Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Larniavc]

So sharks and dolphins and other fish of the sea are members of fish type animals

Did you really mean to say dolphins are fish?

 

[Larniavc]

"Very little dinosaur skin fossilized, so what we know about sauropod skin comes from impressions made when it pressed into mud or sand that then hardened and turned to stone. These impressions show that sauropod skin had small bumps and scales that didn't overlap. Some sauropods had bony growths in the skin called osteoderms. But no sauropods had hair or feathers.

On the Surface
What would it have felt like to touch a dinosaur? Sauropod skin was almost certainly dry and warm. Because dinosaurs had no sweat glands in their skin, they didn't perspire. They were covered with small scales that protected the dinosaur's body and prevented evaporation of water from inside. These scales were bumpy and knobby and did not overlap like snake scales do."
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pas...largest-dinosaurs/outside-mamenchisaurus/skin

It was the theropods with the feathers. Not Sauropods. Nice copy pasta, though.

 

[paulm50]

"Very little dinosaur skin fossilized, so what we know about sauropod skin comes from impressions made when it pressed into mud or sand that then hardened and turned to stone. These impressions show that sauropod skin had small bumps and scales that didn't overlap. Some sauropods had bony growths in the skin called osteoderms. But no sauropods had hair or feathers.

On the Surface
What would it have felt like to touch a dinosaur? Sauropod skin was almost certainly dry and warm. Because dinosaurs had no sweat glands in their skin, they didn't perspire. They were covered with small scales that protected the dinosaur's body and prevented evaporation of water from inside. These scales were bumpy and knobby and did not overlap like snake scales do."
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pas...largest-dinosaurs/outside-mamenchisaurus/skin

So you admit the existence of dinosaurs, you're actually wrong about about them all being cold blooded. Bones have been found that indicate they have been both warm and cold blooded. Saying there's very little fossilized skin and then going onto make claims about sweat glands, is contradictory.

Still one more nail in coffin for creation. Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for millions of years and it was ideal for them, a lot longer than it will be ideal for us. Or are you going to tell us they perished by missing the Ark. Along with the other five billion species that have lived on Earth. As Noah only had space for 8 million.

 

[stevevw]

Different protein sequences will produce different protein folds. It is the sequences that are selected for.

This is a really, really simple concept, and you try so hard to get it wrong at every turn.

I'm quoting a paper so they are the ones you reckon are getting it wrong. Unless you have misinterpreted what they are saying. They are saying that basic protein folds are represented by a narrow set of natural forms which are determined by a limited number of construction rules. Similar to those that govern the atom in physics. That adaptations and natural selection dont play a role in their formation but pre set rules that are finely tuned for making life. So this is similar to the finely tuned universe for life and shows ID rather than a naturalistic process. Its as simple as that.

However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661

 

[stevevw]

In reading many, many pages, Steve's strategy seems to be:

1. Make a claim about a complex biological process.
2. Dig around some journals (reputable and not reputable, it doesn't matter) and lift a few sentences from an article to validate the claim.
3. When confronted by others who read the entire article entry and provide the context where the article addresses Steve's concern and the author (in consideration of the entire text of the article, obviously) has the opposite conclusion Steve drew from the material, Steve states his personal incredulity of the author's conclusion, despite (IIRC) Steve admitting that he isn't an expert on their respective field.

Don't we usually lean on the conclusions of experts in a discussion where we ourselves aren't experts? I mean, it is one thing to find a handful of fringe and otherwise credible "experts" pushing an idea contrary to the "mainstream", but to quote an expert and mask their conclusion with your own seems to be the very opposite of honest discourse.

And that is exactly what I am doing. The articles come from reputable sources and as I said I dare not use religious ones even if the science is correct because there would be major objections. If I am getting lambasted for using legit ones that dispute the consensus of evolution imagine what the reaction would be to creation ones. I rely on the experts and the articles are written by experts in their fields. I am not an expert and neither are many on this site to criticize. But I read both sides of the debate and I happen to disagree with what a lot of evolution says from what I read with the evidence.

As I said I spend hours reading the articles and I also learn a lot. I quote what is relevant to make the points and of course they are going to challenge evolution. But just because they do doesn't mean I am stupid. I thought that is the idea of a debate to challenge what is said. But while we are on noticing patterns I notice that some attack the author, source and person debating rather than debate the content. It seems to be a common tactic that some atheists use in ridiculing the person when they dont like what is being said. If they can undermine the source or person then thats half way to undermining everything about them. How about discuss the content about what is being said first and undermine that. I would have thought that was the real way to prove a point.

 

[stevevw]

Steve has been corrected and refuted over and over again by many on these boards.

He simply ignores and keeps repeating the same things.

Thats almost arrogant. If you think that I am wrong than show me how. If someone explains their position and backs that with the evidence then I am open to debate that and be proven wrong. But thats not what happens most of the time. I get short statements ridiculing creationists or religion or how the source is not credible. What I rarely get is someone coming back with support about how what I say is wrong. Just saying its wrong without evidence isn't good enough. You have come on here and havnt provided any evidence disputing what has been said. And of course I am going to be refuted because it is challenging what evolution states and the majority of people that come onto a lions den. If you havnt noticed the majority of people on this thread are atheists or non believers who support evolution.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In reading many, many pages, Steve's strategy seems to be:

1. Make a claim about a complex biological process.
2. Dig around some journals (reputable and not reputable, it doesn't matter) and lift a few sentences from an article to validate the claim.
3. When confronted by others who read the entire article entry and provide the context where the article addresses Steve's concern and the author (in consideration of the entire text of the article, obviously) has the opposite conclusion Steve drew from the material, Steve states his personal incredulity of the author's conclusion, despite (IIRC) Steve admitting that he isn't an expert on their respective field.

Don't we usually lean on the conclusions of experts in a discussion where we ourselves aren't experts? I mean, it is one thing to find a handful of fringe and otherwise credible "experts" pushing an idea contrary to the "mainstream", but to quote an expert and mask their conclusion with your own seems to be the very opposite of honest discourse.

That's stevevw's MO.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is this Gish gallop. I have posted three links that deal with different aspects of ID. One talks about how biologists use to see life in natural terms before Darwin came along. Organic life has natural structures such as in the atom which will occur throughout the universe. (This is known as Laws of form). This was eventually abandoned for the theory of evolution and natural selection. But studies that have been done have found that the basic proteins folds do have natural forms and conform to a set of construction rules similar to those that govern the atom for example. As the paper states
" The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.

And? This supports ID how?

They go on to show that these basic structures in our proteins are common and work similar to how the laws of physics work. It has implications about how proteins are formed and how life is formed. But because there are set forms that work to these set rules it also implies that there is design in the basic structure of life and a naturalistic process couldn't have found these by chance.

I have addressed this point REPEATEDLY. Go back, re-read.

The paper on design in birds wings and their respiratory systems talks mainly about irreducible complexity. How bird wings are made and how they have separate parts that lock together. A barb type hook with interlocks with another hook. They are designed with left and right sided mechanisms which are separate and then interlock together. This needed to be made at the same time as they are perfectly matching. It also talks about how the transition from a reptile respiratory system to the bird system cannot be possible as it would involve none functioning transitions.

The transition would involve a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage."

Seems to be from a creationist journal.

The last paper talks about genetic coding and how it is a complex coding system. So each paper if you read them give support for a different aspect of the intelligent design.

How does the complexity of the genome lend support to ID?

I used the words weaker and unfavorable. So if your looking for my understanding of what natural selection may determine as being selected use both these words. You can probably add a few others to that as well because who knows. There is no clear criteria but to say only those who can and will go on to reproduce. It doesn't necessarily mean they are weaker but I use this work because evolution often uses the term survival of the fittest. But what is regarded as unfit or weak in one situation isn't in another.

A white rabbit in snow may have an advantage but it doesn't make the dark ones weaker. Just more vulnerable to predators. But that is for those years where snow falls. If there is a climate change than any advantage is quickly lost and the opposite becomes true. Possibly within a few generations so it doesn't incur any real advantage either way over time if it doesn't last. The favorable white rabbits will only become fixed if they survive anyway. If they are killed by a falling log the favorable trait may never be picked up as well. So its not that straight forward.
But this doesn't prove that the rabbit will eventually become something else. We are just talking about hair color.

What do you mean by "something else"?

Normally for convergent evolution they are talking about distantly related or unrelated as they are not on the same evolution branches but on distant branches. So they have gone down different evolutionary paths earlier on according to evolution. So the similar traits they have had to have evolved independently due to their individual circumstances and natural selection. So its hard to believe that they could end up not only with the same physical traits or features but the same genes for basically a random naturalistic process.

How many times have I corrected you on this point? How many? YOU DON'T LISTEN. You don't. And then you complain when your posts are treated dismissively.

Thats why evolution is now claiming that it can be predictable and that there are some set guidelines that make it work. Its like claiming aspects of design when its not design.

Once again, you are assuming that evolution must be totally random, that there are no predictable patterns in nature, and that predictability is a diagnostic marker of design.

I think the website is saying what I have just said but in a different way. It doesn't have a goal. It doesn't necessarily produce the same results in different situations. A creature may not catch the prey. So it isn't always the same. Yet some want to say it has direction now and is predictable and there are only certain mutations and selected forms that will end up being chosen and thats why we see convergent evolution.

This is the problem: you don't listen. Instead of reading what the website actually says, you've tilted your head sideways, squinted at the screen, and said "This website is saying what I'm saying." That's what you seem to do for everything you present here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thats almost arrogant. If you think that I am wrong than show me how. If someone explains their position and backs that with the evidence then I am open to debate that and be proven wrong. But thats not what happens most of the time. I get short statements ridiculing creationists or religion or how the source is not credible. What I rarely get is someone coming back with support about how what I say is wrong. Just saying its wrong without evidence isn't good enough. You have come on here and havnt provided any evidence disputing what has been said. And of course I am going to be refuted because it is challenging what evolution states and the majority of people that come onto a lions den. If you havnt noticed the majority of people on this thread are atheists or non believers who support evolution.

A reminder:

This is the last time I will say it, so listen carefully: you have already received an explanation as to why you are wrong, on numerous occasions in fact. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that no such explanation has been offered. In future, whenever you complain about this, I will link to this post to remind you that you have no grounds to complain.

 

[pshun2404]

Avian Wing Geometry and Kinematics, AIAA Journal, Tianshu Liu and Ray Rhew, MAY 2006


In vivo strains in pigeon flight feather shafts: Implications for Structural Design, Corning and Biewener, Journal of Experimental Biology


Israel Journal of Zoology, WING DESIGN AND MIGRATORY FLIGHT, Vol 31, IS. 3, Norberg

 

[Foxhole87]

And that is exactly what I am doing. The articles come from reputable sources and as I said I dare not use religious ones even if the science is correct because there would be major objections. If I am getting lambasted for using legit ones that dispute the consensus of evolution imagine what the reaction would be to creation ones. I rely on the experts and the articles are written by experts in their fields. I am not an expert and neither are many on this site to criticize. But I read both sides of the debate and I happen to disagree with what a lot of evolution says from what I read with the evidence.

As I said I spend hours reading the articles and I also learn a lot. I quote what is relevant to make the points and of course they are going to challenge evolution. But just because they do doesn't mean I am stupid. I thought that is the idea of a debate to challenge what is said. But while we are on noticing patterns I notice that some attack the author, source and person debating rather than debate the content. It seems to be a common tactic that some atheists use in ridiculing the person when they dont like what is being said. If they can undermine the source or person then thats half way to undermining everything about them. How about discuss the content about what is being said first and undermine that. I would have thought that was the real way to prove a point.

When you're presenting yourself as someone who knows more about the data and implications than the author of the article you are citing, you are referencing your own credibility. You have not demonstrated that you have the necessary credibility for people to take your perspective on evolutionary biology seriously. That's the risk you take when you refer to your own incredulity of what the credible and qualified experts are saying.

This isn't an attack on you with disregard for the argument. Your argument hinges on your personal incredulity. When people in this thread say "you don't know what you're talking about because the author of the article addresses your concern a few paragraphs down", that's what you get for basing your argument on your status as an informed layperson.

The often-touted argument about Darwin talking about the eye rings a bell, with regards to overall tactics.

 

[stevevw]

When you're presenting yourself as someone who knows more about the data and implications than the author of the article you are citing, you are referencing your own credibility. You have not demonstrated that you have the necessary credibility for people to take your perspective on evolutionary biology seriously. That's the risk you take when you refer to your own incredulity of what the credible and qualified experts are saying.

You made some accusations that dont seem to be backed by the evidence. You say I make a claim and then go and look for the evidence. I dont know you and I dont think you have been following me for very long. But you have made a judgement based on limited knowledge of me and to me that is unfounded. Where as I have been debating for some time and you can go in and look at my history of posts and you will find that I dont do what you say. If anything I go overboard with support for what I say.

If I have said something on occasions without support you can bet Ive done that knowing I already have the support ready for when someone disputes it. I have a mile long set of references to many topics that I have researched a lot with folder upon folder of written material. I hardly ever quote religious sites as my backup so I am using main stream science as well. I learnt that early as any connection to religion was shot down and thrown out.

I think you have mistaken what I say as something that I have made up or that is my ideas. They are not and if you follow what I have put you will see I have linked a site for support for everything I have said at one time or another. So if you have come into the debate late you may have missed some links.

This isn't an attack on you with disregard for the argument. Your argument hinges on your personal incredulity.

No my arguments lean on the evidence I have linked already.

When people in this thread say "you don't know what you're talking about because the author of the article addresses your concern a few paragraphs down", that's what you get for basing your argument on your status as an informed layperson.

I dont understand what you mean here. Some of the links I use for support are pro evolution so they are against what I believe in the first place. But I am not linking them for that reason. They may even support the particular point I am disputing. I am disputing what they say on those points based on other expert opinion thats all. So of course they are going to contradict me. But that doesn't mean they are right because they dont always prove their point. Thats the idea of debate.

Like with convergent evolution. They and others think by citing examples of convergent evolution this somehow proves it. But they dont back it up with any testable evidence. Even the papers say they cant verify it until they can map out the paths for convergent evolution in the genes. All they have is the same features and genes in two distant creatures so their conclusion is it must be convergent evolution.

The often-touted argument about Darwin talking about the eye rings a bell, with regards to overall tactics.

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[stevevw]

A reminder:

Yes I have heard your continued assertion that I have been told that I,m wrong or I, not listening. Like I should realize and accept that what you are saying is correct. I know what you have said and I understand it completely. But you seem to think because I am disputing what you say and not agreeing with you that I am not listening. Or you seem to think that you are automatically right and there's no alternative so everyone must accept your point of view. Which is kind of arrogant.

I could easily say that you have been told several times but your not listening as well. But I dont because I realize that you disagree with me and thats why we are not coming to the same conclusion. Not because we are not listening, not because we are ignorant or not because we are fools. Its just because we disagree and see the evidence differently.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I have heard your continued assertion that I have been told that I,m wrong or I, not listening. Like I should realize and accept that what you are saying is correct. I know what you have said and I understand it completely. But you seem to think because I am disputing what you say and not agreeing with you that I am not listening. Or you seem to think that you are automatically right and there's no alternative so everyone must accept your point of view. Which is kind of arrogant.

I could easily say that you have been told several times but your not listening as well. But I dont because I realize that you disagree with me and thats why we are not coming to the same conclusion. Not because we are not listening, not because we are ignorant or not because we are fools. Its just because we disagree and see the evidence differently.

No, you really don't listen, and that's a problem.

 

[stevevw]

And? This supports ID how?

This is part of the evidence that goes with other bits of evidence such as (1) show that difficulties and improbabilities of mutations evolving new complex functions. That mutations are mostly a cost to a living thing. This evidence I have already posted which you haven't responded to. (2) the lack of fossil evidence. (3) the incongruence of the tree of life which shows many unrelated creatures have large sections of the same genes. This indicates that they get their genetic material form other sources more than evolution through mutations and natural selection. This is backed up by evidence for HGT, epigenetics, developmental biology, genomics, endosymbiosis and symbiosis. (4) the evidence that there is vast variety and complexity even early in the fossil records (to early for evolution to have had time to evolve over a long gradual period. The genetic evidence shows that micro organisms had a vast capacity to share genetic material and they were the first and only form of life and are 90% of all today's life. So all living creatures including complex ones had and have a great capacity to share genetic material to source new genes for change.


So all the above evidence points to living things have vast complex genetic material from an early stage in life and perhaps all the material needed to build all the body plans needed in life. As we have seen with the Cambrian explosion a vast variety of complex organisms exploded onto the scene from literally nowhere displaying prototypes for all today's body plans. So genetic material enabling living things to change has always been there and there is a whole lot more capacity there in what is called the junk DNA to tap into for all the changes needed by activating new functions and features needed.

So the evidence in the paper I have just linked is just another piece of the jig saw puzzle which shows that life has pre set forms that are finely tuned to go by in their genetics. The construction rules as the paper states are so conformed that a naturalistic process seems impossible to pull out from thin air the small set of building blocks for life. A more logical and reasonable conclusion is that they work to a design that works to set laws just like we see in physics and the universe. Scientists are busy trying to explain away this design by now saying even a naturalistic process can have design. Its like trying to have your cake and eat it to.

Seems to be from a creationist journal.

Witpress has nothing to do with religion, creationism or even ID. It is purely a scientific journal. But I like the way you assume it is something to do with creationism just because it puts out a paper on design in living things. Its like anyone who mentions anything like this is all put into the same basket. Believe it or not non religious scientists are not coming to a conclusion that there is some sort of design in nature from the evidence as well.

WIT Press is a publisher of high-end scientific books and journals, available both electronically and in print. With over 30 years of experience in scitech publishing, WIT Press produces books that enable researchers, engineers, scientists, graduate students and managers within industry to remain up-to-date with the latest developments in their fields.
http://www.witpress.com/information/about-witpress

How does the complexity of the genome lend support to ID?

The more complex it is the harder it is to show and explain how it came about through a naturalistic causes. The more they sequence the the genomes of living things the more they are finding function and complexity. In the early stages of evolution they said that life started as a simple blob. They have always implied it as being simple and junk. Thats because it was easier to explain things by naturalistic self creation processes. But now they have to appeal to at least some design because its to ridiculous to deny it because of the incredible complexity.

As I have said before its easy for evolution to paint the story from observational methods. To make up stories about how life was based on assumption and speculation. But when they get down into the mechanical processes of how genes can be formed it all starts to fall apart. Making up ideas about how an eye may have created itself is one thing. But proving the ways in which the many thousands of complex features were formed by random mutations is another. Tests so far have proven that it cannot happen.

What do you mean by "something else"?

Hair is existing in rabbits and the potential for color change is already there. But when you talk about a creature eventually become a completely different animal like a dog like creature to a whale or a Dino to a bird or a fish to a reptile thats a completely different thing. Evolution takes what is proven (micro evolution) small changes within a type of animal in their existing genetics and then extends that beyond those limits to make big changes outside those boundaries which require new genetic functions it never had in the first place. I have already posted links showing the improbability of proteins evolving new functions or how an animal incurs a fitness loss when they move away from their natural state through mutations.

Once again, you are assuming that evolution must be totally random, that there are no predictable patterns in nature, and that predictability is a diagnostic marker of design.

I'll come back to the rest as I want to do some study on natural selection. I understand what you are saying that natural selection selects the beneficial traits that will give a creature the chance to reproduce and survive. But I think this is given more selective ability than it has from what I have been reading. Natural selection has been disputed even as to its abilities. If creatures can tap into genetic material they already have and can get genetic material from other creatures and the environment then the role of natural selection isn't so great.

I know evolution states that natural selection is one of the great tenets of the theory along with random mutations. But natural selection can only work on what its been given from random mutations. It can even select things that are not good for a population. Or at least not be able to select harmful things out of a population. But I will do some more research on this and get back.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is part of the evidence that goes with other bits of evidence such as (1) show that difficulties and improbabilities of mutations evolving new complex functions. That mutations are mostly a cost to a living thing. This evidence I have already posted which you haven't responded to. (2) the lack of fossil evidence. (3) the incongruence of the tree of life which shows many unrelated creatures have large sections of the same genes. This indicates that they get their genetic material form other sources more than evolution through mutations and natural selection. This is backed up by evidence for HGT, epigenetics, developmental biology, genomics, endosymbiosis and symbiosis. (4) the evidence that there is vast variety and complexity even early in the fossil records (to early for evolution to have had time to evolve over a long gradual period. The genetic evidence shows that micro organisms had a vast capacity to share genetic material and they were the first and only form of life and are 90% of all today's life. So all living creatures including complex ones had and have a great capacity to share genetic material to source new genes for change.

Already addressed this. Go back, re-read.

So the evidence in the paper I have just linked is just another piece of the jig saw puzzle which shows that life has pre set forms that are finely tuned to go by in their genetics. The construction rules as the paper states are so conformed that a naturalistic process seems impossible to pull out from thin air the small set of building blocks for life. A more logical and reasonable conclusion is that they work to a design that works to set laws just like we see in physics and the universe. Scientists are busy trying to explain away this design by now saying even a naturalistic process can have design. Its like trying to have your cake and eat it to.

You don't listen. You really don't. I've addressed this claim repeatedly.

Witpress has nothing to do with religion, creationism or even ID. It is purely a scientific journal. But I like the way you assume it is something to do with creationism just because it puts out a paper on design in living things. Its like anyone who mentions anything like this is all put into the same basket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_Institute_of_Technology#Design_and_Nature

Believe it or not non religious scientists are not coming to a conclusion that there is some sort of design in nature from the evidence as well.

No, not really.

The more complex it is the harder it is to show and explain how it came about through a naturalistic causes.

Why?

The more they sequence the the genomes of living things the more they are finding function and complexity. In the early stages of evolution they said that life started as a simple blob. They have always implied it as being simple and junk. Thats because it was easier to explain things by naturalistic self creation processes. But now they have to appeal to at least some design because its to ridiculous to deny it because of the incredible complexity.

What do they have to appeal to design for?

As I have said before its easy for evolution to paint the story from observational methods. To make up stories about how life was based on assumption and speculation. But when they get down into the mechanical processes of how genes can be formed it all starts to fall apart.

Nothing you have presented suggests that this is the case.

Making up ideas about how an eye may have created itself is one thing. But proving the ways in which the many thousands of complex features were formed by random mutations is another. Tests so far have proven that it cannot happen.

Hair is existing in rabbits and the potential for color change is already there. But when you talk about a creature eventually become a completely different animal like a dog like creature to a whale or a Dino to a bird or a fish to a reptile thats a completely different thing. Evolution takes what is proven (micro evolution) small changes within a type of animal in their existing genetics and then extends that beyond those limits to make big changes outside those boundaries which require new genetic functions it never had in the first place.

What boundaries?

I'll come back to the rest as I want to do some study on natural selection.

This is the single best thing you have said in this thread so far. Be sure to report back on what resources you used.

 

[stevevw]

No, you really don't listen, and that's a problem.

I have listened. You have said that evolution is not random. You have said that evolution can be constrained sometimes and show patterns that repeat itself. But still I disagree. What is the evidence y

No, you really don't listen, and that's a problem.

So if I agree with what you say about evolution would that mean I am now listening.

 

[stevevw]

I have addressed this point REPEATEDLY. Go back, re-read.

So I thought Id take your word and go back to check if you did address the post I made. Here is the post I made.
They go on to show that these basic structures in our proteins are common and work similar to how the laws of physics work. It has implications about how proteins are formed and how life is formed. But because there are set forms that work to these set rules it also implies that there is design in the basic structure of life and a naturalistic process couldn't have found these by chance.

Here is your response as you have often stated.
I have addressed this point REPEATEDLY. Go back, re-read.

This is the evidence you have put for saying you have already addressed things.
The part of the PNAS paper you didn't quote:
Pankey et al said:
The striking similarity of expression of hundreds of genes in distinct photophores indicates complex trait evolution may sometimes be more constrained and predictable than expected, either because of internal factors, like a limited array of suitable genetic building blocks, or external factors, like natural selection favoring an optimum.
And also from the abstract (emphasis added):
So in the above quote they dont really know if its because of natural selection. They are either assuming or speculating it may be.
Plus this
Pankey et al said:
Despite contingency in life’s history, the similarity of evolutionarily convergent traits may represent predictable solutions to common conditions. However, the extent to which overall gene expression levels (transcriptomes) underlying convergent traits are themselves convergent remains largely unexplored. Here, we show strong statistical support for convergent evolutionary origins and massively parallel evolution of the entire transcriptomes in symbiotic bioluminescent organs (bacterial photophores) from two divergent squid species. The gene expression similarities are so strong that regression models of one species’ photophore can predict organ identity of a distantly related photophore from gene expression levels alone. Our results point to widespread parallel changes in gene expression evolution associated with convergent origins of complex organs. Therefore, predictable solutions may drive not only the evolution of novel, complex organs but also the evolution of overall gene expression levels that underlie them.
Click to expand...
Notice that, once again, the authors' interpretation differs significantly from your own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you said you have used my papers to show how convergent evolution is true. But notice how in the pink high light they are saying may and indicate that this may be the case. Or that it is largely unexplored. Thats because all they are doing is finding the same features and now the same genes in distantly related creatures and assuming its convergent evolution.

Thats because they already believe in evolution and well if it wasn't convergent evolution then it disproves evolution which is something they want to avoid. So as I said I countered what you are claiming that what you have posted as proving your point and therefore as you say having (dealt with it) and to go back and read as being unsupported.

So the paper makes claims but thats all they are unsubstantiated claims based on maybes and statistical support which doesn't directly prove anything. And as the paper said convergent evolution remains largely unexplored. I then refuted what you said further for which you havnt replied that another paper on convergent evolution states that they havnt mapped what the pathways are for what they are seeing with convergent genes yet.

Until they do they are only speculating that what they are seeing is the results of convergent evolution. So there is no evidence apart from observation and assumption. That assumption is because they already believe in evolution and therefore assume that two different creatures taking separate paths to the same traits and genes means its convergent evolution and nothing else.

It would also help to know how selection influences changes in the types of amino acids within the proteins that the genes code for. “The real test,” agrees Parker, “is to go into the most convergent genes and start elucidating their functions directly.”
http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679
So you havnt really dealt with this. You just assume you have as most things about evolution do. Thats why I dispute what you say because if this is an example of dealing with something then its not a very good one. In fact because you havnt dealt with it I find it quite dismissive that you fob me off and keep saying I'm not listening.

You tell me to go back and re read stuff that I have already refuted and stuff that hasn't properly been dealt with by you with proper evidence and is unsubstantiated by what you claim. This is an example of what I am up against as you constantly dismiss things thinking you have dealt with it. Its like you say something once and thats enough to deal with everything including all counter claims and future rebuttals. Thats quite dismissive and unfair.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So I thought Id take your word and go back to check if you did address the post I made. Here is the post I made.
They go on to show that these basic structures in our proteins are common and work similar to how the laws of physics work. It has implications about how proteins are formed and how life is formed. But because there are set forms that work to these set rules it also implies that there is design in the basic structure of life and a naturalistic process couldn't have found these by chance.

Here is your response as you have often stated.
I have addressed this point REPEATEDLY. Go back, re-read.

This is the evidence you have put for saying you have already addressed things.
The part of the PNAS paper you didn't quote:
Pankey et al said:
The striking similarity of expression of hundreds of genes in distinct photophores indicates complex trait evolution may sometimes be more constrained and predictable than expected, either because of internal factors, like a limited array of suitable genetic building blocks, or external factors, like natural selection favoring an optimum.
And also from the abstract (emphasis added):

That isn't even what I'm talking about. I was talking about this, a point I've emphasised repeatedly:

You seem to be assuming that the only way in which a complex process can unfold is if that process was planned by an intelligent agent. Yet we know that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems without the guidance of a supervisory intelligence. A snowflake is a good example of this. We can explain the natural processes that lead to the formation of snow flakes without invoking the existence of specific snow-flake designers. This shows that complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. If we encounter a complex system that we do not fully understand, it would be premature, reckless even, to infer that the system must have been designed. There needs to be specific evidence of design.

And this:

This is inaccurate. This website explains why:

The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!

Pankey et al said:
Despite contingency in life’s history, the similarity of evolutionarily convergent traits may represent predictable solutions to common conditions. However, the extent to which overall gene expression levels (transcriptomes) underlying convergent traits are themselves convergent remains largely unexplored. Here, we show strong statistical support for convergent evolutionary origins and massively parallel evolution of the entire transcriptomes in symbiotic bioluminescent organs (bacterial photophores) from two divergent squid species. The gene expression similarities are so strong that regression models of one species’ photophore can predict organ identity of a distantly related photophore from gene expression levels alone. Our results point to widespread parallel changes in gene expression evolution associated with convergent origins of complex organs. Therefore, predictable solutions may drive not only the evolution of novel, complex organs but also the evolution of overall gene expression levels that underlie them.
Click to expand...
Notice that, once again, the authors' interpretation differs significantly from your own.

So you said you have used my papers to show how convergent evolution is true. But notice how in the pink high light they are saying may and indicate that this may be the case. Thats because all they are doing is finding similar are the same features and now genes that are the same in distantly related creatures. So as I said I countered what you are claiming that what you have posted as proving your point and therefore as you say having (dealt with it) and to go back and read as being unsupported.

So the paper makes claims but thats all they are unsubstantiated claims based on maybes and statistical support which doesn't directly prove anything and on convergent evolution that as the paper states remains largely unexplored.

Anyone who reads the paper can clearly see that you are misrepresenting it.

I then refuted what you said further for which you havnt replied that another paper on convergent evolution states that they havnt mapped what the pathways are for what they are seeing with convergent genes yet. Until they do they are only speculating that what they are seeing is the results of convergent evolution. So there is no evidence apart from observation and assumption. That assumption is because they already believe in evolution they believe that it is the result of two different creatures taking separate paths to the same traits and genes.

You cited the evidence! Loudmouth is right: there is no penetrating this level of denial.

It would also help to know how selection influences changes in the types of amino acids within the proteins that the genes code for. “The real test,” agrees Parker, “is to go into the most convergent genes and start elucidating their functions directly.”
http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679
So you havnt really dealt with this.

I'm not sure what you expect me to address. You often post things that you think support your argument, but they don't. This appears to be another instance of that.

You just assume you have as most things about evolution do. Thats why I dispute what you say because if this is an example of dealing with something then its not a very good one. In fact because you havnt dealt with it I find it quite dismissive that you fob me off and keep saying I'm not listening.You tell me to go back and re read stuff that I have already refuted and stuff that hasn't properly been dealt with by you with proper evidence and is unsubstantiated by what you claim.

I've already addressed this. Go back, re-read. A further reminder:

This is the last time I will say it, so listen carefully: you have already received an explanation as to why you are wrong, on numerous occasions in fact. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that no such explanation has been offered. In future, whenever you complain about this, I will link to this post to remind you that you have no grounds to complain.

 

[stevevw]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_Institute_of_Technology#Design_and_Nature

Witpress has only published the paper. They themselves are not a religious journal but a science one. This is a good example about how far someone will go to try and discredit the source when they cant deal with the content. Rather than talk about the content you try to connect witpress with religion so that you can cast some assertions on them. But what I find unfair is the fact you try to go along these lines in the first place. It shows that you play the man or in this case the organization and not the game.

No, not really.

Well a lot of journals like the ones I have been posting such as ncbi.nhi.gov, Pub.org., Nature.com and witpress to name a few have been publishing peer reviewed work on ID in nature. Thats pretty mainstream and more and more indirect work is coming out as well to do with astrophysics, quantum physics, biology and genetics.

Why?

Because instead of having to explain how a relatively simple feature came about by random mutations which is hard enough to believe even for small simple functions. They have to add a stack of additional complexities and explain how this can happen as well. The more complexity the harder it is for random mutations to evolve. There are more random mutations needed. There are more chances of needing multi mutations to form complex parts. There are more pathways and systems to account for ect ect. Thats why evolution liked to say life was simple and that most of our DNA was junk.

What do they have to appeal to design for?

Because its too hard to believe it could have happened any other way. If it looks like design and acts like design chances are its design.

Nothing you have presented suggests that this is the case.

Talk about not listening and ignoring the evidence. So you dont think for example that the papers I posted showing how it is improbable that random mutations or multi mutations can evolve even simple functions is evidence at all. You havnt even addressed it let alone dismiss it.
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
Since we now have a large and rapidly growing catalog of functional protein systems that seem to be fundamentally complex, there is a growing sense that innovations of this kind would require complex adaptations, meaning adaptations needing not just one specific new mutation but several, with all intermediates being non-adaptive. If so, this may present a probabilistic challenge to the standard evolutionary model because it would require fortuitous convergence of multiple rare events in order for a selective benefit to be realized.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4

What boundaries?

The boundaries that state mutations will incur a fitness cost and not a benefit. They actually do the opposite of evolution and decrease adaptations of fit animals. Even amoung so called beneficial mutations.
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1190.abstract

This is the single best thing you have said in this thread so far. Be sure to report back on what resources you used.

Well thank you. But if thats the case thats what I do with everything. Thats why I take so long to reply.