RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
REC



Posts: 574
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,12:33   

Haven't posted in a while, but I'm just amused how far the discussion on the antibiotic resistance thread on UD has gone without someone pointing out that nitric oxide is NO and not NO2 (nitrogen dioxide).

I mean, these guys don't know the difference between a toxic gas and the signaling molecule present in most organisms (this is the pathway Viagra influences).  Wow.....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....omments

  
REC



Posts: 574
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,12:43   

...and actually bacterial Nitric Oxide Synthases (bNOS) are great examples of reducible complexity.  They are a two part system of the catalytic domain and redox energy supplying domain.  Ala UD, a two part system shouldn't arise, because one is useless without the other.  Ahh no, the redox domains are fully funtional parts of other systems appropriated for this task.....

"Here we demonstrate that bNOS enzymes from Bacillus subtilis
and Bacillus anthracis do indeed produce NO in living cells and
accomplish this task by hijacking available cellular redox partners
that are not normally committed to NO production
. These
“promiscuous” bacterial reductases also support NO synthesis
by the oxygenase domain of mammalian NOS expressed in Escherichia
coli. Our results suggest that bNOS is an early precursor
of eukaryotic NOS and that it acquired its dedicated reductase
domain later in evolution
."


Bacterial NOS


OWN GOAL? Come on, someone tally it......[B][/B]

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1992
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,14:37   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,06:40)
Bob O'H was not impressed with those references either.

I didn't really follow them up: one was irrelevant to the point Corny was trying to make, and the other could be (largely) dismissed, as I did.  I suspect a thorough fisking would be more severe.

Corny is happier to have comments than the UD mods are.  Dunno for how long - I guess it depends on how nice we are to him.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,14:41   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 14 2009,15:37)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,06:40)
Bob O'H was not impressed with those references either.

I didn't really follow them up: one was irrelevant to the point Corny was trying to make, and the other could be (largely) dismissed, as I did.  I suspect a thorough fisking would be more severe.

Corny is happier to have comments than the UD mods are.  Dunno for how long - I guess it depends on how nice we are to him.

weighing the rewarding of blog whoring, on the one hand, with the possibility of mudding up somebody else's yard for a change....

hmmm....

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,14:43   

Quote (REC @ Sep. 14 2009,12:43)
...and actually bacterial Nitric Oxide Synthases (bNOS) are great examples of reducible complexity.  They are a two part system of the catalytic domain and redox energy supplying domain.  Ala UD, a two part system shouldn't arise, because one is useless without the other.  Ahh no, the redox domains are fully funtional parts of other systems appropriated for this task.....

"Here we demonstrate that bNOS enzymes from Bacillus subtilis
and Bacillus anthracis do indeed produce NO in living cells and
accomplish this task by hijacking available cellular redox partners
that are not normally committed to NO production
. These
“promiscuous” bacterial reductases also support NO synthesis
by the oxygenase domain of mammalian NOS expressed in Escherichia
coli. Our results suggest that bNOS is an early precursor
of eukaryotic NOS and that it acquired its dedicated reductase
domain later in evolution
."


<a href="www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/283/19/13140.pdf" target="_blank">Bacterial NOS</a>


OWN GOAL? Come on, someone tally it......[B][/B]

REC - Good post!

Good idea on the "Own Goal Thread" - You should pm Wes -but I bet that if we did, it would double the bandwidth!  

Plus we would have to have a meeting - in Paris or London maybe - where we would have to hash out details such as should "UD Shooting Self In Foot" threads be included in the "UD Own Goal Thread"...

So - are you a "splitter" or a "lumper"?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,15:42   

Clive gives Corny Hunter his full support and brings his full attention to the problem
Quote
You can’t use any other language other than design language because that is what explains and describes the mechanisms. To use any other language wouldn’t relate what is being meant. That means that the idea that it is not designed is wishful thinking.

Huh?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,15:42   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 13 2009,07:02)
And does it seem to anybody else that Gordon has got some sort of messiah complex going? That he's here to save us? Does he see himself as a "itinerant evangelist"?
   

Yep, I think part of that is also why Scooter couldn't stand him -- KF's word-vomiting pretense of "authority" conflicted with Scooter's own pretense at authority. KF's a religious fanatic and posed a threat to DaveScot's "I am the King Tard of Sciemce!" crown. The creobots prefer bibliolator "science" much, much more than pseudoagnostic babble like Scooters. Dembski et al. made a choice -- Scooter had to go.

Quote (1of63 @ Sep. 14 2009,08:05)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,03:52)
Cornelius Hunter is turning into a real asshole.            

