, are not dumb. These articles are meant for the consumption of their followers. The televangelists and the vocal
opinion "influencers" take up these articles and dress it up even
more. Since there is not going to be a record or paper trial they
can get to be even more outrageous and misleading in their speeches
and sermons. So the correct question is, How stupid they think their flock are?.

And the answer is quite obvious: very, extremely, totally, 100%, completely, insanely.

And the follow up question is Are they right in making such an assumption?

And, sadly the answer again seems to be, yes.

Bob · 3 March 2008

A first year college biology assignment: "Read the Wells article and write an analysis of it" might yield some interesting results.

Wounded · 3 March 2008

whether simple (like HEPES) or complex.

I can't explain why but for some reason I read this as HERPES. I'm always thunderstruck if I see anything in an article by Wells that does look like an accurate description of something in biology.

Kim · 3 March 2008

What is the most shocking for me is that Wikipedia is already more accurate than the creationists......

Frederic Dardel · 3 March 2008

As principal investigator of the study under discussion, I'd like to strongly support the view advocated this page. In fact, I was completely amazed to see how our work has been misrepresented by M. Wells.

Actually, we did indeed use darwinian evolution within this work (something unusual in structural biology). In order to obtain an enzyme with increased stability (a critical point for structural studies), we used selective pressure to obtain mutants of the enzyme. We selected for bateria with increased aminiglycoside resistance, by plating them on antibiotic containing medium. It turned out that some bacteria evolved such stabler enzymes variants which made this whole study possible !

Finally, I would not consider myself as a chemist, I got my PhD in molecular microbiology. It seems that M. Wells finds it easier to portray us as non-biologists, and hence implicitly as non-evolutionists

Stephen Wells · 3 March 2008

I'm horrified that this guy shares my surname. Please don't assume that all Wellses are as dumb as this one.

John Marley · 3 March 2008

Wells knows exactly how stupid his audience is. (It isn't us btw)

He knows he can get away with saying this stuff because he knows his target audience won't do any fact checking. And even if some of them do, most of those will take his word over that of those atheist scientists.

I doubt he even cares what we think.

Ian · 3 March 2008

"How stupid do they think we are"
That's a leading question we probably shouldn't proffer with people of the limited integrity of Billy The Kidder and Michael Behemoth around!

Levi · 3 March 2008

Ravilyn Sanders: These articles are meant for the consumption of their followers. The televangelists and the vocal opinion "influencers" take up these articles and dress it up even more.

Exactly. The PBS Nova program Intelligent Design on Trial was very helpful in explaining this phenomena. If you did not see it then there was a portion of the program where they documented the way the various people in the town came up with their choice of textbooks for the new biology curriculum. They couldn't teach creationism because of Edwards v. Aguillard. So they were looking for alternatives. One of the people involved came upon a DVD by the Discovery Institute or some other think-tank for intelligent design. One of the key ideas that stuck in my head is how one of the people involved essentially said "I like creationism, but we can't teach that. Wow, this intelligent design sounds nice and here's a DVD with people with PhD's supporting intelligent design as a worthwhile alternative to Darwinian evolution". Behe, et al are merely speaking to the choir.

wamba · 3 March 2008

Third, Dardel and his colleagues made their discovery using protein crystallography. They were not guided by Darwinian evolutionary theory; in fact, they had no need of that hypothesis.

Accomplished - and retired - X-ray crystallographer Lyle Jensen was featured in a six part interview for ID the Future. Despite his long and productive career, Jensen is able to provide no support at all for Intelligent Design from either his personal experience or from the field of crystallography. Instead he offers: 1) the fossil record, based on a report of a Discovery Institute-sponsored meeting in China as reported by ID-friendly journalist Fred Heeren (who has also written for the Weekly World News) 2) Michael Behe's irreducible complexity 3) Evolution is based on circular reasoning, which biologists have been brainwashed into accepting (no examples offered) and 4) Disregard for supernatural hypotheses is preventing advances in science (no examples offered.) As for the reliance of macromolecular crystallography on evolution, it is true that a person could work on crystallographic methods, or apply those methods to solve structures, without directly invoking evolution. However, they will be missing a great deal in experimental design and analysis by disregarding evolution. The field is tied closely to comparative genetics and taxonomy. Just as sequences from closely related species are more similar than those from distant species, so too with the structures. The overall folds, and the active sites, are conserved through selection, while individual residues, particularly on loops away from the active site, are less well-conserved due to neutral drift. Any grad student ought to understand this before tackling a project. If a protein refuses to crystallize, trying a different species is a common tactic, with the understanding that the results will still be largely applicable. Crystallographers who work on inhibitor drugs for viral proteins have to deal with the rapid evolvability of those proteins. I could run on about this for several pages, but my basic point is: macromolecular crystallography does not strictly require the use of evolutionary theory, but it sure helps, and if you discount evolution, you will not be as good a crystallographer as you could have otherwise been.

wamba · 3 March 2008

Fourth, their discovery may aid in the intelligent design of new antibiotics. Chemists will attempt to synthesize new drugs purposefully, by looking ahead to the desired goal and working toward it. No Darwinian evolution here.

For an alternate viewpoint:

CLUES FOR OVERCOMING HIV DRUG RESISTANCE Researchers are gaining insights into how some anti-HIV drugs avoid resistance mechanisms CELIA M. HENRY, C&EN WASHINGTON Human immunodeficiency virus evolves rapidly in patients, making the development of drug resistance a major problem in combating the virus. Some drugs are better than others at avoiding resistance mechanisms, but little is known about what gives them this edge. In two recent papers, Eddy Arnold, a professor in the Center for Advanced Biotechnology & Medicine and the department of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., and his colleagues propose how they think some HIV reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors manage to successfully evade the effects of resistant mutations. A coauthor on both papers is virologist Stephen H. Hughes of the HIV Drug Resistance Program at the National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health). Arnold and Hughes have collaborated on studies of the structure and function of HIV RT since 1987. "Unless you consider drug resistance, the virus is going to beat you," Arnold says. "We know that HIV is a moving target. We know that a moving target is hard to hit, particularly when its movements are unpredictable. What we've tried to do is consider in the strategy as many resistance mutations as we're aware of." ...

raven · 3 March 2008

crosspost from PZ board: Wells is close to the Real Jesus Christ. Whose name is Sun Myung Moon.

wikipedia: "A number of opponents denounce it as a cult with bizarre features such as Sun Myung Moon's saying he is the ""Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord"[18]

The central tenet of the Moonies is that Moon is the second coming of Jesus Christ. Who ever thought the Messiah would turn out to be a Korean wacko? Anyone such as Wells who can buy into the Unification cult can buy into anything. In all due seriousness, there is a large piece of a normal person missing from Dr. Wells. Guy is living a nightmare whether he knows it or not.

Dave Cerutti · 3 March 2008

[quote]But Darwin’s theory isn’t really about how existing species change over time.[/quote]

That's up there with Ben Stein's Hovind-esque mischaracterization of evolution as a theory that must explain the origin of stars and planets.

Roy · 3 March 2008

Dembski, Wells, Behe and their cohorts probably know that we, the pro science folks, are not dumb. These articles are meant for the consumption of their followers. The televangelists and the vocal opinion "influencers" take up these articles and dress it up even more. Since there is not going to be a record or paper trial they can get to be even more outrageous and misleading in their speeches and sermons. So the correct question is, How stupid they think their flock are?. And the answer is quite obvious: very, extremely, totally, 100%, completely, insanely. And the follow up question is Are they right in making such an assumption? And, sadly the answer again seems to be, yes.

Exactly. Roy

Stanton · 3 March 2008

I'm convinced that Wells did not even open up a textbook when he was off at the university getting his doctorate at Reverend Moon's behest. I'm certain that he hired someone to sit in for him in class, and hired someone to do all of his assignments and labwork for him.

Glen Davidson · 3 March 2008

Don't forget that Dembski tried to explain ID's output by claiming that it helps them for us to think that they're stupid. He didn't exactly explain how or why, true, yet it appears that Wells is busily doing his part to make ID "look stupid" (they don't actually think that we are, just to be clear on that).

Even they're not stupid, in that they're not low IQ. They just have a stupid idea to sell, they do seem to be too enamored of it even to understand biology (good disinformation designers have to understand what they're twisting and maligning), and they thus can't both be pro-ID and sound intelligent.

When it comes down to it, I do think that Dembski's claim was an attempt to make endless faux pas sound as though it was deliberate. I slipped on that banana peal and got all bruised on purpose, you know. I simply thought that he'd better get that excuse out for the tenth time today, to explain why Wells' comedy routine is a straight line of pratfalls.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg

Steverino · 3 March 2008

Frederic Dardel: As principal investigator of the study under discussion, I'd like to strongly support the view advocated this page. In fact, I was completely amazed to see how our work has been misrepresented by M. Wells. Actually, we did indeed use darwinian evolution within this work (something unusual in structural biology). In order to obtain an enzyme with increased stability (a critical point for structural studies), we used selective pressure to obtain mutants of the enzyme. We selected for bateria with increased aminiglycoside resistance, by plating them on antibiotic containing medium. It turned out that some bacteria evolved such stabler enzymes variants which made this whole study possible ! Finally, I would not consider myself as a chemist, I got my PhD in molecular microbiology. It seems that M. Wells finds it easier to portray us as non-biologists, and hence implicitly as non-evolutionists

I just love it when the primary source calls Bullshit on the Bullshitter!

Sam the Centipede · 3 March 2008

How stupid do they think we are? you ask.

You've missed the point completely! It's now how stupid we are, it's how stupid their target audience, the believers, are. That's what matters.

Creationism isn't about reason, it's about power. And the power of lies is sustained by propaganda, not by reason.

David Stanton · 3 March 2008

Frederic,

Thanks for stopping by and setting the record straight. Your statements alone put the lie to the Wells nonsense. By the way, did Wells contact any of you and ask if you considered evolutionary theory important in your work?

This is pretty stupid stuff coming from people, some of whom at least, claim not to have any problem with "microevolution".

Keep up the good work Frederic. And next time, you can perhaps put some language in the introduction about how your research was guided by evolutionary principles. It won't stop the quote mining or misrepresentation, but it will give the cretins something else to explain away. Other than that, don't worry about it. Real scientists can see the value of your work.

Bob · 3 March 2008

Don't you mean Jonathan Wells?

SteveF · 3 March 2008

Looking at Frederic's website, I notice we share some of the same research interests. Specifically:

French wines and Paris restaurants

http://coli.polytechnique.fr/fred.html

raven · 3 March 2008

The evolution of drug resistance has become a major problem and challenge in medicine. The three most common single agent killers worldwide, HIV, malaria, and TB all show high levels of this. The latest disaster is XDR TB, resistant to all known drugs. Mortality ranges from 30-96% with treatment. Two billion people worldwide are infected or have been infected with TB. Evolution and evolutionary biology matters to everyone whether they know it or not. This makes the current attack on evolution not just misguided but rather stupid and malevolent.

XDR Tuberculosis — Implications for Global Public Health [NEJM Feb 15, 2007] Mario C. Raviglione, M.D., and Ian M. Smith, M.B., Ch.B. In early 2005, physicians at a rural hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, a province of South Africa, were concerned by a high rate of rapid death among patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who also had tuberculosis. A study revealed the presence not only of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis but also what came to be called extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis. XDR tuberculosis is caused by a strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistant to isoniazid and rifampin (which defines MDR tuberculosis) in addition to any fluoroquinolone and at least one of the three following injectable drugs: capreomycin, kanamycin, and amikacin. Of 53 patients with XDR tuberculosis, 55% claimed they had never been treated (implying that they had primary infection with an XDR strain of M. tuberculosis); two thirds had recently been hospitalized; and all 44 who underwent testing were HIV-positive. All but one of the patients died of tuberculosis, with a median survival period of only 16 days from the time the first sputum specimen was collected. Genotyping analysis revealed that 85% of the 46 isolates tested belonged to the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) family of tuberculosis strains, which had been recognized in the province for a decade.1

Greg Esres · 3 March 2008

But, as almost anyone could refute his central contentions with one minute on Wikipedia

There's your problem. You should be checking Conservapedia. :-)

Frank J · 3 March 2008

Ian, I get the feeling that Wells is preaching to the choir.
— Nigel D

Like any professional anti-evolutionist, Wells is targeting two choirs. One is the ~25% of the population who won't admit evolution under any circumstances. To them his arguments aren't even necessary, but they provide encouragement to the subset that understands them. The other choir includes the other ~25% that doubts evolution because they have been misled about it, plus those who tentatively accept evolution and/or are unsure either way, but who could be persuaded by the feel-good sound bites, even if they don't understand the detail. To put it in perspective:

But, as almost anyone could refute his central contentions with one minute on Wikipedia, you have to wonder just how stupid the Discovery Institute and its Fellows think we are.
— Ian Musgrave

Almost anyone could, but how many will?

MachiavelliDiscourse · 3 March 2008

Just a minor point: there's no 'c' in Fisher's name.

David Stanton · 3 March 2008

Bob wrote:

"Don’t you mean Jonathan Wells?"

H.G. Wells and Orson Wells were also good story tellers, but at least there was a grain of truth in their tales. Of course there is reality and then there is "or Wellsian" doublespeak. I wonder what Colbert would say about the turthiness of that.

Ron Hager · 3 March 2008

If I was not interested in the truth and found that the only way I could get people to freely give me large sums of money was by fabricating lies to support their illogical beliefs, then I too might be passionately inclined to publish those lies as often as possible.

David B. Benson · 3 March 2008

Wells, Wells.

:-)

Mike · 3 March 2008

This framing plays into a major strategy of their campaign. By claiming that false claims are easy for anyone to analyze, say a high school student, they can demand "critical analysis" curriculum that gets their crap into the classroom. Of course, their propaganda has been finely honed for decades to not be easy for a nonprofessional to analyze. Even if you can get someone to sit still and analyze one, or two, propaganda constructs, they've still succeeded in producing the impression that there is an alternative interpretation, and there is still a huge amount of propaganda crap left, the very existance of which will give the same impression. No, the average high school student CAN NOT evaluate the propaganda of the anti-evolution movement. None-the-less, the "critical analysis" compromise strategy is attractive to teachers and local officials (and even a few state level officials who should know better) desperate for a way to remove an annoyance. It has been far more successful than alot of people concerned by the anti-evolution movement realize.

John A. Michon · 3 March 2008

Dr. Stanton,

Oops... Orson Welles... W-e-l-l-E-s!

John A. Michon · 3 March 2008

Dr. Stanton,

Oops... Orson Welles... W-e-l-l-E-s!

James F · 3 March 2008

Raven, A colleague in my lab group is submitting a paper on this very topic - I was just reviewing the details of the catastrophic death rates among patients co-infected with HIV and XDR-TB in KwaZulu Natal. We may shed some light on the mechanisms of infection. Thanks for citing this.

raven: The evolution of drug resistance has become a major problem and challenge in medicine. The three most common single agent killers worldwide, HIV, malaria, and TB all show high levels of this. The latest disaster is XDR TB, resistant to all known drugs. Mortality ranges from 30-96% with treatment. Two billion people worldwide are infected or have been infected with TB. Evolution and evolutionary biology matters to everyone whether they know it or not. This makes the current attack on evolution not just misguided but rather stupid and malevolent.
XDR Tuberculosis — Implications for Global Public Health [NEJM Feb 15, 2007] Mario C. Raviglione, M.D., and Ian M. Smith, M.B., Ch.B. In early 2005, physicians at a rural hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, a province of South Africa, were concerned by a high rate of rapid death among patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who also had tuberculosis. A study revealed the presence not only of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis but also what came to be called extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis. XDR tuberculosis is caused by a strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistant to isoniazid and rifampin (which defines MDR tuberculosis) in addition to any fluoroquinolone and at least one of the three following injectable drugs: capreomycin, kanamycin, and amikacin. Of 53 patients with XDR tuberculosis, 55% claimed they had never been treated (implying that they had primary infection with an XDR strain of M. tuberculosis); two thirds had recently been hospitalized; and all 44 who underwent testing were HIV-positive. All but one of the patients died of tuberculosis, with a median survival period of only 16 days from the time the first sputum specimen was collected. Genotyping analysis revealed that 85% of the 46 isolates tested belonged to the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) family of tuberculosis strains, which had been recognized in the province for a decade.1

Elf M. Sternberg · 3 March 2008

Hey, Ian, doesn't this qualify as Blogging About Peer-Reviewed Science?

Dale Husband · 3 March 2008

Boy do I love free speech! The more that Intelligent Design promoters talk, the more they discredit themselves! That essay by Johnathan Wells would have gotten an F in a college biology class!

