Home » Biology, Intelligent Design » The bionic antinomy of Darwinism

The bionic antinomy of Darwinism

Do you remember when I said “when a thing is untrue, if we say it is true we get contradictions” (The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems)? Here I will deal with another contradiction of Darwinism: that we could name its “bionic antinomy”.

According to Wikipedia “Bionics (also known as biomimetics, bio-inspiration, biognosis, biomimicry, or bionical creativity engineering) is the application of biological methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology.” In fact, whether we analyze the history of technology, we find how often technical innovations and systems take inspiration from natural models. For some of the more recent examples of biomimetics see The 15 Coolest Cases of Biomimicry. This article synthetically defines bionics as “biologically inspired engineering”.

Bionics divides in sub-fields. For example, robotics, cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence try even to simulate the human body and mind. By the way these research fields are far from having achieved their long-term goal: to construct an artificial intelligent living being. These sub-fields of bionics, despite they are at the forefront of the technological advance, are those where the qualitative differences between artificial and natural systems are maximum. Matters of principle do exist that scientists never will succeed in such task of artificial creation of a true intelligent living being. Yes they will succeed to construct a robot simulating a human, but this robot will be neither really intelligent nor living. And less than less it will be a real “being” either. But this is another story…

The story herein is the strange phenomenon that happens when bionic and biological systems are put on the same table and compared. When a system “biologically inspired” to a certain biological system is considered in technology the terminology applied to it is engineering jargon (what else). When that biological system itself is considered in biology the terminology applied is purely Darwinian. For example, before the sonar of a submarine they say it is sophisticated engineering; before the sonar of a bat they say it is natural selection. This odd double standard always struck me.

What makes this double standard even more absurd is that, as noted above about robotics, the natural systems usually are more optimized and efficient than the equivalent artificial ones. For example, the bats have an echometer emitting 100 kHz supersonic pulses at a frequency of 30 times per second. These waves are reflected and distorted by the surrounding objects and their echoes are intercepted and elaborated by the bat to catch its prey and also just to get around. The signal processing of these echoes is so accurate to allow bats to fly, twisting, looping and zig-zagging through the air, into a completely dark room intersected by tens pianoforte strings without grazing them. The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers. What … technological jewel! And many other wonderful examples could be considered in nature.

Let’s try to formalize somehow as a very logic antinomy the double standard situation described above.

(1) Intelligence is what creates and optimizes artificial systems by inserting complex specified information into them. Intelligence is the unique source of CSI.
(2) Bionic systems are fully created by intelligence. Say B the CSI of a bionic system, B > 0.
(3) A bionic system is less efficient than the similar natural system (say N its CSI). Then B < N.
(4) Natural systems are not created by intelligence, then N = 0. This is the fundamental axiom of Darwinian evolution: natural systems seem to be designed by intelligence but it is an illusion only.
(5) From #3 (B < N) and #4 (N = 0) we have B < 0.
(6) From #2 and #5 we have in the same time B > 0 and B < 0, i.e. an absurdum.

The above reasoning logically proves that the evolutionist double standard is a very antinomy. In all logic antinomies there is at least a premise that is untrue. I am sure the UD readers will have no difficulty to discover that the false premise is #4, indeed the Darwinian main hypothesis (all species arose by unintelligent natural processes).
There is a teaching for evolutionists here (as in all other contradictions of Darwinism), simply they cannot have it both ways: biological systems undesigned and their artificial clones designed. Since they cannot deny design in artificial clones, they should resign themselves to consider as designed their biological archetypes too.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

221 Responses to The bionic antinomy of Darwinism

  1. Hello, I’m new here.
    First of all, apologies for my flawed English.

    And now I need your patience with my question: Is it legitimate to compare a technical device with living beings who can procreate?

  2. Makes sense!

  3. Matters of principle do exist that scientists never will succeed in such task of artificial creation of a true intelligent living being. Yes they will succeed to construct a robot simulating a human, but this robot will be neither really intelligent nor living. And less than less it will be a real “being” either.

    We do not know that yet and we never will unless we try.

    The story herein is the strange phenomenon that happens when bionic and biological systems are put on the same table and compared…. For example, before the sonar of a submarine they say it is sophisticated engineering; before the sonar of a bat they say it is natural selection. This odd double standard always struck me.

    If we put the sonar set from a submarine on a table alongside the echolocation organs of a bat, do you not think that most observers would assume that the sonar set was the product of human design and engineering while the bat’s organs were the result of biological processes? They may both be based on the same operating principles but they look and perform very differently.

    The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers. What … technological jewel!

    Yes, without a doubt it is. But if our science is correct, evolution has had millions of years to perfect the bat’s echolocation system while human scientists and engineers have been working on sonar for less than a hundred.

    The above reasoning logically proves that the evolutionist double standard is a very antinomy. In all logic antinomies there is at least a premise that is untrue. I am sure the UD readers will have no difficulty to discover that the false premise is #4, indeed the Darwinian main hypothesis (all species arose by unintelligent natural processes).

    Logic is a tool, like a computer, and you will no doubt be familiar with the saying in computer science of “garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO) meaning that if you enter incorrect data then you are likely to get incorrect results.

    The same is true for logic, For example, we could construct the following argument:

    *Premise 1: All black things are cats.

    *Premise 2: My dog is black.

    *Conclusion: My dog is a cat.

    The argument follows a valid logical form, the conclusion follows from the premises, but the conclusion is only true if the premises are true.

    Your argument fails if we reject the premise that CSI is only the product of an intelligent agent, deny that CSI has a coherent definition and argue that, more generally, information is a property of the models we construct to represent biological systems but not necessarily a property of the systems themselves.

  4. Mr Niwrad,

    Several of your points are open to dispute. The most fundamental is 1 – the definition of CSI as resulting only from intelligence. Point 3 is true or not on a case by case basis. If point 1 is not agreed, neither will point 4 be agreed. The Darwinist has hardly been argued into a corner.

    The entire field of genetic algorithms has been founded on this biomemetic idea as well. Why? because we wanted to imitate something that works! ;)

  5. Point 3 is also curious because it seems to be arguing that the CSI of B is less than the CSI of N because B is less efficient than N. Is this a new definition of CSI that identifies it with efficiency rather than improbability?

  6. Of course our resident Darwinian experts could, instead of offering the standard Darwinian fairy tales, tell us exactly, step by step, protein by protein, gene by gene, in a bottom up natural manner, how this multi-tiered system of complexity of the Bats sonar arose via purely naturalistic Darwinian processes. A concise explanation complete with gene knockout experiments and recovery of lost function experiments should suffice.

    If that is too much for our experts, though I am sure they think they have it all figured out, maybe they could just enlighten us on how ATP synthase arose:

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE3QJMI-ljc

    Or maybe the flagellum:

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNi0YXYadg0

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Shoot I would even settle for a detailed account of how the “simple” virus arose:

    Virus – Assembly Of A Nano-Machine – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObxgbaWwT_w

    Maybe I am being too hard on our resident experts of Darwin, maybe I should just ask for a detailed account of how a single protein molecule arose by natural processes:

    Signature in the Cell – Book Review
    amino acids have to congregate in a definite specified sequence in order to make something that “works.” First of all they have to form a “peptide” bond and this seems to only happen about half the time in experiments. Thus, the probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids containing only peptide links is about one chance in 10 to the 45th power.
    In addition, another requirement for living things is that the amino acids must be the “left-handed” version. But in “abiotic amino-acid production” the right- and left-handed versions are equally created. Thus, to have only left-handed, only peptide bonds between amino acids in a chain of 150 would be about one chance in 10 to the 90th. Moreover, in order to create a functioning protein the “amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements.” It turns out that the probability for this is about one in 10 to the 74th. Thus, the probability of one functional protein of 150 amino acids forming by random chance is (1 in) 10 to the 164th.
    http://www.spectrummagazine.or.....ature_cell

    Without enzyme, biological reaction essential to life takes 2.3 billion years: UNC study
    In 1995, Wolfenden reported that without a particular enzyme, a biological transformation he deemed “absolutely essential” in creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years. “Now we’ve found a reaction that – again, in the absence of an enzyme – is almost 30 times slower than that,” Wolfenden said. “Its half-life – the time it takes for half the substance to be consumed – is 2.3 billion years, about half the age of the Earth. Enzymes can make that reaction happen in milliseconds.”

  7. bornagain77:

    Of course our resident Darwinian experts could, instead of offering the standard Darwinian fairy tales, tell us exactly, step by step, protein by protein, gene by gene, in a bottom up natural manner, how this multi-tiered system of complexity of the Bats sonar arose via purely naturalistic Darwinian processes.

    But you are able to describe how the bat’s sonar was designed, correct? How did the designer do it? With this evidence, you could put the whole matter to rest.

  8. mikev6 , Why don’t you ask Him yourself?

    Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence – SETI receives message from God,,,,, Almost – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiQ8Jr5B2Eo

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

  9. Of course our resident Darwinian experts could, instead of offering the standard Darwinian fairy tales, tell us exactly, step by step, protein by protein, gene by gene, in a bottom up natural manner, how this multi-tiered system of complexity of the Bats sonar arose via purely naturalistic Darwinian processes.

    I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your Darwinian position as I do for my ID position.” Evolutionary biology is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not evolutionary biology’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If evolutionary theory is correct and natural selection is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental natural processes, and by applying evolutionary theory that is what evolutionary biologists are discovering.

    Or not…

    http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ul.....000152;p=3

  10. When I was young, I said to God, “God, tell me the mystery of the universe.” But God answered, “That knowledge is reserved for me alone.” So I said, “God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.” Then God said, “Well George, that’s more nearly your size.” And he told me.
    - George Washington Carver

  11. bornagain77,

    Amen.

  12. Shorter BA^77 – I can’t contribute to the conversation so I’ll disrupt it instead.

    Maybe this … wait for it…

    YouTube video!!1! will help you find a way of connecting constructively.

    Or perhaps this article about the evolution of echolocation in bats might help.

    Or you might peruse this part of the Wikipedia article on animal echolocation and point out which part of a bat’s echolocation anatomy couldn’t have evolved over millions of years, and why improvements in echolocation wouldn’t have been strongly selected for in nocturnal predators and cave dwellers.

  13. bornagain77:

    Sorry, ID is supposed to be science. Saying “God did it” and then walking away is not sufficient, and only reinforces all the stereotypes about ID.

    If you don’t like the Darwinian explanation for things, you need to present more compelling evidence for your explanation. (HINT – bible verses don’t count as scientific evidence.)

    So, I’ll ask again – how did the designer create bat sonar?

  14. mikev6 , Why don’t you ask Him yourself?

  15. Matters of principle do exist that scientists never will succeed in such task of artificial creation of a true intelligent living being.

    It will be challenging, yes. It may never fully happen, yes. But to categorically say never will succeed is a strong statement, implying knowledge of all future advances in human understanding. I’ll look forward to a more detailed explanation of how you’ve arrived at this conclusion.

  16. bornagain77:

    mikev6 , Why don’t you ask Him yourself?

    Ok – you can’t explain how bat sonar developed.

    Until you can come back with some evidence, Darwin is still the front runner.

  17. Kontinental @ #1

    Is it legitimate to compare a technical device with living beings who can procreate?

    Yes.

  18. mikev6:
    Until you can come back with some evidence, Darwin is still the front runner.

    Darwin has evidence? I’ve search for evidence that natural processes could generate complexity that exceeds mans ability and have found none! Yet I’ve search for evidence that God speaks to people and have found plenty. So truly mikev6, which would be more important for you personally, that you knew the step by step, or instantaneous, way God designed the bat, or that you learn to hear from Him who created you?

  19. Seversky @ #3

    If we put the sonar set from a submarine on a table alongside the echolocation organs of a bat, do you not think that most observers would assume that the sonar set was the product of human design and engineering while the bat’s organs were the result of biological processes?

    Most observers? Who knows.

    Say they were being observed by mold. Probably not.

    Say it was aliens, who knew nothing of biological processes or human design and engineering, but did have the technical competence to understand the operating principles.

    They may both be based on the same operating principles but they look and perform very differently.

    Then how do you explain the similarity in operating principles?

    For it isn’t the parts, per se, that beg for an explanation, but rather the principles employed to achieve an end, and the fact that these parts just happen to do so.

  20. Seversky @ #3

    evolution has had millions of years to perfect the bat’s echolocation system …

    And upon what factual basis do you make the claim that the bat echolocation system was any “less perfect” in the past than it is today?

    Evolution may have had millions of years, but that doesn’t mean that it did so.

    … while human scientists and engineers have been working on sonar for less than a hundred.

    Perhaps they should have used a process that involved random changes with no goal or purpose and numerous trials.

  21. Mung,
    In this video, at the 1:25 mark, is the picture of a 50 million year old bat fossil that looks exactly like bats living today:

    Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don’t Want You To See – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ

    What is stunning is that bats have an unchanging fossil record going back 50 million years which is supposedly the same amount of time that it took for some wolf-like animal to turn into a whale. Something is definitely amiss in Darwinland if they are allowed such leeway in story telling.

    Whale Evolution? – Exposing The Deception In The Fossil Record – Dr. Terry Mortenson – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUqoTsmqbA

    Picture of a 50 Million Year Old Bat fossil that has not changed in shape from a modern bat
    http://www.fossil-museum.com/f.....php?Id=410

    Picture Of Modern Bat
    http://www.fossil-museum.com/f.....php?Id=410

    Echolocation Of Bats – Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKu8k1SQCuU

  22. Mr BA^77,

    With regard to your first YouTube video, if the fossil record only contained modern forms, it would contradict Darwin’s “inumerable variations”. As it is, finding old fossils that resemble modern phenotypes is no contradiction – everything that video is leaving out are the inumerable variations.

  23. bornagain77/Mung:

    Survey article on Bat evolution and development.

    Recent bat fossil and implications for bat development:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci.....243502.stm

    Short news article on genetic components of bat echolocation:

    http://news.softpedia.com/news.....6732.shtml

    (I’m sure there are more articles out there.)

    These discuss development of echolocation ability over time.

    And for bornagain77 – a species isn’t required to evolve. A species keeping its basic body plan is perfectly consonant with the ToE. There could also be genetic change that isn’t visible in the fossil record too.

  24. mikev6:

    So, you can have your cake and eat it too?

  25. Well mike,
    I’ll see your 52 million year old fossil and raise you a 52.5 million year old fossil with full echolocation already present:

    Icaronycteris
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icaronycteris
    picture:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F....._index.jpg

    Thanks for the just so story I needed a good Darwinian fairy tale full of could have maybe have and possibly could haves all through it,, Then again you may just want to wake up tomorrow and practice real science by falsifying Abel’s Null Hypothesis for information generation:

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Or better yet you may want to start your day off with a little prayer.

  26. So, you can have your cake and eat it too?

    Fortunately evolution produces an infinite variety of cake (even though there is no such thing as “cake” in reality).

  27. bornagain77:

    So truly mikev6, which would be more important for you personally, that you knew the step by step, or instantaneous, way God designed the bat, or that you learn to hear from Him who created you?

    I’ll go for Door #1 for now. Do you know how it happened?

    You may find this question irritating, but its a natural result of extending science to include the non-material. If ID feels that science should make this extension, then you have to accept that science has this pesky habit of asking questions and demanding evidence, and will not be satisfied with “revealed knowledge” or accepting something on faith.

    Again, if you think the evidence for the currently accepted theory is insufficient, you need to present stronger evidence for your theory.

  28. mikev6 @ #22

    Survey article on Bat evolution and development.

    Thank you for the interesting link.

    Bat echolocation calls provide remarkable examples of ‘good design’ through evolution by natural selection.

    I love how they put ‘good design’ in scare quotes to remind us that what we have here is not an actual case of good design, but rather just the illusion of good design, brought about by a completely incompetent echolocation design process.

    Theory developed from acoustics and sonar engineering permits a strong predictive basis for understanding echolocation performance.

    Notice it is a intelligent design hypothesis which provides the fruitful avenue for inquiry.

    Folks, save this link for those who charge ID with not being a fruitful paradigm for science.

  29. More on echolocation:

    Recent phylogenetic analyses based on gene sequences show that particular types of echolocation signals have evolved independently in several lineages of bats. Call design is often influenced more by perceptual challenges imposed by the environment than by phylogeny, and provides excellent examples of convergent evolution.

    Read, “do not adhere to the pattern predicted by Darwinian evolutionary theory.” Note that “convergence” is not an explanation, but rather a description.

    Now that whole genome sequences of bats are imminent, understanding the functional genomics of echolocation will become a major challenge.

    Even greater challenges will be to:

    1.) Explain away the appearance of design.

    2.) Explain how a mindless, purposeless process with nothing but genetic changes unrelated to adaptive needs just happened to miraculously appear, but also miraculously appeared in the same environment (where such a change would be beneficial) and appeared not just once, but many times, in independent lineages, all due to happenstance, and miraculously converged on the same solution to an unknown and unspecified problem.

    People reject Darwinism, and rightly so, because it is simply not believable.

    Give me an evolutionary theory that is believable, please!

  30. bornagain77:

    Your article on Icaronycteris included the following quote:

    It closely resembled modern bats, but had some primitive traits. The tail was much longer and not connected to the hind legs with a skin membrane, the first wing finger bore a claw and the body was more flexible. Similarly, it had a full set of relatively unspecialised teeth, similar to those of a modern shrew.

