ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, March 27, 2017

A theory, falsified, again

One wonders how many times evolutionary biologists are going to see their hypotheses falsified before they finally give up and abandon ship on their pet theory.
Before the advent of rapid, accurate, and inexpensive DNA sequencing technology in the early 2000s, biologists guessed that genes would provide more evidence for increasing complexity in evolution. Simple, early organisms would have fewer genes than complex ones, they predicted, just as a blueprint of Dorothy’s cottage in Kansas would be less complicated than one for the Emerald City. Instead, their assumptions of increasing complexity began to fall apart. First to go was an easy definition of how complexity manifested itself. After all, amoebas had huge genomes. Now, DNA analyses are rearranging evolutionary trees, suggesting that the arrow scientists envisioned between simplicity and complexity actually spins like a weather vane caught in a tornado.
In summary:
  1. Biologists predicted genome size would increase over time, and that was wrong. 
  2. Biologists then predicted that gene number would increase over time, and that was wrong. 
  3. Biologists predicted that complex body parts would develop after simpler body parts, and that was wrong.
  4. Biologists have now found that the oldest living ancestor of animals, comb jellies, already had brain, nervous system, and muscles, and that sponges later lost those genes. Complexity was there at the start. 
  5. Biologists have also found, through experiment, that most mutations cause a loss of complexity.
The latter is particularly important, because it renders evolution statistically improbable to the point of impossibility. How many scientific theories can produce so many predictions that are completely proven wrong, so many hypotheses that are falsified, and still be considered orthodox dogma that one must be a madman or a barbarian to question?

I don't have the answer, but frankly, at this point, I am more inclined to believe in the possibility either alien breeding programs or the grand simulation hypothesis I am in the combination of abiogenesis and the neo-Darwinian synthesis. The combination is not only too temporally difficult and statistically improbable, but reliably produces incorrect hypotheses. I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't science, merely that it is bad and outdated science that is unlikely to ever have any engineering relevance.

Labels: ,

257 Comments:

1 – 200 of 257 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 27, 2017 7:46 AM  

Is number five false because of entropy? Mutations seems like a progression from order to disorder to me.

Blogger Mark March 27, 2017 7:49 AM  

Simply put, this isn't about science, this is about worldview. This theory tale for adults allows libertines to be done with the Living God. If it were true, that blue tarp I have had draped over the back shed roof these past ten years should be well on the way to becoming the Persian rug of my aspirations.
As it is, evolution is fake news writ large.

Blogger William Meisheid March 27, 2017 7:55 AM  

Re: "alien breeding programs or the grand simulation hypothesis"

So the real question is: "Where did the aliens doing the breeding come from or the programmers creating the grand simulation come from?" Moving the goal posts back one playing field doesn't change the fundamental question one bit, it just allows temporary obfuscation.

Blogger Ron March 27, 2017 8:02 AM  

The answer is simple: ego.

Blogger Mastermind March 27, 2017 8:03 AM  

"The latter is particularly important, because it renders evolution statistically improbable to the point of impossibility."

That would only be the case if the reproduction rates of organisms that mutate into something simple reproduce MORE than those that mutate into something more complex. There's absolutely no reason to assume this. Their survival and reproduction depends entirely on whether the mutation was good, bad or neutral. So simplifying mutations could be more common but if they kill the organism ten times more often than those that increase complexity then complexity would still increase over time.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 8:06 AM  

"Biologists have also found, through experiment, that most mutations cause a loss of complexity."

Perhaps we're devolving into monkeys. I do like bananas. Or the mutation is for efficiency, therefore simpler, provided the mutation still performs the same function that is.

Blogger Stilicho March 27, 2017 8:06 AM  

Darwinism was never science, it was always an anti-Christian religion. Hence its enduring popularity in the face of failure: it is simply a mechanism for denying God, and not even a good one. For Darwinists, it is ALWAYS the Scopes monkey trial.

Blogger VD March 27, 2017 8:06 AM  

That would only be the case if the reproduction rates of organisms that mutate into something simple reproduce MORE than those that mutate into something more complex.

You're wrong. That would be true if the number of simpler and complex mutations were roughly equivalent. But they aren't. So, whatever benefits complexity conveys also has to make up for the ratio.

And, of course, we now have evidence that complexity does not necessarily increase over time anyhow, contra the predictive model.

Anonymous p-dawg March 27, 2017 8:08 AM  

Entropy is directly at odds with evolutionary theory, and entropy is what the universe around us demonstrates. Things fall apart over time, they don't build themselves over time.

Blogger Some Dude March 27, 2017 8:11 AM  

The key is the weather phenomenon analogy - this is something I posited on the Pumpkin Person blog Essentially we adapt as Darwin suggested, but the environment changes,survival strategies of agents change and of course random factors like weather, migrations, natural disasters, and so on make it unpredicatable. The crocodile - a quasi dinosaur, is still viable if competition or geogrphic factors give it enclaves to prosper.

The introduction of field mice by Western explorers into Australia is harming native marsupials.

The Incas/Mayans mostly died off from European brought diseases.

Kinshasa propspers in the reproductive market due to Zion's Hi-Lo tagteam on the medium IQ/medium testosterone whites.

Nothing is fated. We have discretion to stop or change the algorithm. You could say this is the ultimate step of evolution - the selection for the power to master the formula. Zion understands this.

Zion keeps a lot of knowledge secret from us, particularly in the psychological realm. The red pill is an attempt to alleviate some of this around gender and women. There could easily be another red pill around brainwashing/NLP/Bernays techniques or the way Zion indoctrinates young gentile children to serve it.

It removed christianity to inculcate a Jim Jones cult.

Yes! Yes! That's right. There is no such thing as race, or gender or Nation. They are made up. Heh Heh (((rubs hands))).

Blogger Some Dude March 27, 2017 8:15 AM  

Notice the way it associates postive imagery with magic negro at all times. Can you remember the last time a person of magical ancestry played a villain? A thief? A criminal? A prole even?

Look at the words they use to describe history. Look at the images and 'satirical cartoons' they use. Its all preformulated. A lot of effort goes in to every mind control news cast, speech by a blackmailed politican, or slogan.

If you lean autistic, have low verbal or not enough testosterone (like women)you will be railroaded.

Women hate betas because they're brainwashed. 100 years ago betas were viable because they were men. Brainwashing insults the alogorithm. It will not select for it. Kinshasa is impossible to brainwash. Guess why.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 8:17 AM  

Anonymous Conservative talks about bacteria he was working with devolving over time in petri dishes. The reasoning is that the petri dish environment is less hostile than bacteria in the wild. With unlimited food source and no predation the organism preferences reproduction over complexity. This underpins r/K selection theory. And proves that liberals suck.

Blogger Mark March 27, 2017 8:17 AM  

In the beginning was information and information was with God and information. . .
Proto Hebrew, the Edenic language is much like DNA with its three letter roots. No other language is so divinely simple yet capable of such lofty strains of expression and poetry.
What fact, after all, is not a created fact?

Anonymous Looking Glass March 27, 2017 8:18 AM  

Any Darwinian variant also slips in an Infinite into the proposition. Which is a faith-based argument at its core, and the standard part of all modern pseudo-science.

Complexity only comes from Agency & Insight. The deeper you get into actual Science & Engineering, the more clear that is. Random Probability cannot produce complex relationships, as it presupposes infinite time at multiple steps.

Blogger Mastermind March 27, 2017 8:18 AM  

You're wrong. That would be true if the number of simpler and complex mutations were roughly equivalent. But they aren't. So, whatever benefits complexity conveys also has to make up for the ratio.

No, you're wrong. The ratio could be one million to one and it still wouldn't matter if they kill the organism or severely cripple its reproductive abilities and other mutations don't. The ratio at which mutations show up is just a small part of the equation.

And, of course, we now have evidence that complexity does not necessarily increase over time anyhow, contra the predictive model.

Whose predictive model? Amorphous "scientists"? Even the article acknowledges a dolt like Gould predicted the current pattern, and given that Gould was no genius it's highly unlikely he thought of it first.

Blogger Fenris Wulf March 27, 2017 8:21 AM  

William Meisheid wrote:"Where did the aliens doing the breeding come from or the programmers creating the grand simulation come from?"It's Boltzmann brains all the way down.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 27, 2017 8:26 AM  

On one point. By the time Columbus landed in the New World, huge number of people had disappeared and cities left empty. Many Europeans also died from illnesses transmitted from the New Worlders.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 8:27 AM  

(((Some Dude))), always on point man.

p-dawg said:
"Entropy is directly at odds with evolutionary theory, and entropy is what the universe around us demonstrates. Things fall apart over time, they don't build themselves over time."

This is based on some big assumptions to my mind. Big bang and gravity as the main actor for one. Just because a cup tea cools down, doesn't mean the universe agrees.

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 8:31 AM  

Evolution is about survival of the best adapted. This does not mean the most advanced, necessarily.

It means the most adapted to the current set of environmental factors.

The movie Idiocracy pretty much puts it in context. Welfare makes the best adapted humans to be the dumb ones that make as many kids as possible.

Number 2, tarps do not evolve. I know this is news for you, but non living objects do not mutate.

In fact, this http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/ blog that VD linked pretty much puts an end to the "evolution always makes it more complex" theme.

Long story short, mutation is a random change in the body plan of the organism. These body plans are complex, the change is always random.

Now making random changes to a complex plan usually results in malfunctions. Thus the organism dies or can't reproduce successfully.

But when the change is unintentionally beneficial, purely by random chance, the animal's offsprings will survive better in the environment and thus the new mutant variant will spread.

This is the reason why evolution takes so long to work. It is literally trial and error at its most unreasoning style. It does not take ten years, but millions of years. This also explains why no organism on Earth is perfect, and why are life forms so full of errors and mistakes.

Surely, if it was intelligently designed by a supernatural entity or an alien, they would not have made such a very sloppy work.

We need to keep in mind that precise details can change about theories. Mind in the good old Eastern Europe, evolution is called fact, not theory.

A hundred years ago, people thought that Venus was a jungle planet orbiting the Sun. Now we know that it is a molten pressure cooker orbiting the Sun.
Does this change the fact that Venus orbits the Sun like Earth, and not both orbit the Earth?

Or does the fact that the Earth is not a perfect globe means it is flat?

Mr Day, do not to give your detractors ammunition, for your views on sociology and economics are very accurate and professional. I implore you not to fall for the questionably scientific beliefs of those you call "churchians" . Feels do not belong in science.

Blogger Ken Prescott March 27, 2017 8:37 AM  

Entropy only applies to completely closed systems.The terrestrial biosphere does receive a fair amount of energy from a ginormous unshielded fusion reactor...

Blogger Daetrin March 27, 2017 8:38 AM  

One of my favorite wild-ass guesses from evolutionary theory is that DNA performs computations (we are building DNA computers ourselves, it's technically capable) and so most mutations are purposeful and not random.

Which answers precisely zero questions but is amusing nonetheless.

Blogger cassius dio March 27, 2017 8:42 AM  

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.

They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.

If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be

the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky

and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man

worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 8:43 AM  

Balazs Varga said:
"Surely, if it was intelligently designed by a supernatural entity or an alien, they would not have made such a very sloppy work."

Would not such a being wish for it's creation to be adaptable to change in it's environment? Or would not such an advanced being be wary of creating that which could rival Him?

Blogger Joshua_D March 27, 2017 8:43 AM  

The idea that chaos and genetic mutation would not only create order, but would create a more complex order, seems ludicrous as soon as you think about it for more than five minutes. Of course, most people don't think about anything for more than five minutes.

When I go to the store and see all the sick, fat asses waddling about, I become more certain the genetic entropy is the reality, and any improvements in our lot are the direct result of God willing it to be.

"[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 8:51 AM  

From an engineering perspective, I don't see how the question of complexity has any bearing whatsoever on the question of intelligent design vs.evolution... it simply IS.

a thousand less efficient systems all working to produce a result vs. a simple, elegant solution to accomplish that same goal, both require similar evolutionary or intelligent effort. Any engineer can tell you that it is more difficult to produce a simple, robust design than an inherently overcomplicated mechanical system... a loom shuttle was a far later design than a thousand weft-feeders, even though the weft feeders are vastly more complex sustem for mechanical weaving.

There is no reason to assume that evolution is any different. Where a simple system supports survival more readily, that is what exists... where a complex system is needed that is what develops. Neither evolution nor intelligent design really weighs in on the matter.