Tyrannosaurus · 3 March 2008

The sad part is that the Disco Institute cronies use ignorance and the repudiation of reason to advance their agenda to the detriment of religion, science and society.

Wade · 3 March 2008

Posted earlier at Pharyngula,

Meanwhile, over at another blogsite... Jeremy Shere at Earth Sky Blogs just reported some of his views concerning the trailer for Ben Stein's "Expelled". He did a very nice job, but already his site is getting comments from pro-IDers. Check it out at http://blogs.earthsky.org/jeremyshere/2008/03/03/ben-steins-intelligent-design-movie/ .

Kevin B · 3 March 2008

Stephen Wells: I'm horrified that this guy shares my surname. Please don't assume that all Wellses are as dumb as this one.

For myself, I suspect that he's related to this John Wells....

Sullivan's Librettist: My name is John Wellington Wells,/ I'm a dealer in magic and spells,/ In blessings and curses/ And ever-filled purses,/ In prophecies, witches, and knells. If you want a proud foe to "make tracks" –/ If you'd melt a rich uncle in wax –/ You've but to look in/ On the resident Djinn,/ Number seventy, Simmery Axe!

Mr JW Wells' misuse of one of his products leads to his being dragged off by a demon into the nether regions (or at least through a trapdoor) to the accompaniment of fire and brimstone. http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/sorcerer/web_opera/sorc12.html The present-day J Wells needs to beware, particularly as he is misusing other people's products!

David B. Benson · 3 March 2008

A reminder that stupid people often overrate their intelligence...

MrG · 3 March 2008

I find Wells' article interesting in the sense that it shows the
odd tendency of Darwin bashers to spot a new scientific finding
-- almost *any* scientific finding in almost *any* field -- and
immediately write an article claiming it disproves evolutionary
theory.

I've run into the lunatic fringe in my other interests -- Confederate
apologists (did you know the Civil War had nothing to do with
slavery? And that large numbers of black folk fought for the
Confederacy?) and Einstein bashers ... but Darwin bashers are really
in a league of their own.

David Stanton · 3 March 2008

John wrote:

"Oops… Orson Welles… W-e-l-l-E-s!"

You are correct sir, and thanks for calling me Dr. by the way. Oh Wells, alls Wells that ends Wells.

mona · 3 March 2008

Wells: But Darwin’s theory isn’t really about how existing species change over time. People had been observing those long before 1859, and most of the new insights we’ve gained since then have come from genetics, not Darwinism. Yet Mendel’s theory of genetics contradicted Darwin’s, and Darwinists rejected Mendelian genetics for half a century. And although an understanding of genetics is important when dealing with antibiotic resistance, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species by natural selection is not.

Wait-- He's saying that the theory of origin of species by natural selection "isn't really about" how existing species change over time? That's exacly what it's about! With a contradiction like that in his own paragraph, reasonable as it is to ask of the DI, "how stupid do they think their followers are?", it might be equally important to ask, "do they even think at all?"

Frank J · 3 March 2008

I’m horrified that this guy shares my surname.
— Stephen Wells

You're a Steve, so it cancels out.

George · 3 March 2008

How can all of you lie like that. He said that Darwinism is not an important concept in bacteria resistance not 'Evolution'.

Go to wiki and look up the difference

George · 3 March 2008

How can all of you lie like that. He said that Darwinism is not an important concept in bacteria resistance not 'Evolution'.

Go to wiki and look up the difference

Will · 3 March 2008

Hi, I'm somewhat new to this whole design debate, and have been in a few verbal debates with a classmate on this issue. He brought up what he felt was a huge problem for evolution that I honestly cannot find an answer to. After reading Ian Musgrave's article on origin's of life probability, I am convinced that he may be the person to go to for an answer, so if you or anyone on here can give me a rebuttal that I can use, I would greatly appreciate it. Your article on talk origins was an article that put the cdesign guy I keep arguing with at rest.

But here's what he keeps bringing up as an argument to say that literally anything that I try to explain by evolution couldn't have evolved at all. It's hard to sum up in a few words but it's got everything to do with genetic information.

First, he starts off by pointing out that the human genome has 3 billion base pairs, and then he insists that there are only 2 possible base pairs that consist of the 4 nucleotides (I don't know if that's quite right, I think there might be more then 2 kinds of base pairs, but I'm no scientist) in DNA.

He then goes on to say that since there are 2 options (base pairs) for 3 billion locations in the genome, that there is therefore 2 to the 3 billionth power number of combinations for the genome. To make the odds more conservative (and easier to work with) he simply reduces the number to 10 to the 6,000,000th power. He says that this not only makes the "odds" he refers to more hopeful then they really are but that it also compensates for the fact that there are trillions and trillions of combinations for humans that could arise.

The last thing he does with this number is bring up a scenario where say you have 100 mutations happen per living organism that are useful, add information to the genome, don't occur in the junk DNA region, etc (he insists he's trying to be "hopeful"). Then he assumes that there are a trillion trillion trials (10 to the 24th)of those mutations occurring that happen every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every year, for the 3.5 billion years that life has been on earth. The resulting number that he gets (and that I've gotten when doing the same thing) is never any more then 10 to the 45th power (it's just over 10 to the 43rd to be exact).

The final step he takes is subtract that number from the original 10 to the 6 millionth to compensate for an "unrealistically high amount of trials" (thus concluding with 10 to the 5,999,955th) and then says that because of the odds, even under highly unrealistic circumstances you will never get the genetic information required to "code" for a human, or possibly anything.

I sense that there might be something fallacious in his reasoning, I do know for sure that this is AT BEST negative evidence for evolution and NOT PROOF OF GOD.

But I was just wondering if there was any truth to what he was saying.

Will · 3 March 2008

Frank J:
I’m horrified that this guy shares my surname.
— Stephen Wells
You're a Steve, so it cancels out.

Damn, wish I could be a part of that list. I'm pretty sure the 300 or so scientists skeptical of evolution are probably going to have a hard time with the hundreds of ORGANIZATIONS that would gladly disagree, so I guess I have nothing to worry about. :D

Glen Davidson · 3 March 2008

Your friend is skipping the evolution part, Will. He's merely calculating the odds of the human genome spontaneously arising, which is not what anyone claims happened. Indeed, all of the evidence is that it evolved, and did not arise at once.

Seriously, you didn't notice the lack of any evolution in his "calculations"? That's the whole point of evolution, that the genetic material adapts over time, and thus it avoids the near-impossibility of human DNA suddenly arising in one shot. Empedocles thought that something akin to that might have happened (with the most rudimentary selection process going on), way back in the BCs, but I don't know that anybody ever thought that was scientific.

Nonetheless, physicists are taking seriously the idea that, if there are an infinity of universes, or at least an extremely large number, that it becomes impossible that brains will not arise with "false memories" and all that entails. But that's just a hypothetical situation, nothing that biology relies upon, certainly not at this point (well, there was one paper that brought up the multiverse re abiogenesis, hardly making this a trend in biology).

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg

raven · 3 March 2008

George Lying: How can all of you lie like that. He said that Darwinism is not an important concept in bacteria resistance not ‘Evolution’ Go to wiki and look up the difference

Speaking of lies by creos, Wells just strung together a bunch of lies.

Wells: But Darwin’s theory isn’t really about how existing species change over time. Lie, that is exactly what it is among lots more. People had been observing those long before 1859, and most of the new insights we’ve gained since then have come from genetics, not Darwinism. More lies. Modern evolutionary theory is a fusion of Darwinian ideas and Mendelian genetics. Yet Mendel’s theory of genetics contradicted Darwin’s, and Darwinists rejected Mendelian genetics for half a century. More lies. Darwins theory of blending inheritance was wrong but biologists readily accepted Mendels findings. And although an understanding of genetics is important when dealing with antibiotic resistance, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species by natural selection is not. The Big Lie. Darwin's theory is Random Mutation + Natural Selection. Mendel's work showed how Random Mutation actually happens and what it was. Both theories complement each other nicely and the fusion of them makes up the modern theory of evolution. The scientists and MDs who deal with the evolution of drug resistance all call it The Evolution of drug resistance.

Wells is just lying for ~~Jesus~~ The Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

slang · 3 March 2008

David B. Benson: A reminder that stupid people often overrate their intelligence...

Another instance of biology overlapping IT issues. Users overrating their own intelligence and/or knowledge is an often reoccurring issue when working in any kind of computer support. The knowledge/intelligence combo is *just* high enough to enable them to think of solutions, but not quite high enough to anticipate possible repercussions of their "think for yourself" attitudes. And others get to clean up the mess. *sighs*

Stanton · 3 March 2008

Actually, Raven, you're wrong: Mendellian genetics concerns itself only with the inheritance of traits, and the frequency of the appearance of inherited traits, and not with mutations.

Incorygible · 3 March 2008

Will,

Don't be fooled by the big numbers, the lack of anything resembling an actual evolutionary process, or the ridiculous assumptions pulled out of your friend's nether orifice.

Just use his exact argument to "proove" that his parents didn't give birth to him. After all, given the number of possible gametic combinations, it is overwhelmingly improbable that his parents created him, even if they were constantly going at it and he was one of two dozen children/replications ('hopeful' odds, in his laughable jargon). Ergo, he must have *poofed* into existence without any common descent from mom and dad.

George · 3 March 2008

Did the bacteria go thru a major body plan change? Of course evolution happens and bacteria can go thru minor changes but Darwinism is the theory that a fish can turn into a cow. That study just showed that bacteria can change slightly.

Are you really too stupid to see that?

slang · 3 March 2008

Will: To make the odds more conservative (and easier to work with) he simply reduces the number to 10 to the 6,000,000th power. He says that this not only makes the "odds" he refers to more hopeful then they really are but that it also compensates for the fact that there are trillions and trillions of combinations for humans that could arise.

I'm not to sure about those numbers, but whenever such an 'odds' number is being called, it almost always disregards the fact that those mutations need not happen to one single line of mommy/daddy->kids line. It can happen in any member of a certain species, and species have LOTS of members. The number of bacteria of one single species in a ton of soil is staggering. It may even happen more than once until it reaches the point where it will be selected upon. At least that's my layman understanding of the process.

Incorygible · 3 March 2008

George,

Following your astute advice, I "went to wiki to look up the difference [between Darwinism and Evolution]". Can you show me the part about the fish and the cow? Apparently, not only am I "too stupid to see it", but so is my browser's search function.

I did find this, however:

"The term Darwinism is often used in the USA by promoters of creationism to describe evolution, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement."

George · 3 March 2008

You do not think cows came from fish??

If you really can read the wiki article on Darwinism and realize that it is not the same thing as evolution then there is no way for you to understand these things

Incorygible · 3 March 2008

George: "You do not think that cows came from fish??"

Oh, it's worse than that, my friend. I think that cows ARE fish (phyletically speaking, of course). However, I can also say that "a fish" never turned into "a cow". What a paradox, huh? But then again, as a whichamacallit -- oh yeah, an evolutionary biologist -- there's really no way for me to understand these things, eh George? Moo.

George · 3 March 2008

Cows are fish? interesting. and you cannot see how Darwinism is not the same thing as evolution?

What does an 'evolutionary biologist' do? You do not sound very bright.

MememicBottleneck · 3 March 2008

You do not think cows came from fish??

No, George, cows come from cows. The first animals that could be called a modern cow, came from a population of "almost cows" that "went through minor changes" over a long period of time. Evolution is not a step process, nothing (except hybridized plants and rarely cross bred animals) changes significantly from one generation to the next, but change it does. It took minor changes accumulated over millions of generations and hundreds of millions of years to go from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to cow. Are you really too stupid to see that?

raven · 3 March 2008

George lying and being stupid: Did the bacteria go thru a major body plan change? Of course evolution happens and bacteria can go thru minor changes but Darwinism is the theory that a fish can turn into a cow. That study just showed that bacteria can change slightly. Are you really too stupid to see that?

Darwinism is not the theory that a fish can turn into a cow. George, your lies are a century out of date. For an example of what the modern TOE is, based on extensions of Darwin's theory, reread the wikipedia definition posted below. You are apparently too stupid to realize that the wikipedia entry on evolution is the modern formulation of Darwin's theory. The modern theory of evolution is very broad. It covers everything from changes in a population's phenotype to the origins of new species. Evolution would say that the fish and cow share a common ancestor. Which they do. There is a recent thread on exactly this finding on PT a day or two ago.

wikipedia evolution: In biology, evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These changes cause populations of organisms to alter over time. Inherited traits come from the genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Kevin B · 3 March 2008

Will: Hi, I'm somewhat new to this whole design debate, and have been in a few verbal debates with a classmate on this issue. He brought up what he felt was a huge problem for evolution that I honestly cannot find an answer to. I sense that there might be something fallacious in his reasoning, I do know for sure that this is AT BEST negative evidence for evolution and NOT PROOF OF GOD. But I was just wondering if there was any truth to what he was saying.

Hi, I'm not an expert on this either, but your classmate is just playing games with big numbers. The simple put-down is to observe that since there are humans, any probability calculation that doesn't come out as an absolute certainty has to be wrong. (This argument is, of course, as bogus as your classmate's!) What is far more to the point is that the argument you have describe is all to do with random numbers. Evolution is really about "random". For DNA to pass from generation to generation it has to describe a more-or-less functional organism to pass it on. This means that your classmate has to estimate not the total number of permutations of base pairs, but the number of viable base pairs, and since the length of the genome has evolved as well, he will need correct for that as well all the way back to before the Precambrian. This will be problematic, as DNA doesn't fossilise, so science can only guess. Don't let your classmate attempt to force you onto the defensive - it is his argument, and he has to justify his figures. And keep telling him that the scientific evidence of common descent is strongly supportive of the validity of the Theory of Evolution. No matter how high he can fiddle the odds, any result that merely says that evolution is highly improbable is insufficient; improbable is not impossible. You might also quote John 24, verses 24-31, at him. This is the Doubting Thomas episode - it ought to be uncomfortable reading for any Biblical Literalist whose faith is so insecure that they have to pervert science in order to prove to themselves that God exists.

George · 3 March 2008

So animals went from a 2 chambered heart to a 3 gradually like:

2.1 to 2.2 to 2.3 etc

hahahaha!

you make me laff!

George · 3 March 2008

Kevin B:
Will: Hi, I'm somewhat new to this whole design debate, and have been in a few verbal debates with a classmate on this issue. He brought up what he felt was a huge problem for evolution that I honestly cannot find an answer to. I sense that there might be something fallacious in his reasoning, I do know for sure that this is AT BEST negative evidence for evolution and NOT PROOF OF GOD. But I was just wondering if there was any truth to what he was saying.
Hi, I'm not an expert on this either, but your classmate is just playing games with big numbers. The simple put-down is to observe that since there are humans, any probability calculation that doesn't come out as an absolute certainty has to be wrong. (This argument is, of course, as bogus as your classmate's!) What is far more to the point is that the argument you have describe is all to do with random numbers. Evolution is really about "random". For DNA to pass from generation to generation it has to describe a more-or-less functional organism to pass it on. This means that your classmate has to estimate not the total number of permutations of base pairs, but the number of viable base pairs, and since the length of the genome has evolved as well, he will need correct for that as well all the way back to before the Precambrian. This will be problematic, as DNA doesn't fossilise, so science can only guess. Don't let your classmate attempt to force you onto the defensive - it is his argument, and he has to justify his figures. And keep telling him that the scientific evidence of common descent is strongly supportive of the validity of the Theory of Evolution. No matter how high he can fiddle the odds, any result that merely says that evolution is highly improbable is insufficient; improbable is not impossible. You might also quote John 24, verses 24-31, at him. This is the Doubting Thomas episode - it ought to be uncomfortable reading for any Biblical Literalist whose faith is so insecure that they have to pervert science in order to prove to themselves that God exists.

Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes

MememicBottleneck · 3 March 2008

So animals went from a 2 chambered heart to a 3 gradually like: 2.1 to 2.2 to 2.3 etc hahahaha! you make me laff!

Every animal (including you) born goes through this gradually. In it's early stages, a mammalian fetus starts out with a single chamber, then partitions grow to form the atria and the ventricals. All the while, it never ceases to beat. Are you really too stupid to see this?

Bill Gascoyne · 3 March 2008

Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes
— George

Excellent suggestion, George, Will should go just 10 articles back on this very blog to see a full discussion of why Haldane's Dilemma (spell check, George) doesn't mean what you think it means.

raven · 3 March 2008

George being stupid: Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes

We have sequenced several human genomes. The differences between 2 humans can be as much as 15 million base pairs. We also know that all humans share a common ancestor relatively recently. That is 15 million mutations in a short period of time biologically speaking. The issue is moot anyway. Mutations are not rate limiting in evolution, selection pressure is. Hey George. You have to be either very old or a junior high dropout. Or both. Which is it?