Turning? This guy's just another Wells. I wouldn't believe either of them if they told me the sun rises in the east each morning.

Anything that don't check out against their religious beliefs gets tossed or trashed. I don't care what their qualifications are.  That ain't science and they ain't scientists.

Corny seems to be a poster child for the notion that even an idiot can get a Ph.D in some arenas -- given sufficient obsessive focus.  

Most people have (or will) encountered these types in academia. You wonder how the fuck they'd get degrees in crayon-eating, let alone getting through a grad program in Biophysics and Computational Biology at U. of Illinois, Urbana.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1992
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,01:30   

Steve Fuller takes aim at his foot...
Quote
To Nakashima: You’re missing the point. Of course, the atheist scientists who make claims about what God could or could not do are not publishing in peer review journals — because the relevant peer review journals would be in theology, not biology. And these scientists couldn’t care less whether they pass peer review in theology because they don’t believe the subject really exists. This is why I say that it’s up to theologians to insist on peer review for such claims and not let them simply free float in the public domain without any professional scrutiny.

As my mum would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If he wants to insist on peer review of scientists talking theology, then he should insist on peer review of theologians talking about science.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1681
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,06:16   

A Tard is Born
niwrad takes a lesson from Donald Rumsfeld:    
Quote
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
niwrad
When a thing is false, is false from all points of view. In fact it cannot exist a point of view from which the thing becomes true, given it is false, rather each view point manifests a particular aspect of the falsity of the thing. As a consequence, when a thing is false, whether we suppose it is true we get contradictions, one for every point of view we consider the thing from. All that is simple logic.
It gets worse from there.  niwrad's difficulty with English also takes its toll.  In fact, there's a possibility that his name is more a case of severe dyslexia than trying to be cute.  

BillB tries to explain in the only reply so far, but I don't think there's much hope.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1681
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,06:31   

Some days I just love UD
Mapou runs face first into reality:      
Quote
As an example, I have given up on trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed.  The physicist’s definition of motion denies causality because it fails to give a cause for inertial motion. This means that Aristotle was right to insist that motion requires a cause. But you will not see a mainstream physicist admit to this even if they know it’s true. It would be a career killing move on his or her part. The fear factor is very much a part of the peer review process. Even an idle comment on the internet can ruin one’s career.
Another promising career blighted just because he tried to set physics straight on a few of the fundamentals.  First Galileo and now Mapou.  Curse those arrogant scientists!

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,09:05   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 15 2009,01:30)
Steve Fuller takes aim at his foot...
 
Quote
To Nakashima: You’re missing the point. Of course, the atheist scientists who make claims about what God could or could not do are not publishing in peer review journals — because the relevant peer review journals would be in theology, not biology. And these scientists couldn’t care less whether they pass peer review in theology because they don’t believe the subject really exists. This is why I say that it’s up to theologians to insist on peer review for such claims and not let them simply free float in the public domain without any professional scrutiny.

As my mum would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If he wants to insist on peer review of scientists talking theology, then he should insist on peer review of theologians talking about science.

Plus its not like there's any objective measure for religion past interpretations of 'holy writings'. The various schisms and divides in must religions show how futile 'peer review' would be.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BillB



Posts: 373
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,09:08   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 15 2009,12:16)
A Tard is Born
niwrad takes a lesson from Donald Rumsfeld:      
Quote
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
niwrad
When a thing is false, is false from all points of view. In fact it cannot exist a point of view from which the thing becomes true, given it is false, rather each view point manifests a particular aspect of the falsity of the thing. As a consequence, when a thing is false, whether we suppose it is true we get contradictions, one for every point of view we consider the thing from. All that is simple logic.
It gets worse from there.  niwrad's difficulty with English also takes its toll.  In fact, there's a possibility that his name is more a case of severe dyslexia than trying to be cute.  

BillB tries to explain in the only reply so far, but I don't think there's much hope.

Joseph, being unable to cope with science, unzips his trousers and waves his ignorance at me:  
Quote
9
Joseph
09/15/2009
7:27 am

BillB:

   
Quote
Take a toy example of a simple replicator that generates variable copies of its self.


And where do you get that from- a magic shop?

Ya see BB, your scenario can’t even get started.


Now I expect KF to reply at any minute announcing that this is all a dripping straw man because it doesn't explain the origin of self replicators.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3592
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,09:40   

Quote
However, the dynamical-empirical fundamentals of Weasel and why implicit latching is a credible account for the showcased runs c 1986 remain the same. (And that is why I rely on and prioritise dynamical-empirical methods.)


http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-334030

A pretty concise example of how ID can't find it's own elbow.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
BillB



Posts: 373
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,09:45   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 15 2009,15:40)
 
Quote
However, the dynamical-empirical semantic fundamentals of Weasel and why implicit latching non-latching is a credible account for the showcased runs c 1986 remain the same. (And that is why I rely on and prioritise dynamical-empirical semantic contortion methods.)