    This would appear to contradict your point that bats haven’t evolved.

  31. Bats couple call production with wing flapping to minimize the costs of echolocation during flight (Speakman & Racey 1991).

    Was call production adjusted to conform to wing flapping, was wing flapping adjusted to conform to call production, or were both adjusted together?

    What would a designer do?

    What would evolution do, not having any way to know that the two were even remotely related?

    IOW, there is nothing in evolution which would prevent the evolution of either in a contradictory trajectory.

  32. Mung:

    How exactly is “evolved independently in several lineages of bats” not adhering to Darwinian predictions? Just curious.

    Perhaps you would care to respond to my question to bornagain77:

    How did the designer create bat sonar?

    If your answer is superior to the evidence in the echolocation article, that will go a long way towards convincing me that ID has merit.

  33. Hi mikev6:

    “It closely resembled modern bats, but had some primitive traits. The tail was much longer and not connected to the hind legs with a skin membrane, the first wing finger bore a claw and the body was more flexible. Similarly, it had a full set of relatively unspecialised teeth, similar to those of a modern shrew.”

    In your opinion, would you agree with the author of that article that “a claw”, “unspecialized teeth” and the other mentioned traits are actually “primitive”? I don’t see how they could be, since all of these traits appear up and down the fossil record regardless of the time frame involved. It sounds like a trilobite, “primitive” yet some of them had “complex” eyes.

  34. mikev6

    “How did the designer create bat sonar?

    As far as I am able to understand ID, the ultimate thrust of it is not how something was designed but rather if it was designed. I am a typical backyard “shadetree” mechanic, and while design detection in that sense is easy, I work on plenty of stuff that I don’t *how* or by what method or manufacturing process it was produced/created.

  35. gleaner63:

    In your opinion, would you agree with the author of that article that “a claw”, “unspecialized teeth” and the other mentioned traits are actually “primitive”? I don’t see how they could be, since all of these traits appear up and down the fossil record regardless of the time frame involved. It sounds like a trilobite, “primitive” yet some of them had “complex” eyes.

    My understanding is that “primitive” in this sense is in relation to modern bats only. I wouldn’t call a claw “primitive” per se, if that’s what you mean.

  36. gleaner63:

    As far as I am able to understand ID, the ultimate thrust of it is not how something was designed but rather if it was designed. I am a typical backyard “shadetree” mechanic, and while design detection in that sense is easy, I work on plenty of stuff that I don’t *how* or by what method or manufacturing process it was produced/created.

    This is a frequent point made by ID, but it strikes me as an artificial self-imposed limit that I find odd.

    My best analogy is to imagine if a geologist claimed that geology was the science of identifying rocks from other types of matter (animals, plants, etc). He could happily hike through the Rockies identifying rocks left and right without wondering how the mountains got there, and come back with minimal understanding the true nature of things.

    The question of how the designer operates is (IMHO) far more interesting and important than just identification, and will be a requirement if ID really wants to replace Darwinism as the leading explanation for biodiversity.

  37. mikev6

    “The question of how the designer operates is (IMHO) far more interesting and important than just identification, and will be a requirement if ID really wants to replace Darwinism as the leading explanation for biodiversity.”

    It’s possible that the processes used by the creator, as some Christians have suggested, are no longer in operation or would be beyond our comprehension. If this is the case, we have little hope of ever discovering what those creative mechanisms were. Also, I would argue that, when taking a car engine apart, a lot is open to investigation, including the design and how it works, and we can study those without knowing the mind of the creator. Of course, to know the mind of the creator would be a wonderful thing, but we can detect design without knowing the designer. I heard someone else use the example of discovering an alien artifact on the backside of the moon. Making the leap that it was in fact an alien designed artifact would be the first order of business because of the implications involved. That we may never discover the perhaps long dead alien race who built it would be, at that point, unimportant. Of course, some of this would depend on the individual making the discovery. The Great Pyramid at Giza is interesting all by itself, but in that case I am more interested in the designers than what they actually built. In the case of creation, I am about equally interested in both.

  38. If ID feels that science should make this extension, then you have to accept that science has this pesky habit of asking questions and demanding evidence, and will not be satisfied with “revealed knowledge” or accepting something on faith.

    Science only has this “pesky habit” when it’s not aimed at science itself. No wonder so many of us are skeptical.

    What is the scientific basis for empiricism and materialism?

  39. mikev6

    How did the designer create bat sonar?

    I have no idea. I don’t even know whether a designer (or more than one designer) created bat sonar. I’m agnostic on that question.

    But when you ask “how,” which of Aristotle’s four causes does the “how” question seek to answer?

    If your answer is superior to the evidence in the echolocation article, that will go a long way towards convincing me that ID has merit.

    There is no evidence in the echolocation article.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC1919403/

    It’s primarily descriptive with a few obligatory nods towards evolution and natural selection tossed in, as if the lack of a prayer to the deity might be punished.

    Most of the article though, is design-centric. Imagine that.

    So I don’t have a “theory of bat sonar echolocation creation” and you don’t have a “theory of bat sonar echolocation creation” either (from which it follows that you have no evidence for your non-theory), so where does that leave us?

    You claim your lack of knowledge is superior to mine? lol!

  40. Mr Mung,

    What would evolution do, not having any way to know that the two were even remotely related?

    Actually, flapping, breathing and calling are very related activities, since flapping is extremely aerobic and the muscles of flapping movements surround the lungs. Minimizing the energy costs of flying and finding food would strongly selected for by evolution.

  41. Nakashima,

    It isn’t the survival that is in question.

    It is the ARRIVAL that is in question.

    Sure once something works it can be kept.

    But the point is what brought it into being?

    What mutational accumulation can take a shrew-like organism and “make” a bat-like organism?

    How can we test that such a transformation is even possible via mutational accumulation?

  42. mikev6, It is not only that Darwinism is insufficient to explain the generation of complex functional information, reality itself is shown, by rigorous empirics, to be based on complex functional information. Or as Theism has postulated for 2 thousand years “In the beginning was The Word (Logos)”. Thus not only is Darwinism insufficient to explain the complex functional information we find in life, as far as the foundational science of Quantum Physics is concerned, Darwinism has no right to even make any claim for non-teleological processes originating life in the first place. i.e. How can you build a house with no foundation on which to build it?

  43. Off topic song:
    Stairway to Heaven on Harp
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzKCNDgn3As

  44. Mr Joseph,

    Since we have several examples of gliding mammals, I’m surprised you think the accumulation of mutations would be difficult to show. In this case we have living intermediate forms, as compared to the case of birds from dinosaurs.

    What brought it into being? Variation What kept it? Selection.

  45. And Nak, Do you mind showing us these hypothetical beneficial mutations?

  46. Mr BA^77,

    I think we’ll have to wait for these species to have their genomes sequenced before we can take the discussion to that level. But as the article I referenced earlier showed FoxP2 changes in bats we could start there. Do you think these changes represented a loss of information?

  47. Nak, They did not “show” changes, they hypothesized changes, and whats more they hypothesized “miraculous” convergent mutations that just so happened to find, “i.e. converge on”, the same miraculous solution in different lineages. That you would insinuate this is rigorous evidence is pathetic… I was thinking more along the lines of you joining the real world of science, instead of darwinian story telling land, and actually violating the fitness test by 140 functional information bits:

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – “The Fitness Test” – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE

    Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – 2008
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-drugstore

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    Math to calculate gain or loss in functional information:

    Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology – Kirk Durston – short video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUeCgTN7pOo
    Entire video:
    http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xml

    Or if that’s to tough for you nak, maybe you can just show us a the evidence for the origination of a new species, not a trivial variation within kind:

    “Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade.” Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)

    Darwinism’s Last Stand? – Jonathan Wells
    Excerpt: Despite the hype from Darwin’s followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best. Natural selection – like artificial selection – can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection – much less the origin of new organs and body plans. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

  48. mikev6:
    The question of how the designer operates is (IMHO) far more interesting and important than just identification, and will be a requirement if ID really wants to replace Darwinism as the leading explanation for biodiversity.

    Darwinism is the leading explanation for biodiversity among those who are biased toward it, away from the alternative, or who haven’t given it much thought and believe whatever they hear on TV.

    As an explanation, Darwinism simply isn’t one. It says, in essence, X evolved from Y via this mechanism, that, this other one, or another one, or some combination of them. We’re certain enough to know that it happened, but unable to offer any specifics. (Sounds a bit like your criticism of ID.)

    It’s a bit like a coroner who determines that a man was murdered, and says, “I’m sure he was murdered by being shot or stabbed in some part of his body, suffocated, or poisoned. Maybe all, maybe one, or maybe a combination.” He claims to explain why there’s a dead body on the table, but when pressed, can’t actually say what did or didn’t happen.

    Such a weak explanation doesn’t need to be “replaced” by a better one.

  49. You know what’s funny Nak, is that even if you could demonstrate a gain of complex functional information, which you can’t, you still have to demonstrate that it was a non-teleological, material, process that accomplished the gain in functional information, in order for the base materialistic claim of Darwinism to be validated in the first place i.e. it must be demonstrated that it was unguided, yet this level of empirical validation is now impossible for Darwinists since the hidden variable postulation of quantum mechanics is thoroughly refuted:

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    i.e. it is conclusively shown that we live in a “theistic” universe where a “completely transcendent first cause’ calls all the shots. This is a fact of empirical science nak! If you don’t like the implications that’s tough and is no excuse for you to pretend/imagine materialism still has a coherent basis. If you want to stay within science then refute the findings. But if you now realize what is clearly obvious and now want to argue against ID from a “natural evil”, a “bad design”, or a lack of free will perspective, you enter into the realm of theodicy and have left the realm of empirical science, and for that line of argumantation I recommend Dr, Dembski’s new book “The End Of Christianity”.

    Excerpt here: Finding a Good God in an Evil World – William Dembski
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    William Dembski’s New Book “The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World” Is available at Amazon here:
    http://www.amazon.com/End-Chri.....038;sr=1-1

    Does God Exist? – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1JbHRgNowU

    Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 1 of 3 – Thomas Kindell – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI1RiTOQ4do

  50. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection – much less the origin of new organs and body plans.

    From what little I know of evolutionary theory, 150 years seem a somewhat short time to expect new species, new organs or body plans.

    Besides, seeing how the the current body plan for mammals have stood the test of time for some 50 million years, there appears to be little need for major modifications.

    Your argument strikes me as being founded on some misconception about what the theory of evolution actually is, and how and why it works.

    May I suggest that too much effort at thinking in terms of ID and striving to make ID fit the facts may stand in the way of a proper understanding of evolution?

    As far as I know, in order to observe evolution at work in shorter time spans, experiments on bacteria have been vary successful.

    Maybe a desire to find confirmation of a religious faith also may lead to wishful thinking?

  51. Cabal states:

    As far as I know, in order to observe evolution at work in shorter time spans, experiments on bacteria have been vary successful.

    But can Cabal find solace in experiments on micro-organisms, since the abruptness and stasis found in the fossil record lends him no “material” comfort? NO!!!

    Excerpt: Though it is impossible to reconstruct the DNA of these earliest bacteria fossils, scientists find in the fossil record, and compare them to their descendants of today, there are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and “revived” from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    and this:

    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber
    Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart, (thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution’s “genetic drift” theory requires.)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5213/1060

    In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the “Fitness Test” I had asked him about:
    Dr. Cano stated: “We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative “ancient” B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.”:
    Fitness test which compared the 30 million year old ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki

    Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria.

    Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
    “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2....._edge.html

    This following article refutes Lenski’s supposed “evolution” of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli:

    Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we’ve seen evolution do, then there’s no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/.....96N278Z93O

    New Work by Richard Lenski:
    Excerpt: Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator.” That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....enski.html

    “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

    Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking – Michael Behe – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....ches_t.htm l

  52. Mr BA^77,

    To confirm Prof Thomson’s back of the envelope calculation, all you have to do is check the web site of the World Genome Survey. They scan the globe on a real time basis and check the genome of every living organism on the planet, using the same satellite laser technology that the Darwinian Magisterium/Bavarian Illuminati use for mind control. (BTW, they ask me to pass along that your chip needs to be reset, please sit outside today for at least 45 minutes.)

    Using this remarkable laser technology, they can spot a speciation event no matter where it happens on or under the Earth’s surface. You’re only a few clicks away from noting the last few speciations – a new beetle that lives on exactly one tree in the Amazon rain forst (recorded in 2003, the tree has since been cut down), and new kind of brine shrimp that can tolerate a higher level of acidity in ocean water (recorded in 2008 in the South Atlantic and really starting to thrive, thanks to global climate change!).

  53. Nak, variation within kind, and I will bet you your home that a loss of genetic diversity from parent kind occurred

  54. Further note to cabal:

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

  55. Cabal states:

    Maybe a desire to find confirmation of a religious faith also may lead to wishful thinking?

    Cabal is that why atheists find confirmation for evolution in every imagination they can conjure up? i.e. why should the atheists “faith” in materialism be any less subject to Criticism than my faith in Theism especially since my “faith” lines up with Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang, Relativity, The Second Law, i.e. why do atheists get a free pass cabal?

  56. Mr BA^77,

    Nak, variation within kind, and I will bet you your home that a loss of genetic diversity from parent kind occurred

    For which? The beetle or the brine shrimp?

  57. Take your pick and how much is your home worth?

  58. Kontinental #1

    Is it legitimate to compare a technical device with living beings who can procreate?

    To the goal of the design inference it is more than legitimate.

    Both artificial and natural systems obey in general to the same scientific laws (in particular to the same chemical/physical and information laws). Both are subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics: systems unavoidably go towards degradation and advanced mechanisms have to be designed to counter (partially) that trend. I write “partially” because however also organisms finally die under the devastating action of entropy.

    If an artificial system is designed to greater reason its biological counterpart is designed because the self-reproduction feature adds only information. For example, given this discussion deals with bionics, to design a self-reproducing robot is far more difficult than to design a robot not able to self-reproduce.

    As a consequence when evolutionists, to deny design, object that organisms self-reproduce and artifacts do not, they shoot themselves on the foot.

  59. Mr BA^77,

    I’m sorry, I have to admit that I have played upon your credulity. The World Genome Survey has not yet implemented a satellite based real-time genome scan of the entire planet. In fact our ability to record speciation events relies on being there to witness them, and we have poor coverage of most of the globe where speciation events occur.

    Prof Thomson should have gone on to calculate how many speciation events can be expected in areas we have under observation. Under these more stringent conditions, it makes sense that the two most recent speciations actually observed by the WGS are the 1965 Central Park (NYC) squirrel that evolved the ability to mug tourists (it could differentiate tourists from natives by a willingness to make eye contact), and the 1954 event in which sharks exposed to radiation from underwater atomic blasts evolved lasers on their foreheads.

  60. Bornagain,

    Of course our resident Darwinian experts could, instead of offering the standard Darwinian fairy tales, tell us exactly, step by step, protein by protein, gene by gene, in a bottom up natural manner, how this multi-tiered system of complexity of the Bats sonar arose via purely naturalistic Darwinian processes. A concise explanation complete with gene knockout experiments and recovery of lost function experiments should suffice.

    I feel, as an argument, that this diatribe is especially ineffective seeing as how we as Intelligent Design advocates are consequently required to show, step by step, protein by protein, gene by gene, in a manner consistent with the design mechanism, how this multi-tiered system of complexity of the Bats sonar arose via a source of intelligence.

    Given that with the current state of affairs that is not humanly possible, it seems rather pedantic to ask it of the Darwinists.

  61. Dr. Dembski,

    As a consequence when evolutionists, to deny design, object that organisms self-reproduce and artifacts do not, they shoot themselves on the foot.

    While on the surface this may seem to be a suitable endeavor, it is ultimately doomed to fail on the premise that clearly, as we see in everyday life, engineered artifacts do not undergo the same genome manipulation (and therefore phenotypic changes) that living organisms undergo. In this case, the Darwinian mantra may be correct, but again it is no deterrent to the idea that we cannot detect meaningful design in nature.

    You go on to say:

    Both are subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics: systems unavoidably go towards degradation and advanced mechanisms have to be designed to counter (partially) that trend. I write “partially” because however also organisms finally die under the devastating action of entropy.

    Can you give an instance of a single-celled bacterium, while being perpetually supplied with the necessary nutrients and means to life, ceases to exist outside of being actively destroyed by another organism?

    In this vein, any biologist worth his salt knows that life is a continuous process. I hope you will agree that bacteria are, for all intents and purposes, immortal – given that their life is not pre-empted by a predator. Complex organisms undergo a sort of “entropy” as the one you touched on above, but we must remember that complex organisms are comprised of many, many millions of simpler organisms, and simpler still as we zoom farther and farther in.

    We must remember to always view biologic systems at the appropriate level. It would not suit a veterinarian to view the dog at the level of microscopic cells anymore than it would suit the microbiologist to view the dog at the macroscopic level!

  62. Nak, I knew what you were doing and that credulity is the one in question for you willingly suspend belief in the reality science hands us in order to cling to the belief that your great-great-grand-pappy was a mud puddle.
    Leviathan, from your post here and to Ms. O’Leary, I sincerely doubt you have a firm foundation in the physics.

  63. Mr BA^77,

    You cite Dr Wells,

    But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection – much less the origin of new organs and body plans.

