Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Blayz]

Study proves Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry: "A large scale, quantitative test has proved Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans, as correct." and how did it do that?

An Indian newspaper? really?

For those interested in the actual work rather than idscience's interpretation of an Indian reporters interpretation, here's a link

A formal test of the theory of universal common ances... [Nature. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[idscience]

Here is the NYU page on speciation

IV. Pattern of speciation

A. Gradual

B. Rarely find gradual transitions in the fossil record
1. For Darwin, this meant the geological record was imperfect
2. But as we've seen, speciations could be sudden—Eldredge & Gould's "Punctuated Equilibria"

1. Rapid divergence
2. Followed by long periods of stasis

A. Gradual yet there is no evidence of that.
B. "Rarely"? code for non.
1. Because there is not gradualism it cannot mean the hypothesis is wrong, it must mean the evidence is wrong.
2. Who has seen? no one has seen anything. It is what has not been seen that brings them to the conclusion. Again, the hypothesis cannot be wrong so ignore Darwin's indea of gradualism and replace it with sudden, rapid evolution. The only evidence is the lack of evidence. Only in evolution is no evidence proof of the hypothesis. They cite another hypothesis as "we have seen" like it is evidence. No wonder scientists are leaving evolution. They are finding the ad hoc explanations simply untenable.
punctuated equilibria? That was a joke years ago when evolutionists thought they may find some gradualism in the record. Only now, that there is no such evidence does the old joke seem like a good idea now.

Lets recap. Speciation happens gradually only when it is not happening rapidly. What ever we find, we can make it fit. We see that it happens rapidly because we don't see an evidence of it happening slowly, and thats a fact jack.

 

[idscience]

An Indian newspaper? really?

For those interested in the actual work rather than idscience's interpretation of an Indian reporters interpretation, here's a link

A formal test of the theory of universal common ances... [Nature. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

From the abstract.

• "The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous."

Oh yeh, that isunbiased.

Although the evidence is MASSIVE! it's really quite restricted.
Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been tested.

He tested it by applying an evolutionary model programmed to find evolutionary connections. Focused on conserved proteins (a conserved protien is an evolutionary term that assumes common ancestry) Is it a wonder, that programming designed to find common descent, actually finds evidence of it?

Don't like the Indian paper? is that some kind of slight on them? Does an Indian paper somehow make it illegitimate or unreliable? It did mention is was submitted to Nature. Well then, lets look at another "more respectable" tabloid.

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry, ScienceDaily

Here is an article from

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American

• Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*
  
  "Evolution does well where it can be tested," says David Penny, a professor of theoretical biology at the Institute of Molecular BioSciences at Massey University in New Zealand and co-author of an accompanying editorial. Yet, he notes that evolution can make "testable predictions about the past (especially quantitative ones)" tricky at best. "That Theobald could devise a formal test," he says, "was excellent…. It will probably lead to a jump in what is expected of the formal evaluation of hypotheses, and that would help everybody."

Difficulties: I thought it was obvious, a lock, overwhelming?

Statistical analysis: plugged into evolutionary models? Right! Ok!, what can we expect from that? Maybe a common ancestry result. Please, wake up people. How could he get any other result.

Testable predictions: are tricky at best. Some more insight to the past. Now they believe there is solid evidence, they feel free to confess, before this, it was tricky and difficult testing and interpreting evidence. The only problem here is Mr. statistical analysis has proven nothing other than he can make a program that proves his hypothesis.

It's a joke and you all should be embarrassed to cite this drivel as fact. One test, theoretical at that, unconfirmed by other testing and the evolution lobby is defending, promoting, and marketing it for all its worth. No signs of bias or agenda there.

