Friday, November 23, 2007

Ben Stein Expelled

Most of you have heard of Ben Stein. You know, "Bueller, Bueller..." Well, he's making a movie about Intelligent Design, about how those who question "Darwinism" are punished and excommunicated from the Scientific Community. I'm not qualified to comment on whether they are or whether they are not, I have no first hand experience of what goes on in the politics behind science. What I can comment on, however, is the statements Ben Stein is making. For instance, in this interview, he correctly states that Darwin had no idea how complex the cell was, or how life originated. This is 100% true. But what we need to understand is that modern cells have had nearly 4 billion years to evolve, which means that we would expect them to be much more complex than the cells of yore. It is also true that neither Darwin, nor today's scientists, know how life started. We suspect that a replicator must have been involved, but whether the replicator was a molecule, a peptide, a clay crystal, or something else, we do not know. The point is, we know about self forming structures that can replicate, and we can observe variance in their "offspring". The trouble is figuring out which one, and whether it could have formed on the prebiotic Earth. I will return to this subject later.


Ben goes on to say that Darwin never had any clear evidence of a species originating through evolution. I could bring up Darwin's finches, but I suppose that's not clear enough evidence. Well, what about the new species of Mosquito, discovered in London? What about this recent example of speciation in fruit flies? What about this recent example of diatom speciation in the laboratory? What say ye, Ben? The point is, we have an abundance of evidence that Darwin did not.

About 3:28 in the interview, Ben says, "Why not let the other guy talk, and then blow him out of the water, and say, 'You Fool! You didn't know this, this and this!'"

Oh Ben, if you only read this blog. The truth is, lots of scientists are responding to the claims made by Design Proponents. They're more polite than to come out and call them fools, but they do often point out that the design proponents don't know this, this and this. Panda's Thumb gives us an excellent example of this. We've also seen an explanation of how the bacterial flagellum evolved. Ken Miller has written several articles debunking the design proponents' claims. What was that about not letting the other guy talk? What was that about NOT blowing him or her out of the water?

Last, but not least, let's return to the subject of the origin of life. Technically the origin of life is not part of Evolution, as I trust all my readers know. But I don't like to just say, "Sorry, Not My Field, Abiogenesis is Outside of Evolution!" And not give an answer. Here is a new proposal about the Origin of Life, which looks intriguing, to say the least.


'A team led by the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Milan has discovered some unexpected forms of liquid crystals of ultrashort DNA molecules immersed in water, providing a new scenario for a key step in the emergence of life on Earth.

CU-Boulder physics Professor Noel Clark said the team found that surprisingly short segments of DNA, life’s molecular carrier of genetic information, could assemble into several distinct liquid crystal phases that 'self-orient' parallel to one another and stack into columns when placed in a water solution. Life is widely believed to have emerged as segments of DNA- or RNA-like molecules in a prebiotic “soup” solution of ancient organic molecules.

A paper on the subject was published in the Nov. 23 issue of Science. The paper was authored by Clark, Michi Nakata and Christopher Jones from CU-Boulder, Giuliano Zanchetta and Tommaso Bellini of the University of Milan, Brandon Chapman and Ronald Pindak of Brookhaven National Laboratory and Julie Cross of Argonne National Laboratory. Nakata died in September 2006.

Since the formation of molecular chains as uniform as DNA by random chemistry is essentially impossible, Clark said, scientists have been seeking effective ways for simple molecules to spontaneously self-select, 'chain-up' and self-replicate. The new study shows that in a mixture of tiny fragments of DNA, those molecules capable of forming liquid crystals selectively condense into droplets in which conditions are favorable for them to be chemically linked into longer molecules with enhanced liquid crystal-forming tendencies, he said.

'We found that even tiny fragments of double helix DNA can spontaneously self-assemble into columns that contain many molecules,' Clark said. 'Our vision is that from the collection of ancient molecules, short RNA pieces or some structurally related precursor emerged as the molecular fragments most capable of condensing into liquid crystal droplets, selectively developing into long molecules.'

Liquid crystals -- organic materials related to soap that exhibit both solid and liquid properties -- are commonly used for information displays in computers, flat-panel televisions, cell phones, calculators and watches. Most liquid crystal phase molecules are rod-shaped and have the ability to spontaneously form large domains of a common orientation, which makes them particularly sensitive to stimuli like changes in temperature or applied voltage.

RNA and DNA are chain-like polymers with side groups known as nucleotides, or bases, that selectively adhere only to specific bases on a second chain. Matching, or complementary base sequences enable the chains to pair up and form the widely recognized double helix structure. Genetic information is encoded in sequences of thousands to millions of bases along the chains, which can be microns to millimeters in length.

Such DNA polynucleotides had previously been shown to organize into liquid crystal phases in which the chains spontaneously oriented parallel to each other, he said. Researchers understand the liquid crystal organization to be a result of DNA’s elongated molecular shape, making parallel alignment easier, much like spaghetti thrown in a box and shaken would be prone to line up in parallel, Clark said.