Heck, for all we know there may be even a third option... perhaps the universe has a set of 'blueprints' that encourage certain complex designs without engaging natural selection at all, for example.

We really need to simply examine things as they are without engaging preconceptions. Some things simply cannot be theorized without greater information than we currently possess... Let's collect the information instead of fighting over reasons.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 27, 2017 8:51 AM  

Thing is, it wasn't science, then it was, now it isn't again.

Darwin openly admitted that he held to his theory in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence against it. His hope (note that term) was that further investigation would turn up the evidence he needed; in fossils, in genetics, etc.

Well, it didn't. But the later synthesis at least approached a proper theory in that it formulated a distinct argument with an associated set of predictions, i.e. it could be tested against reality.

The problem for that theory was that pretty much all of its predictions have now been found to be false.

So now the neo-Darwinists are just like Darwin himself, once again they're holding to their theory out of dogmatic bloodymindedness in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it.

And we see in this field everything that goes along with that basic refusal to honestly face the truth:
- constant goalpost moving
- constant redefinition of terms
- constant argument over definitions rather than evidence
- "kill the blasphemer!" pogroms against heretics who honestly confront the evidence
- constant propaganda supporting all of the above

The Theory in Crisis is not even a theory any more. It is now a crusading religion.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 27, 2017 8:51 AM  

Evolution is an interesting hypothesis.

Look at it this way to the mooslims have been dabbling barnyard animals since the 7th century and outside of Greek mythology have you seen a goat man walking about, have you?

Blogger VD March 27, 2017 8:55 AM  

No, you're wrong. The ratio could be one million to one and it still wouldn't matter if they kill the organism or severely cripple its reproductive abilities and other mutations don't.

No, you're still wrong. You're assuming that mutated simplification is harmful and mutated complexity is beneficial. You simply can't do that.

And the ratio means that the complexity is going to have to somehow make up for the difference. Waving your hands and saying "simplicity kills" is not a rational argument.

Blogger Joshua_D March 27, 2017 8:55 AM  

Mr.MantraMan wrote:Evolution is an interesting hypothesis.

Look at it this way to the mooslims have been dabbling barnyard animals since the 7th century and outside of Greek mythology have you seen a goat man walking about, have you?


They just need time, man, like BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS, then evolution will create goat men. Time is magic like that. Time heals all wounds, and it make all genetic mutations possible.

Blogger Some Guy March 27, 2017 8:55 AM  

The science isn't the issue. It's the interpretations that come up short. Every. Single. Time. Doesn't matter the field: Biology, Geology, Astronomy, etc... Every piece of science has multiple variables in the equations. If you plug those variables a certain way, you get evolution every time. The issue is that those assumptions may or may not be accurate and they can't prove that they are. It is fun watching their pet theory demonstrably fall apart over time.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 8:56 AM  

Be careful about simple assumptions. In certain systems complexity arises from simple systems and highly ordered system arise from high degrees or complexity. There is not a simple assumption to be made.

In terms of entropy the same warning must be given. The relative frame of reference is critical. You can decrease entropy in one frame and have that decrease be the most likely outcome because it causes the greatest increase in entropy in the greater frame of reference. A crude example of this is an endothermic reaction.
Consider that humans are entropically favorable relative to mice or microorganisms. We produce significantly more entropy in our environment than any mouse or microbe could ever produce. So while humans could be argued to be highly ordered and hence a decrease in entropy “locally”, the end result of our existence is significantly increased entropy “globally”. You can make the argument that life is entropically favorable in a high energy system as life will accelerate the generation of entropy beyond what “non-life’ dynamics would do in a similar time span.

The casual application of thermodynamics is tricky at best as you have consider your frame of reference and how different frames interact.

The life from primordial soup idea is troublesome for me, but the idea of seeding is interesting.

Blogger Knight Of the Realm March 27, 2017 8:56 AM  

1. How does an eye ball evolve?
2. Where is an example of a organism in the process of evolving into a different type i.e. A reptile to a bird a primate to a human

Blogger VD March 27, 2017 8:57 AM  

"Surely, if it was intelligently designed by a supernatural entity or an alien, they would not have made such a very sloppy work."

Only someone who has never been in an engineering lab could possibly make such an ignorant statement.

Blogger Nate March 27, 2017 8:58 AM  

"no they can't renegotiate. that's the point of having the contract."

oh dear innocent lamb...

Anonymous basementhomebrewer March 27, 2017 8:59 AM  

Joshua_D wrote:Mr.MantraMan wrote:Evolution is an interesting hypothesis.

Look at it this way to the mooslims have been dabbling barnyard animals since the 7th century and outside of Greek mythology have you seen a goat man walking about, have you?


They just need time, man, like BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS, then evolution will create goat men. Time is magic like that. Time heals all wounds, and it make all genetic mutations possible.


This is what the whole theory hinges on. "Through TIME all things are possible." It's a religion and a rather shoddy one at that. Anyone think it's a coincidence that the tactics used to defend social justice or climate change are identical to tactics used to defend evolution?

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 9:00 AM  

Resident Moron said:
"The Theory in Crisis is not even a theory any more. It is now a crusading religion."

Sage words. On the bright side, at least they've found the global warming now... It's in the Indian ocean... Apparently. Crusade or Jihad.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 27, 2017 9:01 AM  

Ken Prescott wrote:Entropy only applies to completely closed systems.The terrestrial biosphere does receive a fair amount of energy from a ginormous unshielded fusion reactor...

This is always a fun argument.

Because we all know that, whenever we want to create something new and useful, we just throw immense amounts of uncontrolled energy at it.

This also explains US foreign policy: "exporting democracy", turning the Middle East into Western Europe, just requires more high explosives.

Listen, dickhead, don't think you can wander in here and with just one comment take my crown away. I'm the Resident Fucking Moron in these parts, and don't you forget it.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 9:04 AM  

> This is based on some big assumptions to my mind.

The laws of thermodynamics are not considered "assumptions" at this point. https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard March 27, 2017 9:06 AM  

According to the popular version of the theory, between each organism and its ancestors lies an unbroken chain of simple mutations, each of which immediately improved the reproductive success of the organism, but which also, in combination, lead to the highly 'engineered' integrated systems that make up life.

It's always seemed stunningly unlikely to me. I know now 'genetic drift' and whatnot complicate the story, but the popular versions of those make the story less rather than more compelling. Maybe the professionals know some secret magic unknown to the rest of us; certainly I've never seen a defense of strict neodarwinism that wasn't a naked appeal to authority.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 9:07 AM  

Joshua_D wrote:The idea that chaos and genetic mutation would not only create order, but would create a more complex order, seems ludicrous as soon as you think about it for more than five minutes. Of course, most people don't think about anything for more than five minutes.

all things hold together."


And you’d be wrong….. In physics and engineering are there a number of physical systems that will start off simple generate complexity and then see order arise from that complexity. The control of exothermic reactors in a series is a real world example of this. Control theory studies the dynamics produced by systems like this.
You are making the same error virtually everyone makes. Assuming your view is the “real one”. The universe has all of the answers in front of us, we simply are not capable of understanding all of them. Throughout history we as a species continue to look at the same phenomena over and over again and keep learning more from the same things as we learn how to understand what we are looking at.

Looking at the stars allowed us to figure out we were not the center…. Looking at the stars some more allowed us to begin to understand Newtonian dynamics and basic gravity. Looking at the stars yet again and we began to formulate relativity….. Looking at the stars STILL and we are now recognizing that out basic understanding of gravity is flawed.

We all need to stop turning science into a religion. Science is simply the process of stating “after observing data collected from a given system, my best guess (hypothesis) as to the how of what occurs is X. That understanding is likely to change over time as we collect more information and gain more knowledge.

The “scientists” claiming Darwinian evolution is the pinnacle is just as wrong and guilty of “religion” as the person who claims that complexity cannot rise from simplicity

Blogger S1AL March 27, 2017 9:07 AM  

As I pointed out in a previous example to our resident atheist zealot, the examples that challenge traditional understanding of evolution have been known to be numerous for over a decade. In addition to these, there's the "explosion" problem (staggeringly rapid bursts of new species), parallel evolution (the same series of mutations and evolution patterns in distinct locations), the rapidity of genetic drift but nonexistence of observable species generation.

Taken together, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that "random chance" is simply incorrect.

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 9:07 AM  

I was not talking about humans not being supercreatures. Just small flaws all over the system. Like the mammalian eye with its blind spot. Valves in veins that are still a throwback to 4 legged walking. Nothing that would threaten any alien/god/alien god. Which gave us no proof of its existence yet, while we found dinosaur fossils. I have seen them with my own eyes.

Dabbling barnyard animals does not make hybrids. Hybrids can not be made unless two species are very alike, like horses and donkeys. Osama can dabble all the goats he wants, it will never work.

But science and evolution does point to the middle eastern tendency of inbreeding and degrading genetic material.

All you churcians need to embrace the love of Kek, the proper nationalist religion anyway. And learn elementary school science. Conservatism is the way of the churchians who believe in global love, while Nationalism is the way of those who see facts without fee-fees.

Or did you all forget that the Alt-Right is supposed to care about science? Cold, hard, feeling-hurting facts? Not holy books written in the middle east.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 27, 2017 9:10 AM  

In the spirit of scifi could we not prank them by building a big shiny black monolith replete with tones for them to touch? And next to the big black shiny we stack up some big ass dino bones for them to pick up to go bash the skulls of other tribes of campus SJW.

Blogger S1AL March 27, 2017 9:12 AM  

"Or did you all forget that the Alt-Right is supposed to care about science? Cold, hard, feeling-hurting facts? Not holy books written in the middle east."

Did you somehow not see the contradiction here?

Anonymous Avalanche March 27, 2017 9:12 AM  

Lloyd Pye, recently deceased, has a lecture on YouTube called "Everything You Know is Wrong." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8) It's a real mixed bag: partly solid (appearing?), seemingly well-grounded scientific theorizing; and partly "the aliens dun it!"

However, his discussion (with pictures) of "evolution" threw my reasonably well-educated “beliefs” about evolution into the trash. I have not been able to replace them yet, but he shows (to my medically educated eye) that it's not what we've been taught.

As with the "we don't have to know where the (couple hundred?) 911 passengers *ended up* to know for certain the govt is lying its @ss off about 911"; so, too, we don't have to know what or Who (or HOW) life in its many resplendent forms "arrived at" today's versions on our planet to KNOW for damned near certain that Darwinian evolution (with its theory expansions and modifications in the modern day) probably ain't it!

Is “life” merely result of gazillions of possible permutations? Earth is in the Goldilocks zone for life to arrive? / begin? / survive. Many people attribute that to God. I'm not there (yet?). In the many billions and billions of stars with galaxies, by mere random chance, SOME of those with Goldilocks zones will have planets coalesce in that zone. Of those billions of planets, by mere random chance, some of those will end up with life. All the billions that do not hit those random jackpots of galaxy position, planet formation, and life -- will NOT have life. (Cause, you know, SOME flipped pennies DO land on the edge!) Doesn't (may not?) need "design," just needs numbers!)


On the other hand, "genetic science" (and oh look -- (((who))) is in the forefront of THAT!?) is something I look askance at: IF publishing results that go against the Narrative results in a geneticist losing his job and future employment ... WHY would anyone think we're getting the truth out of that field?

Blogger Chris Lutz March 27, 2017 9:12 AM  

@32 Whenever you talk about eyes, evolutionists typically go:

1. Cells
2. Light spots
3. Lots and lots of time
.....
4. Eyes

The problem is they are talking thousands to tens of thousands of mutations that have to come together in the right sequence to simply achieve an eye. Once you have an eye, you have to have the software that actually can process what it sees. Their only solution is time. It takes vast amounts of time.

Anonymous Viiidad March 27, 2017 9:14 AM  

Simple observation of the complexity of plant and animal life reveals the theory of evolution as one of the most retarded pieces of BS ever believed by human beings.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr March 27, 2017 9:16 AM  

@32: IIRC, there's good fossil records for the development of birds, and even more for the horse.

On the other hand, science is NEVER settled. Honest science must always be willing to consider evidence that contradicts existing theories.

But modern Leftists neither believe in nor understand honest science. Their interest is only in using pseudo-scientific gibberish to club their opponents.

Anonymous Avalanche March 27, 2017 9:16 AM  

@22 "Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow."

