Original Research--join In

[Split Rock]

Evolutionists stack the deck in their favor by several common tactics:
1. Assume unlimited powers of mutations
2. Assume unlimited powers of natural selection
3. Assume unlimited supplies of resources were available in the past
4. Assume virtually unlimited amounts of time
5. When evidence surfaces that refutes your theory or hypothesis, come up with ad hoc retrospective alterations to it and pretend that none of the criticisms matter.

.

1. No. Mutations do certain things, such as invert, transpose, substitute, duplicate or delete nucleotides. None of these are mysterious or miraculous.
2. No. Natural selection is limited by what the organism starts with. A fish can't grow feathers and fly to the moon.
3. No. Not sure what resources you are refering to, in any case.
4. No. There was about 4 billion years available for evolution to do what it did.
5. No. All of the explanations involve known mechanisms. For example, violations of the nested hierarchy among unicellular organisms being due to horizontal gene transfer. A mechanism well established among single-celled organisms.

Would you like an example of an Ad hoc explanation? Look at the one you put forth for the way God encoded mutiple alleles per gene locus in Adam utilizing unknown miraculous procedures. Not to mention quite a lot of tinkering after the creation event itself.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Paul said: "Sounds like you are explaining why so much DNA is junk DNA."

Look at the results of the ENCODE project. There is far less junk than previously thought and we are just beginning to understand a small portion of the epigenetic regions.

If you will do the simple desktop "experiments" I have suggested and follow them through, you will notice that even the amount of junk touted by some evolutionists for certain cells is multiple orders of magnitude less than what would occur under random or naturalistic generation processes. I challenge you to do the math.

Ho hum. Your claim, you show us the math. Meanwhile, most of us don't take a lot of stock in those "ENCODE" numbers.

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes.

Yet it can't begin to do that. You have great faith.

 

[sfs]

Ho hum. Your claim, you show us the math. Meanwhile, most of us don't take a lot of stock in those "ENCODE" numbers.

Even many of the ENCODE folks don't believe those numbers mean most of the genome is functional.

 

[Zosimus]

There is more than one comparison of tRNA's, and there are molecules other than tRNA's that are being compared. The correct usage is the plural form.

Genome Res. Mar 2007; 17(3): 293–298.

mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains


Ana Goios,1,2,6 Luísa Pereira,1,3 Molly Bogue,4 Vincent Macaulay,5 and António Amorim1,2


Inbred mouse strains have been maintained for more than 100 years, and they are thought to be a mixture of four different mouse subspecies. Although genealogies have been established, female inbred mouse phylogenies remain unexplored. By a phylogenetic analysis of newly generated complete mitochondrial DNA sequence data in 16 strains, we show here that all common inbred strains descend from the same Mus musculus domesticus female wild ancestor, and suggest that they present a different mitochondrial evolutionary process than their wild relatives with a faster accumulation of replacement substitutions. Our data complement forthcoming results on resequencing of a group of priority strains, and they follow recent efforts of the Mouse Phenome Project to collect and make publicly available information on various strains.
mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains​

We have directly observed that evolution produces a nested hierarchy. We know from direct observation that mutations are random and blind with respect to both fitness and species. All known mechanisms of evolution will cause species to diverge through lineage specific mutations. This necessarily will produce a nested hierarchy.



Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that it is the only cause. All theories are tentative. All scientific theories use the same inference. If you claim that testing hypotheses through observations is a logical fallacy, as you are doing here, then you are claiming that all of science is a logical fallacy. Good luck with that.



People DO NOT create nested hierarchies, as I have explained over and over and over and over. Human designs do not fall into nested hierarchies. Cars do not fall into nested hierarchies. Computer programs do not fall into matched nested hierarchies. For example, a web browser on an Apple and a PC will look almost identical from outward appearances, yet they differ drastically at the level of machine code. Not so for life. Even more importantly, when humans design organisms (i.e. genetically modified organisms) they regularly violate a nested hierarchy. For example, the Glofish has an exact copy of a jellyfish gene, something that should not be there if that gene evolved in vertebrate fish.



Let's see how that works. Lower levels of the Air Force and Navy use exactly the same planes while other lower levels in each division do not. That is a clear violation of a nested hierarchy. You have divisions of the Air Force and Navy that share a feature while those lower divisions do not share the same features within each branch of service.



Why would an intelligent being go to the extra effort of making life look like it evolved when it is not necessary to do so? Do humans go through the extra effort to make sure that only one lineage of car has an airbag, and then find completely different adaptations for safety in all other lineages of cars? No. Why would humans do that? Humans mix and match features in designs where it makes functional sense, not to make it look like cars evolved from a common ancestor.

A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY

"For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army."

Dichotomistic logic - an introduction to hierarchy theory

"...we can say that an army consists of squads, platoons and regiments, so ... an army is a nested hierarchical system."

Hierarchy Examples

"Babushka dolls, also known as matryoshka dolls, are a Russian toy. In it, each successive doll is encapsulated in the doll larger than it. This is known as a nested hierarchy and is used to describe things other than matroyshkas."

https://books.google.com.pe/books?i...wCQ#v=onepage&q=army nested hierarchy&f=false

"An army is a nested hieararchy, a collection of soldiers."

 

[Zosimus]

There is no consistent rule in English that "data" should be treated as a plural. See here, here and here. I'm skeptical that GMAT actually tests this.

ETA: good, Safari still works.

I took the time to read your first link at Stupid grammar rules II: data are | Motivated Grammar

She admits that data is the plural of datum and admits that it should be plural. Later she says that she stopped speaking properly because it sounded like she was putting on airs. This is not a valid reason. Based on this reason maybe we should all say "I'm doing good" because "I'm doing well" sounds too stuffy.

I also note that she said:

But it’s really not so simple as that.

Surely we can agree that the correct phrase is: However, it's really not as simple as that. This is something that's also tested on the GMAT.

What gets tested on the GMAT and why? Well, GMAC decides what gets tested on the GMAT. It does so by meeting with the top professors from all the top schools. It determines what they want tested, and then it flows this information down to ETS and then ETS makes the test.

So if you don't like the fact that on the GMAT the phrases:

"Some cars, like Toyotas..."
"The data is sufficient..." or
"I don't know if she's coming..."

are wrong whereas the phrases:

"Some cars, such as Toyotas..."
"The data are sufficient..."
"I don't know whether she's coming..."

then you need to convince the teachers at these universities that the phrases are okay. I'm just the messenger.

 

[Zosimus]

That's the least of the problems for Jack et alia. Both the precession and changes in eccentricity of Earth's orbit are much larger in magnitude. In fact, the Earth also moves the Sun, just not as dramatically as the Sun moves the Earth. The tidal forces put on the Earth by the Sun, Moon, and more weakly by the gas giant planets, are all examples of the Earth being physically moved.

If someone tied a string to a tennis ball and started swinging that tennis ball around in circles above their head, would you consider that ball to be immovable? I don't think any sane person would consider that tennis ball to be immovable, and yet that is the story that Jack is trying to sell. Amazing.

In reality no one can say whether that ball is moving, or the Earth or the Sun for that matter. The only thing that physics can describe is relative motion. At any rate, saying that the Earth goes around the Sun is wrong for a variety of reasons. In reality, the best calculations say that everything in the solar system revolves around the barycenter of the solar system. Even then, the Sun is probably whizzing along at such a high rate of speed as it whirls around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which is also zinging along at a good clip, that such simplifications are nearly meaningless.

 

[sfs]

I took the time to read your first link at Stupid grammar rules II: data are | Motivated Grammar

She admits that data is the plural of datum and admits that it should be plural. Later she says that she stopped speaking properly because it sounded like she was putting on airs.

You seem to have read a different article than I did. He (not she) quotes someone who says that "data" should be plural, and notes that the word entered English as a plural, but then goes on to give a number of reasons why treating it as always plural is wrong.

What gets tested on the GMAT and why? Well, GMAC decides what gets tested on the GMAT. It does so by meeting with the top professors from all the top schools. It determines what they want tested, and then it flows this information down to ETS and then ETS makes the test.

So if you don't like the fact that on the GMAT the phrases:

"Some cars, like Toyotas..."
"The data is sufficient..." or
"I don't know if she's coming..."

are wrong whereas the phrases:

"Some cars, such as Toyotas..."
"The data are sufficient..."
"I don't know whether she's coming..."

then you need to convince the teachers at these universities that the phrases are okay. I'm just the messenger.

What I'm questioning is whether your claim is indeed a fact. What is your basis for saying that the GMAT requires "data" to be plural? (Also, who are the university teachers you're talking about? Can you find a single linguist who argues that "data" cannot be used as a mass noun in English?)

 

[Split Rock]

Yet it can't begin to do that. You have great faith.

I laugh when one of you True Christian types here denegrate the word "Faith." You guys keep biting off your own nose to spite your face.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mount Everest is spinning with the earth. Is Mount Everest "movable"?

Mt. Everest is being moved with the rest of the Earth. Not only that, but Mt. Everest is moving upwards a few cm each year due to the subduction of the Indian plate, and it is also moving with the Asian and Indian plates.

There is no force in this universe can move the earth. It is where it is, doing what it does and it will not be moved.

There is a force that can move the Earth, and is moving the Earth right now. It's called gravity. Perhaps you should learn about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just how would you, in your opinion, in the extremely difficult way you speak of , move the earth??

I would put a large gas ball weighing about 2E30 kg 100 million miles away. That would cause the Earth to move away from a straight line path.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that there are small fluctuations in the earths orbit. Small in relative terms.

What you ignore is the massive fluctuation of the Earth's path that causes it to move in a circle about the Sun. If the Sun were not there, the Earth would fly off in a straight line, not a curved path. The Sun is moving the Earth.

Not only that, but it was clear to Cardinal Bellarmine that the Earth moving about the Sun went against the widely held interpretation of the Bible that said the Earth did not move. Only after Heliocentrism became all but undeniable did the interpretation change. It was the science that changed the biblical interpretation.

A majority of christians think the same should be done with Genesis. A minority of creationists continue to hold on to an interpretation of Genesis that is as wrong as a Geocentrist Bible.

Which are you going to be?

 

[Loudmouth]

Paul said: "Sounds like you are explaining why so much DNA is junk DNA."

Look at the results of the ENCODE project. There is far less junk than previously thought and we are just beginning to understand a small portion of the epigenetic regions.

The ENCODE group used a defnition of "functional" that included junk DNA. What they called functional is still junk DNA. Using their definition, the trash in your kitchen trashcan would be considered functional because it releases biomolecules into the air. A busted TV set would be considered functional because it attracts dust.

If you will do the simple desktop "experiments" I have suggested and follow them through, you will notice that even the amount of junk touted by some evolutionists for certain cells is multiple orders of magnitude less than what would occur under random or naturalistic generation processes. I challenge you to do the math.

I challenge you to do the math. Let's see it.

 

[Loudmouth]

A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY

"For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army."

If you are going to use military hierarchy, then you need to sort out the synapomorphies, the shared features at each node. What you will find is that some Army units share more with some Navy units than they do other Army units. The distribution of features in that hierarchy are not nested.

More importantly, human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, including organisms that have been designed by humans. You can't produce a single reason why a designer would be required to create genomes that fall into the same nested hierarchy as that of morphology. You can't tell us why whales and humans are equidistant from birds with reference to sequence. Why would a designer need to create birds, whales, and humans such that the distance between the bird and whale genomes is the same distance as between birds and humans?

Design explains nothing about the distribution and relatedness of organisms.

 

[EternalDragon]

What you ignore is the massive fluctuation of the Earth's path that causes it to move in a circle about the Sun. If the Sun were not there, the Earth would fly off in a straight line, not a curved path. The Sun is moving the Earth.

Not only that, but it was clear to Cardinal Bellarmine that the Earth moving about the Sun went against the widely held interpretation of the Bible that said the Earth did not move. Only after Heliocentrism became all but undeniable did the interpretation change. It was the science that changed the biblical interpretation.

A majority of christians think the same should be done with Genesis. A minority of creationists continue to hold on to an interpretation of Genesis that is as wrong as a Geocentrist Bible.

Which are you going to be?

Again, the bible does not state that the earth does not move.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, the bible does not state that the earth does not move.

Experts say otherwise.

"Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek…."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[Zosimus]

You seem to have read a different article than I did. He (not she) quotes someone who says that "data" should be plural, and notes that the word entered English as a plural, but then goes on to give a number of reasons why treating it as always plural is wrong.


What I'm questioning is whether your claim is indeed a fact. What is your basis for saying that the GMAT requires "data" to be plural? (Also, who are the university teachers you're talking about? Can you find a single linguist who argues that "data" cannot be used as a mass noun in English?)

Yes, the information is contained at The data being collected in the current geological survey : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC)

It would probably be a violation of copyright law to place the text of the question on this site, so I will refrain from doing so. One of the popular methods for solving sentence correction questions such as this one is to simply look at the answer choices and analyze the differences.

Option A says: "The data...are"
Option B says: "The data...provide"
Option C says: "The data...is"
Option D says: "The data...provides"
Option E says: "The data...provide"

Since we know that "The data..." is plural on the GMAT we can eliminate C and D. B can be eliminated because it contains the phrase "its greatest importance" and it cannot refer to data as data is plural. We are down to A vs. E. E can be eliminated because it says "in the current geological survey" so the verb tense should be continuous (being collected and are providing).
-----------------
I did not make the question. I am simply informing you that "A" is the best answer according to GMAT rules.

See also About the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC)

 

[Zosimus]

If you are going to use military hierarchy, then you need to sort out the synapomorphies, the shared features at each node. What you will find is that some Army units share more with some Navy units than they do other Army units. The distribution of features in that hierarchy are not nested.

More importantly, human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, including organisms that have been designed by humans. You can't produce a single reason why a designer would be required to create genomes that fall into the same nested hierarchy as that of morphology. You can't tell us why whales and humans are equidistant from birds with reference to sequence. Why would a designer need to create birds, whales, and humans such that the distance between the bird and whale genomes is the same distance as between birds and humans?

Design explains nothing about the distribution and relatedness of organisms.

I have provided you with multiple links showing that an army is a nested hierarchy. You have simply jutted your jaw out a little more as you insisted that it is not. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim.

Aren't you one of the people on here who insist that evidence is important? How hypocritical you are! You insist that your opponents provide evidence, while excusing yourself when you provide none.

I needn't explain why why whales and humans are equidistant from birds with reference to sequence anymore than I need explain why Philadelphia is equidistant between New York and Washington DC. It's not relevant to anything.

 

[sfs]

Yes, the information is contained at The data being collected in the current geological survey : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC)

It would probably be a violation of copyright law to place the text of the question on this site, so I will refrain from doing so. One of the popular methods for solving sentence correction questions such as this one is to simply look at the answer choices and analyze the differences.

Option A says: "The data...are"
Option B says: "The data...provide"
Option C says: "The data...is"
Option D says: "The data...provides"
Option E says: "The data...provide"

Since we know that "The data..." is plural on the GMAT we can eliminate C and D. B can be eliminated because it contains the phrase "its greatest importance" and it cannot refer to data as data is plural. We are down to A vs. E. E can be eliminated because it says "in the current geological survey" so the verb tense should be continuous (being collected and are providing).
-----------------
I did not make the question. I am simply informing you that "A" is the best answer according to GMAT rules.

See also About the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC)

Sorry, but that question (assuming it's an actual GMAT question, which isn't clear to me) does not validate your claim. The remainder of the sentence uses "data" as a plural, so treating it as singular in the underlined portion is ungrammatical, regardless of whether singular usage is acceptable in general or not. I have no trouble believing that the GMAT uses the plural with "data"; I'm looking for evidence that they will take off points solely for use of the singular.

In any case, let's turn to the OED for a more authoritative opinion: "The use of data as a mass noun became increasingly common from the middle of the 20th cent., probably partly popularized by its use in computing contexts, in which it is now generally considered standard... However, in general and scientific contexts it is still sometimes regarded as objectionable." As I said, usage is not uniform.

 

[sfs]

I have provided you with multiple links showing that an army is a nested hierarchy. You have simply jutted your jaw out a little more as you insisted that it is not. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim.

The command structure of the army is a nested hierarchy. Other aspects (e.g. training, equipment) are not.

I needn't explain why why whales and humans are equidistant from birds with reference to sequence anymore than I need explain why Philadelphia is equidistant between New York and Washington DC. It's not relevant to anything.

You don't have to explain anything about any subject. But if you're trying to understand the natural world -- trying to do biology, in other words -- then yes, you do indeed need to explain the patterns in genetic similarity.