Smarch of the Fossil Penguins

This was great, Reed. Thanks for sharing!

But do they carry umbrellas?

YEC here.
The title implies it took 60 million years to go from wing to flipper.
Laying aside dates. the fossil penguins had arrived long before the 60 million by their datings.
A minor point.
Creationism agrees and welcomes that these were flying birds first. its welcome they were more healthy, that is diversity including hugh sizes, in the past with only remnants alive today.
lHowever the idea of in betweens between winging it and flipping it needs evidence.
I say its impossible.
In fact it was instant change within actual lives of the first birds or their kids that led to a swimming life and not a flying one. in fact atrophied wings is a common thing in the fossil record in the islands of the pacific. Its simply the extreme area of the Antarctic that allows some of the bigger ones and in large numbers to survive. A common thing as with mush oxen or Llamas. Otherwise extinction rules the earth.
I see penguins as a post flood adaptation of some bird. It changed instantly and ever since has been the same except for losing diversity.
Their cute.

Robert Byers said: YEC here. The title implies it took 60 million years to go from wing to flipper. Laying aside dates. the fossil penguins had arrived long before the 60 million by their datings. A minor point. Creationism agrees and welcomes that these were flying birds first. its welcome they were more healthy, that is diversity including hugh sizes, in the past with only remnants alive today. lHowever the idea of in betweens between winging it and flipping it needs evidence. I say its impossible. In fact it was instant change within actual lives of the first birds or their kids that led to a swimming life and not a flying one. in fact atrophied wings is a common thing in the fossil record in the islands of the pacific. Its simply the extreme area of the Antarctic that allows some of the bigger ones and in large numbers to survive. A common thing as with mush oxen or Llamas. Otherwise extinction rules the earth. I see penguins as a post flood adaptation of some bird. It changed instantly and ever since has been the same except for losing diversity. Their cute.

Robert Byers isn't just idiotic, he's also illiterate. Could someone possibly remind him that Peru isn't a Pacific island. It's actually a region (actually currently a country) on the South American mainland. 'Their cute' what? ...

Robert Byers said: However the idea of in betweens between winging it and flipping it needs evidence. I say its impossible.

Thanks for posting this, Reed. Yeah for NCSU researchers!

(NCSU grad, here.)

Yea, penguins are obviously the result of the fall. They fell off a rock and into the ocean and they instantly started to swim, but they couldn't possibly have evolved in millions of years. I think they're downfall was all of the dancing. You know what that leads to. We got pictures of em doin it on TV, so who could argue? And there ain't no mediates neither.

Just another sample of creationist doin researches that disprovens evilution don't ya knows.

We love you Robert. Keep up the good work.

Robert Byers said: I say its impossible.

Robert,

You should look at the presentation again. Apparently there were almost fifty different species of intermediates. Now how could you have missed that?

Thanks to Reed for the great link.

DS said: Now how could you have missed that?

Thanks for sharing this Reed. Dan has done some admirable work in public outreach regarding his paleobiological research. He spoke to the New York Paleontological Society back in 2005 and 2006 while he was in the midst of completing his Ph. D. research at Columbia (though based at the American Museum of Natural History, where he gave other talks there, aside from the two he gave to the New York Paleontological Society, which meets at the museum.).

Robert Byers said: However the idea of in betweens between winging it and flipping it needs evidence. I say its impossible.

Science Avenger said:

Robert Byers said: I say its impossible.

You say that like it matters.

A common thing as with mush oxen

Karen S. said: Is that a cross between a cow and a husky?

mrg said:

Karen S. said: Is that a cross between a cow and a husky?

No, that's a malamoo.

Robert Byers said: moronic babbling snipped I see penguins as a post flood adaptation of some bird. It changed instantly and ever since has been the same except for losing diversity. Their cute.

What genius at NCSU had the idea to use Silverlight for multimedia content? :((

Reed,

That was a fascinating video. Thanks so much for posting it.

The cherry on top of that steaming pile of turds (to mix metaphors) was the use of 'their' for 'they're'.

KP said:

Robert Byers said: However the idea of in betweens between winging it and flipping it needs evidence. I say its impossible.

Impossible like the Phalacrocoracidae?

Walter said: What genius at NCSU had the idea to use Silverlight for multimedia content? :((

Stanton said: Are you sure you're not thinking of a Spitzenstein?

Robert Byers said: I say its impossible.

KP said:

Robert Byers said: However the idea of in betweens between winging it and flipping it needs evidence. I say its impossible.

Impossible like the Phalacrocoracidae?

BobbyEarle said:

Robert Byers said: I say its impossible.

Well, I'm convinced.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html

let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

mrg said:

Stanton said: Are you sure you're not thinking of a Spitzenstein?

That sounds like the product of a lab in a Transylvanian castle. "IT'S ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!"

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

Klaus Hellnick said: Puffins use their wings to swim; cormorants use their feet.

harold said:

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

Klinghoffer is a complete jackass. 1) The fact that the sequences of non-coding DNA regions aren't subject to the same high selection pressure as the sequences of vital genes makes them better for testing relationships between individuals. It allows more diversity to be present at those loci. That's just basic. So this lying sack of crap has it all backwards in the most basic way. The fact that they are useful for testing relationships between individuals is itself strong evidence that the exact sequence of these regions is not important for viability. 2) The mechanisms by which much of the DNA got there are well understood, e.g. ERVs, etc. These DNA sequences by definition did not originate as "designed" sequences to be of use to humans. 3) Nevertheless, it is a straw man of the grossest order to claim that mainstream scientists claim that no non-coding DNA could have any function whatsoever. Indeed, to call it a straw man is an insult to better constructed straw men. Mice develop perfectly normally without it, for example, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html, yet the presence or absence of some non-coding DNA may have subtle but important phenotypic effects http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100221/full/news.2010.82.html. 4) The existence of non-coding DNA virtually demolishes ID/creationism, even if that aspect of biology is considered in isolation. Hence the understandable squealing panic with which ID/creationist douchebags respond to any mention of it (even, in this case, routine laboratory DNA testing). However, the converse does not hold true. Even though non-coding DNA unequivocally exists, virtually proving that ID/creationist religion and philosophy are patently false and that their lives are empty shells of delusion, denial, and hypocrisy, the converse does not hold. The theory of evolution does not "require" any particular type of non-coding DNA. In fact, the haploid genomes of prokaryotes contain essentially no DNA that is not directly regulatory or coding, despite the fact that they evolved.

I don’t think that having all DNA code for something is necessary for ID either. Given that how they love to mis-use 2SLOT the idea that we once had perfect DNA but after the fall our DNA is deteriorating could just as easy fit into their non-theory.

I don’t think that having all DNA code for something is necessary for ID either. Given that how they love to mis-use 2SLOT the idea that we once had perfect DNA but after the fall our DNA is deteriorating could just as easy fit into their non-theory

The last several posters have used the term "non-coding DNA" when they meant "junk DNA". People, they mean something quite different. Non-coding DNA is just that: it isn't translated to amino acids via the genetic code. Junk DNA is just that: DNA with no function in the organism. There is a fair amount of non-coding DNA that isn't junk. Confusion on this point plays into the hands of creationists, whose strawman argument is that since (as they wrongly claim) all non-coding DNA was once considered junk, finding any function in any non-coding DNA proves that there is no junk.

Karen S. said:

I don’t think that having all DNA code for something is necessary for ID either. Given that how they love to mis-use 2SLOT the idea that we once had perfect DNA but after the fall our DNA is deteriorating could just as easy fit into their non-theory.

That's it in a nutshell. What wouldn't fit into their non-theory?

John Harshman said: The last several posters have used the term "non-coding DNA" when they meant "junk DNA". People, they mean something quite different. Non-coding DNA is just that: it isn't translated to amino acids via the genetic code. Junk DNA is just that: DNA with no function in the organism. There is a fair amount of non-coding DNA that isn't junk. Confusion on this point plays into the hands of creationists, whose strawman argument is that since (as they wrongly claim) all non-coding DNA was once considered junk, finding any function in any non-coding DNA proves that there is no junk.

Harold.....thanks for the postings. I fight the evolution battle in Texas, a continuous task, having info to answer the silly things brought up by the "creos" and wingnuts is always helpful !!

Thanks for posting this, very enjoyable!