Fixed that for you KF

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,10:48   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 15 2009,06:31)
Some days I just love UD
Mapou runs face first into reality:        
Quote
As an example, I have given up on trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed.  The physicist’s definition of motion denies causality because it fails to give a cause for inertial motion. This means that Aristotle was right to insist that motion requires a cause. But you will not see a mainstream physicist admit to this even if they know it’s true. It would be a career killing move on his or her part. The fear factor is very much a part of the peer review process. Even an idle comment on the internet can ruin one’s career.
Another promising career blighted just because he tried to set physics straight on a few of the fundamentals.  First Galileo and now Mapou.  Curse those arrogant scientists!

What "causes" inertial motion is conservation of energy and momentum.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,10:52   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 15 2009,10:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 15 2009,01:30)
Steve Fuller takes aim at his foot...
 
Quote
To Nakashima: You’re missing the point. Of course, the atheist scientists who make claims about what God could or could not do are not publishing in peer review journals — because the relevant peer review journals would be in theology, not biology. And these scientists couldn’t care less whether they pass peer review in theology because they don’t believe the subject really exists. This is why I say that it’s up to theologians to insist on peer review for such claims and not let them simply free float in the public domain without any professional scrutiny.

As my mum would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If he wants to insist on peer review of scientists talking theology, then he should insist on peer review of theologians talking about science.

Plus its not like there's any objective measure for religion past interpretations of 'holy writings'. The various schisms and divides in must religions show how futile 'peer review' would be.

Peer review in theology reminds me of the classic Gary Larson Far Side cartoon "You must be this tall to attack the city"

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,11:02   

Gab of Talky has had is account hacked:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....-334045

Quote
30

kairosfocus

09/15/2009

10:33 am
Mr Fuller is right.



Onlookers.

1 => WTF?

2 => One cannot help but ponder is such brevity from the master of circumlocution an omen?

....

14 => TARD!

PS - oil soaked ad hominem!

PPS quasi-pseudo implicit latching

PPPS Don't use my real name.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,15:20   

Clive is a one-trick pony.  
Quote
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.


--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,16:15   

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a one-trick pony.    
Quote
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.

That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,17:16   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 15 2009,16:15)
 
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a one-trick pony.      
Quote
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.

That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.

apparently CLivebaby also doesn't know that clicking on the yellow text takes you to the source of a quotation, and hence the more substantive argument:

 
Quote
Your quote says that there is a flaw, but doesn’t say what it is. ID opponents would do well to post materials that actually further the dialogue with actual substantive arguments rather than quotes which argue incompletely and by fiat.


linky

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 894
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,18:16   

In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:
Quote
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.

Link.

--------------
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,18:26   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 15 2009,17:15)
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a one-trick pony.    
Quote
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.

That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.

critical mass?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,18:56   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 15 2009,18:16)
In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:
   
Quote
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.

Link.

PaV's population genetics are a hoot, too:
 
Quote
If you have a population size of 100,000, and the population is stable over time, then this would produce 2-3 x 10^12 individuals over a period of 20-30 million years. [I.e., 10^5 'net' offspring would be produced each year]

What would happen in all this time?
This number of offsprings would be enough to (1) produce a “good” mutations[we'll assume the probability to be one in 10^8], and (2) based on the probability of fixation in a population of 1/2N, with N here being 10^5, this would NOT be good enough to bring this ONE mutation to fixation within the population.


what's missing here? what's that thing called? matural seblection? that wouldn't change the probability of fixation of a beneficial mutation, would it?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3592
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,19:27   

Quote
It is one of Behe’s most profound, yet simple, points that it is not time but reproductive events that matters in terms of Darwinism. i.e. the greater the number of reproductive events the greater the probability any given mutation will occur. Time itself, independent of reproductive events does not increase the probability of a mutation occurring. Therefore, we can observe in one year with P. falceparum what would be the equivalent of millions of years in other organisms.


Darwinists are so stupid they haven't even read the transcript of the Dover trial, where Behe first discovers this principle. :p

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,19:54   

Quote (dmso74 @ Sep. 15 2009,18:56)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 15 2009,18:16)
In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:
Quote
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.

Link.

PaV's population genetics are a hoot, too:
Quote
If you have a population size of 100,000, and the population is stable over time, then this would produce 2-3 x 10^12 individuals over a period of 20-30 million years. [I.e., 10^5 'net' offspring would be produced each year]

What would happen in all this time?
This number of offsprings would be enough to (1) produce a “good” mutations[we'll assume the probability to be one in 10^8], and (2) based on the probability of fixation in a population of 1/2N, with N here being 10^5, this would NOT be good enough to bring this ONE mutation to fixation within the population.


what's missing here? what's that thing called? matural seblection? that wouldn't change the probability of fixation of a beneficial mutation, would it?

Quite so.

1/2N is the rate of fixation of a single neutral mutation. In a diploid population of size N and a neutral mutation rate of mu, each generation will produce 2Nmu * 1/(2N) = mu new mutations. But for a selection coefficient s, as long as 4Ns is not <<1, then selection may be a predominant factor. Even for weak selection, the relative fixation rate of beneficial vs. neutral mutations > 2s/mu. Taking an example of s=1% and mu=10^-7, the rate of fixation under selection would be many orders of magnitude larger than drift alone.

Another bugaboo is the equivalence drawn between reproductive events and evolutionary potential. A million replications in one generation is not the same as a thousand replications for a thousand generations, even though they have the same number of reproductive events. It's like the difference between a million soldiers each taking one step, and a thousand soldiers each taking a thousand steps. While the former may more carefully reconnoiter the area immediate adjacent to the camp, the latter can explore much farther afield.

Random Walkers



--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 894
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,19:58   

Speaking of Behe, he has a new post, in which he complains that his feedback letter on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was rejected.
The kicker?:  
Quote
Comments are closed.


--------------
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
sparc



Posts: 1722
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,22:09   

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a one-trick pony.    
Quote
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.

I must admit that I've used "Case Lost Luskin" occasionally.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,22:16   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 15 2009,19:54)
A million replications in one generation is not the same as a thousand replications for a thousand generations, even though they have the same number of reproductive events. It's like the difference between a million soldiers each taking one step, and a thousand soldiers each taking a thousand steps. While the former may more carefully reconnoiter the area immediate adjacent to the camp, the latter can explore much farther afield.

A point that I see I see overlooked far, far too often -- by people that should know better.  

Last week,  I saw a book review in Science that was pointing to the value of medical students having a grasp of evo theory (see Egnor as an example).

It'd be nice if Gen. Algo. concepts were in the mix, somewhere. I'm trying to learn, myself, so I don't see why others should be exempted -- in fields that depend far more on such.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1681
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,06:03   

Quote
Corny is a little unclear on the concept.
 
Quote
(Corny starts to talk about the molecular clock - the random changes in two genomes that help tell how long its been since two species diverged)

Mammalian-Like Clockwork in the Honey Bee
More than forty years ago evolutionists coined the term molecular clock to describe their concept that molecular changes tick away over long time periods and so can be used to measure how long it has been since two species have diverged from their common ancestor. Molecular clock predictions have consistently been falsified and in recent years yet another example of such failure has been discovered in the genes associated with the circadian clock.

 
Quote
(Then he unknowningly starts to talk about a different kind of clock entirely)

The circadian clock of the honey bee is implicated in ecologically relevant complex behaviors. These include time sensing, time-compensated sun-compass navigation, and social behaviors such as coordination of activity, dance language communication, and division of labor.
....

Of course evolutionists do not know how such wonders arose by themselves. And recently the story became even more unbelievable when it was discovered that the bee's molecular clockwork contradicts the molecular clock expectations. That is, structure and expression patterns of genes associated with the bee's clock are inconsistent with the fly and closer to mammalian clock genes.


As Mark Twain once said, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."


Edited to add this:
Cornelius tries some street theater:
Quote
khan calls corny: "2)gene expression patterns have nothing to do with molecular clocks, which are based on sequences. so why do you lump this in with 'molecular clock expectations?'"

Corny explains it was just a joke: "I agree that using the molecular clock, rather than a more general homology argument, was a stretch (the pun was irresistable)"

Move along, nothing to see here, just keep moving.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,06:18   

Quote
David Coppedge: Debating in an Echo Chamber

Casual readers may not know about the comeback arguments posted by Michael Behe on Evolution News and Uncommon Descent, by Casey Luskin on Evolution News and by Cornelius Hunter on Darwin’s God, because the evolutionists refused to hear them or allow them inside their sphere of influence.  

So PNAS publishes a complex bit of original research, but won't allow a "comeback argument" that consists entirely of "IS NOT". David Coppedge adds—without a sense of irony—

Quote
David Coppedge: A victory cheer in an echo chamber sounds hollow no matter how many decibels and reverberations.

Clements, et al., The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine, PNAS 2009.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]