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/

766 thoughts on “Evolution affirms the Consequent

  1. Corneel: Somebody just made a remark about ignoring valid explanations.

    Hang on, that was you wasn’t it?

    Anything can be explained and called a valid one…
    What’s needed? The faith in the omnipotence of natural selection…and not in experimental evidence…
    Because if experimental evidence were there,
    first,
    our lovely, and unbiased moderators would not have request the deliberate mockery of my LTEE OP,
    and second,
    we would have the experimental evidence constantly in our faces, rather than speculative, evolutionary science about what natural selection could have accomplished in the past but can’t do the same now…

    LTEE is a perfect example of how embarrassingly obvious the faith in omnipotence of natural selection is. After 70 thousands of generations of evolution, the equivalent of millions of years of evolution in mammals, E.coli bacteria hasn’t even budged toward evolving into something else other than becteria…
    And yet, the faithful in the omnipotence of natural selection want us to believe that a 5 pound land walking mammal had no problem evolving into a 50 ton whale given time and selective pressure…

    Another examples of failure of natural selection are the Japanese pearl divers…

    After thousands of generations of pearl divers, none of them even budged toward evolving anything resembling a sea creature…none of their organs are transitioning into something else, like the lungs…The MRI scans don’t lie but the faithful in the omnipotence of natural selection are not interested in the evidence because their commitment to materialism is unconditional, stretching reason beyond any limit…

  2. stcordova:
    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.

    Let me get this straight. My explanations are not worth your time unless I’m a professor of biochemistry?

    Look, that I have much more than a suitable background would be evident to you if you had a modicum of understanding of biochemistry and molecular biology, and if you had enough of an attention span to follow on what I have tried to explain to you.

    However, I don’t want you to pay attention because of whatever background I have. I’d love it if you could pay attention for your own sake. Out of self-respect. I don’t care that you believe in a magical being in the sky. I know I cannot convince you otherwise, and I would not even try. What should be possible in an honest conversation, is to get you to understand why your claims against evolution are bogus. More importantly when the problems with your diatribes are so obvious, even to non-professionals in biochemistry and molecular biology. But it’s not possible to have an honest conversation with you. You lack the background, the mental abilities, and the self-respect necessary to put some real effort into it. You’re used to the easy “high” that shallow “understanding,” mixed with your mental diarrhea, gives you, and nothing can disuade you once some weird and stupid idea takes a hold of you.

    I doubt you’ll start doing better now. You won’t prove me wrong about your incompetence, because you just don’t have it in you to sustain the effort required to actually learn and understand. All you have left is making lists of “professors” who don’t share my opinion about you. But showing that those professors are right? You just cannot do it.

  3. Entropy: Let me get this straight. My explanations are not worth your time unless I’m a professor of biochemistry?

    Good point!
    But telling Sal he is ignorant when you don’t have even one piece of evidence for your claims just because you wish your beliefs were true, is just as bad, or worse…

  4. stcordova:
    Entropy,

    What was you PhD in?

    It doesn’t matter, Sal! Look at Larry Moran…U of T is probably relieved he retired with his embarrassing junk DNA beliefs…🤗

  5. Entropy:

    Let me get this straight. My explanations are not worth your time unless I’m a professor of biochemistry?

    Or some chemistry related field like physics or chemical engineering.

    That’s because so far, your explanations are pretty pathetic and flawed, just like your lack of appreciation for the complexity of what it takes to make a functional Type 1 collagen.

    You obviously don’t appreciate the manufacturing processes that involved procollagen proline deogygenase and the other PTMs such as proper and timely excision of the von Willebrand factor C domain, not to mention the proper signal peptide, the localalization and deployment at the proper time for the PTMs and protein editing. Nor do you appreciate the intricacy of the Quaternary structure of Type 1 since it requires partnering with paralogous proteins to be functional.

    I mean, if you’re a professor of biochemistry, you knowledge is a way behind the times. The alternative explanation is your eagerness to dispute me is driving you to spew out stupid stuff. I mean, you’re explanation is not much above saying, “all you need to make functioning collagen is Glycine followed by two random residues, and then rinse and repeat.” ROFL.

    So, what was your PhD in? C’mon, that’s only fair since you represent yourself as some sort of superior intellect with superior education over me.

    C’mon, fess up Entropy. It’s good for the soul.

  6. J-Mac: It doesn’t matter, Sal! Look at Larry Moran…U of T is probably relieved he retired with his embarrassing junk DNA beliefs…

    But Larry Moran I respect, and so do a few ID proponents. He gets a few things right, and even agreed with me on a few things.

    Entropy on the other hand — hahaha!

  7. Nonlin.org: 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.

    You have fallen into a trap, nonlin. viz:

    If “evolution” is not true, organisms would not show consilient patterns of similarities and differences. We observe consilient patterns of similarities and differences.

    … therefore…
    That’s the inverse of the converse, mate.

  8. stcordova: But Larry Moran I respect, and so do a few ID proponents. He gets a few things right, and even agreed with me on a few things.

    Larry is a great biochemist… but just because he gets more than few things right doesn’t make his beliefs true…

    Btw: Have you ever heard of “dark DNA”? DNA-jock?

  9. J-Mac: After thousands of generations of pearl divers, none of them even budged toward evolving anything resembling a sea creature…none of their organs are transitioning into something else, like the lungs…The MRI scans don’t lie but the faithful in the omnipotence of natural selection are not interested in the evidence because their commitment to materialism is unconditional, stretching reason beyond any limit…

    This I can’t resist.

    Thousands of generations of pearl divers, really? Let’s assume a generation time of 25 years. Then the Ama (?) have been practicing this profession for at least 50,000 years.

    And of course, it is me who is “stretching reason beyond any limit”.

  10. J-Mac,

    I have to give Larry credit when he admitted that Steven Meyer kicked Lawrence Krausses ass in a debate at UT.

  11. stcordova:
    Or some chemistry related field like physics or chemical engineering.

    So, to you, the content doesn’t matter, what matters is my credentials. As I said, if you understood what you presume to lecture everybody here about then you’d have noticed that my credentials should be pertinent. Yet, you fail time and again.

    stcordova:
    That’s because so far, your explanations are pretty pathetic and flawed, just like your lack of appreciation for the complexity of what it takes to make a functional Type 1 collagen.

    Muahahahahahaha! You cannot know the quality of my explanations Salvador! Your ignorance, your inability to follow on my explanations tells that loudly and unambiguously.

    stcordova:
    … you’re explanation is not much above saying, “all you need to make functioning collagen is Glycine followed by two random residues, and then rinse and repeat.” ROFL.

    Holy shit! You don’t even know what the repeating units of collagen are and you pretend to lecture me on it? After all that pathetic attempt at bamboozling me with details about protein modifications and misinformed claims about collagen? What would be the point of explaining what goes wrong with your pathetic bamboozle attempt if you don’t know something much more basic? What a joke.

    stcordova:
    So, what was your PhD in?C’mon, that’s only fair since you represent yourself as some sort of superior intellect with superior education over me.

    Me? I don’t represent myself as a superior intellect over you, it’s you who insistingly represents yourself as a moron who has no idea about biochemistry and molecular biology, as an intellect well below most of those poor people who think they can reach your mind by trying and explaining things to you.

  12. stcordova:
    For the reader’s benefit, what was your PhD in?

    Sorry Salvador, but, that instead of understanding you require credentials should make it obvious to any sane person that you have no idea. If you had half the understanding you presume to have, you’d be able to understand my comments and either correct your misunderstandings, or help me out on mine. Yet, all you do is ask for credentials, pretend to be admired because some imaginary professors don’t call you an idiot (to your face), and attempts at bamboozling with poorly understood details of some protein or another. You go: “look, look, there’s these long proteins, there’s that many modifications, that many interactions!!!!! Evolution is not possible, muahahahaha!!!” But you don’t understand something as simple as why universal common ancestry for all proteins is not something a knowledgeable biologist would subscribe to. The reasons are simple. All they require is for you to think about the DNA/RNA/protein relationships, the kinds of mutations that happen and their effects, and the fact that there’s oceans upon oceans of non-coding DNA. But you cannot put all of that together against the “PUCA” idea yourself because you have no idea.

  13. Entropy: Let me get this straight. My explanations are not worth your time unless I’m a professor of biochemistry?

    There was this classic incident where he was behaving like this to someone on IIRC ATBC and it turned out it was actually the physics professor in a class he was about to take. You’ve never seen somebody turn on the charmless obsequiousness so quickly…

  14. Entropy: stcordova:
    For the reader’s benefit, what was your PhD in?

    Awe, c’mon, OMagain looks up to you. I can imagine he practically drools at your every word. But if you aren’t what you insinuate yourself to be, shouldn’t you fess up to who you really are?

    So, what did you get your PhD in?

  15. Entropy: stcordova:
    For the reader’s benefit, what was your PhD in?

    Awe, c’mon, OMagain looks up to you. I can imagine he practically drools at your every word. But if you aren’t what you insinuate yourself to be, shouldn’t you fess up to who you really are?

    So, what did you get your PhD in?

    OMagain: There was this classic incident where he was behaving like this to someone on IIRC ATBC and it turned out it was actually the physics professor in a class he was about to take. You’ve never seen somebody turn on the charmless obsequiousness so quickly…

    FALSE! I recognized the name xxxxxx because I was copied on an e-mail that was originated by him. He was a professor at my school. And I acknowledged him as such. I didn’t have to ask who he was, I KNEW who he was. I didn’t take his classes because I was on a separate campus in the same school system, but he knew who I was too, and knew I was at his school — a pretty darn good one too — like 40-50 Nobel Prize winners from that school.

    Entropy on the other hand, if he’s a professor of biochemistry, then he should start thinking of retiring. His knowledge base sucks.

    Dr. xxxxx, however. Sharp as a surgeon’s knife. Top gun material, which is more than I can say for someone else here….

  16. So here is a chemistry question for Entropy.

    An important concept in the notion of entropy (and entropy is important to biochemistry) is this equation:

    ds = dQ/T

    or

    dS = dq/T

    (however one wishes to use capitalization)

    Does entropy agree or disagree with this claim made by someone here:

    dQ/T is rarely informative

    I mean, someone adopting the handle “Entropy” ought to know the answer to such an elementary question. Does “Entropy” agree with the claim:

    dQ/T is rarely informative

    If a student asked him, what would Entropy say? This is after all related to biochemistry. 🙂

  17. stcordova:
    Entropy on the other hand, if he’s a professor of biochemistry, then he should start thinking of retiring. His knowledge base sucks.

    For the last time you mindless moron: you cannot know the quality of my knowledge because you lack the most basic skills and understanding to evaluate it. So stop pretending. If you had the knowledge, you’d be acknowledging your mistakes, and we’d have a fruitful conversation. What do we get instead? Pathetic attempts at bamboozling by listing post-translational modification and misinformed claims about collagen, and now claims about Nobel Prize winners from your school, as if that compensated for your idiocy and incompetence. Sad news to you: it doesn’t.

  18. you cannot know the quality of my knowledge because you lack the most basic skills and understanding to evaluate it.

    So what did you get your PhD in? Basket weaving?

  19. colewd:
    J-Mac,

    I have to give Larry credit when he admitted that Steven Meyer kicked Lawrence Krausses ass in a debate at UT.

    Sure because he made a fool of himself… something he had already well establish to be…

  20. Corneel: This I can’t resist.

    Thousands of generations of pearl divers, really? Let’s assume a generation time of 25 years. Then the Ama (?) have been practicing this profession for at least 50,000 years.

    And of course, it is me who is “stretching reason beyond any limit”.

    I meant thousands of years. Sorry
    What kind of change does evolution predict?
    Bigger spleen is some divers…? 😉

  21. J-Mac: Lawrence Kraus

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/science/lawrence-krauss-retires-sexual-harassment.html

    Lawrence Krauss to Retire From Arizona State After Sexual Misconduct Accusations

    So Krauss debated Meyer and had to retire because of his sexual harassment activities.

    Similarly professor Steve Matheson debated Stephen Meyer, and then had to retire for cheating on his wife with an undergrad at the Christian school he taught at. Matheson was canned for sexual harrassment and the administration, which had no love for Matheson, made sure EVERY student knew what Matheson did with a letter to every student and had it reported on the local Fox News affiliate too! OUCH!

    So Matheson had to leave because of his sexual harassment activities after debating Meyer.

  22. stcordova,

    So Matheson had to leave because of his sexual harassment activities after debating Meyer.

    Lesson learned. Don’t debate Steven Meyer 🙂

  23. stcordova: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/science/lawrence-krauss-retires-sexual-harassment.html

    So Krauss debated Meyer and had to retire because of his sexual harassment activities.

    Similarly professor Steve Matheson debatedStephen Meyer, and then had to retire for cheating on his wife with an undergrad at the Christian school he taught at.Matheson was canned for sexual harrassment and the administration, which had no love for Matheson, made sure EVERY student knew what Matheson did with a letter to every student and had it reported on the local Fox News affiliate too! OUCH!

    So Matheson had to leave because of his sexual harassment activities after debating Meyer.

    I would like to be unbiased in these matters…
    Here is why:
    My friend’s good colleague was a teacher…
    His student had a crush on him. He rejected her and she spread rumors that he had sexual relations with her… He got suspended, called a pedophile and was forced to move out of his neighborhood… Later he was forced to quit…
    Sometime after the girl admitted she made up the story…Nothing really happened to her but the teacher’s life was ruined…
    Nobody really apologized to him other then a 1×1 inch note on the last page in the newspaper that smeared him as the worst scum ever…

  24. stcordova: If a student asked him, what would Entropy say? This is after all related to biochemistry.

    I would suggest to the student to learn that context is important. So, the student should go back to whomever she was talking to and start by asking “rarely informative about what?” and follow on from there.

    I suspect that you don’t know what “context” means though. So, to you, I’d say,

    “You don’t have it in you to understand much Salvador. From our conversations, it’s obvious that you read sentences in isolation, if at all, and forget the surrounding text. For example, you could copy/paste a paragraph that contradicts a point you think it supports, and you think it supports your point because you failed to read, whatever you bolded, within the context of the surrounding text. Thus you misinterpreted and shot yourself in the foot.”

    You’d fail to understand that too, unfortunately, so I doubt that there’s a point in telling you anything.

  25. For the reader’s benefit, I don’t have PhD, but I studied biochemistry at the undegrad and grad level as well specific proteins such as those I’ve talked about here. I also work with PhD professors/ bio-, physical organic-, and synthetic organic chemists who don’t share Entropy’s low opinion of me.

    See, Entropy could do what I just did and at least post on a LITTLE on what his backgound is, but he’s reluctant to share what his actual background is.

    Entropy’s silly trivializing of the collagen Type 1 protein and all the necessary machinery to confer the properties it has indicates to me Entropy’s claims aren’t very rigorous and poorly informed. He said a few howlers too!

    I invite Entropy to keep bloviating about stuff he only pretends to understand. I hope he wastes lots of hours of his life responding to my comments with long rants which I plan to simply scroll through and/or ignore because I don’t get anything of much educational value from him.

  26. colewd: conversation, is to get you to understand why your claims against evolution are bogus. More importantly when the problems with your diatribes are so obvious, even to non-professionals in biochemistry and molecular biology. But it’s not possible to have an honest conversation with you. You lack the background, the

    Fwiw, I saw Steve Bannon “win a debate” once.

  27. stcordova: For the reader’s benefit, I don’t have PhD, …

    For what it is worth –

    I don’t particularly care whether you have a Ph.D. Your credentials are not important. It is your knowledge that matters. And we each make our own assessments of that knowledge based on what you post.

    I cannot speak for others, but I would guess that many take a similar view. Your concern about the credentials of others does not serve you well.

  28. Neil Rickert: For what it is worth –

    I don’t particularly care whether you have a Ph.D.Your credentials are not important.It is your knowledge that matters.And we each make our own assessments of that knowledge based on what you post.

    I cannot speak for others, but I would guess that many take a similar view.Your concern about the credentials of others does not serve you well.

    Thank you for your comment, however Entropy insulted me by saying I don’t have even BASIC biochemistry. That insults the hours and dedication I spent studying the topic. His only basis is that I disagree with him, and thus he poses as some sort of authority, and as with the collagen Type 1 Alpha 1 example he not only doesn’t back up his claim, he shows lack of understanding of what he claims to know.

    I figured I call him out on his claim of knowing so much more than me since he seems privileged to say I don’t know BASIC biochemistry, when in fact, the basis of his claim was that Collagen Type1 Alpha 1 (depicted above) was trivially easy to evolve. I gave reasons why, and it obviously flew over his head.

    He then started making remarks about my mental abilities, etc.

    I hope people on my side will see through Entropy’s posturing as just that, because he’s only pretending to have knowledge about what he’s talking about, when in fact, as I’ve shown, he does not.

  29. stcordova: Entropy,

    What was you PhD in?

    It is difficult to conceive of something that could more thoroughly undermine your case than your ever-present but irrational obsession with credentials.

    Facts or truth just aren’t established by titles. It never was and never will be. The fact that this even has to be stated every time we have an argument with you is remarkable.

    Sal, for the sake of the God you believe in, can you for once in your goddamn life collect at least the tiniest sliver of genuine intellectual curiosity and self-respect to really think about the arguments instead of the titles and credentials of the people who make them?

  30. stcordova: FALSE! I recognized the name xxxxxx because I was copied on an e-mail that was originated by him.

    Is that how you remember it? Well, I’ll dig up some links later and we can see how your memory matches up with reality.

  31. stcordova: Awe, c’mon, OMagain looks up to you. I can imagine he practically drools at your every word.

    Do I? If I wanted to learn about biology I know how to do that. I don’t need to engage with random people on the internet who seem to know much more then I. I don’t need to talk to a professor on day #1.

    So, to be clear, what you just said is untrue. You could make it true by showing where I drool over anything that Entropy has said, ever.

    The fact of the matter is that you are engaged in a desperate attempt to defect my simple request – for you to tell me what the true origin of protein domains are. In the general sense, stop pointing at a perceived lack in a position you don’t even believe is true and concentrate on positive evidence for your own claims.

    Now, about the true origin of protein domains?

  32. J-Mac: I meant thousands of years. Sorry
    What kind of change does evolution predict?
    Bigger spleen is some divers…? 😉

    Over a few thousands of years in big mammals like us? Probably none, unless there has been intense selection pressure and the group has been highly isolated (doubtful). I am pretty sure it is nothing that would convince you.

    The study I stumbled upon during googling focused on arterial stiffness: apparently the repeated diving is associated with a dramatic increase in arterial blood pressure. The paper mentions that diving mammals, such as seals and whales, indeed have adaptations in arterial structure. That probably took a little longer to evolve than a few thousand years.

  33. stcordova: FALSE! I recognized the name xxxxxx because I was copied on an e-mail that was originated by him.

    You contract yourself

    My apologies if I was disresptectful earlier Dr. Tchernyshyov as I did not know who you were until Bill Dembski copied on me an e-mail with your name.

    The rest of the thead is hi-lar-ious.

  34. I was disrespectful until I found out who you were. Says it all really.

  35. Corneel: The paper mentions that diving mammals, such as seals and whales, indeed have adaptations in arterial structure. That probably took a little longer to evolve than a few thousand years.

    So before all the adaptations they were just lousy divers?

    That’s sort of the big problem with evolution just so stories, that most evolutionists brush under the rug.

  36. Corneel: Over a few thousands of years in big mammals like us? Probably none, unless there has been intense selection pressure and the group has been highly isolated (doubtful). I am pretty sure it is nothing that would convince you.

    The study I stumbled upon during googling focused on arterial stiffness: apparently the repeated diving is associated with a dramatic increase in arterial blood pressure. The paper mentions that diving mammals, such as seals and whales, indeed have adaptations in arterial structure. That probably took a little longer to evolve than a few thousand years.

    Arterial stiffness? It’s a hell of the thing… The question among experts remains:
    “Is increased arterial stiffness a cause or consequence of atherosclerosis?”
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5305033/

    In your unbiased research, did you happen to come across the amazing feature among whales and seals? The ability to collapse the lungs when deep-diving?

    “The human body, being mostly water, would be crunched a bit but not crushed by deep-sea pressure; it is our insistence on keeping air in our lungs that keeps us from diving deep. We can reach the abyss only in submersibles like Alvin, which maintains a pressure of one atmosphere inside its titanium passenger sphere, or vicariously, through television cameras carried by tethered robots like Jason. Though we walked on the moon three decades ago, we’ll probably never walk on the deep seafloor.

    And yet all sorts of other organisms thrive at high pressure. Some of them are even air-breathing surface dwellers like us. Weddell seals and elephant seals can dive up to a mile (sperm whales go much deeper than that). All these animals see 9m to share the same secret: Instead of fighting the pressure, they let it collapse their lungs completely. Some oxygen remains in their lungs, but they mostly store it in their muscles, where it’s needed; their muscle tissue contains much higher concentrations of oxygen-binding myoglobin than ours does.

    The whole article is just a well of amazing information for an unbiased eye…
    http://discovermagazine.com/2001/aug/featphysics

    Also, the young whales must be born tail first. Why? It’s a must, so that a newborn whales don’t inhale underwater, especially during prolonged birth, and drown. Then, the newborn whales have to rush up to the surface for that first breath…

    Wouldn’t be just easier for whales to give birth on the land like their 5 pound land walking ancestors?

    Due to these and other major supposed evolutionary innovations, the believers in the omnipotence of natural selection have to come up with many science fiction so stories about the transitional evolutionary changes in lung collapse, head to tail first births and many, many more…
    The sky is a limit to imagination… Then an illusion has to become real…

  37. phoodoo: So before all the adaptations they were just lousy divers?

    That’s sort of the big problem with evolution just so stories, that most evolutionists brush under the rug.

    It’s not problem, if you believe in the omnipotence of natural selection…
    If in math 1+1+natural selection = 6 or whatever is necessary for the believers, why not this?
    It’s a bummer that this miraculous power of natural selection seems to be showing the opposite in LTEE… That’s why science fiction makes more sense in evolutionary speculative science and not in experimental one…
    It’s always 1+1= not even 1 plus excuses why it doesn’t…

  38. J-Mac: It’s not problem, if you believe in the omnipotence of natural selection…

    Whereas of course the omnipotence of whatever it is that you believe is to be accepted without question.

    J-Mac: If in math 1+1+natural selection = 6 or whatever is necessary for the believers, why not this?

    Nobody “believes” in evolution in the same way you pretend to be pious. If the evidence leads to something else actual scientists will follow it.

    J-Mac: It’s a bummer that this miraculous power of natural selection seems to be showing the opposite in LTEE…

    You’ve literally had examples given today regarding this point and the hardening of arteries and related noted adaptations seen in the wild. But you just don’t fucking care do you? And nobody can make you understand the intent of the LTEE it seems, despite multiple corrections.

    J-Mac: That’s why science fiction makes more sense in evolutionary speculative science and not in experimental one…

    The world of academic publishing is barred to you. You disparage what you cannot achieve. It’s a common failing. Hence here you are publishing you dogshit “not even wrong” OP’s. Anybody can scribble in shit on this particular blackboard.

    J-Mac: It’s always 1+1= not even 1 plus excuses why it doesn’t…

    Sure, J-Mac, sure. That’s why the world moves on ignoring your ideas, because they stick with what does not work and give excuses rather then jumping on your “quantum” information ideas written in shit here.

  39. J-Mac: Wouldn’t be just easier for whales to give birth on the land like their 5 pound land walking ancestors?

    Er, why don’t you tell it to your Intelligent Designer, as that presumably designed it that way? If evolution was occipital as you claim, why are there any ‘problems’ at all like this?

  40. phoodoo: That’s sort of the big problem with evolution just so stories, that most evolutionists brush under the rug.

    Sure, that’s why the famous Intelligent Design scientist who remains anonymous to this day has destroyed paper after paper after paper with simple, incisive observations about why it’s a “just so story”.

    Oh, wait, that only happened in your fever dream phoodoo. But it’s a reasonable point. If you are in fact correct why does nobody ever write a paper demonstrating your correctness?

    Oh, but according to you nobody can know anything anyway because sometimes people are wrong about some things. It’s lucky we have you here to tell us constantly how wrong everything is.

    But, like J-Mac, you seem incapable of elucidating what is in fact correct. If “evolution” did not do it then you must be terrible people to spend so much time here simply rubbing it in our faces. Given that you have, presumably, evidence that the Intelligent Designer is real don’t you think you should behave in an ethical manner and reveal that evidence to us, the unbelievers, so that we might also be saved?

    you dirtbag you.

  41. stcordova:
    I hope he wastes lots of hours of his life responding to my comments with long rants which I plan to simply scroll through and/or ignore because I don’t get anything of much educational value from him.

    Ha! As if you had done anything better than that before, and as if you were able to do at least that much. You poor self-unaware idiot.

    You simply cannot get any educational value from me because you don’t have enough stamina to read a complete comment for comprehension, and because you lack the minimal background that should accompany your presumed titles.

    You should be ashamed of yourself and return those diplomas. You’re a disgrace to the institution(s) that gave you those titles.

  42. stcordova:
    Thank you for your comment, however Entropy insulted me by saying I don’t have even BASIC biochemistry.

    I did not insult you Salvador. I just told you what your “comments” revealed.

    stcordova:
    That insults the hours and dedication I spent studying the topic.

    If you had dedicated that much effort to your studies, you would not have treated “no-PUCA” as merely a matter of opinion. You’d have put two and two together and understood that I was stating a matter of understanding instead. Yet, you continue with PUCA as if that was a real issue for evolutionary biologists. Something evolutionary biologists should “believe.” The only possible explanation for your insistence on such a non-issue, even after I gave you plenty of clues, and after others gave you plenty of articles showing, for example, the origin of new proteins from non-coding DNA, is that you have no idea of the most basic biochemistry and molecular biology.

    But that’s not just it. That’s one of many times we have attempted to help you understand something, yet you missing very simple things, like how and why ectopic recombination happens, and the kinds of results due to that kind of phenomenon.

    As if that weren’t enough, then you quote from articles that confirm our explanations, as if they contradicted them. This is obvious incompetence to read literature in your purported areas of “study.” Hours and dedication my ass. You went through shallowly and made it by bamboozling your educators with your usual bullshit. Verbal diarrhea overload is what got you through.

    stcordova:
    His only basis is that I disagree with him,

    In order to disagree with me you’d have to understand first. So. far you have shown no understanding whatsoever.

    stcordova:
    and thus he poses as some sort of authority,

    I didn’t pose as some kind of authority. I just told you what your lack of understanding reveals about yourself.

    stcordova:
    and as with the collagen Type 1 Alpha 1 example he not only doesn’t back up his claim, he shows lack of understanding of what he claims to know.

    My claim was that collagen is a very repetitive sequence and its evolution thus easy to understand. All you did was try to bamboozle by listing post-translational modifications, “spiced up” with a few misinformed claims, as if any of it made the sequence simplicity disappear.

    stcordova:
    I figured I call him out on his claim of knowing so much more than me since he seems privileged to say I don’t know BASIC biochemistry, when in fact, the basis of his claim was that Collagen Type1 Alpha 1 (depicted above) was trivially easy to evolve. I gave reasons why, and it obviously flew over his head.

    To prove that you know basic biochemistry you should show that you understand what I said you did not. So far all you’ve done is those attempts at bamboozling, and ask for titles. On that you’re a master. You surely can bamboozle many, and you surely have a talent to over-complicate, over-interpret, and make up misinformed claims that try and deflect from the facts stated (for example, that collagen has a very simple repetitive sequence). But knowledge and understanding of biochemistry and molecular biology? None whatsoever.

    stcordova:
    He then started making remarks about my mental abilities, etc.

    You reap what you sow Salvador.

    stcordova:
    I hope people on my side will see through Entropy’s posturing as just that, because he’s only pretending to have knowledge about what he’s talking about, when in fact, as I’ve shown, he does not.

    Those “on your side” are as ignorant as yourself, and are thus easily bamboozled by your talent at bullshitting around.

    It would be quite astounding, for someone like you, if you just explained to them why what’s required to understand no-PUCA, becomes obvious once a few of the basic facts of molecular biology and biochemistry are put together. Like the relationships between DNA/RNA/protein, the kinds of mutations, and the existence of “oceans” of non-coding DNA.

    However, I am sure you won’t do that, because you just don’t have it in your to try and understand and write something well-informed for once in your life. You just cannot do it.

  43. Sal,
    What’s the Intelligent Design “explanation” for repetition? Was there a sale on? Was there a big surplus of those parts? I mean, will your pamphlet “explain” that too?

Leave a Reply

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