    By this logic, I’m sure Dr Wells and yourself are equally skeptical of our current theories of planet formation. In the hundreds of years since Galileo, we have never seen a single new planet being formed.

  64. Leviathan, from your post here and to Ms. O’Leary, I sincerely doubt you have a firm foundation in the physics.

    I fail to see how physics is in any way relevant to the rather simple biology questions I’ve posed in the above posts.

    Would you mind going into further detail?

  65. Leviathan, since Physics directly informs us on what can be known of reality, it directly informs us on what to expect from biology, or as has been said:

    “Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.”
    Ernest Rutherford

    in further note to defend O’Leary’s position:

    That the “mind” of a individual observer would play such an integral yet not complete “closed system role”, in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe to “3D centrality”, gives us clear evidence that our “mind” is a unique entity. A unique entity with a superior quality of existence when compared to the “uncertain 3D particles” of the “material” universe. This is clear evidence for the existence of the “higher dimensional soul” of man that supersedes any “material basis” that the soul has been purported to “emerge” from and confirms the theistic postulation for man’s being.

    Quantum Mechanics – The Limited Role Of The Observer – Michael Strauss – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBs

    Nak, I can gaze to the heavens and see dust clouds collapsing and infer that it is reasonable that planets, such as our earth, may very well have formed in such a manner. Yet I gaze upon the fossil record and find no gradual transformations to explain novel “kinds” appearing suddenly in the fossil record. Since I know for a fact the entire universe is to have appeared suddenly, I am not left without any avenue of physics to investigate, as the materialists is. In fact from our understanding gained in Quantum mechanics I can most reasonably infer that the cause of the entire universe is the cause we witness in the fossil record. Though you would think that what seems to be slow planet formation may leave an avenue for the materialists to argue from, this avenue is an illusion, for the atheist must find resource to explain the privileged planet principle:

    excerpt:

    As opposed to the anthropic hypothesis which starts off by presuming the earth is extremely unique in this universe, materialism begins by presuming planets that are able to support life are fairly common in this universe. In fact astronomer Frank Drake (1930-present) proposed, in 1961, advanced life should be fairly common in the universe. He developed a rather crude equation called the “Drake equation”. He plugged in some rather optimistic numbers and reasoned that ten worlds with advanced life should be in our Milky Way galaxy alone. That worked out to roughly one trillion worlds with advanced life throughout the entire universe. Much to the disappointment of Star Trek fans the avalanche of scientific evidence, which has been coming in recently, has found the probability of finding another planet with the ability to host advanced life in this universe is not nearly as likely as astronomer Frank Drake had originally predicted.

    Probability For Life On Earth – Michael Strauss – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zfOaXQh2SE

    There are many independent characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to host advanced carbon-based life. Two popular books have recently been written, “The Privileged Planet” by Guillermo Gonzalez and “Rare Earth” by Donald Brownlee, indicating the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. Privileged Planet, which also holds any life supporting world will also be found to allow profound discoveries into the deep mysteries of the universe, has now been made into a video.

    The Privileged Planet – video
    http://video.google.com/videop.....5590289530

    There is also a well researched statistical analysis of the many independent “life-enabling characteristics” that mathematically proves the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life. The statistical analysis, which is actually a refinement of the Drake equation, is dealt with by astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross (1945-present) in his paper “Probability for Life on Earth”.

    Probability For Life On Earth – List of Parameters, References, and Math – Hugh Ross
    http://www.reasons.org/probabi.....h-apr-2004
    http://www.johnankerberg.com/A.....304RFT.pdf

    A few of the items in Dr. Ross’s “life-enabling characteristics” list are; Planet location in a proper galaxy’s “habitable zone”; Parent star size; Surface gravity of planet; Rotation period of planet; Correct chemical composition of planet; Correct size for moon; Thickness of planets’ crust; Presence of magnetic field; Correct and stable axis tilt; Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere; Proper water content of planet; Atmospheric electric discharge rate; Proper seismic activity of planet; Many complex cycles necessary for a stable temperature history of planet; Translucent atmosphere; Various complex cycles for various elements etc.. etc.. I could go a lot further for there are a total of 322 known parameters which have to be met for complex life to be possible on Earth, or on a planet like Earth. Individually, these limits are not that impressive but when we realize ALL these limits have to be met at the same time and not one of them can be out of limits for any extended period of time, then the condition becomes “irreducibly complex” and the probability for a world which can host advanced life in this universe becomes very extraordinary. Here is the final summary of Dr. Hugh Ross’s “conservative” estimate for the probability of another life-hosting world in this universe.

    Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters =10^388
    Dependency factors estimate =10^96
    Longevity requirements estimate =10^14
    Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters = 10^304
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe =10^22

    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282 (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

    The following is another surprising Privileged Planet parameter which recently came to light:

    Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
    Excerpt: “The entire solar system from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is surrounded by a bubble of solar magnetism called “the heliosphere.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....133244.htm

    The Protective Boundaries of our Solar System – NASA IBEX – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O0qcQZXpII

    Thus nak, the weight is firmly in favor of Theism, and once again you will retreat to your imagination and snide comments, as you always do when cornered with evidence.

  66. Bornagain,

    That the “mind” of a individual observer would play such an integral yet not complete “closed system role”, in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe to “3D centrality”, gives us clear evidence that our “mind” is a unique entity.

    There is a fundamental disconnect between your conclusion and your premise (at least the one I gleaned from watching that vague and ambiguous Youtube video you linked to).

    If indeed the “mind” plays an integral role in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe, it is not a closed system. This is simple logic.

    Your argument seems akin to the disingenuous claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Surely you don’t believe this?

    Furthermore, you have failed to show experimental evidence that there is indeed a “supernatural” component to the human brain that directly correlates with the body in relation to health. If death is simply the soul leaving the body, and has nothing to do with the necessary conditions for life imposed upon that body, then what do we need doctors for?

    I’ll ask again: do you object to the idea that the body is composed of many small, interlocking, working parts that display emergent properties in such a way that if not all the necessary conditions for life are present, the organism ceases living?

  67. Mr BA^77,

    Since Dr Ross’ list of parameters includes the following:

    time window between the production of cisterns in the planet’s crust that can effectively collect and store petroleum and natural gas and the appearance of intelligent life

    he obviously is not calculating a probability of a generic life supporting body coming into existence, he is calculating the probability of a specific life supporting body (Earth) coming into existence. He might as well have included the probability of Columbus discovering America.

    Nor do I know of another researcher so confident in their ability to pin down so many probabilities so definitely. There is only a 30% chance that the infall of buckminsterfullerenes will be the correct value to support the Mets winning the ’69 World Series? There is only a 30% chance that the orientation of continents relative to prevailing winds will let Donny Boy win the sixth race at Belmont on August 25, 1966? Our existence is truly balanced on a razor’s edge!

  68. BTW, I don’t doubt that the Earth is very rare. I’ve read Rare Earth, and fully expect that if we find life elsewhere it will be very simple. Even if every other planet was equal to Earth, sampling our own 4 billion year history at random points shows what we should expect, at best.

  69. Nak, believe what you want you will, and do, anyway no matter what evidence is presented to you. Leviathan, we ain’t even on the same page as far as science is concerned, and from your comments I doubt you are even in the ID camp, but perhaps maybe you are in the ID camp by the slimmest of margins. And Though you may be it seems you are firmly entrenched in the philosophy of materialism to me.

  70. Leviathan #61

    Nota Bene: I am not Dr. Dembski (unfortunately), rather niwrad.

    Tell me my reading of your post is incorrect, I hope you don’t really support the following evolutionist contradiction: artifacts are designed, organisms that are far more complex and information rich because self-reproduce are not designed!

    I hope you will agree that bacteria are, for all intents and purposes, immortal – given that their life is not pre-empted by a predator.

    The adjective “immortal” (= “eternal”) you used is exaggerated for at least two reasons.

    First they need specific environmental chemical/physical conditions suitable to their processes. For example, temperature differences of few degrees may be lethal. These fine tuned conditions are not eternal, and then bacteria are not immortal.

    Second, at the individual level, when a bacterium divides, in a sense it – as individual – dies, although doing that it generates two new individuals. Therefore, properly speaking, what has a long duration is the species and not the single bacterium (and this is relatively true for higher organisms too).

    That said, it is true that systems more are lower/simple less the action of entropy on them. IOW more complexity more entropy. But also this supports intelligent design. In fact ID is the only thing able to counterbalances entropy. If complex systems (where entropy is maximum) exist and subsist this means they were created by ID.

  71. Mr BA^77,

    Nak, believe what you want you will, and do, anyway no matter what evidence is presented to you.

    So you agree that Dr Ross’ bait and switch on “life supporting body” is not worth defending. A wise choice.

  72. Nak, it is not that it is not worth defending, in fact there are several fascinating things in the “Privileged Planet Principle” that are wonderful, it is that it not worth discussing with you since you do not a reasonable discussion, go down every blind alley you can find, ignore all the jewels to be found and, As far as I can tell, you only want to believe in your dogmatic atheism no matter what imagination you have to conjure and lie you have to believe in order to do so. Why you are allowed such leeway I have no idea.

  73. Nak, Here is a song for you, perfectly fitting for your refusal to face the evidence square on, and to want live in a fantasy dream world:

    Tori Amos Cornflake Girl
    http://www.dailymotion.com/vid.....sion_music

  74. Nota Bene: I am not Dr. Dembski (unfortunately), rather niwrad.

    Oops, forgive me for my mistake.

    Tell me my reading of your post is incorrect, I hope you don’t really support the following evolutionist contradiction: artifacts are designed, organisms that are far more complex and information rich because self-reproduce are not designed!

    Most definitely not; I believe all organisms display the appearance of design. However, I come from a purely agnostic viewpoint, so the exact nature of the designer is summarily not of interest to me and obviously unattainable under the current state of scientific affairs.

    The adjective “immortal” (= “eternal”) you used is exaggerated for at least two reasons.

    First they need specific environmental chemical/physical conditions suitable to their processes. For example, temperature differences of few degrees may be lethal. These fine tuned conditions are not eternal, and then bacteria are not immortal.

    I noted the special conditions for life in my previous post.

    Second, at the individual level, when a bacterium divides, in a sense it – as individual – dies, although doing that it generates two new individuals. Therefore, properly speaking, what has a long duration is the species and not the single bacterium (and this is relatively true for higher organisms too).

    I fear we are quibbling over minutiae. Would you then accept the definition of a “species” as a living organism?

    I.E., the human body can be viewed as a large colony of organic systems, each constructed by a smaller set of organic components than the last (until of course you start getting down far enough to the level of inorganic molecules). The exact line we draw to differentiate is simply arbitrary at best, unless we can come up with an objective justification for doing so.

    That said, it is true that systems more are lower/simple less the action of entropy on them. IOW more complexity more entropy. But also this supports intelligent design. In fact ID is the only thing able to counterbalances entropy. If complex systems (where entropy is maximum) exist and subsist this means they were created by ID.

    I have no quarrel with what is being said here. However, is there currently a way to objectively measure the complexity of a given system vs. the complexity of a second system? I.E., a bacterium vs. a human body?

  75. Mr BA^77,

    I agree with you on some aspects of Rare Earth as I’ve said.

    I’m sorry you find me so disappointing to converse with. It is this sad preference for material explanations that dogs me… Friends have tried to get me to accept a Thor based worldview as the best explanation of the material world, but something keeps holding me back…

  76. Nakashima @40

    Minimizing the energy costs of flying and finding food would strongly selected for by evolution.

    That may be true. But first there would need to be a system in place in which the “minimization of energy costs” could take place.

    Else you would be arguing that “the best possible system” just happend to be the original system that evolved, rather than a less optimal system that was subsequently modified.

  77. Mr Mung,

    But first there would need to be a system in place in which the “minimization of energy costs” could take place.

    Yes, such system is the natural world. Populations of varied traits in competition for scarce resources. Efficiency in resource use (minimizing energy costs) leads to more frequent survival. At the level of the individual, the ‘system’ is heredity and reproduction, which both creates variance and passes on the existing traits that have varied.

    Nor should we assume that what we see in nature is the ‘best possible’ organism. It is only the current survivor. There are multiple solutions to eyes, flight, echolocation, conserving heat, eating etc. across birds, bats, and moths.

  78. Nak, And to what specific evidence, not philosophy, do you point to base this assumption?

  79. Mr BA^77,

    And to what specific evidence, not philosophy, do you point to base this assumption?

    Happily, this touches again on the bionics of the OP.

    Evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies over time in a population with variable and heritable traits, subject to scarce resources where the traits influence survival, can be confirmed on your PC. Probably on your cell phone. Very small genetic algorithm and population genetic programs exist that confirm this process. This is evidence you can create for yourself, anyone can.

    I don’t know anyone on the ID side that denies it does happen. Drs Dembski, Behe, etc. are on board with evolution, deep time and common descent. Is your position different?

  80. BA^77 (and onlookers) have you ever run a GA or pop gen program for yourself? Played with the parameters? Thought about the results?

  81. Nak, Is this your evidence for evolution? Is this a joke?

    “Evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies over time in a population with variable and heritable traits, subject to scarce resources where the traits influence survival, can be confirmed on your PC.”

    No actual evidence just simulations in a PC? You are kidding right,,, No really Nak specific evidence!!!

    Well since you then go on to cite/deceive that Dembski favors your position, let’s see what Dembski and others say about the man-made, thus fallible, Evolutionary algorithms of computers:

    It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy lends itself very well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation:

    “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
    Leonardo Da Vinci

    Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
    excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances. Using realistic estimates for the relevant biological parameters, we investigate the rate of mutation accumulation, the distribution of the fitness effects of the accumulating mutations, and the overall effect on mean genotypic fitness. Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
    http://bioinformatics.cau.edu......aproof.pdf
    MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
    http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net
    http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf

    Whereas, evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation:

    Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE

    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW – William Dembski – Robert Marks – Pg. 13
    Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case. http://www.evoinfo.org/Publica.....fo_NoN.pdf

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “To stem the growing swell of Intelligent Design intrusions, it is imperative that we provide stand-alone natural process evidence of non trivial self-organization at the edge of chaos. We must demonstrate on sound scientific grounds the formal capabilities of naturally-occurring physicodynamic complexity. Evolutionary algorithms, for example, must be stripped of all artificial selection and the purposeful steering of iterations toward desired products. The latter intrusions into natural process clearly violate sound evolution theory.”
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf

    “Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not.”
    David Berlinski

    “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
    Douglas G. Robertson, “Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test,” Complexity, Vol.3, #3 Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 25-34. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab:

    Yet:

    The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man.

    Where did all this “transcendent information come from?

    Euler’s Number – God Created Mathematics – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEb1gTRo74
    This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages:
    http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/

  82. Mr BA^77,

    Whereas, evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation:

    Let me introduce you to the field of population genetics, perhaps you haven’t heard of it before. Price’s Theorem? John Holland’s Schema Theorem?

    But come, let us reason together. I gave you a definiton of evolution as an abstract process that might happen in many contexts, not just the biological world. I put it all in one sentence for you. Is there any part of that sentence, a phrase, or even a single word, that you disagree is not appropriate to define evolution? I am asking you, Mr BA^77, for some intellectual effort, not a cut and paste of a quotemine. Any single word you would change?

    Because the next step we’ll take together is to turn our agreed definition into code and run it. Are you up for that? Can you program? Can you read code? Tell me what language you are best with, we’ll work in that.

    Once our code is ready, we’ll run it. You’ll trust evidence that you created, right?

  83. Also, since Zachriel is now unbanned, perhaps he can review the issues found in the source code of Mendel’s Accountant, and what biological systems it is relevant to modeling. As a pop gen model (that rigorous math which you questioned the existence of) it seems to model the problems of small populations of bacteria. How quaint.

  84. Hmm Nak, You pathetically have no real world evidence thus allude to computer models which have been shown to require dishonesty to make them work. Why don’t you just present the empirical evidence for evolution? Why must your allude to such shady deception/delusion to continue you fantasy that your great great grand pappy was a mud puddle? Do you really care about the boundary condition between matter/energy and information? i.e. the second law?

    Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution (Open System Refutation) Part 3 of 3 – Thomas Kindell – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQBjguaBueE

    “there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.” John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980

    Can “ANYTHING” Happen in an Open System? – Granville Sewell
    Excerpt: If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!).
    http://www.math.utep.edu/Facul.....endixd.pdf

    Evolution’s Thermodynamic Failure – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics Texas University – El Paso)
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_a.....rt_id=9128

    Walter L. Bradley, Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life:
    Excerpt: He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems, a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design. http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

    The ID argument from thermodynamics:
    Excerpt: “energy cannot create CSI (Complex Specified Information).”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....#more-9090

    Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith “Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess of water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all text-books of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenesis … Has materialistic Neo-Darwinian philosophy overwhelmed us to such an extent that we forget or overlook the well-known facts of science and of chemistry in order to support this philosophy? … Without exception all Miller’s amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions.” http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php

    Sea Salt only adds to this thermodynamic problem.

    …even at concentrations seven times weaker than in today’s oceans. The ingredients of sea salt are very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers). Creation Evolution News – Sept. 2002

  85. Maybe whatever evolutionary scenario a designed computer program can be programmed to simulate is but a species of machine learning. Cannot, for example, a robot randomingly probing about have been programmed to map the region being randomly probed? That would certainly amount to an increase in information.