Stanton · 3 March 2008

George: Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes

Please explain why 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not "fast enough to account for large body plan changes."

George · 3 March 2008

MememicBottleneck:
So animals went from a 2 chambered heart to a 3 gradually like: 2.1 to 2.2 to 2.3 etc hahahaha! you make me laff!
Every animal (including you) born goes through this gradually. In it's early stages, a mammalian fetus starts out with a single chamber, then partitions grow to form the atria and the ventricals. All the while, it never ceases to beat. Are you really too stupid to see this?

And of course while it is doing all this progression the fetus is running from predators and supplying blood to its muscles????? Sure it can do it when its blood supply comes from another source. Are you too stupid to understand that it is not an analogous situation? So a 2.1 chamber is a survival advantage over a 2.2. Yes that 2.2 will outsurvive all the 2.1s hahaha you make me laff!

Antiquated Tory · 3 March 2008

George,
You are an utter ignoramus and you are making a jackass of yourself. For your own sake, please go away, maybe do a little nominal reading on a subject. Or would that take away your rustic superiority with which you reckon to demolish "book learnin" with a sentence or two?

George · 3 March 2008

Stanton:
George: Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes
Please explain why 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not "fast enough to account for large body plan changes."

A cow evolved into a whale in 3.5 billions years. You must be a JH drop out or senile?

Bill Gascoyne · 3 March 2008

And BTW George, we're actually "stupid" enough to think that we and our descendants just might be around long enough that someday our great^n grandkids might build on our understanding so much that they might actually understand the way biology really works, and they won't be so scared of that process that they throw up their hands and say "goddidit."

george · 3 March 2008

Antiquated Tory: George, You are an utter ignoramus and you are making a jackass of yourself. For your own sake, please go away, maybe do a little nominal reading on a subject. Or would that take away your rustic superiority with which you reckon to demolish "book learnin" with a sentence or two?

And you are a complete moron. Tell me how a 2.1 chambered heart is an advantage. And the animal fends off its predators while it runs around with half an extra chamber? hahaha you make me laff!

George · 3 March 2008

Bill Gascoyne: And BTW George, we're actually "stupid" enough to think that we and our descendants just might be around long enough that someday our great^n grandkids might build on our understanding so much that they might actually understand the way biology really works, and they won't be so scared of that process that they throw up their hands and say "goddidit."

Well looking at reality might be the way to get more knowledge instead of throwing up your hands and saying "time" did it hey explain that 2.1 chambered heart advantage to me!

Frank J · 3 March 2008

How can all of you lie like that. He said that Darwinism is not an important concept in bacteria resistance not ‘Evolution’.
— George

It's not a lie, because it's intended for an audience that's aware of anti-evolution activists' tactical use of the word "Darwinism." If not in that particular article, activists like Wells - even Behe who unlike Wells plainly admits common descent - constantly say that evolution can't do this or that. Of course, they refuse to say what can, or even plainly state what happened and when, that falls beyond the "edge of evolution" (to use the title of Behe's latest pseudoscience book).

George · 3 March 2008

George:
MememicBottleneck:
So animals went from a 2 chambered heart to a 3 gradually like: 2.1 to 2.2 to 2.3 etc hahahaha! you make me laff!
Every animal (including you) born goes through this gradually. In it's early stages, a mammalian fetus starts out with a single chamber, then partitions grow to form the atria and the ventricals. All the while, it never ceases to beat. Are you really too stupid to see this?
And of course while it is doing all this progression the fetus is running from predators and supplying blood to its muscles????? Sure it can do it when its blood supply comes from another source. Are you too stupid to understand that it is not an analogous situation? So a 2.1 chamber is a survival advantage over a 2.2. Yes that 2.2 will outsurvive all the 2.1s hahaha you make me laff!

Well admit that was really stupid analogy! Jeez the mother is the one keeping the fetus alive! It could never survive those transitions on its own That was really dumb hahaha!

Bobby · 3 March 2008

you have to wonder just how stupid the Discovery Institute and its Fellows think we are.

He may not think we're stupid at all. He just needs to assume that the typical creationist will be sufficiently uninformed on the topic and/or uncritical of arguments leading to a creationist conclusion, plus unmotivated to correct either of those shortcomings.

Zarquon · 3 March 2008

Oh look, it's the ~~Gish~~ George gallop

George · 3 March 2008

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny

now puhleeeeeezzze

don't tell me you believe that!

(I should not underestimate how unimformed these people are)

Frank J · 3 March 2008

A cow evolved into a whale in 3.5 billions years.
— George

Regardless of what you think evolution or "Darwinism" can accomplish, do you agree with Michael Behe that (1) life on Earth has existed contiuously for about that length of time, and (2) that cows, whales and humans share common ancestors? If you are unsure of either, best guesses will suffice.

Kevin B · 3 March 2008

George: So animals went from a 2 chambered heart to a 3 gradually like: 2.1 to 2.2 to 2.3 etc hahahaha! you make me laff!

We do not appear to have induced any competence in basic biology, nor indeed any proficiency at spelling. If you had bothered to run a Google search on "evolution of the heart" you would quickly have found that the evolution of the two-chamber heart to the four-chamber heart proceeded, (in somewhat over-simplistic terms) by dividing the heart in two by "building a partition down the middle" so that, in the mammals, the double circulation (heart->lung->heart->body) is fully established. Futhermore, in the reptiles this partitioning is incomplete; indeed some reptiles switch between a 3-chambered and a 4-chambered configuration depending on what they are doing. Have you noticed that although the anti-evolutionists would like to be voices crying in the wilderness, when you listen carefully, all you ever hear is the wind mooing?

David B. Benson · 3 March 2008

Bobby --- George certainly is all of that.

raven · 3 March 2008

A recent thread explains how fish fins turned into our arms and legs.

A more dramatic example than hearts and chambers.

It took around 350 million years. We have the fossil sequences that demonstrate it from Devonian lobe finned fish to humans. Almost anyone can see them and understand it.

Almost anyone leaves the Georges of the world out of it. Georges ignorance is just proof that some people can't learn, some won't learn, and some both can't and won't. AKA as "creos".

MememicBottleneck · 3 March 2008

And of course while it is doing all this progression the fetus is running from predators and supplying blood to its muscles????? Sure it can do it when its blood supply comes from another source. Are you too stupid to understand that it is not an analogous situation?

How about a 3.5 or a 3.75 chambered heart? Will that do it for you? Reptiles have the three chambered heart of amphibians, with an incomplete partition between the ventricles. And they are all running around looking for food or avoiding predators. It must be an advantage, because they all have have it. The crocidile is the exception to this. It has a full partition giving it four chambers. Are you too stupid to understand that it IS an analogous situation?

George · 3 March 2008

Kevin B:
George: So animals went from a 2 chambered heart to a 3 gradually like: 2.1 to 2.2 to 2.3 etc hahahaha! you make me laff!
We do not appear to have induced any competence in basic biology, nor indeed any proficiency at spelling. If you had bothered to run a Google search on "evolution of the heart" you would quickly have found that the evolution of the two-chamber heart to the four-chamber heart proceeded, (in somewhat over-simplistic terms) by dividing the heart in two by "building a partition down the middle" so that, in the mammals, the double circulation (heart->lung->heart->body) is fully established. Futhermore, in the reptiles this partitioning is incomplete; indeed some reptiles switch between a 3-chambered and a 4-chambered configuration depending on what they are doing. Have you noticed that although the anti-evolutionists would like to be voices crying in the wilderness, when you listen carefully, all you ever hear is the wind mooing?

What about the arteries? And are you saying that a fetus goes from 1,2,3 to 4 chambers? You are giving up on your ill-thought fetus analogy? you are so funny!

George · 3 March 2008

MememicBottleneck:
And of course while it is doing all this progression the fetus is running from predators and supplying blood to its muscles????? Sure it can do it when its blood supply comes from another source. Are you too stupid to understand that it is not an analogous situation?
How about a 3.5 or a 3.75 chambered heart? Will that do it for you? Reptiles have the three chambered heart of amphibians, with an incomplete partition between the ventricles. And they are all running around looking for food or avoiding predators. It must be an advantage, because they all have have it. The crocidile is the exception to this. It has a full partition giving it four chambers. Are you too stupid to understand that it IS an analogous situation?

Youve given up on the fetus analogy? good it was really dumb its the artery connections that are the problem. go ahead draw it out. look at the structure. dont just believe what everyone tells you . think for your self.

George · 3 March 2008

"It must be an advantage, because they all have have it."

very telling circular reasoning.

hahahahahaha

you dont even see it. dumb!

prof weird · 3 March 2008

Will - What your 'friend' is doing is making the multiple AND error. What he's 'calculated' is the odds of a particular genome sequence falling together all at once PURELY by chance on the first (and only) try. In reality, that is NOT how evolution works. http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html And George ? You're a gibbering idiot. Examination of actual fetal development SHOWS the progression from two chambered heart to a three chambered to a four chambered heart. THAT is what MemeticBottleneck was trying to tell you, but your skull density is so high that inconvenient facts and reality simply bounce off.

Well looking at reality might be the way to get more knowledge instead of throwing up your hands and saying “time” did it

Well, looking at reality IS how everyone else on the planet gained more knowledge. And determined that time PLUS mutations PLUS selection did indeed do it. Unless, of course, you have EVIDENCE that some Unknowable being with Unknowable abilities and Unknowable motives somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason.

hey explain that 2.1 chambered heart advantage to me!

The two chambered heart of fish has one atria feeding into one ventricle; the three chambered heart of amphibians has two atria feeding into one ventricle. The extra atria may be an advantage because it seperated pulmonary from systemic bloodflow - better control. Lungfish also have a three chambered heart (its deeply divided atria could be considered a 2.5 chambered heart, were one slack-witted enough to gibber on about such things ... !) http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookcircSYS.html And your 'explanation' for everything is what again ?

Dave Thomas · 3 March 2008

George, George, George.

Just because you are too stupid to do research on this very question, much less understand how multi-chambered hearts might have evolved in a step-by-step fashion (with every step along the way being a fine'n'dandy "intermediate" that thought it was doing fine living from day to day, having kids, and generally enjoying "the Good Life"), doesn't mean that everyone (especially biologists who study such things for a living) is as feeble-minded as you.

Laugh all you want - but realize that the joke is on you!

Glen Davidson · 3 March 2008

I should perhaps respond again, noting some of the specific problems of this dry calculation by your friend.

The first problem is that he thinks that "a human" is what evolution must produce. That isn't at all the case. Evolution has only to produce a successfully reproducing organism. There are, no doubt, a good many of those possible, as we see in the biological realm.

Secondly, he thinks that a human has to be a specific sequence, rather than a reasonably flexible program of development. Most of the possible mutations are in fact fairly neutral, neither deleterious nor beneficial. So his calculations of (relatively, at least) indifferent substitutions make no sense whatsoever.

Put the first two problems together, and you can already see that it's so much junk calculation. Your friend (assuming it's not you actually) is insisting on a single target out of 3 billion nucleotides, when in fact human variation alone brings down your number substantially (latest numbers are that humans vary by 1%, by itself bringing down his fake numbers down exponentially). As with many other species, it is likely that much of our genome is in fact expendable.

But the biggest problem is what I related previously, there is no evolution going on in that scenario. Effectively it's just an abiogenesis calculation, if the first cell were to be a human cell (an absurdity on all levels). Evolution doesn't begin with 3 billion nucleotides, it almost certainly begins with a number far smaller than those found in the smallest bacterium, less than 160,000 base pairs (that's a parasite, which has fewer than free-living forms can have, but there's reason to believe that free-living organisms not competing with today's life (and living with oxygen) could get by with far fewer than those numbers). Indeed, it may be that early RNA "genomes" could have been a few thousand, or even a few hundred, nucleotides long.

It is virtually certain that human genomes got this long both through addition of junk in various ways, and by the vertebrate line doubling its genome several times. Each doubling allowed for substantial evolutionary possibilities, so that instead of a large genome being a problem for evolution, it in fact provided opportunities for evolution as it increased in size.

But back to the lack of evolution in that scenario. Evolution is not a matter of simply trying over and over to get things right, it is the adaptation of already competent organisms to changing environments, or perhaps simply improving on the organism's own ability to compete in a fairly unchanging environment. A few changes are added at one point, a few at another point, and the whole begins after hundreds of thousands to millions of years to add up to substantial difference from what came previously. It isn't a matter of some useless bunch of DNA undergoing endless mutations to finally become something useful, it is the addition of usefulness to usefulness, that drives evolution.

So again, the biggest problem with the scenario given is that it simply has nothing to do with how evolution operates. It is simply trying to hit the lottery again and again in a virtually impossible-to-hit single combination of nucleotide sequences. That isn't evolution, that's spontaneous generation, and a big reason why we accept evolution instead of the scenario given is precisely that that scenario is in essence impossible.

Evolution, on the other hand, is something that we see happening, and which has evidently occurred, since life bears the predictions of evolution (and not of the scenario given above). Evolution simply requires that relatively likely (according to numbers in the populations, and the time allowed) changes will take place, producing organisms adapted to their environments. It does not have a set goal of nucleotide sequences, nor does it have to reach some impossibly difficult goal by undergoing endless mutational tries. Evolution simply accumulates reasonably likely changes to produce competent organisms, and all of the evidence suggests that humans are the result of these cumulative changes (plus some dramatic chromosomal changes, which are also reasonably likely) who ended up adapted, yet never hit any kind of predetermined and unlikely goal.

Your "friend" assumed two completely unscientific ideas in order to "calculate" evolution's impossibility. One was that life has a telos, a specific sequence of nucleotides in a 3 billion nucleotide collection. The other is that mutations will randomly attempt to achieve this goal over billions of years. The whole point of evolution by natural selection (along with other evolutionary processes) is to avoid randomly attempting a single outcome, or even trying to achieve a set of outcomes.

Evolution can be conceived for our purposes here as being an accumulation (and integration) of relatively likely changes over the course of millions and billions of years. It has no goal, no end, and no attempt to achieve a specified sequence of nucleotides. Evolution is about what works, not about achieving a telos that many fundamentalists smuggle into their calculations, sans legitimation from science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg

raven · 3 March 2008

Looks like George blew out his cerebral cortex. It is OK, he wasn't using it anyway. Or is scouring creo web sites for more lies.

We have a good idea of how fish fins became our arms and legs. A fossil sequence spanning 350 million years. It doesn't require much thought to figure it out, two eyeballs is mostly what is needed. Seeing is believing.

So George we know how fins became limbs. Or do you have another explanation? If so, let's hear it. You can even quote from the bible if you want.

Dan · 3 March 2008

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

It's similar to the sound of George congratulating himself on proving 150 years of science wrong through the two word argument "your dumb".

Glen Davidson · 3 March 2008

I thought that I was quoting Will in my last post, but the quote didn't show up. So anyhow, my point in posting now is to say that it's a response to the scenario that Will brought up (George is too much a meaningless troll to interest me).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg

Bill Gascoyne · 3 March 2008

George: "It must be an advantage, because they all have have it." very telling circular reasoning. hahahahahaha you dont even see it. dumb!

Oh, wait, let me guess at what the "correct" reasoning must be: "They all have it, and I can't see any advantage, therefore God must be playing a joke, or testing our faith, or making a mystery that we have no hope of ever understanding so why bother?"

Richard Simons · 3 March 2008

Tell me how a 2.1 chambered heart is an advantage. And the animal fends off its predators while it runs around with half an extra chamber?

I suspect that many creationists/IDers have similarly bizarre ideas of evolution and intermediate forms, in this case that a new chamber grows on the side of the existing heart. From what I read of his comments, it seems it never penetrated his mind that an existing chamber changes into two by developing a partition down the middle and that any partition, no matter how slight, will be better than no partition at all. His notion of how we consider it possible for "a fish to turn into a cow", to use his words, is probably equally batty yet, as it's not crossed his mind that he has the wrong idea, as far as he is concerned he is quite justified in thinking that we are all crazy.

Stanton · 3 March 2008

George:
Stanton:
George: Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes
Please explain why 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not "fast enough to account for large body plan changes."
A cow evolved into a whale in 3.5 billions years. You must be a JH drop out or senile?

Bacteria evolved into whales and cows and all other multicellular life as we know it in the space of 3.5 billion years. Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Either you have reading comprehension skills below that of a kindergartener, or you are an especially stupid troll with sub-par social skills.

