The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry, would you prefer blue or green lol? I highlight any references as it is easier to spot from any personal comments. But I will refrain from doing so in future.

I am beginning to see a pattern here. First, you are discrediting Behe and then trying to undermine an entire journal because it agrees with some findings of Behe. But like I said the paper refers to other papers in other journals as well that support the findings.

The Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling Journal is part of Bio Med Central which is part of one of the worlds top publishers of scientific journals, Springer Nature. So it is not some minor journal and is subject to peer review by independent researchers and scrutinized for validity and significance. There are 1000s of other papers that are well accepted by this journal.

Nevertheless as the paper says the findings are referenced and backed by other mainstream papers that say there is a big problem in the time factor for multiple mutations. So you may want to undermine these papers as well that come from other journals such as GENETICS, Protein Science and Molecular Biology and Evolution Journals. ie just hit the links it references.[15–17, 25]

Virtually all of the papers subsequent to the work of Behe and Snoke have confirmed that waiting times can be prohibitive – depending upon the exact circumstances. Some of the subsequent papers have been critical [15–17, 25]. Yet even those papers show that establishing just two specific co-dependent mutations within a hominin population of 10,000 can require waiting times that exceed 100 million years (see discussion). So there is little debate that waiting time can be a serious problem, and can be a limiting factor in macroevolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15


But that's not the point. Your criticism of the paper is based on a wrong reading of what the paper is saying. The paper is not referring to base pairs but nucleotides, when he mentions 50 thousand in number ie "Since a typical human gene, is roughly 50,000 nucleotides long".
That would work out just about right if the average base pairs are 20 to 27 thousand per average gene. But according to several sites, there are around 23 to 27K base pairs in an average human gene which would work out correct as well.

Human genes are commonly around 27,000 base pairs long, and some are up to 2 million base pairs.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp1_4_2.shtml

-_- am I 10 feet 8 inches tall because one side of me is 5 feet 4 inches and so is the complementary side? Describing gene length by counting both strands as separate contributors to length is the equivalent of that. If you push the idea that Behe is counting length this way, you are essentially accusing the man of being unprofessional with his description, if not outright trying to be deceptive.

Also, Springer Nature may have many different journals as subsidiaries, including reliable ones, this doesn't make Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling a reliable journal in and of itself. One of the perks of publishing in it, mentioned on its own official website, is the speed of the peer review. It claims that the peer review is both rigorous and fast, but those are kinda contradictory. https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/about

Furthermore, the journal allows for purely theoretical stuff to be published; that is, items that have never been tested, just proposed, can be published there. If Behe's work was so good, why didn't he publish in Nature? Answer me, why wouldn't he publish in a journal more well recognized and prestigious? Might it be that his work didn't meet that standard?

Also, the journal itself doesn't agree with Behe by virtue of publishing his papers. Journals publish contradictory papers all the time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So much wrongness in one post. I see:
1. Misunderstanding of the bible
2. Misunderstanding of the influence of religion on society
3. Misunderstanding of history
4. No True Scotsman

Do you go out of your way to be so wrong or are you genuinely that ignorant?

What I see is just claims.... with not one supporting proof of any wrongness. Par for the course......

Anybody can do that, watch.

So much wrongness in your post and misunderstanding.

My that’s so easy I think I’ll start doing that myself....

 

[stevevw]

-_- am I 10 feet 8 inches tall because one side of me is 5 feet 4 inches and so is the complementary side? Describing gene length by counting both strands as separate contributors to length is the equivalent of that. If you push the idea that Behe is counting length this way, you are essentially accusing the man of being unprofessional with his description, if not outright trying to be deceptive.

Also, Springer Nature may have many different journals as subsidiaries, including reliable ones, this doesn't make Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling a reliable journal in and of itself. One of the perks of publishing in it, mentioned on its own official website, is the speed of the peer review. It claims that the peer review is both rigorous and fast, but those are kinda contradictory. https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/about

Furthermore, the journal allows for purely theoretical stuff to be published; that is, items that have never been tested, just proposed, can be published there. If Behe's work was so good, why didn't he publish in Nature? Answer me, why wouldn't he publish in a journal better recognized and prestigious? Might it be that his work didn't meet that standard?

Also, the journal itself doesn't agree with Behe by virtue of publishing his papers. Journals publish contradictory papers all the time.

It still does not address my point that Behe's findings are supported by other papers from other mainstream journals like GENETICS, Protein Science and Molecular Biology and Evolution Journals. Even Behe's critics agreed with the finding that to get a specific new function that required sequence strings of 5 or more from multi mutations would take 100 million years in human populations. That far exceeds the 6 million years it is said to take apes to evolve into humans through Neo-Darwinian processes.

The papers still need to be checked for scientific validity as far as their testing and analysis goes through the peer review process. The finding may disagree with other findings but so long as the methods and procedures for those findings meet proper scientific processes then that is fine. To say that becuase a finding disagree with what mainstream evolutionists believe is wrong by opinion is based on a bias against the person rather than the science.

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy of association. According to your logic all the papers and scientists (including mainstream scientists) who have published in the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling journal work is suspect and that the scientists and process to check validity is suspect. That's despite the journal stating it adheres to rigorous procedures.

Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or more experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound
https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/about

Despite doing a search for comments on this journal I have not found any negative ones. In fact, it is all positive and the journal is seen as part of the new emerging frontier of work in theoretical and mathematical biology. That is perhaps why these papers are not submitted in other journals like Nature as they do not have a category for this sector of publishing. What does stand out to me though is the length you want to go to undermine these findings by discrediting the scientists, papers and journals associated with them.

Within a short space of time, we have founded a state-of-the-art electronic journal freely accessible to all in a much sort-after interdisciplinary field that will be of benefit to the thinking life scientist, which must include medically qualified doctors as well as scientists who prefer to build their new hypotheses on basic principles and sound concepts underpinning biology. At the same time, these principles are not sacrosanct and require critical analysis. The journal http://www.tbiomed.com promises to deliver many exciting ideas in the future.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1156957/

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What I see is just claims.... with not one supporting proof of any wrongness. Par for the course......

Anybody can do that, watch.

So much wrongness in your post and misunderstanding.

My that’s so easy I think I’ll start doing that myself....

Since you failed to deny it, let's agree that the No True Scotsman fallacy is obvious. Now, which of the other points would you like clarified?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It still does not address my point that Behe's findings are supported by other papers from other mainstream journals like GENETICS, Protein Science and Molecular Biology and Evolution Journals. Even Behe's critics agreed with the finding that to get a specific new function that required sequence strings of 5 or more from multi mutations would take 100 million years in human populations. That far exceeds the 6 million years it is said to take apes to evolve into humans through Neo-Darwinian processes.

The papers still need to be checked for scientific validity as far as their testing and analysis goes through the peer review process. The finding may disagree with other findings but so long as the methods and procedures for those findings meet proper scientific processes then that is fine. To say that becuase a finding disagree with what mainstream evolutionists believe is wrong by opinion is based on a bias against the person rather than the science.

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy of association. According to your logic all the papers and scientists (including mainstream scientists) who have published in the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling journal work is suspect and that the scientists and process to check validity is suspect. That's despite the journal stating it adheres to rigorous procedures.

Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or more experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound
https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/about

Despite doing a search for comments on this journal I have not found any negative ones. In fact, it is all positive and the journal is seen as part of the new emerging frontier of work in theoretical and mathematical biology. That is perhaps why these papers are not submitted in other journals like Nature as they do not have a category for this sector of publishing. What does stand out to me though is the length you want to go to undermine these findings by discrediting the scientists, papers and journals associated with them.

Within a short space of time, we have founded a state-of-the-art electronic journal freely accessible to all in a much sort-after interdisciplinary field that will be of benefit to the thinking life scientist, which must include medically qualified doctors as well as scientists who prefer to build their new hypotheses on basic principles and sound concepts underpinning biology. At the same time, these principles are not sacrosanct and require critical analysis. The journal http://www.tbiomed.com promises to deliver many exciting ideas in the future.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1156957/

Because if they can’t control who gets heard, then their propaganda machine breaks down and they can no longer force a set of beliefs upon the children.

So anything disagreeing with their set of beliefs and the furtherance of their propaganda machine is of course rejected.

It’s the same way in cosmology. No other theory even if using laboratory experiments can be considered except for Dark Matter despite it failing every test fo 80 years.

 

[tas8831]

Then once again I need you to explain what this paper is talking about which at this point you keep rejecting but have never explained why. Take note that the author is saying that natural selection is not even necessary or sufficient let alone plays a major or even minor role in this process.Also that it is talking about the emergence of complex organisms and the central genetic and cellular features that make them and not some minor role.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

I like Mike Lynch's work, but the first sentence of his abstract seems to be hyperbole.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since you failed to deny it, let's agree that the No True Scotsman fallacy is obvious. Now, which of the other points would you like clarified?

I did deny it. I clearly stated it was wrong and full of misconceptions. But if the Scotsman fallacy applies to mine under your own reasoning, then it applies to yours.

Anyone can claim anybody is wrong, but I’ve yet to see you do more than just make bald faced claims. But since that’s all you have, I understand, I really do.

 

[tas8831]

..but I’ve yet to see you do more than just make bald faced claims. But since that’s all you have, I understand, I really do.

Still waiting for a tested and understood genetic mechanism that allows for multiple alleles for a single genetic locus to be maintained in an individual/population; mechanisms for subsequent differential expression of these alleles; mechanism whereby phenotypically indistinct pairs of humans can inbreed and produce offspring with noticeably different phenotypes which then mate producing new phenotypically 'races'; where the alleles for these loci came from; etc.

Also waiting for you to post one - just one - paper that you did not misinterpret, misrepresent, etc.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I did deny it. I clearly stated it was wrong and full of misconceptions. But if the Scotsman fallacy applies to mine under your own reasoning, then it applies to yours.

Do you even know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is? An example would be saying that a Pope who did something you consider un-Christian could not himself be Christian. Guess what? You did exactly that. So I guess that demonstrates I was right and you are, yet again, wrong.

While you try to find a way to wriggle out of that, please demonstrate where I made a similar No True Scotsman claim. It's not looking good for you - wrong in your claims about the bible, wrong in your claims about history, wrong in your claims about your own posts, wrong in your claims about my posts... Are you seeing a common theme here? I'm sure the lurkers can.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still waiting for a tested and understood genetic mechanism that allows for multiple alleles for a single genetic locus to be maintained in an individual/population; mechanisms for subsequent differential expression of these alleles; mechanism whereby phenotypically indistinct pairs of humans can inbreed and produce offspring with noticeably different phenotypes which then mate producing new phenotypically 'races'; where the alleles for these loci came from; etc.

Also waiting for you to post one - just one - paper that you did not misinterpret, misrepresent, etc.

You were given the paper already. You have yet to show how it was misrepresented except for once again your bald faced claims that it was so.

You just don’t like hearing that in real world studies mating was found to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new additive genetic variance.

But it’s ok, I understand truth destroys your belief system so can not be allowed to enter your thoughts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you even know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is? An example would be saying that a Pope who did something you consider un-Christian could not himself be Christian. Guess what? You did exactly that. So I guess that demonstrates I was right and you are, yet again, wrong.

No actually the No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

Exactly what I did not do. Claiming the pope because of his actions is not Christian in no way excludes any counterexample that he is Christian.

Claiming your magic mutations that only transcribe what already exists, in no way excludes the counterexample that something was added that didn’t exist. You simply have no facts to show something was added that did not exist, so your as mistaken as always with your bald faced claims.

While you try to find a way to wriggle out of that, please demonstrate where I made a similar No True Scotsman claim. It's not looking good for you - wrong in your claims about the bible, wrong in your claims about history, wrong in your claims about your own posts, wrong in your claims about my posts... Are you seeing a common theme here? I'm sure the lurkers can.

No wriggling is needed except in the minds of people that fail to understand what their own fallacies are....

You are more than welcome to show how a pope that starts a war of extermination against other Christians is himself a true Christian. I’ll await your attempt to now wriggle out of it.

 

[dad]

In Creating the Earth, God could have used geologic time to first Create simple life to exist and as geologic time progressed at select times Create more complex Species of life. And incresed the the complexity of each Species over geologic time, displaying an Earth with a fossil record we observe today - zero transitional fossils..

I don't see this in the bible. He created the birds...which science considers complex...and man...and beasts, and plants in creation week. To invoke great time is without biblical basis.

A simpler explanation is that the simple species happened to be the ones able to fossilize long ago. At the same time these creatures lived, so di man and birds etc etc. To take the fossil record as a record of life on earth, rather than a record of life that could fossilize, is to deny creation.

 

[dad]

There is no "higher" in evolution - just better adapted to the particular environment. You know, that 'survival of the fittest' thing.

So you are no higher than a worm in your estimation?!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No actually the No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

You had to look up the definition in wikipedia? And then you didn't attribute that definition. So not only did you not know what the fallacy is but you then plagiarised the definition. Are there any depths you won't go to?

Now, if only you'd looked at the example given by wikidedia you would have seen:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

So, let's take the claim from your post about the pope and see how that would pan out in this format, shall we?

Person A: "A Christian wouldn't start a war"
Person B: "This pope did and he's a Christian"
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Christian would start a war"

Pretty cut and dried, really.

Now, where's that example of the No True Scotsman fallacy you claim I made?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You had to look up the definition in wikipedia? And then you didn't attribute that definition. So not only did you not know what the fallacy is but you then plagiarised the definition. Are there any depths you won't go to?

Now, if only you'd looked at the example given by wikidedia you would have seen:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

So, let's take the claim from your post about the pope and see how that would pan out in this format, shall we?

Person A: "A Christian wouldn't start a war"
Person B: "This pope did and he's a Christian"
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Christian would start a war"

Pretty cut and dried, really.

Now, where's that example of the No True Scotsman fallacy you claim I made?

Show me the definition of Christian that allows him to start a war of extermination with other Christians?

Remember, it is by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Such as claiming no true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge. The definition of Scotsman has been changed in an ad hoc way.

You are incorrect as usual.

 

[stevevw]

I like Mike Lynch's work, but the first sentence of his abstract seems to be hyperbole.

I tend to think it is a good description of the common view of neo-Darwinism. It is a powerful concept and can easily be elaborated on and assumed when coming up with how life changes ie living things have to be modified through genes to fit into enviroments rather than living things being able to change enviroments to fit in or change being just a product of development and little to do with survival. Soon assumption and speculation can be made that just about everything can be explained in this way.

Lynch goes on to support this view in his paper.

Most biologists are so convinced that all aspects of biodiversity arise from adaptive processes that virtually no attention is given to the null hypothesis of neutral evolution

It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597

There are other articles that mention how many people assume or think in adaptive terms about evolution. I have experienced this on this site. When ever a feature, behaviour or any change is mentioned about how it came about the one answer is always adaptations caused it. Natural selection is a powerful idea that has logical appeal like any mathematical equation. Because it can be easily understood even by lay people does not mean that it was the cause of all change. People can spectulate based on the logical appeal when they do not have any other info or understand change holistically.

We tend to assume that all characteristics of plants and animals are adaptations that have arisen through natural selection. Many are neither adaptations nor the result of selection at all.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation/

George C. Williams is the only adaptationist I respect, because he understood the problems of adaptationism. In Adaptation and Natural Selection, he said exactly how natural selection ought to be treated: as a last-resort explanation, when other, non-selective processes have been ruled out. In other words, we're not supposed to assume natural selection is the null hypothesis, as adaptationists do.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-adaptationism

Gould and Lewotin wrote a paper about how too many scientists were willing to place an adaptive cause of features without really knowing and having the evidence ie it was assumed.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581

I think this is still at play today though more are beginning to take a wider view but only because the research is showing that there are other ways in how living things can change such as through the EES. But there are still many who will attribute what the EES says as already accounted for in the Standard theory and insist that the adaptive view (natural selection) is the only and dominant driving force in evolution.

This is the kind of issue that led Gould and Lewontin to write their 1979 “Spandrels paper” already cited – they warned against the too-frequent habit of biologists to consider plausible scenarios about how organisms could have evolved to be sufficiently explanatory with respect to how they really did evolve. But because it is often very difficult to distinguish free-riders from selected-for traits, these explanations often amount to “just so” stories about evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502201/

 

[VirOptimus]

I tend to think it is a good description of the common view of many who support neo Darwinism. It is a powerful concept and can easily be elaborated on and assumed when coming up with how life changes in adaptive terms ie living things have to be modified through genes to fit into enviroments rather than living things being able to change enviroments to fit in or change being just a product of development and little to do with survival. Soon assumptions can be made that just about everything can be explained in this way.

Lynch goes on to support this view in his paper.

Most biologists are so convinced that all aspects of biodiversity arise from adaptive processes that virtually no attention is given to the null hypothesis of neutral evolution

It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597

There are other articles that mention how many people assume or think in adaptive terms about evolution. I have experienced this on this site. When ever a feature, behaviour or any change is mentioned about how it came about the one answer is always adaptations caused it. Natural selection is a powerful idea that has logical appeal like any mathematical equation. But that is all it is and just because it can be easily understood even by lay people does not mean that it was the cause of all change.

We tend to assume that all characteristics of plants and animals are adaptations that have arisen through natural selection. Many are neither adaptations nor the result of selection at all.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation/

Gould and Lewotin wrote a paper about how too many scientists were willing to place an adaptive cause of features without really knowing and having the evidence ie it was assumed. I think this is still at play today though more are beginning to take a wider view but only because the research is showing that there are other ways in how living things can change such as through the EES. But there are still many who will attribute what the EES says as already accounted for in the Standard theory and insist that the adaptive view is the only driving force in evolution.

This is the kind of issue that led Gould and Lewontin to write their 1979 “Spandrels paper” already cited – they warned against the too-frequent habit of biologists to consider plausible scenarios about how organisms could have evolved to be sufficiently explanatory with respect to how they really did evolve. But because it is often very difficult to distinguish free-riders from selected-for traits, these explanations often amount to “just so” stories about evolution.

In order to establish the validity of adaptationism, or even to establish the validity of natural selection as a driving force in particular circumstances, Orzack has called for an Adaptationism Project akin to the Human Genome Project. This project would conduct and collect rigorous studies from around the world and establish in as many real circumstances as possible whether natural selection was at work, or was the primary agent in observed evolutionary change.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502201/

According to you, what, if any, role do natural selection play?

 

[tas8831]

I tend to think it is a good description of the common view of neo-Darwinism.

I don't, especially these days.

In the end - what difference does it make?

Does that somehow vindicate the claim in the OP?

 

[tas8831]

You had to look up the definition in wikipedia? And then you didn't attribute that definition. So not only did you not know what the fallacy is but you then plagiarised the definition. Are there any depths you won't go to?

No, there really aren't.

Creationists seem to be single-minded, almost pathologically so, in their determination to prop up their supposedly faith-based beliefs with 'evidence'. Upon being unable to find any such evidence in support of their views, they do what we seem them doing on here every day.

 

[tas8831]

Still waiting for a tested and understood genetic mechanism that allows for multiple alleles for a single genetic locus to be maintained in an individual/population; mechanisms for subsequent differential expression of these alleles; mechanism whereby phenotypically indistinct pairs of humans can inbreed and produce offspring with noticeably different phenotypes which then mate producing new phenotypically 'races'; where the alleles for these loci came from; etc.

Also waiting for you to post one - just one - paper that you did not misinterpret, misrepresent, etc.

You were given the paper already.

Really? Thats funny, because nothing you have posted in the last couple of days even mentions any of the things that you insist are real phenomena but all knowledgeable folks know are not, and for which you have never substantiated at all:


- genetic mechanism that allows for multiple (allow me to be more specific - more than 2) alleles for a single genetic locus to be maintained in an individual/population

- mechanisms for subsequent differential expression of these alleles


- mechanism whereby phenotypically indistinct pairs of humans can inbreed and produce offspring with noticeably different phenotypes which then mate producing new phenotypically 'races'

- where the alleles for these loci came from;



Not only have none of your papers even hinted at any of that, they have, in fact, made you look foolish due to the fact that they actually contradict your foundational claims - my latest crop of refutations of your silliness:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...sary-‘junk’-dna”.8070182/page-2#post-72962400

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...sary-‘junk’-dna”.8070182/page-2#post-72966035

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...sary-‘junk’-dna”.8070182/page-2#post-72966062



Its been fun.