    Anyway this is all very interesting because it represents another opportunity to study the limits of evolution.

    I would suggest that man can design machines programmed to discover, and as such this would involve a degree of chance and necessity—chance because discovery involves unknowns and necessity because the machine would have to “know” in advance what to select (if it selected everything this wouldn’t be information until a human went through it and picked out what was important).

    Stephen Meyer, of course, deals with computer programs such as Ev and Avida in Signature in the Cell. Information and Design and Mind are where it’s at—the open frontier where science is headed if the reactionaries and postmodernists don’t get us first.

  86. We should always be able to duplicate an algorithm on a different platform. There may be some small differences, depending on the exact assumptions made, but they shouldn’t have qualitatively different results. That’s why when verifying Mendel’s Accountant, it was rather surprising that the results didn’t comport with other models.

    This is the basic recursive algorithm:


    Random mutation
    Calc Genetic Fitness
    Phylogenetic Fitness (add noise to Genetic Fitness)
    Selection
    Mating and Recombination
    Check for Extinction

    (Phylogenetic Fitness represents the slings and arrows of fortune.)

    It took a while to plow through all the code for Mendel’s, but there is a rather strange step. The calculation of “working fitness,” which represents differential mating success, appears to be broken.


    do i=1,total_offspring
    work_fitness(i) = work_fitness(i)/(randomnum(1) + 1.d-15)
    end do

    Divide by random!? We can test the effect of this by taking a uniform series of fitnesses k from 1.001 to 2. This is a typical result:


    9 Average
    31 St.Dev.
    362% Relative St.Dev.
    1.04 Min
    533 Max

    The distribution of k has a Relative St.Dev. of 19%. It’s worse for fitnesses distributed between 0.5 and 1.5 or 0.5 and 1. Just like the calculation for phylogenetic fitness elsewhere in the algorithm, the calculation is not normalized, meaning it becomes increasingly skewed as the mean diverges from one. (And why ÷Rnd^1? Why not ÷Rnd^½ or ÷Rnd^¾?)

    This single operation, buried in the code, eliminates the vast majority of the signal from genetic or phylogenetic fitness.

    A more reasonable calculation of differential mating success, Roulette Wheel, along with normalization, is used in Gregor’s Bookkeeper.

  87. Mr BA^77,

    I asked you to step outside your comfort zone, not respond with rudeness and indirection. Can you program? What was wrong with my one sentence definition of evolution? Are you willing to work to create evidence?

  88. Mr Rude,

    Anyway this is all very interesting because it represents another opportunity to study the limits of evolution.

    Absolutely correct. Read David Goldberg’s “The Design of Innovation” to see some of that being worked out.

  89. Matters of principle do exist that scientists never will succeed in such task of artificial creation of a true intelligent living being. Yes they will succeed to construct a robot simulating a human, but this robot will be neither really intelligent nor living. And less than less it will be a real “being” either.

    We do not know that yet and we never will unless we try.

    Not sure if Seversky is still paying attention but this actually interests me somewhat. How would we know if we have succeeded in creating AI that is equivalent to humans? What sort of tests would we run or what criteria would we use to judge that?

  90. Mr Jitsak,

    In message 81, Mr BA^77 provides a link to the SourceForge site for Mendels Accountant.

  91. Thank you, Nakashima-san.

    It was not easy to locate the correct link in bornagain77′s link jungle #81, but I found it.

  92. Tell you what Nak, You respond to the question I, and others on UD, have asked you a thousand times.

    Please provide direct molecular evidence for evolution of functional complexity greater than what was present in parent species genome in parent bacteria”s native environment (140 Fits). This is a trivial level of real world proof Nak we generate +700 fits every time we write a single page of a letter. If you refuse to answer this direct question but only seek to misdirect with superfluous evolutionary algorithms, algorithms that has been shown to be highly argumentative, of what use is your “science” save to deceive?

  93. Mr BA^77,

    Okay, so you can’t program, and don’t see anything wrong with my definition.

    Let’s talk about this number 140 Fits. Where does it come from? How did Mr Durston derive it using Szostak’s formula? Easy, he made it up!

    I watched the video you linked to, though I’ve seen it before. 140 is the negative log2 of 1/(10^42). In Szostak’s formula, the numerator is the number of functional configurations there are, and the denominator is the total number of configurations.

    10^42 is the total configurations of what? Of nothing, really. At best, it is Durston’s estimate of the number of DNA base mutations that could have occured over the history of the planet.

    And 1, that is the number of functional configurations of what?

    So Durston takes a formula from a real paper, applies his own definitions of the variables, and cranks out a number. Why do you expect me to take this seriously? Consider the advice of Szostak’s original paper (the one you linked to):

    We conclude that rigorous analysis of the functional information of a system with respect to a specified function x requires knowledge of two attributes: (i) all possible configurations of the system (e.g., all possible sequences of a given length in the case of letters or RNA nucleotides) and (ii) the degree of function x for every configuration.
    These two requirements are difficult to meet in many systems.

    You further demand the use of the parent environment. This makes as much sense as evaluating your function under water. Well, if you say so…

  94. Nak what are you worried about 140 or 42 or whatever functional bits when you can’t even demonstrate ANY gain in functional complexity?

    Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life? K.D. Kalinsky – Pg. 10 – 11
    Case Three: an average 300 amino acid protein:
    Excerpt: It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate the functional information required for the average 300 amino acid protein to be around 700 bits of information. I(Ex) > Inat and ID (Intelligent Design) is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein. http://www.newscholars.com/pap.....rticle.pdf

  95. Mr BA^77,

    Kalinsky is playing the same games as Durston was, quoting a formula, then making up how to use it. There is no single number such as “Inat” that can be derived with this formula.

  96. Well Nak, Why don’t you show an example of increased functional complexity in the first place, then let’s argue over the details? Sound fair? I mean really Nak, shouldn’t we actually have an example of evolution to argue over??? Or do you just want to argue in case you ever find an example? Seems pointless to me!

  97. Mr BA^77,

    Nak what are you worried about 140 or 42 or whatever functional bits when you can’t even demonstrate ANY gain in functional complexity?

    So Kirk Durston was good for a few posts, and now what is he, chopped liver?

    Just as a side point, do you have any respect for your sources? Your debating style is to flog a source and beat your opponents around the head with it until it is pointed out that you are using a rubber chicken, then you throw it away and move on to the next one.

    I just get the impression sometimes that you have the same feeling about them that I do – all sizzle, no steak, all hat, no cattle. But its ok, you’re making it up on volume…

  98. Mr BA^77,

    Why don’t you show an example of increased functional complexity in the first place, then let’s argue over the details? Sound fair?

    Not while we still have Genetic Entropy on the table. We still have our little programming exercise to do. How is your JavaScript?

  99. Nakashima:

    We still have our little programming exercise to do.

    How about in Ruby and/or Ruby on Rails if we want a database back-end and web front-end?

    http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/

    http://rubyonrails.org/

    This is an exercise I’d love to go through some time, constructing a basic pop gen app and building on it. Do you know of any books that do this?

  100. Mung:

    But first there would need to be a system in place in which the “minimization of energy costs” could take place.

    Nakashima @77

    Yes, such system is the natural world. At the level of the individual, the ’system’ is heredity and reproduction, which both creates variance and passes on the existing traits that have varied.

    We were specifically discussing the system of bat echolocation, and that is the system which you averred would be evolved towards “minimization of energy costs.”

    But before the “bat echolocation system” could evolve toward “minimization of energy costs” it would first have to evolved.

    In my comment above, it is this system I am referring to. Where did it come from, and why not assume that as it came into being it was already finely adjusted to minimize of energy costs?

    Nor should we assume that what we see in nature is the ‘best possible’ organism.

    Or the best possible system to minimize energy cost.

    This is exactly the problem Darwin had with adaptations. They seemed entirely too precise. He cold not believe that they could have been formed to such precision according to the mechanism of his theory. It would simply be too improbable, indiscernible from a miracle.

    Therefore it follows that such a system must have evolved from a “less perfect” or “less optimal” precursor.

    What is the evidence of this in the case of bat echolocation?

  101. Mung: What is the evidence of this in the case of bat echolocation?

    You can’t expect to look at a single posited transition and discern Common Descent. However, there is a vast amount of data supporting Common Descent. From that fundamental finding we can make a variety of predictions—such as where to look for answers to the question of which came first, flight or sonar.

    It’s no accident that evolutionary biologists are the ones who make these sorts of discoveries. The evidence supports the flight-first hypothesis. Echolocation evolved from more primitive hearing.

    Simmons et al., Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation, Nature 2007.

  102. bornagain77: Please provide direct molecular evidence for evolution of functional complexity greater than what was present in parent species genome in parent bacteria”s native environment (140 Fits).

    I’m confused on this point. Leaving aside what would reasonably meet your concept of 140 “fits,” the Theory of Evolution posits a more-or-less incremental process over long periods of time. We don’t expect to see large amounts of change over relatively short spans of time.

  103. Hey Nak I’m looking for an example of gain in functional complexity so we go through the Szostak equation in detail. Could you help me find some?

    I looked here and all the bacteria seem to have lost molecular functionality straight out the gate:

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    Antibiotic – Phenotype Providing Resistance

    Actinonin – Loss of enzyme activity
    Ampicillin – SOS response halting cell division
    Azithromycin – Loss of a regulatory protein
    Chloramphenicol – Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
    Ciprofloxacin – Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein
    Erythromycin – Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein
    Fluoroquinolones – Loss of affinity to gyrase
    Imioenem – Reduced formation of a porin
    Kanamycin – Reduced formation of a transport protein
    Nalidixic Acid – Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein
    Rifampin – Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase
    Streptomycin -Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity
    Tetracycline – Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
    Zittermicin A – Loss of proton motive force

    You can see my dilemma (or is that Darwin’s Dilemma) So, no to be deterred, I looked here and though it seemed to gain function initially the functionality indeed came at a loss of functionality of a genome as well as failing to gain functionality over the parent strain once a normal environment was reinstituted with the removal of nylon:

    Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

    But dang it Nak,,,I really want to go through Szostaks equation with a fine tooth comb,,, so I persisted in looking,,,I brought the big evolutionary cannon,,,,drum roll,,, LENSKI”S E_COLI,,,splash boom bammmm!!!!

    Darndest thing though Nak,,,same thing as with Nylonase,,,

    Lenski’s e-coli – Detailed Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

    And to let you on a little secret Nak,,,I think Lenski could be heading for a Genetic Meltdown with his “cuddled” bacteria:

    New Work by Richard Lenski: – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator.” That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....enski.html

    So Nak being the staunch evolutionist you are,,,with such unflinching faith in the almighty power of mud to turn into people and trees, givin enough time and chance that is,,, I am sure that you can help me out on finding a gain in functional complexity so that you may set me in order on all these other evolutionary algorithms and Szotaks math and such stuff as you deem me mentally deficient in. You don’t have to trouble yourself too much with hundreds of thousands of examples of gains in functional complexity, that I am sure you have ready access to,, just four or five off the top of your head should be enough to clear Szostak’s math up.

    Ocean Sunset – Poem – Third Day – Music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zay_jHpEz0s

  104. A little music to help you search Nak:

    Third day _ I Can feel It
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkfC1_x1t-8

  105. 105

    “We don’t expect to see large amounts of change over relatively short spans of time.”

    What shall we do with the data that indicates otherwise?

  106. A little more music to help you find what you need Nak:

    Can’t Find My Way Home
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT-SFgkVlno

  107. Mr Mung,

    As Mr Zachriel has said, it seems that the evidence (52 million year old bat fossils) is that bats evolved flight first. Echolocation evolved later.

    On the minimization issue, imagine two populations of primitive bats. In one population, the bats use the force of the air expelled from their lungs naturally during the downstroke of flapping to vocalize. The air would get pushed out anyway, so the additional cost of vocalizing is small. In the other population, the bats attempt to vocalize without synchronizing to their flapping. Some of their vocalizations still fall in with their natural breathing pattern and are low cost, but most of their vocalizations will require a separate breath from the breath rhythm of the flapping. This is an additional energy cost and disruptive to flight.

    Which population of bats eats more insects? The less tired ones, the ones that minimise energy costs. Eventually they dominate the population.

    Flight and good hearing predated echolocation – the specialized vocalizations came last. The assumption that the ‘system’ of all these things coming into existence (how?) as a finely tuned whole is unecessary, and the general pattern of scientific explanation is to prefer the explanation that makes the fewest assumptioins, and yet explains the data.

  108. bornagain:

    Try any of these:
    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

    I particularly like the yeast studies, where genome duplication and gene divergence were seen.

    A Bacterial study also showed “Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor.”

    Those should get you started, I suppose.

    By the way, you’re list of antibiotic resistances seems horribly misguided. Many are the response to the antibiotic, not the mechanism of resistance. For example, the SOS response is activated by bacterial in the presence of penicillin so they don’t divide without a cell wall and blow themselves apart. However, the resistance is B-lactamase, a enzyme that directly cleaves penicillin. This is NO loss of information, but a gain of a quite unique function.

  109. Nakashima,

    Bornagain77 makes 10 persuasive points and I am almost convinced until you come and … don’t address them.

    Well, you do address one by nit-picking and get a tactical advantage, but you ignore the elephant in the room: No increase in complexity or information content is ever shown.

    It’s like you can’t even admit that he might have a smidgen of a point. A good debated admits it when the other side makes a good point; otherwise he looks unreasonable.

  110. that’s “debater” not “debated”

  111. Mr BA^77,

    If you’d like to talk about gains in functional complexity, let’s talk about three color vision in primates.

  112. Mr Collin,

    Thank you for expressing your opinion.

    I’m well aware that Mr BA^77 often throws up several points at the same time. Alas, it is not my style to write long posts. I’m not cutting and pasting from a large file of quotes and YouTube videos. All of my witty repartee is custom built, and often involves a good bit of fact checking to make sure I am confident of my position. That takes time.

    I’m interested in what you think is nit picking in our recent banter. If Kirk Durston had asserted that Szostak’s work led to a limit of 140 fits and I said ‘Not so, the number is 139!’ that I agree would be nit picking. But in the case of Durston’s misuse of Szostak’s formula I completely disagreed with it, and presented why. Even Mr BA^77 seems to agree with my objections, as he immediately changed the subject from “Ha, come up with 140 Fits!” to “140, 42, whatever!”

  113. Mr Collin,

    Sorry, I also take your point on debate etiquette, and would point out that I have stated clearly where I thought he had a good point about Rare Earth.

  114. Nak buddy don’t you worry for me on Szostaks math, I’m loaded for bear on that. The main focal point is, as I have steadfastly maintained all day long and you have kept trying to switch, is for you to find a gain in functional complexity so that we might even see if evolution has even occurred!!! You are the one who wants to dodge the issue with BS… I have consistently and steadfastly maintained that you have ZERO ZILCH NADA examples to put forth for increased functional complexity,,, Do you seriously think you can dodge this by anything other than the concrete evidence demanded for evolution to be considered true in the first place? Sell your worthless banter elsewhere! Present evidence or at least have the guts to admit you have none!!!

    By the way Nak, as you are fully aware, echolocation is fully developed in the oldest bat fossil ever found, so quit trying to deceive others when you know better!

    52.5 million year old fossil with full echolocation already present:

    Icaronycteris
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icaronycteris

  115. Breaking news!!

    A friend just alerted me to how Noah was able to fit all the animals on the Ark – quantum superposition!

    After all the Ark was 300 qubits by 50 qubits by 30 qubits. Now that is high tech! :)

  116. Nakashima,

    You are right; nitpicking was the wrong word. And Bornagain77 seems to have conceded the point. AND I think you can be fairly witty at times.

    But you once again ignored the elephant in the room. Increases in complexity are as rare as frogs fur.

    Anyway, dismissing all of his sources seems like you sweeping unpleasant ideas under the rug.

    Some of his sources are of more worth than others, which is true of any bibliography anyway.

    By the way, I often get the impression that evolution is all sizzle and no steak.

  117. About planet formation. I get the impression from space.com that astronomers are a lot more humble about planet formation than biologists (and others) are about evolution. It’s as if they have some kind of psychological need for evolution to be true.

    For an ironically titled article: “Missing link found in planet formation”
    http://www.space.com/scienceas.....41209.html

  118. Mr Collin,

    i don’t dismiss all his sources, but can only address one at a time.

    Thank you for the compliment.

    I hope you’ll see in my raising tri-color vision that I’m willing to talk about the elephant. When you use a word like ‘rare’, you have to be willing to answer ‘compared to what?’

  119. Mr BA^77,

    I’m sorry my reading comprehension is a little weak. Could you point out to me where on that Wiki page there is any support for your claim for full echolocation?

    Perhaps you are confusing it with the page for the other 52 million year old bat from the same formation, Onychonycteris finneyi. Of that bat, Wiki says

    Onychonycteris finneyi is the strongest evidence so far in the debate on whether bats developed echolocation before or after they evolved the ability to fly. O. finneyi had well-developed wings, and could clearly fly, but lacked the enlarged cochlea of all extant echolocating bats, closer resembling the old world fruit bats which do not echolocate.[1] This indicates that early bats could fly before they could echolocate.

