Pages

Saturday, January 26, 2019

TENS continues to degrade

Notice that the evolutionary skeptic's position has consistently proven to be more reliably scientifically post-predictive than the mainstream evolutionist position:
The observation that Galapagos finch species possessed different beak shapes to obtain different foods was central to the theory of evolution by natural selection, and it has been assumed that this form-function relationship holds true across all species of bird.

However, a new study published in the journal Evolution suggests the beaks of birds are not as adapted to the food types they feed on as it is generally believed.

An international team of scientists from the United Kingdom, Spain and the US used computational and mathematical techniques to better understand the connection between beak shapes and functions in living birds.

By measuring beak shape in a wide range of modern bird species from museum collections and looking at information about how the beak is used by different species to eat different foods, the team were able to assess the link between beak shape and feeding behaviour.

Professor Emily Rayfield, from the University of Bristol's School of Earth Sciences, and senior author of the study, said: "This is, to our knowledge, the first approach to test a long-standing principle in biology: that the beak shape and function of birds is tightly linked to their feeding ecologies."

Guillermo Navalón, lead author of the study and a final year Ph.D. student at Bristol's School of Earth Sciences, added: "The connection between beak shapes and feeding ecology in birds was much weaker and more complex than we expected and that while there is definitely a relationship there, many species with similarly shaped beaks forage in entirely different ways and on entirely different kinds of food.

"This is something that has been shown in other animal groups, but in birds this relationship was always assumed to be stronger."
I'm not even remotely surprised by this, although I am certainly amused given the central importance of bird beaks to the history of TENS. The more that biological science advances, particularly on the genetic front, the weaker, the less necessary, and the more obviously false the theory of evolution by natural selection is consistently proving to be.

86 comments:

  1. TENS is being abandoned by anyone whose livelihood is not directly linked to propagating the myth. For those who make their living off of taxpayers, university tuition fees and book sales to the gullible, it is rock solid, right up there with gravity and a heliocentric model.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A compelling and fun alternative hypothesis is Dr. Eugene McCarthy’s hybrid evolution hypothesis: www.macroevolution.net

    TL;DR cross-species hybrids are not only not impossible, they are not unusual. Based on morphology rather than genetics, humans themselves appear to be a hybrid between chimpanzee and pig.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But still untrue. Evolution is completely untrue. Animals do change within their kind. Do dogs change? Yes. Into what? Dogs.

      https://youtu.be/ba5JN2NDI6A

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. Where's PZ Myers when you need him....

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm surprised they had funding. And then published their results.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The initial funding not nearly as surprising as publishing their results.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger Hill wrote:The initial funding not nearly as surprising as publishing their results.

    True. I suppose they were funded because they set out out thinking the research would support TENS.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Evolution and divine creation are not mutually exclusive, either/or concepts. Rather they coexist in harmony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No they can't.

      Evolution is completely untrue. Animals do change within their kind. Do dogs change? Yes. Into what? Dogs.

      https://youtu.be/ba5JN2NDI6A

      Delete
  8. Finding an exception to a general rule doesn't break the generality of that rule. The geneal rule that asians are smarter doesn't mean that finding a dumb asian makes the 'asians are smarter' generalistion wrong. How do we know beaks serve only the purpose of feeding? Why can't they possess an aesthetic, or defensive, or grooming, or nest constructing function?

    And genetics works with what's available - the pale skin of whites is achieved by different means to the pale skin of asians - I read in "A Troublesome Inheritance - Genes, Race andd Human History" - a book by Nicholas Wade who was on Stefan Molyneux's show.

    Another important point I picked up was that a selective drive that affects one genetic change can have follow on effects in other areas.

    For example: The EDAR-V370A allele, a variant of the EDAR gene, common to East Asians, causes: thicker hair, smaller breasts, more eccrine sweat glands (that produce water, as opposed to apocrine sweat glands that produce also hormones), and a variation in tooth structure. What drove the change of the EDAR gene in the first place? No-one knows but theoretically any one of the above traits may have been selected for, with the other traits tagging along.

    So while beak structure is very likely related to feeding, it does not need to be, or ever have been, exclusively dependant on it. Hence the article you site does not dislodge TENS.

    BTW, you don't think God would have welcomed a bit of emergent behaviour in His model?

