Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble

On Aug 19, 9:23 pm, bi...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
facts, because that'd be quite rude.

All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was
falsified. Has this ever occurred? EVER?

What you really want is whether or not speciation events are ever
*tested* empirically to see if a particular hypothesis of relatedness
(are humans more closely related to chimps or to gorillas and thus
have a more recent ancestor with which group?) or a particular
mechanism of speciation (is the method of reproductive isolation due
to chromosomal rearrangements or is it due to autopolyploidy?) is or
is not consistent with the available empirical evidence.

Clearly, the hypothesis that humans and chimps are more closely
related (and thus have a more recent common ancestor) has become more
supported than the alternative hypothesis that humans are more closely
related to gorillas, so that means that the latter hypothesis has been
rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. The idea that humans were
poofed into existence from clay by a supernatural agent has no
supporting empirical evidence at all: humanoids have changed form over
time even after separation from the chimp lineage and clay is a poor
material for making humans.

A number of wild plant species appear to be due to autopolyploidy from
hybridization of other wild plant species. Experimentally, one can
produce autopolyploids in the lab and the results are consistent with
the idea that these apparently autopolyploid species (defined as
reproductively isolated from both parent species) are indeed produced
by that mechanism. It is known that multiple translocations and
inversions can produce hybrid sterility and thus be a reproductively
isolating mechanism. And the evidence is that this is what explains
the mule, which means that it explains the mechanism of speciation
that differentiates the horse from the donkey.

If not, then I can make the claim that scientists are treating
evolution EXACTLY like a faith system. EXACTLY.

Science does not require that an hypothesis be "falsified". It
requires that it be "falsifiable". In fact, the more 'true' a natural
explanation is, the more likely it is to only be rarely "falsified",
despite continuous and continuing attempts to "test" the hypothesis
with "falsifiable" hypotheses.

As for your demand that I read every paper ever written before my
doubts are valid. If nobody could voice their doubts without reading
every paper ever written, the result would be that science would never
be challenged. As I hope you know, science is only healthy when it is
CONSTANTLY being challenged.

Each new analysis of genes and DNA sequences represents a challenge to
currently held ideas. In fact, a number of surprises have arisen in
the analysis of organisms where morphology is a poor source of
differentiating features. In a group such as "fungi", it is
reasonably clear that there may be several independently evolved
groups that have historically been tossed into this category. And
because there can be a disconnect between morphology and sequence, we
can find such 'surprises' as that the deep sea vent
"worms" (morphology) are actually modified "clams" (DNA sequence).

Well, despite the fact that the theory wouldn't be there in the first
place if that combination was impossible, how about the following? DNA
turns out to be perfectly suited for evolution. It is easy to change,
and holds changes easily. It does not, for example, simply back-mutate
every time a change is made, which would make evolution impossible.
That's in the 29+ Evidences. Note that DNA was discovered after
evolution, and this test could have, like your test above, falsified
it, but it didn't.

Under that hypothetical scenario, what if DNA were to only back-mutate
under certain conditions? Then a single case, or even multiple cases,
of DNA back-mutation would not truly falsify evolution.

The rate of back-mutation is, typically, no different from the rate of
forward-mutations of the same type and is independent of the need for
that back mutation.

For this proposed falsifier to work, You would have to prove that DNA
mutations ALWAYS back-mutate, (and you would have to do this in
standard replication experiments) to falsify evolution. But how could
you do that, even in principle? How could you prove that DNA always
back-mutates? You can't, even in principle.... not even in this
parallel universe that you are hypothesizing. Thus, evolution could
continue as a faith-based theory, even if we had discovered back then
that DNA mutations USUALLY back-mutate.

We most certainly can test for reversion, aka back-mutation. And have
clearly demonstrated that reversion, just like forward mutation, *when
it can occur*, does so independently of the need for that reversion.
Moreover, we know a lot about the *rates* of certain kinds of
mutations (reversions are typically specific mutations) and many other
details that can produce "phenotypic reversion". Point mutation
reversions of point forward mutations are probably what you are
thinking of, and those typically are 'rarer' than the forward mutation
because, often, any forward point mutation that knocks out gene
function will produce the phenotypic effect. But only *specific*
reversion point mutations (which need not be at the same site) can
restore functionality to the protein.

OTOH, forward large *deletion* mutations (frameshifts and triplets are
different) are unrevertable because there is generally no mechanism
that can replace that which no longer exists. When phenotypic
reversion of a deletion mutation occurs, it is typically due to
another gene present in the organism acquiring a new functionality, as
in the case of ebg acquiring the ability to digest lactose. But,
clearly, in the case of a deletion mutation, there generally is no
back mutation of DNA in the sense of restoring the specific deleted
gene in any time frame and to restoring *phenotype* in an
experimentally observable time frame is often also impossible. But
not always. And the mechanisms that *can* produce phenotypic
reversion when the original gene is deleted shows us how evolution
works to produce new function.

And I haven't even discussed the fact that there can be secondary
mutations that can be 'selected' for (enhancers and suppressors) that
can modify an effect and produce an irreducibly complex correction to
an original mutation.

However, you definitely raise a very good point. It may be that, when
a new speciation is about to occur, DNA simply back-mutates and
prevents the reproductively isolated speciation. That may be why
(reproductively isolated) speciation observations are so rare.....
indeed, non-existent from a falsificationalist perspective.

The above is bull*** pseudojargon by someone who doesn't have a clue
as to what they are talking about. Why don't you learn a tiny little
bit about genetics before you spew out nonsense StarTrek science talk?

You are implying here that evolution has not been tested. I call
bull***.

Well, fine. Then provide me with a single instance where a claimed
speciation has been falsified. If you can't do that, then at least
give me an example where it was at least TRIED! Otherwise, you are
just blowing smoke. Smoke and mirrors.

Again, this has been and continues to be done daily. Every time a
scientist sequences DNA of a gene or a genome, he is testing the
existing pattern of descent. By and large scientists go out of their
way to do this testing on groups or organisms where the past
methodology for determining patterns of descent (morphology) is
problematic because either there are few points of morphology to look
at or because the physics of the environment can produce analogy
rather than homology. And surprises were found that required either
changing the pattern of descent or an explicit recognition that the
categorization is in some ways incorrect. For example, birds are not,
as most taxonomies would show, a separate co-equal group with reptiles
(I will mention that this taxonomy works well when one is only
considering currently living organisms, which is why it has not been
replaced), but are instead a highly derived reptile. But, then, so
are mammals, but via a different pathway.

Except, for example, medicine which saves people's lives, but of
course, that's not evolution, that's just a perfectly normal
phenomenon which happens to be explained by evolution.

It is not evolution. It is variation of bacterial resistance (to
antibiotics) WITHIN SPECIES.

How many times to I have to keep repeating that variation WITHIN
species is not the same as SPECIATION? And speciation is the only
point of debate?

And clearly there is enough variation available within species to
produce new species by anagenesis (see the variation in dogs) if there
is a changing environment that favors, say, miniaturization, as occurs
to large species on islands. But I agree that *speciation* often
arises by neutral drift in isolated populations or by hybrid
dysgenesis driving a reproductively isolating mechanism. Both are
more likely to occur on "ecological islands".

Are the new bacterial strains reproductively isolated from the old
strains? If not, they are not a new species. Period.

Bacteria do not reproduce in the sense that humans do. They do engage
in exchange of genetic information, but by quite different mechanisms
than the meiotic cycle and the exchange is not limited to just their
'species' but can range across a variable range of related 'species'
depending on the vector of exchange. Determining 'species' in
bacteria is far more difficult than doing so in insects. In fact,
'species' determination is more of a *quantitative* analysis (how much
is this bacteria like E. coli rather than other Enterobacters) rather
than a *qualitative* one.

Bollocks! What is ID theory, bimms? You can't even tell us that, or
list any testable predictions, and you reckon that's going to replace
evolution and produce wonderful technologies? How much research has
been done on ID theory, like, ever?

ID is the idea that certain biological structures are useless unless
they appear fully formed, with all parts intact and fully functional.
We "predict" that no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route will be
discovered, to explain how the various IC structures came into being.

So? How do you test that "no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route"
will *ever* be discovered? At best all you can do is state that there
is "no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route" that is *currently*
known to be possible. And most of the time, ID doesn't even have
that; most of the time it has to declare that possible proposed
gradualistic-evolutionary mechanisms won't work, usually by louder and
louder assertion. All you idea does is to make ID a "garbage" or
"fall-back" theory; whenever you choose not to look any further than
your current level of ignorance, you can attribute the observed result
to an unspecified something doing something at some time and place to
produce by some unspecified mechanism whatever exists. *That* (all
those somethings and unspecifieds) is the essence of an untestable
theory that makes no testable predictions.

What prediction does ID make that is *independent* of the claim that
"evolution could not produce this"? Does ID predict that the genes of
particular features would all be the same in organisms that have it
(as would be the case if a designer put in the same genes in all
organisms a mere 6000 years ago)? Does ID predict that all the
sequence differences in, say, cytochrome c or eubacterial flagella, in
different organisms represent *functionally important* differences, as
if an artisan had produced them rather than differences that produce a
pattern of historical descent? Or does ID predict that there should
be no *common* or *consistent* pattern of differences? Does ID
predict that all the genes of particular features would have no
moieties that have similarity to any other moiety or structure in any
other gene in that or related organisms? And does ID only apply to
features that are IC (if you could actually demonstrate that)?
Curious minds want a testable prediction, not an ID which is nothing
but a fall-back based on current ignorance.

We are not convinced by the attempts of evolutionists to propose
highly complex, convoluted "parallel evolution" theories, since they
not only fail Occam's razor, but produce more problems than they
solve. I encourage you to read Behe's new book, in which he counter-
refutes the good faith efforts of evolutionists to shore up their
crumbling theory.

Behe's math is in complete disagreement with the math of people who
actually study these things. I go with the experts rather than the
amateur. There is absolutely no problem in, for example, generating
the human and chimp genomes from a common ancestor in the time
available without even the need to invoke selection (except as a
conservative force). Creationists (and Behe) radically exaggerate the
number of changes needed to produce evolutionary change.

I mean, what possesses you to say this? You must know there isn't any
ID theory, and that its proponents aren't researching it, and that
they can't and won't even answer basic criticisms of it? Do you
honestly feel what you're saying adds up? Do you honestly feel you're,
well, honest?

Let me ask you. Have you read Behe's counter-refutations of the
"parallel evolution" claims against his IC structures?

I may go to the library and get it sometime, but surely you could also
read the reviews of his book by *real* scientists. They regard his
math as laughably simplistic and wrong.


.