My fav motto is:
Those who beat their swords into plowshares
will plow for THOSE WHO DON'T!

Blogger Joshua_D March 27, 2017 9:17 AM  

Grayman wrote:Joshua_D wrote:The idea that chaos and genetic mutation would not only create order, but would create a more complex order, seems ludicrous as soon as you think about it for more than five minutes. Of course, most people don't think about anything for more than five minutes.

all things hold together."


And you’d be wrong…



Well, we'll find out one day, won't we.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus March 27, 2017 9:19 AM  

just as a blueprint of Dorothy’s cottage in Kansas would be less complicated

The reason Dorothy's cottage was simple was because it was in Kansas

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 9:20 AM  

The absolute hubris demonstrated by the churchian and other ignorant attacks on the pursuit of understanding (the scientific method, not "science as religion") astounds me!!

You can image a supreme entity (god) that can bring a complex universe into existence and yet we are going to suggest that in the last few thousands years we have gained a level of understanding significant enough to question a mind great enough to create a universe? We dont fully understand gravity or time and yet we casually pass judgement on the quality of the mechanism upon which some facet of our world operates?

Until we can birth stars at will and traverse the expanses of the galaxy at will our task is to observe and learn all we can around us. At this point we as a species are like 3 yr olds commenting on the design of the apollo spacecraft.

Anonymous W. Lindsay Wheeler March 27, 2017 9:21 AM  

And that is why miscegenation is wrong. You can't breed a Chihuahua back into a wolf. Hitler and other eugenicists are onto something. Being Blue Blood is important. Just like after the Spanish Reconquista, the leading aristocracy promoted their undiluted heritage by claiming "Blue Blood", Europeans must restrengthen their heritage and blood lines.

Anonymous Avalanche March 27, 2017 9:22 AM  

@29 "They just need time, man, like BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS, then evolution will create goat men. Time is magic like that. Time heals all wounds, and it make all genetic mutations possible."

Or they USED TO BE goat-men and are trying to get back there!! If we complex-evolved humans may succeed in bringing back the Auroch -- why shouldn't simplicity-devolved goat-fVkers be able to bring back the goat-men!

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 9:23 AM  

> It does not take ten years, but millions of years.

The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, by our best estimates. So if a successful mutation takes "millions of years" there should have been a total of roughly 4500 successful mutation periods over it's lifetime. How many species have there been again?

> Surely, if it was intelligently designed by a supernatural entity or an alien, they would not have made such a very sloppy work.

Why don't you give it a try and see how you do before you criticize the work of another.

> ...have you seen a goat man walking about, have you?

No, but we have seen a Mothman: http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Mothman

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti March 27, 2017 9:24 AM  

Panpsychism squares the circle here.

(Said the dyed-in-the-wool idealist)

Blogger Joshua_D March 27, 2017 9:25 AM  

Viiidad wrote:Simple observation of the complexity of plant and animal life reveals the theory of evolution as one of the most retarded pieces of BS ever believed by human beings.

Right? We once believed the Earth was flat, and that's reasonable to believe, because you know, it does look pretty flat. And we once believed that the Earth was the center of our universe, and that's also reasonable to believe, because it certainly doesn't feel like we're spinning 1,000 mph as we move 67,000 mph around the sun while our solar system travels at another 45,000 mph through the galaxy. But, for educated men to believe that (chaos + time = life and order) is ... well it's something cavemen would believe.

Blogger Dangeresque March 27, 2017 9:26 AM  

It makes sense that organisms could get either more or less complex over the course of evolution. Evolution is, after all, just adaptation to local conditions. Those conditions can allow for - or rather, require - either more or less complexity. Organisms that migrated into dark caves and lost use of their eyes over time come to mind.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 9:28 AM  

> Their only solution is time. It takes vast amounts of time.

More time than we have, unless you presume life did not in fact originate here.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 9:31 AM  

Darwinian type evolution does occur at the "local" level, such as seen in bacteria, animals that have move dinto caves and given up eyes, etc.
If experience teaches us anything such as in physics, this "local" darwinian mechanism is probably a subfunction of some other mechanism occurring at geologic time scales

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 9:31 AM  

James Dixon said:
"The laws of thermodynamics are not considered "assumptions" at this point."

Apparently exceptions have been found at the micro and nano level. Granted this could perhaps be attributed to instrument error. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ultimately the second law rests on a energy/matter start point, ie big bang. Furthermore an assumption that gravity is the glue that all motion relies on. Time does not have to have a start point. Something we see come to rest on earth, is still in point of fact, at least according to astronomy, spinning at 1000 MPH, while orbiting at 66000 MPH and traversing the galaxy at 550000 MPH. Doin an awful lot of work for something at rest.

Blogger The Z Blog March 27, 2017 9:32 AM  

There are three ways to explain the fossil record:

1) Magic

2) Deny the fossil record exists, thus denying physical reality.

3) Evolutionary theory, which is itself evolving as new information is acquired.

Option one requires faith. Option two requires a tumor or other brain malady. Option three requires skepticism.

Anonymous Avalanche March 27, 2017 9:33 AM  

@41 "We all need to stop turning science into a religion."

I wonder how much of this might be related to 'us' needing certainty?

Being poorly armed prey animals ( back before evolution gave us these big brains...), we needed a sense of certainty: if we drink from the pond with the dead animals in it, we get sick; if we drink from the flowing stream we don't. If we ignore the twig snapping behind us, we're lion-dinner; if we run like hell, maybe not... We 'codify' stuff that seems to work (more often than not) and then cling to it because it's a scary world out there...

"Religion" (the preponderance of the gathered 'historical evidence' -- or the random beliefs of someone with a strong will or obnoxious pressuring tendency) is how we pass down the "don't eat shellfish in ...month" or "if mice invade your hogan, you must burn it and all your possessions immediately" (i.e., Hantavirus).

Uncertainty is uncomfortable!

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 9:36 AM  

"The laws of thermodynamics are not considered "assumptions" at this point."

That is correct, no one to the best of my knowledge has been able to demonstarte a global violation of these principles.

There are certainly "loopholes" that have to do with manipulating frame of reference and some very interesting ones such as we can apparently now build "maxwells deamon". But they are not violations.


https://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-photonic-maxwell-demon.html

Blogger bosscauser March 27, 2017 9:36 AM  

How do you evolve adaptability?
But, more importantly, how did blood clotting creatures evolve from non blood clotting animals?
Ever take a biology class?

Could it be we have devolved?

#PresidentTrump2020

Anonymous basementhomebrewer March 27, 2017 9:37 AM  

Balázs Varga wrote:

All you churchians


You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means. The whole purpose of the term is to separate Christianity from what is currently being practiced in most Church's. It is not an atheist attack on Christianity which appears to be what you think it is.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer March 27, 2017 9:37 AM  

Life, at least locally, impedes entropy. Hmmmm, perhaps from here u can get to schweirzerian life affirmation.... which is my crede.

Anonymous Avalanche March 27, 2017 9:39 AM  

@46 "The problem is they are talking thousands to tens of thousands of mutations that have to come together in the right sequence to simply achieve an eye. Once you have an eye, you have to have the software that actually can process what it sees. Their only solution is time. It takes vast amounts of time."

And yet nearly all PLANTS turn toward the sun.

Anonymous Avalanche March 27, 2017 9:42 AM  

@55 "The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, by our best estimates. So if a successful mutation takes "millions of years" there should have been a total of roughly 4500 successful mutation periods over it's lifetime. How many species have there been again?"

Cause, you know, just one at a time? "Get in line you mutations, it's not your turn yet"?!

Blogger Troy Lee Messer March 27, 2017 9:42 AM  

Schweitzerian

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 9:43 AM  

Rocklea wrote:James Dixon said:

"The laws of thermodynamics are not considered "assumptions" at this point."

Doin an awful lot of work for something at rest.


Reference frame is critical for essentially all of physics and thermodynamics. To even begin analyzing or solving something in physics, thermodynamics, engineering, you must first define the boundary conditions and reference frame even if that is implicit.
Interestingly enough one major question is, is there a “universal frame of reference in the universe?” Think of it as a single stationary stop we could hypothetically measure everything against. The current assumption is NO, but there is some debate on that point and changing that assumption massively changes our understanding of the universe. Frame of reference is a fundamental point in our understanding.
Much of the debate around the current EM drive is centered directly of the existence (or not) of a stationary frame of reference…..
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

Anonymous Whitey Whiteman III March 27, 2017 9:47 AM  

One of these days, Larry Auster's "Immaculate Asshole" Proof of God's Existence shall be surpassed.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 9:48 AM  

Troy Lee Messer wrote:Life, at least locally, impedes entropy. .

And so does a refrigerator by chilling the interior….. Yet the larger frame of reference, the room, gets hotter and the entropy of the larger room + refrigerator system increases
And no, you cannot cool off a room by leaving the refrigerator open…..

Anonymous Andrew E. March 27, 2017 9:48 AM  

There are three ways to explain the fossil record:
.
.
.
3) Evolutionary theory, which is itself evolving as new information is acquired.


Even honest believers (yes, believers) in Darwinian evolution stipulate that the fossil record, even today, does not show what it should show if the theory of evolution is true. Here is Michael Hart in a discussion with Lawrence Auster a number of years ago:

IV) Lack of intermediate forms

Darwin mentioned this problem himself in The Origin of Species. In chapter VI he says, “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?” Even more strikingly, he says in chapter XIV, “Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory.”

Darwin’s answer to this objection was the extreme imperfection of the geologic record, and in chapter IX he points out (correctly) that “only a small portion of the surface of the Earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care.” Darwin generally avoided making explicit predictions, but implicit in his statements is the prediction that if the geologic record were to be is examined more extensively then most—or at least many—of these “missing links” would be unearthed.

This was a plausible argument at the time when his book appeared, in 1859. However, in the intervening century and a half the number of individual fossils unearthed has risen 1000-fold, and alas, the gaps in the fossil record have not been filled in. Most fossils found in that time have been of species already known in Darwin’s time, and most of the new species discovered have been “siblings” to those already known, rather than ancestors. A few wholly different forms have been uncovered, but these are clearly not the intermediate forms that Darwin’s theory claims must have existed.

Anonymous Andrew E. March 27, 2017 9:48 AM  

For the most part, what the fossil record displays are various species, each of which arises suddenly (and is at the outset clearly distinct from any prior species), then persists virtually unchanged for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, and then eventually dies out. (An excellent discussion of the facts—replete with pictures—can be found in chapter 8 of Michael Denton’s book.) Instead of the fossil record providing proof of Darwin’s theory, it has mostly provided problems to be explained away!

Furthermore, according to Darwin’s theory, there must have been a larger number of intermediate forms between distinct genera of animals than between closely related species; and more intermediates still between higher divisions (such as families, classes, orders, and phyla). However, the fossil record does not bear out this prediction.

Worse still, in many cases we have not only failed to find the intermediate forms, but we cannot even imagine what they might have looked like. For example: What intermediate forms could we expect to find between the “in-and-out” airflow in the lungs of reptiles and mammals, and the “flow-through” design of the lungs of birds? (Chapter 9 of Denton’s book discusses in detail this problem and similar ones.) Note also that, according to Darwin’s theory, each of the intermediate forms must be an improvement on the immediately preceding form (with regard to increasing the probability of survival and reproduction.)

Richard Dawkins—perhaps the most prominent and articulate defender of Darwinian theory—dismisses this objection by saying that our inability to envision the intermediate forms merely demonstrates our lack of imagination; and he urges us to believe that all such missing forms must have existed. Possibly he is correct; but plainly in this case he is the one who is saying (like the religious Christians he so denigrates), “believe and ye shall be saved.”

.
.
.
VI) Why, then, do I believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution?
.
.
.
2) It is reasonable to suppose that a good explanation for the so-far mysterious lack of intermediate forms will eventually be found.


http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009899.html

Now that is rare honesty from a believer in Darwinian evolution.

Blogger yoghi.llama March 27, 2017 9:49 AM  

Back in 1996, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould posited …

Why should I believe anything at all in this article?

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 9:49 AM  

I find that reading Lovecraft helps with trying to understand the immensity of the time and sheer physical scale of the universe.

It is not just a long time. It is such a long time that your brains most likely never comprehended it before.

But I'm afraid goatmen are unlikely,as much an improvement they would be over the current version.