    Or perhaps with this other Wiki page on another early bat, Palaeochiropteryx,

    Palaeochiropteryx is an extinct genus of bat. Palaeochiropteryx from Eocene Europe had wings formed from enlarged hands, even though their wings were less advanced than the modern bats. Their earbones show that they used a basic form of sound to locate their prey (most likely insects), although this sense was not as advanced as today’s.

    Have bats gained functional complexity in 52 million years? A resounding yes!

  120. BA77, I don’t know if the ID movement will really benefit from you flooding UD with references to AIG and other YEC sites. Especially, since these sources are not even ID friendly. E.g., AIG recently dismissed Dr. Dembski’s theodicy because from their point of view it is incompatible with the bible.
    Thus, I am afraid you can not have it both ways in the long run.

  121. I suppose I was trying to be funny with the frogs fur, because presumably a frog-ish like animal became a mammal. (I’m using “frog” very loosely).

    And I meant really to say that increases in complexity and information content have not been shown.

    Listen, I really think that a lot of the controversy in origins debate has been needlessly generated by assuming if creationism is not true then evolution is, and if evolution is not true, then creationism is. I think that Intelligent Design is an honest attempt at compromise and it seems to me that ID-ers are more willing to look at the truth than some others.

    Can’t we find evidence of design in nature? Is it really unscientific to try? Is it against science to follow the truth even if that truth implies a God? (the Big Bang was only reluctantly accepted by some because it seems to imply a creation).

  122. Mr Mung,

    How about in Ruby and/or Ruby on Rails if we want a database back-end and web front-end?

    Thank you for your input. For the purposes I was thinking of, I was proposing javaScript because I think it is more important to give everyone (onlookers included) an app they could cut and paste into a web page and run immediately, albeit slowly. Everyone’s browser can run JavaScript. Also the JavaScript syntax is pretty transparent, so non-programmers should be able to follow along.

    Would you agree to JavaScript for those reasons?

  123. And Nak will you ever be forthright with an increase of functional complexity that we can actually see in the lab,,,or will we forever have to trust that your imagination has it all figured out and we shouldn’t worry about such a thing as actual empirical evidence? Why are you ignoring this argument with easily refutable red herrings? i.e. your lack of proper fossil sequence to back your claims for bats? Why do you not address the primary question at hand? Where is the evidence Nak? Will you continue to dodge the question that clearly has primary relevance to the whole issue? Do you pretend this is not of direct importance? Where is the increase of functional complexity Nak? Why is it never witnessed Nak? or as that old lady use to say in the commercials “Where’s The Beef”??!!??

  124. Mr BA^77,

    Why the sudden demand for in the lab demonstrations? Fossil evidence was good enough for you when you were misquoting Wikipedia, now all of a sudden two fossil bats lacking modern echolocation function is a lack of proper sequence??

  125. Nak, Demonstrate a gain in functional complexity so as you can have a basis to make your claims, or else personally refute your dogmatic, and unflinching, materialism, then I will be willing to discuss the secondary issue Genetic Entropy found in the fossil record. This is science Nak, where rigor is demanded in all other branches of science save apparently for Darwinism, and just because you find the theistic implications unpleasant if you were to refute your dogmatic materialism, does not detract from the fact that you are in blatant disconnect with empirical evidence in so far as establishing a basis to work from.

  126. Mr BA^77,

    Fossil bats to modern bats.

  127. Nak,

    The problem is that no one observed how the change from fossil bats to modern bats took place. Most ID-er’s don’t dispute that increases in complexity exist, but dispute that Darwinian mechanisms have ever been shown to be the cause. I apologize if this is somewhat different than what I said before. Increases in complexity happen, and we’ve only seen it happen when an intelligent agent does it.

    Also, although ID does not depend on it, ID-ers will point out when very old fossils look just as complex or extremely similar to or MORE complex and adaptive than modern counterparts. If you refute the contention that fossil bats are just as complex as modern bats, then you have blocked a shot, but not scored a point of your own.

  128. Nakashima

    Would you agree to JavaScript for those reasons?

    You provide some compelling reasons for using JavaScript. Anyone can create a web page on their hard drive and load it in a browser.

    Makes sense!

    Yes, I’d love to have us go through an exercise like this. I think it would be interesting, informative, and maybe even entertaining!

  129. I wonder what it would take to get a separate thread started for this. Anyone?

  130. Mr Collin,

    Most ID-er’s don’t dispute that increases in complexity exist,

    Welcome to the wacky world of BA^77! He doesn’t seem to agree with your vision of ‘most ID-ers”. I’m just answering his question.

    I actually haven’t heard many ID-ers make a claim that certain fossils are as complex as a modern species. It is more important what paleobiologists think, ne? For most of us amateurs, it is hard to see the details that drive the analysis of the experts. The shape of small bone, a little tooth, we don’t realize the significance these items can have.

    I’m not a great one for sports analogies like blocked a shot. With Mr BA^77 and his seemingly endless supply of quotes and videos, I think of it as popping these little balloons of disingenuousness one by one.

    BTW, how did you find your way onto UD?

  131. So you have the audacity to claim increased functional complexity is no problem??? Did I miss the post where you showed a violation of the fitness test? Could you please repost that one minor detail??? I’m sure you just accidentally overlooked that one minor point of actually demonstrating a gain of functional complexity before claiming that natural processes can create all this life we see around us.. I hope you don’t mind me being a stickler for such a trivial thing as actual empirical proof Nak,,,You know you probably have tons of other things you would rather do than to present evidence,,, such as belittle me hoping that will take the sting out of the fact you have not presented ANY evidence!

  132. tragic mishap @ 89

    Not sure if Seversky is still paying attention but this actually interests me somewhat. How would we know if we have succeeded in creating AI that is equivalent to humans? What sort of tests would we run or what criteria would we use to judge that?

    As you say, this is a very interesting question.

    The usual answer appeals to the Turing Test, described in the Wikipedia entry as follows:

    The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine’s ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are placed in isolated locations. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test.

    The problem with asking if AI could be equivalent to human intelligence is that, if we cannot define and describe human intelligence with any degree of precision, what exactly are we asking AI to be equivalent to?

    I suspect that most people have no difficulty in envisaging an AI that can mimic the rational part of human intelligence. What is much harder is whether a sufficiently complex AI could develop – or at least mimic convincingly – properties like consciousness or self-awareness,

    As an aside, I was watching recently a TV documentary about the Japanese robot ASIMO. The way it walks or runs around and apparently interacts with its environment is very impressive. Perhaps I have been watching too much science-fiction but what surprised me was how easily I began to imagine it was functioning like Star Wars C3P0, that it was demonstrating a degree of intelligence and self-awareness far more sophisticated than is actually the case.

    Another philosophical issue is that if AI can be developed to the point at which, for all practical purposes, it is indistinguishable from human intelligence, does that not suggest that human beings are no more than extremely complex biological machines?

    This, in turn, highlights an interesting paradox for creationists and ID proponents. At the microscopic level, they are quick to seize on the analogy of the cell as a complex biochemical machine as evidence of design. At the level of the brain, however, I suspect they would find any suggestion that it was nothing more than a highly-sophisticated biological computer to be anathema.

    Trying to solve the enigma of the human mind by resorting to Cartesian dualism or ‘ghost in the machine’ concepts does not help, either. If we argue that an observer/operator ‘ghost’ is needed to account for the mind then surely the same is true of the ‘ghost’. Do we not need to invoke the concept of another ‘ghost’ inside the first ‘ghost’ to account for the first ‘ghost”s properties? If so, that points us towards an infinitely-regressive chain of ‘ghosts’ one inside the other like a Russian nesting doll or matryoshka. That is as unsatisfactory as an infinite Universe or an infinite God.

  133. Seversky this paper came to mind:

    “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”

    – Douglas G. Robertson, “Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test,” Complexity, Vol.3, #3 Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 25-34.
    http://www.evolutionaryinformatics.org/

  134. Mr BA^77,

    in re evidence, please see 126. Thank you.

  135. Hmm Nak,,,You hang your hat on fossils?

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University, T. Neville George

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” – Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

  136. You know Nak I just don’t ever see you, violating the fitness test? You remember the one test you are loathe to even consider?

    Here’s why!

    the oldest bacterium fossils, found on earth demonstrate an extreme conservation of morphology which, very contrary to evolutionary thought, simply means they look very similar to bacteria of today.

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

    Bacteria: Fossil Record – Ancient Compared to Modern – Picture
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/b.....riafr.html

    Though it is impossible to reconstruct the DNA of these earliest bacteria fossils, scientists find in the fossil record, and compare them to their descendants of today, there are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and “revived” from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    and this:

    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber
    Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart, (thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution’s “genetic drift” theory requires.)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5213/1060

    30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....gewanted=2

    In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the “Fitness Test” I had asked him about:
    Dr. Cano stated: “We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative “ancient” B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.”:
    Fitness test which compared the 30 million year old ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki

    Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria.

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – “Fitness Test” – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE

    According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there “HAS” to be “significant genetic/mutational drift” to the DNA of bacteria within 250 million years, even though the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. I find it interesting that the materialistic theory of evolution expects there to be a significant amount of mutational drift from the DNA of ancient bacteria to its modern descendants, while the morphology can be allowed to remain exactly the same with its descendants. Alas for the materialist once again, the hard evidence of ancient DNA has fell in line with the anthropic hypothesis.

    etc…etc..etc..

    But Nak,,,why do you ignore this evidence? Will you mock God again by calling Him a flying spaghetti monster, have you completely lost your marbles? For the sake of your eternal soul I hope He is VERY forgiving of such insult!

  137. Mr BA^77,

    Yes fossils, as evidence of an increase in functional complexity. The quotes you proveide don’t impact that issue.

    But I have to admit that I’m unclear on why you would look down on fossils now, when you were trumpeting a fossil back in message 114. A little over 24 hours ago. Remember? At the moment you wrote message 114, didn’t you already have these quotes on file? I don’t understand how you can hold two contradictory opinions at the same time, unless they both mean nothing to you and this is all a big game to you.

    Do you think I belittle you by getting you to believe in brine shrimp discovered by satellite mind control lasers? Sir, it is hard to belittle you.

  138. Nak you have no evidence, you have ignored staggering levels of complexity in cells that far surpass mans ability, you say quotes from THE leading paleontologists in the world don’t even matter in regards to fossils, you ignore the EXTREME stasis in the fossil record and then try to say I’m the one who is gullible?!? Nak the only way it is possible for me to even be considered gullible by you, considering the actual state of the evidence that you have blatantly ignored, is for you to be absolutely insane.

  139. Nak, if you don’t mind, there is that little matter of increased functional complexity that you need to address!

  140. Nakashima #4

    Several of your points are open to dispute. The most fundamental is 1 – the definition of CSI as resulting only from intelligence. Point 3 is true or not on a case by case basis. If point 1 is not agreed, neither will point 4 be agreed. The Darwinist has hardly been argued into a corner.

    #1 is what intelligent design theory states. You didn’t provide examples where #3 is false. However also if I set in #3 identical efficiency B=N the antinomy remains because in #6 we have B>0 and B=0. So where are the “several points open to dispute”?

  141. To the OP:

    Is CSI a measure of efficiency (3)? How does one measure efficiency? How does one measure CSI? Are these measurements the same? This is crucial, because if they are not, your point (3) is invalid and your entire reasoning is void.

    Of course there is an even more fundamental circularity here – first, CSI is defined as the result of ID, next it is unsurprisingly concluded that anything that contains CSI must be designed, and that the CSI of undesigned systems is zero. The funny thing is that this would work regardless of what CSI actually is, and how and even if it can be measured. All that is required is to claim ‘this contains CSI’ to infer design. The pesky problem of measuring and therefore demonstrating this CSI never seems to get addressed.

    How much CSI does the echolocation system contain? Shouldn’t we establish that first, before we conclude anything at all?

    fG

  142. fG, for what it is worth:

    As far as I can tell, we may only arrive at a very rough measure of CSI in a biological system by ascertaining the rarity of proteins in sequence space and then computing the functional information within them.

    Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology – Kirk Durston – short video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUeCgTN7pOo
    Entire video:
    http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xml

    The problem for getting a rough measure of CSI in larger systems, of multiple interlocking parts, such as echolocation of bats, is that we don’t actually know where the information is stored at that is directing the construction of the overall body plans??? No one knows! This is a very mysterious enigma to put it mildly: i.e. How do you put a measuring stick to information that no seems able to find?

    This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance.

    Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism – Arthur Jones – video
    Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY
    Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bAX93zQ5o

    This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show “exceedingly rare” major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code.

    Darwin’s Theory – Fruit Flies and Morphology – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs

    If that wasn’t enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for “Genetic Reductionism”:

    DNA: The Alphabet of Life – David Klinghoffer
    Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell’s building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn’t there. Instead, “It is as if the ‘idea’ of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2....._life.html

    Higher Levels Of Information In Life – Stephen Meyer – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU

    Thus fG materialists are left without a visible mechanism to explain the evolution Body Plans (echolocation systems) in the first place, whereas it also seems IDists will never get a rough measure of CSI/functional information for higher organisms:

    of note:

    more functional algorithmic information is in proteins than is commonly acknowledged since proteins have been shown to do very interesting “calculations” for process control.,i.e. highly advanced algorithmic information must reside in the amino acids themselves for proteins to be able to “calculate” answers as they do.

    etc..etc..

  143. faded_Glory #141

    CSI and efficiency are somehow correlated. Efficiency depends on organization and organization depends on CSI (as Norbert Wiener said: “The amount of information in a system is a measure of its organization degree”). The efficiency of two systems can be experimentally compared by mean of tests on their functionalities. In the case of my example (bat’s echometer vs. artificial sonar) the dark-room-intersected-by-tens-pianoforte-strings is a good test for a flying system with a sonar. I think it is not even imaginable that actually an artificial system passes such test, which bats pass without problems. Anyway, as I said in my previous comment, also if I concede in point #3 equal efficiency the antinomy remains.

    I don’t see in the antinomy the circularity you say. In point #1 I simply re-state what ID theorists state, which I trust. In point #4 I simply express what Darwinists claim, which I do not trust (and in fact it is the cause of the antinomy).

  144. niwrad: (The bionic antinomy of Darwinism

    Doesn’t it jar you a bit that generations of biologists have overlooked such a simplistic argument?

    niwrad: (1) Intelligence is what creates and optimizes artificial systems by inserting complex specified information into them. Intelligence is the unique source of CSI.

    You are stating that intelligence is the unique source of this property “CSI.” Presumably, you mean conscious intelligence (artifice).

    niwrad: (3) A bionic system is less efficient than the similar natural system (say N its CSI). Then B < N.

    That doesn’t follow, unless “CSI” is equivalent to efficiency. Certainly a mechanism can be complex and specified without being efficient (Goldberg 1931).

    niwrad: Natural systems are not created by intelligence, then N = 0.

    But if CSI is equivalent to efficiency, then N 0.

  145. Mr Mung,

    Thank you for agreeing to work with JavaScript.

    Here’s the process I was hoping you would find acceptable. First, let me restate the definition of evolution I gave earlier.

    Evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies over time in a population with variable and heritable traits, subject to scarce resources where the traits influence survival

    Do you agree with this definition, or would you like to see it changed in some way? If we can agree to a working definition of evolution such as this, which I think is very close to textbook definitions, then I would propose unpacking various part of it and examine how to implement code that maps back to this definition. I’d prefer to do this rather than just dumping a big piece of code into a message and asking readers to accept that it maps to the agreed definition.

    What say you?

    Oh, and perhaps Atom could be persuaded to open a thread to support this discussion. My understanding is that comments close automatically after a while, and this will be a bit of thread hijacking away from Mr Niwrad’s OP, which is still getting active discussion.

  146. Nak, since you have not actually provided an example of a bat in the fossil record that is earlier than the 52.5 million year old specimen I cited with full echolocation, why are you claiming that you have in your post with Palaeochiropteryx

    Size: bat fossil is 44 by 52 mm
    http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fo.....pteryx.htm

    which dates later than my example:

    52.5 million year old fossil with full echolocation already present:

    Icaronycteris
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icaronycteris

    I find it hard to believe you feel no shame with such deceptive presentation of evidence.

    Of course, Genetic Entropy is perfectly OK with such deterioration.

    Nak you still have not provided on example of increased functional complexity, so as in order to make your claims in the first place.

    Also of note Nak, just in a gentle perusal of your definition of evolution to Mr. Mung I noted several unsubstantiated assumptions you have built into your model which will give you a completely false reading as to what will actually happen in reality,,, you have “built” evolution into your model!

  147. bornagain77: Icaronycteris

    The reason why Onychonycteris is considered an important find is because it has a number of features expected in the primitive condition; five claws, longer hind limbs and shorter forearms (more similar to climbing and hanging mammals), short broad wings, as well as lack of echolocation. At least mammalogists consider it important enough to put it on the cover of the journal Nature.

  148. You know what be the most important find?

    Finding the DNA sequence(s) that are responsible for the alleged evolution of bats from non-flying, non-bat, mammals.

  149. Nak since you want to base your assumption of increased functional complexity on Bat Fossils, instead of presenting direct evidence as I have repeatedly requested,, I dug a little deeper and found the oldest bat fossil on record,,, Do you want to know what I found Nak??? I bet you are excited like I was.