Joe Felsenstein said: The problem is that the ID types are trying to have it both ways with respect to “junk” DNA: 1. They are adamant that you cannot make “bad design” arguments against ID as you cannot know the intentions of the Designer(s). 2. At the same time, they insist that ID makes a prediction that there will be no DNA that is junk.

The basic concept behind creationism in all its forms is that "complexity is not part of the natural order of the Universe." If we observe the Universe, complexity certainly seems to be there, and since we only know about the Universe to the extent that we observe it, we have every reason to accept that
fact; but
creationists arbitrarily set off significant components as "unexplainable by natural law" -- that is, "magical".

Once upon a time, life processes were seen as "magical", due to "elan vital", but nobody does so any more. The lessons of the past, or for that matter any lessons, do not make much impression on the critics.

jj23 said: Harold.....thanks for the postings. I fight the evolution battle in Texas, a continuous task, having info to answer the silly things brought up by the "creos" and wingnuts is always helpful !!

harold said: You are not incorrect to argue in favor of the usage "junk DNA" (that is a matter of subjective preference), but you are very incorrect to imply that the use of "non-coding DNA" as a synonym, by those who know what they are talking about, as I do, is not common.

If you search for "junk DNA review" on PubMed you will find that the term is used with qualifiers and quotations marks (e.g. "so-called 'junk' DNA"), or that the term non-coding DNA is also used. If you search Wikipedia for "junk DNA", you will be directed to a well-written article, with plenty of good citations. The title of the article is "Non-Coding DNA".

I am keenly aware of the difference between "non-coding" DNA that is actually a regulatory element of a gene, and DNA sequences that are not directly involved in gene expression in any known way. (With the caveat that some types of DNA labeled "junk" or "non-coding" do seem to have effects on phenotype, either through mRNA or possible protein products.)

However, I have the choice between two imperfect terms. "Junk" DNA, which is a term I don't like, as it is both excessively colloquial and imprecise (there are, in fact, many active genes which are also not required for normal development or health as well, are they "junk"?), and "non-coding", which is also imprecise.

At any rate, the important point is that Klinghoffer's statements are nonsense.

They are now the topic of a thread at Pharyngula, where the same points I raised about sequence diversity are brought up independently by PZ Myers.

By the way, Larry Moran's comments on junk DNA and Jonathan Wells are a good summary of my position, since I agree with Larry about everything he says there.

[Side note: is there a rule that you can't embed more than one link per post? I tried and there is claimed to be a syntax error. Larry has two other posts on the subject.]

The latest example of the inability of ID/creationists to understand the use of analogy and metaphor in science is posted over on AiG.

We can at least credit ID/creationists for teaching Lee Attwater, Karl Rove, the birthers, the Koch brothers, and Faux News how to word-game and twist anything in order to kick up dust and sand and cloud the issues.

It may not be such a bad thing that the small child thinking of ID/creationists has alerted members of the science community to articulate scientific concepts more carefully when addressing the public as well as students. But it is no reason for ID/creationists to celebrate their own juvenile thought processes.

John Harshman -

Fine, let's not be like creationists, but rather, acknowledge one another's viewpoints correctly, and possibly even arrive at a consensus.

We have a strong point of agreement. Poorly defined terminology is undesirable. One of the many reasons why it is undesirable is that creationists seize upon it to sew confusion. I will concede that "non-coding DNA" is too general a term.

The opinionated but knowledgeable and articulate Lary Moran makes a good point.

However, others have made exactly the opposite point, and expressed dislike of the term "junk". http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-junk-dna-and-what

I suppose what bothers me about the term "junk" is not that it is colloquial, but that to me it has a teleological or anthropomorphic flavor.

However, you are correct that greater precision is better. While I personally won't be using the term "junk" without qualification, or anywhere where a better or more precise term will do, I will try to be especially clear as to what I am talking about in the future. To be honest, I was so astounded by Klinghoffer's ignorant comments that I wrote my original comment rather rapidly, and I didn't bother to mull over which term to use.

There is still a trivial, subjective disagreement between us, which cannot be resolved, but is of little importance. While I'm sure we completely agree on which parts of the genome are subjected to strong selective pressure/conservation, which parts aren't, and so on, you like the term "junk DNA" for certain elements of the genome, and I don't like it (but now concede that use the term "non-coding DNA" instead as a synonym is probably even worse).

Finally, I will close with some predictions -

1) Obviously, some elements of the genome have essentially no "function", that is to say, significant impact on the phenotype, and will never be found to have any.

2) Some elements of the genome that are currently poorly understood will turn out to have, if not "function" in a classic sense, impact on the phenotype.

3) When "2)" happens, creationists will falsely claim that scientists claimed that these DNA regions could not ever have any impact on the phenotype. There is nothing we can do to stop them, and indeed, using the term "junk" only makes them more likely to do this, but after they do it, we can correctly point out that no such claims by scientists were ever made. (Klinghoffer is not even at this level of sophistication; his absurd argument amounts to claiming that the fact that first degree relatives have sequence similarity at highly variable, not-selection-constrained sequence regions is a "function" for those regions, or some such thing.)

harold said: Poorly defined terminology is undesirable. One of the many reasons why it is undesirable is that creationists seize upon it to sew [sic] confusion.

1) and 2); quite reasonable to expect. As for 3), I am afraid we will have to endure that for yet some time.

harold said: Fine, let's not be like creationists, but rather, acknowledge one another's viewpoints correctly, and possibly even arrive at a consensus.

hoary puccoon said:

harold said: Poorly defined terminology is undesirable. One of the many reasons why it is undesirable is that creationists seize upon it to sew [sic] confusion.

Well, yes. That would be "sow" confusion-- as is spreading seeds of confusion. Which is exactly what you're not trying to do, right? ;)

So we are agreed that "non-coding" is not the term to use. If you don't like "junk", I suggest you invent a new term. I've suggested "non-functional", but feel free to roll your own.

And whatever you call it, there's plenty of it in your genome. My rough estimate of 90% is predicated on the observation that fugu are doing just fine with a genome 1/10 the size of yours, and yet seem to have about the same number of genes and about the same "complexity". I bet fugu have some junk too, so the estimate is a minimum. And most of your genome just isn't conserved.

harold said:

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

Klinghoffer is a complete jackass. 1) The fact that the sequences of non-coding DNA regions aren't subject to the same high selection pressure as the sequences of vital genes makes them better for testing relationships between individuals. It allows more diversity to be present at those loci. That's just basic. So this lying sack of crap has it all backwards in the most basic way. The fact that they are useful for testing relationships between individuals is itself strong evidence that the exact sequence of these regions is not important for viability. 2) The mechanisms by which much of the DNA got there are well understood, e.g. ERVs, etc. These DNA sequences by definition did not originate as "designed" sequences to be of use to humans. 3) Nevertheless, it is a straw man of the grossest order to claim that mainstream scientists claim that no non-coding DNA could have any function whatsoever. Indeed, to call it a straw man is an insult to better constructed straw men. Mice develop perfectly normally without it, for example, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html, yet the presence or absence of some non-coding DNA may have subtle but important phenotypic effects http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100221/full/news.2010.82.html. 4) The existence of non-coding DNA virtually demolishes ID/creationism, even if that aspect of biology is considered in isolation. Hence the understandable squealing panic with which ID/creationist douchebags respond to any mention of it (even, in this case, routine laboratory DNA testing). However, the converse does not hold true. Even though non-coding DNA unequivocally exists, virtually proving that ID/creationist religion and philosophy are patently false and that their lives are empty shells of delusion, denial, and hypocrisy, the converse does not hold. The theory of evolution does not "require" any particular type of non-coding DNA. In fact, the haploid genomes of prokaryotes contain essentially no DNA that is not directly regulatory or coding, despite the fact that they evolved.

