Oh My -- Rosa is spreading it deep this time!!!
A really great paper entitled: "Bent posture improves the protective value of bird dropping masquerading by caterpillars" highlights the fact that mimicry extends beyond an organism merely resembling something that it is not, and it's got Rosa talking shit.
From the paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215001463
"Masquerade describes a defense by animals that have evolved to closely
resemble inedible objects such as twigs, stones or bird droppings.
Animals that masquerade often match their models in size or shape, and
may even adopt specific postures in order to enhance their resemblance,
causing predators to misclassify them as their model objects. The
caterpillars of some moth species resemble bird droppings, and bend
their bodies while resting on branches or leaves. We hypothesized that
such bending might enhance the caterpillars' resemblance to real bird
droppings. In this study, we tested this hypothesis by pinning
artificial caterpillars with green or bird dropping coloration onto tree
branches in both straight and bent postures, after which we exposed
them to bird predation in the wild. We found that the adoption of a bent
posture resulted in a lower attack rate by birds on the artificial
caterpillars with the bird dropping coloration, while green caterpillars
experienced no benefit from the same treatment. This study is the first
experimental demonstration of the protective value of a specific
posture in masquerading prey, and highlights the importance of
considering an organism's shape and posture in the study of masquerade."
..and now, here is what Rosa got out of it:
"So, we have a species which is a member of an ancient order - moths
probably split off from other insects about 190 million years ago -
masquerading as the droppings of an order which only evolved much more
recently. It doesn't take a genius to recognise that there would have
been no benefit in resembling a bird dropping before there were birds.
Not only would it not deter birds from eating the caterpillars but it
wouldn't deter anything else either. In fact, it wouldn't have been a
case of cryptic mimicry or any other sort of mimicry. It would have
been a complete waste of time.
So, any creationists or 'Intelligent Design' hoax dupes willing to have a
go at explaining why an intelligent designer would have designed a moth
caterpillar to resemble a bird dropping several tens of millions of
years before there were birds? Or did it change it's mind later when it
realised it had just designed birds and so changed the caterpillar?"
Is this person mentally retarded?
No, seriously -- it's an honest question.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Converging on Stupidity
Oh no -- Rosa is at it again!!!
Rosa Rube is currently spending "her" 2 cents on a new article which claims that several unrelated species of fish have "evolved" the same optimal solution for swimming.
Here is a link to the PLOS One:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002123
It would be unfair of me to accuse Rosa herself of a mistake, as she merely copy / pasted directly from the paper and / or "Pop-Science" write-up and made it seem as if she used her own words:
"So, although starting from very different body plans, natural selection, by favouring greater swimming efficiency, has caused the different clades to converge on the same optimal solution.
This gives what is probably as simple an example as it possible to find why natural selection acting on inherited variation can result in the appearance of design for purpose. Given the mindlessness but inevitability of the process it should be clear to see why this convergence was inevitable. All that was required was that this solution was possible and so available for evolution."
Rosa (et al) fail to comprehend that "Natural selection" and "Evolution" are merely implied in this paper (not observed at all) and the reason we call it "convergence" is ONLY because we know for a fact that this optimal design feature was not passed down through common descent, therefore, all species must have "Converged" on the solution.
Do these ignorant people not understand what "implied' means?
Do these people not comprehend what "presupposition" is?
My final thought: "Intelligent folks should be cringing at Rosa's kind of irrelevant and dishonest journalism."
Rosa Rube is currently spending "her" 2 cents on a new article which claims that several unrelated species of fish have "evolved" the same optimal solution for swimming.
Here is a link to the PLOS One:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002123
It would be unfair of me to accuse Rosa herself of a mistake, as she merely copy / pasted directly from the paper and / or "Pop-Science" write-up and made it seem as if she used her own words:
"So, although starting from very different body plans, natural selection, by favouring greater swimming efficiency, has caused the different clades to converge on the same optimal solution.
This gives what is probably as simple an example as it possible to find why natural selection acting on inherited variation can result in the appearance of design for purpose. Given the mindlessness but inevitability of the process it should be clear to see why this convergence was inevitable. All that was required was that this solution was possible and so available for evolution."
Rosa (et al) fail to comprehend that "Natural selection" and "Evolution" are merely implied in this paper (not observed at all) and the reason we call it "convergence" is ONLY because we know for a fact that this optimal design feature was not passed down through common descent, therefore, all species must have "Converged" on the solution.
Do these ignorant people not understand what "implied' means?
Do these people not comprehend what "presupposition" is?
My final thought: "Intelligent folks should be cringing at Rosa's kind of irrelevant and dishonest journalism."
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Sunday Mass for Atheists
"Atheism is not a religion!!!"
The oft heard battle-cry of the internet atheist which is refuted by the simple FACT that both the Supreme Court and a Federal Judge has ruled that Secular Humanism and Atheism are protected under the First Amendment as a "Religious entity" with all of the same benefits and perks (such as tax-free status) as any other religion.
A recent case involved an inmate who brought a lawsuit against the prison that denied him the right to host an "Atheist support group", and he won his case. Federal judge ruled that atheism should be protected as a "religious freedom" just like any other religious belief.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.
You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
My final thought on this topic: "The best way to not have a religion is simply to not have a religion."
The oft heard battle-cry of the internet atheist which is refuted by the simple FACT that both the Supreme Court and a Federal Judge has ruled that Secular Humanism and Atheism are protected under the First Amendment as a "Religious entity" with all of the same benefits and perks (such as tax-free status) as any other religion.
A recent case involved an inmate who brought a lawsuit against the prison that denied him the right to host an "Atheist support group", and he won his case. Federal judge ruled that atheism should be protected as a "religious freedom" just like any other religious belief.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.
"Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.
You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
My final thought on this topic: "The best way to not have a religion is simply to not have a religion."
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Umbrellas, Penguins, and Rosa Rube
Oh Dear -- Rosa is at it again!!!
...and this time she is claiming that a recent article found in "ScienceDaily" completely refutes Michael Behe and Irreducible Complexity, much to our confused dismay.
Attaching the propeller: How the motility structure of unicellular archaea is fixed to their surface
"Researchers demonstrate how the motility structure of the unicellular archaea is fixed to the cell wall of archaea – a type of unicellular life form. In addition, the researchers demonstrated that this protein is essential for the structure and functioning of the organ.
It is important for microorganisms to be able to move on their own: When their living conditions deteriorate, they are then capable of finding better ones on their own. The motility structure of bacteria, the flagellum, has been the object of detailed research for more than 30 years. It consists of up to 50 proteins assembled according to a fixed sequence of events. The result is a whip made of protein filaments that functions much like a propeller: A "motor" at the end fixed to the cell wall allows it to rotate, enabling the bacterium to swim.
Up until only a few years ago, scientists assumed that archaea also use flagella to move. However, the sequencing of the first archaeal genome revealed clear differences in the structures of the motility structures of bacteria and archaea. It was found that archaea use a structure called the archaellum to swim. In the model organism Sulfolobus acidocaldarius, it consists of a mere seven subunits but still achieves the same performance as the flagellum despite this simple structure. Only few structural studies of the subunits that make up the archaellum have been conducted to date. Two years ago Albers' research team discovered the structure of the motor protein FlaI and demonstrated that it forms the motor complex of the archaellum along with the proteins FlaX and FlaH. In their newly published article, the researchers describe the protein FlaF, which binds specifically to the model organism's only cell wall protein and fixes it firmly there. "It is important to learn more about these cell wall and surface structures, since the archaea can use them to interact with the environment -- and thus also with human cells," says Albers."
"Rosa" clearly hasn't read this paper or even understood the implications of the "Pop-Science" write up, as Michael Behe and Irreducible Complexity are not mentioned at all.
Good reason for that -- as the alternative system is not a precursor to any known flagellar system and the archaellum is really it's own "IC" system developed completely independent of the flagellar system and does not in any way contradict IC at all.
Humorously, this assclown "Rosa" presents the ScienceDaily article as if it's some great new discovery in her usual "Haha, Gotcha" form, but we (the ID Community) had actually known about this and commented 2 years ago -- it's simply old news.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/more_about_cili069261.html
"So here scientists have elucidated another irreducibly complex "outboard motor" that is assembled out of complex proteins according to a genetic plan. Yet this motor does not appear to be related to anything else within archaea. Evolutionists would not expect evolutionary sharing between two different kingdoms of life, even if some of the building blocks are the same. Moreover, within archaea, the archaella are "highly conserved" in this supposedly archaic, primitive kingdom of microbes. Furthermore, the organism they studied, Sulfolobus acidocaldarius, has not just one, but three archaella. Add to that the fact that these motors need to assemble and work in hot springs and highly acidic conditions, and the only logical inference is intelligent design."
Rosa Rube is ultimately synonymous with "Irrelevant Journalism".