    Ta Da

    A 54.6 million year old fully functional bat.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523576

    Australonycteris clarkae
    Ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation.
    http://australianmuseum.net.au.....is-clarkae

    As well Nak I found out that there are some modern bats that do no use echolocation, just as your specimen.

    Bats – An Example of Sudden Origins in the Fossil Record
    Excerpt: However, there are some modern bats that do not echolocate,
    http://www.jesusbelievesinevol.....ossils.htm

    Dang Nak,,, I feel kind of Bad for you… Nothing holds up for you!!! It seems you might just have to break down, give up your Nihilistic purposeless materialism, and believe in a Designer after all, A Being who as far as I can tell has more wonderful things in store for you than you can possibly imagine right now if you only accept Him!

    Nicole Nordeman – What If
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f658EuiDRAc

  150. Mr BA^77,

    My reading comprehension problem is still acting up, perhaps you could point out to me exactly where on that Wiki page is the support for you contention that Icaronycteris had full echolocation? Now that you’ve repeated it after I asked previously I am certain you’ve confirmed your claim carefully.

    I would definitely appreciate any feedback you could give on the definition of evolution.

  151. It isn’t possible to map the entire set of genetic change for a developing embryo, much less a 50 million year old evolutionary transition. But there is a relationship between evolution and development, for instance, the elongation of the digits of the forelimbs.

    There’s a family of proteins that modulate bone growth in embryos. In particular, it can be shown that increased levels of Bmp2 cause digits to grow longer. In bats, the levels of Bmp2 are higher in the forelimbs.

    Sears et al., Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits, PNAS 2006.

  152. But Nak,,, Why do you blatantly ignore the sample I just cited which predates your fossil by at least 2.5 million years and my “modern” example by 2 million years? The article clearly states full echolocation at 54.6 million years ago,, which is the main point being debated anyway is it not? Do you want to refute this evidence? Well then find another earlier fossil that is missing echolocation,,, but as to the main point being contested you have now clearly been refuted in your grand claim of gradualism! But this is all really pointless anyway as I have pointed out repeatedly, Thus once again I ask you for proof of increased functional complexity at the molecular level of bacteria that have passed the “fitness test”!

  153. Zachriel:

    But there is a relationship between evolution and development,

    What “evolution” are you referring to?

    for instance, the elongation of the digits of the forelimbs.

    No one knows what determines form.

    IOW we know that genes influence development but they do not determine it.

    Can accumulating genetic accidents even account for BMP 2?

    What would the hypothesis look like?

    For that matter any regulatory sequences- just how does accumulating genetic accidents account for them?

  154. Zachriel:

    It isn’t possible to map the entire set of genetic change for a developing embryo, much less a 50 million year old evolutionary transition.

    That isn’t my problem.

    You make a claim you have to find some way of scientifically supporting it.

    Are you familiar with scientific methodology?

  155. Joseph: You make a claim you have to find some way of scientifically supporting it.

    If you don’t start with the Theory of Common Descent, then none of the rest of the evidence will make much sense. You would be “blind as a bat” (not that bats are blind).

    bornagain77: Nak since you want to base your assumption of increased functional complexity on Bat Fossils, instead of presenting direct evidence as I have repeatedly requested

    There is a distinction between a transitional and an intermediate species. Again, we have to establish Common Descent before you can understand why mammalogists consider this critical evidence.

    bornagain77: Icaronycteris

    Icaronycteris is considered to have primitive, but functional laryngeal echolocation.

    Simmons & Geisler, Phylogenetic Relationships of Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to Extant Bat Lineages, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 1998.

    You might find this paper relevant, as well.

    Springer et al., Integrated fossil and molecular data reconstruct bat echolocation, PNAS 2001.

  156. In other words Zach, we are debating the origination of echolocation, I have cited evidence for 54.6 million,,, you want to establish something for a “primitive” bat earlier??? Google magic my friend!!! Just because you “believe” a transition occurred does not matter one bit to me!

  157. bornagain77: A 54.6 million year old fully functional bat.

    Do you understand the distinction biologists make between an intermediate species and a transitional species? Species are constantly radiating, so the best fossils we can hope to find are species close to the actual transition. When they exhibit a panoply of primitive traits, they reveal details of the common ancestor.

  158. Mr BA^77,

    Sorry, our messages have crossed paths.

    Thank you for doing the digging to find more resources for our discussion. I was originally suspicious that you had once again overstated the evidence, especially when I read how fragmentary that evidence was. But seeing that it included the ear bones was important.

    I accept the description of this Australian bat as currently the world’s oldest at 54.5 mya and capable of echolocation.

    So, we are, I agree, at an impasse on fossil bats for the time being. Looking through the references that I followed from your links, I saw one estimate that 88% of extinct bat species have not left a fossil record of themselves.

    What this new (to me) research says to me is that its wrong to try to draw a straight line between all Eocene fossil bats and modern bats. If we want to use fossils to talk about trends in functional complexity, it will have to be in relation to more specific lineages.

    So, absent better data than we have now (and thanks again for trying hard to find more) I won’t use a broad brush “fossil bats to modern bats” example any more of increased functional complexity.

  159. Nakashima: What this new (to me) research says to me is that its wrong to try to draw a straight line between all Eocene fossil bats and modern bats.

    That’s an essential point. Individual transitions tell us little unless seen within the context of the entire pattern of descent.

  160. Mr Zachriel,

    Since it seems that we don’t even know where on the globe bats originated, we also can’t trace their path to points as far apart as Australia and North America (and they were far apart in the early Eocene, just like today).

    Still, to have the full package of flight, insectivory, and echolocation that early, that far away from any probable origin says to me that “nocturnal flying insectivore” was a wide open niche, and some little tree shrew hit the lottery when they started jumping from tree to tree!

  161. Zachriel:

    If you don’t start with the Theory of Common Descent, then none of the rest of the evidence will make much sense.

    I would think that first one would need evidence for the theory of Common Descent- as in what is the evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?

    We have plenty of evidence for mutations breaking things and causing slight variations, but nothing that demonstrates genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to confirm, or provide evidence for, the theory of Common Descent.

  162. Joseph,

    I would think that first one would need evidence for the theory of Common Descent- as in what is the evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?

    I sometimes wonder if Joseph is a very deep-cover Poe who is pretending to be very misguided.

    Come on, Joe. The morphological fossil evidence and the DNA evidence give us pretty much the same phylogenies.

  163. jitsak,

    The vast majority of the fossil record is of marine invertebrates- >95%.

    In that vast majority we don’t see any evidence for Common Descent.

    The DNA evidence can be used for a Common Design.

    Ya see there isn’t any DNA evidence that links the genetic changes to the physical transformations required.

  164. Zachriel,

    If you don’t start with the Theory of Common Descent, then none of the rest of the evidence will make much sense.

    Oh I see, you start with it and end with it, that’s not circular or anything.

  165. Clive,

    It is always easier if you start with that which you need to demonstrate. ;)

  166. Joseph,

    It is always easier if you start with that which you need to demonstrate.

    Indeed it is.

  167. Zachriel @144

    Doesn’t it jar you a bit that generations of biologists have overlooked such a simplistic argument?

    It bothers me! How could they be so obtuse?

  168. Nakashima @145

    Evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies over time in a population with variable and heritable traits, subject to scarce resources where the traits influence survival.

    I have no problem with this definition of evolution. In fact, in any evaluation/simulation of evolution you are going to need to address how genetic changes are spread (or lost) throughout the population (increse/decrease in frequency over time).

    So I think this makes a fine starting place.

    I really look forward to this as a learning experience both in modelling and codign of algorithms relevant to evolutionary theory.

    Thank you for your time.

    I would propose unpacking various part of it and examine how to implement code that maps back to this definition. I’d prefer to do this rather than just dumping a big piece of code into a message and asking readers to accept that it maps to the agreed definition.

    Yes, exactly. Bit by bit, as it were. ;) It will have to be that way, for me to understand it, hehe.

    Is it possible to write tests for the code, so that we can see that the code is functioning according to how it is intended?

  169. 170

    Joseph

    The vast majority of the fossil record is of marine invertebrates- >95%.
    In that vast majority we don’t see any evidence for Common Descent.

    Does that mean there is evidence for Common Descent in a minority of the evidence then?
    Or none at all?

    I’m just wondering if you rule Common Descent out completely, which is a more extreme position then is generally taken in the ID community (Behe, Dembski etc).

    What do you know that they don’t?

    ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

    MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution.

    http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....hp/id/1441

  170. I noted several unsubstantiated assumptions you have built into your model which will give you a completely false reading as to what will actually happen in reality,,, you have “built” evolution into your model!

    Dear Mr. Nakashima,

    Please do not build any unsubstantiated assumptions into your model which you have not yet built.

    Also, this matter of false readings concerns me greatly. Can we build some true reading measuring equipment that works in reality so that we can test the model against some live stuff? Perhaps your patented laser technology could assist in this regard.

    Lastly, could we not intentionally build evolution into this model of evolution? Perhaps if it crept in by a purely unintentional undesigned process we could allow it.

    Thank you for taking my concerns seriously.

  171. Nakashima @159

    What this new (to me) research says to me is that its wrong to try to draw a straight line between all Eocene fossil bats and modern bats.

    Shouldn’t we have already learned this from the horse sequence? :)

  172. What do you know that they don’t?

    What kind of question is this?

    Behe and Demksi are concerned with detecting design in nature, which is concerned with the detection of patterns.

    Where there is no pattern, I doubt they find it of interest.

  173. Mr Mung,

    I take your concerns very seriously. One of the important aspects of model building is to verify it against other models and experimental data. In an analogy to a piece of rope, we don’t expect any strand to span the whole length of the rope, or be as strong as the whole rope, but taken together, the strands are longer and stronger than any one of them, even the longest and strongest.

    It is this way with models and experiments. The conceptual structures and results have to overlap and extend. Luckily there are many other simple GA and pop gen models we can test against, including Mendel’s Accountant and Gregor’s Bookkeeper.

    ps – Mind control lasers will be used only as a last resort.

  174. 175

    Mung

    Behe and Demksi are concerned with detecting design in nature, which is concerned with the detection of patterns.

    Indeed, and they have detected the pattern of Common Descent. And said as much. I was pointing that fact out to Joe.

    Where there is no pattern, I doubt they find it of interest.

    Indeed.

  175. Evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies over time in a population with variable and heritable traits, subject to scarce resources where the traits influence survival

    First, let’s look at some of the nouns in this description.

    Alleles – From this we know that we are going to have to model individuals with a genotype. Our description of individuals will have to be more than just alleles, but this is where we can start our object model.

    Frequencies – Some of the statistics we will want to keep track of in order to draw conclusions.

    Time – We will need to keep track of time. Many GA systems use ‘number of generations’ as a proxy for time. I would prefer to use a separate ‘clock’ so that we can have more flexibility, and decouple time keeping from modeling populations.

    Population – We will need to create a collection of more than one individual. These individuals must have some relationships to be considered a population, methods of interacting. These methods could include competition for resources, mates, etc.

    Traits – I’ll use this as a chance to differentiate the genotype and the phenotype. Our object model of an individual will have to keep both, as well as some other abstractions such as birth date, so that we can track age. Having both genotype and phenotype also implies a way to map from one to the other.

    Resources – We need a model of the environment. For example, we can record the carrying capacity of a ‘deme’ as a more natural way of defining a population size rather than just setting an arbitrary variable or array size. These numbers are finite, that is what we mean by scarce resources. We can make the model of the environment more or less elaborate with multiple demes, multiple kinds of resources. Multiple demes implies describing the deme relationships, such as migration between demes. It is also worth noting that the other population individuals constitute part of the environment.

    Survival – Individuals have finite lives.

    If some of this appears obvious or trivial, I apologize. The point is to agree on these simple and obvious things so that we can move on to more difficult issues.

  176. Zachriel: If you don’t start with the Theory of Common Descent, then none of the rest of the evidence will make much sense.

    Clive Hayden: Oh I see, you start with it and end with it, that’s not circular or anything.

    As I didn’t claim to have provided an argument for Common Descent, it wouldn’t be circular. Rather, those that already understand the evidence for Common Descent will also understand why onychonycteris is considered an important intermediate species exhibiting many primitive characteristics. Saying it shouldn’t coexist with bats with echolocation, is like asking “if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

  177. Joseph: The vast majority of the fossil record is of marine invertebrates- >95%.
    In that vast majority we don’t see any evidence for Common Descent.

    Victor Tussle: Does that mean there is evidence for Common Descent in a minority of the evidence then? Or none at all?

    It’s the weight of the evidence—in kilograms.

  178. bornagain77 @ 142

    The problem for getting a rough measure of CSI in larger systems, of multiple interlocking parts, such as echolocation of bats, is that we don’t actually know where the information is stored at that is directing the construction of the overall body plans??? No one knows! This is a very mysterious enigma to put it mildly: i.e. How do you put a measuring stick to information that no seems able to find?

    Perhaps there is nothing there to find.

    Perhaps information theory provides useful tools for modeling some attributes of the organism but that does not mean that information is a property of the organism.

    The more knowledgeable amongst us can brandish technical definitions of information such as that of Claude Shannon or Kolmogorov/Chaitin complexity or invent new ones like Functional Complex Specified Information. But these definitions do not mean the same as each other nor do they mean what most non-specialists understand by “information”.

    I developed these ideas a little in a post last year so, to save myself time and effort, let me quote part of it:

    What we commonly think of as information seems to be what is called semantic information embodied in messages passed between intelligent agents such as ourselves. That involves intention and the capacity to extract meaning from messages which can also be distinguished from background ‘noise’. I found this passage from an article called “The Information Challenge” by Richard Dawkins which was helpful:

    Redundancy is any part of a message that is not informative, either because the recipient already knows it (is not surprised by it) or because it duplicates other parts of the message. In the sentence “Rover is a poodle dog”, the word “dog” is redundant because “poodle” already tells us that Rover is a dog. An economical telegram would omit it, thereby increasing the informative proportion of the message. “Arr JFK Fri pm pls mt BA Cncrd flt” carries the same information as the much longer, but more redundant, “I’ll be arriving at John F Kennedy airport on Friday evening; please meet the British Airways Concorde flight”. Obviously the brief, telegraphic message is cheaper to send (although the recipient may have to work harder to decipher it – redundancy has its virtues if we forget economics). Shannon wanted to find a mathematical way to capture the idea that any message could be broken into the information (which is worth paying for), the redundancy (which can, with economic advantage, be deleted from the message because, in effect, it can be reconstructed by the recipient) and the noise (which is just random rubbish).

    I understand from the illustration about the Concorde flight how a message can be stripped down to its bare essentials in terms of information and that Shannon expressed this in a mathematical form in which the meaning was irrelevant but what, exactly, is information?

    The question I asked myself is this, the message about the Concorde flight would have told the recipient something they didn’t know before, namely, when and where the traveller’s flight was due to arrive. But suppose the sender was uncertain whether the message had been received so sent it again just to be safe, would it still contain information? Suppose the recipient had read the first message, they would no longer be surprised or informed by the second message, yet it was exactly the same as the first, so what is the information it contained?

    It seems to me that information is not so much a property of the message as it is a description of the relationship between the message and the recipient or, more precisely, the change the message causes in the state of the recipient. In a sense, it’s a process rather than an attribute. In the case of the Concorde flight message, the first one changed the state of the recipient by adding new knowledge, the second did nothing because the knowledge was already there.

  179. Joseph @164

    The vast majority of the fossil record is of marine invertebrates- >95%.

    In that vast majority we don’t see any evidence for Common Descent.

    I’ve noticed you keep repeating this as some kind of mantra. Why is this >95% relevant? When geologists look at their samples, >95% of it is rock. The interesting information is in the boundaries between strata. What percentage of the visible stars give us information about the evolution of the universe?

    The DNA evidence can be used for a Common Design.

    I suppose it can. But of all the possible phylogenies based on common design, why did the Designer choose a nested hierarchy?–precisely what would be expected under a common descent scenario. One answer might be a sense of humor.

    Ya see there isn’t any DNA evidence that links the genetic changes to the physical transformations required.

    Why should I take your word for that? Are you a scientist? As a matter of fact, phenotypic differences between recently diverged species are small enough that the genetic basis for the differences has been mapped in some cases. As I mentioned in another thread, I recently attended a lecture by Jerry Coyne where he described genetic analysis of the differences between recently diverged Drosophila species. Coyne described a QTL analysis and more detailed analysis of genes responsible for small differences in morphology and genes that make females discriminate between them during mate choice. Remember that next time when you claim there isn’t any DNA evidence linking genetic changes to physical differences.

  180. Seversky stated:

    “The more knowledgeable amongst us”

    Would that be the knowledgeable Darwin zealots such as yourself that wouldn’t know true science if they hit with there car??

    Thanks for a good laugh Seversky, maybe you problem is that you need to humble yourself before you will truly learn!

    1 Corinthians 1:27
    “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”

  181. Jitsak,,,you might want to use another line of evidence other than fossils and genes:
    The Fossil Record – The Evolutionary Myth Of +99% Extinct Species – Dr. Arthur Jones
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQeeY-Val0

    “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life,” New Scientist (January 21, 2009)
    Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin’s) tree of life.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

  182. This quote really drew my attention Jitsak:

    “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.2

    But alas why do I feel that you may be too wise and knowledgeable in your own eyes, as Seversky and Nak seem to think they are, to learn from this?