Stanton · 3 March 2008

Bobby:
you have to wonder just how stupid the Discovery Institute and its Fellows think we are.
He may not think we're stupid at all. He just needs to assume that the typical creationist will be sufficiently uninformed on the topic and/or uncritical of arguments leading to a creationist conclusion, plus unmotivated to correct either of those shortcomings.

A great example is our current troll, George.

Wolfhound · 3 March 2008

I'm afraid I have to call Poe on George. He is WAY too much of a cartoon creotard to be for real.

Just sayin'...

Ian Musgrave · 3 March 2008

Could people please stop feeding the troll.

Alan R. · 3 March 2008

Will,
Assume that "all dice being a "Six" = human. Ask your friend to calculate the odds of throwing 3 billion dice and having them all come up "Six". Now assume you can re-throw an dice that was not a "Six" (Random Mutation & Natural Selection) Within a few dozen throws (Evolution), you will be within the acceptable tolerances of "human".

Dale Husband · 3 March 2008

Just because you can't understand how evolution works, or how evolution applies to experimentation, does not justify dismissing it. People like Johnathan Wells and our resident troll "George", make total fools of themselves when they display publicly their own ignorance!

stevaroni · 4 March 2008

Will asks; Hi, I’m somewhat new to this whole design debate, and have been in a few verbal debates with a classmate on this issue .... I was just wondering if there was any truth to what he was saying.

Ahhh, one of our favorite topics here on PT, questionable math Your friend is playing fast and loose with his assumptions, a common and time-tested tactic with the creationist posse (ask us about Bill Dembski or the Second law of Thermodynamics some day) This often works on an audience that's impressed by big numbers but not well versed in statistics or information theory, which, I suppose it its intent. But anyway, to answer your question... First of all, just because the odds are long doesn't always mean that the odds really mean anything. Pull three bills out of your wallet. Write down the serial numbers and you get an alphanumeric string thirty characters long. The odds of you having this particular string in your pocket today are something like 10x36^30. A little quick math shows that if every single one of the people on earth ( 6 billion + ) generated a random 30 digit string once a second it will still take more than the age of the earth ( 4 billion years ) to hit your combination. And yet you do have this very string in your pocket. The reason, of course, is that there's nothing special about that particular string. You're going have some string, and really, any one would do so long as it was on dollar bills. The human genome is like that. The odds of us evolving with this genome are infinitesimally small, but the odds of some form of life evolving with some effective genome are, well, apparently unity. Also, both currency serial numbers and genes have some basic rules (bills seem to start and end with a letter – There, I just cut the odds by a factor of 8. Likewise, only about 70% of possible codons seem to actually be valid). Secondly, the number “3 billion nucleotides” should not be conflated to mean “a 3 billion line program”. Our genomes don't work that way. Instead of one big, long, complicated program, they're more like millions of tiny 50 line programs, all executing in parallel. The average protein is coded by maybe 100 base pairs, with a very few outliers (like meyelin) that go up to a few thousand. The latest guess is that we seem to have (many copies of) about 22,000 discrete protein coding genes. That 3 billion bit genome is more like a 3 gigabit harddrive that's full of millions of copies of small files, endlessly duplicated over and over again for billions of years by any buggy program that wanted to write to the drive, and nobody has ever run a disk cleanup. To torture the metaphor even more, most of the stuff on the drive isn't even working files, It's full of broken clusters and previous versions of text documents, useless device drivers for hardware that doesn't run anymore, and old files left over from Version 1.0 that can't even be accessed. Some estimates are that 80% of it is simply meaningless junk. (and a good thing too, if you've got multiple copies of small programs all running in parallel, it doesn't usually hurt if one mutates in a dis-advantageous way. if, on the other hand, you have a single huge program, you can often crash it all by breaking one wrong line of code.) Lastly, who says evolution is random? Mutation is random. Evolution occurs within the feedback loop of natural selection. Mother nature is not neutral. She generously rewards better designs and punishes worse ones. Those creatures with superior abilities to cope with their environments live to breed, thereby passing on those genes. Those less well suited get culled by a variety of mechanisms, often involving teeth, or, from evolutions point of view, the even worse fate of simply not being attractive enough to get laid. In this way, Mother nature doesn't need a designer, she already runs the biggest product testing lab of all time. By actively selecting the best fit, the feedback loop of natural selection dramatically reduces the number of iterations needed to get an acceptable result. In many ways this is similar to the child's word game “hangman”. Having some information about the suitability of parts of the answer enables players to zero in on a solution much more effectively than random chance (which, even with the smallest word, would still take hours).

stevaroni · 4 March 2008

Um, oopsie...

Should be 36 x 10^30

not 10 x 36^30.

Oddly, considering I deal with numbers all day long, I'm still kind of dyslexic with them whenever I have to type them out.

So there the odds just got that much better.

Nigel D · 4 March 2008

I'm late to the party again, but here's my twopennorth...

Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes
— George

This is patently nonsense, George. I can name a single mutation that causes dramatic body plan changes: Cdx2 -/- homozygote If you knock out both copies of a mouse's Cdx gene, the mutation is embryonic lethal. You can't get a bigger change in body plan than one that kills the organism during its development. If you knock out one of the two copies of a mouse's Cdx2 gene (i.e. Cdx2 +/- heterozygote), the resultant mouse has all of its vertebral morphology shifted. Thus, C1 is fused to the skull; C2 has mostly C1 morphology; C3 has mostly C2 morphology. Similarly, T1 has no ribs fused to it; instead its morphololgy is more like that of C7, and the first pair of ribs is "floating". This dramatic change in morphology is brought about by the loss of only one of two copies of the Cdx2 gene. Similar massive changes can be brought about by the loss of any Hox gene. And a gene can be knocked out by a single event - an insertion or deletion that causes a frame-shift mutation, for example. Incidentally, Haldane's dilemma is a fiction propagated by the creationists. Have a look through the archives on PT.

Nigel D · 4 March 2008

Could people please stop feeding the troll.
— Ian Musgrave

Oops. Wilco.

Rolf Aalberg · 4 March 2008

Well admit that was really stupid analogy! Jeez the mother is the one keeping the fetus alive! It could never survive those transitions on its own

I am not a scientist either, but it seems to me that the foetus actually IS doing the development from zygote to complete all by itself. All the mother does is just to provide shelter and nourishment. But all the rest is the work of the embryo's own cells and its DNA. Even born, living and breathing creatures are incapable of keeping themselves alive without a suitable environment and food. Right?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 4 March 2008

Of course evolution happens and bacteria can go thru minor changes but Darwinism is the theory that a fish can turn into a cow. That study just showed that bacteria can change slightly. Are you really too stupid to see that?

The process of evolution shows both small and accumulated (large) changes. Of course the biological theory predicts both. Are you really too stupid to see that? Perhaps you are trying to imply that the theory is wrong. But 99.99 % of the relevant scientists, the biologists, have accepted the theory as it has underwent 150 years of testing. (The DI list of mostly irrelevant non-biologist dissenters confirms this number splendidly.) Guess what, as this means less than 3 sigma uncertainty on a random sample, I will rough it off and claim that all biologists accept this fundamental part of biology. Are you really too stupid to see that?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 4 March 2008

Could people please stop feeding the troll.

Oops, missed that. Sorry.

Haldane’s Dilemma

Speaking of feeding the food frenzy, this discussion and its references seems to imply that it is a creationist misnomer? It was a term not used by scientists as the model was quickly overrun by perspectives from other research? If that is the case it is very much like replacing published "interlocking complexity" with the creationist "irreducible complexity" for the same concept. Shouldn't we, say as in the more or less informed public, try to impose the correct terminology in such cases? With a little help from our biologist friends to put us right, that is.

Frank J · 4 March 2008

Could people please stop feeding the troll.
— Ian Musgrave

Thanks to this rather inconvenient thing called sleep, you beat me to it. Really, people, if they can't answer a few simple questions about what they think happens instead of evolution, it's time to ignore them. Lurkers can learn about evolution and how it's misrepresented in 1000 other places. I confess that sometimes I even root for the troll: "Cool, he got someone to say 'Jebus'."

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 4 March 2008

But that’s just a hypothetical situation, nothing that biology relies upon, certainly not at this point (well, there was one paper that brought up the multiverse re abiogenesis, hardly making this a trend in biology).

Supportive for this argument, if it refers to Koonin's Biological Big Bang model and its related abiogenesis paper, Koonin is IMHO misunderstanding physicists discussions on cosmology. Reposting part of my earlier comments:

The weak anthropic principle is used to predict likely values (conditional on the weak anthropic principle), successfully so for the cosmological constant and a few other parameters as of yet. It is not preferred as an open unfalsifiable “just so” description for finetunings or other low likelihood scenarios, as Koonin seems to propose.

Koonin is in reality relying on the (presumed and now verified) large number of planets in the observable universe: "That this extremely rare event occurred on earth and gave rise to life as we know it is explained by anthropic selection alone." Rare, not likely, Mr Koonin. [My own layman idea is that abiogenesis was so fast after the late heavy bombardment that it is a rather likely phenomena. The problem is then to understand why, of course.]

Ian · 4 March 2008

Hey George, now you've proven you can make idiotic and juvenile comments, why not demonstrate that you can make a grown-up, intelligent one?

Evolutionists have assembled ~150 years' worth of positive science supporting the Theory of Evolution. So what positive peer-reviewed science do you have supporting your position? Wait a minute, let me turn the volume down here so the sound of crickets chirping doesn't deafen me....

Nigel D · 4 March 2008

Hi, I’m somewhat new to this whole design debate, and have been in a few verbal debates with a classmate on this issue. He brought up what he felt was a huge problem for evolution that I honestly cannot find an answer to. After reading Ian Musgrave’s article on origin’s of life probability, I am convinced that he may be the person to go to for an answer, so if you or anyone on here can give me a rebuttal that I can use, I would greatly appreciate it. Your article on talk origins was an article that put the cdesign guy I keep arguing with at rest. But here’s what he keeps bringing up as an argument to say that literally anything that I try to explain by evolution couldn’t have evolved at all. It’s hard to sum up in a few words but it’s got everything to do with genetic information.
— Will

OK, first of all, you need to point out that going into probability calculations with respect to "genetic information" is very close to following Dembski's arguments, all of which have been thoroughly and decisively refuted. (Go and have a browse at Talk Origins and Talk Reason for more info here.) Fundamentally, evolutionary theory does not need these calculations, because it is, at its core, a relatively simple set of ideas. It is only that the evidence supporting it is rather involved that may make it hard to grasp initially.

First, he starts off by pointing out that the human genome has 3 billion base pairs, and then he insists that there are only 2 possible base pairs that consist of the 4 nucleotides (I don’t know if that’s quite right, I think there might be more then 2 kinds of base pairs, but I’m no scientist) in DNA.

Well, he is failing to distinguish between the sense and antisense strands (DNA is an anti-parallel double helix, i.e. the molecule comprises two linear polymers of nucleotides that bind together in the shape of a helix and run in opposite directions). However, this is irrelevant to his calculations.

He then goes on to say that since there are 2 options (base pairs) for 3 billion locations in the genome, that there is therefore 2 to the 3 billionth power number of combinations for the genome. To make the odds more conservative (and easier to work with) he simply reduces the number to 10 to the 6,000,000th power. He says that this not only makes the “odds” he refers to more hopeful then they really are but that it also compensates for the fact that there are trillions and trillions of combinations for humans that could arise.

The key question here is in several parts: (1) What are the "odds" of?
(2) Why does he give equal weight to all locations?
(3) How does he relate his caluclation of odds to what is known to occur in reality? Incidentally, 10^6,000,000 is a truly vast number, significantly larger than a googol (but nowhere near as large as a googolplex).

The last thing he does with this number is bring up a scenario where say you have 100 mutations happen per living organism that are useful,

That is very difficult. How do you define "useful"? A mutation that has an impact on the organism's morphology / behaviour / metabolism / whatever can have several consequences. The mutation can allow it to compete more effectively with other members of its species (whether in finding food, deriving energy / nutrients from food, evading predators, finding mates or whatever). It could inhibit its ability to compete with other members of its species. However, when considering complex multicellular organisms, it could also have no immediate consequence, but could instead allow the organism to cope better with a change in the environment (e.g. drought resistance in plants - most of the time there is no difference. Then, in a particularly dry year, organisms with this mutation suddenly have an advantage). Then, the consequence of the mutation could be to have both an adantage and a disadvantage (as is the case with sickle-cell anaemia), in the which case whether the mutation is useful or not depends very strongly on the exact environmental conditions. So it is very difficult to say that a specific mutation is "useful" or not. And, consequently, it is meaningless to speculate about how many "useful" mutations an organism may possess.

add information to the genome,

What is meant here by "information"? As observed by Dawkins, mutation does not generate information. Selection instead generates information - it is the process by which environmental information is fed back into the genome.

don’t occur in the junk DNA region, etc (he insists he’s trying to be “hopeful”).

Well, then he should try to understand what "junk DNA" really is. It has long been suspected (by evolutionary biologists) that non-coding DNA serves a purpose. Recently, it has been discovered that about 5 % of the non-coding DNA does serve a function (although I cannot recall the article that discusses this, it was blogged in PT a few months ago).

Then he assumes that there are a trillion trillion trials (10 to the 24th)of those mutations occurring that happen every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every year, for the 3.5 billion years that life has been on earth. The resulting number that he gets (and that I’ve gotten when doing the same thing) is never any more then 10 to the 45th power (it’s just over 10 to the 43rd to be exact).

He has been deluded into thinking that this is relevant.

The final step he takes is subtract that number from the original 10 to the 6 millionth to compensate for an “unrealistically high amount of trials” (thus concluding with 10 to the 5,999,955th) and then says that because of the odds, even under highly unrealistic circumstances you will never get the genetic information required to “code” for a human, or possibly anything.

What he fails to account for, and this is a real whopper, is that his calculations assume that a human being will arise spontaneously from some random string of DNA. This is the same fallacy as one of those in the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. The assumption that something has to occur all at once. Rather, what occurs is small changes, that are selected and thus retained. So, deleterious mutations are rapidly selected out, whereas mutations that are neutral or beneficial are retained. Changing environment operates on this inherent variation to select organisms that best fit the new conditions. Additionally, he fails to account for several other factors:
(1) How many possible mutations there are that simply work. E.g., out of all possible proteins, how many millions or billions or trillions will perform a certain function?
(2) These post-hoc probabilistic calculations assume a purely random process. Natural selection is deterministic (in terms of the pertinent environmental factors determining which genotypes are more or less succesful). Remember that all mutations start from something that works. For a mutation to persist it must be either neutral or beneficial - deleterious mutations tend to be eliminated from the population at a rate determined by the intensity of the selection pressure (except for recessive mutations).
(3) The various mechanisms by which genes can change. His premise is that the genome contains 3 billion base pairs, but our most distant ancestors had significantly smaller genomes. Duplication events during DNA replication or chromosomal recombination can have a dramatic impact on the size of the genome. Duplication of a gene leads to the absence of selection pressure on one copy of that gene. Duplication of non-coding DNA will have little discernible impact. Recall that the size of a genome bears little relationship to the complexity of the organism (just look at the onion family to understand this point).
(4) Evolvability. Some sections of DNA are more liable to change than others. Evidence is growing that evolvability is itself a selectable trait. Thus, different genes (or non-coding regions) may evolve at different rates.
(5) He assumes that all 3 billion base pairs are relevant, whereas in fact most of the human genome (perhaps 90 - 95 % of the non-coding regions) could have any sequence and still perform its function.

I sense that there might be something fallacious in his reasoning,

You were right to do so.

I do know for sure that this is AT BEST negative evidence for evolution and NOT PROOF OF GOD.

While this is true, I am not sure how relevant it is. Evolutionary theory, even if it is flawed, is at the very least a close approximation of reality. It has been tested too often and passed with flying colours too often for us to have any reasonable expectation that a significantly better theory exists to explain biological change. Reality is what it is. Evolution is the only explanation for the diversity and similarities we see in the biological world.

george · 4 March 2008

prof weird: Will - What your 'friend' is doing is making the multiple AND error. What he's 'calculated' is the odds of a particular genome sequence falling together all at once PURELY by chance on the first (and only) try. In reality, that is NOT how evolution works. http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html And George ? You're a gibbering idiot. Examination of actual fetal development SHOWS the progression from two chambered heart to a three chambered to a four chambered heart. THAT is what MemeticBottleneck was trying to tell you, but your skull density is so high that inconvenient facts and reality simply bounce off.
Well looking at reality might be the way to get more knowledge instead of throwing up your hands and saying “time” did it
Well, looking at reality IS how everyone else on the planet gained more knowledge. And determined that time PLUS mutations PLUS selection did indeed do it. Unless, of course, you have EVIDENCE that some Unknowable being with Unknowable abilities and Unknowable motives somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason.
hey explain that 2.1 chambered heart advantage to me!
The two chambered heart of fish has one atria feeding into one ventricle; the three chambered heart of amphibians has two atria feeding into one ventricle. The extra atria may be an advantage because it seperated pulmonary from systemic bloodflow - better control. Lungfish also have a three chambered heart (its deeply divided atria could be considered a 2.5 chambered heart, were one slack-witted enough to gibber on about such things ... !) http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookcircSYS.html And your 'explanation' for everything is what again ?

