Chuan He: Evolution Created Epigenetics

_{Cornelius Hunter

May 4, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

They never predicted it, then they denied it could be heritable, and then they denied it could cause lasting change. “It” in this case is epigenetics and in spite of being wrong, wrong and wrong again, and in spite of the fact that there is no scientific explanation for how epigenetics could have evolved, evolutionists nonetheless insist that it, in fact, must have evolved. Evolution loses every battle but claims to win the war. All of this became abundantly clear this past week when the finding of a new epigenetic signal was announced: Read more

Comments

Querius: If the organic material was 65 million years old, which is impossible for organic material due to background radiation, the C-14 should then have nearly all decayed into C-12. C-14 can enter a sample a number of ways, such as radionuclides from surrounding strata. There's also possible contamination during the collection and testing process. This is one reason why crosschecks are important in all fields of science.Zachriel_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

As I predicted, under the bus the carbon dating gets tossed. So much for following the data where it leads. Carbon dating is not reliable for samples over 40,000 years old? So where did the excess C-14 come from? If the organic material was 65 million years old, which is impossible for organic material due to background radiation, the C-14 should then have nearly all decayed into C-12. What you don't understand is WHY carbon dating is considered unreliable for extreme ages. -QQuerius_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Querius: You want evidence? Fine. Heh. You consider evidence as a last resort. Querius: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old Carbon-dating is not reliable for samples over about 40,000 years or so. Notably, the findings failed to convince other experts who found many problems with the methodology, including contrary results of the containing strata. So, your argument is that dinosaurs are not millions of years old. Is that correct?Zachriel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Zachriel claimed
Pointing to scientific evidence is not circular. The evidence is vast and spans many fields of study.
The evidence is not circular, however the speculative interpretation is indeed both vast, and the fairy tale woven around it along with the reasoning, is most certainly circular. For most scientists, this 19th century fairy tale is completely irrelevant to their work, and their being bludgeoned into accepting it is just to avoid the histronics and persecution of the Darwinist true believers. When you actually delve into the "facts" behind the grandiose pronouncements, the fairy tale falls apart. You want evidence? Fine. What do you do with this evidence? http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html That's right, you reject the evidence because it doesn't fit in with the fairy tale! You only accept the evidence that can be distorted to fit the fairy tale. This is what many capable scientists have discovered, and why James Tour as a synthetic organic chemist who builds molecules and molecular machines for a living issued his challenge for someone to explain to him on a molecular level how macroevolution actually works. It doesn't. And Darwin's true believers have shackled scientific progress as a result. -QQuerius_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, We know the difference between a mime and a model.Mung_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Querius: Don’t you see how circular that argument is? Pointing to scientific evidence is not circular. The evidence is vast and spans many fields of study. We have the fossil succession, which provides the relative ordering of evolution. We have radiometrics, which provides absolute dating. We have the nested hierarchy, an entailment of branching descent. Embryology has led to discoveries in paleontology. We have microscopic studies, such as the cellular structure of fossil bones. New discoveries are made frequently. Successful expeditions are mounted to find intermediate fossil forms. Long term evolution experiments have been performed, both in nature and the lab. DNA has been recovered from various extinct organisms, such as Neanderthal, and the extraction of ancient dinosaurian peptides has been confirmed. See San Antonio et al., Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival, PLOS One, 2011. Mung: I’m sorry, but that’s just false. Handwaving. Evolutionary algorithms are constructed to mimic biological evolution. Simply saying "is not" doesn't constitute an argument.Zachriel_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of populations to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of natural biological evolution I'm sorry, but that's just false. Zachriel: Evolutionary algorithms are consistent with what is expected of the process from biological evolution, and contradicts claims that evolution isn’t capable of traversing complex fitness landscapes. I'm sorry, but that's just false.Mung_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, Don't you see how circular that argument is? You're presupposing your conclusions and, to no one's surprise, find that your conclusions are amazingly compatible with your presuppositions!
Nor is there a complete absence of molecular evidence of fossils, such as collagen in theropod lineages.
Do elaborate---I'm fascinated! :-) (And I couldn't help noticing that you still have not answered the question whether your self references in the plural are attributable to the majestic plural or the presence of a tapeworm.) -QQuerius_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Querius: There are fossils of lots of things, but concluding that they’re nested or intermediate is entirely speculative without a shred of observed genetic evidence. Fossils are considered evidence of transitions because they fit the pattern entailed in common descent, which includes not only gross morphology, but microscopic features, and leads to specific empirical predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed. Nor is there a complete absence of molecular evidence of fossils, such as collagen in theropod lineages.Zachriel_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Apparently, you were not able to see the parallel and you claimed it was incorrect. SA: there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past. False. There are patterns observed of "how organisms evolved in the ancient past". These patterns include the fossil succession. SA: So the evolutionary algorthims are used as the observations since there are no real observations of what actually happened. This is largely false. Evolutionary algorithms are not primary evidence of biological evolution, the theory of which predates modern computers by a century. Silver Asiatic: No human today saw the sun shining a million years ago. So apparently, we know that evolution happened as claimed. Your claim was that were no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past. That was false. Silver Asiatic: You already said that they don’t model evolutionary history directly. So those evolutionary algorithms don’t exist. Evolutionary algorithms are a class of mathematical objects of which biological evolution is an instance. The study of evolutionary algorithms can provide information that applies to the entire class, such as that they are much faster than random guesses or random walks across a wide variety of landscapes of interest.Zachriel_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