The CU-Boulder and University of Milan team began a series of experiments to see how short the DNA segments could be and still show liquid crystal ordering, said Clark. The team found that even a DNA segment as short as six bases, when paired with a complementary segment that together measured just two nanometers long and two nanometers in diameter, could still assemble itself into the liquid crystal phases, in spite of having almost no elongation in shape.

Structural analysis of the liquid crystal phases showed that they appeared because such short DNA duplex pairs were able to stick together 'end-to-end,' forming rod-shaped aggregates that could then behave like much longer segments of DNA. The sticking was a result of small, oily patches found on the ends of the short DNA segments that help them adhere to each other in a reversible way -- much like magnetic buttons -- as they expelled water in between them, Clark said.

A key characterization technique employed was X-ray microbeam diffraction combined with in-situ optical microscopy, carried out with researchers from Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories. The team using a machine called the Argonne Advanced Photon Source synchrotron that enabled probing of the “nano DNA” molecular organization in single liquid crystal orientation domains only a few microns in size. The experiments provided direct evidence for the columnar stacking of the nano DNA pieces in a fluid liquid crystal phase.

'The key observation with respect to early life is that this aggregation of nano DNA strands is possible only if they form duplexes,' Clark said. 'In a sample of chains in which the bases don’t match and the chains can’t form helical duplexes, we did not observe liquid crystal ordering.'

Subsequent tests by the team involved mixed solutions of complementary and noncomplementary DNA segments, said Clark. The results indicated that essentially all of the complementary DNA bits condensed out in the form of liquid crystal droplets, physically separating them from the noncomplementary DNA segments.

'We found this to be a remarkable result,' Clark said. 'It means that small molecules with the ability to pair up the right way can seek each other out and collect together into drops that are internally self-organized to facilitate the growth of larger pairable molecules.

'In essence, the liquid crystal phase condensation selects the appropriate molecular components, and with the right chemistry would evolve larger molecules tuned to stabilize the liquid crystal phase. If this is correct, the linear polymer shape of DNA itself is a vestige of formation by liquid crystal order.'"

32 comments:

Geno said...

"But what we need to understand is that modern cells have had nearly 4 billion years to evolve, which means that we would expect them to be much more complex than the cells of yore."

Why would we expect this? Is it not just as feasible that the complexity of the cell has degenerated in that period of time? I am not saying it did, I am taking exception with you unfounded expectation

Geno said...

"Well, what about the new species of Mosquito, discovered in London? What about this recent example of speciation in fruit flies? What about this recent example of bacteria speciation in the laboratory? What say ye, Ben? The point is, we have an abundance of evidence that Darwin did not."

You miss the point - the mosquito is still a mosquito, the fruit fly is still a fly and the bacteria are still bacteria.

Like the mosquito, if I could not find my regular diet of food (tacos and burritos) I might switch foods also (fish & chips).

Dale Husband said...

Geno, according to the principle of survival of the fittest, if more complex cells are more likely to survive and reproduce themselves than less complex cells, then average cell complexity will increase over time. The very FIRST cells could have been much simpler than even the simplest bacteria living today, because there was no competition like there is today. And no, viruses are NOT cells.

And your claim that "the mosquito is still a mosquito, the fruit fly is still a fly and the bacteria are still bacteria" is just lame and childish. Moving the goalposts to justify your continuing denial of evolution is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

AIGBusted said...

Geno, the fruit fly is still a fruit fly, but Ben Stein asked for new species, and I gave him examples of new species evolving. Also, if you were to travel back in time, say, 65 million years, and observe the organisms of the planet for a hundred years, you would never see any of them suddenly become another "kind". Evolution changes things a little at a time, it does not work in leaps and bounds.


Also, look up fossils of the earliest cells. They were very simple. The complexity that was evolved over time is because it helped the organism survive.

NomadSoul said...

"Why would we expect this? Is it not just as feasible that the complexity of the cell has degenerated in that period of time? I am not saying it did, I am taking exception with you unfounded expectation"


We expect it because every piece of evidence that we have shows it.

Why is it that you feel that something that we have no evidence of is just as feasible as the conclusion arrived at through observation of the world around us?

thriceanangel said...

The fact that evolutionists believe that for some reason life on Earth is the ONLY system that can disobey the law of entropy willy nilly, is completely childish and lame in my opinion. I don't think that anyone would expect a cell to get more complex over time. Thats like my expecting my cars tires to get newer and better at what they do as time goes on. It just doesn't happen.

Aaron said...

The fact that evolutionists believe that for some reason life on Earth is the ONLY system that can disobey the law of entropy willy nilly, is completely childish and lame in my opinion.

...Here we go... creationists citing Entropy INCORRECTLY yet again!

Thrice, Entropy *ONLY* applies to a *CLOSED* system. That is, a system wherein no additional energy is added. A refrigerator, for example, is a perfect example to use:

Imagine you have two refrigerators, side by side, that have been running for 10 hours (so they are both sufficiently cold). Unplug one of them and wait 10 hours. After 10 hours, the one that has unplugged has likely stabilized its temperature several degrees higher, due to entropy increasing. The other refrigerator, as we both would expect, is still cold.

This is due to the outside force (the cooling system) acting in one, but not in the other.

The earth is a similar example -- the sun has been shining down on for as long as earth has been orbiting it. The sun, as you hopefully know, emits radiation (sunlight) that penetrates earth's atmosphere and catalyses chemical reactions by helping them reach their activation energy. (Photosynthesis, Halogenation, Oxidation, etc.) ERGO -- The earth is NOT a closed system, and so the notion of entropy causing cellular degeneration over the years does is INCORRECT.

Furthermore, even if entropy WERE an issue, it deals mostly with the realm of ENERGY rather than general complexity. Cl2 will split apart (in the presence of 242 kJ of blue light) and then bond with a hydrocarbon chain (Propane, for example) making chloro-propane (and releasing 339 kJ) . This new chain would be more complex but is MORE stable since the BDE of Chloro-propane is HIGHER than Cl2.

Get that?

Cl2 + hv -> Cl- + Cl-
Cl- + CH3-CH2-CH3 -> CH3-CH2-CH2-Cl + H+

The H+ then combines with other Cl- that have been dissociated and forms Hydrochloric Acid (HCl)

Entropy DECREASING in the presnce of sunlight.

Aaron said...

In response to the original blog --

The reason ID proponents are "expelled" from the scientific community is the same reason Astrologers, Phrenologists, and people who do those weird magnetic-wrist-band-thingies are unwelcome in the community: They aren't doing SCIENCE.

Intelligent Design is an ASSERTION, not a HYPOTHESIS. It's ASSERTING that there was an intelligent agent. It is not possible to test for this intelligent agent, and ID uses an Argument of Ignorance (a logical fallacy) to support it.

Behe has constructed some testable hypotheses (Flagellum, Blood clotting, HIV-1) to support ID, but all of them have been falsified observationally and experimentally.
(the ERV blog, http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com) does a better job of debunking Behe than I can.

thriceanangel said...

Who said I don't get it? I understand the difference between an open and closed system. The earth is most definitely a closed biological system for all intents and purposes, it's as closed as it gets... Just as closed as your refrigerator... Sunlight isn't responsible for mice becoming bats, or monkeys becoming human... Or even a cell developing mitochondria. All that the Sun provides is a means for life to exist at all.

AIGBusted said...

Hey Thrice, does a growing child disobey the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I mean, they get bigger and better as time goes on, it seems like the 2nd Law is being broken. Oh wait, it isn't. Energy gets put into the child via food and sunlight, so the child isn't a closed system. The Earth isn't a closed system, stupid, we've got an input of energy from the sun. Also, mitochondria are vestiges from an ancient germline attack.

Cheers!

thriceanangel said...

I guess I'll take the high road and avoid such expressions as "stupid," or "idiot," in any of my posts as it contributes nothing to the discussion, except your own ignorance, and smallness.

As far as the child goes, I believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics includes something on the order of existing in isolation, not "closed" per se. Certainly you can agree that the earth is FAR more isolated from outside influence than a child? I mean the sun shines on the moon too, little more lifeless there, so obviously your argument that the sun invalidates the entropy issue to evolution doesn't hold water...

Anyhow, one could argue that a person is dieing from the time they are born. Growing larger and more intelligent is not necessarily less entropic, or more complicated. All the systems are wired at birth, and exist in the womb. Saying so is like saying that cheese getting moldy, although more tasty, is in fact less entropic.

From Landau, L.D.; Lifshitz, E.M. (1996). Statistical Physics Part 1. Butterworth Heinemann. ISBN 0-7506-3372-7.

"The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain."

SO here is where I would call YOU some sort of name, but I'll refrain from that.

thriceanangel said...

Quote:
"Also, mitochondria are vestiges from an ancient germline attack."

Prove it.

AIGBusted said...

No, Dumbass, the moon cannot support life for a variety of reasons, the 2nd Law NOT being one of them. For one thing it has no water. And if you want "proof" that mitochondria are vestiges of an ancient germline attack, look up Endosymbiosis, or read "The Ancestor's Tale". By the way, you wouldn't happen to have any proof that goddidit, would you?

thriceanangel said...

I don't need proof, all I have to do is poke holes in your theory. I'm not saying people should be creationists, just that evolution is wrong.

I know what endosymbiotic theory is, and there's no proof. It's a novel idea, but unfortunately very false.

You see you hear hoof beats, and assume that they are zebras, when actually they are horses... Mitochondria have always been a part of the cell. Cells didn't one day decide "well huh, I might work better if I had one of those inside me." No, despite the fact that the DNA is slightly different from the nucleus, mitochondria and plastids, didn't just get absorbed by the cell and lose their ability to survive outside the cell. And not only that the SAME mitochondria that exist in simple protists exist in my skin, no matter where the "evolution branches" exist is pretty broad stroke to paint.