Hygaboo Andersen said:

harold said:

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

Klinghoffer is a complete jackass. 1) The fact that the sequences of non-coding DNA regions aren't subject to the same high selection pressure as the sequences of vital genes makes them better for testing relationships between individuals. It allows more diversity to be present at those loci. That's just basic. So this lying sack of crap has it all backwards in the most basic way. The fact that they are useful for testing relationships between individuals is itself strong evidence that the exact sequence of these regions is not important for viability. 2) The mechanisms by which much of the DNA got there are well understood, e.g. ERVs, etc. These DNA sequences by definition did not originate as "designed" sequences to be of use to humans. 3) Nevertheless, it is a straw man of the grossest order to claim that mainstream scientists claim that no non-coding DNA could have any function whatsoever. Indeed, to call it a straw man is an insult to better constructed straw men. Mice develop perfectly normally without it, for example, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html, yet the presence or absence of some non-coding DNA may have subtle but important phenotypic effects http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100221/full/news.2010.82.html. 4) The existence of non-coding DNA virtually demolishes ID/creationism, even if that aspect of biology is considered in isolation. Hence the understandable squealing panic with which ID/creationist douchebags respond to any mention of it (even, in this case, routine laboratory DNA testing). However, the converse does not hold true. Even though non-coding DNA unequivocally exists, virtually proving that ID/creationist religion and philosophy are patently false and that their lives are empty shells of delusion, denial, and hypocrisy, the converse does not hold. The theory of evolution does not "require" any particular type of non-coding DNA. In fact, the haploid genomes of prokaryotes contain essentially no DNA that is not directly regulatory or coding, despite the fact that they evolved.

The problem is the evolanders simply assume the existence of non-coding DNA that they assume neutral with respect to selection and then construct their phylogenetic trees based on the question-begging assumptions of their own religion. What is there is no real junk DNA? What if common descent was just the foregone conclusion and the so-called "neutral" genes were chosen in order to reach this conclusion? Questioning the dogma of Junk DNA can bring the House of Darwin down just like Elijah did to the prophets of Baal (the Darwin of his day) on Mt. Carmel!

Sylvilagus said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

harold said:

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

Klinghoffer is a complete jackass. 1) The fact that the sequences of non-coding DNA regions aren't subject to the same high selection pressure as the sequences of vital genes makes them better for testing relationships between individuals. It allows more diversity to be present at those loci. That's just basic. So this lying sack of crap has it all backwards in the most basic way. The fact that they are useful for testing relationships between individuals is itself strong evidence that the exact sequence of these regions is not important for viability. 2) The mechanisms by which much of the DNA got there are well understood, e.g. ERVs, etc. These DNA sequences by definition did not originate as "designed" sequences to be of use to humans. 3) Nevertheless, it is a straw man of the grossest order to claim that mainstream scientists claim that no non-coding DNA could have any function whatsoever. Indeed, to call it a straw man is an insult to better constructed straw men. Mice develop perfectly normally without it, for example, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html, yet the presence or absence of some non-coding DNA may have subtle but important phenotypic effects http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100221/full/news.2010.82.html. 4) The existence of non-coding DNA virtually demolishes ID/creationism, even if that aspect of biology is considered in isolation. Hence the understandable squealing panic with which ID/creationist douchebags respond to any mention of it (even, in this case, routine laboratory DNA testing). However, the converse does not hold true. Even though non-coding DNA unequivocally exists, virtually proving that ID/creationist religion and philosophy are patently false and that their lives are empty shells of delusion, denial, and hypocrisy, the converse does not hold. The theory of evolution does not "require" any particular type of non-coding DNA. In fact, the haploid genomes of prokaryotes contain essentially no DNA that is not directly regulatory or coding, despite the fact that they evolved.

The problem is the evolanders simply assume the existence of non-coding DNA that they assume neutral with respect to selection and then construct their phylogenetic trees based on the question-begging assumptions of their own religion. What is there is no real junk DNA? What if common descent was just the foregone conclusion and the so-called "neutral" genes were chosen in order to reach this conclusion? Questioning the dogma of Junk DNA can bring the House of Darwin down just like Elijah did to the prophets of Baal (the Darwin of his day) on Mt. Carmel!

Well, when phylogenetic trees are constructed there are statistical tests to determine the reliability of the constructions. Just like any attempt to fit data to a line. If the statistical measures fall outside of certain bounds the data is not a good fit to the line. Same, more or less with construction of trees. In other words, constructing the trees is not based on "assumption" of common descent; construction of the trees actually tests common descent. If common descent were not the case, we would not find trees constructed from distinct data sets converging statistically on the same tree. We would not find trees constructed from DNA, from numerous proteins, and from morphology all converging. How do you explain the convergence of these distinct trees if not common descent?

Weird!

I kind of like the comment I once heard about noncoding DNA being the "dark matter" of the genome: "There's something going on here, but we don't understand quite what in more than bits and pieces."

Nice essay by Moran, JH, thanks for the link. Moran takes no prisoners but he's no dummy. I could only read his responses, however; I find it very very hard to read creationists any more -- having someone with killer halitosis blather in my face is bad enough, going out of my way to make it happen is unacceptable.

Hygaboo Andersen said:

Sylvilagus said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

harold said:

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

Klinghoffer is a complete jackass. 1) The fact that the sequences of non-coding DNA regions aren't subject to the same high selection pressure as the sequences of vital genes makes them better for testing relationships between individuals. It allows more diversity to be present at those loci. That's just basic. So this lying sack of crap has it all backwards in the most basic way. The fact that they are useful for testing relationships between individuals is itself strong evidence that the exact sequence of these regions is not important for viability. 2) The mechanisms by which much of the DNA got there are well understood, e.g. ERVs, etc. These DNA sequences by definition did not originate as "designed" sequences to be of use to humans. 3) Nevertheless, it is a straw man of the grossest order to claim that mainstream scientists claim that no non-coding DNA could have any function whatsoever. Indeed, to call it a straw man is an insult to better constructed straw men. Mice develop perfectly normally without it, for example, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html, yet the presence or absence of some non-coding DNA may have subtle but important phenotypic effects http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100221/full/news.2010.82.html. 4) The existence of non-coding DNA virtually demolishes ID/creationism, even if that aspect of biology is considered in isolation. Hence the understandable squealing panic with which ID/creationist douchebags respond to any mention of it (even, in this case, routine laboratory DNA testing). However, the converse does not hold true. Even though non-coding DNA unequivocally exists, virtually proving that ID/creationist religion and philosophy are patently false and that their lives are empty shells of delusion, denial, and hypocrisy, the converse does not hold. The theory of evolution does not "require" any particular type of non-coding DNA. In fact, the haploid genomes of prokaryotes contain essentially no DNA that is not directly regulatory or coding, despite the fact that they evolved.

The problem is the evolanders simply assume the existence of non-coding DNA that they assume neutral with respect to selection and then construct their phylogenetic trees based on the question-begging assumptions of their own religion. What is there is no real junk DNA? What if common descent was just the foregone conclusion and the so-called "neutral" genes were chosen in order to reach this conclusion? Questioning the dogma of Junk DNA can bring the House of Darwin down just like Elijah did to the prophets of Baal (the Darwin of his day) on Mt. Carmel!

Well, when phylogenetic trees are constructed there are statistical tests to determine the reliability of the constructions. Just like any attempt to fit data to a line. If the statistical measures fall outside of certain bounds the data is not a good fit to the line. Same, more or less with construction of trees. In other words, constructing the trees is not based on "assumption" of common descent; construction of the trees actually tests common descent. If common descent were not the case, we would not find trees constructed from distinct data sets converging statistically on the same tree. We would not find trees constructed from DNA, from numerous proteins, and from morphology all converging. How do you explain the convergence of these distinct trees if not common descent?

Read for comprehension,moron! It's the so-called junk DNA that is supposedly "neutral" and used in baseline comparisons in these studies that is the assumption. The evolanders needed to construct the junk DNA concept to resolve the contradictions between their previous constructs of natural selection and common ancestry. If natural selection just twists and turns the genome into rubber chickens, you really can't compare how far back so-called lineages split up since there is no neutral yardstick to measure rates of genetic change. However, since natural selection is the cornerstone of the Darwinian faith, it can never be discarded. So,the doctrine of junk DNA had to be invented to square the circle

Hygaboo Andersen said:

Sylvilagus said:

Hygaboo Andersen said:

harold said:

jj23 said: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/president_obama_is_said_to046271.html let's get this posted and start shredding klinghoffer's silly arguements...

