[_ Old Earth _] For ID'rs it doesn get much worse

[reznwerks]

Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained


"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 231032.htm

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained

I don't know about that. Maybe hypothesized reconciliation with ToE, but far

from being explained.

 

[reznwerks]

complex

Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained

I don't know about that. Maybe hypothesized reconciliation with ToE, but far

from being explained.

Do you see any if's , ,maybes, perhaps, what if's , could have, etc in the following quote?
"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Do you see any if's , ,maybes, perhaps, what if's , could have, etc in

the following quote?

"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."

Well:

a. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."

b."The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely

consistent with Darwinian evolution,"

c.

They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene -- which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved.

d. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans.

e. showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapted" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved.



The researchers are speculating and using circular reasoning.

The researchers are trying to prove evolution by invoking evolution as an

explanation.

No physical observations have been made. Repeatability has not been

established.

Again, I think they have a hypothesis, but it needs to be tested through

observation, repeatedly.

I think it was a bit arrogant for them to come across in such a confident

manner concerning a recently developed hypothesis.

 

[reznwerks]

read

Do you see any if's , ,maybes, perhaps, what if's , could have, etc in

the following quote?

"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."

Well:

a. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."

b."The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely

consistent with Darwinian evolution,"

c. [quote:d43c6] They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene -- which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved.

d. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans.

e. showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapted" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved.



The researchers are speculating and using circular reasoning.

The researchers are trying to prove evolution by invoking evolution as an

explanation.

No physical observations have been made. Repeatability has not been

established.

Again, I think they have a hypothesis, but it needs to be tested through

observation, repeatedly.

I think it was a bit arrogant for them to come across in such a confident

manner concerning a recently developed hypothesis.[/quote:d43c6]
I think you need to read the whole article.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

This is just an evolutionists spin off from information based design theories!

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I think you need to read the whole article.

Why do you think I didn't read the whole article?

Did I miss an important part?

 

[reznwerks]

read

I think you need to read the whole article.

Why do you think I didn't read the whole article?

Did I miss an important part?

I don't think you understood it. Here is what the Wall Street Journal reported from the issue of "Nature":
In yesterday's issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ?mod=blogs


"The findings, says Christoph Adami of the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, Claremont, Calif., "solidly refute" ID."

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I don't think you understood it. Here is what the Wall Street Journal reported from the issue of "Nature":
In yesterday's issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ?mod=blogs


"The findings, says Christoph Adami of the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, Claremont, Calif., "solidly refute" ID."

On it's way to evolving...

????

Speculation.

Have you viewed any photos of the finds...I'm assuming, if your

confident that this is solid evidence refuting ID, that you have

done so..or are you just taking The Wall Street Journal's word for it?

Tail wagging the dog???


Tetrapods include all land-living vertebrates, such as frogs, turtles, hawks,

and lions.

I'd be interested in viewing the photos to see how closely these fossils

resemble tetrapods.

Hopefully you have a few you can post for us.

 

[reznwerks]

pictures

I don't think you understood it. Here is what the Wall Street Journal reported from the issue of "Nature":
In yesterday's issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ?mod=blogs


"The findings, says Christoph Adami of the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, Claremont, Calif., "solidly refute" ID."

On it's way to evolving...

????

Speculation.

Have you viewed any photos of the finds...I'm assuming, if your

confident that this is solid evidence refuting ID, that you have

done so..or are you just taking The Wall Street Journal's word for it?

Tail wagging the dog???


Tetrapods include all land-living vertebrates, such as frogs, turtles, hawks,

and lions.

I'd be interested in viewing the photos to see how closely these fossils

resemble tetrapods.

Hopefully you have a few you can post for us.

I don't need to view pictures myself as I am confident that there are enough people involved to confirm or deny what has happened. I am not in the habit of questioning my mechanic or doctor when they tell me what is wrong. Do you? Unless you have a PHD in evolutionary disiplines I doubt the pictures will do you much good either. When ID'rs go to court arguing their case do you think the judge knows all about evolution? I would say not but he , like myself have confidence in the vast majority of those who study the subject and put all the evidence on the table for all to ponder and dispute with facts. I will be waiting for the ID'rs to present their "scientific" papers trying to dispute the evidence. As usual they are free to try.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I am not in the habit of questioning my mechanic or doctor when they tell me what is wrong. Do you?

I don't accept anything blindly...hence my conversion from ToE to ID.

 

[ArtGuy]

I am not in the habit of questioning my mechanic or doctor when they tell me what is wrong. Do you?

I don't accept anything blindly...hence my conversion from ToE to ID.

I don't either, but I also don't have the gall to tell the doctor with 20 years of education and experience that his opinion is worthless because I once read this article in Newsweek.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I don't either, but I also don't have the gall to tell the doctor with 20 years of education and experience that his opinion is worthless because I once read this article in Newsweek.

I certainly would not be disrespectful to him...especially just because I read an

article. But, I would definitely ask alot of questions, and ask to see photos or

specimens evidencing his claims along with the context in which they were

found. And I'm sure he would not take offense, as any good scientist knows

, his claims aren't validated until peer reviewed. Critical analysis is absolutely

necessary.

 

[ArtGuy]

I certainly would not be disrespectful to him...especially just because I read an

article. But, I would definitely ask alot of questions, and ask to see photos or

specimens evidencing his claims along with the context in which they were

found. And I'm sure he would not take offense, as any good scientist knows

, his claims aren't validated until peer reviewed. Critical analysis is absolutely

necessary.

Indeed. Except articles pertaining to evolution are peer reviewed. You know which articles don't get past peer review? The ones that claim evolution is a load of hooey.

To continue our analogy, you would ask a lot of questions, and you would receive a lot of answers, and pictures, and explanations, and references. Then you would still ignore them all, because of that one article your read in Newsweek.

You keep pretending that evolutionary scientists don't have any answers. They do. They have a ton of answers. You just don't like the answers they give you, because they disagree with what you've already decided is true.

I'm going to go out on a limb, here. You say that you used to believe in evolution, but you've since decided that it's false. I'm going to guess that you were a Christian at the time you made this decision, right?

Now, you're one of the more intellectually honest people on this board, so I'm going to ask you a question I've asked others, and I would like you to give it some thought.

I think we can all agree that, for whatever reason, the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields accept evolution as true. Of the few that don't, they are invariably Christians. More specifically, they are Creationists. There are Christians who accept evolution, but you will pretty much never find an atheist who doesn't think evolution is right. Doesn't this strike you as odd?

If evolution being false were something for which there was secular evidence, then wouldn't there be a lot of atheists who also thought it was wrong? Or at least a significant minority? But that's not what we see. We see secular science saying one thing, and YECs saying something else. Given that the origin of species is by no means a dichotomy - there could be many alternatives to both evolution and creationism, such that denying one doesn't necessarily imply the other - doesn't this perhaps suggest that creationists aren't formulating their opinions based on objective science, but instead based on an ex post facto shoehorning of "evidence" they find into what they already know they want to believe?

In summary, if evolution is so clearly wrong, then why do no atheist scientists find fault with it, while many Christian scientists readily accept it?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

double post

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

In summary, if evolution is so clearly wrong, then why do no atheist scientists find fault with it, while many Christian scientists readily accept it?

I believe the reason many Christians accept ToE is because it is the only

model public students have ever been taught. It starts with dinosaurs and

millions of years in elementary school, and culminates with full out ToE in

High School and College. From our tender years we are taught that ToE is an

indisputable fact. (Why do you think ToE proponents are so resistant to

side by side presentations of the two different models and ID types are so

adamant about presenting the two models?)

Because world views (religions) inevitably bias our overall beliefs,

the issue is more one of religion than science. That's why proponents

of either world view defend their view so ferverantly. Things can get nasty

in here at times, to say the least. There's alot more than science on the line

in the arguments here. These arguments are based on people's very

essence...who they are, and what their core beliefs are.

I always thought you were intellectually honest also Art. I've particulary seen

your heart when Christians start bashing one another...I can tell that's the

last thing you want.

I love stimulating debate...you learn alot, and it's very satisfying.

And I know there are alot of us on here who debate respectfully.

I believe a true scientist should thrive on criticism. It's the building blocks of

truly revolutionary ideas.

Peace

 

[Blazin Bones]

"New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago."

Unless this new technique is time travel, it's still just theory.

 

[moniker]

"New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago."

Unless this new technique is time travel, it's still just theory.

Name 1 scientific understanding that is not a theory. If you don't mind.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Unless this new technique is time travel, it's still just theory.

In reality it's a hypothesis that is lacking

observation and repeatability. That doesn't mean that over time their case will

be not be strengthened. But to use this example as indisputable proof against

the hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity is going out on a limb.

 

[ArtGuy]

Thanks for your answer, Charlie. I don't think I buy that all scientists are driven by religion moreso than actual science to the point necessary to establish the phenomenon I described, but I think that's as good of an answer as I could've hoped for. Thanks for the kind words, as well.