Eugenics and Evolution are sides of the same coin. That is why liberals nowdays love "new age" magic and "mother gaia created us all equally" idiocity.

I also did not say that one mutation takes a million years. I said that the process can take millions of years. But I guess that was too high brow.

Now, what we would need for goatmen to eventually evolve and why they wouldn't evolve?
-First, we would need to need to be hairy again to save us from the cold. But we already invented clothes that do it better.
-Second, we would need headbutting to become the courting process. More romantic than flowers, right?
-Third, we would need to somehow get hooves, which does not sound very practical for a two legged animals.
-Finally, goatmen do not make sense, because they are the fictional imagination of zoophiliac greeks.

Now, religion is important. Atheists do not believe that, because they believe in some magical spirit of goodness that is in the human mind.
But lets frankly face it, religion exists to promote altruistic behavior for the good of the community at the expanse of the individual. It creates collectivism.
Mundane earthly laws only subjugate you to a penalty if you are caught. If you got a good lawyer and a good alibi, there is literally no downside to killing.

There is no koombaya spirit of good tolerance that will reward you with legos if you don't break the law. Humans are not inherently good and cuddly and all love. We are opportunist omnivores with all the cunning calculation such a species needs. But as excellent as that works in nature, in a civilised society it can become a hinderance if everybody goes around sneakily stabbing the other.

But here comes religion to the rescue! Police Jesus sees all, no matter how well you burned the evidence. He will put you in a fiery pit of torment. You can't escape this. Police Jesus is always watching you. Thus he provides the best deterrent from committing crimes and helps society function.

Now just keep religion out of science and let each do what it was supposed to do.

Blogger tz March 27, 2017 9:51 AM  

Most of the "age of the earth" is from models not unlike climate change models (It's old, but a dinosaur fossil is 57,635,123.5 years old? No). Same with Darwin - they have 1% speculative data and 99% mythology. More models.

OT - Silly Valley's convergence continues apace
It will take a few years, but they will collapse.

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 9:52 AM  

Why are there few intermediate forms?
I think a lot were found, actually. Especially hominids.

Why do species explode with numbers?
I think because this is trial and error. Once you hit the correct form, it explodes until the environment changes too much and it goes extinct.

Just take an invasive species like the rat, and put it in an environment it is very suited to. It will breed like a migrant.

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 9:53 AM  

78: Your mind is just too small to gasp such a long period of time. You need not be ashamed. In India they can't even gasp how to use a toilet.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 9:55 AM  

> There are three ways to explain the fossil record:

Only three? You have a very limited imagination.

> Cause, you know, just one at a time?

I said mutation periods, not single mutations. You can hypothesize as many active mutations ongoing in each period as you want. Let us know what you come up with.

> Apparently exceptions have been found at the micro and nano level...

OK, that's news to me. I'll have to do some reading when I have time. Thanks for the information. We'll see if changes are made or the exceptions are explained within the current laws. At the moment, the laws are still the best explanations we have though, and they've proven a lot more resilient than the theory of evolution.

Blogger Joshua_D March 27, 2017 9:56 AM  

The thing is, for those who believe in Jesus Christ, evolution is irrelevant. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but at the end of the day all Truth is in Christ. I'm confident that whatever humans discover, that Truth will fit in with the reality that God exists.

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 9:57 AM  

Micro and nano levels and below that are a whole new and exciting field of science, where the laws do behave differently.

Also, near absolute zero matter begins to act really, really weird, akin to how light is both particle and waveform.

Blogger Unknown March 27, 2017 9:57 AM  

Vox, are you seriously arguing against evolution's concept of derived and ancestral organisms? Really now? Are you just ignoring the developments of prokaryotes into eukaryotes, and other such obvious examples of types of organisms in the world becoming more complex over time? You are correct in the observation that evolution does not always lead to increased complexity, as streamlined phenotypes can have increased fitness and thus be selected for. This is consistent with biological theory, by the way, and does nothing to discredit it. All you appear to be doing is pointing out a few select hypotheses that turned out to be incorrect and then using it to discredit the entire field.

Using that logic, does the discovery of epigenetics discredit the field of traditional genetics? After all, it was long popularly believed that acquired traits could not possible be passed down, as that goes against Darwin's theory. But then it turns out that they can. It was also believed for a while that human DNA contained a lot of junk data, as its use was not obvious. But then they found it did do something. You can find plenty of falsified hypotheses like these, but you seem to be ignoring all the correct assumptions and hypotheses that genetics created (probably because they tend to be unremarkable) in order to come to a preconceived conclusion.

If I understand it right, you are arguing that biology is more baseless and wrong than other fields of science, which frankly sounds absurd. I'm guessing you're trying to compare it to climate science, but long-term climate science has no practical applications aside from the doomsday predictions you keep hearing, while biology's practical applications and historic achievements are immense. As a biology graduate, your view is a somewhat insulting.

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 9:59 AM  

Blessed is a mind too small for doubt, Joshua. I envy you for that certainty, for knowledge is the beginning of fear.

It is better not to look into the abyss and remain ignorant of its existence.
Unless you really, really love Lovecraftian horror like I do! Fair warning, prepare for existential dread.

Blogger The Z Blog March 27, 2017 10:00 AM  

@75, You could have saved yourself a lot of time by writing "Put me down for option #1" and left it at that.

Blogger tz March 27, 2017 10:00 AM  

@62. The garbage dump record shows far more clearly that cars evolved from the primitive model-T at the bottom, to the modern prius at the top.

The fossil record is data. Subject to interpretation. And it doesn't show Darwinian evolution (gradualism).

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 10:02 AM  

> I also did not say that one mutation takes a million years. I said that the process can take millions of years. But I guess that was too high brow.

Unless you're carefully defining your terms of what is a mutation and what is a mutation process, yes. The working assumption would be that a mutation is the result of a mutation process. From what you just said that's obviously not your definition.

> Most of the "age of the earth" is from models not unlike climate change models...

Yes. Which is why I said "best estimates"

Anonymous BBGKB March 27, 2017 10:03 AM  

4.Biologists have now found that the oldest living ancestor of animals, comb jellies, already had brain, nervous system, and muscles, and that sponges later lost those genes. Complexity was there at the start

What if blacks used to be smart, the "We werz kings" be accurate?

But I'm afraid goatmen are unlikely,as much an improvement they would be over the current version.

We already explained that (((reptilians))) don't actually have scales under their skin, its just a mental model that predicts how they will act.

Waving your hands and saying "simplicity kills" is not a rational argument.

For Chemo & radiation therapy its the specialized parts of the body that resist the poison/radiation the best. Cancer cells breed like nigglets & are more susceptible


OT:Darth Soros' forces in retreat in Macedonia
http://investmentwatchblog.com/brussels-and-soros-defeated-in-macedonia-after-anti-soros-protests-sweep-the-country/

Blogger Cail Corishev March 27, 2017 10:04 AM  

Simple observation of the complexity of plant and animal life reveals the theory of evolution as one of the most retarded pieces of BS ever believed by human beings.

Last year I went through a homeschool biology course that's considered almost college level, much more in-depth than what I had in high school. The high-level stuff like photosynthesis and the carbon cycle was complicated enough, but the more you dig down, the worse it gets. When I got to the part on how the cell works -- how strings of RNA are produced from DNA, and that RNA is used as blueprints to build proteins which then go about doing various jobs, and there are all these enzymes that have exactly the right structure for molecules to fit into so that certain processes can take place.... I thought, "And all this just happened? Because billions of years? You've gotta be kidding me."

Ultimately, the evolutionists are looking at all this complexity that we're just starting to understand, and throw up their hands and say, "It must have just happened." But you could just as easily throw up your hands and say, "God did it." The only reason to prefer the former over the latter is to remove God.

Blogger pyrrhus March 27, 2017 10:04 AM  

The whole "arrow" theory was ridiculous. Natural selection doesn't have a direction, it's just which genes and genomes survive in a given environment. For example, in our welfare State, the population is getting dumber and less capable at a fair pace, as the load of bad mutations builds up in the population. If we were to create an environment where only microbes could survive, that's what would exist.

Blogger praetorian March 27, 2017 10:06 AM  


> DNA
> sloppy work


Truly, midwits are precious.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 10:07 AM  

> Ultimately, the evolutionists are looking at all this complexity that we're just starting to understand, and throw up their hands and say, "It must have just happened." But you could just as easily throw up your hands and say, "God did it." The only reason to prefer the former over the latter is to remove God.

A very accurate summarization of our current understanding, yes. :)

This doesn't mean we should keep trying to understand. It doesn't even mean species don't differentiate over time (the original basis of Darwin's theory). It means reality is a lot more complex than our understanding of it.

Blogger S1AL March 27, 2017 10:08 AM  

"Why are there few intermediate forms?
I think a lot were found, actually. Especially hominids.

Why do species explode with numbers?
I think because this is trial and error. Once you hit the correct form, it explodes until the environment changes too much and it goes extinct."

You don't even understand the question. The issue with "explosion" is the quantity of species, not quantity of "a species".

And no, the hominid record contradicts all expectations. Based on environment, humans should never have come to exist.

Blogger Joshua_D March 27, 2017 10:08 AM  

Balázs Varga wrote:Blessed is a mind too small for doubt, Joshua. I envy you for that certainty, for knowledge is the beginning of fear.

It is better not to look into the abyss and remain ignorant of its existence.

Unless you really, really love Lovecraftian horror like I do! Fair warning, prepare for existential dread.


Ahh yes, lift your large burden of vast knowledge onto your shoulders, and carry it proudly that we can all see how you labor.

Blogger Balázs Varga March 27, 2017 10:10 AM  

91: Just wait until the Chinese or the Russians get their hands on that DNA. Untainted by weaknesses like fundamentalism, social justice or morals, they will make the supersoldier that will only need vodka and rice to survive.

Blogger Silly But True March 27, 2017 10:15 AM  

We can streamline that soldier even more: http://vinndistillery.com/products/vodka/

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 10:16 AM  

OT,

VD and clan take a look. They arent even pretending that they are little more than proto Brown Shirts...

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/lemons-gun-totin-left-wingers-demonstrate-trump-rally-bloodshed-on-the-horizon-9192965


The trump rally the other day was a nice step up for alt-right but the left WILL keep escalating.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 27, 2017 10:20 AM  

James

Those are not "our" best estimates; they're just someone's estimates. Some others agree with them, for whatever reason. Some others disagree with them, for whatever reason.

They are also built on unprovable axioms. Additionally, we know for certain that some portions of those axioms are false.

Just as one example, radioactive decay does not occur at the same uniform speed over time, but is highly variable.

Anonymous BBGKB March 27, 2017 10:22 AM  

Darn it grayman did you see me post that on GAB?

Armed Shitlibs in AZ state capital . Oh bloody hell they call themselves the Brown Berets, you can't make this stuff up.

Fighting men in heels high, in their hair Purple dye

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/lemons-gun-totin-left-wingers-demonstrate-trump-rally-bloodshed-on-the-horizon-9192965

Blogger William Meisheid March 27, 2017 10:32 AM  

Fenris Wulf: It's Boltzmann brains all the way down.

The more I read about it the more circular the reasoning seems. It still requires something like evolution, but only in areas ideally (an accidentally) situated for it, e.g., areas where negative entropy doesn't rule, at least temporarily. It sounds like a house of cards or a wheel within a wheel within a wheel that defies explanation and "just is" since you cannot see to the bottom to verify anything. It is a "matter of faith" so to speak. Welcome to wonderland.

Anonymous Dan March 27, 2017 10:38 AM  

"Entropy is directly at odds with evolutionary theory, and entropy is what the universe around us demonstrates. Things fall apart over time, they don't build themselves over time."

Right. This is easier for me to think about in terms of pure physics. If everything tends to disorder, why is there any order at all?

Anonymous Andrew E. March 27, 2017 10:38 AM  

@75, You could have saved yourself a lot of time by writing "Put me down for option #1" and left it at that.

The correct answer is easy. It was your unmentioned option 4) We don't know.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 10:44 AM  

Speaking of the "magic" of life, one of the mysteries I always found fascinating was that all life is right-handed.... That is all of the biological material is "right-handed"...


The basic molecules that make up all living things have a predetermined chirality or "handedness," similar to the way people are right- or left-handed. This chirality has a profound influence on the chemistry and molecular interactions of living organisms.

If you run a chemical reaction in a beaker, the same reaction a biological organism would run, the beaker will produce both left and right handed molecules. the Biological process only produces right-handed...