    The principle of natural selection is supported by genetics. And God, if you believe in Him, coded in genes - that are _variably expressible_.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Finding an exception to a general rule doesn't break the generality of that rule.

    It does when the specificity is required in order for the model to hold together.

    The principle of natural selection is supported by genetics.

    No, it is not. Which is why the concepts of genetic flow and genetic drift have been incorporated into the current models. I'm developing a mathematical model as the basis for an interactive application that will demonstrate the insufficiency of natural selection to even the slowest evolutionary true believer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @8 Hence the article you site does not dislodge TENS.

    Classic midwit. No one claimed the article dislodges TENS.

    And God, if you believe in Him

    Atheist midwits always interpret criticism of TENS and/or its supporting evidence as a direct assault on their fragile intellectual identity. Why don't you just go find a synagog to shoot up and be done with it?

    BTW, you don't think God would have welcomed a bit of emergent behaviour in His model?

    Emergent behavior ≠ TENS
    Epigenetics ≠ TENS

    ReplyDelete
  11. One huge problem with TENS is that over time it has been asked to support all manner of conclusions and "explanations" that are mere wild speculation.

    "My right toe hurts today" nowadays has some TENS root cause if you listen to the true adherents.

    TENS is the Sacrament in religious scientistism called Ontological Naturalism where "muh ability to understand teh universe" is worshipped.

    Natural selection is an interesting enough idea that may apply in specific narrow cases, or it may not. There simply is no way to test it. It's just interesting dinner party conversation material.

    As a general "Theory" that it is the root of all biology is pure, it is utter fantastical nonsense, and anyone with any real hard science - chem or physics - training should be able to see that simple fact.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Could someone give definition of "TENS" or if it's an acronym, just what the letters stand for. I googled "TENS" in terms of evolution and couldn't find anything other than Vox referring to it. Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's either Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, or Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Stevo. There is some evidence that TENS works for pain conditions. There is less evidence for evolution.

      Delete
  14. @Trebor from context I’m guessing it’s something like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robin wrote:Based on morphology rather than genetics, humans themselves appear to be a hybrid between chimpanzee and pig.
    Only leftists.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To all of the above, thank you. Thought it might have been a more specific and technical term, wasn't sure.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Roman Daoist wrote:Finding an exception to a general rule doesn't break the generality of that rule.

    They didn't find an exception to a rule.

    Note the last sentence:

    "This [i.e.: the connection ... was much weaker and more complex than we expected] is something that has been shown in other animal groups, but in birds this relationship was always assumed to be stronger."

    So they already knew that this sort of assumption had often been proven false, but because it hadn't yet been for bird beaks, they just 'assumed [it] to be stronger'.

    So. after having found many exceptions in the past, that one instance that still seemed to support the rule has been disproven also. Congratulaions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My question has always been if thing evolve, they why do they stop evolving from one thing to another. Why are why aren't wolves still evolving into dogs, they just stopping because dog exist now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because evolution is false. It was my final red pill.

      Check out Dr. Jason Lisle on yoobtoobz.

      Delete
  19. John Best wrote:My question has always been if thing evolve, they why do they stop evolving from one thing to another. Why are why aren't wolves still evolving into dogs, they just stopping because dog exist now?

    Or saltwater crocodiles, which haven't changed in millions of years.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I always wanted to go into research however after I got a taste of it I became fully disenchanted with the whole field of academic science. A bunch of people visited some museums, took some photos, googled some facts about birds and then got paid. How the hell is that even a job?

    John Best wrote:My question has always been if thing evolve, they why do they stop evolving from one thing to another. Why are why aren't wolves still evolving into dogs, they just stopping because dog exist now?

    Bad example. Dogs are wolves which have been domesticated. You can still breed wolves into dogs. It only takes a couple of years. Furthermore wolves and dogs aren't exactly different species because they can interbreed. They got classified as different species for some contrived reason but taxonomy is mostly bullshit anyways.

    By the standards of science itself, an untestable theory is a pointless theory. We can test and see adaptation however we need about 50 million years to test evolution. Whenever I hear people hypothesize with a straight face about things that happened millions of years ago I get genuinely annoyed. It's like an archaeologist uncovering some ancient stone dildo which he then has to sell to the public as some sort of "fertility symbol" in order to prove his worth. I can make up stories too but nobody's paying me because I don't buy my own bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @11. camcleat January 26, 2019 11:20 AM
    One huge problem with TENS is that over time it has been asked to support all manner of conclusions and "explanations" that are mere wild speculation.


    Ayn Rand said that science was dogma and engineering was truth. I 'knew' she was wrong at the time. I finally realized what she meant. TENS is dogma. IMO TENS explains some but has large holes in it. Yet I manage to sleep at night. I am amused by people who have 'faith' in TENS.

    BTW mere possesion of the Wade book "A Troublesome Inheritance" is thoughtcrime.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fozzy Bear wrote:@Trebor from context I’m guessing it’s something like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    You are correct.

    Vox: The more that biological science advances, particularly on the genetic front, the weaker, the less necessary, and the more obviously false the theory of evolution by natural selection is consistently proving to be.

    ReplyDelete
  23. After forty years trying to understand how we got here, I finally figured it out. As a biology student in college, there were too many holes in the theories.

    The bible is 100% literally true.

    Evolution is completely untrue. Animals do change within their kind. Do dogs change? Yes. Into what? Dogs.

    https://youtu.be/ba5JN2NDI6A

    ReplyDelete
  24. Life did not come about by chance. It's a ridiculous theory.

    AND .. Darwin was literally a racist.

    https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA

    ReplyDelete
  25. RD- Finding an exception to a general rule doesn't break the generality of that rule.

    VD- It does when the specificity is required in order for the model to hold together.


    The beak thing may have first helped indicate the model (I don't know it if did or didn't). But the model is now independant of that case. A large proportion of specific instances would need to be disproved to dislodge the model - and that's a long way off. The article may disprove _one_ previously supposed correlation while, I guess, not even considering other causal factors of that trait in the first place. It's just too narrow to prove or disprove anything in general. It's specificity is not required to hold TENS together.

    RD- The principle of natural selection is supported by genetics.

    VD- No, it is not. Which is why the concepts of genetic flow and genetic drift have been incorporated into the current models. I'm developing a mathematical model as the basis for an interactive application that will demonstrate the insufficiency of natural selection to even the slowest evolutionary true believer.


    Proof by simulation?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Vox, I recommend you submit your model to the Evolution 2.0 prize.

    It may not qualify for the 100G or the $5M patent, but it seems that it could provide a foundation for getting it. If nothing else, it will show exactly how such a system can'can't be designed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. swiftfoxmark2 wrote:
    John Best wrote
    :My question has always been if thing evolve, they why do they stop evolving from one thing to another. Why are why aren't wolves still evolving into dogs, they just stopping because dog exist now?

    Or saltwater crocodiles, which haven't changed in millions of years.


    Evolution isn't a thing that happens. Evolution is a _result_ of things happening. Like momentum in space; nothing changes unless pushed.

    Particular ecological niches allow for some traits to be more useful than others, so the members of a group that express those traits out survive - and out breed - others. Resulting in those maybe previously rare traits becoming common - in that area... and on and on and on. The ecology around saltwater crocs hasn't changed, so crocs haven't changed. Australia has the most stable surface terrain on the planet. There's been no selective pressure on crocs. And I for one wouldn't want to put pressure on a saltwater croc, anyway.

    Meanwhile there are ~400 000 varieties of beetle. Because niches.

    [I tried using the copy comment text feature. I hope it worked.]

    ReplyDelete
  28. @30

    "Evolution isn't a thing that happens. "

    That's not the way the True Believers tell the story.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Raise your hand if you've ever observed evolution occurring.

    Raise your hand if you can demonstrate how proteins can arise without nucleic acids, or nucleic acids without proteins.

    Raise your hand if you can prove one indisputably transitional form.

    Raise your hand if you can replicate the the Cambrian Explosion via naturalistic means.

    Raise your hand if you can induce a lack of stability in biota.

    Raise your hand if you can show a single exception to the second law of thermodynamics.

    Etc.

    I do hope we all still fucking love science.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I fucking love the law of entropy.

    Well, no, I hate it, but it's lovely in this context.

    Interesting to note how much time and space evolutionists devote to trying to twist, deny, or re-categorize it away from their god, madame fortuna.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If we really want to be scientific about this, we have to stop calling TENS a "theory", and call it what it truly is: an hypothesis. HENS?

    ReplyDelete
  32. #30 Roman Daoist wrote:And I for one wouldn't want to put pressure on a saltwater croc, anyway.

    Something we can agree on. :-)

    But otherwise, this all works fine for micro-evolution. The days when I looked into this stuff more closely are long past, so if I've missed anything important, you're welcome to correct me. But I haven't yet heard any satisfying argument how this mechanism could explain macro-evolution, where some new kind of ability would need a long development of some body parts that wouldn't be useful at all during the 'transformation'. E.g. how is a 'proto-wing' useful in any way before it actually enables its possessor to fly? Have there been any discoveries in the last 30 years to explain such things? Your post at least doesn't give any hints.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Cooler wrote:Raise your hand ...

    Locking my arms firmly in front of me to prevent anyone from getting the impression I might be raising a hand...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Proof by simulation?

    Say rather, proof of extreme improbability by simulation. The single biggest problem of evolutionary biologists is that they don't understand statistics or probability, so they completely lack the capacity to understand the most powerful objections to their models.

    They're the equivalent of retarded econometricians, with even shakier models.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @8: not only could have God incorporated the ability for his creations to vary, I believe he necessarily did so. He created a planet with widely varying climates and told man to go and fill the place. Some of the individual traits useful in the arctic are not so useful in the Sahara, and vice versa. Of course He made us adaptable.

    If you give someone a task to do, you are morally obligated to provide the authority and resources needed to fulfill that task.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Darwin deduces a mechanism from what is now shown to be an insufficient data set. Did he commit a logical fallacy?

    Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the mechanism is false. This can tell us something useful about consciousness.

    You have to THINK about a data set in order to discover what it might tell you. There is a correlation in that. Logic may be useful as an investment in consciousness, but that wouldn't make it the connecting mechanism that produces discovery. All we can really see here is the correlation: Consciousness/Discovery.

    Thus, I'm encouraged to continue holding out for the hypothesis that intelligence is an attribute of the natural world, separately and apart from the human being.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I would like to understand probability better as it pertains to TENS. If you roll a 6-sided die a million times you do get a result even if duplicating it only 1 in a million.

    ReplyDelete
  38. or would that be 6 to the millionth power?

    ReplyDelete
  39. @40 LES

    The probability of TENS as theorized in the abiotic origin theory is not so far off your example of rolling a a million times, once you calculate the probability of repeating it correctly.

    In rolling a die a million times, the probability of repeating the first roll on the next run is 1/6. Each run has a 1/6 chance of successfully continuing the run. Thus, by roll eight you are well below a one in a million chance, and by roll one million, it's about one in 5.618^-778152.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @41 LES, you got it before I got my comment published. I'll leave it up for anyone wondering about the math.

    ReplyDelete
  41. LES wrote:I would like to understand probability better as it pertains to TENS. If you roll a 6-sided die a million times you do get a result even if duplicating it only 1 in a million.

    How many years of constant dice rolling would you need to design an orb web, and the engineering behind it?

    How then do you program that into the genes of a spider?

    I don't know the exact math on that, but it must certainly take much longer than the age of the earth, and even the universe to achieve that by random.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @35

    I don't have a proof for macro-evolution but I do have a counter example. Dr. Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho spent years researching bacteria flagella. In his experiments, he determined that if any one of the 35 genes necessary were mutated, the flagella lacked motility. In 2005 he testified that this showed irreducible complexity.

    "We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can’t swim. Now, to confirm that that’s the only part that we’ve affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can’t swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We’ve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect."


    https://infogalactic.com/info/Scott_Minnich

    https://evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7/

    ReplyDelete
  43. @44

    The website http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ goes over the probabilities nicely. I like this bit about monkeys and sonnets as a big number example of how far off the probabilities are on dice rolls to achieve things.

    "Even mathematicians occasionally underestimate probability - in "A Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking mentions that monkeys pounding away on keyboards will "very occasionally" by pure chance type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets. The calculation for the sonnet "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" shows that the chance is about 1 in 10690 i.e. 10 followed by 690 zeros. [r78] As there have only been 1018 seconds since the Big Bang and there are about 1080 atoms in the visible universe it is difficult to see where 10690 fits in comfortably. Physical limits on monkeys and keyboards means we would have to cycle through the heat death or final collapse of the universe in excess of 10600 times to obtain a single sonnet."