"because it seperated pulmonary from systemic bloodflow - better control." and this happened gradually? the plumbing was changing while the animal is fighting off predators? sorry: fairy tale

Stanton:
George:
Stanton:
George: Will look up Haldanes Dilemna. The fact is that mutations cannot happen fast enough to account for large body plan changes
Please explain why 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not "fast enough to account for large body plan changes."
A cow evolved into a whale in 3.5 billions years. You must be a JH drop out or senile?
Bacteria evolved into whales and cows and all other multicellular life as we know it in the space of 3.5 billion years. Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Either you have reading comprehension skills below that of a kindergartener, or you are an especially stupid troll with sub-par social skills.

You were the one that said it took 3.5 million years for a fish to evolve into a cow. I know the theory says more like 100 million. And you are a very ignorant troll who has very bad reading skills

george · 4 March 2008

"It has been tested too often and passed with flying colours too often for us to have any reasonable expectation that a significantly better theory exists to explain biological change."

It has never been tested. show me!

george · 4 March 2008

Bill Gascoyne:
George: "It must be an advantage, because they all have have it." very telling circular reasoning. hahahahahaha you dont even see it. dumb!
Oh, wait, let me guess at what the "correct" reasoning must be: "They all have it, and I can't see any advantage, therefore God must be playing a joke, or testing our faith, or making a mystery that we have no hope of ever understanding so why bother?"

no dummy, you see something that is different and assume it is an advantage. thats not the way science works. you are basing your assumption on your theory. you really cant see that?

george · 4 March 2008

As anyone can plainly see here the Darwinists are empty handed.

And when their logic fall apart they resort to insults and calling people trolls.

This is all they got.

Ron Okimoto · 4 March 2008

The purpose of Wellsian creationist propaganda is not to stand up to scrutiny, but to fool the rubes. Anyone could cross check his assertions, but how many rubes that want to believe it will check? This is just another example of stupid arguments of the moment. They aren't supposed to do anything but fool the ignorant. The sad thing is how long these types of arguments get kicked around when a little research would demonstrate them to be bogus.

Stephen Wells · 4 March 2008

Reality says that creatures can, and do, run around with a 3.5-chambered heart, and George says they can't. Does anyone have a billy-goat to deal with out troll problem?

OT but fantastic: watched the last episode of David Attenborough's "Life in Cold Blood" last night. There was a sequence on the mating of sea turtles which blew my mind- they mate underwater, the male clinging to the female's shell, while a gathering horde of rival males bite at his neck and flippers to try to dislodge him! Imagine the most impressively realised sci-fi space battle ever filmed, and now imagine that it's happening for real right in front of you.

David Stanton · 4 March 2008

George wrote:

"It has never been tested. show me!"

Yea, that's right George, the most explanatory and predictive theory ever developed, to which literally millions of technical journal articles have been devoted, the theory that persuaded all reluctant scientists of every religious persuasion, the central concept of all modern biology has never been tested! All of us atheistic evolutionary biologists just believe it so that we can rape and sodomize without fear of consequences. Brilliant reasoning.

I just know I'm going to regret this, but this dolt has already hijacked this thread beyond repair. OK George, here goes.

Where did Cetaceans come from? Did God just poof them into existence? Evolutionary theory predicted that they came from terrestrial ancestors. All of the palentological, developmental and genetic evidence supports this view. When a theory allows one to make predictions, it can be tested. That's how all of science works. In this case, SINE insertions have been discovered that are shared between Cetaceans and Artiodactyls, in particular the hippopotamus. SINES represent retroviral transposition events. These characters are perfect for phylogenetic analysis since they are rare and irreversible and persist through speciation events.

So George, here we have solid evidence not only that the theory of evolution was tested, but that it passed with flying colors. Of course, this is only my favorite example, thousands of others are freely available to anyone who wants to learn. I'm sure that if anyone is not fed up with your nonsense yet that they will post their favorite examples as well. As for the - what good is the half a heart - nonsense you were selling, I guess the question now becomes what good is one third of a brain? It can only be used to ridicule those who have real knowledge without providing any alternative explanations. By the way, what test has your GODDIDIT hypothesis passed? Does it even make any predictions?

For anyone who is interested, the whale story is well documented on the talkorigins web site. The SINE insertions are described in the articles on plagarized errors in the molecular genetics section. I have yet to see any creationist who has a good answer for this evidence.

george · 4 March 2008

David Stanton: George wrote: "It has never been tested. show me!" Yea, that's right George, the most explanatory and predictive theory ever developed, to which literally millions of technical journal articles have been devoted, <<< show me just one that proves Darwinism! the theory that persuaded all reluctant scientists of every religious persuasion, the central concept of all modern biology has never been tested! All of us atheistic evolutionary biologists just believe it so that we can rape and sodomize without fear of consequences. Brilliant reasoning. <<< could care less if you are an atheist. its your being dumb and unscientific that bothers me I just know I'm going to regret this, but this dolt has already hijacked this thread beyond repair. OK George, here goes. Where did Cetaceans come from? Did God just poof them into existence? <<<< can you please leave the concept 'God' out of this. it is not scientifically defineable and should not be used in a scientific debate Evolutionary theory predicted that they came from terrestrial ancestors. All of the palentological, developmental and genetic evidence supports this view. <<<< what evidence? again show it to me When a theory allows one to make predictions, it can be tested. <<<< I think actually proof of null hypothesis is actually more effective. go ahead show me. That's how all of science works. In this case, SINE insertions have been discovered that are shared between Cetaceans and Artiodactyls, in particular the hippopotamus. SINES represent retroviral transposition events. These characters are perfect for phylogenetic analysis since they are rare and irreversible and persist through speciation events. <<<<< SINEs do not prove common descent So George, here we have solid evidence not only that the theory of evolution was tested, but that it passed with flying colors. Of course, this is only my favorite example, thousands of others are freely available to anyone who wants to learn. I'm sure that if anyone is not fed up with your nonsense yet that they will post their favorite examples as well. As for the - what good is the half a heart - nonsense you were selling, I guess the question now becomes what good is one third of a brain? It can only be used to ridicule those who have real knowledge without providing any alternative explanations. By the way, what test has your GODDIDIT hypothesis passed? Does it even make any predictions? For anyone who is interested, the whale story is well documented on the talkorigins web site. The SINE insertions are described in the articles on plagarized errors in the molecular genetics section. I have yet to see any creationist who has a good answer for this evidence.

george · 4 March 2008

David Stanton: George wrote: "It has never been tested. show me!" Yea, that's right George, the most explanatory and predictive theory ever developed, to which literally millions of technical journal articles have been devoted, <<< show me just one that proves Darwinism! the theory that persuaded all reluctant scientists of every religious persuasion, the central concept of all modern biology has never been tested! All of us atheistic evolutionary biologists just believe it so that we can rape and sodomize without fear of consequences. Brilliant reasoning. <<< could care less if you are an atheist. its your being dumb and unscientific that bothers me I just know I'm going to regret this, but this dolt has already hijacked this thread beyond repair. OK George, here goes. Where did Cetaceans come from? Did God just poof them into existence? <<<< can you please leave the concept 'God' out of this. it is not scientifically defineable and should not be used in a scientific debate Evolutionary theory predicted that they came from terrestrial ancestors. All of the palentological, developmental and genetic evidence supports this view. <<<< what evidence? again show it to me When a theory allows one to make predictions, it can be tested. <<<< I think actually proof of null hypothesis is actually more effective. go ahead show me. That's how all of science works. In this case, SINE insertions have been discovered that are shared between Cetaceans and Artiodactyls, in particular the hippopotamus. SINES represent retroviral transposition events. These characters are perfect for phylogenetic analysis since they are rare and irreversible and persist through speciation events. <<<<< SINEs do not prove common descent So George, here we have solid evidence not only that the theory of evolution was tested, but that it passed with flying colors. Of course, this is only my favorite example, thousands of others are freely available to anyone who wants to learn. I'm sure that if anyone is not fed up with your nonsense yet that they will post their favorite examples as well. As for the - what good is the half a heart - nonsense you were selling, I guess the question now becomes what good is one third of a brain? It can only be used to ridicule those who have real knowledge without providing any alternative explanations. By the way, what test has your GODDIDIT hypothesis passed? Does it even make any predictions? For anyone who is interested, the whale story is well documented on the talkorigins web site. The SINE insertions are described in the articles on plagarized errors in the molecular genetics section. I have yet to see any creationist who has a good answer for this evidence.

george · 4 March 2008

George wrote:

"It has never been tested. show me!"

Yea, that's right George, the most explanatory and predictive theory ever developed, to which literally millions of technical journal articles have been devoted,

<<< show me just one that proves Darwinism!

the theory that persuaded all reluctant scientists of every religious persuasion, the central concept of all modern biology has never been tested! All of us atheistic evolutionary biologists just believe it so that we can rape and sodomize without fear of consequences. Brilliant reasoning.

<<< could care less if you are an atheist. its your being dumb and unscientific that bothers me

I just know I'm going to regret this, but this dolt has already hijacked this thread beyond repair. OK George, here goes.

Where did Cetaceans come from? Did God just poof them into existence?

******** can you please leave the concept 'God' out of this. it is not scientifically defineable and should not be used in a scientific debate

Evolutionary theory predicted that they came from terrestrial ancestors. All of the palentological, developmental and genetic evidence supports this view.

********** what evidence? again show it to me

When a theory allows one to make predictions, it can be tested.

************* I think actually proof of null hypothesis is actually more effective. go ahead show me.

That's how all of science works. In this case, SINE insertions have been discovered that are shared between Cetaceans and Artiodactyls, in particular the hippopotamus. SINES represent retroviral transposition events. These characters are perfect for phylogenetic analysis since they are rare and irreversible and persist through speciation events.

************ SINEs do not prove common descent

********** stop inserting 'God"

george · 4 March 2008

George wrote:

"It has never been tested. show me!"

Yea, that's right George, the most explanatory and predictive theory ever developed, to which literally millions of technical journal articles have been devoted,

show me just one that proves Darwinism!

could care less if you are an atheist. its your being dumb and unscientific that bothers me

I just know I'm going to regret this, but this dolt has already hijacked this thread beyond repair. OK George, here goes.

Where did Cetaceans come from? Did God just poof them into existence?

can you please leave the concept 'God' out of this. it is not scientifically defineable and should not be used in a scientific debate

Evolutionary theory predicted that they came from terrestrial ancestors. All of the palentological, developmental and genetic evidence supports this view.

what evidence? again show it to me

When a theory allows one to make predictions, it can be tested.

I think actually proof of null hypothesis is actually more effective. go ahead show me.

SINEs do not prove common descent

stop inserting 'God"

george · 4 March 2008

George wrote:

"It has never been tested. show me!"

Yea, that's right George, the most explanatory and predictive theory ever developed, to which literally millions of technical journal articles have been devoted,

show me just one that proves Darwinism!

Sickle_Cell · 4 March 2008

George, I'm an biology undergrad currently studying, among other things, SINEs in cetartiodactyla. Knowing the mechanism of SINE insertions makes it *impossible* for SINEs to exist in anything else but related species. For a good summary of the insertion mechanism, see Okada and Shedlock, "SINE insertions: powerful tools for
molecular systematics", BioEssays 22:148–160, 2000) .

Anyone with access to pubmed can see this article. heck, I got it on PDF, I can send it to you via email! No one's hiding any information from you,

The mechanism of SINE insertion is why only humans (and ALL humans, at that) have Alu sequences but not any other primate. I've even seen SINEs being used to prove the non-relatedeness of human populations! (See "Investigation of the Greek ancestry of populations from northern Pakistan" by Mansoor et. al. I have THAT on pdf as well, so I could send it, too)

I find it mind-boggling that you could say that SINEs are not proof of common descent, because that's really the equivalent of saying that you can't use DNA-sequences to prove that you're related to your parents, paternity tests are routinely done using sequence data. Are you saying that you and your parents don't have a common ancestor? (i.e, your grandfather?)

You know, let's leave the science aside for a moment: What would be proof TO YOU of common descent? A mouse turning to an elephant?

Cedric Katesby · 4 March 2008

George, do you believe in God?
You do?
Wow.
(Talk about a lucky guess)

You're a Christian, right?
Then...start acting like one!

george · 4 March 2008

Sickle_Cell: George, I'm an biology undergrad currently studying, among other things, SINEs in cetartiodactyla. Knowing the mechanism of SINE insertions makes it *impossible* for SINEs to exist in anything else but related species. For a good summary of the insertion mechanism, see Okada and Shedlock, "SINE insertions: powerful tools for molecular systematics", BioEssays 22:148–160, 2000) . Anyone with access to pubmed can see this article. heck, I got it on PDF, I can send it to you via email! No one's hiding any information from you, The mechanism of SINE insertion is why only humans (and ALL humans, at that) have Alu sequences but not any other primate. I've even seen SINEs being used to prove the non-relatedeness of human populations! (See "Investigation of the Greek ancestry of populations from northern Pakistan" by Mansoor et. al. I have THAT on pdf as well, so I could send it, too) I find it mind-boggling that you could say that SINEs are not proof of common descent, because that's really the equivalent of saying that you can't use DNA-sequences to prove that you're related to your parents, paternity tests are routinely done using sequence data. Are you saying that you and your parents don't have a common ancestor? (i.e, your grandfather?) You know, let's leave the science aside for a moment: What would be proof TO YOU of common descent? A mouse turning to an elephant?

The SINE argument is complex. And it is based on the the plagiarism argument. Now if you really want to talk about this here we can. But what I want you to do is to translate the biological jargon into a more colloquial example. OK I will answer you I hope you be fair and answer my questions: First of all common descent: a fossil record for the last 500 million years where there would be a line up of gradually progressive evolving body plans. I would need 5000 lined up pretty well. If I saw that I would say that the case for Darwinism was very strong and I would accept the theory. But that is not the case. As you know right now most animals have sudden appearance and stasis which is opposed to D theory. Now a question for YOU: if there were not transitional fossils would you still believe in Darwinism?

george · 4 March 2008

Cedric Katesby: George, do you believe in God? You do? Wow. (Talk about a lucky guess) You're a Christian, right? Then...start acting like one!

I am not a Christian. And you saying that an atheist need not act civilly? I see here so many insults and lack of manners. It is appalling

george · 4 March 2008

george:
Cedric Katesby: George, do you believe in God? You do? Wow. (Talk about a lucky guess) You're a Christian, right? Then...start acting like one!
I am not a Christian. And you saying that an atheist need not act civilly? I see here so many insults and lack of manners. It is appalling

And I am an agnostic. Now lets see if you are civil enough to answer my question: are you an atheist?

Flint · 4 March 2008

Underlying much of the woohoo babulation on this thread is the foundational assumption that evolution necessarily consists of the process of one CURRENT 'kind' morphing into another CURRENT 'kind', this being all there is or ever was. And so we have a "cow" morphing into a whale. The creationist perspective simply cannot conceive of prior organisms, unlike anything alive today, which were common ancestors to two current 'kinds'.

And I think we should understand that if your model specifies that some invisible magical sky-daddy POOFED all life into existence, all at once, just as we know it today, and that's all that can ever exist, you're going to have a very hard time coming to grips with gradual cumulative change. There's simply no place within your model where such a notion can fit, or gain any purchase whatsoever. Within your context, it is meaningless.

Combine this model with straight dichotomous thinking, where everything MUST be absolutely one thing or absolutely another, where "proof" is all that matters, and "support for a proposal", not being proof, is irrelevant. Stir in a little bit of "I can't understand it, therefore it must be absolutely false" - which combines the black-and-white thinking with the wrong conceptual model, and we circle the same black hole endlessly.

So we're all speaking a language foreign to folks who can't even conceive of a foreign language. They "know" it's noise; it's all they can hear.

Nigel D · 4 March 2008

I see here so many insults and lack of manners. It is appalling
— george

Hypocrite. First, I suggest you start by according the experts the respect they have earned. Ian Musgrave, whose post started this thread, knows more about evolutionary theory than most people can conceive of. Second, I suggest you actually try to learn some biology before smearing your ignorance all over the internet. Third, when you have been posting comments like this:

very telling circular reasoning. hahahahahaha you dont even see it. dumb!

Why should you not expect to get as good as you give? When you make moronic and insulting posts, you receive the amount of respect that you have earned, i.e. none. Finally, if you genuinely wish to engage in the debate, then I suggest you remain polite and make an honest effort to understand the responses that have been posted to your comments.

george · 4 March 2008

Flint: Underlying much of the woohoo babulation on this thread is the foundational assumption that evolution necessarily consists of the process of one CURRENT 'kind' morphing into another CURRENT 'kind', this being all there is or ever was. And so we have a "cow" morphing into a whale. The creationist perspective simply cannot conceive of prior organisms, unlike anything alive today, which were common ancestors to two current 'kinds'. ----- First of all I am not a creationist. And you are telling me that the Mesonychids did not go thru thousands if not 100,000s of transitional gradually steps on its way to be come a whale? Isnt that what morphing is? And I think we should understand that if your model specifies that some invisible magical sky-daddy POOFED all life into existence, all at once, just as we know it today, and that's all that can ever exist, you're going to have a very hard time coming to grips with gradual cumulative change. ---- when did I ever say a sky-daddy did it? So you do not believe in punctuated equilibrium? There's simply no place within your model where such a notion can fit, or gain any purchase whatsoever. Within your context, it is meaningless. Combine this model with straightthinking, where everything MUST be absolutely one thing or absolutely another, where "proof" is all that matters, and "support for a proposal", not being proof, is irrelevant. Stir in a little bit of "I can't understand it, therefore it must be absolutely false" - which combines the black-and-white thinking with the wrong conceptual model, and we circle the same black hole endlessly. --- why must one thing be absolutely another? why do you believe that?? So we're all speaking a language foreign to folks who can't even conceive of a foreign language. They "know" it's noise; it's all they can hear. ---- no I understand evolutionary concepts very well. That's why I cannot accept Darwinism. It simply is not scientific. I people want to believe in it we have freedom of religion here. But to call it science is absurd

george · 4 March 2008

Nigel D:
I see here so many insults and lack of manners. It is appalling
— george
Hypocrite. First, I suggest you start by according the experts the respect they have earned. Ian Musgrave, whose post started this thread, knows more about evolutionary theory than most people can conceive of. Second, I suggest you actually try to learn some biology before smearing your ignorance all over the internet. Third, when you have been posting comments like this:
very telling circular reasoning. hahahahahaha you dont even see it. dumb!
Why should you not expect to get as good as you give? When you make moronic and insulting posts, you receive the amount of respect that you have earned, i.e. none. Finally, if you genuinely wish to engage in the debate, then I suggest you remain polite and make an honest effort to understand the responses that have been posted to your comments.

"expect to get as good as you give?" I guess I am giving as good as I get. Just look at this thread and how many times before I ever posted here was the word 'stupid' used. Go mr. scientist add up the insults before I got here

Stanton · 4 March 2008

Anyone else noticed how the hypocritical troll continues to evade answering my question asking him to explain why he thinks that 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not enough for bacteria (not fish) to evolve into cows and whales?

george · 4 March 2008

Stanton: Anyone else noticed how the hypocritical troll continues to evade answering my question asking him to explain why he thinks that 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not enough for bacteria (not fish) to evolve into cows and whales?

Duh, mr stupid lying troll. My point was that you or someone else said that it took 3.5 billion years for cows to evolve from fish. And I said it was only like 100 million. Go look it up dummy.

raven · 4 March 2008

People, George is a pure troll.

His schtick consists of insults (your dumb), lies, and more lies.

He isn't here to learn or inform or criticize, only to waste people's time and a few electrons and photons.

You are playing his game when you respond to him.

He isn't reading your replies. Why should he, he isn't here for any real purpose. Don't knock yourself out looking up something for him

Moderators, if you are reading this. The thread was a good one until it derailed and thanks to Ian M. for posting the very interesting article and the Moonie response. It is time to send the malevolent disruptor to Trollhome. Please.

george · 4 March 2008

raven: People, George is a pure troll. His schtick consists of insults (your dumb), lies, and more lies. He isn't here to learn or inform or criticize, only to waste people's time and a few electrons and photons. You are playing his game when you respond to him. He isn't reading your replies. Why should he, he isn't here for any real purpose. Don't knock yourself out looking up something for him Moderators, if you are reading this. The thread was a good one until it derailed and thanks to Ian M. for posting the very interesting article and the Moonie response. It is time to send the malevolent disruptor to Trollhome. Please.

dummy you are not reading my replies which are annotated to others' postings. may answer my questions and read my responses to others question and maybe YOU will learn something

Stanton · 4 March 2008

raven: Moderators, if you are reading this. The thread was a good one until it derailed and thanks to Ian M. for posting the very interesting article and the Moonie response. It is time to send the malevolent disruptor to Trollhome. Please.

Yes, Mr Moderators, for once, PLEASE BAN THE TROLL

Stephen Wells · 4 March 2008

I think we can recognise anyone who comes out with the "show me the one experiment that proves Darwinism!" crap as green, scaly and bridge-dwelling.

Stanton · 4 March 2008

Stephen Wells: I think we can recognise anyone who comes out with the "show me the one experiment that proves Darwinism!" crap as green, scaly and bridge-dwelling.

Especially since, upon being shown such an experiment and or other damning evidence, they refuse to acknowledge its existence due to illegal technicalities in order to preserve the sanctity of their own arrogant stupidity.

Stacy S. · 4 March 2008

Aaack! How come I can't use the "Quote" thingy anymore?

george · 4 March 2008

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 10, column 1, byte 274 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

george · 4 March 2008

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 10, column 1, byte 274 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

george · 4 March 2008

Stephen Wells: I think we can recognise anyone who comes out with the "show me the one experiment that proves Darwinism!" crap as green, scaly and bridge-dwelling.

george · 4 March 2008

Stanton:
Stephen Wells: I think we can recognise anyone who comes out with the "show me the one experiment that proves Darwinism!" crap as green, scaly and bridge-dwelling.
Especially since, upon being shown such an experiment and or other damning evidence, they refuse to acknowledge its existence due to illegal technicalities in order to preserve the sanctity of their own arrogant stupidity.

Well show me the secret experiment that proves Darwinism that only the the elite few are allowed to see! hahahahah!

george · 4 March 2008

Stanton:
Stephen Wells: I think we can recognise anyone who comes out with the "show me the one experiment that proves Darwinism!" crap as green, scaly and bridge-dwelling.
Especially since, upon being shown such an experiment and or other damning evidence, they refuse to acknowledge its existence due to illegal technicalities in order to preserve the sanctity of their own arrogant stupidity.

Well show me the secret experiment that proves Darwinism that only the the elite few are allowed to see! hahahahah!

Stacy S. · 4 March 2008

Hey there - ever heard of the preview button?

Stanton · 4 March 2008

Stacy S.: Hey there - ever heard of the preview button?

No, he has not.

Ravilyn Sanders · 4 March 2008

(Addressing the lurkers)
Not all 30 second sound bite questions have neat answers that
fit into 30 second sound bite responses.

The effort required to ask a question is much less than the effort needed to understand the answer. The effort depends on the amount
of knowledge you already have in that field to begin with. If
George walks into the Math department of a univ and declares,
"Explain to me how the low condition number of the matrix results
in high numerical errors in solutions using the LU decomposition
method". The first response from the prof will not be anything
to do with Linear Algebra. It will be, "How much do you know? From
what level I have to teach you?". The fact that George is unwilling
or incapable of understanding the answers, does not mean there
is no answer.

On the ides of March, three years ago Ian Musgrave

posted this comment.
It is not the question that stumps "evilutionists". It is the answer that is incomprehensible to the IDiots.

george · 4 March 2008

Now a question for all of YOU: if there were not transitional fossils would you still believe in Darwinism?

(they are scared to death to answer this one!)

emily · 4 March 2008

Who is this 'they' you speak of? Personally, in the absence of any fossils at all I would consider that a genetical analysis of extant species would still lead to the conclusion that these species had evolved via mutation and natural selection.

george · 4 March 2008

Ravilyn Sanders: (Addressing the lurkers) Not all 30 second sound bite questions have neat answers that fit into 30 second sound bite responses. The effort required to ask a question is much less than the effort needed to understand the answer. The effort depends on the amount of knowledge you already have in that field to begin with. If George walks into the Math department of a univ and declares, "Explain to me how the low condition number of the matrix results in high numerical errors in solutions using the LU decomposition method". The first response from the prof will not be anything to do with Linear Algebra. It will be, "How much do you know? From what level I have to teach you?". The fact that George is unwilling or incapable of understanding the answers, does not mean there is no answer. On the ides of March, three years ago Ian Musgrave posted this comment. It is not the question that stumps "evilutionists". It is the answer that is incomprehensible to the IDiots.

No, I think you are incapable of answering the question at any level. This is not rocket science. Nice try at deflection though.

Dave Thomas · 4 March 2008

~~george~~ feeble-minded dishonest hypocrite:

Duh, mr stupid lying troll. My point was that you or someone else said that it took 3.5 billion years for cows to evolve from fish. And I said it was only like 100 million. Go look it up dummy.

I did look it up. You are clearly wrong. Stanton made the comment

Please explain why 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not “fast enough to account for large body plan changes.”

There is no mention of cows. There is no mention of whales. Only of 3.5 billions of years of evolution. It was ~~george~~ feeble-minded dishonest hypocrite who twisted this into

A cow evolved into a whale in 3.5 billions years. You must be a JH drop out or senile?

I know I shouldn't be feeding the troll. But it's hard not to, especially when his own words show him up as the lying sack of smegma that he is. Send us all to the Bathroom Wall, Ian!

george · 4 March 2008

Dave Thomas: ~~george~~ feeble-minded dishonest hypocrite:
Duh, mr stupid lying troll. My point was that you or someone else said that it took 3.5 billion years for cows to evolve from fish. And I said it was only like 100 million. Go look it up dummy.
I did look it up. You are clearly wrong. Stanton made the comment
Please explain why 3.5 billion years of accumulated mutations is not “fast enough to account for large body plan changes.”
There is no mention of cows. There is no mention of whales. Only of 3.5 billions of years of evolution. It was ~~george~~ feeble-minded dishonest hypocrite who twisted this into
A cow evolved into a whale in 3.5 billions years. You must be a JH drop out or senile?
I know I shouldn't be feeding the troll. But it's hard not to, especially when his own words show him up as the lying sack of smegma that he is. Send us all to the Bathroom Wall, Ian!

Duh! I never said 3.5 billions was not enough. Go back an look dummy.

Chad · 4 March 2008

george: Now a question for all of YOU: if there were not transitional fossils would you still believe in Darwinism? (they are scared to death to answer this one!)

Well, it would be a significant blow to evolutionary theory for sure, but what does that matter SINCE THERE ARE PLENTY OF SUCH FOSSILS? Seriously, how was this supposed to scare anyone? George, you're an idiot.

george · 4 March 2008

Chad:
george: Now a question for all of YOU: if there were not transitional fossils would you still believe in Darwinism? (they are scared to death to answer this one!)
Well, it would be a significant blow to evolutionary theory for sure, but what does that matter SINCE THERE ARE PLENTY OF SUCH FOSSILS? Seriously, how was this supposed to scare anyone? George, you're an idiot.

Chad you are the ultimate dummy! You cannot even honestly answer my question. I was forthcoming in answering the question posed to me. But of course I would not expect a smegma hypocrite like to reach my level of integrity.

mplavcan · 4 March 2008

George:

I just came on this thread. First off, every single one of your posts is an unappologetic insult -- name calling, laughing, taunting etc. By any objective standard, you're simply being obnoxious. Second, you have not answered a single question, or provided a single datum of evidence -- you merely offer distortions with no grounding in reality. This suggest that you are completely ignorant of biology. Third, before you taunt folks about transitional fossils, why don't you read Bown and Rose's monograph on Eocene primates, or Gingerich's papers on Hyopsodus or Cantius, or pick up any volume of Paleobiology and read practically ANY paper documenting a massicve fossil record of transitional marine invertebrates, and so on and on and on? THEN you can begin to try to debate why these do not represnt transitional sequences. I'm not holding my breath.

Rolf Aalberg · 4 March 2008

Now a question for all of YOU: if there were not transitional fossils would you still believe in Darwinism?

(they are scared to death to answer this one!)<[/quote>

1. Agreed, to the bathroom wall where it belongs!
2. What use is the question? There are plenty of fossils out there in addition to those we already have found.
3. What would George believe if there were no religious scriptures out there to tell him what to believe?

Did I scare you?

David Stanton · 4 March 2008

Look George, I'll make it real simple for you. If you turned in a paper to me that had the same typographical errors, the same spelling errors and the same gramattical errors as another student, you would both fail, period. That would be considered proof positive of plagarism. The standard would even hold up in a court of law.

Now, can you explain the shared SINE insertions between artiodactyls and cetaceans or can't you? It was predicted by evolutionary theory and it was confirmed by experimental evidence. As others have pointed out, it is but one example of such an anlaysis. There are many others.

And yes, even in the absence of any fossil evidence, the genetic evidence alone is very compelling. But of course the fossil evidence confirms exactly what is predicted by the genetic evidence. Just check out the web site I recommended in order to see all of the evidence. Or of course you could read the primary literature. You do do that don't you George? You don't just spout creationist talking points without knowing what you are talking about do you?

george · 4 March 2008

David Stanton: Look George, I'll make it real simple for you. If you turned in a paper to me that had the same typographical errors, the same spelling errors and the same gramattical errors as another student, you would both fail, period. That would be considered proof positive of plagarism. The standard would even hold up in a court of law. ---- yes but how does that apply in the SINE situation? Now, can you explain the shared SINE insertions between artiodactyls and cetaceans or can't you? It was predicted by evolutionary theory and it was confirmed by experimental evidence. As others have pointed out, it is but one example of such an anlaysis. There are many others. ---- Tell me why you think the shared SINES are evidence that the animals evolved from each other gradually by means of natural selection. And yes, even in the absence of any fossil evidence, the genetic evidence alone is very compelling. ---- What genetic evidence is there independent of the fossil record that support Darwinism? But of course the fossil evidence confirms exactly what is predicted by the genetic evidence. Just check out the web site I recommended in order to see all of the evidence. Or of course you could read the primary literature. You do do that don't you George? You don't just spout creationist talking points without knowing what you are talking about do you? ---- I know what I am talking about. And I am not a creationist. It seem that you have not looked into this throughly. You are just an undergrad bio student? You really probably are not old enough to have the life experience to understand a lot of this. Sorry, do not take offense but you are young with not much education correct?

george · 4 March 2008

David Stanton: Look George, I'll make it real simple for you. If you turned in a paper to me that had the same typographical errors, the same spelling errors and the same gramattical errors as another student, you would both fail, period. That would be considered proof positive of plagarism. The standard would even hold up in a court of law. ---- yes but how does that apply in the SINE situation? Now, can you explain the shared SINE insertions between artiodactyls and cetaceans or can't you? It was predicted by evolutionary theory and it was confirmed by experimental evidence. As others have pointed out, it is but one example of such an anlaysis. There are many others. ---- Tell me why you think the shared SINES are evidence that the animals evolved from each other gradually by means of natural selection. And yes, even in the absence of any fossil evidence, the genetic evidence alone is very compelling. ---- What genetic evidence is there independent of the fossil record that support Darwinism? But of course the fossil evidence confirms exactly what is predicted by the genetic evidence. Just check out the web site I recommended in order to see all of the evidence. Or of course you could read the primary literature. You do do that don't you George? You don't just spout creationist talking points without knowing what you are talking about do you? ---- I know what I am talking about. And I am not a creationist. It seem that you have not looked into this throughly. You are just an undergrad bio student? You really probably are not old enough to have the life experience to understand a lot of this. Sorry, do not take offense but you are young with not much education correct?

george · 4 March 2008

David Stanton: Look George, I'll make it real simple for you. If you turned in a paper to me that had the same typographical errors, the same spelling errors and the same gramattical errors as another student, you would both fail, period. That would be considered proof positive of plagarism. The standard would even hold up in a court of law. ---- yes but how does that apply in the SINE situation? Now, can you explain the shared SINE insertions between artiodactyls and cetaceans or can't you? It was predicted by evolutionary theory and it was confirmed by experimental evidence. As others have pointed out, it is but one example of such an anlaysis. There are many others. ---- Tell me why you think the shared SINES are evidence that the animals evolved from each other gradually by means of natural selection. And yes, even in the absence of any fossil evidence, the genetic evidence alone is very compelling. ---- What genetic evidence is there independent of the fossil record that support Darwinism? But of course the fossil evidence confirms exactly what is predicted by the genetic evidence. Just check out the web site I recommended in order to see all of the evidence. Or of course you could read the primary literature. You do do that don't you George? You don't just spout creationist talking points without knowing what you are talking about do you? ---- I know what I am talking about. And I am not a creationist. It seem that you have not looked into this throughly. You are just an undergrad bio student? You really probably are not old enough to have the life experience to understand a lot of this. Sorry, do not take offense but you are young with not much education correct?

mplavcan: George: I just came on this thread. First off, every single one of your posts is an unappologetic insult -- name calling, laughing, taunting etc. By any objective standard, you're simply being obnoxious. Second, you have not answered a single question, or provided a single datum of evidence -- you merely offer distortions with no grounding in reality. This suggest that you are completely ignorant of biology. Third, before you taunt folks about transitional fossils, why don't you read Bown and Rose's monograph on Eocene primates, or Gingerich's papers on Hyopsodus or Cantius, or pick up any volume of Paleobiology and read practically ANY paper documenting a massicve fossil record of transitional marine invertebrates, and so on and on and on? THEN you can begin to try to debate why these do not represnt transitional sequences. I'm not holding my breath.