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 10:47 AM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:James

Those are not "our" best estimates; they're just someone's estimates. Some others agree with them, for whatever reason. Some others disagree with them, for whatever reason.

They are also built on unprovable axioms. Additionally, we know for certain that some portions of those axioms are false.

Just as one example, radioactive decay does not occur at the same uniform speed over time, but is highly variable.



Source????? News to me. Beyond perhaps talking about the inflationary period of the early universe. Yeh, I struggle with that too it. I cant disprove it but inflation seems contrived and not a very elegant approach.

Blogger William Meisheid March 27, 2017 10:48 AM  

Joshua_D: Time is magic like that.

Yes, time is the magic dirt of evolution. The argument is "it is" so it happened, so any explanation on how it happened will work itself out with the magic dirt of time. You just have to wait for it...well not you, you will be long gone dust, but it will happen...the magic dirt of time says so.

Blogger Ron March 27, 2017 10:52 AM  

@Resident Moron


Because we all know that, whenever we want to create something new and useful, we just throw immense amounts of uncontrolled energy at it.


Great rebuttal. And the word "uncontrolled" got me thinking.

What if we thought of information as a form of energy? Controlled energy, is energy with information attached, that is, direction and purpose. Then that would be another form of energy.

An analogy would be this, which is more powerful, the bible or the neutron bomb? One would say the neutron bomb. But someone with more brains realizes that the bible is what motivates the pilot to press the button that activates the bomb or deactivates the bomb. Thus the bible which is a form of controlled, directed energy has more power than the energy contained in the neutron bomb (which in itself was assembled via thought and intention).

Blogger Cail Corishev March 27, 2017 10:52 AM  

There are three ways to explain the fossil record:

#4: God sprinkled some "transitional form" fossils around for the LOLz.

Blogger William Meisheid March 27, 2017 10:54 AM  

Grayman: The control of exothermic reactors in a series is a real world example of this.

Because someone designed it to be so. Exothermic reactors did not appear by accidental mutation. They were designed. We always end up back at the same point of a designer, of a first cause to all other causes. There is no extricating oneself from this.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 10:55 AM  

Dan wrote:"Entropy is directly at odds with evolutionary theory, and entropy is what the universe around us demonstrates. Things fall apart over time, they don't build themselves over time."

Right. This is easier for me to think about in terms of pure physics. If everything tends to disorder, why is there any order at all?



Scale is everything. You can have local order increase which subsequently increases the “regional” disorder. Also think of it in terms of energy. Entropy trend towards everything dropping to the lowest uniform temperature. Matter and energy is highly clumpy in the observable universe. The time scales needed for those clump “i.e. galaxies, galactic super clusters, down to stars and smaller” to interact and “degrade” to a uniform cold mass (also called the heat death of the universe) is on the order of 10^10000 years. You and I cannot really conceptualize a number that large. Human consciousness isn’t even a brief flash compared to the timescale of the greater workings of the universe.

Blogger Peter Jackson March 27, 2017 10:58 AM  

VD needs to stick to politics and economics, because clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about evolution. He uses these "critiques" of evolutionary theory, and straw men like "complexity must always increase" to justify his belief in God and Jesus.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 10:59 AM  

Grayman said:
"Reference frame is critical for essentially all of physics and thermodynamics. To even begin analyzing or solving something in physics, thermodynamics, engineering, you must first define the boundary conditions and reference frame even if that is implicit.
Interestingly enough one major question is, is there a “universal frame of reference in the universe?” Think of it as a single stationary stop we could hypothetically measure everything against."

A single stationary stop is the now. 'Time' is a subset of motion. What is a year? The length of time around the sun, yet each is unique, 'time' is useful for our perceptions. Bending of space/time? One may as well contort empty moments. So consider this, when the Universe moves, it is happening NOW, all at once, how can that be limited by something as slow as light? Understanding thermodynamics is great, means we can talk as we are now, but consider the input of a Carrington event. That would perhaps interrupt our communication. "But that doesn't disprove thermodynamics" you may say, well it depends on your reference frame, had you known of such an event you may engineered to account for it.

How does this relate to mutation? In the electric Universe model, things such as 'gravity' can depend on the input energy in the system. Wal Thornhill and Bob Talbot posit that Saturn was our original sun and was a lower energy system than our 'new' sun. The theory goes that we were electrically captured by the sun, a higher energy system, thus more 'gravity'. Things got heavier and the dinosaurs couldn't hack it. Interestingly, bio-mechanical engineers have concluded that dinosaurs, the big ones, could not have supported their own weight in what we understand as G as it is now. Consider the energy shells of things like neon etc in glow mode. Under such changed conditions might not life appear to 'leap' evolutionarily? Sounds wild I know, but Wal Thornhill has made many predictions when it comes to space exploration. You can check out electric universe at thunderbolts.info or their youtube channel ThunderboltsProject.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 11:00 AM  

> Those are not "our" best estimates; they're just someone's estimates

They're the estimates widely accepted by the same folks who accept evolution as a proven fact. When the figures they themselves accept illustrate the problems with the theory, why should I use ones they won't accept?

Anonymous p-dawg March 27, 2017 11:03 AM  

@rocklea:
My position that entropy is what happens is based on observation, not assumption. If you believe you can accurately report something which is immune to entropy, by all means, please do so.

Blogger Some Guy March 27, 2017 11:03 AM  

@James Dixon

"The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, by our best estimates. So if a successful mutation takes "millions of years" there should have been a total of roughly 4500 successful mutation periods over it's lifetime. How many species have there been again?"

That age is based on assumptions in the radiometric dating. We don't know how old the earth is. If all the assumptions used in the technique happen to be true, then the age of the earth is what you are saying it is. But there are a lot of assumptions.

Example: (Simple one)
Uranium Lead dating

There was only Uranium int the rock when it was formed
No Uranium was added to or taken from the rock
No Lead was added to or taken from the rock

If those assumptions are true then the radiometric dating technique is accurate. If even one of those is false, then the age of the rock can't be determined. These assumptions are in EVERY SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE. We don't know how old the earth is, we have guestimates at best and out right lies at worst.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 11:03 AM  

William Meisheid wrote:Grayman: The control of exothermic reactors in a series is a real world example of this.

Because someone designed it to be so. Exothermic reactors did not appear by accidental mutation. They were designed. We always end up back at the same point of a designer, of a first cause to all other causes. There is no extricating oneself from this.


Science doesn't answer WHY. It answers HOW. WHY is a matter of philosophy / religion. While science and religion/philosophy can be complimentary they answer 2 different questions.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 11:04 AM  

> VD needs to stick to politics and economics, because clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about evolution.

So you'll be eager to debate him on the subject at the first opportunity, right?

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 11:04 AM  

Ron wrote:@Resident Moron




What if we thought of information as a form of energy? Controlled energy, is energy with information attached, that is, direction and purpose. Then that would be another form of energy.

.


Google, information theory of the universe. It is how they are attempting to address some hard questions. It’s also how they attempt to address things like black holes, singularities, etc.

Anonymous Eric the Red March 27, 2017 11:05 AM  

Two questions always come to mind:

1) Is an extremely tiny theoretical probability that something will happen, actually consistent within the multivariate constraints of the real world?

2) Exactly what kind of evidence (or lack thereof) would it take for a Darwinist to change his mind and conclude that evolution is false?

Anonymous p-dawg March 27, 2017 11:05 AM  

@Ken Prescott: The universe *is* a completely closed system. Are you not familiar with the concept of "heat death", to which the entire universe will eventually succumb, without the directed introduction of energy from outside it?

Blogger Some Guy March 27, 2017 11:06 AM  

@Peter Jackson

"VD needs to stick to politics and economics, because clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about evolution."

No one understands the first thing about evolution because all of the predictions it makes come out false. He can do whatever he wants because the science doesn't back evolution when you get into the techniques themselves. Read 114

Blogger Some Guy March 27, 2017 11:07 AM  

"2) Exactly what kind of evidence (or lack thereof) would it take for a Darwinist to change his mind and conclude that evolution is false?"

Nothing, it's not about science, it's about their religion.

Blogger Stan Erickson March 27, 2017 11:14 AM  

Wow! The OP and comments are beautiful examples of how hard people will argue, using whatever intellectual capabilities they have, in favor of whatever they learned as pre-rational children. More proof that the only way to change the population's views on science is to wait one or more generations. Thank you all..

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 11:16 AM  

Rocklea wrote:Grayman said:

"Reference frame is critical for essentially all of physics and thermodynamics. To even begin analyzing or solving something in physics, thermodynamics, engineering, you must first define the boundary conditions and reference frame even if that is implicit.

Interestingly enough one major question is, is there a “universal frame of reference in the universe?” Think of it as a single stationary stop we could hypothetically measure everything against."

A single stationary stop is the now. 'Time' is a subset of motion. What is a year? The length of time around the sun, yet each is unique, 'time' is useful for our perceptions. Bending of space/time? One may as well contort empty moments. So consider this, when the Universe moves, it is happening NOW, all at once, how can that be limited by something as slow as light? Understanding thermodynamics is great, means we can talk as we are now, but consider the input of a Carrington event. That would perhaps interrupt our communication. "But that doesn't disprove thermodynamics" you may say, well it depends on your reference frame, had you known of such an event you may engineered to account for it.

How does this relate to mutation? In the electric Universe model, things such as 'gravity' can depend on the input energy in the system. Wal Thornhill and Bob Talbot posit that Saturn was our original sun and was a lower energy system than our 'new' sun. The theory goes that we were electrically captured by the sun, a higher energy system, thus more 'gravity'. Things got heavier and the dinosaurs couldn't hack it. Interestingly, bio-mechanical engineers have concluded that dinosaurs, the big ones, could not have supported their own weight in what we understand as G as it is now. Consider the energy shells of things like neon etc in glow mode. Under such changed conditions might not life appear to 'leap' evolutionarily? Sounds wild I know, but Wal Thornhill has made many predictions when it comes to space exploration. You can check out electric universe at thunderbolts.info or their youtube channel ThunderboltsProject.


First, I cant type…. “stop’ should be “point”. As best we understand at this point you cannot separate time and space, the whole “spacetime” thing that Einstein wouldn’t shut up about ;)

In general I am all for constructive debate and criticism. A big part of my job in engineering and tech, is proving why people are wrong then fixing their “systems” so that they work. I am definitely fascinated by the “electric universe” idea it has some very interesting predications including solar dynamics within the sun.

At the end of the day, all we can do is observe the world and test our models, improving them as needed. The human predilection for religion is troublesome because it causes us to view our scientific models,( that’s what they are as we do not directly perceive the “real world” we perceive it through our biological filters) as religion instead of just the current best guess that will have to be updated.

For example it is rapidly becoming mainstream that gravity works very differently at extreme distances, not like we perceive at our local scale, they though is that gravity may be repulsive or have repulsive components at extreme distance.

Blogger FUCK GOOGLE March 27, 2017 11:18 AM  

There are some pretty big assumptions in your original post. I have looked and haven't seen any proof of "most mutations cause a loss in complexity". So far, it looks like increasing/decreasing complexity isn't much of a factor in what mutations are viable - if a mutation makes an organism more fit, then it will be selected for - whether or not it increases or decreases complexity.

There is definitely a widespread problem both inside science and in the population at large to believe that theories that have survived for some time are 100% immutable truth, rather than just our best approximation. Evolution and gravity are both theories that are almost certainly woefully incomplete, though still useful nonetheless. But way too many scientists and laymen alike fall for the trap of thinking that whatever evidence we find must be tailored to fit into the framework of these major existing theories.

Another good example is dark matter. It's possible that dark matter DOES exist in some form (less than stellar mass primordial black holes or some weakly interacting particle) but it's also likely that our theory of gravity is incomplete. Gravity may be an emergent phenomenon rather than a fundamental one, or at least the effect of an emergent phenomenon that we don't understand yet.

Max Planck famously said that "Science moves forward one funeral at a time" and it definitely seems that he is correct, at least when it comes to major theories.

Anonymous Dan March 27, 2017 11:19 AM  

I wrote, "If everything tends to disorder, why is there any order at all? "

Grayman wrote,
"Scale is everything. You can have local order increase which subsequently increases the “regional” disorder. "

That is a patronizing non-answer. I studied physics at Cornell. I did not talk about local or regional order. I talked about order generally.