They do show, however, that evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.
They do show, however, that intelligently designed evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.
There is a great deal of fossil evidence, and evidence from the nested hierarchy.
The fossil evidence doesn't support unguided evolution and nested hierarchies are the anti-hero of evolutionism.Joe_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
We have the nested hierarchy showing the overall pattern, and we have specific intermediate fossils.
There are fossils of lots of things, but concluding that they're nested or intermediate is entirely speculative without a shred of observed genetic evidence. Inconvenient morphological attributes are routinely ignored, belying those that are touted. You don't have a pseudopod to stand on. Oh, and you **still** haven't explained why you refer to yourself in the plural. Rational people wouldn't do this without a reason. -QQuerius_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Zach
That’s not the statement to which we replied, but “there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past.”
Ok, it's good to know that you're not willing or able to read the context. Apparently, you were not able to see the parallel and you claimed it was incorrect.
This latter statement is false. Organisms have left patterns that constitute evidence of evolution.
That's what's known as quote-mining. You ignored the statement that clarified what you objected to.
No human ever watched a T. Rex roam the Earth, but roam the Earth they did.
No human today saw the sun shining a million years ago. So apparently, we know that evolution happened as claimed. I wouldn't call that a strong argument.
Evolutionary algorithms are consistent with what is expected of the process from biological evolution,
You already said that they don't model evolutionary history directly. So those evolutionary algorithms don't exist.
and contradicts claims that evolution isn’t capable of traversing complex fitness landscapes.
Again, you have no idea since you have no model for what happened. Unlike the weather, you can't test your model historically. You can't even include all of the variables (because you don't know what they are or if they existed) necessary to model the impact of evolutionary developments.Silver Asiatic_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: I guess you didn’t understand this sentence: “… there are no real observations of what actually happened.” That's not the statement to which we replied, but "there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past." This latter statement is false. Organisms have left patterns that constitute evidence of evolution. Silver Asiatic: As I said, in the other case (evolution), there is no direct observation of the ancient past. No human ever watched a T. Rex roam the Earth, but roam the Earth they did. Silver Asiatic: Which would be totally irrelevant if evolution did not happen the way it is claimed that it did. Evolutionary algorithms are consistent with what is expected of the process from biological evolution, and contradicts claims that evolution isn't capable of traversing complex fitness landscapes.Zachriel_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: In the other case, there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past. Zach That’s incorrect. There is a great deal of fossil evidence, and evidence from the nested hierarchy.
I guess you didn't understand this sentence: "... there are no real observations of what actually happened." You contradicted it - and therefore you're wrong. As I said, in the other case (evolution), there is no direct observation of the ancient past. There are observations of things that might suggest some sort of evolution, but there is no way to test those in present day circumstances, unlike weather patterns.
That’s not directly relevant to evolutionary algorithms, though, which don’t model evolutionary history directly.
They don't because they can't.
They do show, however, that evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.
Which would be totally irrelevant if evolution did not happen the way it is claimed that it did.Silver Asiatic_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: In the one case (weather) we can test and predict. Yes, to some degree. Weather is a chaotic system, so diverges from the models after a few days. Silver Asiatic: In the other case, there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past. That's incorrect. There is a great deal of fossil evidence, and evidence from the nested hierarchy. That's not directly relevant to evolutionary algorithms, though, which don't model evolutionary history directly. They do show, however, that evolutionary processes are much faster than random sampling.Zachriel_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Z
Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of populations to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of natural biological evolution, just like weather simulations show how pressure and moisture cause observed weather patterns, consistent with natural meteorological theories.