 

[Split Rock]

Here is the NYU page on speciation

IV. Pattern of speciation

A. Gradual

B. Rarely find gradual transitions in the fossil record
1. For Darwin, this meant the geological record was imperfect
2. But as we've seen, speciations could be sudden—Eldredge & Gould's "Punctuated Equilibria"

1. Rapid divergence
2. Followed by long periods of stasis

A. Gradual yet there is no evidence of that.
B. "Rarely"? code for non.
1. Because there is not gradualism it cannot mean the hypothesis is wrong, it must mean the evidence is wrong.
2. Who has seen? no one has seen anything. It is what has not been seen that brings them to the conclusion. Again, the hypothesis cannot be wrong so ignore Darwin's indea of gradualism and replace it with sudden, rapid evolution. The only evidence is the lack of evidence. Only in evolution is no evidence proof of the hypothesis. They cite another hypothesis as "we have seen" like it is evidence. No wonder scientists are leaving evolution. They are finding the ad hoc explanations simply untenable.
punctuated equilibria? That was a joke years ago when evolutionists thought they may find some gradualism in the record. Only now, that there is no such evidence does the old joke seem like a good idea now.

Lets recap. Speciation happens gradually only when it is not happening rapidly. What ever we find, we can make it fit. We see that it happens rapidly because we don't see an evidence of it happening slowly, and thats a fact jack.

Wrong. There are examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record. For instance, deep sea cores show gradual evolution of foraminifera microfossils. One example is the evolution of Praemurica into Morozovella between 63 and 59 million years ago. Also, the evolution of Globoconella and Fohsella genera, A similar gradual evolution is seen with radiolaria evolving from Lithocyclia ocellus to Cannartus species to Ommatartus species over the past 50 million years and the Pterocanium genus in the late Cenozoic. From: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, D.R. Prothero, 2007, pp. 179-183. Based on: Haq and Boersma, 1978, Introduction to Marine Micropalenontology, NY Elsevier; Lazarus et al., 1985, Evolution of the radiolarian species-complex Ptercanium: a preliminary survey. J Paleontology 59: 183-221; Boardman et al., 1987; Fossil Invertebrates, Cambridge Mass, Blackwell.

 

[Split Rock]

From the abstract.

• "The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous."

Oh yeh, that isunbiased.

Although the evidence is MASSIVE! it's really quite restricted.
Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been tested.

He tested it by applying an evolutionary model programmed to find evolutionary connections. Focused on conserved proteins (a conserved protien is an evolutionary term that assumes common ancestry) Is it a wonder, that programming designed to find common descent, actually finds evidence of it?

Don't like the Indian paper? is that some kind of slight on them? Does an Indian paper somehow make it illegitimate or unreliable? It did mention is was submitted to Nature. Well then, lets look at another "more respectable" tabloid.

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry, ScienceDaily

Here is an article from

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American

• Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*
  
  "Evolution does well where it can be tested," says David Penny, a professor of theoretical biology at the Institute of Molecular BioSciences at Massey University in New Zealand and co-author of an accompanying editorial. Yet, he notes that evolution can make "testable predictions about the past (especially quantitative ones)" tricky at best. "That Theobald could devise a formal test," he says, "was excellent…. It will probably lead to a jump in what is expected of the formal evaluation of hypotheses, and that would help everybody."

Difficulties: I thought it was obvious, a lock, overwhelming?

Statistical analysis: plugged into evolutionary models? Right! Ok!, what can we expect from that? Maybe a common ancestry result. Please, wake up people. How could he get any other result.

Testable predictions: are tricky at best. Some more insight to the past. Now they believe there is solid evidence, they feel free to confess, before this, it was tricky and difficult testing and interpreting evidence. The only problem here is Mr. statistical analysis has proven nothing other than he can make a program that proves his hypothesis.

It's a joke and you all should be embarrassed to cite this drivel as fact. One test, theoretical at that, unconfirmed by other testing and the evolution lobby is defending, promoting, and marketing it for all its worth. No signs of bias or agenda there.

More cherry-picking and quote mining. Ohhhhhh... scientific research is DIFFICULT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess that's why I.D. advocates DON'T DO RESEARCH TO TEST THEIR HYPOTHESES!! It ISN"T EASY!!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

If doing research is hard, then the theory MUST BE WRONG!!!!!111111111

Here's another PubMed search on did on evolution: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=evolution
Results: 1 to 20 of 314072

But there's NO EVIDENCE.... right?

 

[Zaius137]

More cherry-picking and quote mining. Ohhhhhh... scientific research is DIFFICULT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess that's why I.D. advocates DON'T DO RESEARCH TO TEST THEIR HYPOTHESES!! It ISN"T EASY!!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

If doing research is hard, then the theory MUST BE WRONG!!!!!111111111

Here's another PubMed search on did on evolution: evolution - PubMed - NCBI
Results: 1 to 20 of 314072

But there's NO EVIDENCE.... right?

Sorry but idscience is correct.

Actually there are opponents to Theobald’s claims and not from the Christian camp. Again statistics can be made to prove almost anything but when it is not tied to the real world it is worthless.

Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life, despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses.
Was the universal common ancestry proved? [Nature. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Also…

Here, Koonin and Wolf show that “the purported demonstration (by Theobald [4]) of the universal common ancestry is a trivial consequence of significant sequence similarity between the analyzed proteins”. They are absolutely right on this in my view and there is not much more to say about this set of circumstances, really. The issue is a recent paper by Theobald claiming
to have found evidence for common ancestry of life based on the analysis of 23 sequences that Jim Brown and colleagues [18] had identified as “universal” among genomes on the basis of database searches and sequence
comparisons, but 10 years ago (in 2001).

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdf

 

[idscience]

Wrong. There are examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record. For instance, deep sea cores show gradual evolution of foraminifera microfossils. One example is the evolution of Praemurica into Morozovella between 63 and 59 million years ago. Also, the evolution of Globoconella and Fohsella genera, A similar gradual evolution is seen with radiolaria evolving from Lithocyclia ocellus to Cannartus species to Ommatartus species over the past 50 million years and the Pterocanium genus in the late Cenozoic. From: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, D.R. Prothero, 2007, pp. 179-183. Based on: Haq and Boersma, 1978, Introduction to Marine Micropalenontology, NY Elsevier; Lazarus et al., 1985, Evolution of the radiolarian species-complex Ptercanium: a preliminary survey. J Paleontology 59: 183-221; Boardman et al., 1987; Fossil Invertebrates, Cambridge Mass, Blackwell.

How did I know you would go microscopic on me.
Let's look at one of your examples: evolution of Praemurica into Morozovella

Paedomorphosis and the origin of the Paleogene planktonic foraminiferal genus Morozovella (Kelly, D.C., Arnold, A.J., and Parker, W.C.,)

• “The planktonic foraminifera have considerable potential for advancing our understanding of evolution in the fossil record. Yet, despite the advantage of their remarkably complete and detailed record, the planktonic foraminifera show one great failing: the relationship between form and function is almost completely unknown… Nevertheless, there have been few, if any, convincing functional adaptive explanations to account for even one of the many recorded evolutionary transitions…”

Why do you guys always have to go to the microworld for your evidence?

How do we even know they are examples of gradualism? Because some evolutionary biologist sees what he wants to see? Gradual evolution is a guess that similar looking organsims are related. The conclusion predates the evidence.

The evolutionist starts the study with the conclusion common ancestry is a fact and then goes ahead to find evidence to prove the predetermined concept.

Many including myself are unimpressed with microevidence inferences. Especially those like the one above that state how great the example of evolution is apart from the prof part.

 

[idscience]

More cherry-picking and quote mining. Ohhhhhh... scientific research is DIFFICULT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess that's why I.D. advocates DON'T DO RESEARCH TO TEST THEIR HYPOTHESES!! It ISN"T EASY!!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

If doing research is hard, then the theory MUST BE WRONG!!!!!111111111

Here's another PubMed search on did on evolution: evolution - PubMed - NCBI
Results: 1 to 20 of 314072

But there's NO EVIDENCE.... right?

Chery picking? If you mean being specific, guilty.

I posted the entire paragraph with a link so everyone could read the quote in context. No need to get emotional. Seems to be a lot of yelling and studdering in the last post. I guess if I posted the entire paper you would still accuse me of quote mining.

Regarding your hard research comment. I have no problems with that. Were I object is when an evolutionist claims mountains of evidence, concrete facts, no discussion and if you disagree your blind. Then offers papers like the one above. If your going to cite something at least make it challenging, or even read it before to claim it is proof.

Zaius137 has a good cite; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164432.1
This paper uses entirely different language. "compelling hypotheses". That is more in keeping with scientific reality. Not spouting something is proven every 5 minutes.

Look, this is a major problem with evolution. I don't know how many papers you guys have thrown up now that I have actually read. The titles promise the moon, and the content reveals how little is known. A complete disconnect. On top of that, in post 767 I cite a paper that claims macroevolution but they have no idea how it happened. This is the rub.

No one would fault honest problems and that are trying to be solved. The problem is evolutionsts continually say there are no problems, no controversy, mountains of evidence, overwhelming evidence, its all a fact, end of discussion. When in reality, its an advertising campaign trying to win a popularity contest.

Ok, picked one of your pubmed cites. One of the 314,072. I hope you will be patient while I read them.

Probing the electronic properties and structural evolution of anionic gold clusters in the gas phase.
Wang LM, Wang LS. Source
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA.

Well, this one obviously has nothing to do with common descent. One down, 314,071 to go. Maybe you could narrow your field down to say something less than every paper ever writen on every subject.

 

[Zaius137]

The UCA is an untenable proposition and only saved by the magic of Horizontal gene transfer. But there are consequences to this magical solution… it will certainly fell the tree of life. Let’s see if the tree of life is obsolete then there is no path leading to the UCA… Like the circular reasoning of evolution the problems it faces are also circular.

Biochemically they (Archaea) are nearly as different from Bacteria as they are from Eukaryotes which is why they are in a Kingdom of their own. Scientists believe that all three groups of living things, Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryota all arose separately from some unknown ancestor. Of 27 distinguishing characteristics listed in Brock and Madigan 2000, Bacteria and Archaea share 15, Eukaryotes and Archaea share 8, whilst Bacteria and Eukaryotes share only 3. One of these is the possession of Plasmids which is common in both Bacteria and Archaea but very rare in Eukaryotes.

The Earth Life Web, The Archaea

 

[Blayz]

Don't like the Indian paper?

It is an Indian newspaper. The article written by a journalist.

is that some kind of slight on them?

No, it was a slight on you, for using a secondary source when the primary was easily available, as though your interpretation of some journalist's interpretation (regardless of his country or newspaper) is preferable to the original source.

Does an Indian paper somehow make it illegitimate or unreliable?

It makes it second hand.

Well then, lets look at another "more respectable" tabloid.

why???? Why would anyone care what a journalist thinks about science, or more what you think about what the journalist thinks??

Argument from non-authority. I do believe we need an entirely new category of logical fallacy, just for you.

 

[Zaius137]

It is an Indian newspaper. The article written by a journalist.

No, it was a slight on you, for using a secondary source when the primary was easily available, as though your interpretation of some journalist's interpretation (regardless of his country or newspaper) is preferable to the original source.

It makes it second hand.

why???? Why would anyone care what a journalist thinks about science, or more what you think about what the journalist thinks??

Argument from non-authority. I do believe we need an entirely new category of logical fallacy, just for you.

What an honor to have a new category of logical fallacy bestowed on one. I don’t think it is necessary in your case because so many categories that already fit you.

 

[idscience]

It is an Indian newspaper. The article written by a journalist.

No, it was a slight on you, for using a secondary source when the primary was easily available, as though your interpretation of some journalist's interpretation (regardless of his country or newspaper) is preferable to the original source.

It makes it second hand.

why???? Why would anyone care what a journalist thinks about science, or more what you think about what the journalist thinks??

Argument from non-authority. I do believe we need an entirely new category of logical fallacy, just for you.

Journalists set the public tone of a topic. When journalists promote error it has to be answered. Most do not read the actual papers but even if they did, they would see from the abstract, it makes about as much sense as the journalist.

Journalists are coninually selling evolution and I never hear any evolutionists correct them. As long as they tow the party line they are left to mislead the public. So, I will continue to point out the error in the science tabloids as well as the papers that inspire them.

 

[Blayz]

So, I will continue to point out the error in the science tabloids as well as the papers that inspire them.

Whinge about other people's work.
Whinge about other people's reporting of other people's work.

I already knew you have no intention of ever doing anything novel or original of your own mate, didn't need the reminder.

 

[idscience]

Whinge about other people's work.
Whinge about other people's reporting of other people's work.

I already knew you have (had) no intention of ever doing anything novel or original of your own mate, didn't need the reminder.

That is called critiquing. You must have come across it in school with the way you set up your arguments.

• Critiquing: Verb:Evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way

Aren't you some kind of scientist? OH yeh, you are!

You don't have an answer to my question, do you. All you have is parrotted PRATTs you picked up from crappy websites.
More IDer cognitive dissonance
Unlike yourself, some of us are biological scientists that get our information about the cell from original, actual experimentation. Something IDers never do.
No wonder you need to rely on cherry picked quotes from famous people. You never do any work of your own.

And that was only your second post. Come on, when you said "some of us" you didn't mean you did ya.



The facts never speak for themselves, which is why scientists need to "frame" their messages to the public. By Matthew C. Nisbet & Dietram A. Scheufele

• "According to this traditional "popular science" model, the media should be used to educate the public about the technical details of the issue in dispute."
• "The stakes are high. If across the media, scientists and their organizations are not effective in getting their messages across, then others will be. One of the reasons why a coordinated response to the Intelligent Design movement was slow to develop was that there was not enough appreciation among evolutionists for strategic communication".

Sounds a little desperate. Strategic communication? Maybe this is why all the headlines and titles for papers talk about proving this and that while the content is full of ambiguity?

 

[idscience]

"THE PEPPERED MYTH"​

 

[Blayz]

LOL. Still trying to get people to read your blog huh? What's it like to have single digit page hits?

That is called critiquing. You must have come across it in school with the way you set up your arguments.

• Critiquing: Verb:Evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way

Wake me when you use either details or analytics. Until then its just whinge, whinge, whinge.

EDIT: Here's a clue, complaining about what some reporter said about the article does not constitute a critique. Address the actual paper, its methodology and conclusions. Go on, I dare ya.

 

[idscience]

LOL. Still trying to get people to read your blog huh? What's it like to have single digit page hits?

Wake me when you use either details or analytics. Until then its just whinge, whinge, whinge.

EDIT: Here's a clue, complaining about what some reporter said about the article does not constitute a critique. Address the actual paper, its methodology and conclusions. Go on, I dare ya.

I did. But, natural selection seems to have missed it like it did in common ancestry hypothesis. Let's start with some of your published papers. Some of your original work.

An Indian newspaper? really?

For those interested in the actual work rather than idscience's interpretation of an Indian reporters interpretation, here's a link

A formal test of the theory of universal common ances... [Nature. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

From the abstract.

• "The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous."

Oh yeh, that isunbiased.


Although the evidence is MASSIVE! it's really quite restricted.
Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been tested.

He tested it by applying an evolutionary model programmed to find evolutionary connections. Focused on conserved proteins (a conserved protien is an evolutionary term that assumes common ancestry) Is it a wonder, that programming designed to find common descent, actually finds evidence of it?

Don't like the Indian paper? is that some kind of slight on them? Does an Indian paper somehow make it illegitimate or unreliable? It did mention is was submitted to Nature. Well then, lets look at another "more respectable" tabloid.

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry, ScienceDaily

Here is an article from


The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American

• Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*
  
  "Evolution does well where it can be tested," says David Penny, a professor of theoretical biology at the Institute of Molecular BioSciences at Massey University in New Zealand and co-author of an accompanying editorial. Yet, he notes that evolution can make "testable predictions about the past (especially quantitative ones)" tricky at best. "That Theobald could devise a formal test," he says, "was excellent…. It will probably lead to a jump in what is expected of the formal evaluation of hypotheses, and that would help everybody."

Difficulties: I thought it was obvious, a lock, overwhelming?


Statistical analysis: plugged into evolutionary models? Right! Ok!, what can we expect from that? Maybe a common ancestry result. Please, wake up people. How could he get any other result.

Testable predictions: are tricky at best. Some more insight to the past. Now they believe there is solid evidence, they feel free to confess, before this, it was tricky and difficult testing and interpreting evidence. The only problem here is Mr. statistical analysis has proven nothing other than he can make a program that proves his hypothesis.

It's a joke and you all should be embarrassed to cite this drivel as fact. One test, theoretical at that, unconfirmed by other testing and the evolution lobby is defending, promoting, and marketing it for all its worth. No signs of bias or agenda there.

 

[Blayz]

I did.

Really? My apologies then. Could you link to the post where you critiqued the methodology please.

EDIT: previous post didn't load before I typed the above

Let's start with some of your published papers. Some of your original work.

I prefer my anonymity, thanks. But I'll read this critique of yours, and maybe I'll change my mind.

 

[Blayz]

Alright, let's have a look at this critique of yours.

From the abstract.

• "The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous."

Oh yeh, that isunbiased.

OK, so part one of your "critique" is to repost the abstract with your own formatting. And follow this with 4 word sentence which appears to be an attempt at sarcasm to point out that the abstract contains bias.

Ironically, you emphasize clear statements by the authors that UCA has little direct evidence, proving conclusively that there is indeed, no bias.

He tested it by applying an evolutionary model programmed to find evolutionary connections. Focused on conserved proteins (a conserved protien is an evolutionary term that assumes common ancestry) Is it a wonder, that programming designed to find common descent, actually finds evidence of it?

Part 2 of your critique starts with a statement about the author "applying an evolutionary model programmed to find evolutionary connections"

Well duh. The paper is about UCA. Not evolution.

You then seem to have a problem with conserved proteins, though quite what that problem is is never made clear, and then you finish with a fabrication. Since the paper makes it quite clear that it is NOT designed to find common descent.

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry, ScienceDaily

And then we move on to your interpretation of some reporter. You'll understand if I just ignore this part of your "critique"

Statistical analysis:

plugged into evolutionary models? Right! Ok!, what can we expect from that? Maybe a common ancestry result. Please, wake up people. How could he get any other result.

Here's that falsehood repeated. If you'd read the paper, or at least understood the abstract, you'd understand just how wrong your statement is.

Testable predictions:

are tricky at best. Some more insight to the past. Now they believe there is solid evidence, they feel free to confess, before this, it was tricky and difficult testing and interpreting evidence. The only problem here is Mr. statistical analysis has proven nothing other than he can make a program that proves his hypothesis.

Umm... not sure how to respond to this incoherent part of your "critique" I notice a "they" slipped in there, that would be one of the EvilTheys, I am assuming, always a sound addition to a "critique". And I see a broad swipe at the entire concept of statistical analysis at the end there. No details, no analytics, just unfounded, uninformed nonsense.

It's a joke

Your "critique" certainly was.

and you all should be embarrassed to cite this drivel as fact.

I would be. Luckily I never have.

One test, theoretical at that, unconfirmed by other testing and the evolution lobby is defending, promoting, and marketing it for all its worth. No signs of bias or agenda there.

Do you see the irony in the fact that if you didn't keep posting links to this "evolution lobby" (which is apparently global, stretching all the way to India) no one would know?

Wait...you're actually an EvilThey, aren't you?


More seriously, that entire post was nothing but a whinge. It didn't even come close to any standard of critique, even a standard from school, which is I am guessing the last time you were trained in this particular art.


Moving back to the paper, which it is clear now you "critiqued" solely from the abstract and journalists, Here's the first part of the methodology:

Here I report tests of the theory of UCA using model selection theory, without assuming that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship. By accounting for the trade-off between data prediction and simplicity, model selection theory provides methods for identifying the candidate hypothesis that is closest to reality16, 17. When choosing among several competing scientific models, two opposing factors must be taken into account: the goodness of fit and parsimony. The fit of a model to data can be improved arbitrarily by increasing the number of free parameters. On the other hand, simple hypotheses (those with as few ad hoc parameters as possible) are preferred. Model selection methods weigh these two factors statistically to find the hypothesis that is both the most accurate and the most precise. Because model selection tests directly quantify the evidence for and against competing models, these tests overcome many of the well-known logical problems with Fisherian null-hypothesis significance tests (such as BLAST-style E values)16, 21. To quantify the evidence supporting the various ancestry hypotheses, I applied three of the most widely used model selection criteria from all major statistical schools: the log likelihood ratio (LLR), the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the log Bayes factor (LBF)16, 17.
Using these model selection criteria, I specifically asked whether the three domains of life (Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea) are best described by a unified, common genetic relationship (that is, UCA) or by multiple groups of genetically unrelated taxa that arose independently and in parallel. As one example, a simplified model was considered for the hypothesis that Archaea and Eukarya share a common ancestor but do not share a common ancestor with Bacteria. This model (indicated by ‘AE+B’ in Fig. 1 and Table 1) comprises two independent trees—one containing Archaea and Eukarya and another containing only Bacteria. In these models the primary assumptions are: (1) that sequences change over time by a gradual, time-reversible Markovian process of residue substitution, described by a 20 × 20 instantaneous rate matrix defined by certain amino acid equilibrium frequencies and a symmetric matrix of amino acid exchangeabilities; (2) that new genetically related genes are generated by duplication during bifurcating speciation or gene duplication events; and (3) that residue substitutions are uncorrelated along different lineages and at different sites. The model selection tests evaluate how well these assumptions explain the given data set when various subsets of taxa and proteins are postulated to share ancestry, without any recourse to measures of sequence similarity.

Please show that you are more than some whinger, critique the above, in detail. Explain exactly what is wrong with this methodology.

 

[Split Rock]

How did I know you would go microscopic on me.

Because:
1. Generation times are short.
2. Deep sea cores show uninterrupted evolution of microorganisms over long periods of time.

Let's look at one of your examples: evolution of Praemurica into Morozovella

Paedomorphosis and the origin of the Paleogene planktonic foraminiferal genus Morozovella (Kelly, D.C., Arnold, A.J., and Parker, W.C.,)

[*]“The planktonic foraminifera have considerable potential for advancing our understanding of evolution in the fossil record. Yet, despite the advantage of their remarkably complete and detailed record, the planktonic foraminifera show one great failing: the relationship between form and function is almost completely unknown… Nevertheless, there have been few, if any, convincing functional adaptive explanations to account for even one of the many recorded evolutionary transitions…”

Oh look... you are shifting the goal posts... why did I think you would do that? You claimed there was NO gradual evolution in the fossil record. You are wrong. Let's see if you can admit it.

Why do you guys always have to go to the microworld for your evidence?

Why do you guys always have to ignore the microworld for your evidence?

How do we even know they are examples of gradualism? Because some evolutionary biologist sees what he wants to see? Gradual evolution is a guess that similar looking organsims are related. The conclusion predates the evidence.

Shifted goal posts again? The smooth change in morphology over time these cores show is exactly what you claimed no one has ever seen in the fossil record. How could they not be related if they are in the same core sample? Did your God *opps* Intelligent Designer create each one separatedly? (I know you won't answer that)

The evolutionist starts the study with the conclusion common ancestry is a fact and then goes ahead to find evidence to prove the predetermined concept.

I provided what you claimed did not exist. Man up and admit you were wrong.

Many including myself are unimpressed with microevidence inferences. Especially those like the one above that state how great the example of evolution is apart from the prof part.

Your "unimpressed" by anything that goes against your I.D. dogma. And btw, we don't "prove" in science.