Of course it is possible to move order from one place to another, losing some in the process. That is no insight to me. There is plainly a tremendous amount of order in the Universe, even as everything seems to tend toward disorder.

So THAT order was there in THE BEGINNING? Oh, interesting.

OpenID b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 March 27, 2017 11:19 AM  

The idea that chaos and genetic mutation would not only create order, but would create a more complex order, seems ludicrous as soon as you think about it for more than five minutes. Of course, most people don't think about anything for more than five minutes.

I know that Earth is not a closed system in that it receives a lot of energy from the sun and the occasional meteorite. But evolution always seemed like pushing a rock up the 2nd law of thermodynamics hill. It seems remarkably convenient that they teach the theory of evolution before the 2nd law in secondary school.

WillBest

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 11:20 AM  

> We don't know how old the earth is, we have guestimates at best and out right lies at worst.

Seriously, what part of best estimates and target audience is escaping people today?

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 11:25 AM  

> @Ken Prescott: The universe *is* a completely closed system.

Our current working assumption is that it probably is, but I believe there's actually a fair amount of debate on the matter. Stickwick could tell us more.

> The OP and comments are beautiful examples of how hard people will argue, using whatever intellectual capabilities they have, in favor of whatever they learned as pre-rational children.

Within my memory, I was never a "pre-rational child". That may not apply to anyone else, of course.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 11:28 AM  

@ Grayman
Universalizing is how we make things work locally. Given that we know Universal human rights to be a nonsense, perhaps the same can be said for the big bad universe. Perhaps mostly universal until it isn't:) or as you say updated knowledge.

Anonymous Grayman March 27, 2017 11:28 AM  

Dan wrote:I wrote, "If everything tends to disorder, why is there any order at all? "

Grayman wrote,

"Scale is everything. You can have local order increase which subsequently increases the “regional” disorder. "

That is a patronizing non-answer. I studied physics at Cornell. I did not talk about local or regional order. I talked about order generally.

Of course it is possible to move order from one place to another, losing some in the process. That is no insight to me. There is plainly a tremendous amount of order in the Universe, even as everything seems to tend toward disorder.

So THAT order was there in THE BEGINNING? Oh, interesting.



Cangrats on Cornell, really. If everything tends to disorder, why is there any order at all? That is a philosophical question not a scientific one. Science as you well know having studied physics at that level answer the questions of mechanism not the question or reason.

Blogger Phelps March 27, 2017 11:35 AM  

"How many scientific theories can produce so many predictions that are completely proven wrong, so many hypotheses that are falsified, and still be considered orthodox dogma that one must be a madman or a barbarian to question?"

"Climate Change" for one.

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 11:35 AM  

Not to mention probability, virtually any mutation kills you or decreases you biological functions. Most of mutations are actually neutral, they don't do anything and Also, diploid beings have a back up copy, so that mutation won't the destructive. The so called bening mutation is usually do to cease of function in the genes. That's how bacteria survive different anti booties, not caused they increase complexity, but because they decrease it. This so called scientists can use time as an excuse. Add time and all this non sense is possible, the only case that somehow supports them are bacteria. But we have never seen a bacteria turn into something else other than a bacteria. This theory ask us to belive you can spread parts of a computer all over a desert, those parts will somehow meet each other in the correct order, re assable in a functional way, form the code to run and get an energy supply, and finally take a part of them and construct a new copy of themselves. It's a crude example, but no one can belive a computer like a Mac book will ensamble itself, code and all, if we just leave it be for millions of years. If anyone wants to show me evidence that would be great, so far I think this theory has been bullshit for far too long. It's time to change the paradigm. The problem is academia is controlled by the secular anti Christian mob (tons of Jews here). If you take that down, a lot of their plans will come crashing down. Let's not forget who the so called science and scientists are in service of, the government

Anonymous Dan March 27, 2017 11:38 AM  

Grayman wrote:

"Cangrats on Cornell, really. If everything tends to disorder, why is there any order at all?"
and
"That is a philosophical question not a scientific one."

No, that is a cop-out.

It is indeed a scientific question, but one that science has been unable to answer to my knowledge. Science can give us plenty of examples where disorder seems to increase in the whole system. Can we think of any examples where order disorder decreases in the whole system? I don't know of any.

And yet here we are.

Blogger William Meisheid March 27, 2017 11:39 AM  

One way to look at DNA, both the genes and the code that orchestrates their activity (the plant and the operating system that runs it) is to look at computer code and the activity of designing, coding, and debugging code.

Random errors introduced into code do not make the code better; generally they crash it or cause problematic anomalies, but I would argue even if you expect a beneficial error, it would take an awful lot of random errors (millions and millions) to find even one that worked in any meaningful way and could be passed on to the next iteration. That is for one anomaly in one small segment of code.

Evolution is not talking about that. It is talking about writing whole brand new routines and subroutines that work and work well enough to run without crashing the system and work with all the necessary interfaces to other systems that must work with that "adaptation".

The probability and time required to go through even a simple successful mutation is enormous, much less to go from single celled creatures to me.

When looked at from a programming perspective, coupled with system engineering requirements, and the simple reality of if time is the debugger it doesn't get debugged, means to me, without a programmer/designer/engineer all of this is impossible, not to mention the problems that black box systems add into the equation.

Rail all you want but real facts are real inconvenient facts.

Blogger Silly But True March 27, 2017 11:40 AM  

@p-dawg: "without the directed introduction of energy from outside it?"

The assumption of the universe being closed is just that. Also could be too narrowly limiting the system to not include the source of introduced energy.

That is, it doesn't do anything to say the universe is closed system, but God (or an "external shot of energy") can boost the entropic energy to stave off heat death.

We've just now defined a larger model exists, say multiverse that includes that closed universe plus other energy. Amd understanding of that model is now more important than our closed pocket universe.

Whether that new external energy comes in form of spontaneous boost of entropic power, an act of God to save His chosen people, or superheroes from another universe, doesn't much matter.

It's just moving the goal post on the real question.

Also, what happens if universe both suffers an entropic heat death (everything freezes out due to literal death of heat) as well as a blue-shifted collapse to singularity thereby causing a fiery destruction of the universe as volume collapses to infinitely small and temperature spikes to infinitely high;
I suppose the average temperature for observers of that event would be comfortably mild.

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 11:41 AM  

Rocklea wrote:Grayman said:

"Reference frame is critical for essentially all of physics and thermodynamics. To even begin analyzing or solving something in physics, thermodynamics, engineering, you must first define the boundary conditions and reference frame even if that is implicit.

Interestingly enough one major question is, is there a “universal frame of reference in the universe?” Think of it as a single stationary stop we could hypothetically measure everything against."

A single stationary stop is the now. 'Time' is a subset of motion. What is a year? The length of time around the sun, yet each is unique, 'time' is useful for our perceptions. Bending of space/time? One may as well contort empty moments. So consider this, when the Universe moves, it is happening NOW, all at once, how can that be limited by something as slow as light? Understanding thermodynamics is great, means we can talk as we are now, but consider the input of a Carrington event. That would perhaps interrupt our communication. "But that doesn't disprove thermodynamics" you may say, well it depends on your reference frame, had you known of such an event you may engineered to account for it.

How does this relate to mutation? In the electric Universe model, things such as 'gravity' can depend on the input energy in the system. Wal Thornhill and Bob Talbot posit that Saturn was our original sun and was a lower energy system than our 'new' sun. The theory goes that we were electrically captured by the sun, a higher energy system, thus more 'gravity'. Things got heavier and the dinosaurs couldn't hack it. Interestingly, bio-mechanical engineers have concluded that dinosaurs, the big ones, could not have supported their own weight in what we understand as G as it is now. Consider the energy shells of things like neon etc in glow mode. Under such changed conditions might not life appear to 'leap' evolutionarily? Sounds wild I know, but Wal Thornhill has made many predictions when it comes to space exploration. You can check out electric universe at thunderbolts.info or their youtube channel ThunderboltsProject.



could you please direct me to the article about dinosaurs not being able to support their own weight?

Because if this is plausible, the implications about energy states are absolutely staggering... opening up possibilities in physics based upon energy states that suggest everything from artificial gravity to faster-than-light travel.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop March 27, 2017 11:42 AM  

Dire Badger wrote:Heck, for all we know there may be even a third option... perhaps the universe has a set of 'blueprints' that encourage certain complex designs without engaging natural selection at all, for example.

That hypothesis has quite a bit of evidence. Stuff shows up "as if from ideas plucked form the air". I'll have more woo on that in an Otherscience Story later this summer. http://www.castaliahouse.com/category/otherscience-stories/
Here's a very short list of woo- http://www.greeningearth.info/ice-age.html

I am more inclined to believe in the possibility either alien breeding programs or the grand simulation hypothesis

Our entire Universe is actually just a sim being run on a giant computer named Turtle. But Turtle isn't actually a real computer, it's merely an emulation being run on an even bigger computer, coincidentally also named Turtle. And that Turtle of course is also just a sim running on an even bigger sim (also named Turtle), and it's Turtles all the way up.

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 11:53 AM  

The mechanism for the so called change is still shit, inefficient. It's not a proper one to see all the life in our planet. Even if millions of years have passed (something questionable), it's still the most inefficient mechanism. The day someone actually has some evidence, it can be discussed. So far in our recorded history we have never seen a major biological change in an organism unless we forced it through selective breeding, and still dogs only can produce other dogs. The theory has to be severely modified or die, it's current form is a joke

Blogger Silly But True March 27, 2017 11:53 AM  

@Forrest...
If the universe is a closed system _and_ given the continued evolution of computational power: at a point so relatively far in future - assuming infinitely far in future, whereby the computational power available can model the entirety of all information that has ever existed, why couldn't that be relatively seen as scientific proof of resurrection?

I mean computer emulative models isn't quite what authors of the New Testament likely had in mind, but at that point, there would effectively be no difference.

OpenID anonymos-coward March 27, 2017 11:54 AM  

Darwinism violates the central limit theorem, one of the most fundamental laws of probability in the universe.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 11:54 AM  

> ...could you please direct me to the article about dinosaurs not being able to support their own weight?

http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dinosaurs01.htm

For a counterview, see http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/how-did-the-huge-dinosaurs-cope-with-gravity-and-loads-on-bones-etc

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 11:56 AM  

@ Dire Badger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okMOfYcbdI8
thunderbolts video on dinosaurs

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky March 27, 2017 11:57 AM  

Well, their best explanation for the Cambrian Explosion was the Complexity Threshold Thesis. And you have to really question that now, since their whole assumption about ever increasing complexity looks pretty thin right now.


Anonymous BBGKB March 27, 2017 11:58 AM  

One thing I know for sure about evolution is that it didn't stop in the neck in humans. When I was a leftist I believed if Latrina squatted out her crackbabies in a rice paddy they would have the same odds of getting perfect SATS as Asians

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 11:59 AM  


No kidding... The possibilties of an 'imprint' universe also doesn't even start to counter the other theories, and even lends weight to some weird fantasy possibilities where people could manipulate universal patterns to achieve otherwise supernatural effects.

The much vaunted 'eye' for example... perhaps it was designed or evolved at some place in the universe long ago, and the design was so successful that it imprinted the blueprint for 'eye' upon the galaxy... so that later lifeforms naturally adapted the 'eye' despite the fact that the evolutionary timespan involved was far, far too short to create such an elegant AND complex refinement.

It lends weight to both evolution and intelligent design... I have long been of the opinion that the two were not necessarily exclusive.

Now I need to write a story too.

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 12:00 PM  

That would be fun, but no matter the amount of God fucking you are into, you won't produce a faun. That's what evolution asks you to belive, but even slower and more stupid. Not to mention even if you had a so called good mutation, it would have to survive, reproduce and spread in time. And would a woman fuck a man goat if they saw one? Chances are no, she won't even see him as his own species, but then, woman can be pretty crazy

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 12:01 PM  

@ Forrest Bishop
Elephants, you forgot the elephants, can't expect turtles to do it on their own.

Blogger Jose March 27, 2017 12:01 PM  

Forrest Bishop wrote:Our entire Universe is actually just a sim being run on a giant computer named Turtle. But Turtle isn't actually a real computer, it's merely an emulation being run on an even bigger computer, coincidentally also named Turtle. And that Turtle of course is also just a sim running on an even bigger sim (also named Turtle), and it's Turtles all the way up.

Incorrect! Our universe is carried by four elephants, standing on the back of the great Turtle A'Tuin, swimming forever in the Ocean of Existence.

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 12:04 PM  

Transition forms should be the here by the millions. Yet, there are virtually none, and the so called one's, how can you prove they are in transition? The theory has too many problems, I can't belive its still teached

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 12:05 PM  

@bbgkb-

I am right with you. It wasn't until I had time (Post retirement) to actually THINK about stuff like that that I started noticing that common ideology was leftist...and that leftism not only had holes so big that you could drive a truck through them, but rather was composed almost entirely OF hole.

It really is a religion, and a poorly-designed one at that. It evolved into infinite complexity, but each evolutionary step introduced erroras that would have killed an organic system.

Blogger Jack Ward March 27, 2017 12:06 PM  

49. Avalanche
I like it. The Bible says beat those swords into plowshares. Reminds me of the dialog in Ben Hur where the Shiek says of Balthasar,'Balthasar is a good man. Until all men are like him we must keep our swords sharp' paraphrased the last part of that.

Blogger Mocheirge March 27, 2017 12:07 PM  

You're all missing the obvious problem here: separating things into ordered/non-ordered or simple/complex is entirely anthropocentric. All these categorizations are tainted by a patriarchal perspective that neglects non-humxn points of view. Whether we are predicting complex organisms arising from simple ones, or we are expecting complex organisms to lose functions over time, we are falling into the trap of speciesism perpetuated (perpetrated?) by white males with unchecked privilege. Does the manatee look at a sponge and conclude that the sponge is "simpler"? No; I have yet to read a scholarly essay from a manatee's point of view making this claim. And this should be the ideal we all strive toward: judging organisms not by our own definitions of complexity but rather accepting their own chosen complexities, which may differ per individual on a daily basis. To do any less would lead to global catastrophe. If we assume entropy/chaos increases over time, we are causing anthropogenic global warming. If we assume order/simplicity, we contribute to anthropogenic global cooling. Truly, the only successful path is to allow every creature and non-creature ("creature" is a terribly autophobic word that implies a "creator") to choose its entropy levels, thus diffusing complexity throughout our planet.

tl;dr
DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY COMPLEXITY?

Anonymous SaltHarvest March 27, 2017 12:09 PM  

William Meisheid wrote:Re: "alien breeding programs or the grand simulation hypothesis"

So the real question is: "Where did the aliens doing the breeding come from or the programmers creating the grand simulation come from?" Moving the goal posts back one playing field doesn't change the fundamental question one bit, it just allows temporary obfuscation.


Sure. Just get in a private spaceship and go ask the inhabitants of Orion.

Blogger Chiva March 27, 2017 12:10 PM  

"All these categorizations are tainted by a patriarchal perspective that neglects non-humxn points of view."

Yes, what does those elephants on the turtle's back think?

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 12:10 PM  

Like if intelligent beings are excempt of doing mistakes, or maybe they want those so called mistakes. You never know, but you like assuming way too much shit, I been to collage way too many years, many intelligent idiots there

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 12:12 PM  

Was university EVER about learning to THINK rather than learning to memorize?

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 12:14 PM  

Somehow conveniently, every so called transition form is dead. Even in the fossil registry they are scarce and there is no solid way to prove transition. Homologue design doesn't necessarily mean transition, it can mean same designer as well

Blogger Cicatrizatic March 27, 2017 12:15 PM  

@89 Cail Corishev

The problem boils down to randomness, and thus, as always, the ultimate issue becomes the philosophical meaning of a term.

Darwinian evolution: Random mutation + time + natural selection

When Darwinists use the term "random", they probably mean purposeless and unguided, i.e. that mutations happen, they don't appear to follow any pattern, therefore they are random. Occasionally they increase fitness and thus are selected for. So the theory goes.

Biology textbooks describe mutations as DNA copying errors. They also describe DNA as a code, more specifically, the sequencing of base pairs are a code.

New research reveals that DNA follows the laws of digital communications:

http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/2015/09/15/the-mathematical-structure-of-dna/

"We have shown that DNA has sequences that follow the same mathematical structures and rules as digital communication,' says Márcio de Castro Silva Filho, from the Genetics Department of the Luiz de Queiroz School of Agriculture (ESALQ) at USP."

In digital communications theory, corruptions of code never improve transmission. Nor is time + corruptions of code your friend; given more time, and more corruptions, the transmission simply becomes worse, never better.

I listened to a debate between Perry Marshall and PZ Myers. Marshall puts forward the above comparison of DNA transmission to digital communications theory. Myers simply waives it way, "wrong paradigm", "doesn't apply here".

Yet new research shows that it does. Myers wants to cling to randomness as a base level property and call the discussion to an end. In reality, it was a placeholder.

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 12:19 PM  

If I put a chihuahua and a wolf in the he fossil registry you would probably say there is good evidence of transition from chihuahua to wolf. Again, it's all based in very weak evidence

OpenID aeolipera March 27, 2017 12:23 PM  

Neo-Darwinism served its purpose as a weapon directed at Western religiosity. Why would anyone care to maintain such a costly tool? Now is the time for new religions.

Anonymous instasetting March 27, 2017 12:26 PM  

I'm happy to see the Evos getting torn up.

1. Churchian....Who is more likely to say 'We should let women preach.'? A. "The Bible is a nice story with useful ideas in it." B. "The Bible is the infallible Word of God to Man."

The Evos are the Churchians.

2. In my book, I had uncontrolled energy, chemicals, and water that led to evolution, or....toss the dead guy into the toilet water storage, and toss in a grenade. Presto....live guy. Praise Evolution!

3. #13 Very good. Also, for another, information and heat can be calculated with the same formula, I hear.

4. Its nice not to have to listen to 'but 10 to the 50' is still possible arguments.

5. #19. Our genetic errors come from evolution, or as it is more properly known, devolution, or genetic entropy. Another factor is that our universe is finite, and all creatures inside it are finite, so all creatures will have limits. You are asking why didn't God make us Boeing 757s when he made us cars.

6.The Fossil Record rather strongly fights Evolution. Even in Darwin's day, his most powerful enemies were the 'bone men'.

7. I'm hoping for a preference cascade like in the Velvet Revolution. Say, in the space of two years, all gov't funds are redirected to what little we have to have, and then without constant propaganda, the whole castle of cards falls down, and everyone walks away.

What it might require is a Reagan and a Gorbachev. Gorbachev serves the purpose of trying to fix the system, and thus open it to instability. Bold pressure from the outside, and a lack of faith inside (who wants to be the last idiot to die for a mistake?), and poof.

Likely, most of the evos nowadays will be telling their grandchildren they never believed in It.

Anonymous SaltHarvest March 27, 2017 12:28 PM  

Rocklea wrote:
Would not such a being wish for it's creation to be adaptable to change in it's environment? Or would not such an advanced being be wary of creating that which could rival Him?


A lot of them were probably unwilling to adapt to increase their fitness. Plus, why should we be fitness-shaming when every creature has a place in this world!

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 12:30 PM  

Yeah, cause seculars views have made the world so much better right?

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 12:34 PM  

If the time dating theory dies, then all of this none sense does with it. The only thing that have saved their asses is time. It's measurements are very questionable the farther we go back

Blogger DrChaos March 27, 2017 12:35 PM  

Try evolving The Three Little Pigs into Animal Farm one letter or punctuation mark at a time, with every intermediate story making sense. (And I'll throw in the alphabet and the English language for free.)

Blogger Kentucky Packrat March 27, 2017 12:39 PM  

@48: @32: IIRC, there's good fossil records for the development of birds, and even more for the horse.

You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The horse is the perfect example of the failure of the consensus neo-Darwinian explanation. At first, the four-toed horses were first, and then the third-toed came later. Then they started finding three-toed horses earlier and earlier. Then they found "later" three-toed horses well before their "ancestors" appeared in the record. Nothing "known" 20 years ago was the least bit right.

Birds are rapidly approaching the same state. There are now older bird fossils than some of the original candidates for dinosaur ancestors. The "feathered dinosaurs" being found are at "newer" layers than older birds.

The only way the consensus TENS explanation works is to do a "we've always been at war with Eurasia" approach to the theories, and believe 8 impossible things before breakfast.

Anonymous SaltHarvest March 27, 2017 12:41 PM  

DrChaos wrote:Try evolving The Three Little Pigs into Animal Farm one letter or punctuation mark at a time, with every intermediate story making sense. (And I'll throw in the alphabet and the English language for free.) Or go form Collapsing Empire to Corroding Empire.

Blogger JP March 27, 2017 12:45 PM  

There's bacteria out there that can only digest Nylon. It may be inefficient, but when there's mind-bogglingly huge numbers at play, it can still work. Sometimes quantity has a quality of its own.

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 12:46 PM  

sexual selection has a lot more evidence than natural selection.

Anonymous SaltHarvest March 27, 2017 12:51 PM  

Dire Badger wrote:sexual selection has a lot more evidence than natural selection.

Wouldn't that be a distinction without a difference? (for life that reproduces sexually, at least)

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2017 12:51 PM  

As a Proterozoic geologist working on the geochemical traces of very early life, I have to say that the recent discovery of 4.4 Ga vent dwelling bacteria has really been a hand grenade lobbed into the latrine. Kicking back the start of life on Earth by 700 million years from previous theories is bad enough, but now it seems that you can have life on a planet less than 100 million years after planetary accretion? Insane! And it just worsens the fermi paradox.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 12:53 PM  

The blueprint theory is interesting, Rupert Sheldrake calls it Morphic Resonance. Would save a hell of a lot of time, and potentially mean that life is pretty much everywhere in the universe.

Blogger RobM March 27, 2017 1:01 PM  

Turtles... all the way down.... to the caverns.... where the goatmen thrive!

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 1:02 PM  

actually it's more an irritation with people that conflate 'natural selection' and 'sexual selection' with evolution.

The evolutionary theory has a ton of holes, true.. but natural selection and sexual selection have vastly fewer, because they are 'apples and oranges' rather than 'fruit..

I am not going to discard a theory's working parts simply because the whole does not work the way it should. What the evidence points to is neither 'pure' evolution nor pure creationism, but rather a hybrid such as 'guided evolution'.

Not every mutation leads automatically to death. Mutations often express in 'clumps'that, taken as a whole, have such a minor effect on the organism in it's chosen environment, that it takes an environmental alteration of great scale for those mutations to have a positive or negative effect on natural selection... and the law of 'unintended consequences' would be at full force in a randomized or even semi-randomized system.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. evolution may be flawed simply because we have no evidence of the underlying system... it does not have to be binary, 'randomness' or 'intelligent design'. That simply implies that we lack imagination.

Anonymous kHz March 27, 2017 1:02 PM  

@170 Heresy!

But yes, I've always found his morphic fields theory interesting as well.

Anonymous Viiidad March 27, 2017 1:05 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:Simple observation of the complexity of plant and animal life reveals the theory of evolution as one of the most retarded pieces of BS ever believed by human beings.

Last year I went through a homeschool biology course that's considered almost college level, much more in-depth than what I had in high school. The high-level stuff like photosynthesis and the carbon cycle was complicated enough, but the more you dig down, the worse it gets. When I got to the part on how the cell works -- how strings of RNA are produced from DNA, and that RNA is used as blueprints to build proteins which then go about doing various jobs, and there are all these enzymes that have exactly the right structure for molecules to fit into so that certain processes can take place.... I thought, "And all this just happened? Because billions of years? You've gotta be kidding me."

Ultimately, the evolutionists are looking at all this complexity that we're just starting to understand, and throw up their hands and say, "It must have just happened." But you could just as easily throw up your hands and say, "God did it." The only reason to prefer the former over the latter is to remove God.


Exactly. It's like looking at a bank of servers and imagining they could have just shown up and worked without a designer, yet that room represents much less complexity than what is exhibited in a single cell. Too many systems must function together and be existing simultaneously for evolution to work. Microevolution and adaptation: sure. No problem. That's just shuffling the potential around inside the deck. But the actual creation of life ex nihilo, then that life moving upwards over the aeons into insanely complex systems? Ridiculous. The DNA molecule alone blows the theory to pieces.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 1:08 PM  

kHz said:
"Heresy!

But yes, I've always found his morphic fields theory interesting as well."

