Have you ever tried writing palindromes? How about writing phrases that can be read the same way in either direction? Here are some examples:
A man, a plan, a canal: Panama
Live not on evil
Was it a car or a cat I saw
These sentences were no doubt designed…
Can you imagine writing a book that can be read forwards and backwards containing 2 different stories that made sense? Not an easy task…
Watch the video and pay special attention to the following examples:
- Alternative splicing of RNA that produces multiple proteins from one gene
- Duons – Overlapping sequences that code for both protein expression and transcription factor binding sites simultaneously
- Dual coding genes in which one sequence is read in multiple frames to produce completely different protein
The magnitude of the dual coding problem in DNA would be the equivalent of writing a novel that could be read in either forward over reverse directions making two different stories both of which made sense…
And don’t forget that according to Darwinists the dual coding in DNA simply evolved, right?
keiths,
Its you making stuff up so you can argue with your self pretending it is me.
Again you’re making stuff up.
Here it is. Your meaningless argument against yourself.
Again keiths is making up a story to argue against.
You fabricated this idea that I was upset at your claim that Behe accepts common descent and then you continue to make fabricated arguments and attribute them to me. One last time.
I understand that Behe accepts common descent as almost everyone does. The details tell a different story but you do not seem to care about understanding the real argument so again were done unless you try and misrepresent me again as you continue to misrepresent Behe by continuing to repeat a meaningless claim.
Haha. So much for this:
Let it go, Bill. You’ve lost another one.
And of course not everyone accepts common descent in the way that Behe, and I, and every scientifically literate person on the planet understands it.
keiths,
So like Behe you consider it a trivial claim that explains half of Darwin’s hypothesis. If not how do you and the elite scientists understand it?
colewd,
Behe doesn’t consider it a trivial claim, and neither do I.
(And yes, I know the quote you’re thinking of, and no, it doesn’t say what you think it says.)
colewd, now:
colewd, then:
Allan:
colewd:
And:
Too funny.
Bill,
This is what we see happening over and over.
Some particular point is brought up.
You can’t provide any real arguments for your position.
You accept the facts as given.
You nod towards those facts as accepted.
Some time passess
You seem to forget about the points previously made
You repeat what you now know to be false.
It’s not just you, it’s all of you. For example, i’ve brought up relevant points regarding this OP before with J-Mac. He’s just ignores them, as if he did not he’d then not be able to write OP’s like this one in “good faith”.
It’s also the reason why none of you ever do anything useful or constructive. You can’t build on a foundation full of holes, and that’s what you get when you are utterly selective about what information you choose to accept.
Are any geologists asking Sal about where to find oil in a young earth?
Are any biologists talking to FMM about his concept of “species”?
Are any scientists taking to J-Mac about his ideas regarding Quantum Mutations?
Is anybody taking your points seriously Bill? Other then in this forum? What changes have you caused in the real world by claiming that “atoms are designed”?
You’ve got nothing, you produce nothing and eventually your worldview will just fade away to nothing as you are unable to cause it to spread because of your inability to make a cogent argument. You’ve been out-selected by worldviews that actually are productive and useful.
but let’s give it a go.
J-Mac,
If we assume design in biology because we see similar patterns in the things which we design, what do human designers do that is analogous to writing a book that can be read forwards and backwards containing 2 different stories that made sense?
If you can’t name anything then is the conclusion of “design” not after all based on what human designers do?
And in fact, is it not the case that human designers aim for the opposite of writing a book that can be read forwards and backwards containing 2 different stories that made sense? Given that such a story would be difficult to change in the future? That sounds like awful design to me.
But I’m sure you can clarify everything with your razor sharp insight and inside knowledge of the designer.
Since you seem to be unwilling to respond to any of the objections that were raised, I am simply going to call your bluff: This statement is plain wrong.
Here is the paragraph from the Sanna et al. paper from which that quote was taking:
So the quote refers to overlapping genes, not dual coding genes. Further, there is a paragraph that flatly contradicts your claim:
So in the same-strand-overlap genes, one gene simply resides in the (non-coding) intron of another gene. For the opposite-strand-overlap genes, the numbers of genes with overlapping coding region are 6-8%. This is much lower than the 90% that you quote.
OTOH, if we take your claim at face value, of all the dual coding genes (that is, genes with overlapping reading frames) 100% are on opposite strands. However, since they now turn out to be so rare, this is a Pyrrhic victory.
The reasons why dual-coding genes are rare in the human genome have all been mentioned previously in this thread (and you have ignored them): 1) There is no benefit to dual-coding genes unless there is some restriction on genome size. 2) Dual-coding genes interfere with each others transcription, so dual-coding is a very poor design decision. And 3) finally: the rare overlap of coding regions is EXACTLY what is to be expected from evolution because merging of already existing genes is very unlikely. Here is the relevant paragraph:
J-Mac, you really should stop regurgitating this nonsense and then gloating about it. Every time you end up looking really silly. A bit more modesty would be in order, I think.
OMagain,
This happens to both sides.
keiths is again distorting and misrepresenting. He answers half the question and as Behe clearly claimed that common descent is not very important as an explanation of life’s diversity.
If your world view is so solid why is keiths compelled to distort his opponents and others arguments?
And if atorms are designed why does any of this matter 🙂
OMagain,
BTW: The atoms are designed argument appears to have legs. The only counter argument to it by Entropy is claiming that the characteristic of matter being repeatable and specified is that it is fundamental or without cause.
I don’t think matter being without cause has long term viability as an argument as long as the big bang theory is front and center.
The big difference is the pro-science authors backs up what they say with published scientific research. The ID-Creationists just mindlessly repeat their same already discredited talking points ad nauseum.
You’re Exhibit A.
I’m sure you can provide a list of published scientific papers which support that rather amazing claim.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus don’t qualify.
Adapa,
You’re deceiving yourself here. Published scientific research is effective if it contains experimental evidence that backs up specific claims.
I have yet to see evolutionists support their claims this way. The papers support claims with speculation often using Darwin’s inference as an a priori assumption.
All science builds off of previously published and verified work. If you think every new paper has to also publish the hundred+ years of research which came before it you’re even a bigger scientific ignoramus than you appear.
Adapa,
It turns out that supersymmetry theory does support this claim as its mathematical models require binary error correcting code and there are published papers in this area.
Here is an introduction:
There is a distinct lack of, shall we say, productivity on one of the sides here.
For example, can you name the most significant advance in Intelligent Design in 2017 Bill?
2016?
2015?
Beuller?
That must be why the prefered venue of Intelligent Design supporters is the book.
Adapa,
Yes, you are right it builds on itself. Since Darwinian evolution is built on non experimental inference it is a house of cards. We don’t have experimental evidence that speciation occurs.
OMagain,
You don’t get it do you? Keiths is now trying to align himself with Behe. Theobald and Harshman are separating out Darwin’s mechanism. You had a conference in England to re write the theory. Design is winning as the only viable explanation for the arrival of new complexity.
So you can provide no published papers at all with supporting evidence atoms are designed, just the usual ID-Creationist hand waves. Got it.
We do have a huge amount of observational evidence though.
I suppose you’re from the Ken Ham school of stupidity: “Were you THERE??? Did you SEE IT???”
Do you think Mt. Everest was POOFED into existence because we can’t experimentally reproduce plate tectonic collisions building a mountain?
And of course being plenty evidence of common descent (between different species) that same evidence trivially counts as evidence for speciation.
Unsurprisingly Billy is unable to connect the logical dots
Do astronomers?
Do those who model the Late Heavy Bombardment and the planetary movements that theoretically gave rise to it?
Do you have any clue about science? Of course you’ve been corrected on this nonsense previously, but you just return to your false claims meant to support your BS again solely because you care about your beliefs and not about legitimate methods of discovery.
Glen Davidson
Adapa,
Sure, but none of this evidence supports how transitions occurred. You have evidence and a claim but the problem is they don’t fit together. Until they do all the papers sited are mute.
GlenDavidson,
Sure they do Glen. They have a core theory called General relativity which has a predictive mathematical model and has been validated by experiment.
dazz,
I agree there is trivial evidence for speciation. The question not answered is how this speciation occurred especially a transition where new molecular innovation occurred.
Well that’s pretty stupid.
You think that evolutionary biologists don’t have a core “theory” called quantum mechanics that has been validated by experiment, that is crucial to evolutionary change?
Of course astronomers use relativity, without making relativity into astronomy, any more than quantum mechanics is evolutionary biology just because the latter depends on aspects of QM.
If it were not for bad thinking, you’d never think at all. Not about these issues, anyway.
Glen Davidson
Yes we have plenty of evidence at to how the transitions occurred. The process of how complexity is added is well understood and has been experimentally verified both in the lab and in in computer simulations. The evidence is sufficient to convince 99.9% of all scientists who have every studied the subject.
Sorry but your ignorance based personal incredulity only shows how little you care to actually understand the history of life on the planet.
The question was answered over 60 years ago. The explanation has been given to you ad nauseum. That you choose to remain willfully ignorant is not science’s problem.
GlenDavidson,
Relativity explains movement of the planets, black holes, worm holes etc. Again it is a tested theory. Evolutionary biology does not have a tested theory that explains its key claim of transitions. Unfortunately quantum mechanics is not helpful here. Where has astronomy made similar unsupported claims?
Adapa,
You don’t have an experimentally validated explanation here, you are deceiving yourself again. Why are you making false claims?
And it explains carbon, hence is crucial to biochemistry. That’s as brilliant as your stupid claim about astronomy being tested because it uses physics.
Of course it uses physics, that’s why it’s science. Evolutionary biology uses physics, unlike ID, that’s why it is science and ID is BS.
Oh I see, it’s the “key claim of transitions” because you’re unwilling to agree that the massively incredible results of evolution found in the derivation of life patterned in the nested hierarchy is actually entailed by evolution and nothing else.
What experiment has shown us how black holes merge? And quit trying to shoehorn physics into astronomy as if it made astronomy experimental. If physics makes astronomy experimental it also makes evolutionary biology experimental. Is it impossible for you to treat anything even-handedly that touches origins?
How about the Late Heavy Bombardment? Oh, that’s getting back to experimental evidence, which is what you were discussing before you tried to shift the goalposts, like the pseudoscientist you are.
If you want evidence for transitions, rather than your illegimately shifting goalpost of “experimental evidence,” there’s plenty, from transitional fossils to cladistics. Unfortunately, however, you don’t care about evidence, just about rubbishing evolutionary evidence.
Oh hey, I’ll tell you one claimed “science” that utterly lacks legitimately entailed and detailed experimental and observational evidence for it.
It’s ID.
Glen Davidson
colewd,
The thing is, the only consequence of you being unconvinced is, well, nothing of any consequence. Some random bloke on the internet refuses to accept what has convinced 99.9% of other people. The only way that’s going to matter is if you make it matter.
And I doubt you’ll achieve that on a blog. You’ll have to get out there and do better science then the doubters, generate sufficient results that cannot be generated any other way but your own. Use the knowledge that “the atom is designed” to build a better fusion generator. Or an anti-gravity device. The possibilities are endless. Much like your array of excuses as to why none of that is possible.
I had a very similar argument with Billy years ago over at Sandwalk. The analogous to those biological “transitions” in astronomy would be the “macro-gravitational” events like formation of large celestial bodies by gradual accretion. He just can’t see how ridiculous his obvious double standard is. Anyway, it’s a waste of time, he’s a lost cause
And you’ve never seen a continent drift. Yet I doubt you reject that they do. You’ve never seen an electron but I bet you believe “electricity” explains how your TV works. Your sceptical thoughts only extend so far. You know for sure atoms are designed and nothing built from those atoms can evolve (transition) into other things built out of the same atoms. It’s funny what you know and don’t huh?
Double standard there, even worse double standard in demanding no evidence (that counts) for ID at all.
Quadruple standard?
Glen Davidson
The Lenski LTEE was experimental validation evolutionary processes can produce new genetic sequences and new morphological variations.
That you don’t accept the evidence due to your scientific ignorance and religious biases is not science’s problem.
He posts the same stupidity over at Corny Hunter’s blog too. It’s like claiming he accepts observed rain caused mudslides because that’s micro-erosion but the same process couldn’t have worn down the Appalachian Mountains because that’s unobserved macro-erosion.
Yes Bill, your claims really are that dumb.
dazz,
He really is, but that’s part of the fascination. It’s a grotesque interplay of Dunning-Kruger and religious nutjobbery.
We lament trainwrecks, but that doesn’t mean we don’t look.
Glen Davidson
I’ve asked you this many times, and I think you’ve ignored me every time. Why do you think that experiment is the only proper model for science?
Experiments are nothing more than the setting up of conditions under which certain observations are more probable. But the observations from experiment are not in any way privileged over observations from outside the lab. The process of science — inference — is the same in either case. We have copious evidence that speciation occurred in the past. We also have experimental evidence for the processes of speciation, but that’s another matter. (See the aptly titled Speciation by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr, for a host of citations.)
There’s plenty of evidence for how transitions happen Bill. That was the big deal with Darwin and his proposal of natural selection, that it explained those transitions. You have observed that there’s lots of variability within a species, right?
To bring the message home, Darwin described first “artificial” selection. He described doves (if I remember correctly, he bred doves himself). Nowhere in nature would you find doves like the ones breeders were getting. That means, ahem, “new” information by any standards (I quote “new” because you creationists have a very weird way of defining terms). Now, bred doves are not everyday stuff, so you might not be familiar with the kinds of stuff breeders get. What about dogs Bill? Stop! Don’t rush answering some other thing. Focus: you were talking about the possibility for transitions and “new” information. Dogs with very long ears, dogs with better sense of smell than any wolf or any other dog breeds, dogs with shapes allowing them to get into burrows, gods that run petty fast, dogs with all kinds of shapes and abilities. Mostly with no characteristics that you find in wolves. New information Bill. So, if we can do that with a branch of wolves, by selecting and selecting and selecting. I don’t see why new species with new information could not arise in nature.
Now, I know this might not convince you. You prefer evolution to be impossible without a magical being in charge. But try and look at it from the position of someone who doesn’t have your handicap. Suppose you’re not deeply against the mere idea. Do you really not see how convincing the evidence can be unless you’re attached to a belief in a magical being? Do you really not see that, from an unbiased position, you’re just making excuses to reject the evidence, rather than fairly considering it?
colewd:
Let’s see about that:
keiths:
colewd:
keiths:
Here’s Behe, from The Edge of Evolution:
Does Behe dismiss common descent as “a trivial claim”, as you assert? Not at all. He labels it “startling” and “astonishing”. It’s only the explanation that he labels “trivial”, and even then only in one sense: that organisms inherit characteristics from their ancestors, as we all know.
You accuse me of distorting Behe’s position, but over and over again it’s you who is doing the misrepresentation, and I and others have to step in and correct you.
You’re really blowing it, Bill.
Behe:
Note that this is exactly what we’ve been telling you, Bill, over and over. Do you finally get it?
Obviously Behe believes in some sort of designer but that designer acts in such a way as to not change the fact of common descent.
It’s funny how the realists have to explain to the IDists what their position actually is.
John Harshman,
Here is a critique of using inference to the best explanation vs experiment as the standard for forming a hypothesis. You will see Darwin was criticized for using this method.
Entropy,
What is the genetic variation between dogs as measured by DNA sequence similarity?
Darwin has been dead for over 135 years. The modern theory which bears his name has come a long way since then. You might want to read up on it instead of getting your “science” from AIG and Chick tracts.
And even if we’re going with ‘inference to the best explanation’ that “best explanation” is not simply something did something somehow somewhen. So just give it up.
OMagain,
It is if the competing explanation fails to explain what we are observing. Behe and Meyers arguments claim that we cannot explain either the origin of complex molecular machines or functional DNA sequence by a step by step trial and error process. If we cannot make sense of the claim then it cannot be the best explanation.