Here's a thought...Since alpha-proteobacteria (the supposed parents of mitochondria progeny) branch late in bacterial phylogeny, and Rickettsia are one of the twigs in this late-branching group, it stands to reason that extensive bacterial evolution and divergence occurred prior to the supposed endosymbiotic event. Since the endosymbiotic event likely occurred long after the last universal common ancestor, this raises the specter of bringing together two very different genetic control systems. How one would subsume much of the other is a challenging line of thinking... Dumbass...

Berlzebub said...

I guess I'll take the high road and avoid such expressions as "stupid," or "idiot," in any of my posts as it contributes nothing to the discussion, except your own ignorance, and smallness.
Ha... So, you'll avoid "stupid" and "idiot", but you still manage to say "ignorance and smallness". You're correct in that names add nothing to an argument, but neither do they detract from it.

As far as the child goes, I believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics includes something on the order of existing in isolation, not "closed" per se.
Isolation = free from outside influences.
Closed = no outside sources of energy.

Same thing, different terms, Thrice.
Certainly you can agree that the earth is FAR more isolated from outside influence than a child?
The sun is a major source of influence, Thrice. If it wasn't for the sun, the Earth would be somewhere around 2.726 degrees Kelvin. I think anyone who truly understands thermodynamics would call that a substantial influence.
I mean the sun shines on the moon too, little more lifeless there, so obviously your argument that the sun invalidates the entropy issue to evolution doesn't hold water...
The moon also doesn't have water or oxygen, as AiGB points out. Why didn't you use Mars as an example? Afraid they might actually find evidence of former life there, and you might have to rethink all of your arguments?

Anyhow, one could argue that a person is dieing from the time they are born. Growing larger and more intelligent is not necessarily less entropic, or more complicated.
Growing larger means requiring more energy, more energy requires more food... See where this is going? It's because of the sun that organisms can continue to grow through their lifespan, Thrice.
All the systems are wired at birth, and exist in the womb. Saying so is like saying that cheese getting moldy, although more tasty, is in fact less entropic.
They're wired at birth, because of evolution. Also, cheese wouldn't get moldy if it wasn't for the sun's existance. Otherwise, it would be too cold for anything to grow.

From Landau, L.D.; Lifshitz, E.M. (1996). Statistical Physics Part 1. Butterworth Heinemann. ISBN 0-7506-3372-7.

"The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain."

The Sun is putting out 3.86e33 ergs/second. To give you some idea of how much energy that is, it's 386 billion billion megawatts. It puts out so much energy that the the solar system's frost line is somewhere around the orbit of the asteroid belt. We actually have a surplus of energy that we don't utilize. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to worry about sunburns.

SO here is where I would call YOU some sort of name, but I'll refrain from that.
I'm going to call you a name though, Thrice. You can look it up, if you want, since you haven't researched anything you've said so far.

Thrice, you are a poser. You pretend to know about things that you have no understanding of whatsoever, other than what you may have heard from someone else who was just as wrong.

1. Entropy. As I pointed out above, isolated and closed are the same thing, in thermodynamics. Your inability to comprehend either speaks of your stupidity or denial. I'll leave you to decide which.

Here's the thermodynamic definition of entropy, for future reference.
Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.

How can you possibly say that compares to your car tires analogy with a straight face?

Your incorrect use of the word "entropic" points to your ineptitude. If you're going to use something as an argument, understand it first.

2. Evolution. You apparently have no understanding of evolution. The only understanding you have of evolution is probably in the pulpit, or some other source of misinformation.

Case in point:
"Sunlight isn't responsible for mice becoming bats, or monkeys becoming human..."

I'm pretty sure that AiGB will agree that this is the most assanine strawman that those against evolution have ever come up with.

Repeat after me... Mankind did not come from monkeys!! We're closer related to apes (neither group has tails). You're confusing "coming from" with "sharing a common ancestor". Your assertion is the equivalent of saying that you came from your uncle.

Try thinking for yourself, and researching things, Thrice. It will show you why you're wrong, and may make you think a bit more about how things work. If nothing else, it will help prevent words such as "stupid" or "idiot" from applying when associated with you.

Berlzebub said...

I don't need proof, all I have to do is poke holes in your theory. I'm not saying people should be creationists, just that evolution is wrong.
What holes? Everything you've thrown out so far is either completely wrong, or an assertion on your part.

And I will say that you're wrong. You do need proof. Even you said so.
Quote:
"Also, mitochondria are vestiges from an ancient germline attack."

Prove it.

So, you have to abide by the same rules that you want AiGB to.