Not necessarily Heresy, brings new meaning to the idea of 'made in the image of'.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat March 27, 2017 1:12 PM  

@164 Try evolving The Three Little Pigs into Animal Farm one letter or punctuation mark at a time, with every intermediate story making sense. (And I'll throw in the alphabet and the English language for free.)

Closer to reality: I challenge someone here to randomly change, add, or subtract 1 to 6 bytes of Word 2013 at a time, while keeping Word 2013 usable, until it changes itself to either Word 2016 or a non-word-processor program.

DNA in a cell is Turing equivalent, which means that DNA is a combination programming language and data store. Attempting to change bytes randomly is just as absurdly impossible as attempting to change one classic to another randomly. The concept that random feature changes are going to improve an organism by creating features rather than just breaking crap is absurd.

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 1:12 PM  

The Theory of Evolution is completely separate from the origin of life.

I don't think anyone BUT religion has a decent theory for the creation of 'life'. a bubbling soup of unknown random chemicals just doesn't cut it.

But even religion doesn't attempt to explain the origin of ALL life... just OUR life. Wondering aloud who or what created 'god', or even HOW God was created, was generally the province of Philosophers that were soon labelled heretics or blasphemers.

I disagree with the idea that there are 'things man was not meant to know'. If we were not intended to question, we would not be able to.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop March 27, 2017 1:12 PM  

Silly But True wrote:@Forrest...

If the universe is a closed system _and_ given the continued evolution of computational power: at a point so relatively far in future - assuming infinitely far in future, whereby the computational power available can model the entirety of all information that has ever existed, why couldn't that be relatively seen as scientific proof of resurrection?


We can't ever know if the Universe is open or closed. It's untestable. Assuming it's closed, your sim-within runs into the substrate problem. The hardware for the needed computer power exceeds the amount of matter available to construct the computer.

Putting that a different way, as an hypothesis:

The Universe operates in a state of maximal information compression at all scales. Any sim would therefore have to be be larger than the simulated system, at all scales. Consider the amount of juice required to simulate one atom.

And as for you Elephant Heretics, I shall not deign to reply. It is turtles and only turtles.

Anonymous Rocklea March 27, 2017 1:20 PM  

As if a turtle would deign to support a disc when it can have 16 soft padded feet to evenly distribute such weight. That is if one holds to the four elephant theory.

Blogger Cail Corishev March 27, 2017 1:21 PM  

New research reveals that DNA follows the laws of digital communications:

Yes, I got the same impression from my studies that they're very analogous. A string of ribosomal RNA, which was transcribed from a section of DNA, is used to assemble a protein that carries out a particular function. The assembly is much like a CPU carrying out instructions one-by-one: each codon (a set of three "letters" in the strand) corresponds to aa amino acid, and they are assembled in order until the ribosome hits a "stop" sequence. Voila, a new protein custom-built according to the instructions in your DNA, ready to do its thing for you.

If a mutation changes one of the letters in the sequence, you may get a different amino acid at that point. You may get a protein that doesn't work at all, or one that does something harmful, or one that could do something beneficial. But what are the odds that the change happens to be beneficial, AND your body has a way to take advantage of it, so that it can improve your reproductive viability? (A new protein that helps you filter salt out of sea water doesn't help you if you're a rabbit living in the middle of North America, after all.) Now how many times does that have to happen, in organisms that happen to pass on the mutation to offspring, before you get something like wings?

Blogger Dire Badger March 27, 2017 1:22 PM  

Forrest Bishop wrote:Silly But True wrote:@Forrest...

If the universe is a closed system _and_ given the continued evolution of computational power: at a point so relatively far in future - assuming infinitely far in future, whereby the computational power available can model the entirety of all information that has ever existed, why couldn't that be relatively seen as scientific proof of resurrection?


We can't ever know if the Universe is open or closed. It's untestable. Assuming it's closed, your sim-within runs into the substrate problem. The hardware for the needed computer power exceeds the amount of matter available to construct the computer.

Putting that a different way, as an hypothesis:

The Universe operates in a state of maximal information compression at all scales. Any sim would therefore have to be be larger than the simulated system, at all scales. Consider the amount of juice required to simulate one atom.

And as for you Elephant Heretics, I shall not deign to reply. It is turtles and only turtles.


Hmm... that is an interesting question, that assumes that the universe's maximum compression were coded... but what if it is uncoded?

If the universe contains common 'themes', that could be applied across all subsystems, couldn't it be considered more like object-oriented programming? ie each object does not have to be fully encoded, but simply has pointers to a default item?

As the complexity increases, so do the 'default' items... like in a computer game, where there is an engine for creating a default tree, but that tree (along with any pointers to a uniqueness randomiser) is replicated across the landscape, rather than each tree containing all the information for the 'tree' object?

Anonymous kHz March 27, 2017 1:25 PM  

@175

It's the smell of heresy that first attracted me to it. Sir John Maddox's remark that 'this infuriating tract ... is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years.'

Yes, in the theory we are a combination of the word and image, the info shaped by the image's form. You've reminded me that I bought the newer edition of 'a new science of life' a while ago and never finished it. I might wander back.

Anonymous SaltHarvest March 27, 2017 1:26 PM  

Forrest Bishop wrote:Silly But True wrote:@Forrest...

If the universe is a closed system _and_ given the continued evolution of computational power: at a point so relatively far in future - assuming infinitely far in future, whereby the computational power available can model the entirety of all information that has ever existed, why couldn't that be relatively seen as scientific proof of resurrection?


We can't ever know if the Universe is open or closed. It's untestable. Assuming it's closed, your sim-within runs into the substrate problem. The hardware for the needed computer power exceeds the amount of matter available to construct the computer.


I'm not sure how one would rectify a God-created cosmos with a closed cosmos.

Putting that a different way, as an hypothesis:

The Universe operates in a state of maximal information compression at all scales. Any sim would therefore have to be be larger than the simulated system, at all scales. Consider the amount of juice required to simulate one atom.


In the open case I think we would have to rule out the simulation sharing the same cardinality as the cosmos.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT March 27, 2017 1:32 PM  

@1 - Is number five false because of entropy? Mutations seems like a progression from order to disorder to me.

The entire theory is false because of entropy in the domain of information. You have to include that last part because inevitably some smug evolutionist will reply with "but muh Earth is teh open system!" After which he will sit back, cross his arms, and smile as if he just checkmated Bobby Fischer.

Which will probably happen any way. But at that point you can explain to him that...

* What we call "entropy" is an emergent property of statistical mechanics.

* Information and communication systems (i.e. genomes) are statistically similar to, yet distinct from, energy configurations of the universe (Shannon entropy vs. SLoT).

* The Big Bang happened to leave the universe in a state of relatively low energy entropy. However, it also left the universe in a near maximum state of information entropy. (Explosions tend to do that.)

* And finally, having plenty of energy available for work does not help a genome form in a chemical soup because in the domain of information undirected and uncontrolled energy is randomizing. Saying that energy from the sun could drive abiogenesis or evolution is like saying that a hard drive with a speaker magnet on it could not possibly be damaged, but must in fact be even better, because of all that magnetism.

Abiogenesis could not occur in this universe, nor could life seeded on a planet in this universe spontaneously gain new, functional information thanks to random mutations and natural selection. Mutation certainly changes a species (line of successive genomes) and can lead to adaptation via natural selection. But this happens due to changes in the expression and utilization of existing information, or sometimes even the loss of information. No new information forms this way.

Life did not originate here. And whether you believe in 7 day creation, billions of years, or some reconciliation of 7 days with billions of years (i.e. Schroeder), it's quite obvious that life was placed on Earth and was then repeatedly "upgraded." (If you think the age of the Earth presents statistical and temporal problems for evolution, try the timespan of the Cambrian explosion.)

Anonymous One Deplorable DT March 27, 2017 1:37 PM  

@3 - So the real question is: "Where did the aliens doing the breeding come from or the programmers creating the grand simulation come from?" Moving the goal posts back one playing field doesn't change the fundamental question one bit, it just allows temporary obfuscation.

Your error lies in the assumption that another universe has the same laws and the same spatial and temporal constraints as this universe.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 27, 2017 1:39 PM  

"The Bible says beat those swords into plowshares."

No, it doesn't.

Common myth, totally untrue.

Blogger Javier March 27, 2017 1:47 PM  

Pretty much this, no one argues that DNA and mutation exists. The problem is when you say that is the mechanism of evolution or origin of life, species, etc. Just the probability kills it, the odds are 1 in who knows how many billions

Blogger Joshua_D March 27, 2017 1:48 PM  

Dire Badger wrote:I disagree with the idea that there are 'things man was not meant to know'. If we were not intended to question, we would not be able to.

Being able to question != know all the things.

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. ...

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Anonymous SaltHarvest March 27, 2017 1:54 PM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:(If you think the age of the Earth presents statistical and temporal problems for evolution, try the timespan of the Cambrian explosion.,)

I can just imagine distant 'K-selecting' ancestors mutating the ability to eat other lifeforms out of existence and destroying the remains.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 27, 2017 2:10 PM  

"The OP and comments are beautiful examples of how hard people will argue, using whatever intellectual capabilities they have, in favor of whatever they learned as pre-rational children."

Some of us learned humility, too.

Blogger James Dixon March 27, 2017 2:11 PM  

> But the actual creation of life ex nihilo

As Dire Badger points out, technically the Theory of Evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life itself, merely how distinct species form.

Now, that doesn't stop some believers from trying to extend it in some way, but they're not working with the Theory of Evolution as such.

Blogger Silly But True March 27, 2017 2:16 PM  

This is of course the great point in Expelled during the Dawkins interview.

Dawkins will make up the craziest things including aliens seeding planets with life to avoid suggesting the zero point of human life is God.

He admits to not knowing the origin, but can somehow unequivocally rule out alternatives for which he also lacks any basis for doing so.

Anonymous Bowman March 27, 2017 2:19 PM  

Leftists can't think, so they cling to first (stupid) idea they can grasp, and then their only way forward is more of it.

Computer science progress ? More libraries & frameworks & layers on top of each other.

Evolution ? More genes.

Some issue in society ? More taxes, more laws.

They can't think rigorously, they can't observe, so their models are always wrong by a thousand miles.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 27, 2017 2:21 PM  

Grayman

that's a good question. I'll see if I can find the source (call me Neo).

Anonymous Deplorable me March 27, 2017 2:31 PM  

The platypus might not be evidence of intelligent design (maybe cosmic humor?), but Darwinists can't explain it either.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT March 27, 2017 2:35 PM  

@21 - One of my favorite wild-ass guesses from evolutionary theory is that DNA performs computations (we are building DNA computers ourselves, it's technically capable) and so most mutations are purposeful and not random.

It is conceivable that genomes are capable of directed self improvement. But such an algorithm would not only scream intelligent design, it would smash a baseball bat named intelligent design into the side of our heads.

I'm skimming over posts which are essentially repeating the claim "it could happen with enough time!" in regard to "good mutations." But "good mutations" are not the issue. The definition of "good" in this context is entirely arbitrary, based on the environment it exists in or even just the whims of the human observer.

Information bearing mutations are the issue. And you are about as likely to find an information bearing mutation as you are to discover that an ice cube in hot cocoa is getting colder while the cocoa gets hotter.

@31 - you are committing category errors which are common to any discussion of entropy. Energy configurations of the universe are distinct from physical configurations of atoms which we call "ordered" (and which sometimes are not actually "ordered" in the sense of entropy), both of which are distinct from information and communication systems, which themselves are arguably distinct from each other. (Information in a book and in a hard drive have similar, but not identical, statistical mechanics. You can show that random changes to either will follow the general predictions of entropy, but the precise formula will not be the same just like Shannon entropy is not identical to the second law.)

@40 - you're committing those category errors again. A number of things which we call "ordered" and "complex" are neither ordered nor complex from the perspective of entropy.

@61 - "The laws of thermodynamics are not considered "assumptions" at this point." Apparently exceptions have been found at the micro and nano level.

Entropy is an emergent property of statistics. Narrow the participants and you narrow the odds. But exceptions at the smallest level, or under the most narrow constraints, do not prove that there can be exceptions on the scales necessary for abiogenesis or for information bearing mutations.

@137 - SimUniverse, another quality product of the Elephant Games division of Turtle Software, Inc.

Blogger dav March 27, 2017 2:37 PM  

And the competing theory is what? The creation myths of a bunch of Middle Eastern bronze age goat herders? Why not Zeus? At least Greek mythology is fun.

1 – 200 of 257 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts