labimide:
So, reply with caution if you have to. I might just be your pastor, your imam, your priest, or just that very dear friend you'll regret offending. You never know; you don't know me.

Remember, Caution!

ok, how about this..

..your response is the second most foolish thing I have read on Nairaland, after Evilbrain's dismal contribution.

Now, as for presentation, yes, I realize that presentation, not substance, is what persuades you. It would have saved a lot of time if you had simply said that at the beginning before whistling like a kettle.

labimide:


Origin of life =/= origin of species

Origin of species = speciation, formation of new species from prexisting ones.

So "Origin of Species" doesn't deal with origin of preexisting species?

AlfaSeltzer:


See the lies of evolutionist staring them back in the face. A book that was not addressing the origin of species, called itself what!? THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
Go figure.

Oh please.
Please don't join these band of ignorant religiotards in dismissing something simply because you don't understand the complexities and nuances.

I find that nearly all anti evolutionist argue with their emotionans, their dislike for the idea rather than the scientific facts underpinning it.

So please, if it interests you, study it in as much detail as you can afford, with an open mind.

AlfaSeltzer:


So "Origin of Species" doesn't deal with origin of preexisting species?

Have you read it sir?
If you have not, then I beg you stop.

plaetton:

Oh please.
Please don't join these band of ignorant religiotards in dismissing something simply because you don't understand the complexities and nuances.

I find that nearly all anti evolutionist argue with their emotionans, their dislike for the idea rather than the scientific facts underpinning it.

So please, if it interests you, study it in as much detail as you can afford, with an open mind.

You are the one going emotional, insulting people and refusing to back-up your claims.

plaetton:


Have you read it sir?
If you have not, then I beg you stop.

Irrelevant. Answer the question.

AlfaSeltzer:


Irrelevant. Answer the question.

What question, what claims ?

plaetton:


What question, what claims ?

Let's not go round in circles.

Reread previous posts.

AlfaSeltzer:


So "Origin of Species" doesn't deal with origin of preexisting species?

According to current accounts (the book has several editions and revisions), Darwin's Origin of Species dealt with preexisting species only as far back as some universal common ancestor.

(plaetton is just an empty barrel. If you don't want to go round in circles, I suggest you ignore him.)

sinequanon:


ok, how about this..

..your response is the second most foolish thing I have read on Nairaland, after Evilbrain's dismal contribution.

Now, as for presentation, yes, I realize that presentation, not substance, is what persuades you. It would have saved a lot of time if you had simply said that at the beginning before whistling like a kettle.

You amuse me. If I may ask, how old are you?

Now, go ahead spit more insult out. I must give it to you, you seem well groomed at that.

sinequanon:


According to current accounts (the book has several editions and revisions), Darwin's Origin of Species dealt with preexisting species only as far back as some universal common ancestor.

(plaetton is just an empty barrel. If you don't want to go round in circles, I suggest you ignore him.)

Well, congrats.
You have done an excellent job here showing us that you are not empty.
In fact, you are so full.

I will leave it to others to determine what you are full of.

AlfaSeltzer:


The bolded is what evolutionist fell back to to confuse themselves after they were found out about the lies. Except the book did not precise extant species or extinct ones. The title implies all species. The book's title is not the "Evolution of Species". Species are living things so any claim about the origin of species is exactly a claim about the origin of living things.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species 1st Edition

Stop putting words in the great man's mouth. Darwin was a good scientist who chose his words very carefully so that his meaning would be clear. His book is widely available so you have no excuse be the swallowing the straw man version when the original is at your fingertips. It seems like you've fallen victim to the fraudulent religious apologists who have been dumbing the theory down and twisting it to make it easier to argue against.

Mind you, I don't disagree with evolution theory but to claim that it explains everything and that parts of it has never been successfully disputed are just lies I wanted to point out.

Obviously the theory has been improved since it was first proposed. It originally didn't include Mendelian inheritance and genetic drift. We hadn't discovered DNA so we didn't know how the genetic information was being copied and passed on. We didn't know about epigenetics. But the core of the theory was sound, and Darwin took it all the way to its logical conclusion which is why he's so respected today.

plaetton:

Lol.
Well sir, this is where your ignorance blooms to the surface.

First, the theory of evolution, just like any complex theory of science, is not quite simple to understand for people not firmly grounded in science, not well educated, and not possessing the minimum of intelligent comprehension.

Your statement assumes that all atheists are well-grounded in science, which in turn implies that all atheists are very intelligent and well educated.
Are these your positions sir?

this is funny considering most of the atheists here are not firmly grounded in science, are not well educated and do not really possess the requisite intelligence to understand the science they spout. For the most part, atheists here tend to take the path of least resistance.... i.e. a scientific theory must be true if it does not include "God" and is supported by at least one other "scientist" who happens to be white.

AlfaSeltzer:


both.

Firstly the theory of evolution adapts to new discoveries and changes through the years. This is not a bad thing because that's how science works. Example the theory of evolution used to affirm that life started via a single molecule that somehow came alive with the right combination of chemicals. Today the theory has evolved and is saying that it does not deal with the origin of life.

Genetics is complicated. There are confirmed predicted outcome of evolution theory but there are also outcomes that contradicted the theory. Infact, most of the changes to evolution theory was due to discoveries in genetics. Example, genetics showed that evolution of present species are not vertical like in "family tree" representations that we are used to. Rather there are many horizontal links between species. Genetics has shown that we share more than 70% of our dna with sea sponges. Same amount we share with some species of monkeys. But sea sponges are not considered our cousins. How come?

Basically what you've said is no one really knows what they are talking about when they reference ToE. they are just making things up as they go along and changing the theory to fit the facts.

sinequanon:


NS is grossly over-hyped.

But are biologists claiming that proteins are being built from SCRATCH? I think they may be arguing that existing proteins are differentiating and specializing. So, small changes happening over a long time frame cause existing proteins to diversify for different tasks.

As for a code, isn't that just a PR gimmick. DNA and RNA does not really operate like a code. They only report statistical correspondences between sequences of proteins (there isn't even a precise definition of a gene) and certain physical traits. They can't manipulate it like code. When they try, it is really hit and miss.

that's just not true. For example, you can isolate a DNA sequence, express it in a bacterial cell and have the bacteria (which does not naturally carry that DNA sequence) express the exact protein as is found in higher eukaryotes. That is not an example of a system that merely reports statistical correspondence.

davidylan:


that's just not true. For example, you can isolate a DNA sequence, express it in a bacterial cell and have the bacteria (which does not naturally carry that DNA sequence) express the exact protein as is found in higher eukaryotes. That is not an example of a system that merely reports statistical correspondence.

That doesn't make it a code, even if what you said is accurate (do you have an example of this EXACT so-called "coding" ).

Such experiments take a lot of trial and error, which wouldn't be the case for a code.

Also, a code has meaning, such that, if you change just one instruction, it normally renders the whole code useless.

If you flipped just one bit from zero to one in the code of a computer program, for example, chances are the entire thing would crash.

With DNA, your supposed "code" can fork into two branches, and the two branches can remain compatible. Real code would crash immediately. Imagine if Microsoft and Oracle started maintaining code independently for a while, and then Oracle tried to run its software on Windows. It would crash. But with DNA, you can successfully crossbreed individuals from population which have long separated and evolved independently.

DNA is far more complex and resilient that a "code". They thought that the genome project would crack their supposed "code". Now it has all gone relatively very, very quiet. All the anticipation of breakthrough after breakthrough has not materialized.

sinequanon:


That doesn't make it a code, even if what you said is accurate (do you have an example of this EXACT so-called "coding" ).

It is accurate. It is a routine part of molecular biology.

sinequanon:

Such experiments take a lot of trial and error, which wouldn't be the case for a code.

Not really. Any biology student here can do the experiment with minimal error.

sinequanon:

Also, a code has meaning, such that, if you change just one instruction, it normally renders the whole code useless.

Absolutely. Its called point mutations. We can deactivate a protein simply by substituting a single nucleotide... very easy to do. KO mice (i.e. mice that lack a particular gene sequence for a specific protein) are routinely made by deleting specific identifiable exons or introns within the gene code.

sinequanon:

If you flipped just one bit from zero to one in the code of a computer program, for example, chances are the entire thing would crash.

See my response above... as a real world example - sickle cell disease occurs from a single nucleotide change (i.e. from CTC to CAC) in the DNA coding sequence for hemoglobin A (HbA). So rather than the coding for glutamic acid at position 6 as you have for HbA, valine is produced in the HbS that is found in sickle cell patients. This simple change results is sufficient enough to cause a very deadly diseases such as sickle cell.

sinequanon:

With DNA, your supposed "code" can fork into two branches, and the two branches can remain compatible. Real code would crash immediately. Imagine if Microsoft and Oracle started maintaining code independently for a while, and then Oracle tried to run its software on Windows. It would crash. But with DNA, you can successfully crossbreed individuals from population which have long separated and evolved independently.

The problem here is that you are ignoring one basic fact... the human genetic code (unlike your computer code) comes with a robust capacity for self-correction. For example, humans typically express 2 alleles (2 separate copies) of a gene such that should one allele be defective, you can still function with one (what is known as autosomal recessive inheritance). In certain cases, mutation in one allele is enough to cause phenotypic malfunction (autosomal dominant inheritance).

sinequanon:

DNA is far more resilient that a "code". They thought that the genome project would crack their supposed "code". Now it has all gone relatively very, very quiet. All the anticipation of breakthrough after breakthrough has not materialized.

Not really. Work is still very active on the genome. What the genome project, and other research, has helped us understand is that unlike 10-20 years ago when we thought that genes were only encoded by exons, we now know that intronic sequences are just as important. We are also just discovering that the larger part of the DNA, once thought to be just junk, actually encode significant functional substances such as micro RNAs. Just because there is much to learn does not mean the genome project was a failure.

davidylan:


Basically what you've said is no one really knows what they are talking about when they reference ToE. they are just making things up as they go along and changing the theory to fit the facts.

The bolded is how science works, genius. Its only religious people that remain obstinate and refuse to adapt their beliefs to new information. Science is constantly being updated and improved as new facts come to light, and the ToE is no exception.

If you have an alternative theory to the ToE, then publish it and let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. Let others criticise it, find flaws in it, develop it and improve it.

But to keep shouting that a theory you don't like is wrong without demonstrating how it is wrong or providing an alternative model is not helpful. To deliberately misrepresent other peoples ideas to make arguing against them easier is not helpful. Refusing to respond to valid criticism of your own work is not helpful. Trying to disguise your religious beliefs as science is not helpful.

OP could not have better demonstrated what is wrong with the anti-evolution crowd if he was trying to on purpose. All he has done so far is shout "No, no, no!" and insult people. But when his own ideas got torpedoed, he completely ignored it, threw out more insults then started claiming victory.

Playing chess with a pigeon.

EvilBrain1:

The bolded is how science works, genius. Its only religious people that remain obstinate and refuse to adapt their beliefs to new information. Science is constantly being updated and improved as new facts come to light, and the ToE is no exception.

You're not a scientist, have never worked on an actual hypothesis, never had to publish, never gone through the peer review process to actually understand how science works. Yet you feel entitled to categorically tell us "how science works"? Laughable.

EvilBrain1:

If you have an alternative theory to the ToE, then publish it and let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. Let others criticise it, find flaws in it, develop it and improve it.

there are PLENTY of published papers already refuting many aspects of the ToE so to me, this rant is basically evidence that you just don't read. Here are a few examples -

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

EvilBrain1:

But to keep shouting that a theory you don't like is wrong without demonstrating how it is wrong or providing an alternative model is not helpful. To deliberately misrepresent other peoples ideas to make arguing against them easier is not helpful. Refusing to respond to valid criticism of your own work is not helpful. Trying to disguise your religious beliefs as science is not helpful.

this is sheer hypocrisy. Virtually all the creationist refutations of the ToE has been based on factual scientific inconsistencies. On the other hand, your own support for ToE is largely based on "some scientists published it so it must be right".

EvilBrain1:

OP could not have better demonstrated what is wrong with the anti-evolution crowd if he was trying to on purpose. All he has done so far is shout "No, no, no!" and insult people. But when his own ideas got torpedoed, he completely ignored it, threw out more insults then started claiming victory.

On the other hand, all you've done is propose nonsensical fantasy, pretend it was all in humor then insult the OP because he supports an opposing view. I have not read anything remotely objective and scientific about the ToE from you.

EvilBrain1:

Obviously the theory has been improved since it was first proposed. It originally didn't include Mendelian inheritance and genetic drift. We hadn't discovered DNA so we didn't know how the genetic information was being copied and passed on. We didn't know about epigenetics. But the core of the theory was sound, and Darwin took it all the way to its logical conclusion which is why he's so respected today.

Darwin is respected for the laws of genetics NOT for the ToE. Please do not mix both.

davidylan:


Darwin is respected for the laws of genetics NOT for the ToE. Please do not mix both.