Mitochondria have always been a part of the cell. Cells didn't one day decide "well huh, I might work better if I had one of those inside me." No, despite the fact that the DNA is slightly different from the nucleus, mitochondria and plastids, didn't just get absorbed by the cell and lose their ability to survive outside the cell. And not only that the SAME mitochondria that exist in simple protists exist in my skin, no matter where the "evolution branches" exist is pretty broad stroke to paint.

Here's a thought...Since alpha-proteobacteria (the supposed parents of mitochondria progeny) branch late in bacterial phylogeny, and Rickettsia are one of the twigs in this late-branching group, it stands to reason that extensive bacterial evolution and divergence occurred prior to the supposed endosymbiotic event. Since the endosymbiotic event likely occurred long after the last universal common ancestor, this raises the specter of bringing together two very different genetic control systems.

Prove it.
How one would subsume much of the other is a challenging line of thinking...
That's not a surprising assertion, coming from you Thrice. Seems like any independent thought is challenging to you.

What is it, Thrice? Did you finally figure out that your (incorrect) entropy argument won't work, so you decided to try another tactic?

thriceanangel said...

Well thought out and put! Much better than the last guy... So where does entropy exist?? Is it a fallacy? Where is a closed system devoid of any outside influence?

My point that I was trying to express was that (And I know that it was a simple example) the moon, other celestial bodies do not use the added energy from the Sun to create life. So the sticking point to the argument has centered around the fact that the sun has added energy to this system that we call Earth. So that supposedly makes the argument invalid... But that added energy doesn't prevent entropy in myriad other cases... Like my tires... Or a Barn left to the elements which will eventually fall down, and become dust... Are you going to disagree and state that this is NOT entropy?

Saying that "the second law doesn't apply to non-isolated systems" is not quite correct. The second law always applies; in fact, it was originally developed for non-isolated systems (the working fluid of a heat engine). The key point is that it is only in isolated systems that the second law takes the simplified "entropy must increase" form. For non-isolated systems, the second law still applies as a statement about heat flows and temperatures, and many other examples.

Here is what evolutionist John ross has said about this argument:

“...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 ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

You can call me a poser, or whatever you want... I doesn't really change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is FLAWED from the get go, there is very little truth beyond micro-evolution. As far as my knowledge base, I think you underestimate me. I have a BS in Terrestrial Ecology, went to grad school for Physician Assistant, and like you was an evolutionist. However I didn't just believe what was spoon fed me in college, and could never swallow many of the tings that were deemed aberrations like radioactive halos, the circular reasoning of radiometric dating, etc etc... And after reading Hawkings A Brief History of Time for the third time, I came to the conclusion that MANY scientists have come to- Including W.T. Kelvin, that there HAS to be a creator. All of this didn't just spring up...

BEAJ said...

Thrice, if you agree micro evolution is possible, you agree macro evolution is possible.
Take the cane toads in Australia, the majority of the species today is different than the original cane toads from 60 years ago. They have longer legs. If you allow that DNA mutates to allow this to occur, what is to stop other changes from happening like webbed feet eventually evolving into just fingers?
Genes mutate, it is a fact, and reproduction is not perfect, or according to creationists we would all look like Adam and Eve exactly.
When mutations occur, if the mutation increases the creatures chance of survival in a particular environment, it sticks for at least a while, until the environment changes.
Survival of the fittest is a misused term, it really means best chance of survival in a certain environment. That is why blind fish with great hearing and a great sense of smell have the best chances to reproduce and carry on than fish with eyesight and average hearing and a sense of smell.
ID is not science, and you are proof of it. You said you just need to poke holes in evolution theory....that isn't a theory, and it isn't science. And I've yet to see any hole that evolution can't explain.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics misrepresentation by creationists is rampant:
Here is a good video by a witty guy on the 2nd law.

thriceanangel said...

THATS the problem! Evolution shouldn't TRY to explain itself. THAT isn't how science works! Every scientist should be working to DISPROVE evolution. These lame explanations that come about to explain evolution are just nonsense. Take for example the evolution of the bat which supposes that a small mammal grows continually longer digits, that eventually grow webbing between the digits(for what purpose? It can't fly yet) Well here is an example where science should seek to disprove and say that such a transition creature would NOT be successful. Can you imagine it flopping around the forest? It would be a target for every predator...

Yes a finch can get a stronger beak, or different colored feathers. But it's still a finch. It will always be a finch. There is NO evidence of any transitional species. Most, like in the case of the bat, would be awkward! And this is what is found in the fossil recod too, so science INVENTS a NEW theory "Puncuated Equilibrium" to account for the fact that, well, things aren't quite going the way it should. The fossil record shows over and over and over that species just "POP" into existence, and don't mutate over billions of years. If they did, we'd have FAR more examples of lizard mammals, manapes, fishamphibians, etc. The examples that are used (mudskipper for example) are simply the creators way of filling a niche, which are very creative at times. No mud skipper to date has shown ANY tendencey towards moving MORE towards land or the sea, that's because it fills the niche that it was designed to fill.

I thoroughly understand the fact that there are mutations. But guess what? Genetic mutations are almost without fail detrimental to the example. What are common human genetic mutations? Sickle Cell, webbed digits, muscular dystrophy,familial hypercholesterolemia,dwarfism,possibly autism, etc... Over and over the genetic mutations are what we treat in medicine.

I am not claiming that ID is science, once again so that we're straight: ID is NOT science because it cannot be tested, but NEITHER IS EVOLUTION! I don't need to prove anything, because I am making no claim that I have a "scientific" answer. My answer IS supported by evidence and is the truth, but cannot be billed as a scientific fact, and likely never will. But that doesn't mean that the current answer accepted by science is correct, or that you ID isn't true. Evolution is a fallacy and uses flawed science, flawed reasoning, and non-empirical evidence to support its self. It's pseudoscience.

BEAJ said...

Thrice, you have no understanding of science. It is evident in your post.
There has not been one finding or piece of evidence that contradicts evolution theory. Not one.
And many have tried. In fact, any scientist who is able to falsify evolution would be more famous than mythical Jesus Christ.
Science is all about falsification. Evidence is looked at and theories are made, if new evidence contradicts a theory the theory is either modified or thrown out.
There hasn't been one archaeological or biological find that falsifies evolution in any way shape or form.
You are wilfully ignorant if you refuse to understand this.

BEAJ said...

I thoroughly understand the fact that there are mutations. But guess what? Genetic mutations are almost without fail detrimental to the example. What are common human genetic mutations? Sickle Cell, webbed digits, muscular dystrophy,familial hypercholesterolemia,dwarfism,possibly autism, etc... Over and over the genetic mutations are what we treat in medicine.
***************************
There are bad mutations and good mutations. Mutations that created longer legs for toads in Australia, didn't need to be treated by medicine. They help the species survive by giving these toads a way to escape overpopulated areas with limited resources and go to new territories. Plus they are able to go after pray quicker and run away from predators more quickly.
Web hands for humans in todays world is not an advantage, but if earth were eventually covered by nothing by water, webbed hands and feet would be an advantage and a trait that could become predominant, because webbed humans would have a better chance to survive than non webbed humans.

I love it when creationists like you spew your nonsense and wilful ignorance of science and evolution on the internet. People like me don't run from your bs, but confront it, and even though the answers may be lost on you, they aren't lost on lurkers who have been brainwashed by their families and church that evolution is crap.

It is people like you that causes more people to leave the church. I applaud you for your efforts:)

thriceanangel said...

OK now Mr. Consultant, you're spewing you're ignorance of science. Allow me to educate you you twit, longer legs is something called an Allelomorph, you know, when alternative genes are located on a particular locus of a chromosome. And sooo what? It didn't grow wings or hair. Thats like saying "Uh oh, there goes a TALL person, we are going to be a new species soon!" The toad is still a toad, and will forever be... a toad.

Here is the definition if you can read with your good eye: allelomorph - (genetics) either of a pair (or series) of alternative forms of a gene that can occupy the same locus on a particular chromosome and that control the same character; "some alleles are dominant over others" -Just so happens in this case that the recessive has become more prominent!


A legitimate mutation is where the frogs head is in it's ass, which is where yours seems to be. I don't expect you to "back down" but I guess having a reasonable discussion HAS to get down to name calling and insults. So I'll join the fray this time.

How about the finding that Neanderthal were about as closely related genetically as a chicken? Or how about the finding that the "supposed" evolutionary tree of homo sapien is more like a big bush with no direct lineage to man? Or that every supposed missing link turns out to be FAR more animal than human. No I guess you're right it isn't proof, but being a fool you wouldn't realize that there CAN BE NO EMPIRICLE EVIDENCE PROVING THE NON EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING!! But here's at least something: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070822-fossil-ape.html

And what you're saying that Science does about modifying the theory or throwing it out? Yeah they'll modify it to the point that it doesn't even make sense. It needs to be thrown out!! The whole thing! And I don't care about lurkers going, or NOT going to church, that a decision for them. This is about BAD science, not religion. This is about the truth, or at least the quest for it. Like I said, once I thought evolution was the truth. But after Science changing it's collective mind, and switching this, and not having ANY kind of answer for that, then I decided that it was worth my time to see the other side. Well as it turns out, there are far more questions than answers, and even the answers generate more questions. Then when I was taking classes like, human anatomy, human physiology, biochem, cellular biology, I was overcome with the thought that there is NO, and I mean NO, WAY that this just happened randomly. I mean do you really understand what it takes, what exactly happens within a sarcomere to do something as simple as contract a muscle, then relax it? The electro chemistry involved with Ca ions interacting causing Acetylcholine to bind with the plasma membrane, Actin, Myosin cross bridge cycling, etc... The fact that molecules have to be shaped just a certain way, and interact PERFECTLY to have this happen, and every molecule that is produced has just the right charge, and is made available through digestion (we won't even TOUCH that particular miracle) is way too complex to have just MUTATED!