I certainly have answer questions! go ahead and ask one. And I do not see why I have to take insults and be chastised when I insult back. Taunt??? I simply asked if anyone would believe in Darwinism if there were not transitional fossils. Frankly most of you sound brainwashed. I am familar with Gould and Ginger. In fact most of you here are ignoring Gould. You all seem like strict Darwinists where I lean much, much more towards PE. Also many new theories such as quantam evolution are more to my liking. And self-organization theories. Really do any of you read the new material. Seems like you stuck almost in about 1920s

TomS · 4 March 2008

if there were not transitional fossils would you still believe in Darwinism?

I don't believe in Darwinism. I do accept the evidence that populations of living things change in their genetic makeup, and that all living things on earth are related by common ancestry, and that natural selection is an important explanatory factor for the variety of life. Before most of the major transitions in life had been documented by fossils, a lot of scientists accepted the fact that evolution happens (although, to be sure, the importance of natural selection was not appreciated until the middle 20th century). For example, the transition from "mammal-like reptiles" to "true mammals" was quite well established before the discovery of the fascinating double-articulated jaw of "Morgie". As far as I'm concerned, the most compelling evidence for the unity of life on earth comes from the "nested hierarchy" of the "tree of life". That's just a personal opinion, but then, weren't you asking for personal opinions? As far as the fossils are concerned, the most significant facts for me are (1) life was different at different times and (2) the fossils indicated that even extinct forms had their place in the same "tree of life". The rest is "just details".

Chad · 4 March 2008

george:
Chad:
george: Now a question for all of YOU: if there were not transitional fossils would you still believe in Darwinism? (they are scared to death to answer this one!)
Well, it would be a significant blow to evolutionary theory for sure, but what does that matter SINCE THERE ARE PLENTY OF SUCH FOSSILS? Seriously, how was this supposed to scare anyone? George, you're an idiot.
Chad you are the ultimate dummy! You cannot even honestly answer my question. I was forthcoming in answering the question posed to me. But of course I would not expect a smegma hypocrite like to reach my level of integrity.

I took into consideration everything you have ever posted in this and every other thread in my response. You summarily dismiss any and all evidence for evolutionary theory because, I believe, it is simply too difficult for you to understand. Evolution is built on many lines of evidence and transitional fossils are but one of those lines of evidence. So, as I said previously, it would be a significant blow to the theory. However, it is also a moot point because, as I said before (notice how you don't read what I write) such transitional fossils have been found. You can bring up all the thought experiments you want in order to "scare" us, but when such thought experiments directly clash with actual evidence they are nothing but drivel.

m arie · 4 March 2008

Hi everyone I just think it is a hoot how george is making a fool out of himself!

Steverino · 4 March 2008

George said:

"I would not expect a smegma hypocrite like to reach my level of integrity."

Judging by the quote above you have set your intebrity level bar very low.

Cedric Katesby · 4 March 2008

George, you're not a Christian?
Fine.

(The last few hundred or so trolls around here were fundies so I took a risk and made an assumption)

So, as an 'agnostic' would you please stop being a troll?

If you have a case to make or have serious questions to ask, then do the right thing and open your own thread at ABTC.

Please don't make a habit of derailing threads like you've done this one.

george · 4 March 2008

Steverino: George said: "I would not expect a smegma hypocrite like to reach my level of integrity." Judging by the quote above you have set your intebrity level bar very low.

That is your opinion. Dont respond to me if you think I am a troll.

mplavcan · 4 March 2008

George:
Answer the question. You wanted citations. I gave them to you. I have read Gould too. In fact, pretty much everything he wrote. And piles and piles of other stuff too. This may come as a surprise, but there are other papers our there. Really! And not only that, I have not only seen many of those fossils, I've actually collected a bundle too, and published on some! So, read the papers, then let's talk tansitions.

And for the record, in your first post on this thread, you called everyone here a liar. Now you claim you are simply responding to personal insults. When you make these assertions, please try to remember that we have a written record.

george · 4 March 2008

Cedric Katesby: George, you're not a Christian? Fine. (The last few hundred or so trolls around here were fundies so I took a risk and made an assumption) So, as an 'agnostic' would you please stop being a troll? If you have a case to make or have serious questions to ask, then do the right thing and open your own thread at ABTC. Please don't make a habit of derailing threads like you've done this one.

What is ABTC. And if you really thought I was troll you would not respond to me. You simply can not face that your logic is faulty

george · 4 March 2008

mplavcan: George: Answer the question. You wanted citations. I gave them to you. I have read Gould too. In fact, pretty much everything he wrote. And piles and piles of other stuff too. This may come as a surprise, but there are other papers our there. Really! And not only that, I have not only seen many of those fossils, I've actually collected a bundle too, and published on some! So, read the papers, then let's talk tansitions. And for the record, in your first post on this thread, you called everyone here a liar. Now you claim you are simply responding to personal insults. When you make these assertions, please try to remember that we have a written record.

I called everyone a liar? Please show me that. OK lets talk transitions! And my question as 'If there were no transitionals would you still believe in Darwinism?'

Marilyn · 4 March 2008

Well, George, if those who believe in the fact of evolution are so much dumber than you, how exactly is it that they have made such tremendous advances in diagnosing, understanding, treating and preventing diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, and you and your ilk have accomplished exactly nothing in the life sciences realm? Put up or shut up. Science works. Mindless arrogance and willful ignorance don't.

Marilyn · 4 March 2008

By the way, George, I don't believe in "Darwinism" and never have and never will, because that is a meaningless term made up by the ill-informed. I do accept the scientific fact of the modern theory of evolution, and I will continue to accept it until you or someone else can provide some actual evidence that falsifies the theory, or come up with an actual scientific theory that explains reality better. Again, put up or shut up.

mplavcan · 4 March 2008

George:

Comment #144872. "How can all of you lie like that."

Answer to your question. YES. Period. Absolutely. By "Darwinism" you must mean natural selection, since that is in fact his contribution to MET. The mechanism of natural selection has been demonstrated thousands of times experimentally and in nature. It has been modeled over and over and over. Even hard-coure Young Earth Creationists like Ken Hamm and Jonathan Safarti, accept it. Even the good folks from the DI accept it. Go to any search engine and type it in. Then spend the next several years reading all the papers.

If on the other hand you mean "the transmutation of species" YES, absolutely. The is an overwhleming body of evidence from comparative anatomy, developmental biology and embryology, developmental genetics, and population biology that oeverwhelmingly points to MET and supports it to the exclusion of other theories. The concept of the transmutation of species had been around long before Darwin, and had received substantial support among naturalists (as biologists were known back then) to the point where many were compelled to accept the evidence in spite of their religious convictions.

Now, answer my question.

george · 4 March 2008

Marilyn: Well, George, if those who believe in the fact of evolution are so much dumber than you, ---- I believe in evolution also. Its a fact. What is your point?? how exactly is it that they have made such tremendous advances in diagnosing, understanding, treating and preventing diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, ---- by research in medicine and genetics. not Darwinism and you and your ilk ---- what is my ilk??? have accomplished exactly nothing in the life sciences realm? Put up or shut up. --- YOU put up! Show me the proof for Darwinism and show me how Darwinism has ever helped advance medicine. Science works. Mindless arrogance and willful ignorance don't. ---- I agee 100% so start using the scientific method and stop your willful ignorance.

george · 4 March 2008

Marilyn: By the way, George, I don't believe in "Darwinism" and never have and never will, because that is a meaningless term made up by the ill-informed. I do accept the scientific fact of the modern theory of evolution, and I will continue to accept it until you or someone else can provide some actual evidence that falsifies the theory, or come up with an actual scientific theory that explains reality better. Again, put up or shut up.

You do not believe in common descent and natural selection and phyletic gradualism? That sounds a bit medieval. And you PUT UP! and show me some evidence for your beliefs

Glen Davidson · 4 March 2008

I don't want to feed ye olde troll, but I have to say that, given the amount of fossilization among a number of phyla, and the quantity of the fossil record, I would find a complete lack of transitional fossils to be a very disturbing unfulfilled prediction of MET (in context). Of course by "transitional" I do not mean "ancestral species," I mean something closely related to the "ancestral species."

In other words, the fact that many transitionals have been found is a significant prediction of MET that has turned out to be correct. The "would you believe if..." schtick is being used to try to isolate the converging strands of fulfilled predictions of MET, since nothing other than evolutionary theory makes sense of both crown groups and of extinct groups known only from the fossil record.

It's a kind of misdirection, as well, since a lack of transitionals (in context) ought to be accompanied by other problems with cladistics and genomics. That is, a lack of transitionals, when we have good reason to expect them, should mean that the rest of the evolutionary predictions would be skewed or even nonsensical. So it hardly makes sense to ask "what if there were no transitionals" when there is no meaningful explanation for the whole of biology except for MET.

What is more, there were always transitional taxa known. While no transitional species were known when Darwin wrote his first book, the fact that mammals evolved from reptiles, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and amphibians evolved from fish, was fairly obvious from morphological comparisons. Sure, modern representatives, and even fossil representatives, had their own evolutions since, say, fish and birds separated, but that fish gave rise to birds was not in doubt (to intelligent and intellectually honest people).

Evolutionary theory developed with the knowledge of "intermediate taxa," then, so it's kind of like asking if you'd believe in Christianity if Jesus never existed to ask if you'd accept evolution if transitionals had never been found.

It's a trollish, nonsense question, of course, sort of like asking if you'd accept General Relativity if light didn't bend in the presence of gravity, but all of the other predictions of General Relativity worked out. The fact is that light not bending in the presence of gravity would be a severe problem for it, and yet we'd probably provisionally accept the rest of General Relativity until something meaningful replaced it. The trouble is that, unless some good idea were advanced to replace it, the failure of General Relativity with respect to the bending of light, while the rest of General Relativity worked, makes no sense at all.

One would have to ask if humans can make sense out of the world, if MET successfully predicted everything it does except the expected transitional fossils, or if General Relativity successfully predicted everything it does except light bending in the presence of gravity (of course I don't mean when light is moving directly into the gravity well). Both failures would make nasty gashes into their respective theories, yet would not by themselves yield up any better ideas for explaining everything else that they explain. And of course the fact that both make successful predictions throughout the range of their command of their respective phenomena gives us good reason to accept both.

See, even trolls can help to make a good point, which is that transitional fossils are very important pieces in favor of MET.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg

Ravilyn Sanders · 4 March 2008

Lurkers, please note that all George does is to ask questions and throw insults. He is incapable of answering any questions.

george: I certainly have answer questions! go ahead and ask one.

Why can't humans (and primates and some bats) synthesize vitamin C? Almost all the mammals make their own vitamin C. We have the genes to make vitamin C but our vitamin C factory in every cell of our bodies is turned off. Why?

george · 4 March 2008

mplavcan: George: Comment #144872. "How can all of you lie like that." Answer to your question. YES. Period. Absolutely. By "Darwinism" you must mean natural selection, since that is in fact his contribution to MET. The mechanism of natural selection has been demonstrated thousands of times experimentally and in nature. It has been modeled over and over and over. Even hard-coure Young Earth Creationists like Ken Hamm and Jonathan Safarti, accept it. ----- Darwinism is more than natural selection. Look it up. .And of course NS is real. Darwinism is the belief that has little validation. Even the good folks from the DI accept it. Go to any search engine and type it in. Then spend the next several years reading all the papers. ---- I am talking about Darwinism. Jeez even young earth creationists believe in NS and PEers. If on the other hand you mean "the transmutation of species" YES, absolutely. The is an overwhleming body of evidence from comparative anatomy, developmental biology and embryology, developmental genetics, and population biology that oeverwhelmingly points to MET and supports it to the exclusion of other theories. ---- I guess you need to define what MET asserts. I think you are confused. The concept of the transmutation of species had been around long before Darwin, and had received substantial support among naturalists (as biologists were known back then) to the point where many were compelled to accept the evidence in spite of their religious convictions. --------transmutation of species ?? got any proof for that? Now, answer my question. What was the question??

So there you go I did say all the posters here were 'liars' as you implied. However many did like about what Wells said. They called him a liar which is a lie. Read more carefully.

Bill Gascoyne · 4 March 2008

I certainly have answer questions! go ahead and ask one.

George, A retort is not an answer. Answer:[n] a statement that solves a problem or explains how to solve the problem. Retort:[n] a quick reply to a question or remark (especially a witty or critical one).

emily · 4 March 2008

George: If you were interested in an answer you would have responded to mine.

JHM · 4 March 2008

Marilyn: By the way, George, I don't believe in "Darwinism" and never have and never will, because that is a meaningless term made up by the ill-informed. I do accept the scientific fact of the modern theory of evolution, and I will continue to accept it until you or someone else can provide some actual evidence that falsifies the theory, or come up with an actual scientific theory that explains reality better. Again, put up or shut up.

If I was a praying kind of person, I'd be praying for "shut up" The alternative is just too horrible to contemplate.

Rrr · 4 March 2008

Wait. I thought a retort was a kind of glass vessel, ya know, like the mad scientist has for mixing teh colorful, smelly potion. What, never evven been to a movie! What kind of troll is ttah?

Please observe teh spell. ;-)

Marilyn · 4 March 2008

Got it George. You're smart enought to know where to find the evidence yourself, right? It's just that you so enjoy acting like an argumentative ignoramus.

[...withdrawing food dish....]

mplavcan · 4 March 2008

Very well, George. Please explain to me how the Hyopsodus and Cantius records do not represent transitional sequences. Please explain to me how the extensive marine fossil record does not represent multiple transitional fossil sequences -- starting with, say, Foote's stuff or perhaps Stanely just to begin? I'm waiting. Details, George, not insults.

You claim that you didn't insult anyone, then you admit that you did, but that really it was because people were insulting Behe. Sigh.