Some would think that the common regard of Darwin as the undisputed 'father' of evolution would imply that the man is respected for said theory. Those people are knobheads, I'm sure.

timmy2409:


Some would think that the common regard of Darwin as the undisputed 'father' of evolution would imply that the man is respected for said theory. Those people are knobheads, I'm sure.

considering he propounded the theory in the first place, one would expect such an appellation would be appropriate. On the other hand, Darwin is more famous for his laws of genetics which are the basic foundation of any genetics class the world over. ToE? Not so much... nice theory which is however not universally accepted.

davidylan:


Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27

You mean Michael J Bene...the intelligent design big daddy who publishes scientific literature in the creationist organization Discovery institute...lol
You accuse people of following what "scientist x" said but it seems you follow what creationists and ID proponants say...hypocrisy much?

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

You just went to creationist cesspool
http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ and airlifted creationist pseudoscience that you believe is eligible because it was listed as "peer reviewed papers for intelligent design"... lol.
You can list anyone on their "intelligent design" list all day...

davien:
You mean Michael J Bene...the intelligent design big daddy who publishes scientific literature in the creationist organization Discovery institute...lol
You accuse people of following what "scientist x" said but it seems you follow what creationists and ID proponants say...hypocrisy much?
You just went to creationist cesspool
http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ and airlifted creationist pseudoscience that you believe is eligible because it was listed as "peer reviewed papers for intelligent design"... lol.
You can list anyone on their "intelligent design" list all day...

the problem is many of you are hare-brained empty barrels. I deliberately selected those publications PRECISELY expecting such a comment. If you were paying a shred of attention you would note that posting those papers was simply a response to the ignorant spiel from evilbrain1 that creationists have not published any peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design. The fact is that these papers EXIST and are published in respected scientific journals. If you cant find them its because you're not looking.

Whether you think Michael Bene is credible or not... he has published his paper in a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL... it is up to you to read his paper and provide a CLEAR, SCIENTIFIC, PEER-REVIEWED response to rebut him rather than whining in the relative obscurity of a forum.

Secondly those papers were published in PLOS One and the Annual Review of Genetics. These are well respected journals in the field. Annu Rev Genetics for example has an impact factor of 18! To disrespect these papers shows you up as largely ignorant of the very science you claim to understand.

davidylan:


the problem is many of you are hare-brained empty barrels. I deliberately selected those publications PRECISELY expecting such a comment.

I'm sure you did....because mentioning ID proponant papers' who backed out under oath to prove ID authenticity sounds like a good idea
I guess your presupposition is if "creationist x" publishes it...it must be true..

Whether you think Michael Bene is credible or not... he has published his paper in a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL...

Publishing in a scientific journal doesn't stop anyone from being a creationist....it only creates an illusion of credibility.

it is up to you to read his paper and provide a CLEAR, SCIENTIFIC, PEER-REVIEWED response to rebut him rather than whining in the relative obscurity of a forum.

ID isn't science....you'd know that if you followed your creationist big daddy on the dover court case.
So telling me to disprove ID pseudoscience is pathetic.

Secondly those papers were published in PLOS One and the Annual Review of Genetics.

Publishing a paper is nothing....it has to withstand years of peer review,so you could as well shove their ID paper into a trash can.

These are well respected journals in the field. Annu Rev Genetics for example has an impact factor of 18! To disrespect these papers shows you up as largely ignorant of the very science you claim to understand.

The journals are of course legitimate....some of the papers however have only been peer edited not peer reviewed..

Upon examination of your first citation I took a look at the paper it says nothing about the classical "intelligent agent" behind ID(perhaps for fear of credibility)

Your second paper pointed out “there is still no substitute for
empirical data” when examining biological processes.. lol
Your third paper...is a peer edited garbage,infact annual review of genetics does not publish new research results; it publishes review articles, which only gives the current state of thinking on the topic.

Your last paper is a misrepresentation on your part when there is no investigation of the change in function...

You might as well point me to answersingenesis because you have no points..just plethera of creationist junk.

davien:
I'm sure you did....because mentioning ID proponants papers who backed out under oath to prove ID authenticity sounds like a good idea

pointless comment that adds nothing to the debate.

davien:

I guess your presupposition is if "creationist x" publishes it...it must be true..

which is quite funny in the sense that it is exactly what you and others here have done. Dawkins/Darwin say it is true so it must be true. What really is new?

davien:

Publishing in a scientific journal doesn't stop anyone from being a creationist....it only creates an illusion of credibility.

This is an illogical statement.

davien:

ID isn't science....you'd know that if you followed your creationist big daddy on the dover court case.
So telling me to disprove ID pseudoscience is pathetic.

Again more senseless comment affirming that most of you dont read. If you note, not a single one of the publications cited actually says anything about ID. They are scientific articles laying out reasons why evolution cannot necessarily be true. For example, Lonnig 2002's paper deals with the implausibility of transposable element-induced complex chromosome reorganizations in combination with gene mutations as a template for the origin of species. Can you provide an alternative viewpoint rather than bleating about ID which is not a part of the paper? The basic problem is that you cannot even provide any credible scientific argument for your position so expecting you to engage in serious scientific debate on the articles posted is futile.

davien:

Publishing a paper is nothing....it has to withstand years of peer review,so you could as well shove their ID paper into a trash can.

the usual nonsense from these ignorant mules. A paper is peer-reviewed exactly ONCE BEFORE it is published. After that, the best you can do is publish a rebuttal if you think the paper is wrong. So no, papers do not go through "years of peer review"... perhaps in your own universe.

davien:

The journals are of course legitimate....some of the papers however have only been peer edited not peer reviewed..

All 4 papers are published in JOURNALS which are ALL require peer-review before publication. There is no such thing as "peer-editing" in a journal. Again highlighting the vacuous ignorance of these sheep.

davien:

Upon examination of your first citation I took a look at the paper it says nothing about the classical "intelligent agent" behind ID(perhaps for fear of credibility)

Exactly the point. the papers do not explain ID (that is a purely religious argument). Rather all 4 are science-based evaluations of the fallibility of the ToE as the origin of species. I wonder why you did not provide substantive review of the portions you found problematic here...

davien:

Your second paper pointed out “there is still no substitute for
empirical data” when examining biological processes.. lol

You're laughing, however this point is the CRUCIAL POINT many of us here have been trying to explain to many of you block heads for years here. That a huge problem with the ToE is that it lacks empirical data! There are many aspects of the ToE but no one has ever been able to prove them in the lab... that is the whole point. That you're laughing, thinking this is a flaw of the paper, shows how poorly you even understand your theory.

davien:

Your third paper...is aquote peer edited garbage infact annual review of genetics does not publish new research results; it publishes review articles, which only gives the current state of thinking on the topic.

Having published review articles myself, i know for a fact that you are talking rubbish. Review articles are peer-reviewed (i am in the process of correcting a 200-page review paper i and 2 colleagues wrote for the journal critical reviews in toxicology and it was peer-reviewed by 4 blind reviewers). Secondly, it is true (and i even stated same in my last post) that Annu Rev Gen publishes reviews (that fact is already noted in the journal name duh!), but to then assume that this makes the work of less importance is nonsensical. Prestigious journals like Nature, Science, Cell... also publish reviews. Does that make the work of less value? If you're not aware... Annu Rev Gen has an impact factor of 18... that is similar to that for the 3 papers i mentioned earlier... but of course i would not expect you to understand the import of that point.

davien:

Your last paper is a misrepresentation on your part when there is no investigation of the change in function...

senseless considering the paper discusses (in detail) two gene sequence experiments conducted to test a particular hypothesis. Again indicating that you have no clue what these papers are about but merely making noise just to be seen.

davien:

You might as well point me to answersingenesis because you have no points..just plethera of creationist junk.

I pointed you to answersingenesis and you whined about scientific data... i posted 4 peer-reviewed papers and you dismiss them... not because they dont provide credible scientific alternatives to some of the ideas supporting the ToE, but because you dont understand the science at all and thus have a lot of trouble articulating anything of substance. So logically, you resort to the lowest common denominator - false mockery.

davien:
The journals are of course legitimate....some of the papers however have only been peer edited not peer reviewed..

having gone to the sites of the 4 journals, i now understand how you came about this inane comment lol. So let me explain to this obdurate noise maker how the peer review process works...

1. Each journal employs an editor and associate editors.
2. The editor is the overall boss and generally oversees a number of associate editors who are assigned by area of specialty. The associate editors do most of the work and the editor only gets involved in case of serious issues i.e. authors having problems with the peer-review process who may wish to bring their complaints to a more senior member of management or in cases of fraud.