Klinghoffer is a complete jackass. 1) The fact that the sequences of non-coding DNA regions aren't subject to the same high selection pressure as the sequences of vital genes makes them better for testing relationships between individuals. It allows more diversity to be present at those loci. That's just basic. So this lying sack of crap has it all backwards in the most basic way. The fact that they are useful for testing relationships between individuals is itself strong evidence that the exact sequence of these regions is not important for viability. 2) The mechanisms by which much of the DNA got there are well understood, e.g. ERVs, etc. These DNA sequences by definition did not originate as "designed" sequences to be of use to humans. 3) Nevertheless, it is a straw man of the grossest order to claim that mainstream scientists claim that no non-coding DNA could have any function whatsoever. Indeed, to call it a straw man is an insult to better constructed straw men. Mice develop perfectly normally without it, for example, http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html, yet the presence or absence of some non-coding DNA may have subtle but important phenotypic effects http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100221/full/news.2010.82.html. 4) The existence of non-coding DNA virtually demolishes ID/creationism, even if that aspect of biology is considered in isolation. Hence the understandable squealing panic with which ID/creationist douchebags respond to any mention of it (even, in this case, routine laboratory DNA testing). However, the converse does not hold true. Even though non-coding DNA unequivocally exists, virtually proving that ID/creationist religion and philosophy are patently false and that their lives are empty shells of delusion, denial, and hypocrisy, the converse does not hold. The theory of evolution does not "require" any particular type of non-coding DNA. In fact, the haploid genomes of prokaryotes contain essentially no DNA that is not directly regulatory or coding, despite the fact that they evolved.

The problem is the evolanders simply assume the existence of non-coding DNA that they assume neutral with respect to selection and then construct their phylogenetic trees based on the question-begging assumptions of their own religion. What is there is no real junk DNA? What if common descent was just the foregone conclusion and the so-called "neutral" genes were chosen in order to reach this conclusion? Questioning the dogma of Junk DNA can bring the House of Darwin down just like Elijah did to the prophets of Baal (the Darwin of his day) on Mt. Carmel!

Well, when phylogenetic trees are constructed there are statistical tests to determine the reliability of the constructions. Just like any attempt to fit data to a line. If the statistical measures fall outside of certain bounds the data is not a good fit to the line. Same, more or less with construction of trees. In other words, constructing the trees is not based on "assumption" of common descent; construction of the trees actually tests common descent. If common descent were not the case, we would not find trees constructed from distinct data sets converging statistically on the same tree. We would not find trees constructed from DNA, from numerous proteins, and from morphology all converging. How do you explain the convergence of these distinct trees if not common descent?

Read for comprehension,moron! It's the so-called junk DNA that is supposedly "neutral" and used in baseline comparisons in these studies that is the assumption. The evolanders needed to construct the junk DNA concept to resolve the contradictions between their previous constructs of natural selection and common ancestry. If natural selection just twists and turns the genome into rubber chickens, you really can't compare how far back so-called lineages split up since there is no neutral yardstick to measure rates of genetic change. However, since natural selection is the cornerstone of the Darwinian faith, it can never be discarded. So,the doctrine of junk DNA had to be invented to square the circle

However, since natural selection is the cornerstone of the Darwinian faith, it can never be discarded.

I have a "junk drawer" in my kitchen. It's filled with all kinds of things; extra parts, broken pieces, interesting bits of stuff I've picked up in various places. None of it is being kept for what it was originally intended for, but I keep it all around because I think that I might find a use for it someday. And every once-in-a-while I do.*

So even colloquially, "junk" is not perfectly synonymous with "non-functional" or "useless". It just means that it's superfluous for or no longer able to be used in its original capacity.

In the end, I see the creationist "no junk DNA" thing as just an extension of the "no vestigial parts" argument, and for the same basic reasons. They both revolve around using a semantic sleigh-of-hand to build a strawman to attack.

(*Not to imply that junk DNA is being purposely preserved for possible future use, although some creationists might argue it that way.)

First recorded in 1353, the word meant "an old cable or rope." On a sailing ship it made little sense to throw away useful material since considerable time might pass before one could get new supplies.

What is there is no real junk DNA? What if common descent was just the foregone conclusion and the so-called “neutral” genes were chosen in order to reach this conclusion?

Hygaboo Andersen said: The problem is the evolanders simply assume the existence of non-coding DNA

Errr...I just realized hygaboo said "non-coding." The existence of non-coding DNA is experimentally overwhelming, but its a different set of experiments than the ones I talked about in my previous post.

However, since natural selection is the cornerstone of the Darwinian faith, it can never be discarded.

In the end, I see the creationist “no junk DNA” thing as just an extension of the “no vestigial parts” argument, and for the same basic reasons.

Some of what is called "junk" DNA can have effects on phenotype under certain circumstances. Such impact may often be "negative" from the human perspective.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030166

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100221/full/news.2010.82.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390

Yet it is also the case that much of "junk" DNA does not show selection constraints on nucleotide sequence. We can logically infer from this that the exact nucleotide sequences at these sites has at best little impact on phenotype. (Of course, this inference is limited to those aspects of phenotype that could impact on reproductive success. Phenotypic variability that does not effect relative reproductive success cannot be a direct basis for natural selection.)

The relative lack of sequence constraints makes this type of DNA ideal for studies that determine the relationships between individuals or populations. In essence, if you look at genes that perform critical functions, all living individuals are likely have quite similar sequences, because mutations that impact on the amino acid sequence of the protein or the regulation of gene expression (if you look at regulatory sequences) may have consequences that are impacted strongly by natural selection. But if you look at genome regions that don't have this characteristic, there will be more variation from individual to individual, and similar sequences can more confidently be ascribed to genealogical relationship.

Klinghoffer, in the moronic statement that triggered this discussion, essentially made the convoluted claim that forensic use of such sequences to determine genealogical relationship, constitutes a biological "function".

All "junk" DNA is a major, major, major problem for ID/creationism. While it (like anything else that could ever exist) can be accommodated by a "Last Thursdayism" claim that "some incomprehensible and unappealing magical designer did it but made it look exactly like evolution", that's about it. However, both the straightforward claim of YEC - that the biosphere was magically created in about its current form 6000 years ago by a human-like benign deity - and the weaselations of ID - efforts to claim that evolution is "impossible" - are severely challenged by the nature of the genome. The genome contains numerous elements which are well-explained by the theory of evolution and bizarre from the perspective of imagined magical creation by an anthropomorphic magical being.

Hence, ID/creationists obsessively and hysterically deny the existence of "junk" DNA.

However, while I conceded above that "non-coding" DNA is too vague and general a term (and also possibly technically incorrect, depending on what we mean by "coding"), and have used the term "junk" here ("junk" DNA being a subset of what is called "non-coding" DNA), I also think it is possible to overreact to creationists.

Mice have been found to develop normally when lacking large amounts of (but by no means all or even a majority of) "junk" DNA. Both the fact that much of "junk" DNA does not show strong sequence conservation due to natural selection, and the fact that genomes of similar organisms can vary massively in size due to "junk" elements in one lineage but not the other, obviously lead to the logical inference that most of the time, the amount of and sequence of this type of DNA is not selected for. Development, reproductive age viability, and reproduction must therefore usually not be impacted by these features of this type of DNA.

Having said that, when we look at the literature, we do not see an exact-opposite-of-creationism "whatever we currently call 'junk' DNA can never do anything whatsoever" argument supported. Here is the subsequent work of one of the scientists who published a major "mice develop normally after deletion of a fair amount of 'junk' DNA" paper. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Peaston%20AE%22%5BAuthor%5D

Please note that creationists are completely wrong about this type of DNA, and logical explanations are highly compatible with and informed by the theory of evolution. This is true even if phenotypic impact is sometimes possible.

I think Dr. Dan Ksepka's presentation is showing archaeology and discovery at it’s best, to find fossil skin and to be able to distinguish colours from present melanosomes and put colour to the form of a penguin is really amazing. I’m not so sure about the artery groves I did see holes where arteries could immerge from on both bones it could be showing that bone could have eroded more than the other.

eric said: Errr...I just realized hygaboo said "non-coding." The existence of non-coding DNA is experimentally overwhelming, but its a different set of experiments than the ones I talked about in my previous post.

Hygaboo Andersen said:

eric said: Errr...I just realized hygaboo said "non-coding." The existence of non-coding DNA is experimentally overwhelming, but its a different set of experiments than the ones I talked about in my previous post.

How can you prove a universal negative. You just don't know what the DNA codes for. It's just like Richard Dawkins trying to disprove the existence of God because he couldn't find him in his Tea & Crumpets.

Hygaboo Andersen said:

eric said: Errr...I just realized hygaboo said "non-coding." The existence of non-coding DNA is experimentally overwhelming, but its a different set of experiments than the ones I talked about in my previous post.

How can you prove a universal negative. You just don't know what the DNA codes for. It's just like Richard Dawkins trying to disprove the existence of God because he couldn't find him in his Tea & Crumpets.

Hygaboo Andersen said: How can you prove a universal negative. You just don't know what the DNA codes for.

eric said:

Hygaboo Andersen said: How can you prove a universal negative. You just don't know what the DNA codes for.

. You take two clones at the earliest stages of development. You knock out the sequence in question from one of them. You grow them. If there's no difference in final state, then you have empirical evidence that the sequence didn't contribute to development. Not 'unknown contribution' but 'observed to have NO contribution.' We have been doing knockout experiments for various species for, what decades now? This is not some new scientific discovery, it is (like many things) a pretty well accepted one that creationists simply choose to pretend never happened. Nature has even done this test for us. It is now known as the 'onion test.' There are several closely-related varieties of onions that have radically different-sized genomes; some twice as big as the other (and pratically all of these onion varieties having genomes larger than the human genome). Anyone who thinks the 'extra' genetic material does something is going to have to explain why both the short and long versions produce pretty much the same onion.

Altair IV said: I have a "junk drawer" in my kitchen. It's filled with all kinds of things; extra parts, broken pieces, interesting bits of stuff I've picked up in various places. None of it is being kept for what it was originally intended for, but I keep it all around because I think that I might find a use for it someday. And every once-in-a-while I do.* So even colloquially, "junk" is not perfectly synonymous with "non-functional" or "useless". It just means that it's superfluous for or no longer able to be used in its original capacity. In the end, I see the creationist "no junk DNA" thing as just an extension of the "no vestigial parts" argument, and for the same basic reasons. They both revolve around using a semantic sleigh-of-hand to build a strawman to attack. (*Not to imply that junk DNA is being purposely preserved for possible future use, although some creationists might argue it that way.)

More weirdness.

erica h-g said:

Robert Byers said: However the idea of in betweens between winging it and flipping it needs evidence. I say its impossible.

I wonder if this fellow watched the presentation, or is simply riffing on the title. The speaker talks in detail about the transition from aerial to underwater flight, with lots of examples of living and extinct birds that are capable of both. More on topic, I noticed that the speaker uses the word "penguin" to refer not only to the body plan and lifestyle of the birds we all know and love, but also to the evolutionary lineage that includes volant birds. Now I am curious about what features might clue us in to recognizing a flighted penguin in the fossil record!

Only Byers could use an expression like "normal flying penguins" with an apparently straight face. Bravo, Robert! A welcome return to form.

Hooray, examples of all three known species of ostriches in one post. The 'I love living with my head in the sand and you should join me' type; Bob Byers.The 'I don't know I'm living with my head in the sand and get the fuck down here with me' type; Hygaboo Anderson. And the long waited for, 'I am living with my head in the sand but think I'm soaring in the skies' type;Steve P.

Robert,

As the video demonstrates and as I pointed out before, there are fifty different intermediates forms in the fossil record between flying birds and modern penguins. How do you explain this? Did you actually watch the video? Do you actually have anything but your own personal incredulity as an argument? If not, then I don't believe that you are really a YEC and that means you aren't one. See how easy that was. Your opinion is the only thing that can change instantly and I don't see any evidence of that either.

Steve,

You have committed the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion. If there is actually no intelligence actively protecting the "junk" then there is no reason whatsoever for it not to stick around, even if it has no function, even if it has no potential function, even if it is potentially harmful. That is what we see in the human genome. Not that that has anything to do with the fifty intermediate penguin species that you and Robert are ignoring.

If you want to claim that all "junk" DNA has a function, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what that function is. If you claim that it must have a function, then, unless you can demonstrate that function, your hypothesis is falsified. And that includes the millions of copies of retroviruses, including the truncated ones, including the ones that cause disease and death and including the ones that demonstrate a hierarchical pattern that corresponds to the genetic similarities between organisms. As RIcky would say, you got a lot of spalin to do.

Steve P. -

What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed? If you cannot answer this question you cannot honestly claim to "detect design". Lack of response (again) will be understood by all readers to constitute proof that you cannot respond.

Robert Byers said: There were probably normal flying penguins and swimming/flying penguins.

Steve P the religious kook being stupid: Altair, you have that stuff in the drawer precisely because you know those things are ‘potentially’ useful.

I don't know much about Steve P., but he's right about one thing: knockout experiments are a poor guide to junk DNA. Unless the knockout experiment is carried out in a large population over many generations, we can't tell if there was selective value in the bit that was eliminated. Small advantages whose absence doesn't show up as lethals or monsters can still become fixed in a population through selection. No, the better way to detect junk is over evolutionary time. Is it evolving at a neutral rate? That is, is it not conserved over millions of years? And we find that out by comparing sequences between species.

John Harshman said: I don't know much about Steve P., but he's right about one thing: knockout experiments are a poor guide to junk DNA. Unless the knockout experiment is carried out in a large population over many generations, we can't tell if there was selective value in the bit that was eliminated. Small advantages whose absence doesn't show up as lethals or monsters can still become fixed in a population through selection. No, the better way to detect junk is over evolutionary time. Is it evolving at a neutral rate? That is, is it not conserved over millions of years? And we find that out by comparing sequences between species.

John Harshman said: I don't know much about Steve P., but he's right about one thing: knockout experiments are a poor guide to junk DNA. Unless the knockout experiment is carried out in a large population over many generations, we can't tell if there was selective value in the bit that was eliminated. Small advantages whose absence doesn't show up as lethals or monsters can still become fixed in a population through selection. No, the better way to detect junk is over evolutionary time. Is it evolving at a neutral rate? That is, is it not conserved over millions of years? And we find that out by comparing sequences between species.

steve p. said: So its quite apt for what we know as non-coding DNA. It is at the ready for regulatory purposes and at the ready to be used for any new conditions that may arise that calls for modifications/alterations.

Hey Steve - I posed some questions about your "design" detection claims down below on "This Week in ID". Sorry you never answered... where'd ya go? Still wanna play?

This is very stupid. I’m sorry but the English language lacks the words for just how stupid it is, so “very” will have to fill in.

The mutation rate is too high. For DNA, it is use it or lose it. DNA that isn’t being used very quickly becomes wrecked and eventually disappears. The mutation rate for any human is ca. 150/generation from their parents by actual counts.

If you want to claim that all “junk” DNA has a function, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what that function is. If you claim that it must have a function, then, unless you can demonstrate that function, your hypothesis is falsified. And that includes the millions of copies of retroviruses, including the truncated ones, including the ones that cause disease and death and including the ones that demonstrate a hierarchical pattern that corresponds to the genetic similarities between organisms. As RIcky would say, you got a lot of spalin to do.

I was hoping that it would be in some sort of format that would allow me to view it with an opensource video player,

steve p. said: Wait! No. OK, I see. DNA that isn't being used gets wrecked and eventually disappears. Soooo. That means all the non-coding DNA which we have in our genome but has not yet been found to have function must nonetheless still have potential function; simply undiscovered to date. After all, it is still in the genome and has not disappeared. So we can presume that some DNA got wrecked for whatever reason BUT because it is still present in the genome, has found or will find a new job to do; you know, not for reproduction, but for regulation, or some such other boring task.

We know it happens in the nano machinery of life, ie flagellum, etc. So looks like non-coding DNA and DNA segments are prime candidates for the role of commanding, controlling, regulating, and monitoring the genome as a whole.

That means life is resourceful against pressure, adversity

steve P. lying: steve p. said: Wait! No. OK, I see. DNA that isn’t being used gets wrecked and eventually disappears.

