Pleiotropy

Check this out: God: Rendered Irrelevant?

heh, heh. "In Christ, Ryan". Tells you e...

2012-05-27T10:45:04.847-04:00

heh, heh. "In Christ, Ryan". Tells you everything you need to know about why Ryan doesn't understand and will never accept that evolution occurs.
What a strange thing religion is, that reality must be denied to preserve it. A wasted life really, intellectually at least.

You are just as closed-minded, my friend, and dogm...

2012-05-25T01:01:34.852-04:00

You are just as closed-minded, my friend, and dogmatic in your system of belief as well. I appreciate your replies, and thank you for your time. Good luck with everything. I sincerely mean that.

In Christ,
Ryan

Yeah, I know Michael Ruse and Dick Lewontin and th...

2012-05-24T11:54:05.304-04:00

Yeah, I know Michael Ruse and Dick Lewontin and their views on these matters. I sincerely disagree both with Ruse's accomodationism and pandering to the religious, and with Lewontin's Marxist views that lead him to commit the moralistic fallacy. I don't know any of those other geezers (and don't care to ).

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that could be overturned with evidence. That makes it not a religion. I know you don't understand that it can, but that is really neither here nor there to me. Evolution doesn't tell me what to believe. Naturalism (see definition below) leads me to conclude that evolution is true, not the other way around. (You are very arrogant when you tell me what I can and cannot say and believe.)

I am an atheist (i.e., I do not believe in any of the gods I have heard about), and I am that because I see no evidence for gods, because there are lots of natural explanations for events that religious people claim to be evidence of their particular god(s), and because there is no good reason to choose one religion over any other, and they are all to some extent mutually exclusive. When I was ten I decided to get baptized (protestant, my parents chose not to have me baptized, as I should choose for myself), and I was confirmed when I was 14. However, at that time I realized I can never believe in any of these man-made fairytales. So I remain an atheist.

Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macro evolution) is not "minimal." It is as I have stated earlier: nonexistent!

Well, at this point all I can say is that your mind is clearly closed off to the possibility that evolution occurs, so I see no further point in discussing this with you. I have already presented evidence, but you're too dogmatic to assess it, so this is futile.

Peace.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]

have not found one single instance where a comp...

2012-05-24T09:12:07.557-04:00
have not found one single instance where a complete transition from one family of higher animals to another

That would not be speciation. You're shifting the goalposts to something much more - something that we cannot expect to see on the short timescales that you are requiring. They are different species of lizard, and they are clearly very different both genetically, morphologically, and functionally. That is macroevolution. And then you say "changing into something other than a plant." I mean, seriously?

So, for you, or any, evolutionist to defeat creationism, you must show firm proof of a complete transitional series.

Maybe for you to believe it, but most other people understand that this would be impossible, not because evolution is wrong, but because this takes waaaay to long compared to our lifetimes. And there is soooo much other evidence for evolution that you'd have to be in denial not to see it - which is what you are, of course.

(PART 3) Evolution is a philosophical worldview, n...

2012-05-23T23:46:49.737-04:00
(PART 3)
Evolution is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments:

“(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything…A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.”
-Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," p. 45.

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macro evolution) is not "minimal." It is as I have stated earlier: nonexistent!

Perhaps the leading evolutionist of the 20th Century is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. He called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

“Evolution…is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.”
-Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist, p. 125.

Later in the book he argued that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern,” (ibid., p. 222). Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis…is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place," (ibid).

These evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

To be fair, I have not researched your website, and therefore do not know your particular belief system, ie: whether you are a Christian who believes in evolution, a humanist, an atheist, an agnostic, etc. So I am simply asking: what are you? If perhaps you are an atheist, I ask another question: why are you an atheist?

In Christ Jesus,
Ryan

(PART 2) Now, more importantly, I would like to ad...

2012-05-23T23:46:31.936-04:00
(PART 2)
Now, more importantly, I would like to address the last little portion of your response. Believe it about yourself or not, your belief in evolution IS your religion. Why? Because for you, it determines what you believe, how you act, how you view the world and yourself in this world. You cannot say that this is untrue. Because of your "faith" in the "facts" as you see them concerning evolutionary theory, this has influence on how you view wrong and right, good and evil. It determines whether or not you are ultimately responsible to yourself or to someone else (God, for example) for your actions.