3. When you submit a manuscript to a journal, it goes to an associate editor who appoints 3-4 reviewers (depends on the journal) who do the peer-review.
4. Each peer-reviewer provides their comments to the associate editor who then collates this, edits as he sees fit and then communicates the results to the author.
5. Peer-reviewers must indicate if the paper can be accepted for publication or not. The associate editor only makes a call to publish or not in the event that there is a tie among peer-reviewers (i.e. 50% to publish and 50% to reject).

So my dear, just because the websites of some of the papers you looked up said "edited by X" does not mean the papers only went through "peer editing". That is just the name of the associate editor who handled the paper. Peer reviewer names are NEVER provided (the process is entirely anonymous). Editor and associate editor names are known. Please do not make this type of jaw dropping mistake again.

davidylan:


pointless comment that adds nothing to the debate.

wow,you actually believe i'm debating you? lol..
Creationist logic... reply=debate

which is quite funny in the sense that it is exactly what you and others here have done. Dawkins/Darwin say it is true so it must be true. What really is new?

Lol... pointing fingers at me and saying "well you believe dawkins" is a pathetic conjecture and a presupposition on your part.
Dawkins is probably your goto-argument anytime you are called out on your BS.

This is an illogical statement.

passing it off as an illogical statement without telling me why seems like a good defensive tactic don't you think..?

Again more senseless comment affirming that most of you dont read. If you note, not a single one of the publications cited actually says anything about ID.

That is why they have been used on the discovery institute to boost their track record of failed credibility.

They are scientific articles laying out reasons why evolution cannot necessarily be true.

And all done by creationists reaffirming your stance that "it must be true if creationist x" said it.

For example, Lonnig 2002's paper deals with the implausibility of transposable element-induced complex chromosome reorganizations in combination with gene mutations as a template for the origin of species.

You pulled out what you thought was a discussion of implausibility when she was merely pointing out difficulties faced in light of macroevolution to previously accepted data

Can you provide an alternative viewpoint rather than bleating about ID which is not a part of the paper?

They were addressed at your creationist big daddy discovery institute as ID prospects when they weren't

The basic problem is that you cannot even provide any credible scientific argument for your position so expecting you to engage in serious scientific debate on the articles posted is futile.

I do not need a scientific argument to explain why a "creation scientist" paper will always be full or close to BS.

the usual nonsense from these ignorant mules. A paper is peer-reviewed exactly ONCE BEFORE it is published. After that, the best you can do is publish a rebuttal if you think the paper is wrong. So no, papers do not go through "years of peer review"... perhaps in your own universe.

Perhaps in your creationist universe the peer review process is at light speed in evaluation of papers...

All 4 papers are published in JOURNALS which are ALL require peer-review before publication. There is no such thing as "peer-editing" in a journal. Again highlighting the vacuous ignorance of these sheep.

Exactly the point. the papers do not explain ID (that is a purely religious argument). Rather all 4 are science-based evaluations of the fallibility of the ToE as the origin of species. I wonder why you did not provide substantive review of the portions you found problematic here...


You're laughing, however this point is the CRUCIAL POINT many of us here have been trying to explain to many of you block heads for years here. That a huge problem with the ToE is that it lacks empirical data! There are many aspects of the ToE but no one has ever been able to prove them in the lab... that is the whole point. That you're laughing, thinking this is a flaw of the paper, shows how poorly you even understand your theory.


Having published review articles myself, i know for a fact that you are talking rubbish. Review articles are peer-reviewed (i am in the process of correcting a 200-page review paper i and 2 colleagues wrote for the journal critical reviews in toxicology and it was peer-reviewed by 4 blind reviewers). Secondly, it is true (and i even stated same in my last post) that Annu Rev Gen publishes reviews (that fact is already noted in the journal name duh!), but to then assume that this makes the work of less importance is nonsensical. Prestigious journals like Nature, Science, Cell... also publish reviews. Does that make the work of less value? If you're not aware... Annu Rev Gen has an impact factor of 18... that is similar to that for the 3 papers i mentioned earlier... but of course i would not expect you to understand the import of that point.



senseless considering the paper discusses (in detail) two gene sequence experiments conducted to test a particular hypothesis. Again indicating that you have no clue what these papers are about but merely making noise just to be seen.



I pointed you to answersingenesis and you whined about scientific data... i posted 4 peer-reviewed papers and you dismiss them... not because they dont provide credible scientific alternatives to some of the ideas supporting the ToE, but because you dont understand the science at all and thus have a lot of trouble articulating anything of substance. So logically, you resort to the lowest common denominator - false mockery.

The rest of this is just more creationist ad hominems and pathetic rebuttals..
Pointing me to a flintstones museum'(answersingenesis) is just a huge laugh.. I'm sure you'd toss another big daddy creationist behe's "peer reviewed paper.

davidylan:


You're not a scientist, have never worked on an actual hypothesis, never had to publish, never gone through the peer review process to actually understand how science works. Yet you feel entitled to categorically tell us "how science works"? Laughable.

I'm curious about how you found out so much about me and my antecedents. Are you a psychic? Are you a witch? No wait, does TB Joshua have a Nairaland account?! It's such an honour to meet you sir!

there are PLENTY of published papers already refuting many aspects of the ToE so to me, this rant is basically evidence that you just don't read. Here are a few examples -

Michael J. Behe, [snip]

Please note that I didn't ask for papers refuting the ToE. I asked for an alternative to it. Its easy to criticise and point out flaws whether real or imagined. Its another kettle of fish to come up with a better model that explains all the phenomena that Darwin's theory predicted while making its own testable predictions. None of your creationist heroes has ever succeeded in doing that. Einstein did it to Newton so it shouldn't be that hard given how abstract physics is compared to biology. And please note that ID doesn't count since it doesn't make predictions and it doesn't agree with observations or experimetal findings. Using Find and Replace to remove the word God from a Christian storybook doesn't change it into a scientific document.

Also, lol at Michael Behe. That brought a smile to my face, thanks.

this is sheer hypocrisy. Virtually all the creationist refutations of the ToE has been based on factual scientific inconsistencies. On the other hand, your own support for ToE is largely based on "some scientists published it so it must be right".

Again, you need to give us an alternative model, not just complaining about ToE. And my support of the ToE is based on the fact that I thought it through from first principles and reached largely the same conclusions Darwin did. Also, there's the small matter of the over 98% of biologists who believe in it and consider it to be the foundation of their field. Accepting scientific consensus is far from a perfect system, but it's better that following fringe crackpots.

On the other hand, all you've done is propose nonsensical fantasy, pretend it was all in humor then insult the OP because he supports an opposing view. I have not read anything remotely objective and scientific about the ToE from you.

Once again I'm asking you to show me specifically the logical flaws in my first post. Silly or no, the post described a process. Tell us exactly why that process is not a plausible explanation for the emergence of the behaviour OP described.

Also, I'll give you $1billion if you can show me where in this thread I insulted OP. I have the cash right here in a Ghana must go. Show me where I insulted him and its yours.

ToE is not saying "we don't know/care about external agency in evolution". It is claiming that there is NO external agency.

This is a positive claim that requires proof for it to be a theory, and not just an hypothesis.

The randomness they are talking about is modeled on Brownian motion.

There is no model or research that quantifies the expected rate of mutation (and hence evolution) using molecular Brownian motion.

So the most that can be said is that the agency, if any, is unknown. We don't know if Brownian motion (+ natural selection) is sufficient to produce the RATE of evolution.

So ToE remains an hypothesis.

The way science is supposed to work is that you demonstrate something scientifically first, then ask for refutation. Otherwise, the existence of god would be accepted as science, too.

sinequanon:
ToE is not saying "we don't know/care about external agency in evolution". It is claiming that there is NO external agency.

This is a positive claim that requires proof for it to be a theory, and not just an hypothesis.

"There is no external agent" is a positive claim? That word no, does it mean something else in your village? If I said there was no invisible pink monkey on top of my house, would you ask me for proof?

The randomness they are talking about is modeled on Brownian motion.

There is no model or research that quantifies the expected rate of mutation (and hence evolution) using molecular Brownian motion.

So the most that can be said is that the agency, if any, is unknown. We don't know if Brownian motion (+ natural selection) is sufficient to produce the RATE of evolution.

So ToE remains an hypothesis.

I don't know where you are getting this Brownian motion stuff from. I'm starting to think I'm being trolled. But just in case you actually believe this, Einstein derived the equations that describe Brownian motion in 1905, long after Darwin wrote his book.

Hmmmm I hate it when people argue to be right and not necessarily seeking the truth