Or take the eye... Where do you want to start there? How about which "evolved" first, the eye or the optic nerve? What is the purpose of one without the other? Or how about the fact that Apes would need to evolve a much different semi circular canal in the ear to maintain bipedal balance? How did they solve THAT particular problem. You can't have the same semicircular canal, and be able to successfully live in trees AND on the ground. Or maybe you haven't heard about this little twist to the evolution story:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319364.100.html

Whatever... I alone can shoot this theory to threads, but people like William Provine -Distinguished University Professor of Biology at Cornell University will certainly be able to punch MANY many more. But you won't listen, and neither will the proponents of evolution because you and they hold on to it with blind faith... faith in something that is more fallible than right. Keep modifying your theory... Maybe you can come up with a really cool theory that combines aliens, the idea that water isn't really H2O, and that pi is 3.15, and lets throw in that the earth was at one point made of leather. That might make it possible somehow...

Berlzebub said...

Well thought out and put! Much better than the last guy... So where does entropy exist?? Is it a fallacy? Where is a closed system devoid of any outside influence?
Actually, our solar system is such a system. The closest star is Alpha Centauri, but it's too far away to provide any energy. So, when the sun finally uses up all of its energy, the solar system will begin cooling. On the plus side, this isn't expected to happen for a few billion years.

My point that I was trying to express was that (And I know that it was a simple example) the moon, other celestial bodies do not use the added energy from the Sun to create life. So the sticking point to the argument has centered around the fact that the sun has added energy to this system that we call Earth. So that supposedly makes the argument invalid...
It's not just the sun that provides energy for life. Oxygen and other elements are also needed. If only heat was needed for life, we wouldn't need space suits to walk outside the space shuttles.
But that added energy doesn't prevent entropy in myriad other cases... Like my tires... Or a Barn left to the elements which will eventually fall down, and become dust... Are you going to disagree and state that this is NOT entropy?
Actually, it's a very good example of entropy. As you said, eventually the tires, and the walls of the barn degrade. What do we do when both of those things happen?

For the tires, we go to the tire shop and buy new ones. For the lumber, we also buy some more.

In both cases, trees are the source for the material. (Yes, I know that polymers are more common than true rubber for tires now, but I'll get to that in a little bit.) It's the energy provided by the sun that provides both of those materials. In the case of the rubber, the sun gives the tree the energy to create more sap. In the case of the lumber, it provides energy for more trees to grow. That is why trees are considered a renewable resource.

Where entropy comes into play is when the amount of rubber and/or lumber needed exceeds the amount that can be regrown in the interim. The more barns/tires that are needed, the higher the entropy. Eventually, the sap needed is greater than the trees can renew, and the lumber needed can't be regrown quick enough to meet the demand.

In the case of tires, polymers have become more common because they are recyclable. Not as tires, themselves, but as other products. This means more of the original polymer materials can be used to make tires, instead of egg cartons.

In the case of barns, metal can be used, instead. If the metal is well cared for, and coated, it can last much longer than wood.

Saying that "the second law doesn't apply to non-isolated systems" is not quite correct. The second law always applies; in fact, it was originally developed for non-isolated systems (the working fluid of a heat engine). The key point is that it is only in isolated systems that the second law takes the simplified "entropy must increase" form. For non-isolated systems, the second law still applies as a statement about heat flows and temperatures, and many other examples.
Where has anyone here, other than you said "the second law doesn't apply to non-isolated systems"? None of us have. We have only shown why the Earth is not and isolated system, and what its external thermal energy source is. Until the sun burns out, we will always have that as a source of energy. Even the universe is using up its energy, and entropy will eventually overcome it and all of the universe will go dark. However, that won't happen for a few billion years.

Here is what evolutionist John ross has said about this argument:

“...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 ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Well, duh. That's exactly what I've been pointing out to you. See all of my statements above about how as long as the sun provides thermal energy the Earth is not a closed system. The difference is that the "closed" system is our solar system, and not the Earth.

You can call me a poser, or whatever you want... I doesn't really change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is FLAWED from the get go, there is very little truth beyond micro-evolution. As far as my knowledge base, I think you underestimate me. I have a BS in Terrestrial Ecology, went to grad school for Physician Assistant, and like you was an evolutionist.
So?

All you've done there is an argument from authority, and the "I was once an evolutionist". Neither of those matter.

For one, what does studying soil organisms and helping doctors have to do with your arguments? They especially don't give you any authority on entropy. Others can debate with you on the biology side of your arguments, but your "humans from monkeys" comment earlier (and your "micro-evolution" reference here) tells me that you either didn't have any education in evolution, or you didn't pay any attention during that part of class.
However I didn't just believe what was spoon fed me in college, and could never swallow many of the tings that were deemed aberrations like radioactive halos, the circular reasoning of radiometric dating, etc etc...
I'm not familiar with radioactive halos, but I'm curious about what you are talking about with the circular reasoning of radiometric dating.
And after reading Hawkings A Brief History of Time for the third time, I came to the conclusion that MANY scientists have come to- Including W.T. Kelvin, that there HAS to be a creator. All of this didn't just spring up...
So, you read a book written for a layman to understand, and that's what you got out of it? There are a large number of scientists who do believe in evolution, and all of them are named Steve. That doesn't include those not named Steve, even. However, that doesn't prove that evolution is true. It's simply that the evidence points in that direction. Arguments from authority aren't arguments at all, Thrice.