The following quotes are by evolutionists themselves.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
-Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," p. B-3.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism…we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan.

Lewontin’s frank statement says that since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of “just so” stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

“We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.”
-Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), p. 169.

An honest admission by a physicist that indicates the passionate commitment of evolutionary scientists to naturalism… speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”
-Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," p. 54.

Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”
-Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, p. S123.

Bjorn, (PART 1) The difficulties I have with the...

2012-05-23T23:23:47.854-04:00
Bjorn,

(PART 1)
The difficulties I have with the links you've provided me for your "proof" of speciation is that these “scientific facts” do not show a lizard evolving into anything other than a lizard. I have read a lot of articles about how evolutionists consider macro and micro evolution basically the same thing. So, contrary to your belief that I am just regurgitating creationist material without studying the so-called evidence for myself, I have looked over these "scientific findings" given by evolutionists and have not found one single instance where a complete transition from one family of higher animals to another—say, of some dinosaur to a bird, or cow to whale, or some specific reptile to some specific mammal, etc, exists.

For example, your link to the articles about the lizard... Did the lizard ever become anything OTHER than a lizard? In the same vein, is there any scientific proof that a plant has ever been observed to have changed into something other than a plant? The answer is a resounding "no."

So, for you, or any, evolutionist to defeat creationism, you must show firm proof of a complete transitional series. I do not mean, of course, one or two very questionable specimens, but a real step-by-step series that clearly documents the respective transitions from one kind to a higher kind on the evolutionary tree.
Since macro evolution is claimed to be an absolute fact of science, then surely there must be hundreds of such series somewhere. Even one really good series would probably suffice.

Am I being sarcastic? Perhaps a bit. Why? Because you can speak until you are blue in the face about how macro evolution has been proven, but the reality of your situation is, my dear friend, is that macro evolution has not been proven. At all. By anyone.

In Christ Jesus,
Ryan

Let me put this another way: why not impose Gays t...

2012-05-23T22:30:13.262-04:00
Let me put this another way: why not impose Gays to watch heterosexual scenes and them measure their arousal? Oh, I don’t think so! Because this will prove they are heterosexual deviants, which is what they really are!

They say “hey guys let’s make a study to prove that homophobes are closet homos…
oh look! A vague correlation: let’s draw wild conclusions.”

100% hetero men can be uncomfortable with homosexuals. That just means they find boys kissing boys a little bit gross. it’s not questionable until they start building a career or lifestyle around their dislike of homosexuals. Because the 100% hetero man isn’t going to be thinking about homosexuals very much, the same way I don’t spend too much time considering the vagaries of steaming horse shit or penile-vaginal intercourse. When you’re getting spooked by homosexual specters left and right, endangering your children and your sexuality with their rampant gayness it just sort of tells everyone what you spend a lot of time thinking about (rampant gayness).

Tell me: who is this homophobic guy who's been...

2012-05-23T20:38:28.410-04:00
Tell me: who is this homophobic guy who's been subjected to to watch gay scenes he so detests? Who would betray its own principles in this way and would give himself freely to be subject to contradiction? I tell you: this "research" is a LIE !

http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html

We don't see the data - the math dosen'...

2012-05-21T13:34:59.775-04:00
We don't see the data - the math dosen't add up.

Absence of evidence... (which is what the whole thing with Dr. Jobe Martin is).

Which math? Probabilities? Based on the right theory? For example, are you taking into account that suboptimal systems/traits can go to fixation because of funky effects of demographics?

I think it would help to understand the Theory of Evolution.

Come on! That should be the premise of this whole discussion. You honestly get into it thinking you can say it doesn't work without understanding the theory in the first place? "General relativity just can't be true, because I don't see how it can work. Also, I don't know the theory."

I don't know for sure. It seems extremely improbable

"Seems"? By whom? Based on what understanding? An engineer's way of making things?

if the process was slow and gradual I would expect we would have more data - fossils and similiar living species with evidence of the intermediate system

Expect more data based on what? That many fossils are found in places where giraffes lived? That hearts and other tissue involved in giraffe physiology fossilize easily?

True it does not work that way in Engineering - we make sudden and drastic changes to overcome technology gaps.

And what does that tell you?

Lastly, we are only so many evolutionary biologists. You can't expect that every "system" you feel like looking at has been investigated by scientists. Does the fact that engineers haven't built a flying car that runs on solar power mean the "theory of engineering" is wrong? Breaks, gimme!

Why would it be useless? Do you know that it was u...

2012-05-21T12:16:52.658-04:00
Why would it be useless? Do you know that it was useless? How? Could it not be used for something else at the time?

I don't know for sure. It seems extremely improbable - if the process was slow and gradual I would expect we would have more data - fossils and similiar living species with evidence of the intermediate system. True it does not work that way in Engineering - we make sudden and drastic changes to overcome technology gaps.

Thansk for the reply - I think most good Engineers...

2012-05-21T11:52:55.541-04:00
Thansk for the reply - I think most good Engineers would not look at this question with certainty but with mathematical improbability. We don't see the data - the math dosen't add up. Engineeers look at sub system optimization and would find it hard to believe that a dual purpose or semi-functioning element could be optimized over time through adaptation and selection - dual purpose - shared function - systems typically are low performing from an Engineering perspective. I guess what I was looking for was a logical process from which these systems could evolve - any one of animals that Dr. Martin presents as evidence against evolution. It would be interesting to understand what the scientific community believes here - I think it would help to understand the Theory of Evolution.

This system that could allow further elongation...

2012-05-21T08:35:04.926-04:00
This system that could allow further elongation of the neck would be useless to a short necked giraffe - correct?

Why would it be useless? Do you know that it was useless? How? Could it not be used for something else at the time? This is how many things work in evolution - traits that are later co-opted for some new use are initially beneficial for some other reason. Very much not how it works in engineering, which makes me suspect is the reason why it is so common to hear engineers state with certainty that this or that could not have evolved. The way humans make things and the the evolution makes things are very, very different.

Personally, I do not know enough about giraffe physiology to speculate how its neck evolved.

[Carl Bergstrom asked me to post this for him.] T...

2012-05-20T17:06:10.829-04:00
[Carl Bergstrom asked me to post this for him.]

Thanks for the writeup, Bjorn.

The Eigenfactor score was developed as a tool for evaluating the total importance of a journal, analogous to total count of citations to that journal over a given period. Such a metric can be useful for a number of purposes, such as making collections decisions about which journals to purchase with a limited library budget. As you note, this metric scales with the size of a journal.

However, the Eigenfactor score is not the proper metric for the purpose you discuss here: deciding which journal is the most prestigious. Individual authors or researchers interested in deciding where to send their work will be interested in the influence-per-paper that a given journal has. Another of the Eigenfactor metrics, the Article Influence score, serves this purpose and is analogous to the Thomson-Reuters' Impact Factor score.

Article Influence scores for the PLoS family are

PLoS Biology: 8.2112
PLoS Computation Biology: 2.9791
PLoS One: 1.941

Thus if you use the proper Eigenfactor metric for comparing prestige (or equivalently, per-paper influence) you'll see that PLoS Biology is four times as prestigious as PLoS One.

Best regards,
Carl Bergstrom
Eigenfactor.org

Simclardy is looking for a counter point to the ar...

2012-05-19T04:25:18.832-04:00
Simclardy is looking for a counter point to the argument. I have searched Google and cannot find any good examples of reverse engineering the process of evolution for complex systems like the Giraffe - in fact I'm getting frustrated with so called scientists shrugging off the answers. There are numerous examples of complex systems that would have had to exist prior to another system coming into existence as is the case with the long neck and a complex system to prevent blood from over pressurizing the vessels in the brain. This system that could allow further elongation of the neck would be useless to a short necked giraffe - correct? Observation tells us that parts that are not used go away. How would the giraffe hang on to an unused system for a million years? BTW I am an engineer focused on advanced technologies and complex electro-mechanical systems. Can you give us a logical process by which the giraffe evolved or is this something that is yet to be theorized?

Why didn't anyone ever respond to techieguy...

2012-05-16T17:09:53.991-04:00
Why didn't anyone ever respond to techieguy's posts? Can anyone explain the information he posted and how the theory of the evolutionary process worked to allow these things to be as they are today?

Ryan, you must have misunderstood Techieguy. Those weren't his comments, but those of another creationist. The point is that this creationist - just like Dr. Martin - raises points about traits that he doesn't see how could have evolved, making that an argument that they couldn't have evolved. My main point in the original post was to say that this is logically false, aka 'appeal to ignorance'.

However, for some reason, when people who claim "Evolutionary Theory" is true science, you take the scientific method and completely reorder it, distort it, change it, and ignore it. Thus far, I have yet to find how any theory of evolution can be proven by the scientific method.

Real science I agree with when it is proven fact. True facts don't have "what if's" in them. True facts don't change because other facts pertaining to them invalidate them or compromise them or conflict with them.

Well, you get the terms 'theory'. 'fact' and 'proof' thoroughly messed up. There is no proof of any theory. Theory is not opposite fact. The theory of evolution is a working model of how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a (scientific) fact.

If evolution was a proven FACT, we would be able to test it, observe it, and verify the findings thereof, but alas, this has yet to be done.

No, this has been done. Just because you don't know it doesn't make it not so. We are able to test it, observe it, and verify it. Go here or here for some examples of speciation. My own favorite examples of macroevolution (btw, a term that evolutionary biologists seldomly use, because most of us have realized that microevolution scales continuously to macroevolution) is Podarcis sicula. This lizard underwent some major changes observed by biologists. Go here to read more about that, and here for the paper reference.

Your theory of evolution does have holes in it. A lot of them.

All theories do, Ryan. That doesn't falsify the theory - it just means that it is work in progress.

Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.  Your theory of evolution hinges on macro-evolution - and it has NEVER been observed in ANY REAL scientific way.

See links to examples above.

Can you honestly say that you do not approach evolution with a religious dogma of your own? Think about it - the Theory of Evolution is YOUR religion because it allows you to believe whatever you want!

Yes, I honestly can say that I do not approach evolution (or anything, for that matter) with religious dogma. I don't believe whatever I want - I believe what the evidence tells me, and that it the big difference between scientific thinking and religious dogmatic thinking.

P.S. Not that I have the faintest hope of trying to convince you of anything.

Why didn't anyone ever respond to techieguy...

2012-05-14T23:35:29.762-04:00
Why didn't anyone ever respond to techieguy's posts? Can anyone explain the information he posted and how the theory of the evolutionary process worked to allow these things to be as they are today?

I consider myself a conservative Bible-believing Christian. I like science. i have no problem with real, true science. But what I find when I approach the "THEORY of evolution" is not true science. It doesn't even fit into the scientific method - if you're not familiar with the scientific method, just do a quick Wikipedia search or dictionary.com search...

True, fact finding science, can be proven with the scientific method. True science, when using the scientific method, works in this order:

1 Define a question
2 Gather information and resources (observe)
3 Form an explanatory hypothesis
4 Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5 Analyze the data
6 Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7 Publish results
8 Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Thus, the repeated observance of a particular phenomena can be proven, reproduced, tested, etc, etc...

However, for some reason, when people who claim "Evolutionary Theory" is true science, you take the scientific method and completely reorder it, distort it, change it, and ignore it. Thus far, I have yet to find how any theory of evolution can be proven by the scientific method.

"Oh well, you can't just reproduce millions of years, etc.." some evolutionists would say. So why can't evolutionists agree with how old the earth is? If evolution was a proven FACT, we would be able to test it, observe it, and verify the findings thereof, but alas, this has yet to be done. Then, miraculously, when something goes contrary to evolutionary theory, rather than changing or adjusting your bias belief, you simply reorder your "data" or make "scientific adjustments" or simply add another few million years... Yeah, buddy... that's REAL science. Real science I agree with when it is proven fact. True facts don't have "what if's" in them. True facts don't change because other facts pertaining to them invalidate them or compromise them or conflict with them. Your theory of evolution does have holes in it. A lot of them. Find me 100 evolutionary scientists who agree 100% on all aspects of the theory of evolution - you can't - why? Because the theory of evolution is not real science because it does not adhere to or follow the scientific method. Please explain this:

Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

Your theory of evolution hinges on macro-evolution - and it has NEVER been observed in ANY REAL scientific way.

Be fair to yourself and to everyone else - don't claim macro-evolution (your belief that man evolved from an ape, from an organism, from goo floating in water on a rock floating through space) as true science when it is nothing more than a theory.

Now - let us be fair - you approach belief in a Creator with a bias belief and then claim evolution is true science, when it is nothing more than a "THEORY". Now, you can just as easily say that my belief system is a theory too because you cannot scientifically prove God. We could talk for awhile on that subject and how science doesn't apply to everything nor prove everything... Can you honestly say that you do not approach evolution with a religious dogma of your own? Think about it - the Theory of Evolution is YOUR religion because it allows you to believe whatever you want! So you have a bias opinion as well... only, I don't try to prove everything with science, and as far as I am concerned, no one has ever proven evolution as true science using the scientific method.

In the love of Christ,
Ryan

Simclardy, this post is about what I intend...

2012-05-13T18:29:09.564-04:00
Simclardy, this post is about what I intended it to be about, and I am so sorry that it didn't live up to your expectations. However, Dr. Jobe Martin argues that because he cannot understand how something evolves, then it cannot have evolved, and I hope you agree that such an argument in no way holds water, particularly when he clearly doesn't know much about evolutionary theory. I haven't here said anything about evolutionary theory, but there are plenty of resources for you (and, indeed, Dr. Martin), on this blog or elsewhere.

P.S. Of course I am arrogant! Here is a guy that truly knows nothing about something that others know a lot about, and he says we are all wrong. What else am I supposed to do that say he knows nothing? And, just because you didn't find in this post what you wanted to learn about, you really shouldn't feel like a plebeian. I don't know much about your profession, and this should be all right, no? Or I could say: I think it is arrogant of those who dismiss evolutionary theory without really knowing much about it, don't you?

I was trying to learn what the argument was agains...

2012-05-13T16:26:30.806-04:00
I was trying to learn what the argument was against Dr Martin but all I came away with is "he is dumb and un-educated". I hate the arogance in "science". I wish "scientist" could be more humble. As an electrician trying to learn something I feel like a plabian.

Hi Daniel. The simulation is written in Matlab. I...

2012-05-08T11:12:42.694-04:00
Hi Daniel.

The simulation is written in Matlab. I just saved images at some interval and used a program called iStopMotion to make the video. This program is not free, but didn't cost very much.

Let me know if you have any other questions,

Hi, congratulations for the wonderful animation! I...

2012-05-08T08:44:08.785-04:00
Hi, congratulations for the wonderful animation! I would like to ask if you could share how you did it. I am preparing a class about Adaptive Radiation and will cover adaptive landsacape. I am also trying to fill the gap of my poor knowledge of maths intuitively first by simulating in Matlab and R.

Thanks,
Daniel

My favorite diet is the one that works for me and ...

2012-05-04T16:38:43.754-04:00
My favorite diet is the one that works for me and that I can stick with; haven't found it yet. Weight Watchers comes closest.

Anon: Your comment is pretty prophetic, actually...

2012-04-23T23:20:12.532-04:00
Anon: Your comment is pretty prophetic, actually. Intelligence is a tremendous advantage to any organism, weather it be the simply reaction to light in phototrophism, or that sort of reaction developed to a level where the organism can predict and avoid dangers, and even contriving strategies and technologies to mitigate them. It really is, one of the more obvious and simplistic examples of a trait through which natural selection might act.

I think it's ironic that you choose this example to showcase your lack of understanding.

Oh, and for the record, in the last one hundred and fifty years, not a single scientific paper has ever presented proof counter to evolution, nor has any paper even cast a doubt on the basic understand of the evolution through natural selection process, that Darwin presented in ‘The Origin of Species.’ Not one.

Robin, thanks for the links. Once I read the paper...

2012-04-20T17:50:45.433-04:00
Robin, thanks for the links. Once I read the paper in the future, I might check them out.