What on earth do you mean by "Darwinism?" Please define it. I gave specific responses to your querry, parsing out the two possible meanings that you seemed to allude to. Now you insult me because I didn't somehow answer some definition to you have decided on in your mind. Define it precisely.

george · 4 March 2008

Glen Davidson: I don't want to feed ye olde troll, ---- one who feeds a troll is a troll himself, troll! but I have to say that, given the amount of fossilization among a number of phyla, and the quantity of the fossil record, I would find a complete lack of transitional fossils to be a very disturbing unfulfilled prediction of MET (in context). Of course by "transitional" I do not mean "ancestral species," I mean something closely related to the "ancestral species." ----- disturbing?? would you still believe in Darwinism. and you will have to define MET. I think you are confused on what it is. In other words, the fact that many transitionals have been found is a significant prediction of MET that has turned out to be correct. ---- OK does not Darwinism predict that we should find many, many more transitionals than what we do??? The "would you believe if..." schtick is being used to try to isolate the converging strands of fulfilled predictions of MET, since nothing other than evolutionary theory makes sense of both crown groups and of extinct groups known only from the fossil record. It's a kind of misdirection, as well, since a lack of transitionals (in context) ought to be accompanied by other problems with cladistics and genomics. That is, a lack of transitionals, when we have good reason to expect them, should mean that the rest of the evolutionary predictions would be skewed or even nonsensical. So it hardly makes sense to ask "what if there were no transitionals" when there is no meaningful explanation for the whole of biology except for MET. """"So it hardly makes sense to ask "what if there were no transitionals" when there is no meaningful explanation for the whole of biology except for MET."""" -------- great example of circular logic! biology would do just fine without transitionals. jeez there arent that many What is more, there were always transitional taxa known. While no transitional species were known when Darwin wrote his first book, the fact that mammals evolved from reptiles, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and amphibians evolved from fish, was fairly obvious from morphological comparisons. ------- homology is not a proof of common descent sorry. Sure, modern representatives, and even fossil representatives, had their own evolutions since, say, fish and birds separated, but that fish gave rise to birds was not in doubt (to intelligent and intellectually honest people). Evolutionary theory developed with the knowledge of "intermediate taxa," then, so it's kind of like asking if you'd believe in Christianity if Jesus never existed to ask if you'd accept evolution if transitionals had never been found. ---- duh! I can accept the possiblity of Darwinism without transitionals. You really do not need a great fossil record to substantiate Dism. Cannot compare with religion. that is faith based. Would I believe in heliocentrism if there were no parallax: duh NO! It's a trollish, nonsense question, of course, sort of like asking if you'd accept General Relativity if light didn't bend in the presence of gravity, but all of the other predictions of General Relativity worked out. ----- if one prediction fails the theory is caput sorry! The fact is that light not bending in the presence of gravity would be a severe problem for it, and yet we'd probably provisionally accept the rest of General Relativity until something meaningful replaced it. The trouble is that, unless some good idea were advanced to replace it, the failure of General Relativity with respect to the bending of light, while the rest of General Relativity worked, makes no sense at all. One would have to ask if humans can make sense out of the world, if MET successfully predicted everything it does except the expected transitional fossils, or if General Relativity successfully predicted everything it does except light bending in the presence of gravity (of course I don't mean when light is moving directly into the gravity well). Both failures would make nasty gashes into their respective theories, yet would not by themselves yield up any better ideas for explaining everything else that they explain. And of course the fact that both make successful predictions throughout the range of their command of their respective phenomena gives us good reason to accept both. ---- duh again. if a theory predicts something and it does not happen the theory is wrong sorry. i know life is tuff but thats the way it is ---- you are making excuse for your faith now. I said with adequate proof I would completely accept Dism but you are saying no matter how much lack of proof you would find you would still adhere to it: FAITH! See, even trolls can help to make a good point, which is that transitional fossils are very important pieces in favor of MET. -----and a troll like yourself you try to get off that fuzzy thinking wagon. are you that undergrad kid? Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg

george · 4 March 2008

Ravilyn Sanders: Lurkers, please note that all George does is to ask questions and throw insults. He is incapable of answering any questions.
george: I certainly have answer questions! go ahead and ask one.
Why can't humans (and primates and some bats) synthesize vitamin C? Almost all the mammals make their own vitamin C. We have the genes to make vitamin C but our vitamin C factory in every cell of our bodies is turned off. Why?

There are a number of possible answers: concommitants is my best guess. I think that it was necesary to turn off the ability to syth vit C to allow some other process to happen more easily. Or just and experiment by a designer. Just to see what would happen

Rrr · 4 March 2008

Seems like "George" here has a severe identity problem. Here he is, signing his excretions as "Glen D", who has a far better track record as even my humble self can tell. But he might not be aware that he isn't in fact even "George"... Then again, that will not be his only, or even his biggest problem.

george · 4 March 2008

Bill Gascoyne:
I certainly have answer questions! go ahead and ask one.
George, A retort is not an answer. Answer:[n] a statement that solves a problem or explains how to solve the problem. Retort:[n] a quick reply to a question or remark (especially a witty or critical one).

When did I retort? you are projecting

george · 4 March 2008

Rrr: Seems like "George" here has a severe identity problem. Here he is, signing his excretions as "Glen D", who has a far better track record as even my humble self can tell. But he might not be aware that he isn't in fact even "George"... Then again, that will not be his only, or even his biggest problem.

Keep your 'excretions' to yourself

Rrr · 4 March 2008

When did you answer, "George"?

There is no name for what you do. Or if there is, I prefer ignorance.

george · 4 March 2008

Rrr: When did you answer, "George"? There is no name for what you do. Or if there is, I prefer ignorance.

Well there is a name for what you do: laziness!

Bill Gascoyne · 4 March 2008

Rrr: Wait. I thought a retort was a kind of glass vessel,

it's both.

Rrr · 4 March 2008

Bill Gascoyne:
Rrr: Wait. I thought a retort was a kind of glass vessel,
it's both.

Thanks. For a minute there, I was getting scared maybe the madness could be contagious. Now I can rest more easily.

Bill Gascoyne · 4 March 2008

When did I retort? you are projecting

Pot. Kettle. Black. Not worth my time. Outa here. Go ahead and declare "victory," Georgie Girl.

george · 4 March 2008

Bill Gascoyne:
When did I retort? you are projecting
Pot. Kettle. Black. Not worth my time. Outa here. Go ahead and declare "victory," Georgie Girl.

Yes your logic was not very good. have you taken any engineering courses? that might help you here. good luck!

Ravilyn Sanders · 4 March 2008

george: There are a number of possible answers: concommitants is my best guess. I think that it was necesary to turn off the ability to syth vit C to allow some other process to happen more easily. Or just and experiment by a designer. Just to see what would happen

You should at least know what the scientific explanation for it is, even if you don't agree with it. Frankly, your best guess is way off the mark. You don't even know the basics like why the primates lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C and you demand to know how multi chamber heart evolved! sh without eyes, and the ring species. As for the Designer experimenting, surely you don't want to go there. You know what happens when you turn off vitamin C synthesis and don't get fresh fruits for a long time. People get scurvy. And die a painful death. Even if these people were Christian missionaries on long sea voyages to bring the Gospel to the savage pagans. Makes your "Designer" particularly vindictive (or at least apathetic) towards Christian Missionaries, if the "Designer" took away our vitamin C factories on a whim.

David Stanton · 4 March 2008

George,

Please go away. You didn't answer any of my questions, even the most basic ones. You say that evolution has never been tested and yet you are completely unable to address the genetic evidence that exists. You asked for evidence and you were given evidence, if you don't understand it, don't cry about it, take the opportunity to learn. You claim that you are not a creationist, well what is your explanation for the diversity of life we see around us? You stoop to personal insults without even knowing who it is that you are talking to. Just for the record, all of you guesses were completely wrong. Shut up and leave already.

For anyone who really cares, the SINE insertions I mentioned are genetic errors that increase the probability of disease and death. That the same genetic mistakes are shared between species is strong evidence of common descent. George has no explanation other than "I don't understand it therefore it can't be true." I suggest we all ignore him and hope that he will go away.

Getting back on topic, at least in George we have an example of the target audience that Wells is playing to.

David B. Benson · 4 March 2008

Shenanigans!

I call shenanigans.

Send the troll to Trollheim.

phantomreader42 · 4 March 2008

mpclavan: What on earth do you mean by “Darwinism?” Please define it. I gave specific responses to your querry, parsing out the two possible meanings that you seemed to allude to. Now you insult me because I didn’t somehow answer some definition to you have decided on in your mind. Define it precisely.

In the two hours since this was posted, "George" has found the time to post several insults. He's even found the time to demand a definition of MET (acronym for Modern Evolutionary Theory, IIRC). But he has not found the time to answer the question. So, George, let's try this again. What, if anything, does the word "Darwinism" mean? You keep throwing it around, but you never bothered to define it. This is not a term commonly used by scientists, the most common use is as an ill-defined creationist smear defigned to confuse science and religion and sbstitute personal attacks on Charles Darwin for actual arguments. But you claim that you AREN'T a creationist. You also claim you believe in evolution but not "Darwinism", without explaining the difference. What, if anything, is the difference? Don't tell us to look it up, there's so much equivocation on this word that no dictionary is of any use. YOU tell us what you mean. If you mean anything at all, it should be easy. Why would "George" fail to define this term, even when asked? Does it have any meaning at all? Could it be he himself does not know what it means? Or does he just want to be able to slip around and use whatever definition he finds convenient at the time?

David Fickett-Wilbar · 4 March 2008

I understand the frustration with the postings of trolls, and of the urge to stop feeding them. Certainly there is a point beyond which they lose all usefulness.

However, there is an extent to which they are useful. I am a non-scientist, with my main field being fuzzy studies (with concentrations in religion and linguistics), and I have learned a lot from the responses to trolls. My education in biology is spotty, consisting mostly of websites and popularizing books such as those of Gould and Dawkins. As a result, some of the more technical threads go completely over my head, and I find myself hearing wah, wah wah, like the teachers on Peanuts. In all fairness, I suggest that those who are disappointed in that read some linguistics -- I suggest "Hittite and the Indo-European Verb" -- and see how long it is before wah wah wah kicks in.

The point is, when trolls are encountered the arguments quickly come down to a level I can understand. After all, trolls are almost by definition ignorant of much of the evidence for evoloution, so the most important of it must be explained in very simple terms. Just what is suited for me.

So even though I think this troll thread has run its course, please don't automatically stop once trollness has been determined. Those of us who lurk learn from troll-fighting.

george · 4 March 2008

phantomreader42:
mpclavan: What on earth do you mean by “Darwinism?” Please define it. I gave specific responses to your querry, parsing out the two possible meanings that you seemed to allude to. Now you insult me because I didn’t somehow answer some definition to you have decided on in your mind. Define it precisely.
In the two hours since this was posted, "George" has found the time to post several insults. He's even found the time to demand a definition of MET (acronym for Modern Evolutionary Theory, IIRC). But he has not found the time to answer the question. So, George, let's try this again. What, if anything, does the word "Darwinism" mean? You keep throwing it around, but you never bothered to define it. This is not a term commonly used by scientists, the most common use is as an ill-defined creationist smear defigned to confuse science and religion and sbstitute personal attacks on Charles Darwin for actual arguments. But you claim that you AREN'T a creationist. You also claim you believe in evolution but not "Darwinism", without explaining the difference. What, if anything, is the difference? Don't tell us to look it up, there's so much equivocation on this word that no dictionary is of any use. YOU tell us what you mean. If you mean anything at all, it should be easy. Why would "George" fail to define this term, even when asked? Does it have any meaning at all? Could it be he himself does not know what it means? Or does he just want to be able to slip around and use whatever definition he finds convenient at the time?

From talk origins: Not perfect but usable for this conversation 1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time. 2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth. 3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species. 4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type. 5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. Now be civil and tell he how you define MET. (And I do not thin MET is a term that scientsts use much I think the proper term is the synthetic theory of evolution)

george · 4 March 2008

phantomreader42:
mpclavan: What on earth do you mean by “Darwinism?” Please define it. I gave specific responses to your querry, parsing out the two possible meanings that you seemed to allude to. Now you insult me because I didn’t somehow answer some definition to you have decided on in your mind. Define it precisely.
In the two hours since this was posted, "George" has found the time to post several insults. He's even found the time to demand a definition of MET (acronym for Modern Evolutionary Theory, IIRC). But he has not found the time to answer the question. So, George, let's try this again. What, if anything, does the word "Darwinism" mean? You keep throwing it around, but you never bothered to define it. This is not a term commonly used by scientists, the most common use is as an ill-defined creationist smear defigned to confuse science and religion and sbstitute personal attacks on Charles Darwin for actual arguments. But you claim that you AREN'T a creationist. You also claim you believe in evolution but not "Darwinism", without explaining the difference. What, if anything, is the difference? Don't tell us to look it up, there's so much equivocation on this word that no dictionary is of any use. YOU tell us what you mean. If you mean anything at all, it should be easy. Why would "George" fail to define this term, even when asked? Does it have any meaning at all? Could it be he himself does not know what it means? Or does he just want to be able to slip around and use whatever definition he finds convenient at the time?

george · 4 March 2008

David Fickett-Wilbar: I understand the frustration with the postings of trolls, and of the urge to stop feeding them. Certainly there is a point beyond which they lose all usefulness. However, there is an extent to which they are useful. I am a non-scientist, with my main field being fuzzy studies (with concentrations in religion and linguistics), and I have learned a lot from the responses to trolls. My education in biology is spotty, consisting mostly of websites and popularizing books such as those of Gould and Dawkins. As a result, some of the more technical threads go completely over my head, and I find myself hearing wah, wah wah, like the teachers on Peanuts. In all fairness, I suggest that those who are disappointed in that read some linguistics -- I suggest "Hittite and the Indo-European Verb" -- and see how long it is before wah wah wah kicks in. The point is, when trolls are encountered the arguments quickly come down to a level I can understand. After all, trolls are almost by definition ignorant of much of the evidence for evoloution, so the most important of it must be explained in very simple terms. Just what is suited for me. So even though I think this troll thread has run its course, please don't automatically stop once trollness has been determined. Those of us who lurk learn from troll-fighting.

I find that Darwinists like write off those with whom they cannot foist ignorant beliefs on a 'trolls' It relieves them from having show evidence for their theory. It is common lowly tactic but it is one tool that Darwinists and use without having to use much brainpower or research. OK let see that evidence for Darwinism! Cant wait to see it! (and dont just parrot talkorigins. lets see if you can form your own phrases)

george · 4 March 2008

"You also claim you believe in evolution but not “Darwinism”, without explaining the difference."

I assumed that most people with a junior high or greater education would know the difference.

This is a real failure of our education system when someone can say the above. I would have hope this would have been explained in junior high. Not knowing these fundamentals of biology shows how bad our education system is

Ian Musgrave · 4 March 2008

Oh for goodness sake, this has just turned into a troll-fest. I'm going to turn off the comments now.

george · 4 March 2008

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 10, column 1, byte 261 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

george · 4 March 2008

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 7, column 1, byte 237 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

george · 4 March 2008

Ian Musgrave: Oh for goodness sake, this has just turned into a troll-fest. I'm going to turn off the comments now.

No answers? Did not think so

phantomreader42 · 4 March 2008

George, I asked you to define what YOU mean when you refer to "Darwinism". Instead, you gave a definition that you yourself claim is "not perfect but usable for this conversation". But I guess that's the best that can be expected for now, so let's take a look at it. The definition includes five points, but you didn't say which point makes "Darwinism" "the belief that has little validation". (your own words, if you remember) Earlier in this thread, you claimed to believe in evolution but not "Darwinism". You did not explain the difference, then or now. So, which part of "Darwinism", as you defined it, do you have a problem with? Do you reject "evolution as such"? You said you didn't. But concern trolling and dishonesty are common among creationists. Is it "common descent" that's causing your hangups? Are you a baraminologist or something? Could it be "Multiplication of species"? Do you not believe it is possible for one species to develop from another (an event that has been directly observed)? Is your objection to "Gradualism"? Do you not like "Natural Selection"? Or is your problem with "Darwinism" something that is not mentioned anywhere in the defintion you gave? In which case, you would be arguing against a definition that exists only in your imagination.

george:
phantomreader42:
mpclavan: What on earth do you mean by “Darwinism?” Please define it. I gave specific responses to your querry, parsing out the two possible meanings that you seemed to allude to. Now you insult me because I didn’t somehow answer some definition to you have decided on in your mind. Define it precisely.
In the two hours since this was posted, "George" has found the time to post several insults. He's even found the time to demand a definition of MET (acronym for Modern Evolutionary Theory, IIRC). But he has not found the time to answer the question. So, George, let's try this again. What, if anything, does the word "Darwinism" mean? You keep throwing it around, but you never bothered to define it. This is not a term commonly used by scientists, the most common use is as an ill-defined creationist smear defigned to confuse science and religion and sbstitute personal attacks on Charles Darwin for actual arguments. But you claim that you AREN'T a creationist. You also claim you believe in evolution but not "Darwinism", without explaining the difference. What, if anything, is the difference? Don't tell us to look it up, there's so much equivocation on this word that no dictionary is of any use. YOU tell us what you mean. If you mean anything at all, it should be easy. Why would "George" fail to define this term, even when asked? Does it have any meaning at all? Could it be he himself does not know what it means? Or does he just want to be able to slip around and use whatever definition he finds convenient at the time?
From talk origins: Not perfect but usable for this conversation 1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time. 2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth. 3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species. 4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type. 5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. Now be civil and tell he how you define MET. (And I do not thin MET is a term that scientsts use much I think the proper term is the synthetic theory of evolution)

I'm really not the person to define MET for you. It was Glen Davidson's term, and I've only seen it here. I'm not even entirely sure I've got the acronym right. I just found it a tad hypocritical of you to demand a definition from someone else while failing to define your OWN terms. YOU were the one denouncing "Darwinism", but you have not explained what your problem is with it. Try. How is "Darwinism" distinct in your mind from "the synthetic theory of evolution"? Why do you find the former lacking in validation but not the latter?