Now, why does there HAVE to be a creator? Is it because "All of this didn't just spring up...", as you say?

For one, that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is simply the explanation for how life diversified until it reached the multiple forms of life we see today. Mechanisms such as natural selection, DNA, punctuated equilibrium, etc. are the contents of the explanation. The study for how life actually got started is a different field.

Further, if life couldn't have just "sprung up", what does that say about your creator? If things can't just spring up, then the creator would also need a creator creator, that would need a creator creator creator, etc.

You keep saying the theory of evolution is flawed, but you have yet to show me how. Further, you have yet to propose a better alternative that doesn't rely on a supposed "creator". Basically, you are saying "goddidit" (which is what AiGB was asking you), but you aren't providing any proof.

Now, stop with the incorrect entropy argument, and provide us with proof of another alternative. Something testable, falsifiable, and repeatable.

BEAJ said...

Thrice, you are a babbling fool. You think by making a post unneccessarily long and cherry picking my points gives you any credibility at all. It doesn't. You are a joke. And you are responsible for why people are leaving your flock. Keep posting on the internet.
Since you are determined to remain wilfully ignorant I will give you one simple assignment:

Show me one piece of evidence or study that contradicts or falsifies evolution. If evolution was wrong, you would be able to come up with lots. Lets see one piece.

BEAJ said...

For the non wilfully ignorant.
Watch this video.

thriceanangel said...

I've grown tired of debating you as usual you fail to actually take it upon yourself to question what you have been told and learn something more than "Hey that ape looks like me, so I must have evolved from that" without actually having ANY understanding of the complexities and minutia that go into it, or even your own functions. You speak without even knowing what you're talking about. You spout what you have been told by other men. I urge you to learn something about biological functions in the electrical, chemical, and microscopic scale. And then ask questions as ALL scientists should... Demand some empirical evidence, not just "this could have happened, or that could have happened" just because it HAS to fit within the box of evolution...

One more correction before I leave the discussion:

Terrestrial= Earth Bound
Ecology = The science of the relationships between organisms and their environments. Its basically just ecology, not limited to soil ecology. And I have taken MANY courses dealing with evolution, and I memorized the lies and got good grades. So go pray at the church of yourself, worship that which you think is true, click on one or two of my links, and I guess we'll see who had it right in the end...

thriceanangel said...

Oh yeah -Love the 7th grade video! How funny! The deductions are hilarious! "Had to have a common ancestor because both flies and mammals have coding for ribs!" There you go! "I hear hoof beats, so it HAS to be zebras!"

AIGBusted said...

Guys, I think we should just leave our little friend alone. You cannot wake those who pretend to be asleep. If someone is determined to find a gap for their god to exist in, then they will do it, and nothing we can say will talk them out of it. I've debated creationists before, and even when you think you've torn every argument that they could possibly have, they will still focus in on the one unknown or uncertainty of science, and use that as a legimate reason to believe in god. Pathetic, but that is the way they think. You heard him, he doesn't have to prove his side, just find a "hole" in my argument. That's a magic bullet mentality, and if you'll notice, they never turn around that standard to disprove god.

BEAJ said...

Aigbusted, I respond to him/her because of the lurkers. It is the fence sitting lurkers who wind up clicking the links we provide and they then see how moronic the creationist argument is.
Thrice won't change his/her "mind" because it is not open.

[b]Notice how Thrice couldn't come up with one finding or study that refutes or falsifies evolution. [/b]

If evolution was bunk, there would be plenty of studies that refuted it.

Just as we can now refute the theory that sun revolves around the earth.

Berlzebub said...

This'll be my last troll feeding, AiGB.

Like beaj I do it for the lurkers. Plus, people who have absolutely no comprehension of something,try to use it to prove their pet assumption (creationism isn't even good enough to be considered a hypothesis), and/or disprove something that makes them uncomfortable irritate me to no end.

Also, just in case Thrice is one of those lurkers, I have looked into religion for answers. I spent nearly thirty years hoping it would tell me. However, all it gave me was empty promises, explanations that didn't fit with reality, and all with a promise that I'd be rewarded after I died.

Eventually, I woke up. I realized that there is nothing afterwards, and that this life is all we have. We need to make the most of it, and find out as much as we can along the way so the next generation has something more to work with.

thriceanangel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AIGBusted said...

Thrice, do not spam this blog with a bunch of links to videos. If you have something to say, find a reputable source and post 1-4 links for it (not 50).