What exactly is ID?

Sorry AZPaul, but this is the source of this knowledgeMethod for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials - Altran CorporationIt is the effect of the electromagnetic field from the Van de Graaff generator at different voltages that causes the apparent color of the numbers as well, similar to the way that oil sheens appear to be colors due to the effect on wavelength interactions.Obviously you did not understand the article or you would see this.enjoy.

---

You are trying to see stars in distant galaxies with binoculars. For branches close together the genetic tools would not resolve them EVEN IF THEY EXISTED. The phylogenomic tools used are incapable of resolving lineages that branched off close to one another in the distant past. However, these phylogenomic tools are capable of detecting a nested hierarchy WHERE THEY SHOULD DETECT THEM, in well resolved branches that are widely spaced.

Again, you are making assertions with no evidence. Please show that all of the ancestors of sheep were sheep, and that all of these ancestors required specific ERV insertions. Have you ever heard of creationism? So ID is not supposed to explain the pattern of designs in biology? Really? Why is it an assumption that every generation will accumulate mutations? That is what we observe. The more generations since the insertion of the ERV the more mutations the ERV will have, and the more divergence between the LTR's. This is population genetics 101. There is no living Coelacanth that is the same as today. Living coelacanths are in their own genus. No fossil species is in the same genus as the living species. There is no fossil species (which there are around 150 known species) of coelacanth that is identical to the living species.As far as divergence, you can not determine genetic divergence by comparing physical divergence. Those claims are highly suspect. Common ancestry is not assumed. It is tested for, and the test clearly points to common ancestry. If humans and other apes did not share a common ancestor then you would not expect to find ERV's at the same locations in their genomes, but you do. If there was no common ancestor you would not expect LTR divergence to produce the same tree as orthology. Due to the OBSERVED random nature of retroviral insertion finding multiple ERV's at the same locations in both humans and other apes is slam dunk evidence of common ancestry. No two ways about it. Did you look at the x axis? That's 10 million base pairs. For ERV's, we are talking resolution down to the same base, not within a few hundred thousand bases. Those hotspots comprise nearly half of the genome, as was stated in the reference I already gave you (the paper on HIV, ASLV, and MLV). That's billions of bases. ERV's shared by humans and other apes are found at the same base. Hotspots can not explain this, and it also can not explain LTR divergence which is an independent test that produces the same tree as orthology.Please explain this. How do hotspots explain the observation that ERV's that are shared by all apes have a higher LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and chimps? Hotspots can't explain this. Again, what you are looking for is the signal. If 99.9% of ERV's fall into the predicted pattern and 0.1% do not what do you think the conclusion should be? I already explained this. This would require bats to re-evolve the genome of the common ancestor of non-feathered birds. Once that occurred bats would have to acquire the same feather mutations in the same order. Such a pathway is impossible. Evolution does not go backwards any more than rivers flow 5,000 ft uphill. Yes I did, especially this part:"For HIV the frequency of integration in transcription units ranged from 75% to 80%, while the frequency for MLV was 61% and for ASLV was 57%. For comparison, about 45% of the human genome is composed of transcription units (using the Acembly gene definition)."Only HIV showed a strong trend towards inserting into transcription units while MLV and ASLV only showed a weak trend. On top of that, these "hotspots" comprise 45% of the human genome. For a 3 billion base haploid genome, that's about 1.5 billion bases in these hotspots. That means the chances of a single ERV inserting into the same base through two different insertions is 1 in 1.5 billion. And that's just for one retroviral insertion. Humans and other apes share tens of thousands of orthologous insertions. Hotspots can not explain this, nor can it explain LTR divergence as discussed above. Then show how you can arrange Matryoshka dolls into a nested hierarchy using shared characteristics. Physically putting one inside another is not a nested hierarchy.If you arrange them by size then each doll is a separate lineage, not nesting. You also need to put ALL matryoshka dolls into your cladogram so you must list common characteristics (synapomorphies) and derived features for all matryoshka dolls and show how they form a nested hierarchy. Where is that nested hierarchy? Shared characteristics let me do that. A fish and human eye develop in the same way, share the same cell types, and share the same arrangement of parts. Both the fish and human eye differ greatly from the squid eye in all of these departments. Both the human and fish eye have an inverted retina, have the same retina cell type, and have the same developmental process as embryos. The squid and octopus also have similar development, cell types, and a non-inverted retina, but the squid/octopus eye differs from the fish/human eye in all of these categories. You can read more here.They eyes of all vertebrates are more similar to one another than any vertebrate eye is to a cephalopod eye. What more can be said? I already showed you a fish with a gene that is an exact copy of a jellyfish gene and not found in any other fish (i.e. Glofish). We know how that gene got there, through intelligent design. So why don't we see a gene in bats that is identical to a gene in birds but not found in any other mammal? Why don't we see this? Humans and fish are both vertebrates, and they sare the same eye with all other vertebrates. Enough common ancestry for you? Because selection is determined by the RELATIVE rate of reproduction. You need to compare the fecundity of the individual with the fecundity of the rest of the individuals in the population.Let's use an example. John competed in the 100m dash. His time was 11.23 sec. Where did John place? If you can't answer this for one person then how can you answer this question if I give you the times for the other competitors? It's simple physics, bro.

quote:

---

The correct answer would be that we can't tell if it would lose all functionality or not.

---

For all purposes, we can say it has no function since it had only one and lost it. Sure there could be some unknown function that NOBODY has EVER seen. But why say such a thing?

quote:

---

It was important enough to you when you insisted on it.

---

I'm simply trying to make it easier on you, since you have trouble understanding such simple ideas.

quote:

---

Not necessarily. When dealing with identical units it doesn't matter which one goes into which slot.

---

Ah, but now you have more slots. Here is an example. As you can clearly see we have 2 flagella here. Flagella A and B. This is the front intersection view of the flagella's bodies. One consists of 8 proteins and the other of 16. To specify one protein, where it has to be relative to others, in order for it to assemble, you need information. The information consists of 3 spatial (x1, x2, x3) and one temporal (t) dimension. For each and every protein you have to have different coordinates.In the case of the flagella A you will have 8 proteins, therefore you have 8 different coordinates. In the case of flagella B, you have 16 proteins, therefore 16 coordinates. The information to assemble them is larger for the flagella B than for flagella A.A = C 8
B = C 16C = coordinates.Therefore, for a larger flagella, consisting of more protein, you do need more complexity, therefore, it's less probable.

quote:

---

That is entirely the wrong way around. You can't use your guesses about information to argue the probability.

---

Let's see, let me quote myself to show you that YES I CAN!

quote:

---

Imagine a safe with 1.000.000 combinations. And only one that opens the safe. The chances of opening the safe are 1/1.000.000. Now if you have a safe that has 500.000 combinations and only one opens the safe, the cahnce of you opening it is 1/500.000.

​

So to sum up.

​

[SAFE 1]

​

Complexity - 1.000.000
Probability - 1/1.000.000

​

[SAFE 2]

​

Complexity - 500.000
Probability - 1/500.000

​

When the complexity increases, the probability decreases. And in the same way when the complexity decreases the probability increases.

---

It seems as thoug with increased complexity the probability decreases... Who would have thought!? Not you that's for sure!

quote:

---

RNA life doesn't need proteins at all. Therefore the synthesis and use of proteins is likely the product of evolution, based on the chemical properties of existing RNA rather than pure chance. Thus your claim that a protein "must" have formed by pure chance is refuted. That's how it helps me.

---

Hmm... let's see... no, not gonna pass this time.It doesn't matter if RNA NEEDS proteins or not. That's not the point. The point is that by some crazy chance, those initial RNA chains got information encoded in them. You claim it's by evolution. Fine by me!The point remains that somehow those RNA chains got the ability to encode for proteins. In this specific case, the proteins that form the flagella. If you claim that this happened by evolution, you have to remember that evolution is an algorithm. And as such does not produce new information. It only transforms existing information by taking existing information from one place and placing it in another. Therefore, the algorithm that produced the flagella proteins was either a product of chance, or another algorithm, or it was intelligently designed. Which one was it?

quote:

---

You actually suggest that the fact that you have proven that my position was correct and your position wrong is a reason why I shoulod change MY mind ?

​

I suppose this explains why so much of what you say is wrong.

---

Was I not climing the INVERSE relation between complexity and rpobability first? And did I not demonstrate it with the example of 2 safes?

quote:

---

The question is, of course, about the reasons why we assign uniform probability. Something that goes completely unmentioned in either case.

---

Because we don't know the EXACT mechanics underlying the motion of dice and the Sun.

quote:

---

In case 2 we DO know the mechanics underlying the movement (the rotation of the Earth) we understand how this may be changed (and that it does change my small amounts over time) and that it is difficult to change to a significant degree.

​

And if you don't know that muich then you had better retake high school physics.

---

WRONG! Totally wrong. This is precisely what we DO NOT know. We do not precisely know how the Sun is moving. As I said, we ASSUME it's going around the Earth once a day. But we could be wrong. Tommorow it could do a 360 loop at 12 o'clock in the noon and than continue as if nothing happened.We simply ASSUME it's not going to do that because it NEVER has before. So there is no REASON (as in PRINCIPLE OF INSUFFICIENT REASON) to think it will. You see, it's even in the name principle. The Principle of insufficient REASON. Since we have no reason to think a certain object is going to do, we assume it's going to continue doing what it has been doing all along.The the idea that we know how the Sun moves exactly is just too laughable. Hey, Newton's gravity is not a fact, it's a model. It explains the movement of the Sun pretty good. But it later on got improved by Einstein's Relativity, because it showed it's flaws. And Relativty has it's flaws too. So no, we do not know the true mechanism and ture motion of the Sun.Science is about models and theories, not about ultimate truth. That's why we infer in the first place!

quote:

---

Since the Sun has very little to do with the Earth's rotation and we don't exactly need to know a lot about that to realise that significantly affecting it is a massive task (conservation of angular momentum plus decent estimates of the Earth's shape, diameter and mass will do) then your point is daft. Especially when it completely ignores the point you are supposedly discussing - there is no mention of uniform probability in it at all.

---

1.) All those data you are talking about are NOT facts. They are incomplete models. They are inferences. Not facts. Therefore, we do not know precisely thir mechanics.2.) The uniform probability in this case is the inference of the continuation of Sun's movement around the Earth, just as it has been doing for the past few thousand years. That's the uniform probability, and it's an assumption based on our ignorance of true mechanics.

quote:

---

The same as WHAT ? Non-uniiform motion ?

---

Same as uniform probability of dice outcome. It's same as assuming the uniform continuation of Sun's movement around the Earth. You assume the Sun is going to rise up tommorow, you don't know that.

quote:

---

And what we know about the dice justifies the use of uniform probabilities. Not ignorance.

---

WRONG. In every singel case it's the IGNORANCE, not KNOWLEDGE! Let me show you, it's the same for dice, cards and coins. In every case it's the ignorance. Here we go...

quote:

---

In a macroscopic system, at least, it must be assumed that the physical laws which govern the system are not known well enough to predict the outcome. As observed some centuries ago by John Arbuthnot (in the preface of Of the Laws of Chance, 1692),

​

...

​

It is impossible for a Die, with such determin'd force and direction, not to fall on such determin'd side, only I don't know the force and direction which makes it fall on such determin'd side, and therefore I call it Chance, which is nothing but the want of art....

​

...

​

It is implicit in this analysis that the forces acting on the coin are not known with any precision. If the momentum imparted to the coin as it is launched were known with sufficient accuracy, the flight of the coin could be predicted according to the laws of mechanics. Thus the uncertainty in the outcome of a coin toss is derived (for the most part) from the uncertainty with respect to initial conditions.

​

...

​

This example, more than the others, shows the difficulty of actually applying the principle of indifference in real situations. What we really mean by the phrase "arbitrarily ordered" is simply that we don't have any information that would lead us to favor a particular card.

---

1.) THERE! You see! The laws of motion are not well known!2.) There you go again. It's the ignorance again. Our ignorance to determine how the dice will fall that makes us assume uniform probability.3.) In the case of coins, the same thing. We do not know the conditions to know how the coin would land. Only if we knew exactly everything that we needed, than we would know how it would land.4.) And once more. The same goes for the cards. Our ignorance of their position is what makes us use PoIR, not our knowledge.

quote:

---

No, you said:

---

Yes, and that's true.

quote:

---

Your question in 1) is unanswerable since we do not even know if our universe is all there is or if it is embedded in a larger naturak reality.

​

Your point 2) is wrong because the multiverse is considered part of nature. The only difference between it and our universe is that the study must rest on theoretical study since it is not directly accessible (i.e. it IS "governed by natural law" and therefore natural).

​

3) Claiming that there may be more to nature does not entail that everything is natural. Your assertion is simply illogical and fallacious.

---

1.) Fine.2.) Oh, okay than. Than God and demons are also part of nature. They are outside of our universe but are still part of nature. Thus invoking God and demons is perfectly natural and methodological naturalism supports the invokation of Gods and demons.3.) Fine again. That means that God, angels, unicorns, demons etc. are also part of nature and are thus supported by methodological naturalism.

quote:

---

No, I fully understand that that is Dembski's measure of complexity. What you fail to grasp is that it does not even agree with your intuitive ideas of complexity - let alone more widely accepted measures like Kolmogorov complexity.

---

Care to explain what exactly am I doing wrong?

quote:

---

You seem to be having trouble understanding the question. It's irrelevant what you believe about SETI. It's what SETI believes about SETI that counts.

​

So I repeat the question yet again: Can you name any other field within science that in the absence of evidence holds as a fundamental premise that there is something it isn't possible to know.

​

I hesitate to clarify because it seems that the more words that are written the more opportunity it affords you to veer off the path of rationality, but ID holds that it isn't possible to know anything about the designer. It is ID, not me, saying things like this from Of Pandas and People:

---

You don't have to repeat yourself. I know what SETI knows about itself. I don't think, I know.Any field of science that deals with inference of design holds that views as it's premise. They don't have to say it explicitly. Why? Because nobody is dumb enough to ask them.We know, at least a person of average intelligence knows that you can't get from design to the designer. It has never been demonstrated, so there is no reason to believe it's possible.

quote:

---

Please refer to this paper for the details of what this paper is based on and don't try to change the topic to something else. It is rather explicit:

---

I have to, becasue you are unable to understand it in any other way.

quote:

---

There is absolutely no mention of accelerating the rate of decay by any mechanism:

​

There is no mention of any change in the rate of decay of the plutonium.

---

That's becasue they weren't testing the acceleration of decay rates! They were accelerating it by themselves in order to perform an experiment.

quote:

---

Now it seems, that not content with fabricating fantasy physics for yourself, you are fabricating what the researchers in the original paper you cited were using in their study of the effect of four years of (normal) plutonium decay on the proposed containment materials.

​

There is no link between the paper Plutonium-238 Alpha-Decay Damage Study of A Glass-Bonded Sodalite Ceramic Waste Form Journal of ASTM International (JAI) Volume 2, Issue 1 (January 2005) ISSN: 1546-962X Published Online: 3 January 2005 by Frank, SM, DiSanto, T, Goff, MK, Johnson, SG, Jue, J-F, Barber, TL, Noy, M, O'Holleran, TP, and Giglio, JJ and the invention of Barker that I could find.

---

Again, the point, that you are missing is that this kind of invention is used to accelerate the rate of decay. That's why I cited it.

quote:

---

So far they have not been shown to produce any marketable result. Wonder why?

​

I also found that this patent is about to expire: United States Patent 5,076,971 Barker Dec. 31, 1991, Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials,Inventors: Barker; William A. (Los Altos, CA). Assignee: Altran Corporation (Sunnyvale, CA). Appl. No.: 400,180, Filed: Aug. 28, 1989.

​

This invention is 20 years old and has not been used for anything practical, nor has it been studied further.

​

So much for the gay art of cloud riding.

​

Now perhaps you could prove me wrong by citing the journal published information on the actual documented change in the rate of decay in plutonium from the Frank et al paper, but I won't hold my breath.

​

And just for chuckles, even if your Barker invention is the real thing, what they would have done would have changee the energy of the alpha particles, thus still leaving you with the problem mentioned before:

---

This is a giant ad hominem attack. So what if it's going to expire? That's what patents do after a certain period of time.

quote:

---

Change the decay rate and you change the alpha energy.
Change the alpha decay energy and you change the halo diameter.

​

Aside from the problem of somehow pretending that a massive world wide Van de Graaff generator big enough to affect the whole world magically operates in a natural universe.

​

Fantasy is like that.

---

Listen, for the third time, my sources have nothing to do with my main argument. Even if everything I showed you was wrong, your U238 halos are still not evidence for an old Earth.I told you already, it doesn't matter if the decay rate changes and with it the energy changes. So what? Maybe the observed U238 halos are actually the products of just such an increased energy. You don't know they're not, because you never saw a U238 halo form.Again, let me cite myself once more. Maybe this time you'll get it.

quote:

---

Even if all I showed you was wrong, that wouldn't mean that Uranium 238 halos were evidence for an old Earth. Uranium halos are not evidence for an old Earth because they are based on two assumptions you don't know anythign about.

​

So let's take it step by step...

​

1.) Half life of U238.
2.) Halo itself.

​

1.) As I said earlier, we do know accelerated alpha decay happens even today. Does that mean that the physics change? No, it simply means that the decay rates chages. So, my point is that you claim that U238 half-life is 4.5 billion years. Okay fine. How do you know that? Where has this been shown to be true. I'll tell you where. NOWHERE! You don't know that. You assume that. And since you don't know it, you don't know that it took 4.5 billion years to make ANY U238 halo. Even if, I repeat, even if, there was no accelerated alpha decay. You still wouldn't have any evidence for an old Earth. Why? Well because you don't know the half-life of the U238 to begin with. You never saw it form. You didn't, nor did anyone else I presume, stand there for 4.5 billion years and observe the U238 halo form. Since you never observe it form, you don't know it's half-life.

​

2.) And the second assumption, which is even worse. Is the assumption that the U238 halo was produced by a constand decay rate. And than you turn and say that since it was constant decy, it had constant energy, thus a specific halo was formed that can only be produced by constant energy. That circular logic. Since you don't know by what energy strenght was that halo formed, you don't know if it was formed by constant decay, and of course constant energy. And you don't know that, because you never saw a U238 halo form, and what energy it took to form the said halo, that you never saw form int he first place.

​

In conclusion...

​

a.) You don't know the half-life of Uranium 238.
b.) You don't know what energy and decay rates it takes to form a Uranium 238 halo.
c.) For any Uranium 238 halo you see, you don't know if it was formed by a constant rate of decay and energy, because you never observed them form in the first place.
d.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be 4.5 billion years old.
e.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be produced by constant decay rate and energy strenght.
f.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth.
g.) Therefore go back to the drawing board.

---

This is my main argument. These are the facts. Stop evading them.

quote:

---

You are trying to see stars in distant galaxies with binoculars. For branches close together the genetic tools would not resolve them EVEN IF THEY EXISTED. The phylogenomic tools used are incapable of resolving lineages that branched off close to one another in the distant past. However, these phylogenomic tools are capable of detecting a nested hierarchy WHERE THEY SHOULD DETECT THEM, in well resolved branches that are widely spaced.

---

Back to the "crappy tools" argument again I see? Okay, than here's mine... The only reason we have nested hierarchies in the first place is because of crappy tools. You see, you are using bad tools that's why you get nested hierarchies in the first place.Sure a ball might seem perfectly smooth from 10 meters away. But once you get close it ain't so anymore. And once you take the magnifying glass it's even worse. Than you can see it's not smoot at all! The same thing goes with nested hierarchy. Once when we get better tools, we will be able to discern even the smallest branches and all nested hierarchies will disappear.

quote:

---

Again, you are making assertions with no evidence. Please show that all of the ancestors of sheep were sheep, and that all of these ancestors required specific ERV insertions.

---

This is a logical fallacy. I'm not supposed to show that. It's like me asking you a videotape of evolution of all animals that was taking 3.6 billion years. You are not asking for reasonable evidence.We go from what we have. And what we have is this. Sheep produce sheep. No sheep came from a non-sheep. And no sheep has ever produced a non-sheep. All sheep need a specific ERV to reproduce. Therefore, all sheep that ever existed, as far as we know, needed that too.

quote:

---

Have you ever heard of creationism?

---

Is genetic engineering equal to creationism? If so, than creationism is science!

quote:

---

So ID is not supposed to explain the pattern of designs in biology? Really?

---

It's supposed to detect it.

quote:

---

Why is it an assumption that every generation will accumulate mutations? That is what we observe. The more generations since the insertion of the ERV the more mutations the ERV will have, and the more divergence between the LTR's. This is population genetics 101.

---

Becasue it doesn't have to happen. Like in the case of ANY living fossil. Here is fine list of them. None of them accumulated any mutations for more than 100 million years.Living fossil - WikipediaWhy hasen't any of those species ever changed?

quote:

---

There is no living Coelacanth that is the same as today. Living coelacanths are in their own genus. No fossil species is in the same genus as the living species. There is no fossil species (which there are around 150 known species) of coelacanth that is identical to the living species.

---

I don't care how they got classed. They look identical!

quote:

---

As far as divergence, you can not determine genetic divergence by comparing physical divergence.

---

Oh snap! You have just killed your own argument, just like that! If I can't infer genetic divergence by morphology, you can't either. So looking at any animal anywhere, including the fossil record doesn't tell you anything about their genetics! That means it doesn't tell you anything about their evolution! Therefore, you have nothing to base evolution on anymore, since you can't infer genetic change based on morphology.

quote:

---

Those claims are highly suspect.

---

As suspect as saying that people came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago?

quote:

---

Common ancestry is not assumed. It is tested for, and the test clearly points to common ancestry.

---

Explain how do you test for CD?

quote:

---

If humans and other apes did not share a common ancestor then you would not expect to find ERV's at the same locations in their genomes, but you do.

---

You would. As I explained to you in previous post, ERV insertions are non-random.

quote:

---

If there was no common ancestor you would not expect LTR divergence to produce the same tree as orthology.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

Due to the OBSERVED random nature of retroviral insertion finding multiple ERV's at the same locations in both humans and other apes is slam dunk evidence of common ancestry. No two ways about it.

---

Excuse me but no. My link showed non-random ERV insertions. You posted a link about ERVs, and it too showed non-random ERV insertions. So you can expect common insertions without common descent.

quote:

---

Did you look at the x axis? That's 10 million base pairs. For ERV's, we are talking resolution down to the same base, not within a few hundred thousand bases.

---

It doesn't matter. I'm jsut showing you the non-random nature of genetic change.

quote:

---

Those hotspots comprise nearly half of the genome, as was stated in the reference I already gave you (the paper on HIV, ASLV, and MLV). That's billions of bases. ERV's shared by humans and other apes are found at the same base. Hotspots can not explain this, and it also can not explain LTR divergence which is an independent test that produces the same tree as orthology.

​

Please explain this. How do hotspots explain the observation that ERV's that are shared by all apes have a higher LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and chimps? Hotspots can't explain this.

---

Why not? Why can't hotspots explain this?

quote:

---

Again, what you are looking for is the signal. If 99.9% of ERV's fall into the predicted pattern and 0.1% do not what do you think the conclusion should be?

---

That the idea of CD is falsified. Oh, and it's not 99.9%. You know that as well as I do.

quote:

---

I already explained this. This would require bats to re-evolve the genome of the common ancestor of non-feathered birds. Once that occurred bats would have to acquire the same feather mutations in the same order. Such a pathway is impossible. Evolution does not go backwards any more than rivers flow 5,000 ft uphill.

---

This is a meaningless explanation. It simply has to mutate a certain part of the genome and that's that. There is no reason why it can't do that. Why are all those things you said impossible? What's so impossible about them?

quote:

---

Yes I did, especially this part:

​

"For HIV the frequency of integration in transcription units ranged from 75% to 80%, while the frequency for MLV was 61% and for ASLV was 57%. For comparison, about 45% of the human genome is composed of transcription units (using the Acembly gene definition)."

​

Only HIV showed a strong trend towards inserting into transcription units while MLV and ASLV only showed a weak trend. On top of that, these "hotspots" comprise 45% of the human genome. For a 3 billion base haploid genome, that's about 1.5 billion bases in these hotspots. That means the chances of a single ERV inserting into the same base through two different insertions is 1 in 1.5 billion. And that's just for one retroviral insertion. Humans and other apes share tens of thousands of orthologous insertions. Hotspots can not explain this, nor can it explain LTR divergence as discussed above.

---

Some ERV's have a higher rate of non-random insertions some have a lower one. So what? I still see no reason why same insertions can't possibly be explained by hotspots. I see absolutely no reason.

quote:

---

Then show how you can arrange Matryoshka dolls into a nested hierarchy using shared characteristics. Physically putting one inside another is not a nested hierarchy.

---

I told you already. It doesn't matter if they are put inside of one another or not. Tehy could have been designed to be put on top of each other! This is simply what designer chose! That's all.The chared characteristics in this case is the size. There is only one specific pattern that they can follow to all be arranged in a nested hierarchy. From smaller to the largest.

quote:

---

If you arrange them by size then each doll is a separate lineage, not nesting. You also need to put ALL matryoshka dolls into your cladogram so you must list common characteristics (synapomorphies) and derived features for all matryoshka dolls and show how they form a nested hierarchy. Where is that nested hierarchy?

---

Why would nesting them by size mean they are a separate lineage? It wouldn't, that's the only way they form a nested hierarchy.

quote:

---

Shared characteristics let me do that.

---

And if there was a different set of similar characteristics you would pick them. So what does that prove? Nothing! Except that you can group animals as you wish once you take into account all their characteristics.

quote:

---

A fish and human eye develop in the same way, share the same cell types, and share the same arrangement of parts. Both the fish and human eye differ greatly from the squid eye in all of these departments. Both the human and fish eye have an inverted retina, have the same retina cell type, and have the same developmental process as embryos. The squid and octopus also have similar development, cell types, and a non-inverted retina, but the squid/octopus eye differs from the fish/human eye in all of these categories. You can read more here.

​

They eyes of all vertebrates are more similar to one another than any vertebrate eye is to a cephalopod eye. What more can be said?

---

There you go again. You pick similarities that you like, and drop those you don't like. This is unfalsifiable.

quote:

---

I already showed you a fish with a gene that is an exact copy of a jellyfish gene and not found in any other fish (i.e. Glofish). We know how that gene got there, through intelligent design. So why don't we see a gene in bats that is identical to a gene in birds but not found in any other mammal? Why don't we see this?

---

Why should we?

quote:

---

Humans and fish are both vertebrates, and they sare the same eye with all other vertebrates. Enough common ancestry for you?

---

So what if they are vertebrates? That doesn't imply common ancestry!Don't you see that you're just picking certain characteristics and naming speices after them! You can't have a different mammal becasue it wouldn't be called mammal anymore! It's impossible to find a mammal with featehrs because it wouldn't be called a mammal anymore.

quote:

---

Because selection is determined by the RELATIVE rate of reproduction. You need to compare the fecundity of the individual with the fecundity of the rest of the individuals in the population.

​

Let's use an example. John competed in the 100m dash. His time was 11.23 sec. Where did John place? If you can't answer this for one person then how can you answer this question if I give you the times for the other competitors?

---

What has this got to do with determining the unit of selection?

quote:

---

It's simple physics, bro.

---

Let's hear it.

At this point it becomes clear that you aren't worth talking to. The discussion has gone on so long and become so repetitive that I would be surprised if anyone else was still reading or if they would learn anything that had not already been covered.The idea that you have to make a false claim, try to pretend that you hadn't said it and then try to pretend that you didn't say that you didn't say it over and over again round and round in circles is bad enough. But this piece of lunacy proves that you are a hopeless case: The sun does NOT go around the Earth. The apparent motion of the sun is due to the Earth rotating on it's axis. If you don't know that much then there's little I can say.As I said, we know that it would take a massive force to significantly change the rotation of the Earth and there is no likelihood at all that "it could do a 360 loop at 12 o'clock in the noon and than continue as if nothing happened." We don't even need to invoke gravity - conservation of angular momentum is rather more important ! Relativistic considerations aren't significant. either We know that Newtonian mechanics is an extremely reliable model for the masses and speeds involved. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Did you not see this thread: Relativity is wrong...Particularly, Message 45 and Message 65 and on and on.And take a good look at his avatar.Rememer too, this is the guy from Stormfront...

It appears to this moderator that Smooth Operator is not going to be drawn into rational discussion. Anyone object to this thread being closed down? I'll wait a couple days for responses.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To be accurate, it's crappy resolution. Do binoculars work? Yep. However, this doesn't mean you can resolve single stars in a distant galaxy. These tools work, but not at high resolution. Then don't claim it. You claimed that all sheep have always required a specific ERV insertion in order to reproduce. You have asserted this without any evidence whatsoever. Evidence please. Please show that all ancestors of sheep were sheep and not non-sheep.Chihuahuas give birth to chihuahuas, but not all fo the ancestors of chihuahuas were chihuahuas. So where can we find the MCS's (multiple cloning sites) in our genomes? Where can we find antibiotic markers used for determining of the plasmids have inserted into the genome? Where are there examples of clear violations of the nested hierarchy that humans can easily produce using genetic engineering (e.g. the Glofish)? Evidence please. Please link to the genome of the 100 million year old ancestor and the genome of the modern population. Please show that they are nearly identical as you claim.You are also making the mistake of correlating small phenotypic changes with small genotypic changes. Changes and phenotype and genetic divergence do not correlate. Never have. Identical to which of the 100+ species of fossil coelacanth? Give me a genus-species name and we will compare. You have changed your argument. You are arguing that genetic change occurs at the same rate as morphological change. Those do not correlate. A single mutation can drastically change morphology while a thousand other mutations can have zero effect on morphology. The rates of change (genotype and phenotype) do not correlate. The PATTERN of SHARED morphology DOES correlate with genetic divergence. DNA breaks down in much shorter time periods than millions of years. You are ignoring the much more likely conclusion that these are modern bacteria growing in salt that is millions of years old. I assume you mean common ancestry. Using ERV's, if two organisms share a common ancestor then you should find multiple ERV's at the same base in their genome (i.e. orthologous ERV's). Not only that, but LTR divergence should correlate with amount of time in the lineage as determined by orthology. These retroviruses insert among billions of potential insertion sites. These insertion sites make up 50% of the human genome, or about 1.5 billion bases. The chances of two independent insertions resulting in the same ERV at the same base in the genome are simply too high to explain the 10's of thousands of ERV's shared by humans and other apes. They are random among the insertion sites which comprise billions of bases. Once again, these hotspots comprise billions of bases. You might as well claim that everyone should have the same lottery numbers because the lottery balls are non-random being that they have a hotspot between the numbers 1 and 50. If the lottery were truly random then any imaginable number should be in play. All gravity has to do is move water uphill. Why can't gravity do that?It is not simple at all, despite your empty assertions. Bats would need to re-evolve the same genome as the non-feathered bird ancestors. How would that happen? After this long string of impossible mutations, bats would then need to acquire the same feather mutations leading to feathers, another impossible string of mutations. Using the lottery example again, you might as well ask why the winning lottery numbers are not the exact same for every lottery drawing. It does matter. Orthologous ERV's are found at the SAME BASE IN EACH GENOME. If you are going to refute this evidence you need to use the same level of resolution. It is not my responsibility to remove your blinders. That's your job. It is not my fault that you refuse to admit that a 1 in 1.5 billion chance of two ERV's occuring at the same base is not random enough. For just 10 ERV's occuring at the same spot in two genomes due to independent insertions this would require a 1 in 1.5 billion to the 10th power occurence, or 1 in 1x10^100 odds. And that is just for 10 ERV's. Humans and other apes share 10's of thousands of these ERV's. Then please construct a cladogram using shared characteristics that groups the human eye with cephalopods and the fish eye with vertebrates. Show it. So we should not see a nested hierarchy if common ancestry is true? Please explain. So you admit that the nested hierarchy is falsifiable. Because selection is determined by competition between individuals in the same way that a runner's place in the competition is determined by his time compared to the times of others. You can't look at the number of offspring that an individual has and calculate which genes are under selection in the same way that you can't use the time of an individual runner to determine his place in the competition.

Yes, I'd say so.I would also ask that Smooth Operator be watched and reined in on other threads if he tries to take over another rational discussion with more of his non-science non-sense. Not to mention that most of his posts are extremely long and repeated ramblings that don't really address the issues.Given that he now makes up how scientists are doing research, and that the results therefore include an effect not even mentioned at all in the article is rather incredible irrationality.I used to debate a poster named Hans, who argued that the earth was flat, and that all science was part of a conspiracy from the Vatican. All I can say is "ils sont des fous et des fous," and we having living proof here on this thread. Admitting he has to change the subject because I don't understand what the actual article actually says and he wants me to "understand" a fantasy instead? Except that the experiment did not involve accelerating the decay rate at all. Even if accelerated decay were possible, this experiment did not need it. This is pure adulterated fantasy on Smooth Operator's part.A google scholar search is amusing:

quote:

---

• Your search - "accelerated radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "accelerating radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "changing radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "change radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "changes to radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "altered radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "reduced radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "modified radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• ...

---

Now when I searched for "changed radioactive decay rate" I found one (1) article:
http://www.subtleenergysolutions.com/...ternativeHealing.doc

quote:

---

For that purpose let us have a look at another experiment published by the Chinese nuclear physicist, Professor Lu, in his book Scientific Qigong Exploration. Emission of Chi by Qigong Master Dr. Yan Xin changed radioactive decay rate of Periodic Table Element #95, Americium (Am with atomic weight 241) (Fig.4) [10].

​

Modern science doesn't have the energetic means to change the decay rate of radioactive elements. You can heat or cool them, put in extra-strong electrical or magnetic fields, expose them to electromagnetic waves, and the decay rate will be the same. But Chi emissions change it! To change the decay rate, you need to change the structure of the atomic nucleus, consisting of protons and neutrons. Chi doesn't interact with protons: otherwise it could be detected in the same way as electromagnetic energy.

---

Further references:CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

quote:

---

# The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

---

Which means that the radii of the different halos for the different daughter isotopes would change by different amounts - yet this is not observed in the Uranium halos .... and therefore Uranium halos are indeed evidence that the earth is very old.Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A number of experiments have shown that decay rates of naturally-occurring radioisotopes (for decay modes other than electron capture) are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment and electric, magnetic or gravitational fields. Comparison of laboratory experiments over the last century, studies of the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, and astrophysical observations of the luminosity decays of distant supernovae (which occurred long ago as the light has taken a great deal of time to reach us), for example, strongly indicate that decay rates have been constant (at least to within the limitations of small experimental errors) as a function of time as well.

​

On the other hand, some recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a very weak dependence (0.1% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54 and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (about 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[3][4][5] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper [6] has found no evidence for such correlations in a half-dozen isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

​

An exception is the decay mode known as electron capture exhibited by a small number of nuclides. Chemical bonds can affect the rate of electron capture to a small degree (generally less than 1%) depending on the proximity of electrons to the nucleus. For example in 7Be, a difference of 0.9% has been observed between half-lives in metallic and insulating environments.[7] This relatively large effect is due to the fact that beryllium is a small atom whose valence electrons are in 2s atomic orbitals which have a large degree of penetration very close to the nucleus, and thus are subject to electron capture.

---

If accelerating radioactive decay was indeed possible and was used regularly by scientists in doing experiments like the one cited above, how come there is absolutely no mention of this, except in the world of fantasy science? With absolutely no real evidence that accelerated decay is possible, Smooth Operator has concluded that a patent documentation is sufficient evidence to assume that the mechanism portrayed is in regular (but unmentioned) use, without need to mention the variation in decay rate employed. Perhaps he is unaware how many patents are issued for mechanisms that never work as advertised, that there is absolutely no requirement to prove that they work to get a patent.Curiously, a lot of bogus devices employ a Van de Graff generator ... all that is needed to make a B-grade (or below) science fiction movie is a jacob's ladder ... The geocentric earth bit was batty enough, but this is just off the deep-end of bizarro.Please note that I entered into debate with Smooth Operator with the expectation that he would prove to be unreasonable: This has now been done, in spades. As such there is no need to continue this charade.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : list addedEdited by RAZD, : Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?Edited by RAZD, : Qed

---

Really?Is there anything he's not wrong about?

Typical delusion regarding reality now shown by Smooth Operator When the pattern being shown is one of hereditary relationships due to common ancestry, then being able to reproduce is the first requirement.Curiously, showing gradual change alone is not sufficient for showing an evolutionary hereditary pattern due to common ancestry. Rock erosion shows gradual changes due to ecological conditions, but no scientist considers them hereditary.Amusingly, pots and pans arbitrarily arranged on a computer do not show a pattern of gradual change because there is no natural way for one to change form. Arbitrarily arranging them in a tree like structure with no regard for context to time and spacial relationships does not mean that the pots and pans actually show a tree like structure, or that anyone else would derive the same pattern from the same ad hoc elements chosen at random. Interestingly, the fact that Smooth Operator asks this question, shows that he does not understand the differences, and thus all his comments that such distinction is a non sequitur etc are only evidence of his denial and ignorance of the relevance of the elements that distinguish one from the other.Those who are interested in learning can look up the definitions and usage atHomologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characterscharacters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that featureso the presence of four limbs is a homology.

​

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

​

Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.

​

​

Bird and bat wings are analogousthat is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

​

Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.

---

The astute reader will note that they start off by saying that you need to start with hereditary characteristics, just as I have said. They will further recognize that phylogenic trees are not based superficially on single traits, but on a multitude of traits.The astute reader will also note that analogous features only seem similar at the top level of comparison - whether an animal has a wing, whether a pot has a handle - but that they are derived from different originating features ...... that the fine structure and other details show different origins - the wings are derived from different internal structure, the pots and pans are made of different materials, formed by different fabrication techniques and are assembled in different ways.Simply put, homologies are traits that are traits that are repeated from one generation to the next, they are the parts of the phylogeny that do not change between the respective generation, while analogies are where traits in one population are imitated in a different population rather than being copied.Curiously, this is one of the way design would be detected, by having traits copied rather than imitated, in different lineages such that copies could not be inherited. The same tires on different makes and models of cars show design.Now, perhaps Smooth Operator will haul out his Van de Graff machine and transform copper into steel ... or make up some other fantasy rather than deal with the real world. It would be amusing to watch if it weren't such pathetic self delusion.Once again I note that I entered into debate with Smooth Operator with the expectation that he would prove to be unreasonable: This has now been done, in spades, in virtually every topic he has discussed. As such there is no need to continue this charade.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

I explained to SO via PM that I had been keeping this thread open in the hope that he might at some point begin engaging in constructive discussion, and that his behavior here would govern the degree of his participation that is permitted in other discussions at EvC Forum. While I have been occasionally heartened at SO's positive response to my occasional moderator requests (for example, to respond to arguments instead of sentences), it's hard to overcome the habits of a lifetime and he has backslid each time. My understanding of how SO feels about this thread is that he thinks the discussion problems are due to deficits in everyone else's understanding.So I already share your thinking on this, and I expect it is the conclusion of many others here.Even taking the significant challenge of SO's peculiar style into account, I don't think the rest of us covered ourselves with any glory. It appeared to me that many of us were following a course that played right into SO's hands.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director