  183. boreagain,

    Thanks for a good laugh Seversky, maybe you problem is that you need to humble yourself before you will truly learn!

    Are you back on the sauce? You are far from humble yourself, so you should think twice before accusing another poster from the lack thereof. Indeed, you are often quite rude, and I would enjoy your posts much more if you would refrain from baseless accusations.

  184. Hey Jitsak I never claimed to be wise, I only claimed to know the One Who possesses all wisdom,, Jesus Christ!!! And your right I ain’t humble enough to let Darwin bullies run all over me,,, but nobody is perfect? I have to work on being a Darwinian door mat!!! In my “humble” opinion, If you guy’s wisdom lets you be so blind to the fact God is indeed real, it can’t be true wisdom and must in reality be deception!! A song for you dude.

    Johnny Cash Hurt
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVAWKfJ4Go

  185. But alas why do I feel that you may be too wise and knowledgeable in your own eyes, as Seversky and Nak seem to think they are, to learn from this?

    I can only guess as to why you feel that way. My guess would be that you are grateful to be freed from your previous addictions, and now you’re overshooting in another direction. I’m glad you found Jesus in your life, and as a regular of AA meetings I can sympathize with that. But your holier than thou attitude is unbecoming.

    Back to science. The tree of life is still very much alive. Just like a real tree, the root is more complex than we thought before. In no way does this invalidate evolution.

  186. The bottom line with universal common ancestry is that the fossil evidence is very poor. You do have some likely transitionals but they are all almost of the same kinds of animals – and in the cases of human and ape like creatures the sequences change all the time- and the perputed “missing link” has been claimed ot hav ebeen found many times and each time it gets up into either a category of ape or man.

    In the second best case of a transitional you have the whale transitions- which consists of one good skull with teeth and a few bones of the body with the rest of the body left up to speculative reconstructions.

    The transitional fossil record is incredibly incomplete. When you look into books with fossils there almost none. This is not the reality I am arguing for but this is just reality. It is not my fault that they have not found many when their should be millions. We have plenty of Dinosaur fossils from over 200 million years ago but they of course mysteriously show stasis.

    You also have some possible fish transnationals- but it is still just fish turning into fish. And of course most ridiculously among the Darwinists problems is the notion of the so called possible reptile to bird transitions. While one side of the Darwinists totally see them as a knock out blow for the ancestry argument or model- you have another side which thinks birds evolved from dinosaurs. The avian lung complexity no doubt plays a role in the controversy. It is amazing.

    And the reason why the common design argument is so important when you try to link somewhat closely similar creatures like say apes and man- is that if you look at cars for example- there is very little difference between a 1960 mustang and a 1970 mustang- you could easily wrongly conclude common ancestry when it is obviously design.

    In both cases there are physical processes leading to the design – but the processes are very different- in the case of common design it almost certainly or inexorably implies a mind for the source of origin of the information- as opposed to maybe some simply proximate mechanisms like natural selection and mutation.

  187. And Jitsak,

    No offense- but I got hammered the other day by everyone for using so called “ad hominem” arguments (even though they weren’t) when I said a Darwinist cannot be a true Christian for the reasons I listed- But for you to say –

    “I can only guess as to why you feel that way. My guess would be that you are grateful to be freed from your previous addictions, and now you’re overshooting in another direction.”

    That is getting pretty personal- and leaves the realm of arguments from evidence, facts and reason – and enters into just a nasty personal attack.

    Wouldn’t you say?

  188. BA77

    The problem for getting a rough measure of CSI in larger systems, of multiple interlocking parts, such as echolocation of bats, is that we don’t actually know where the information is stored at that is directing the construction of the overall body plans??? No one knows! This is a very mysterious enigma to put it mildly: i.e. How do you put a measuring stick to information that no seems able to find?

    I always had the impression that ID actually does measure the information you refer to in terms of CSI/FSCI.

  189. When geologists look at their samples, >95% of it is rock.

    That’s why I reject evolution.

    95% of 95% of the evidence is against it.

    ;)

  190. Mr Frost122585,

    That is getting pretty personal- and leaves the realm of arguments from evidence, facts and reason – and enters into just a nasty personal attack.

    Yes, it is personal. It is sad how Mr BA^77 has pulled down the level of discourse to this level.

    Nak the only way it is possible for me to even be considered gullible by you, considering the actual state of the evidence that you have blatantly ignored, is for you to be absolutely insane.

    This, after expressing his willingness to bet on the brine shrimp discovered by satellite lasers. I leave it to you to decide if this is the writing of a True Christian. If only Casey Luskin were here to give us a lesson in civility.

  191. Jitsak, if overshooting to try to have “too much” God in my life is a bad thing in your eyes so be it,,, I actually thought I was not sincere enough in seeking Him and would consider having more of God in my life to be very pleasant thing, since He is indeed the source of all that is good in my life,,,

    but to your statement:

    “the root is more complex than we thought before”

    And what root do you have Jitsak, besides the one in your imagination?

    (What evidence is found for the appearance of all species of life on earth, and is man the last species to appear on earth? ) we come to the evidence found for the amazing variety of complex life on earth.

    Psalm 104:24
    O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions

    Again the materialistic presumption of blind chance being the only reasonable cause must be dealt with. Exactly how did all these different forms of life get here? There are only two options for how this amazing variety of life got here; life either originates on this earth gradually by blind evolutionary processes, or life is deliberately introduced by a Creator, either suddenly and/or gradually.

    “If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous.” R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

    Many people have been taught the evidence in the fossil record overwhelmingly confirms gradual evolution. Yet this is not the case at all. The fossil record itself is one of the most crushing things for people who believe in gradual evolution. In fact, what is termed the “Cambrian Explosion” is a total departure from the gradual theory of evolution and yet finds easy resolution for its suddenness in God’s fifth day of creation in Genesis.

    Genesis 1:20
    Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,”,,,

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    “Darwin’s Dilemma examines some of the most important fossil discoveries ever made and with them, a mystery deeper than Charles Darwin ever imagined. For the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion does not reveal the gradual development of life forms as Darwin posited in his work, but a period in which compound eyes, articulated limbs, sophisticated sensory organs and skeletal frames burst into existence seemingly out of nowhere.” – Anika Smith – Discovery Institute

    It is in the ancient seas of the Cambrian explosion, some 540 million years ago, where we find the abrupt appearance of many strangely diverse and complex forms of life. These complex life-forms appear suddenly with no evidence of transition from the bacteria and few other stable, and simple, life-forms that preceded them in the fossil record. These following quotes clearly illustrate this point.

    Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 – 747 – July 2009
    Excerpt: “going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.” —”Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists.”

    Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma – Jonathan Wells – Sept. 2009
    Excerpt: “The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved.”

    Evolution’s Big Bang:
    “Yet, here is the real puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion for the theory of evolution. All the known phyla (large categories of biological classification), except one, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. Fossil experts used to think that the Cambrian lasted 75 million years…. Eventually the Cambrian was shortened to only 30 million years. If that wasn’t bad enough, the time frame of the real work of bringing all these different creatures into existence was shortened to the first five to ten million years of the Cambrian. This is extraordinarily fast! Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould stated, “Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting.” What an understatement! “Extraordinarily impossible” might be a better phrase! …. The differences between the creatures that suddenly appear in the Cambrian are enormous. In fact these differences are so large many of these animals are one of a kind. Nothing like them existed before and nothing like them has ever appeared again.” Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology).

    The Science of God – Gerald L. Schroeder – pages 36-37
    “Eyes and gills, jointed limbs and intestines, sponges and worms and insects and fish, all had appeared simultaneously. There had not been a gradual evolution of simple phyla such as sponges into the more complex phyla of worms and then on to other life forms such as insects. According to these fossils, at the most fundamental level of animal life, the phylum or basic body plan, the dogma of classical Darwinian evolution, that the simple had evolved into the more complex, that invertebrates had evolved into vertebrates over one hundred to two hundred million year was fantasy, not fact.”

    A “peer reviewed” paper was recently published in 2004, pointing out the obvious impossibilities of evolutionary processes producing such an explosion of complex functional information in the Cambrian explosion. Yet, just for questioning that unguided Darwinian evolution could do as such, the paper brought forth much persecution of the editor who dared allowed the heretical publication of “doubting the sufficiency of non-guided evolution” to produce such massive amounts of complex functional information in the Cambrian explosion. The persecution was so severe it even caught the attention of a Congressional Investigation Committee.

    This is a video clip and website describing that persecution:

    Get Expelled – Richard Sternberg – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HS03sGrehI

    Here is an excerpt of that rather inoffensive peer reviewed paper which ruffled so many Darwinian feathers:

    Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
    “To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505).”
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

    Interestingly, “simple” Jellyfish and Sponges appeared suddenly in the fossil record a few ten million years before the Cambrian Explosion, and have remained virtually unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record. Moreover, contrary to evolutionary thinking, Jellyfish and Sponges appear to have essential purpose in preparing the ecosystem for the Cambrian Explosion that was to follow.

    Marine animals cause a stir – July 2009
    Excerpt: Kakani Katija and John Dabiri used field measurements of jellyfish swimming in a remote island lake, combined with a new theoretical model, to demonstrate that the contribution of living organisms to ocean mixing via this mechanism is substantial — of the same order of magnitude as winds and tides. (Winds and tides, due to their prevention of stagnation, are known to be essential for life on earth.)

    Sponges Determine Coral Reef’s Nutrient Cycle
    Excerpt: Sponges, which have worldwide distribution in the oceans, filter water. They take up planktonic particles such as bacteria and excrete inorganic nutrients. In turn, these nutrients can facilitate the growth of marine plants and other organisms. Sponges filter water at a phenomenal rate: if the seawater were to remain stationary, the sponges would have completely pumped it away within five minutes,,,, these organisms play a key role in the marine nutrient cycle due to their incredible capacity to convert enormous quantities of organic plankton into inorganic material (nutrients).

    Fossils of all types of sponges alive today have been found virtually unchanged in rocks dated from 580 to 523 million years ago. Sponges with photosynthesizing endosymbionts produce up to three times more oxygen than they consume, as well as more organic matter than they consume. (Wikipedia)

    Barrel and Chimney Sponges Filtering Water – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7E1rq7zHLc

    The mysterious Ediacara biota, which appeared alongside the Sponges and Jellyfish in the fossil record, and which defy classification as either plant or animal, much less classification of essential symbiotic purpose, largely disappeared from the fossil record a few million years before the Cambrian Explosion.

    The scant “track” evidence for worms in the pre-Cambrian has now been brought into question:

    Discovery Of Giant Roaming Deep Sea Protist Provides New Perspective On Animal Evolution:
    Excerpt: This is the first time a single-celled organism has been shown to make such animal-like traces. The finding is significant, because similar fossil grooves and furrows found from the Precambrian era, as early as 1.8 billion years ago, have always been attributed to early evolving multicellular animals. “If our giant protists were alive 600 million years ago and the track was fossilized, a paleontologist unearthing it today would without a shade of doubt attribute it to a kind of large, multicellular, bilaterally symmetrical animal,” says Matz, an assistant professor of integrative biology. “We now have to rethink the fossil record.”

    The “real work” of the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion may in actuality be as short as a two to three million year time frame (Ross: Creation as Science 2006) which is well within what is termed the “geologic resolution time” i.e. The time frame for the main part of the Cambrian Explosion apparently can’t be shortened any further due to limitations of our accurately dating this ancient time period more precisely.

    “The Cambrian Explosion was so short that it is below the resolution of the fossil record. It could have happened overnight. So we don’t know the duration of the Cambrian Explosion. We just know that it was very, very, fast.”
    Jonathan Wells – Darwin’s Dilemma Quote

    Storming the Beaches of Norman – Jonathan Wells
    Excerpt: Even if the Cambrian explosion had lasted 40 million years, as Westrop had claimed, there would not have been enough time for unguided processes to produce the enormous amount of specified complexity in the DNA of the animal phyla.

    If this abrupt appearance for all these completely different and unique phyla was not bad enough for materialists, the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there is today due to extinction.

    Of Note: “Phyla are broad categories of classification. All fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are in the same phylum. Squid, octopi, oysters, clams and snails are in another phylum. Lobsters, crayfish, insects, and millipedes are in still another.” Ray Bohlin PhD

    “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology

    The evolutionary theory would have us believe we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes:

    Origin of Phyla – The Fossil Evidence – Timeline Graph
    http://lutheranscience.org/images/GraphC2.gif

    The hard facts of science betray the materialist once again. Some materialists say the evidence for the fossils transmutation into radically new forms is out there somewhere; we just have not found it yet. To justify this belief, a materialist will often say soft bodied fossils were not preserved in the pre-Cambrian fossil record, so transitional fossils were just not recorded in the fossil record in the first place (artifact hypothesis). Yet, the Chinese Cambrian fossil record is excellent for the preservation of delicate pre-Cambrian fossils.

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish

    What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”

    “Without gradualism, we are back to a miracle.”
    Richard Dawkins

    So the problem for the materialist has not been alleviated. In fact the problem has become much worse. As Dr. Ray Bohlin stated, some of these recently discovered fossils are extremely unique and defy any sort of transitional scenario to any of the other fossils found during the Cambrian explosion.

    Besides the fossil record, recent DNA analysis testifies against any transitional scenario between Cambrian phyla:

    The new animal phylogeny: Reliability and implications:
    Excerpt: “The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of “intermediate” taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or “Urbilateria.”…A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the “coelomate ancestor” through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant “primitive” lineages.” From Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 -

    I like this following paper for though it is materialistic in its outlook at least Eugene Koonin, unlike many materialists, is brutally honest with the evidence we now have.

    The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution – Eugene V Koonin – Background:
    “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable;

    It should be noted that Koonin goes on to try to account for the origination of the massive amounts of functional information, required for the Cambrian Explosion, by trying to access an “undirected” mechanism of Quantum Mechanics called ‘Many Worlds’. Besides Koonin ignoring the fact that Quantum Events, on a whole, are strictly restricted to the transcendent universal laws/constants of the universe, it is also fair to note, in criticism to Koonin’s scenario, that appealing to the undirected infinite probabilistic resource, of the quantum mechanics of the Many Worlds scenario, actually greatly increases the amount of totally chaotic information one would expect to see generated. Though Koonin is correct to recognize that the wave function of Quantum Mechanics does not absolutely preclude the sudden appearance of massive amounts of functional information in the fossil record, he is incorrect to disregard the “Logos” of John 1:1 needed to correctly specify the “controlled mechanism of implementation” for the massive amounts of complex functional information witnessed abruptly appearing in the fossil record.

    This following paper corroborates Koonin’s observation of irreconcilable differences being found in the genetic evidence with Darwinian evolution:

    Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: – 21 January 2009
    Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts – also known as tunicates – are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren’t chordates. “Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,” Syvanen says. ….”We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely,” says Syvanen. “What would Darwin have made of that?”

    I would like to point out that this, “annihilation” of Darwin’s genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed “world leading expert” on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was “Intelligently Designed” for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year.

    In spite of this crushing evidence found in the Cambrian explosion, and DNA analysis of different phyla, most scientists, and thus a large portion of the public, continues to imagine all life on earth descended from a common ancestor and continues to imagine missing links with every new fossil discovery making mainstream media headlines. Yet the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, which is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in mainstream media accounts.

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University, T. Neville George

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” – Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    “Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? … The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.” Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

    “The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”.
    David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    ” Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
    George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

    One persistent misrepresentation, that evolutionists continually portray of the fossil record, is that +99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct when in fact 40 to 80% of all living species found on the earth are represented in the fossil record.

    Comparing molecular sequences gives the same pattern of discontinuity as the fossil record does:

    ‘The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid sequence similarity); we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.’
    Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum

    Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7
    Excerpt: “There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated.”

    Flowering Plant Big Bang:

    “Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species,“To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing – especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.” Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

    “A major problem for Neo-Darwinism is the complete lack of evidence for plant evolution in the fossil record. As a whole, the fossil evidence of prehistoric plants is actually very good, yet no convincing transitional forms have been discovered in the abundant plant fossil record”
    Jerry Bergman – The Evolution Of Plants – “A Major Problem For Darwinists” – Technical Journal – 2002 online edition

    “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” -
    Niles Eldredge , “Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate,” 1996, p.95

    The flash recovery of ammonoids after the most massive extinction of all time – August 2009:
    Excerpt: After the End-Permian extinction 252.6 million years ago, ammonoids diversified and recovered 10 to 30 times faster than previous estimates.,,, Furthermore, the duration for estimated recovery after other lesser extinctions all vary between 5 and 15 million years. The result obtained here suggests that these estimates should probably be revised downwards.

    Psalm 104: 29-30
    You hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their spirit, they expire And return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground.

    Partial List Of Fossil Groups – (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) – Timeline Illustration:
    http://www.earthhistory.org.uk.....groups.jpg

    “Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record…the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life.” Ager, D. – Author of “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record”-1981

  192. Nak, I didn’t believe any such thing as satellites finding species but ignored that obvious deception so as to concentrate on speciation events,,, That I would ignore a obvious deception on your part to concentrate on the science and then have you think that you are so clever is pathetic really. I am so use to you guys lying I just ignore the lies automatically I guess… That you would find delight in what you think is a sucessful deception is very telling as to your true character!! and my bet still stands for any speciation event found by whatever method you choose,,,

  193. To give an idea of the complexity of an echolocation system here is a simplified block diagram of a radar/sonar equipment.

    Mutatis mutandis in the bats there must be something similar. What has to be emphasized is the strict interfacing between the front-end parts (transmit/receive units) and the back/end parts (brain/processor). The transmission/receiving functions and the signal processing functions must work as an integrated system. Such integration tells us that practically the echometer cannot be installed into the bat in the afterward as a simple plug-in, rather echometer and brain had to be designed as a whole system just from the beginning. Considerations based on irreducible complexity here are a must. Of course this is the negation of bat’s evolution (as by the way fossils prove).

  194. Frost122585: The bottom line with universal common ancestry is that the fossil evidence is very poor.

    Not only does the fossil record support Common Descent across most taxa, but so does the molecular evidence.

    Frost122585: and in the cases of human and ape like creatures the sequences change all the time- and the perputed “missing link” has been claimed ot hav ebeen found many times and each time it gets up into either a category of ape or man.

    Homo habilis and Australopithecines are hardly “man” or “ape.” That they can be difficult to classify is exactly what we expect of a gradual, evolutionary process. In addition, there are many other well delineated evolutionary transitions, such as in equines.

    Frost122585: In the second best case of a transitional you have the whale transitions- which consists of one good skull with teeth and a few bones of the body with the rest of the body left up to speculative reconstructions.

    Due to the the nested hierarchy, if we find, for instance, a skull, we can make all sorts of predictions about other characteristics of the organism. So sometimes fragmentary evidence can tell us a lot.

    In any case, there are a number of excellent specimens available, including a virtually complete skeleton of Dorudon atrox with retained hind limbs. The existence of intermediate species is a verifiable prediction of evolutionary theory.

    Frost122585: The transitional fossil record is incredibly incomplete.

    Yes, but of all the thousands of known vertebrate fossils, all of them support the nested hierarchy predicted by Common Descent.

    Frost122585: We have plenty of Dinosaur fossils from over 200 million years ago but they of course mysteriously show stasis.

    Dinosauria cladogram

  195. Zach:
    I would like to point out that this following, “annihilation” of Darwin’s genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed “world leading expert” on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was “Intelligently Designed” for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year.

    Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: – 21 January 2009
    .“We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin’s) tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely,” says Syvanen. “What would Darwin have made of that?”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....-life.html

    Zach it is comical for you to say discontinuity is “expected” from evolution,,, But of course evolution predicts everything and can be falsified by nothing, and thus is not science!!!!

    The first line of the ” Evolution of the Genus Homo” paper illustrates the poverty of the fossil record in establishing human evolution:

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.” http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    The proposed Whale Evolution of Darwinists is a gross insult to reason:

    Whale Evolution? – Exposing The Deception – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUqoTsmqbA

    What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale – David Berlinski – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM

    Within the same roughly 55 million years of time that whales are purported to have dramatically arisen from some wolf-like animal with +50,000 major morphological innovations, bats have changed very little. Bats popped out of the supposed evolutionary woodwork about 55 million years ago. They first appear as a radically new yet fully developed form, which was not in any way significantly different from modern bats. Their debut in the fossil record is sudden, complete, and lacks intermediaries.

    Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old.
    The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats.

    Of note; The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers. The echometer cannot be installed into the bat in the afterward as a simple plug-in, rather echometer and brain had to be designed as a whole system from the beginning. (niwrad) http://focus.ti.com/docs/solut.....t/119.html

    The same could be said for equines:

    “The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series”.
    Dr. Heribert Nilsson – Evolutionist – Former Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute.

    etc…etc…etc…

  196. Zachriel:

    Not only does the fossil record support Common Descent across most taxa, but so does the molecular evidence.

    The vast majority of the fossil record is of marine invertebrates.

    Common Descent is absent from that vast majority.

    And there isn’t any molecular evidence that demonstrates the transformtaions required are even possible.

    Due to the the nested hierarchy, if we find, for instance, a skull, we can make all sorts of predictions about other characteristics of the organism.

    As you have been told before nested hierarchy is not expected from Common Descent.

    Transitional forms would violate the nesting.

  197. jitsak,

    Neither Common Descent nor the theory of evolution predict a nested hierarchy for the many reasons I and Dr Denton have provided.

    1- Transitional forms- by their very nature- demonstrate that nested hierarchies are not expected.

    2- “Evolution” does NOT have a direction beyond “survival” and nested hierarchies demand a direction of immutable and additive characteristics.

    3- Only via design would we expect a nested hierarchy.

    Which is why it was first used as evidence for a Common Design.

    And true you don’t have to take my word for it that no one knows whetehr or not any amount of mutational accumulation can account for the changes required.

    You can’t even point to a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates mutations can build useful protein machinery never mind changing body plans.

  198. Vistor Tussle,

    It means that the “evidence” for Common Descent is based on the assumption of Common Descent and cannot be objectively tested.

    You can’t even point to mutations accumulating in such a way as to give rise to new and useful protein machinery.

    And you have no idea what determines the final form of the organism.

    But anyway I do not rule out Common Descent I just say there isn’t any scientific data to support it.

    It is all based on faith.

    Faith in “Magical Mystery Mutations”.

  199. Mr Niwrad,

    Indeed, I’m sure that ancestor of echolocating bats had good ears and a larynx. it had a brain that could integrate signals captured by the ears to create a model of its local environment.

    Creating an echolocation system requires modifying that basic equipment to preferentially create a specific pitch (slightly modify the larynx, preferentially hear that pitch and close deviations (slightly modify the cochlea and ear bones), and be preferentially sensitive to timing differences (slightly modify the aural processing in the brain). I think the biggest change is creating the pulse formation process, but that may fall out naturally of breathing hard during flapping.

    Complex, but built from parts that were already installed and tested in similar models!

  200. Nakashima,

    Modifications come via mutations.

    And there isn’t any genetic data that demonstrates the transformations/ modifications required are even possible.

    IOW you don’t have any way to test your claim.

  201. Mr Joseph,

    I’m surprised you would repeat this argument when we have living species that demonstrate intermediate forms between tree shrew and bat.

    I think that what you are suggesting is that we sequence the genomes of these species that inhabit the niches close to the current bat niche, and look for patterns in gene modifications. These are exactly the differences discussed in the article I referenced in message 12 above. Have you read it?

    Of course we can swap genes between animals now, we’ve even put human Foxp2 in mice. So the claim can be tested by making modifications to genomes and looking at the resulting phenotypes.

  202. Nakashima,

    The existence of intermediate forms does just means phenotypic plasticity exists.

    It does not mean one form “evolved” to/ from the other.

    And yes we can swap genes- put a PAX 6 from a mouse into a fruit fly and the fruit fly develops fruit fly eyes.

    What we can’t do is modify the genome of treeshrews and get a bat.

  203. bornagain77: I would like to point out that this following, “annihilation” of Darwin’s genetic tree of life,

    The tree of life is alive and well for the vast majority of taxa. For reference, there are over a thousand recent articles in the journal Genetics, and nearly three thousand articles in the journal Nature, that include references to the “phylogenetic tree.” Quote-mining from individual scientists doesn’t reprensent either the consensus view in biology, the facts, or even necessarily the views of the authors. That the tree metaphor may not apply at the trunk of the tree is something that has been an issue in biology since Darwin. Nevertheless, it applies for the vast majority of taxonomic categories.

    We know the nested hierarchy is more than an artifact of categorization because we can make verifiable predictions. For instance, if you find an astragalus with a double-pulley system then we can reliably predict that the organism is an animal that consumes other organisms, has vertebrae containing a nerve cord, a cranium with an array of sense organs, an even number of toes, hair, a complex digestive system, mammary glands. We know all this because the vast amount of data supporting phylogeny and the specifics of bovid physiology. All from an ankle bone.

    bornagain77: it is comical for you to say discontinuity is “expected” from evolution,,, But of course evolution predicts everything and can be falsified by nothing, and thus is not science!!!!

    Individual fossils can only be individual data on the phylogenetic tree. I did not use the term “discontinuous.”

    bornagain77:

    Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens.

    That they can be difficult to classify is exactly what we expect of a gradual, evolutionary process. (You might responding to the point, instead of repeating your quote-mines.)

    bornagain77: The proposed Whale Evolution of Darwinists is a gross insult to reason:

    So Gingerich and his crew, who predict from the Theory of Common Descent the placement of species of heretofore unknown species of cetaceans, cetaceans with hind limbs, journey to the wastelands of Egypt where they find exposed strata of the appropriate age, and pull out fossils that verify their predictions, are a gross insult to your reason.

  204. Mr Joseph,

    What we can’t do is modify the genome of treeshrews and get a bat.

    Yet. The point is not to take a highly conserved protein (such as PAX6) and move it across genomes, it is to take the non-conserved genes that represent the differences (such as bat FoxP2) and move them across genomes.

  205. Yeah maybe someday Gingerich will find the genes that, when modified, can account for the 50,000+ transitional forms that had to have existed if whales did indeed evolve from land mammals.

    And the fact that we observe a nested hierarchy at all should be evidence against Common Descent.

    Darwin said that descent with modification would lead to “groups under groups” and Doug Theobald twisted that to “groups within groups” and a bunch of very gullible evolutionists- what evolutionist isn’t gullible?- took his misrepresentation and ran with it.

    Ya see descent with modification can lead to a lineage- which is a LINE of descent. Lines are not to be confused for nested hierarchies. Not even branching lines.

  206. Nakashima,

    Genes may influence development but they do not determine it.

    However I hope scientists start with that type of experiment- perhaps a real live Dr Moreau will pop up.

    That is your “gospel”- right?

    You think that the movie “The Island of Dr Moreau” was just a look into the future- not science fiction, science in the future!

    Sweet…

  207. Mr Joseph,

    You think that the movie “The Island of Dr Moreau” was just a look into the future- not science fiction, science in the future!

    When you are done mind reading please pass the tinfoil helmet back to Mr BA^77.

  208. The tree of life is still very much alive. Just like a real tree, the root is more complex than we thought before. In no way does this invalidate evolution.

    The “complexity” of the root is irrelevant.

    The roots serve a function. The function that the roots serve is teleological.

    Since “evolution,” as you are using the term, means “non-teleological,” “evolution,” as you are using the term, is indeed invalidated.

  209. To bornagain77:

    Dude, is there any chance whatsoever you can keep your posts under the size of the largest genome known to man?

  210. Mr Mung,

    The roots serve a function. The function that the roots serve is teleological.

    Since this is a pretty bald assertion, I wonder if you could unpack your meaning a bit more. Roots and trees as descriptions of evolution are imperfect analogies. The beings of a few billion years ago are closer to being our seed than our root, in the sense that ‘the child is parent to the man’.

    Even so, you can say that seeds have a purpose also, and I would agree with you – to make more seeds. Divining a greater purpose than that is beyond me.

  211. What we can’t do is modify the genome of treeshrews and get a bat.

    And I don’t think we should be able to. If the tree shrew is a modern living organism, we would first have to “de-volve” it back to the common ancestor between the bat and the shrew, and then “evolve” that common ancestor into a bat.

    I seriously doubt that it is possible to “devolve”
    a living organism back into an ancestral form, and thence to “evolve” it into something completely different.

    Of course, as with any good empiricist, i’m willing to consider evidence to the contrary.

  212. Nakashima,

    No mind reading required.

    Your position doesn’t have any scientific data that supports it.

    Neither you, nor anyone else, knows whether or not any amount of genetic modification can account for the diversity of life from some unknown populations of single-celled organisms.

    BTW “tin”foil has been replaced by aluminum foil- that was some 60 years ago…

  213. Mung: The “complexity” of the root is irrelevant.

    It’s certainly of importance to biology, the understanding of life’s history, and unraveling the complexity of the cell.

    Mung: The roots serve a function. The function that the roots serve is teleological.

    I have no idea what that means. It sounds like you’re saying it’s a Gap to hide teleology in.

    Mung: Since “evolution,” as you are using the term, means “non-teleological,” “evolution,” as you are using the term, is indeed invalidated.

    That only follows if you show that the Gap is filled with your predilection. The available research is indicating natural processes, e.g. horizontal mechanisms.

    Mung: If the tree shrew is a modern living organism, we would first have to “de-volve” it back to the common ancestor between the bat and the shrew, and then “evolve” that common ancestor into a bat.

    Fortunately, such a direct demonstration isn’t required. What is required in science is entailed predictions, e.g. showing that small changes to regulatory genes can cause the sorts of changes required, or fossils with primitive traits fitting the nested hierarchy. Of course, this doesn’t “prove” that evolution occured, but the more of these sorts of predictions and observations that are made, the more confident we can be of our theories.

    For instance, common descent of bats and other mammals is strongly supported. It doesn’t require a theory of genetics to have a high level of scientific confidence. In addition, we can show that small changes to genes consistent with mutation can bring about many of the required changes. We can show that “‘nocturnal flying insectivore’ was a wide open niche,” meaning the changes were selectable and a rapid radiation is expected.

    Then there’s all that other evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. We have good reason to believe that bats evolved, just like everything else.

  214. Zachriel:

    The available research is indicating natural processes, e.g. horizontal mechanisms.

    Design is also a natural process, ie it exists in nature.

    The question is are those “horizontal mechanisms” non-telic- meaning undirected and non-targeted?

    What is required in science is entailed predictions, e.g. showing that small changes to regulatory genes can cause the sorts of changes required, or fossils with primitive traits fitting the nested hierarchy.

    They wouldn’t fit any nested hierarchy for the many reasons already provided.

    Sequences do not make nested hierarchies and transitional forms violate the distinct category requirement.

    Also no one has shown that any amount of change in any genome can account for the transformations required.

    And blind, undirected processes sure as heck cannot account for regulatory networks.

    For instance, common descent of bats and other mammals is strongly supported.

    By bald assertion.

    You still don’t have any scientific way to test your claim that tghe transformations required can be obtained by modifying genomes.

    You don’t have any clue what genes/ DNA sequences would have to be modified.

    And yes bats did evolve- from some original populations of bats.

    That is what the science demonstrates.

  215. Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti’s book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled “Wobbling Stability”. In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

    Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

    (snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

    Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

    Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

    It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

    The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.

    All that is left for Zachriel or any other evolutionist to do is to assert that Dr Sermonti is mistaken. But one will quickly notice the total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise.

  216. Zachriel,

    For instance, common descent of bats and other mammals is strongly supported. It doesn’t require a theory of genetics to have a high level of scientific confidence. In addition, we can show that small changes to genes consistent with mutation can bring about many of the required changes. We can show that “‘nocturnal flying insectivore’ was a wide open niche,” meaning the changes were selectable and a rapid radiation is expected.

    You should read Chesterton’s essay Doubts about Darwinism pertaining to bats evolving. His criticism is just as valid today as it was when he wrote it. No, small mutations to the genes cannot bring about novel and beneficial changes of the sort required to bring about a bat from a mouse. And as far as “nocturnal flying insectivore” being a “wide open niche” as “evidence”, is really just “after the fact” speculation, like saying that fruit-bearing trees exist because “upright, wooden, tall, non-sentient, pear-bearing” was a “wide open niche”. Or we can speculate even further, and say that “blue jumping carnivores that eat upside down from pear trees was a wide open niche”. You can always tell a story, whether that story has any actual purchase on reality is questionable, and should be questioned. I’m not interested in story-time retrofit into the gap where there is no actual evidence.

  217. Clive Hayden: No, small mutations to the genes cannot bring about novel and beneficial changes of the sort required to bring about a bat from a mouse.

    The evidence can only be seen in the light of Common Descent, so that has to be established first.

    Clive Hayden: small mutations to the genes cannot bring about novel and beneficial changes of the sort required to bring about a bat from a mouse.

    There are known incremental pathways for many transitions in the history of evolution. In bats, the distinguishing structures are modifications of existing structures. Again, we have to start with Common Descent or these statements lack context.

    Clive Hayden: And as far as “nocturnal flying insectivore” being a “wide open niche” as “evidence”, is really just “after the fact” speculation, like saying that fruit-bearing trees exist because “upright, wooden, tall, non-sentient, pear-bearing” was a “wide open niche”.

    Did you have actual evidence that the niche was already filled? Or are you really saying you don’t consider insectivore a valid and important ecological niche?

  218. Zachriel:

    The evidence can only be seen in the light of Common Descent, so that has to be established first.

    Good luck with that.

    There are known incremental pathways for many transitions in the history of evolution.

    Only in a “gross anatomy” sort of way.

    No one can link the genetics with the alleged transitions.

    In bats, the distinguishing structures are modifications of existing structures.

    Yet to modify the structures means the DNA must be modified.

    But there isn’t any genetic data which would demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

    Nothing in genetics that shows mutations build useful things and create new body plans.

    Again, we have to start with Common Descent or these statements lack context.

    That is the problem

    You want to start with something that needs to be scientifically demonstrated in the first place.

  219. Joseph,

    I would enjoy some more discussion about the tree of life, but my posts are now under moderation, which means that I can no longer reply in real time. I suppose the reason is that I got a little personal with bornagain77 the other day, for which I apologize. Should the moderators see fit to revoke this measure, I’ll be happy to discuss once again.

  220. jitsak,

    You can still discuss it.

    I am still waiting for your explanation as to why descent with modification produces a nested hierarchy.

    However you don’t seem to understand nested hierarchies…

Leave a Reply