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here's an interesting article:

    Resveratrol And The Over-Nurturing Female

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/01/bill-sardi/resveratrol-and-the-over-nurturing-female/

    ReplyDelete
  45. "The single biggest problem of evolutionary biologists is that they don't understand statistics or probability, so they completely lack the capacity to understand the most powerful objections to their models." -- VD

    This is absolutely the truth. But I think they also don't understand logic and honesty. These are big problems also.

    Evolution shows definite signs of intelligent control. They don't have to believe in God as we do, but it is obvious that intelligence is involved.

    Michael Behe and his idea of Irreducible Complexity pretty much shows that Intelligent Design is needed to make evolution work.


    ReplyDelete
  46. P Glenrothes wrote:Evolution and divine creation are not mutually exclusive, either/or concepts. Rather they coexist in harmony.

    Any kind of orthodox Christianity would beg to differ.

    ReplyDelete
  47. #46

    Do I get this right? (Please excuse my layman's vocabulary.)

    An ability (swimming) is already there. Now they show that mutation of a single gene (or another single gene, or yet another) can take that away, re-institution of the original version of the respective gene returns the ability.

    Is this the argument made?

    If it is, I think it rather proves my point. For swimming, a very specific combination of genes is required. Any divergence from that combination means that all other contibuting parts are, at least for the purpose of swimming, meaningless. They provide no advantage as long as they are not all there simultaneously.

    So, starting with the less evolved non-swimming version, how does the first mutation of one of those genes toward the 'swimming ability combination' get selected as long as all the others are not there too? That's exactly the problem my previous post was about.

    ReplyDelete
  48. John wrote:@8

    And God, if you believe in Him

    Atheist midwits always interpret criticism of TENS and/or its supporting evidence as a direct assault on their fragile intellectual identity. Why don't you just go find a synagog to shoot up and be done with it?


    Wow. You're a bit angsty there aren't you buddy? You do realise we're just discussing the implications of... bird beaks, right? Just a friendly chat. Breathe.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Punctuated equilibrium. Mass extinctions. The sudden appearance of new species. That's where I'm looking. TENS is for slowpokes.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Even mathematicians occasionally underestimate probability.

    So embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I agree. And the reason is this: In Evolution you have death before sin. In a biblical worldview you have death because of and therefore after sin.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @35, @51
    Yeah that irreducable complexity thing kind of makes it difficult to suppose that the dumb luck of accidentally useful gene mutation can work. The selection for allowed variations within a given gene set is different - such as the beaks per the original post. But to produce new complex mechanisms that require several independant developments at the same time...... Best hope for evolution may be to pray for a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Vox, that simulation thing sounds exciting. I once read a Book by a certain James F. Coppedge dealing very in depth with the topic of Evolution and its mathematical impossibility: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Possible-Impossible-James-Coppedge/dp/0310224918

    ReplyDelete
  54. As a computer programmer I think of things this way: computer games are complex, though less so than cells. Time and chance are primarily destructive forces. Can I code the next killer ap by pouring rocks over my keyboard?

    No. And no additional amount of time or rocks increases the likelihood of the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I've noticed that when people talk about the probabilities of TENS they treat it sort of like Lloyd treated Mary Swanson's reply in Dumb and Dumber: So you're telling me there's a chance?

    Proponents of TENS are literally Lloyd, grinning while they say it and then insisting it's enough because there can't possibly be a Magic Sky Fairy and anyway We Fucking Love Science! Tips fedora. But even for critics there's a hint of still a chance. It's inherent in how we understand and deal with probabilities in normal life. To describe something as a probability is to suggest there's a chance.

    Yet when we talk about entropy in thermodynamics we do not entertain for a second the possibility of observing a violation of the 2nd Law. We laugh at the perpetual motion machine proponent, and with good reason. Tell a physicist that one time you observed heat flowing in the wrong direction and he will tell you, without question, that your observation was flawed.

    Why am I bringing this up? Because the distinction is absurd.

    * Entropy is operative in information systems (Shannon Entropy) just as it is in thermodynamic systems (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Note that this is not because of information systems being built out of thermodynamic ones. Hypothetically if you had the means to build an information system free of the 2nd Law you would still observe Shannon Entropy.

    * Entropy is an emergent property of statistical mechanics and is the end result of the kinds probabilities being discussed here. You cannot look at one side of the coin and say entropy is a law, then flip the coin and say there's still a chance.

    Information does not spontaneously form in our universe any more than heat spontaneously flows in the wrong direction. You would not observe either event in our universe if our universe was a sim with true randomness and you ran that sim, from Big Bang to heat death, 10^100 times. That's entropy. That's 'still a chance' if you want to be Lloyd.

    To the degree that we observe an "evolution" we are observing a purposely designed genetic search algorithm operating in a bounded space. The human genome will transverse this space over generations giving us examples such as people who are tan in areas with constant sunlight and people who can tolerate low oxygen in areas at high altitudes. What you will never see is people who have wings and can fly from the beach to the top of Everest and back, even thought that might confer huge survival benefits, because the information for wings is not there and cannot form randomly.

    Life in this universe, on this Earth, was created by a being or beings who are not of this universe. If you take the old Earth view and treat the fossil record as roughly accurate (some here do not) then you quickly realize that life was not only created, it was repeatedly upgraded. The fossil record does not show slowly evolving forms. New, much more complex forms simply burst onto the scene. And they remain roughly the same in macro terms for as long as they exist.

    We are a creation. And our creator(s) did not just start life on Earth and walk away.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Here is a synopsis of the paper:
    Ornithologists once believed that feeding behavior is the strongest selective pressure on beak shape. The authors of this paper observed that this is not true for all species of birds. They explained the discrepancy by noting that birds use their beaks for more than feeding. "These results only made sense when you realize birds use the beak for literally everything!"

    This means that other bird behaviors such as display and preening are also a selective pressure on beak shape. The inclusion of more factors in natural selection is not evidence that TENS is incorrect. Instead it further validates the theory because the beaks of more species of birds can be understood. Darwin might have been lucky because for his finches the main selective pressure is feeding and it made it easier for him to conceive NS.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Evolution is something that happens but leftists themselves deny evolution when they refuse to accept IQ differences and the two gender limit.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @60 - The inclusion of more factors in natural selection is not evidence that TENS is incorrect. Instead it further validates the theory because the beaks of more species of birds can be understood.

    TENS is incorrect because it violates a fundamental law the nature of which we understand (see my post @59).

    Understanding how various pressures operate on the genetic search algorithm transversing beak shapes does not in any way prove that Shannon entropy is false, nor does it prove that a genome for a beak, or for first life itself, can just pop into existence like magic.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @61 - Evolution is something that happens but leftists themselves deny evolution when they refuse to accept IQ differences and the two gender limit.

    Maybe they're hoping that selective pressure will magically turn them into non-binary gender fluid dragonkin xirs with enough time, chance, and Twitter posts.

    ReplyDelete
  60. This means that other bird behaviors such as display and preening are also a selective pressure on beak shape. The inclusion of more factors in natural selection is not evidence that TENS is incorrect. Instead it further validates the theory because the beaks of more species of birds can be understood.

    That is both logically and philosophically retarded. It doesn't even remotely fool anyone.

    Me wrong means me even MORE right!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is scientific theology. Evolution must be true as revealed to St. Darwin and muat explain everything. Bringinv any external factors into the model is cheating or heresy.

      If this sounds like something from a retarded atheist Sunday School, you would be correct.

      But often, all to often, peer review is at that level.

      Delete
  61. @64 - Me wrong means me even MORE right!

    It's like needing mo' money for dem programs or more foreign wars.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @44 "I don't know the exact math on that, but it must certainly take much longer than the age of the earth, and even the universe to achieve that by random."

    Someone has done the math:

    Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance 9.5 min.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

    "Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin
    Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful."

    and:

    "We have no idea how the molecules that compose living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology’s functions. We have no idea how the basic set of molecules, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins, were made and how they could have coupled into the proper sequences, and then transformed into the ordered assemblies until there was the construction of a complex biological system, and eventually to that first cell. Nobody has any idea how this was done when using our commonly understood mechanisms of chemical science. Those that say they understand are generally wholly uninformed regarding chemical synthesis. Those that say "Oh, this is well worked out," they know nothing, nothing about chemical synthesis – Nothing! Further cluelessness – From a synthetic chemical perspective, neither I nor any of my colleagues can fathom a prebiotic molecular route to construction of a complex system. We cannot figure out the prebiotic routes to the basic building blocks of life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. Chemists are collectively bewildered. Hence I say that no chemist understands prebiotic synthesis of the requisite building blocks let alone their assembly into a complex system. That's how clueless we are. I've asked all of my colleagues -- National Academy members, Nobel Prize winners -- I sit with them in offices; nobody understands this. So if your professors say it's all worked out, your teachers say it's all worked out, they don't know what they're talking about. It is not worked out. You cannot just refer this to somebody else; they don't know what they’re talking about." - James Tour – one of the top ten leading chemists in the world

    ReplyDelete
  63. If we stop dumping UN gruel on black Africans they'll breed out of control.

    IT'S EVOLUTION, BABY.

    ReplyDelete
  64. VD wrote:No, it is not. Which is why the concepts of genetic flow and genetic drift have been incorporated into the current models. I'm developing a mathematical model as the basis for an interactive application that will demonstrate the insufficiency of natural selection to even the slowest evolutionary true believer.

    The best part is where you show that the "mutation improvement" rate needs to go up exponentially as total population and reproduction rate decreases, while genome length increases.

    Handwaving junk DNA can't save it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Is the case of bird beaks central to the theory of evolution by natural selection, or is it just one of the most famous examples? Because theoretically it relied much more on general Malthusian arguments like population pressing up against the food supply. Not just in birds but in everything.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @11- Yes, read any work of evolutionary psychology or sociobiology and it's a bunch of Just So stories. I like to imagine they're all failed fictionists.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @56- My skepticism on the subject began with realizing the precise mechanism of selection is "favorable mutation," or whatever they call it. Mistakes in copying genes which leads to some difference in an organism that is passed onto future generations. Why are these mutations occurring, and what are the odds that, for instance, one will eventually result in an eyeball? Or the human brain.

    They don't explain that part well, scientists. They're kinda like "Oh, it just happens, whatever."

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance 9.5 min".

    The argument that the second law of thermodynamics makes impossible the spontaneous formation of complex structures is only true for a closed system. The Earth is an open system because solar energy flows through it into outer space. Open systems spontaneously form complex structures to increase the flow of energy through themselves.
    A simple example is a tray of water heated on a stove. The temperature gradient between the stove and atmosphere causes convective gradients to form in the water that increase the flow of heat. The second law only holds for the complete system- stove, water,and atmosphere. The convective gradients in the water seem defy the second law, but they only exist so long as heat is pumped through the system. Similarly, living systems seem to defy the second law, but we only exist so long as we eat and poop.

    See this essay for a detailed explanation:
    https://www.francois-roddier.fr/blog_en/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Thermodynamics_of_evolution.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  69. @72- Can't we consider the solar system a closed system? How much energy does the sun have to pass on to earth to make the evolution of humans likely?

    ReplyDelete
  70. @72  Open systems spontaneously form complex structures to increase the flow of energy through themselves. […] The convective gradients in the water seem defy the second law, but they only exist so long as heat is pumped through the system. Similarly, living systems seem to defy the second law, but we only exist so long as we eat and poop. 

    The claim is that structures which are simultaneously complex & specified (in the sense of an engineering/design specification) cannot emerge spontaneously. You can pump as much energy into a system as you want, they will never emerge. Ever. Convective gradients emerge spontaneously. Living systems do not and cannot, because they are engineered.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @72 - The argument that the second law of thermodynamics makes impossible the spontaneous formation of complex structures is only true for a closed system.

    That's not the argument. Shannon entropy is an emergent property of information systems which is separate from any physical, thermodynamic basis for said systems.

    The Big Bang left the universe in a relatively low entropy thermodynamic state. But it left the universe in a near maximum entropy genetic state. (Explosions tend to do that to information systems regardless of their physical nature.) Undirected energy is genetically randomizing, so it doesn't matter that the sun is shining on the Earth from the viewpoint of genetic entropy. And the universe is a closed system genetically, absent what we would call a God (i.e. a being of another universe capable of traveling to ours and manipulating it).

    So how do you get from high genetic entropy to low genetic entropy? How do you get the first functioning genetic organism which can direct energy to maintain itself and reproduce?

    You can't. The genetic information has to come from outside this universe. Nothing in this universe...not energy from the sun nor any physical law...can produce it. Just like nothing in this universe can thermodynamically reanimate the universe...concentrate energy and make it usable for work again...after heat death.

    Open systems spontaneously form complex structures to increase the flow of energy through themselves. A simple example is a tray of water heated on a stove. The temperature gradient between the stove and atmosphere causes convective gradients to form in the water that increase the flow of heat.

    Convection currents are in no way an analogy to information in Shannon entropy, and are arguably not even complex thermodynamically.

    More generally: entropy is not about "complexity", which tends to be ill defined in these conversations. Entropy is about rarity. Entropy is an emergent property of any system where:

    * You have an exponentially large number of potential configurations.

    * The configurations can be broadly categorized into one of two groups.

    * Nearly all of the potential configurations belong to one group.

    Depending on your definition of "complexity" you could reasonably claim that a book of randomly arranged symbols is more complex than a book where the symbol arrangement is meaningful in a given language. That doesn't change the fact that the former is entropically likely, the latter is entropically unlikely, and you're never going to move from the former to the latter via random changes to the symbols.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Organic evolution has demonstrably occurred, as I explained here. But theories about how it occurred are just that, theories. If they are proved wrong, then they are wrong, which does not alter the palaontological and geological facts that prove that evolution has occurred. And indeed we can see it continuing to occur in our own time, with, currently the European races headed for extinction through a combination of depressed fertility and mass replacement immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @51

    No, he's starting out from a functional bacterium and demonstrating you can't go "backwards". If you look at the details, it is an amazing bit of machinery. The 35 genes don't simply make an ability, they are all required to produce the machinery which enables the ability.

    I believe Dr. Minnich was the first man to image the motor of the flagella, which is why we know it's an actual electric motor. Most efficient electric motor in the world in fact, almost 100% at cruising speed. When any of the 35 genes are swapped out, the complex motor structure cannot even necessarily construct itself, let alone function.

    "Minnich points out that the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines. He also points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can possibly be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new.

    Finally, Dr Minnich’s research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C; instead, some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum. Minnich says that although it is more complex, the motor came first, so it couldn’t have been derived from them."

    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/the-amazing-motorized-germ/

    ReplyDelete
  74. Make an argument, RVS. An assertion and a link is not acceptable here.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @75

    If I may expand on your point just a bit, we can note that thermodynamic definition of entropy may not be required to dispute complexity emergence, but it's not inconsistent either as some like to posit.

    S = k ln(omega) says nothing about complexity.

    It is merely state counting. Entropy, whether informational or thermodynamic, is one of the singularly most misunderstood concepts there is.

    A lot of textbooks have it wrong. As Cardinal Thomas Wosley pointed out, "Be careful what you put in that head, because you will never, ever get it out."

    When the teaching texts are incorrect on fundamental concepts, it's no wonder we have people believing those concepts support, or don't disprove, favorite pet ontology.

    @72 RVS

    You clearly don't understand the Second Law or Thermodynamics in general. Maybe you learned from one of that bad text books referenced above?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ah, careful quoting to distort what the article actually says. It points out that "These results only made sense when you realise birds use the beak for literally everything! Therefore, also makes sense they evolved a versatile tool not just for getting food, but also to accomplish many other tasks."

    So it's not that evolution is wrong. It's simply that saying beak = food was too simplistic. Beaks are used for grooming, nest-building, and lot of other activities as well.

    I'm not sure why Vox likes to feed the religious anti-science crowd, but this isn't the first time...

    ReplyDelete
  77. Brad Richards wrote:So it's not that evolution is wrong.

    Broken premise, no problem. Much faith. Such wow.

    I'm not sure why Vox likes to feed the religious anti-science crowd, but this isn't the first time...

    Because it's highly entertaining to watch you try to salvage your faith in TENS.

    Sacred cows are meant to be butchered on the altar.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Darwinian evolution is a stochastic search mechanism. The curse of dimensionality kills any stochastic search mechanism dead. Anything beyond toy problems requires a non-stochastic search. This is elementary logic that escapes only Darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "I'm not sure why Vox likes to feed the religious anti-science crowd, but this isn't the first time..."

    Nobody is more anti-science and more religious than a brain-dead Darwinist.

    ReplyDelete

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