In the one case (weather) we can test and predict. In the other case, there are no observed patterns of how organisms evolved in the ancient past. So the evolutionary algorthims are used as the observations since there are no real observations of what actually happened. Beyond that, it's virtually impossible to model the development of life on earth starting from the first organisms - given the virtually infinite number of interacting factors (competitors, resources, disease, environmental conditions, extinct-unknown ancestors). Modelling today's weather patterns is one thing. Evolution would require the modelling of weather conditions from eons ago with no way to test those predictions.Silver Asiatic_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Querius: there’s no common ancestor between the ruby-throated hummingbird and Tyrannosaurus rex. We have the nested hierarchy showing the overall pattern, and we have specific intermediate fossils. Mung: Intelligently designed programs. Sure, intelligently designed, just like weather simulations. That doesn't mean weather is designed. Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of populations to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of natural biological evolution, just like weather simulations show how pressure and moisture cause observed weather patterns, consistent with natural meteorological theories.Zachriel_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of replicators to navigate a fitness landscape...
Indeed. Intelligently designed programs. Intelligently designed replicators. Intelligently designed fitness landscapes. Zachriel:
...consistent with theories of biological evolution.
Well, no. That would just be false. The theories of biological evolution I am familiar with do not allow for intelligent design. You know otherwise? p.s. At least you said theories of biological evolution. There is no theory of evolution. Good for you.Mung_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Mung noted
Red Herrings and Straw Men.
I love red herrings! With some hot sauce served on a bed of fresh straw men . . . mmmm! :P Zachriel opined,
Theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds would hardly be considered “devolving”.
Lol, I said turn the whole thing upside down! That means that hummingbird species *devolved* from a common ancestor (perhaps something like the entire Apodidae order) with a profoundly larger gene pool and very few mutations. On the other hand, Theropods were really cool lizards that likely speciated themselves to extinction. There's no Santa Claus and there's no common ancestor between the ruby-throated hummingbird and Tyrannosaurus rex. -QQuerius_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of replicators to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of biological evolution.
Yes, theories of Intelligent Design in biological evolution.Joe_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Mung: Evolutionists tell us, repeatedly, that their models of evolution show us evolution is true. Evolutionary algorithms show the capabilities of replicators to navigate a fitness landscape, consistent with theories of biological evolution.Zachriel_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
We can model evolution as an algorithm, but biological evolution isn’t properly an algorithm. You seem to be conflating the model with the thing being modeled.
Hilarious. Evolutionists tell us, repeatedly, that their models of evolution show us evolution is true. Then they criticize us for conflating the model with the thing being modeled. That's truly rich. Zachriel. Lead vocalist and comedian. Quite the talented fellow.Mung_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
We can model evolution as an algorithm
Then you are not modeling unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution. You are a master conflator.Joe_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: It’s a set of instructions or code. More accurately, a step-by-step procedure. Silver Asiatic: Planetary orbits are not random. No, but algorithms can include random variables as parameters. This is common in the study of complex phenomena. Silver Asiatic: The challenge is to create an algorithm through a random means. We can model evolution as an algorithm, but biological evolution isn't properly an algorithm. You seem to be conflating the model with the thing being modeled.Zachriel_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Interesting also, by definition you can’t have a ‘random algorithm’. Zach: An algorithm with limited memory can’t create a random number because there are a finite number of available states.
Your comment doesn't follow from what I said, but yes, memory, energy, frequency (speed) limitations limit the capability of algorthims to produce random numbers. That has nothing to do with the point however -- the algorthim, by definition is not random. It's a set of instructions or code. If it was random it would not be an algorithm. The challenge is to create an algorithm through a random means.
Silver Asiatic: ... an algorthim must necessarily be designed (specified) for functions. Zach: In this discussion, the algorithm is evolution, though it could be the weather or planetary orbits.
As above, algorthims produce defined outputs. Planetary orbits are not random. Again, you can't have a 'random algorithm' since it's a contradiction in terms. I think you're agreeing and just adding additional (unrelated) thoughts for consideration?Silver Asiatic_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Red Herrings and Straw Men. Zachriel's got a band going and he's the lead vocalist.Mung_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

In this discussion, the algorithm is evolution
That doesn't even make any sense. Obviously you are just an ignorant fool.Joe_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds would hardly be considered “devolving”.
It is considered imagination as it isn't possible.
Maybe lottery numbers contain a message. That $7 winner was trying to tell you something!
It tells us that you are a loser.Joe_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Querius: Organisms have been devolving over time resulting in genetic impoverishment due to adaptation, mutation, and speciation. Theropod dinosaurs evolving into hummingbirds would hardly be considered "devolving".Zachriel_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply