Evolution affirms the Consequent

  1. Affirming the Consequent is a logical fallacy that takes a known true statement [if P then Q] and invalidly concludes its converse [if Q then P]:
    1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. False!
    2. If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. False!
    3. If it’s raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it’s raining. False! It could be raining or it could be something else. The “therefore” claim is false.
  2. How does ‘Affirming the consequent’ apply to evolution? We have not observed “evolution”. No one has, and no one will, despite the effort (see LTEE). What was observed is Resemblance, the Birth Mechanism, Variability and Adaptability. Neither of these (even combined) can logically be extrapolated to “evolution”, namely the hypothesized transmutation of one type of organism into another. Proofs of “evolution” always take the form: If “evolution” is true, then XYZ is true. XYZ is true. Therefore “evolution” is true. This is a classical Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy.
  3. Let’s see some concrete examples of “proof of evolution” fallacies:
    • If “evolution” is true, some fossils are ancestors of and therefore resemble existing organisms. Fossils resemble one another and existing organisms. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument fails because there will always be some resemblance between two or more entities (even chairs and cats have four legs in general). Also, a fossil can always be from an unrelated branch of the “tree of life” which circularly presupposes “evolution” anyway.
    • If “evolution” is true, organisms are genetically similar. Organisms are genetically similar. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument is false because other hypotheses such as common design account for genetic similarities just as well.
    • If “evolution” is true, one might expect common embryology. Similar organisms have similar embryology. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because embryology is expected to match genetics and morphology, hence the previous counterargument applies.
    • If “evolution” is true, one might expect vestigial organs. What looks like vestigial organs can be observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because what if those organs are useful rather that “vestigial”? And why would “evolution” not do away with “vestigial” organs as soon as they become useless? In sum, why can’t these organs have another reason or origin than “evolution”?
    • If “evolution” is true, one expects adaptability such as antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance is observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because adaptabilities such as antibiotic resistance are compatible with other hypotheses, not just “evolution”. In addition, antibiotic resistance is ubiquitous, limited, reversible, and never observed to result in organism transmutation aka “evolution”.
  4. How can “proofs of evolution” avoid the ‘Affirming the Consequent’ logical fallacy? Direct confirmation of “evolution” is unlikely as shown by the LTEE study. Alternatively, an observation that is true for “evolution” and only for “evolution” might also work. In other words, what’s missing from all the examples above is a true statement of the kind: “only if evolution is true, then XYZ”. Of course, excluding all alternatives to “evolution” is an impossible task therefore, given that Intelligent Design is the main rival, proponents of “evolution” need only add a true statement of the kind: “if Intelligent Design is true, then XYZ is not true” to turn their invalid arguments into valid ones. But even this lower bar cannot be met by “evolution” proponents, thus making all “proofs of evolution” invalid.
  5. Isn’t then all science ‘Affirming the Consequent’? For example, “if Newtonian physics is true, a ball thrown at angle Theta and speed V will land D meters away. The experiment is carried out, and we find that the ball landed distance D away. Therefor physics is true.” No! This is not a fallacy because it meets the “if and only if” requirement and is limited to “everything else equal” cases. Rockets do not disprove this claim because everything else is not equal between them and thrown inactive projectiles. In addition, no one claims a single experiment confirms all Newtonian Mechanics the way “proofs of evolution” are presented. In this case, multiple combinations of Angles and Speed result in the same Distance without violating Newtonian Mechanics because this experiment proves only portions of the theory.

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Wisdom-Literature-Joseph-Koterski/dp/1598035258

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

0

820 thoughts on “Evolution affirms the Consequent

  1. phoodoo: I don’t really understand what you are trying to say here, but why does one need an ark, for the science of creationism to be a better explanation of life.I am pretty sure one doesn’t.

    There is a metaphorical ark, and so forth that seems to be a pretty good theory-there is only kinds, and the kinds never seem to cross over into a new kind.Since we never see any cross over ever happening, or any new forms arising, I guess the metaphorical ark is still a good one.

    What I’m trying to say is that if the devolution within kinds happens right in front of our eyes, within few generations, like the dog kind, then Darwinism is wrong about the slow, gradual changes required for the evolutionary changes to take place.

    The braking and blunting of genes leading to the devolution of chihuahua from wolf proves the bible account that only animals according to their kinds needed to be taken along before the flood…

    I don’t care if someone wants to believe this or not…All I care about is that the Noah’s Ark story seem to fit the scientific facts about the variety within kinds, such as dog, cat, bear kind etc after the flood and who it could have happened and much faster than Darwinists would like us to believe it…

    0
  2. typo: “after the flood and how it could have happened and much faster than Darwinists would like us to believe it…

    0
  3. Rumraket:

    For example, it could evolve from non-coding DNA. Take this recent paper on de novo peptides with beneficial antibiotic functions:

    Not if they are random, and not if they weren’t already some deactivated gene, and not if it requires even moderate levels of integration with the rest of the organism such as the architectures described above.

    For example, the CTCF zinc finger protein connects to 55,000 locations on a typical mammalian genome, and it must be oriented in the right direction to be partnered to make loops, not to mention it’s 10 or so zinc fingers have to bind at the right affinity to the consensus sequences. Those studies you cited don’t solve that class of protein architectures, not even close.

    Same for collagen, TopoIsomerases, Helicases, lots of transmembrane proteins, particularly for Eukaryotes. Evolutionary biologists haven’t figured out squat on real issues like this. They don’t even acknowledge it is much of a problem when in reality is enough to sink their theories. Ignorance is bliss.

    0
  4. J-Mac: proves the bible account that only animals according to their kinds needed to be taken along before the flood…

    Out of interest, how long ago did that happen?

    I mean, if the account is _proven_ you must have some opinion on when it happened?

    J-Mac: All I care about is that the Noah’s Ark story seem to fit the scientific facts about the variety within kinds

    Could you link to those scientific facts about kinds?

    J-Mac: after the flood and how it could have happened and much faster than Darwinists would like us to believe it…

    So, you believe in hyper-accelerated evolution of the animals after they left the ark?

    Again, solely for my own interest, what did the Koala bears eat as they walked to Australia over the now barren flood plains? They are notoriously picky. How long did that take, that walk? And if they were not on the Ark, what “kind” did they appear from? And if the latter did they transform along the way or wait until they got to Australia?

    So many questions. So little hope of answers!

    0
  5. stcordova: Evolutionary biologists haven’t figured out squat on real issues like this. They don’t even acknowledge it is much of a problem when in reality is enough to sink their theories. Ignorance is bliss.

    How will they find all this out? They probably don’t frequent the same church basements as you, so perhaps you’ll need to take out an advert or something?

    0
  6. stcordova: Those studies you cited don’t solve that class of protein architectures, not even close.

    You and J-Mac had better get busy!

    How long will it take to print a pamphlet explaining the actual origin of those protein architectures? I suppose most of the time will be spent picking the font, testing it out, trying different paper thicknesses to find one with a nice feel before simply writing “it was a miracle, god did it and I believe it and that’s that”.

    You should make real dollar at the universities when you replace evolutionary biology textbooks with that. Apparently you won’t even have to bind it!

    0
  7. I’ve been wondering about a good way to explain this problem with the standard arguments for evolution, and you’ve done a great job explaining it concisely here, Nonlin.

    0
  8. OMagain:

    How long will it take to print a pamphlet explaining the actual origin of those protein architectures?

    Well, a certain protein chemist and I are working on it. 🙂

    0
  9. stcordova:
    Not if they are random,

    They’re not random Salvador, they have a long evolutionary history. Even if they’ve been under neutral selection, they don’t appear from a random soup of nucleotides, but from copying previous DNA.

    stcordova:
    and not if they weren’t already some deactivated gene,

    Because you say so? Sorry, that doesn’t work. It’s impossible to prove that some piece of DNA does not descend from some coding sequence even if a million times removed. Right? So you want to hide your incompetence in science behind pretending scientists to prove a universal negative?

    stcordova:
    and not if it requires even moderate levels of integration with the rest of the organism such as the architectures described above.

    Because you say so? If you understood how little is required for “moderate levels of integration” you’d be ashamed of yourself, but you don’t even understand DNA->RNA->proteins. I know because you insist on that amazingly ignorant and stupid thing about universal ancestry for all proteins. You’re an uneducable idiot. Instead of learning about those things, you keep going on embarrassing yourself.

    stcordova:
    For example, the CTCF zinc finger protein connects to 55,000 locations on a typical mammalian genome, and it must be oriented in the right direction to be partnered to make loops, not to mention it’s 10 or so zinc fingers have to bind at the right affinity to the consensus sequences.

    And that’s what you call “moderate integration” you uneducable fool? To get to that amount of integration there’s time and evolutionary events to consider.

    stcordova:
    Those studies you cited don’t solve that class of protein architectures, not even close.

    There’s many studies to consider in order to understand the evolution of that level of integration. You cannot expect that to be condensed into a single article, let alone into a single sentence. Actual understanding is not like your imbecilic fantasy: “god-did-it.” Actual understanding requires study. But you cannot understand the very basics. You’re unwilling to learn the simplest DNA->RNA->protein relationships. Youi’re so ignorant that you think actual knowledge is like believing in your imaginary friend. Well, it’s not. This requires the willingness to study, and you just don’t have it.

    stcordova:
    Same for collagen, TopoIsomerases, Helicases, lots of transmembrane proteins, particularly for Eukaryotes. Evolutionary biologists haven’t figured out squat on real issues like this.

    Evolutionary biologists have figured out plenty and continue advancing this kind of knowledge. You just don’t have the will or the mental abilities to understand any of it. As if your ignorance wasn’t displayed a plenty, you talk about collagen? Collagen impresses you? It’s the simplest kind of protein. Lots of tiny repeats, and you think it’s hard to explain its evolution?

    stcordova:
    They don’t even acknowledge it is much of a problem when in reality is enough to sink their theories.

    I didn’t know that your inability to understand was supposed to count as anything to evolutionary biologists. You hold your ignrance into too high a position. Sorry, but your ignorance astounds me. Your lack of will to learn astounds me. Neither constitutes any reason for me to think that evolutionary theories would sink. For that I’d want evidence for something actually wrong with the theories themselves, but evidence of your ignorance and mental problems have no effect on evolutionary theories. Sorry.

    stcordova:
    Ignorance is bliss.

    Which is why you’ll keep yourself ignorant no matter what. Meh. You cannot help it.

    0
  10. You should make real dollar at the universities when you replace evolutionary biology textbooks with that.

    Evolutionary biologist textbooks don’t explain the ones I mentioned. Aren’t you paying attention, even the Darwinists here say the major protein families DON’T have common ancestor. Why don’t you ask them how the major protein families evolved. You’ll get no answers since it’s not in the textbook. You’re believing your own fantasies now.

    0
  11. stcordova:
    Evolutionary biologist textbooks don’t explain the ones I mentioned.

    You cannot know. You cannot read and you cannot understand the simplest biochemistry, let alone a textbook on evolution.

    stcordova:
    Aren’t you paying attention, even the Darwinists here say the major protein families DON’T have common ancestor.

    For the millionth time you fool, we don’t “say” we explain to you why that’s not the case, yet you keep thinkings it’s a matter of opinion, showing, again and again, that you have no idea about the most basic biochemistry and molecular biology.

    stcordova:
    Why don’t you ask them how the major protein families evolved.You’ll get no answers since it’s not in the textbook.You’re believing your own fantasies now.

    Some have tried to explain that to you. I haven’t because, if you’re unable to understand why there’s no universal common ancestry for all proteins, then you won’t understand the explanations for the evolution of new proteins. Understanding complex phenomena requires the understanding of simpler phenomena, and you lack the basics. Not only that, you lack the willingness, and/or the mental abilities, to understand the basics.

    Your lack of understanding, however, is your problem, and evolutionary biology remains making progress, leaving you behind with your ignorance and your fantasies.

    0
  12. Entropy,

    Understanding complex phenomena requires the understanding of simpler phenomena, and you lack the basics. Not only that, you lack the willingness, and/or the mental abilities, to understand the basics.

    This is simply and ad hominem attack. If you can explain how a new novel protein family evolved go for it. The ad hominem attacks only make it look like you don’t have a position and are trying to shame Salvador to support your position.

    If you don’t like the word ad hominem just modify it to your attacking Salvador general competence.

    0
  13. colewd:
    This is simply and ad hominem attack.

    Unfortunately, nope. It’s a demonstrated fact. Look for the next iteration of Salvador talking about the no-universal-protein-ancestry as if it was just about opinions. I know I’ll see that again. What do you think? Will he learn that’s not based on mere opinion, but knowledge, or will he insist on talking as if it’s just opinion?

    colewd:
    If you can explain how a new novel protein family evolved go for it.

    Others have tried to explain that to Salvador, and I have tried to explain some cases where the answers were too obvious (if he understood the basics). Since he didn’t get it after millions of attempts, I have to conclude that he cannot understand the basics. This is not about whether he agreed, which I wasn’t expecting him to, but about his lack of understanding of what we explained.

    colewd:
    The ad hominem attacks only make it look like you don’t have a position and are trying to shame Salvador to support your position.

    Look, I truly wish I were wrong about Salvador, but he has insisted on demonstrating lack of understanding time and again. So, where’s the ad hominem?

    colewd:
    If you don’t like the word ad hominem just modify it to your attacking Salvador general competence.

    I’m not attacking his competence. I’m just stating the obvious. So, I insult the poor buffoon to try and get him to react, to have some self-respect, and to demonstrate that I’m wrong. Seems like he’s unable to do so. How’s that my fault? The ball has been in his court for a very long time, yet he cannot fix his ignorant, and, sorry, imbecilic claims at all.

    He could claim that we don’t explain how proteins evolved without that false “premise” that we “agree” that proteins don’t have a universal common ancestor. Yet he insists on that useless-for-his-cause part that just serves to show how ignorant, and stupid, he can be. Again, how’s that my fault? I have tried to get him to drop something that he doesn’t even need to ask his “questions,” or to make his foolish claims about protein evolution.

    Fortunately though, in doing so, in insisting on that false “premise,” he makes it clear that he cannot understand the answers about evolutionary phenomena anyway, which is also evident by his “answers” to those explanations. So, again, he could drop just one piece of stupidity and continue showing off stupidity in the many other ways only Salvador can. That would be enormous progress for someone with his handicaps. Again, how’s that my fault?

    0
  14. EricMH: I’ve been wondering about a good way to explain this problem with the standard arguments for evolution, and you’ve done a great job explaining it concisely here, Nonlin.

    You can’t be serious. Wow, just wow. Talk about disqualifying yourself as a rational participant in discourse. If you can’t see the rather obvious problems with Nonlin’s OP then it’s clear that your viewpoint on the science of evolutionary biology is weighed down by some exceptional levels of cognitive bias it would be difficult to conceive of how could be alleviated.

    0
  15. EricMH:
    I’ve been wondering about a good way to explain this problem with the standard arguments for evolution, and you’ve done a great job explaining it concisely here, Nonlin.

    Then we would have to conclude that you also reject the validity of the scientific method?

    0
  16. J-Mac: Unfortunately, unlike quantum computers, life systems don’t need to be cooled to 0 temperature to maintain quantum entanglement…
    Only sheer dumb luck knows how they do it…

    Quantum effects observed in photosynthesis
    Date:
    May 21, 2018
    Source:
    University of Groningen
    Summary:
    “Molecules that are involved in photosynthesis exhibit the same quantum effects as non-living matter, concludes an international team of scientists. This is the first time that quantum mechanical behavior was proven to exist in biological systems that are involved in photosynthesis. The interpretation of these quantum effects in photosynthesis may help in the development of nature-inspired light-harvesting devices.”


    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180521131756.htm

    That’s not quantum entanglement. Like I said, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    0
  17. stcordova: Not if they are random, and not if they weren’t already some deactivated gene, and not if it requires even moderate levels of integration with the rest of the organism such as the architectures described above.

    And yet a functional peptide evolved with a beneficial fitness effect in the referenced experiment.

    For example, the CTCF zinc finger protein connects to 55,000 locations on a typical mammalian genome

    So what?

    and it must be oriented in the right direction to be partnered to make loops

    So little invisible angels are pushing it a round and orienting it properly? Or do molecules have no electromagnetic forces of attraction or repulsion in your alternative reality? Why do electrons associate with protons anyway? God immaterially cogitates with great effort until metaphorical sweat builds up on his disembodied forehead, and it is so!?

    not to mention it’s 10 or so zinc fingers have to bind at the right affinity to the consensus sequences.

    And they always had to and no life could persist without this being the case, or that is the result of a long process of selection among many other versions that failed to?

    Those studies you cited don’t solve that class of protein architectures, not even close.

    To think of all the conditions that has to be right for a functional protein to evolve and have a positive effect on fitness in response to some environmental challenge, and then it does in the paper I referenced.

    Same for collagen, TopoIsomerases, Helicases, lots of transmembrane proteins, particularly for Eukaryotes. Evolutionary biologists haven’t figured out squat on real issues like this. They don’t even acknowledge it is much of a problem when in reality is enough to sink their theories. Ignorance is bliss.

    You just declare it to be a problem, you never show it to be a problem. After all this time you haven’t figured out the difference.

    For a soccer player to score a goal he has to move his body in all the right ways while dribbling the ball, bypass all the opposing players who are trying to prevent him from scoring, make his way close enough to the enemy goal and kick in the ball without the enemy goalkeeper there to catch it. There are literally trillions of ways his feet can be planted on the field while he runs, and only an infinitesimal fraction of them will result in successful scores. Soccer players haven’t figured out squat on real issues like this. They don’t even acknowledge it is much of a problem when in reality is enough to sink their hopes of scoring. Ignorance is bliss.

    Notice how this just contains a list of purported obstacles to scoring, but it never amounts to actually demonstrating that therefore the act of scoring cannot plausibly take place. Asserting there is a problem, and showing there is a problem isn’t the same thing. You don’t seem to understand what an argument really is.

    Listing potential obstacles without coherently linking them into a logical framework and validly deriving a conclusion, whether through inductive/abductive or deductive reasoning, is just as useless as the soccer example above. But almost all your arguments take this form.

    0
  18. stcordova: Evolutionary biologist textbooks don’t explain the ones I mentioned.

    You cannot explain them. That is all that is of interest here.

    stcordova: Aren’t you paying attention, even the Darwinists here say the major protein families DON’T have common ancestor.

    Therefore Intelligent Design/Miracle. Yes, I understand. And still you continue to fail to explain their origin yourself. The exact same thing you claim others are (not) doing.

    stcordova: Why don’t you ask them how the major protein families evolved.

    I’m not interested in their answer. I’m interested in yours. What is the true origin of the major protein families?

    stcordova: You’ll get no answers since it’s not in the textbook. You’re believing your own fantasies now.

    I’m getting no answers from you. And it’s you that is believing your own fantasies.

    We can take it as a given that there is “an” explanation from actual experts in the various fields, however tentative. It’s been alluded to already for several of the examples you have give here, but you don’t seem to be listening. But that’s not what I’m interested in.

    I’m interested in your explanation for the major protein families, not someone else’s wrong explanation.

    But rather then talk about what you know to be right you seem to want to only focus on what is incorrect. Which seems odd, given that you know it is incorrect it is by definition a waste of your time.

    So, what is stcordova’s explanation for the major protein families?

    0
  19. stcordova: Evolutionary biologist textbooks don’t explain the ones I mentioned.

    Not everything is found in textbooks. Textbooks usually contain lots of diverse materials to cover the basics and concepts, while more specific examples which are too numerous to be covered in a textbook are relegated to the primary literature.

    Have you even looked for any papers on the evolution of zing fingers or other DNA binding proteins?

    Aren’t you paying attention, even the Darwinists here say the major protein families DON’T have common ancestor. Why don’t you ask them how the major protein families evolved. You’ll get no answers since it’s not in the textbook. You’re believing your own fantasies now.

    The answers you want weren’t found in the textbooks you looked in so they don’t exist? Just out of curiosity, how many textbooks did you read, what proportion of relevant textbooks is that anyway, and have you searched elsewhere at all?

    0
  20. colewd: This is simply and ad hominem attack.

    The truth of that attack will be demonstrated in how far salvador gets in his scheme, won’t it?

    colewd: If you don’t like the word ad hominem just modify it to your attacking Salvador general competence.

    Knowledge people demonstrate his incorrect thinking and he ignores them. He’s constructing a narrative for a specific audience. Truth is not the goal here.

    0
  21. Rumraket: Just out of curiosity, how many textbooks did you read, what proportion of relevant textbooks is that anyway, and have you searched elsewhere at all?

    What fantasies does he think I’m believing? The ones where the people who claim that everyone else is wrong and actually go on to give their argument as to why? Yeah, I’ll never believe that one, just too absurd!

    0
  22. Entropy,

    Unfortunately, nope. It’s a demonstrated fact.

    No, it’s your assertion. There are very few demonstrated facts in biology. You are talking over Salvador and have yet to make a counter argument that shows understanding of his claims.

    Where is experimental evidence that Zip finger proteins can evolve by reproductive processes?

    0
  23. colewd: Where is experimental evidence that Zip finger proteins can evolve by reproductive processes?

    Where is experimental evidence than a dead middle-eastern carpenter can wish them into existnce?

    Let’s be clear, experimental evidence isn’t a criterion for belief you actually hold. “It says so in an old book” is all you really need.

    0
  24. T_aquaticus: That’s not quantum entanglement.Like I said, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    If the paper doesn’t use the words Quantum entanglement in the abstract then you are lost, eh? That’s just another proof that you are clueless and a waste of time…
    This paper uses the words spooky action , which is the same as quantum entanglement.. 😉

    Scientists Capture ‘Spooky Action’ In Photosynthesis

    https://www.insidescience.org/news/scientists-capture-spooky-action-photosynthesis

    0
  25. Moved a comment to guano.

    It’s been a while since I last did this. But some comments are just so over the top that they cannot be ignored.

    0
  26. Hey OMagain, looky what Entropy said:

    there’s no universal common ancestry for all proteins

    He won’t explain why. His excuse is that I don’t understand basic biochemistry. But maybe he’ll explain to you.

    Btw, Entropy, are you a professor of biochemistry?

    I work with professors of biochemistry, physical organic chemists, synthetic organic chemists, etc. They don’t share your low opinion of me.

    But the issue isn’t about ME, it’s about the reasons why

    there’s no universal common ancestry for all proteins

    You’re trying to make the discussion about me. But the issue has nothing to do with me. In any case, thank you for affirming:

    there’s no universal common ancestry for all proteins

    0
  27. Entropy:

    You just don’t have the will or the mental abilities to understand any of it. As if your ignorance wasn’t displayed a plenty,

    You have to try a little harder to be more insulting. Thank you.

    0
  28. Entropy:
    Collagen impresses you? It’s the simplest kind of protein. Lots of tiny repeats, and you think it’s hard to explain its evolution?

    The repeats aren’t exact for a reason because:

    1. the motif “PG” has to be in the correct position in Type 1 to get the right position translational modification, which you can see is abundant, but not regularly spaced, that’s because

    2. Collagen needs to properly twist because of the hydroxy proline PTM which must be in context because type I, the collagen is in the form of a HETERO-trimer with 2 polypeptides coded from the same gene, and 1 from a paralogous gene, so that the comlimentary system twists properly.

    3. The localization signal peptide puts it in the right processing pipeline, without that, no collagen.

    4. The Signal peptide and von Willebrand factor C domains are excised at the proper time, there must be machinery for that.

    5. The hypdroxy proline PTM requires procollagen proline dioxygenase to make this critical ptm, without which there is no collagen. So how did that come about? There hast to be a pre-existing machine and then the PG’s have to be put in the right place.

    6. The other PTMs are needed for the processing of the Collagen such as the Lysine PTMs

    7. There are disulfide bonds that have to be in the right place in the NC1 domain.

    8.There is a phosphorylation that has t be in the right place.

    There is even more, but before you bloviate some more, why don’t you learn what you’re pretending to actually know. HAHAHAHA!

    0
  29. colewd:
    No, it’s your assertion.There are very few demonstrated facts in biology.

    You’re not paying attention. What’s a demonstrated fact is Salvador’s incompetence.

    colewd:
    You are talking over Salvador and have yet to make a counter argument that shows understanding of his claims.

    If you really think this, then either you’re as ignorant as Salvador, or you haven’t read what I have explained to him.

    colewd:
    Where is experimental evidence that Zip finger proteins can evolve by reproductive processes?

    What are you talking about? Are you reading what I write at all? I’m trying to get Salvador to understand just one problem with the way he’s constructing his bullshit. Now, pay attention: Salvador insists on talking about universal common ancestry of all proteins as if it was a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of understanding. We know there’s no such thing because we understand how the molecular biology works, and the way the molecular biology works makes it straightforward, but truly straightforward, that there’s no universal common ancestor to all proteins. Since I have told Salvador this a million times, yet he insists on treating it as opinion, rather than understanding, the conclusion is obvious: Salvador has no idea of the most basic molecular biology.

    Did you understand that now?

    0
  30. stcordova:
    Hey OMagain, looky what Entropy said:

    He won’t explain why.His excuse is that I don’t understand basic biochemistry.But maybe he’ll explain to you.

    Given the bullshit you wrote below this, you should already know why. I gave you the basic clues, and you keep unable to get it. So, no excuses, you don’t understand basic biochemistry and molecular biology. You have further shown this when you missed explanations on other very simple points.

    stcordova:
    Btw, Entropy, are you a professor of biochemistry?

    See? You’re so clueless that you cannot even take an educated guess.

    stcordova:
    I work with professors of biochemistry, physical organic chemists, synthetic organic chemists, etc.They don’t share your low opinion of me.

    Sorry, but to impress me you need something better than an imaginary list of people who “respect” you or who lack the heart to tell you that you’re an idiot. In order to impress me you have to show that you do understand. So far you fail spectacularly.

    stcordova:
    But the issue isn’t about ME, it’s about the reasons why

    The issue is you Salvador. The reasons why are evident after a bit of understanding of biochemistry. You even mention the proper words from time to time, as if you understood what those words mean. Yet, your inability to understand shows that you learned to put them together without understanding what those terms refer to.

    stcordova:
    You’re trying to make the discussion about me.

    Nope. I tried very hard to get you to understand several simple points, and your failures have been spectacular. Disconcerting until I realized that you just use the words without understanding them. You have even quote sentences from articles that contradict the “points” you’re trying to make and confirm mine.

    stcordova:
    But the issue has nothing to do with me.In any case, thank you for affirming:

    there’s no universal common ancestry for all proteins

    Thanks for affirming? Man you’re amazingly stupid.

    0
  31. stcordova: The repeats aren’t exact for a reason because:

    Because there’s a phenomenon called divergence and the structure can withstand variation Salvador. Everything else you wrote shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    I suspect that you make convoluted stuff in your mind because you complement the few words that reach your mind with mental diarrhea, and you really believe that you’ve got some amazingly smart insight into things you actually missed.

    I’d feel sad for you if you weren’t such an ass-hole.

    0
  32. stcordova: He won’t explain why. His excuse is that I don’t understand basic biochemistry. But maybe he’ll explain to you.

    Explain what to me? I’m not asking for any such explanation. Let me reiterate, I’m asking you!

    You keep pointing to what you think is a lack of explanation when asked what your explanation is.

    So, let me ask again. What is your current timeline for publishing your “pamphlet” regarding the true origin of protein domains?

    And will this work use the phrase “Intelligent Designer”?

    0
  33. stcordova: There is even more, but before you bloviate some more, why don’t you learn what you’re pretending to actually know. HAHAHAHA!

    I look forwards to you publishing what you are pretending to know. Then we’ll know, won’t we, who is the pretender?

    0
  34. T_aquaticus: Did you see what I wrote? It is the PATTERN of similarities AND differences that evidence evolution, not simply resemblances. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

    Another excellent example of this logical fallacy. Thanks.

    If “evolution” is true, organisms show patterns of similarities and differences. We observe patterns of similarities and differences. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument is false because other hypotheses such as common design account for patterns of similarities and differences.

    0
  35. Corneel: But your argument seems to be that biologists are dismissing a plausible alternative explanation, which is ID. Unless you convince them (us) that ID does, in fact, provide a valid alternative explanation, it is pointless to argue they are committing this fallacy:

    Cut the BS. ID or no ID, you have not compared against ONE SINGLE alternative to “evolution”. Besides, since you are all debating ID, you certainly know it is a “valid alternative explanation” and the only explanation prior to the Darwinist nonsense. You only chose to ignore it (and censor everywhere) because “evolution” is so weak and cannot stand competition.

    0
  36. Fair Witness: As aquaticus stated, all vertebrates have the same organs, and the same body plan, so you need to come up with a better definition of “kind”.

    I know, I know. Is it “species”? Defined as those that mate with each other. Like those bacteria that mate so nicely? Or the African elephant that doesn’t mate with the Indian one because airplane tickets are so darn expensive? Or the Neanderthal that mated with h sapiens but is still not the same species?

    0
  37. T_aquaticus: Are you saying that you have no evidence to back this up, just your intuition?

    Did you miss this: “Darwin’s finches revert. Peppered moth reverted. Antibiotic resistance reverts. Epigenetics revert. The LTEE eColi would revert if released (go check out this prediction!)” ?

    0
  38. Nonlin.org: Besides, since you are all debating ID, you certainly know it is a “valid alternative explanation” and the only explanation prior to the Darwinist nonsense

    I think it’s really just a bit of fun for most people.

    And by saying what you are saying you are admitting that ID == religion. We all know this anyway, of course, but I just wanted to point that out. That you think that religion is a valid alternative explanation to a scientific one. Religion.

    0
  39. Nonlin.org: If “evolution” is true, organisms show patterns of similarities and differences. We observe patterns of similarities and differences. Therefore “evolution” is true.

    If “Intelligent Design” is true, organisms show “???”. We observe “???”. Therefore “Intelligent Design” is true.

    What is ??? then?

    0
  40. T_aquaticus: Dingos are feral dogs, and yet they aren’t wolves. How do you explain this?

    Are you serious? They’re all canis lupus just as some dark short Africans and light tall Europeans are h sapiens.

    0
  41. Entropy:

    See? You’re so clueless that you cannot even take an educated guess.

    Are you a professor of biochemistry? If not then what do you teach, because given your responses, I’m debating whether your bloviations are worth my time.

    0
  42. Rumraket: EricMH: I’ve been wondering about a good way to explain this problem with the standard arguments for evolution, and you’ve done a great job explaining it concisely here, Nonlin.

    You can’t be serious. Wow, just wow. Talk about disqualifying yourself as a rational participant in discourse. If you can’t see the rather obvious problems with Nonlin’s OP then it’s clear that your viewpoint on the science of evolutionary biology is weighed down by some exceptional levels of cognitive bias it would be difficult to conceive of how could be alleviated.

    Thanks Eric. Rumraket does not understand how this particular logic fallacy works, and that partially explains him being a Darwinist.

    T_aquaticus: Then we would have to conclude that you also reject the validity of the scientific method?

    Ditto for Aquaticus.

    But Corneel does. Right Corneel?

    0
  43. Btw, Entropy your handle is “ENTROPY”.

    A biochemistry related question, since after all Gibbs free energy is related to entropy.

    We have this from Thermodynamics regarding entropy:

    dS = dq/T

    or (with alternative capitalization)

    dS = dQ/T

    Someone here at TSZ said:

    dQ/T is rarely informative

    Do you agree? That seems like a really stupid thing to say, What would you tell your students if they questioned that statement.

    0
  44. Nonlin.org: Cut the BS. ID or no ID, you have not compared against ONE SINGLE alternative to “evolution”. Besides, since you are all debating ID, you certainly know it is a “valid alternative explanation” and the only explanation prior to the Darwinist nonsense, You only chose to ignore it (and censor everywhere) because “evolution” is so weak and cannot stand competition.

    Ignore and censor it? au contraire. We have debated it here at TSZ. In 5163 comments not a single plausible description was produced for why and how common design would account for the objective nested hierarchy. If you think you can do better, knock yourself out.

    Also I would like to point out that you are indulging in historical revisionism. Before the late 19th century, creationism provided the established explanation for the diversity of life while early pioneers like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin ventured their theories about transmutation of species. And it was they that were being censored (and worse), mainly because the church did not like those theories that did not comport with the sacred truth from the bible. Evolutionary theory eventually won out, because it provided (among other things) a superior explanation for patterns of biogeography and phylogenetic character distribution.

    0
  45. OMagain: If “Intelligent Design” is true, organisms show “???”. We observe “???”. Therefore “Intelligent Design” is true.

    “???” = “patterns of similarities and differences” of course. That’s the point. It works for ID very well.

    Only I am not using that argument. Only Darwinistas employ this logical fallacy.

    0
  46. Corneel: Ignore and censor it? au contraire. We have debated it here at TSZ. In 5163 comments not a single plausible description was produced for why and how common design would account for the objective nested hierarchy. If you think you can do better, knock yourself out.

    Also I would like to point out that you are indulging in historical revisionism. Before the late 19th century, creationism provided the established explanation for the diversity of life while early pioneers like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin ventured their theories about transmutation of species. And it was they that were being censored (and worse), mainly because the church did not like those theories that did not comport with the sacred truth from the bible.

    TSZ is the exception that confirms the rule. Can you cite any other such forums?

    I invite you re-read:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-detection/
    and
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/nested-hierarchies-tree-of-life/

    Let’s not debate 19th century censorship. Focus on here and now.

    Thanks for the laughter:

    “Evolutionary theory eventually won out, because it provided (among other things) a superior explanation for patterns of biogeography and phylogenetic character distribution.”

    Very funny 🙂

    0
  47. Nonlin.org: Thanks for the laughter:

    “Evolutionary theory eventually won out, because it provided (among other things) a superior explanation for patterns of biogeography and phylogenetic character distribution.”

    Very funny 🙂

    Somebody just made a remark about ignoring valid explanations.

    Hang on, that was you wasn’t it?

    0
  48. “this problem with the standard arguments for evolution” – EricMH

    Which evolution? Whose evolution? Do you mean evolutionary economics? Or do you just mean biology? Or just natural sciences? You throw a blanket over too much of the conversation. It’s the same at IDism’s HQ in Seattle, which is why they had to change the names of their programs; they exaggerate beyond what they can properly speak for & thus get themselves in trouble intentionally.

    Being part of a cult movement that advertises largely through people at houses of worship; that’s what’s apparently become ‘cool’ for some young people in the USA now trying to defend (apologetics) a position (IDT) about origins against ‘others.’

    Creation Ministries International. Answers in Genesis. Reasons to Believe. Institute for Creation Research. The National Center for Science Education. Pandas Thumb. Discovery Institute. BioLogos. Peaceful Science. Talk Origins. They’re all in a ‘culture war’ with each other. Intentionally. Profiting from that ‘war’ with each other. Embracing it as ‘at war’, at least some of the people involved in the conversation & publishing on the topic. Swamidass’ GAE, which he is now staking as his contribution to what he calls “the Creation wars,” is being published by an evangelical Protestant press. These things are known & obvious, right?

    “ID or no ID, you have not compared against ONE SINGLE alternative to ‘evolution’.” – Nonlin.org

    If that’s the choice, then I’d say “no ID”, while also affirming I believe in divine Creation. In a better balance between science, philosophy and theology or worldview than IDism offers, one should not be forced to remove ‘evolution’ from their vocabulary based on a manufactured super-grudge against Darwin. Instead, a ‘proper meaning’ of evolution should be used that doesn’t exaggerate it’s claims and that doesn’t slip or expand into the ideology of ‘evolutionism,’ which is an obvious concern in this conversation.

    Anyone for whom ideological evolutionism is not a problem or who denies the term ‘evolutionism’ any cogency, proper meaning or signification, is likely either 1) an evolutionist themselves wanting to shamefully cover their tracks, 2) so oblivious to ideology that they are unable to assess or discuss it, including their own, or 3) so ideologically anti-creationism that discussing anything anti-evolutionism simply isn’t allowed as a civilized topic on their priority list.

    I have provided such a single alternative to ‘evolution’. Were you aware of that? It was not directly faced by anyone here either as a comparison or competition for evolution, even though I have engaged a conversation about its similarities & differences with evolution for almost 20 years.

    If a commentator is an evangelical Protestant, they likely just don’t wish to hear a way of doing things differently than what they’ve been teaching their children for all of these years. Creationism is a cottage industry! That’s why BioLogos & more recently Peaceful Science are somewhat of a big deal for those who live evangelicalistically, especially non-mainstreamers like S. Joshua Swamidass, the Haarsmas, Dennis Venema, Ted Davis, et al.

    Atheists & agnostics who know how to have a polite conversation with theists (that removes about 10% here), realize they will be called out properly for the exaggeration of ‘evolution’ as a concept in humanities and social sciences. Indeed, self-labelled ‘Darwinists’ and ‘evolutionists’ have often shown little to no interest in properly bounding the notion of ‘evolution’ that they put forth (cf. E.O. Wilson [evolutionary epic], D.S. Wilson, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Stephen Pinker, Susan Blackmore, Matt Ridley, Jared Diamond, David Barash, et al.). [Most of these people are either overtly or covertly anti-religious: “Science and religion are two of the most potent forces on Earth and they should come together to save the creation,” wrote E.O. Wilson (agnostic ‘provisional deist’) in The Creation (2006). Yet later in 2015, he stated, “Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress'”, and “So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths.”] The anti-religious have strangely been helped with this blatant over-extension of ‘evolution’ by the likes of Michael Dowd, Connie Barlow & Michael Zimmerman, into non-scientific fields, including philosophy, theology & the humanities.

    Is this not part of the problem you’re also seeing?

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.