Genome Res. 2006 September; 16(9): 1182–1190. doi: 10.1101/gr.4565806. PMCID: PMC1557762 An initial map of insertion and deletion (INDEL) variation in the human genome Ryan E. Mills,1,2 Christopher T. Luttig,1 Christine E. Larkins,3 Adam Beauchamp,4 Circe Tsui,1,2 W. Stephen Pittard,2,5 and Scott E. Devine1,2,3,4,6 1Department of Biochemistry, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA; 2Center for Bioinformatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA; 3Biochemistry, Cell, and Developmental Biology Graduate Program, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA; 4Genetics and Molecular Biology Graduate Program, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA; 5Bimcore, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA 6Corresponding author. Received August 13, 2005; Accepted July 12, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Other Sections▼Abstract Although many studies have been conducted to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in humans, few studies have been conducted to identify alternative forms of natural genetic variation, such as insertion and deletion (INDEL) polymorphisms. In this report, we describe an initial map of human INDEL variation that contains 415,436 unique INDEL polymorphisms. These INDELs were identified with a computational approach using DNA re-sequencing traces that originally were generated for SNP discovery projects. They range from 1 bp to 9989 bp in length and are split almost equally between insertions and deletions, relative to the chimpanzee genome sequence. Five major classes of INDELs were identified, including (1) insertions and deletions of single-base pairs, (2) monomeric base pair expansions, (3) multi-base pair expansions of 2–15 bp repeat units, (4) transposon insertions, and (5) INDELs containing random DNA sequences. Our INDELs are distributed throughout the human genome with an average density of one INDEL per 7.2 kb of DNA. Variation hotspots were identified with up to 48-fold regional increases in INDEL and/or SNP variation compared with the chromosomal averages for the same chromosomes. Over 148,000 INDELs (35.7%) were identified within known genes, and 5542 of these INDELs were located in the promoters and exons of genes, where gene function would be expected to be influenced the greatest. All INDELs in this study have been deposited into dbSNP and have been integrated into maps of human genetic variation that are available to the research community.

SteveP, I think you need some help. There are persuasive arguments you've failed to employ. For instance, why not argue that 'junk' DNA is just information that the Designer front-loaded in full knowledge that someday the information in those sequences will be needed. The Designer, in His infinite wisdom, has provided man, His penultimate creation, with the genetic resources needed to experience the rapture (21 May 2011, by the way). Embedded in those dinucleotide repeats, Alu elements, and pseudogenes are the codes we will need to open the pearly gates.

God bless you little man.

SteveP, I think you need some help. There are persuasive arguments you’ve failed to employ.

raven said: God has always been a pretty kludgy tinkerer. He could just find the holes and fill them in.

steve p. said: No I don't want to claim ALL junk DNA has function. What is at issue is why would anyone make the original claim that non-coding DNA / junk DNA is largely useless or non-functional. How does a scientist arrive at such a conclusion?

"How does a scientist arrive at such a conclusion?"

By, you know, doing SCIENCE. And having it checked over multiple times by others who would just love to blow the original conclusion out of the water.

Now, how do creationists arrive at their conclusions?

(Answer: They don't have to. The "conclusions" are handed down from scripture, pastors, "bible study" groups, etc. They're really PREclusions. Saves a lot of work.)

Just Bob said: "How does a scientist arrive at such a conclusion?" By, you know, doing SCIENCE. And having it checked over multiple times by others who would just love to blow the original conclusion out of the water. Now, how do creationists arrive at their conclusions? (Answer: They don't have to. The "conclusions" are handed down from scripture, pastors, "bible study" groups, etc. They're really PREclusions. Saves a lot of work.)

Stanton said: ....creationists remained dumbfounded and agonized over why scientists refuse to take them or their preclusions seriously.

I didn’t say that DNA not being used disappears. It can but more often it gets scrambled and wrecked.

The mutation rate is too high. For DNA, it is use it or lose it. DNA that isn’t being used very quickly becomes wrecked and eventually disappears. The mutation rate for any human is ca. 150/generation from their parents by actual counts.

Just Bob said: "How does a scientist arrive at such a conclusion?" By, you know, doing SCIENCE. And having it checked over multiple times by others who would just love to blow the original conclusion out of the water. Now, how do creationists arrive at their conclusions? (Answer: They don't have to. The "conclusions" are handed down from scripture, pastors, "bible study" groups, etc. They're really PREclusions. Saves a lot of work.)

Steve wrote:

"But without doubt the current trend is for finding function. So the only scientific and logical thing to do is keep looking for MORE function. That’s IMO where the revolutionary breakthroughs in our knowledge of how life is constructed and regulated will come from."

So why aren't you doing this? Why aren't you looking for functions for all of the junk DNA? Why won't you admit that some has no function whatsoever that has ever been found? Why can't you admit that some DNA evolves at a rate consistent with the hypothesis that it is under no functional constraint? Why can't you admit that the people who have actually studied the genome and have earned the right to an opinion have all concluded that it is is exactly what one would expect if it were the product of random mutation and natural selection?

"And design detection will be there to make sense of the multiple layers of command and control that are at present elusive because they are natural but not material in nature. That’s the point you (pl) keep missing."

So why can't you do this? What are you waiting for? Why don't you tell everyone how "design detection" can explain endogenous retroviruses and their hierarchical insertion pattern? Why don't you explain exactly what is "not material in nature", exactly how it works and why?

"Take off those philosophical ray-bans for a change."

Typical projection from someone who sees the world through the lens of ignorance.

The glaring point is no one knows just what all that so-called junk DNA is doing in the genome.

But without doubt the current trend is for finding function.

So the only scientific and logical thing to do is keep looking for MORE function. That’s IMO where the revolutionary breakthroughs in our knowledge of how life is constructed and regulated will come from. And design detection will be there to make sense of the multiple layers of command and control that are at present elusive because they are natural but not material in nature. That’s the point you (pl) keep missing.

Harold et al,

You(pl) don't need me to tell you the answer to the question "What is not designed?" You have already answered it by utilizing design parameters a a guide.

Not so subtle hint: random mutation.

How do you know those mutations are random? What are u using as a comparative tool? You must have some idea of what is NOT a random mutation? What template are you using to chock up a match? You do have a pattern in mind, I presume.

Your moment of Zen.

steve p. said: Not so subtle hint: random mutation. How do you know those mutations are random? What are u using as a comparative tool? You must have some idea of what is NOT a random mutation? What template are you using to chock up a match? You do have a pattern in mind, I presume. Your moment of Zen.

You(pl) don’t need me to tell you the answer to the question “What is not designed?” You have already answered it by utilizing design parameters a a guide. Not so subtle hint: random mutation. How do you know those mutations are random? What are u using as a comparative tool? You must have some idea of what is NOT a random mutation? What template are you using to chock up a match? You do have a pattern in mind, I presume.

steve p. said: Harold et al, You(pl) don't need me to tell you the answer to the question "What is not designed?" You have already answered it by utilizing design parameters a a guide. Not so subtle hint: random mutation. How do you know those mutations are random? What are u using as a comparative tool? You must have some idea of what is NOT a random mutation? What template are you using to chock up a match? You do have a pattern in mind, I presume. Your moment of Zen.

In the past, Steve P. has demonstrated that he can't state who the designer is, what the designer did, how the designer did it, or when the designer did it.

In this thread, he shows that he can't even discuss how to tell whether something is "designed" or not.

harold said: In the past, Steve P. has demonstrated that he can't state who the designer is, what the designer did, how the designer did it, or when the designer did it. In this thread, he shows that he can't even discuss how to tell whether something is "designed" or not.

"Designed" is the wrong word, anyway. To determine if something was deliberately made the way it is, look for signs of [i]engineering[/i], not for signs of "design".

That's just my 2 cents.

You guys are really full of shit. Dale here says most mutations are harmful and many are neutral. But are they when bacteria mutate to create resistance to antibiotics? Is the bacteria just so f@#kin' lucky to get a get-out-of-jail card?

NO! It actively seeks a mutation that will fit the bill. When it does, it prevents its own annihilation. Luck-o-the-draw, you say? Emergent property, you say? Whatever it is, it ain't design, you say? Ookaaaayyyy.

Mutations caused by environmental factors like radiation ARE random AND non-designed. BUT the genome actively repairing what it can of the damage done IS clearly design.

So here, in two examples, we can clearly differentiate what mutations are non-designed and which ones are by design. Simple and straight forward, any kid'll pick it up in a heart beat.

Now try and tell 'em how it is not design but 'emergent phenomena'. Like I said you guys have a major, major marketing problem. I mean shit, your explanations are so convoluted and contradictory, you have to actually go around selling your position door-to-door.

Here's a glaring example of the problem with your thinking. Elzinga says there is no dichotomy between life and non-life. You guys say there is no dichotomy between macro and micro-evolution.

Yet, you assert a dichotomy exists between Man designing in particular and non-design of nature in general. And to assert that dichotomy, you must reject and deny all the evidence for design that we ACTUALLY FRIGGIN' OBSERVE under the microscope.

You have to painstakingly remind everyone over and over again that what they see MAY appear as design but REALLY its not; the genome may appear to be 'searching, and repairing, and finding, and sorting, and controlling, and commanding, and talking, and making collective decisions BUT, those are just words don't forget. What you see is not what is.

Not only that, you have to borrow as much design language and imagery as you can to make it go down better.

Who's kiddin' who here?

Oh, how tired.

Steve,

SO, you admit that mutations are random. Good, now we are getting somewhere. No one claimed that which mutations are repaired is not random. No one claimed that which mutations survive is not random.

You have demonstrated how random mutation and natural selection can produce things that appear to be designed but actually are not. The illusion of design does not mean that design is real.

Bacteria "actively seek mutations that fit the bill"? Really? How exactly do they do this? Why do they do this? By what mechanism do they do this? What happens to all of those random mutations that happen to them anyway? Why is there absolutely no evidence of this? Why have you provided no references to the scientific literature? Could it be you re just making crap up? Could it be that you are emotionally incapable of admitting that there is no evidence whatsoever for any design in nature?

You have absolutely and utterly failed to describe any mechanism whatsoever by which nonrandom mutations could possibly be produced. You have failed to describe the goal of such nonrandom mutations. In short, you have failed miserably once again. Thanks for playing.

steve p. said: Dale here says most mutations are harmful and many are neutral. But are they when bacteria mutate to create resistance to antibiotics?

Is the bacteria just so f@#kin' lucky to get a get-out-of-jail card?

BUT the genome actively repairing what it can of the damage done IS clearly design.

I mean shit, your explanations are so convoluted and contradictory, you have to actually go around selling your position door-to-door.

steve p. said: ...to assert that dichotomy, you must reject and deny all the evidence for design that we ACTUALLY FRIGGIN' OBSERVE under the microscope.

You have to painstakingly remind everyone over and over again that what they see MAY appear as design but REALLY its not; the genome may appear to be 'searching, and repairing, and finding, and sorting, and controlling, and commanding, and talking, and making collective decisions BUT, those are just words don't forget. What you see is not what is.

you must reject and deny all the evidence for design that we ACTUALLY FRIGGIN’ OBSERVE under the microscope.

eric said: There's nothing convoluted about this.

e^i*pi-1=0 is the one that really fucked me up.

Steve wrote:

"Dale here says most mutations are harmful and many are neutral. But are they when bacteria mutate to create resistance to antibiotics?"

Dale is right. And that's exactly what you would expect if mutations are random. It is absolutely NOT what you expect if they are designed. It is also exactly what we observe in nature and in laboratory experiments.

Take the Lenski experiment for example. You do know about that experiment don't you Steve? I can provide the reference for you, if you promise to read it. It demonstrates exactly what is expected from random mutations and natural selection. That is the conclusion drawn by the author, you know, the one who actually performed the experiment. Now you can yell and scream all you want, but the evidence contradicts your meaningless bluster. So do all of the experiments regarding the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Once again, I can provide references, can you?

"…to assert that dichotomy, you must reject and deny all the evidence for design that we ACTUALLY FRIGGIN’ OBSERVE under the microscope."

Except you have never actually looked under a microscope have you Steve? And you have never actually observed any design have you Steve (and neither has anyone else)? And you refuse to believe those who have actually looked under microscopes don't you Steve? (By the way, looking UNDER the microscope doesn't really work. You have to look through the lens). See Steve, here is the thing. as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, looking at something and claiming it must have been designed is NOT evidence. If you think that it is, then I can just as easily look at something and say it wasn't designed. Of course, I can back up my claims, you on the other hand, obviously cannot.

You guys are really full of shit. Dale here says most mutations are harmful and many are neutral. But are they when bacteria mutate to create resistance to antibiotics? Is the bacteria just so f@#kin' lucky to get a get-out-of-jail card?

NO! It actively seeks a mutation that will fit the bill. When it does, it prevents its own annihilation. Luck-o-the-draw, you say? Emergent property, you say? Whatever it is, it ain't design, you say? Ookaaaayyyy.

Mutations caused by environmental factors like radiation ARE random AND non-designed.

BUT the genome actively repairing what it can of the damage done IS clearly design.

So here, in two examples, we can clearly differentiate what mutations are non-designed and which ones are by design. Simple and straight forward, any kid'll pick it up in a heart beat.

Now try and tell 'em how it is not design but 'emergent phenomena'. Like I said you guys have a major, major marketing problem. I mean shit, your explanations are so convoluted and contradictory, you have to actually go around selling your position door-to-door. Here's a glaring example of the problem with your thinking. Elzinga says there is no dichotomy between life and non-life. You guys say there is no dichotomy between macro and micro-evolution. Yet, you assert a dichotomy exists between Man designing in particular and non-design of nature in general. And to assert that dichotomy, you must reject and deny all the evidence for design that we ACTUALLY FRIGGIN' OBSERVE under the microscope. You have to painstakingly remind everyone over and over again that what they see MAY appear as design but REALLY its not; the genome may appear to be 'searching, and repairing, and finding, and sorting, and controlling, and commanding, and talking, and making collective decisions BUT, those are just words don't forget. What you see is not what is. Not only that, you have to borrow as much design language and imagery as you can to make it go down better.

So Steve P.'s definition of "designed" is beneficial, and "not designed" is harmful...

And he thinks we're full of shit?

Of course. Isn't it obvious. Random can't mean beneficial and designed can't mean deleterious. That would be crazy. Makes perfect sense to me. Of course, the evidence still is completely against this, but who cares? This is what Steve wants to believe so it must be true. And if he screams it loud enough and often enough, it must then be true. Too bad he can't explain the actual evidence. But then again, how could he if he has never looked "under" a microscope or read a paper by anyone who actually has?

Random can’t mean beneficial

and designed can’t mean deleterious.

steve p. said: I mean shit...

Stanton said: So Steve P.'s definition of "designed" is beneficial, and "not designed" is harmful... And he thinks we're full of shit?

Mike Elzinga said: The averaging of random phenomena can usually pull out subtle underlying patterns. And it might require millions upon millions of samples to get there.

But we haven't had billions of samples yet. So far, it appears to be just noise.

But is that half-life constant over time?

Henry J said: But is that half-life constant over time?

Not that half-life! :p

You gotta wonder why Steve Pee continues his drive-bys. He's like the dopey kid in the "Pretty Fly For a White Guy" video who thinks he's hip.

fnxtr said: You gotta wonder why Steve Pee continues his drive-bys.

The next stage of penguin evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4

(Sorry if this has already been cited but 134 comments is a lot to go through!)

Some fine cinematography there.

Steve Martin explained that word at the Oscars one year: "Cinema, from the Greek word, meaning film, and... tography..."
(blinks, wanders off confused)

Henry J said:

and designed can’t mean deleterious.

Heck, designed means whatever the designing entity wants it to mean.

DS said: Steve, SO, you admit that mutations are random. Good, now we are getting somewhere. No one claimed that which mutations are repaired is not random. No one claimed that which mutations survive is not random. You have demonstrated how random mutation and natural selection can produce things that appear to be designed but actually are not. The illusion of design does not mean that design is real. Bacteria "actively seek mutations that fit the bill"? Really? How exactly do they do this? Why do they do this? By what mechanism do they do this? What happens to all of those random mutations that happen to them anyway? Why is there absolutely no evidence of this? Why have you provided no references to the scientific literature? Could it be you re just making crap up? Could it be that you are emotionally incapable of admitting that there is no evidence whatsoever for any design in nature? You have absolutely and utterly failed to describe any mechanism whatsoever by which nonrandom mutations could possibly be produced. You have failed to describe the goal of such nonrandom mutations. In short, you have failed miserably once again. Thanks for playing.

Wolfhound said:

harold said: In the past, Steve P. has demonstrated that he can't state who the designer is, what the designer did, how the designer did it, or when the designer did it. In this thread, he shows that he can't even discuss how to tell whether something is "designed" or not.

Well, he "can't" in the sense that if he stated What or Who actually designed stuff and how What or Who did it, he'd blow his "I'm not really religiously motivated, I just want TEH TROOF" schtick. Why do these goofballs think they're clever?

Steve P, if you have ever bothered to read a book on Microbiology, you wouldn't need to make your colossally stupid, yet pathetically impassioned plea to ignorance.

I mean, honestly, are you saying that pathogenic bacteria are sentient? Don't tell me that you're stupid enough to think cartoons like Osmosis Jones are documentaries.

If there really is some sort of intelligence coordinating the efforts of pathogenic bacteria, why hasn't this intelligence made any effort to communicate with humans?

Why would actual bacteriologists, who have spent literal lifetimes studying bacteria, have seen absolutely no trace of this alleged intelligence, while, only you, Steve P, a pompous fabric salesman who prides himself on his crippling science illiteracy, would be able to see the evidence?

But we don’t observe evidence of design. We don’t observe borrowing of ideas across lineages, we don’t observe foresight, we don’t observe increased simplicity, we don’t see the discarding of obselete parts, and we sure as shit haven’t observed any blueprints. You guys have only one drum, complexity implies design, and you’ve pounded it so hard and so long you’ve become blind to how obviously wrong it is. Complexity does NOT imply design. Simplicity is a far better indicator.

steve p. said: stupid rambling snipped A good intuition will lead to answers to the above questions. However, premature rejection/denial of the possibility/probability is (to put it mildly)imprudent and unjustified in light of the findings regarding bacterial invasion behavior.

IOW, your refusal to follow the evidence where it leads hinders YOUR ability to understand what is actually happening.

We are not the only smart cookies on the planet. Even 'lil bitty 'isms like bacteria possess intelligence. Remarkable intelligence. Since when did you believe that only organisms with brain stems and a cerebrum have dibbs on intelligence.

Your philosophy is more of a hinderance than a vehicle.

Steve P., if intelligence and design are so apparent in nature, then how come Intelligent Design proponents are so hesitant to scientifically demonstrate how to look for and research this magical Intelligence?

Why is it that Intelligent Design proponents, like yourself, demonstrate themselves to be simultaneously scientifically illiterate and totally hateful, disdainful of science, yet, constantly demand that their words be taken as sacred, unimpeachable science-gospel?

Steve:

So that would be a no, you have no examples of bacteria "actively seeking mutations", you have no mechanism whereby this could occur, you have no reason why this should occur and you have no evidence that this has ever occurred.

There is a vast literature containing elegant experiments that have rigorously tested the hypothesis of random mutations. You on the other hand got nothin. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.

Oh and substituting misconceptions for knowledge and then telling other that their philosophy is a hinderance is just plain hypocritical. Now why am I not surprised.

steve p. said: SA, denying design in nature is like denying yourself. We do observe foresight -repair means a genome knows it needs to make an adjustment or die.

It may not know in the way humans know, but nevertheless it must know. Otherwise, it couldn't act on a mistake and correct it. To reject this is to outright reject basic logic. Happens alot here.

True, we haven't observed blueprints because they are not material but natural nonetheless.

Simplicity is the foundation of design, not the goal or outcome.

You guys are incredible. We use design every friggin' day of our lives.

We use design when we analyse human behavioral patterns so we know how to management employees. We use design when we set up an experiment. We use design when we look for patterns in data. We use design to make investment decisions. We use design to plan retirement, on and on.

I couldn't achieve anything I have done - assimilate into a foreign culture and become a native Chinese speaker, learn a new trade at the age of 36 and become very successful at it within 18 months, learn and succeed at currency trading, on and on - without using design principles and concepts.

You have to be mad to think design in not imbedded in life. You have to be completely irrational to assert a dichotomy between (designing) Man and (non-designing) nature.

Oh, but I get it. Emergent properties. That 'must have' intellectual salve that smoothes and soothes all contradictions.

How many of you are actually applying Darwinian principles in your daily lives? If so, best of luck. You will need lots and lots of it.

Design is fact. Design is success. Design is life.

There are no coincidences, except in a reductionist Darwinian world.

steve p. said: We use design when we analyse human behavioral patterns so we know how to management employees. We use design when we set up an experiment. We use design when we look for patterns in data. We use design to make investment decisions. We use design to plan retirement, on and on. I couldn't achieve anything I have done - assimilate into a foreign culture and become a native Chinese speaker, learn a new trade at the age of 36 and become very successful at it within 18 months, learn and succeed at currency trading, on and on - without using design principles and concepts. You have to be mad to think design in not imbedded in life. You have to be completely irrational to assert a dichotomy between (designing) Man and (non-designing) nature.

Steve,

If bacteria can "actively seek mutations", how about you? Are you smarter than a bacteria? Tell you what, why don't you actively seek a mutation that gives you feathers. That shouldn't be so hard. You don't have to actually develop wings and fly, all you need is some feathers. You already have the genes to make the proteins, all you need to do is duplicate them and modify them a little. Her, I'll make it easier for you. You don't have to actually change every cell in your body, just one gamete. Then, all you have to do is g=have a child with feathers. In fact, have as many as you want. We'll wait.

What? You think that is silly? Well now you know howe everyone feels about your antiquated, vitalistic, supernatural nonsense. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore two thousand years of scientific progress, or you can join the real world. No one cares which you choose.

Fair warning, if you persist in disrupting this thread with off topic crap, the bathroom wall awaits. Now, got any explanation for the fifty intermediate penguin species? You did watch the video didn't you?

Steve wrtote:

"FYI, bacteria are known to coordinate an attack on their host. They multiply but do not infect the host until a threshold number has been reached. The stay in contact to signal their numerical condition. When the target number is reached, communication/signalling increases, and subsequently the invasion of the host begins.

Tell me, DS? How do these bacteria communicate? How are they able to calculate their own numbers? How do they signal a command? Which one(s) do the signalling? Do we need answers to them to understand what is happening? No, we want them to be sure. But the absence of answers to the details does not prevent us from recognizing that in fact they are doing just that, communicating, calculating, deciding, responding, etc."

Bacteria communicate by chemicals. Scientists doing real research discovered this many years ago. If anyone is interested in any details, here are a few references:

Applied Environmental Microbiology (2001) 67(2)575-585

Journal Of clinical Microbiology (2003) 172(9):1288-1296

PNAS (2003) 100(S2):14559-14554

See, nothing intelligent, supernatural or magical about it. And of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with any claims about "actively seeking mutations".

Same old creationist routine. Pick some seemingly amazing aspect of nature, claim it means that puny humans can't possibly understand how it works so therefore it must mean GODDIDIT. How boring. The problem is that we really do need to understand how bacteria communicate in order to fight diseases. Assuming that bacteria are intelligent and just walking away is only going to result in more deaths. Denying the knowledge we do have about how bacteria evolved and continue to evolve is the only productive approach. That's why we call the approach Steve takes the Dark Ages. That's why nearly everyone has moved on since then, except apparently Steve.

... not a productive approach.

steve p. said: You have to be mad to think design in not imbedded in life. You have to be completely irrational to assert a dichotomy between (designing) Man and (non-designing) nature. Design is fact. Design is success. Design is life. There are no coincidences, except in a reductionist Darwinian world.

Good grief! Is this steve p really as delusional as he appears to be? He ASSERTS that we can SEE evidence of DESIGN under the microscope. If he was referring to the bacterial flagellum, that might make sense. But resistance to antibiotics, not so much. BTW, what about resistance to pesticides by insects? Rachel Carlson predicted this in her book Silent Spring, yet she, as far as I know, didn't believe in Intelligent Design. Indeed, resistance to antibiotics by bacteria and resistance to presticides by insects are basic predictions of natural selection. NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN! So steve p is promoting FRAUD, like every other stupid Creationist who barges in here!

Of course people use design when doing things.

That has nothing to do with whether life prior to us was deliberately engineered by somebody or something.

Sheesh.

Penguin Evolution is a fib!

There are certainly a variety of particulars like that to take into consideration. That is a great level to carry up. I provide the ideas above as basic inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the one you deliver up the place an important thing will likely be working in sincere good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a fair game. Both boys and girls really feel the impression of only a second’s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.

Do you have a spam issue on this website; I also am a blogger, and I was curious about your situation; many of us have developed some nice practices and we are looking to swap techniques with other folks, be sure to shoot me an e-mail if interested.

Oh wonderful - spam trying to sell ways of dealing with spam! :p

Henry J said: Oh wonderful - spam trying to sell ways of dealing with spam! :p

Cons: Feels like a first-generation version of a new product line rather than a sequel to the iPod nano. Video, gaming, camera, speaker, and microphone features are amongst a laundry list of capabilities dropped from the new model, precluding it from being used as a complete or even substantial replacement for its three most recent predecessors, primarily by users with video needs. New glossy body colors are weaker than ones introduced in last two years. Multi-Touch screen has only one multi-touch gesture, lacking for others that might have made the device more interesting, while the lack of physical Home and track control buttons complicates the device’s ease of use; plenty of swiping is necessary. Use of clip, as well as connection and disconnection of accessories, can be a modest challenge while the device is being used.