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
A Few Good Men (Vitalism)
Natural Genetic Engineering and the underlying Vitalism that may exist in organic (biochemical) systems is the primary focus of this Blog --- and our friend (Physicist Theophil Goddard)
had a few interesting words in regard to the abundance of organic chemicals found throughout the Universe:
"Whatever caused animal body plans to arise had to know where it (namely, the cause) was going. And the first step on that road is the hardest to take.
The same can be said about fertilized egg -- it surely 'knows' where it is heading. Constructing trillions of cells, properly specialized and arranged into tissues and organs, all connected in a highly functional way is far beyond any technological projects human have ever undertaken. Even some future 'solar system' scale construction projects humans may undertake some day, would be dwarfed by what is equivalent to galactic scale construction project that fertilized egg carries out as it builds the organism.
Hence, there is already an incomprehensible level of intelligence and foresight in the cell capable of figuring and carrying out much more complex bioengineering tasks than anything human intelligence can begin to conceive. Figuring out and implementing body plan transformations is no harder bioengineering project than what cells already routinely do without breaking a sweat.
Why are Nelson, Meyer and the rest of 'Seattle ID' club completely blind to this perfectly evident vast intelligence of the right kind and in the right place? The intelligence is clearly emanating and acting from small to large, unfolding from inside out. That is in fact no different than how intelligence emanates and builds up in human technologies, from individual human brains.
Similarly, looking at the astonishing degree of fine tuning of physical laws and constants for life, it is evident that what we consider some dumb particles aimlessly bouncing around is not so either. The whole operation of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale appears to be a project of construction of ever larger computing technologies, each one computing and building the next one at the larger scale."
"Whatever caused animal body plans to arise had to know where it (namely, the cause) was going. And the first step on that road is the hardest to take.
The same can be said about fertilized egg -- it surely 'knows' where it is heading. Constructing trillions of cells, properly specialized and arranged into tissues and organs, all connected in a highly functional way is far beyond any technological projects human have ever undertaken. Even some future 'solar system' scale construction projects humans may undertake some day, would be dwarfed by what is equivalent to galactic scale construction project that fertilized egg carries out as it builds the organism.
Hence, there is already an incomprehensible level of intelligence and foresight in the cell capable of figuring and carrying out much more complex bioengineering tasks than anything human intelligence can begin to conceive. Figuring out and implementing body plan transformations is no harder bioengineering project than what cells already routinely do without breaking a sweat.
Why are Nelson, Meyer and the rest of 'Seattle ID' club completely blind to this perfectly evident vast intelligence of the right kind and in the right place? The intelligence is clearly emanating and acting from small to large, unfolding from inside out. That is in fact no different than how intelligence emanates and builds up in human technologies, from individual human brains.
Similarly, looking at the astonishing degree of fine tuning of physical laws and constants for life, it is evident that what we consider some dumb particles aimlessly bouncing around is not so either. The whole operation of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale appears to be a project of construction of ever larger computing technologies, each one computing and building the next one at the larger scale."
Sunday, April 5, 2015
How Vestigiality is a Science Stopper
Popular arguments for 'bad design' often feature "vestigial organs",
which are claimed to be useless, and their presence in the human body is
touted as evidence of common descent, and also of the non-teleological
nature of the same. However, it is imprudent, nay, foolish, to assume
that because we might not know a function of something, the same has no
function. Indeed, such a non-sequitur prevents further research, for who
would endeavor to study something which has no function. However,
sooner or later, a stroke of luck might enable a researcher to find
functions for what had hitherto been considered useless. And we see that
this has occurred repeatedly. Yet, the champions of the Darwinist
paradigm still espouse these outdated claims. Physicist Dr. Karl
Giberson in his tirade against Intelligent Design Theory on 'The Daily
Beast' claims:
"We carry the evidence of this long history in our bodies—features useful to our ancestors but, for various reasons, not to us." [1]
One of the example he gives is that of the plica semilunaris, a fold of conjunctiva in the eye, which is homologous to the nictitating membrane in non-primates. He writes:
"We have a bunched-up third eyelid in the corner of our eye that provided a transparent eye covering for our ancestors, allowing them to “blink” without have to fully shut down their vision." [2]
But is the plica semilunaris merely a useless remnant of the nictitating membrane? Not really:
According to Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology, the plica has the following function:
"In humans, the plica functions as the opposite of a fornix; that is, if the conjunctiva were to directly join the eyelids to the globe, the globe and eyelids would both be restricted in movement. The fornix provides for a fold of conjunctiva that may be extended or retracted as the globe moves. Extension occurs because of fibrous slips that connect the fornix to its extraocular rectus muscle. As the muscle contracts, the globe rotates and the adjacent conjunctiva is retracted. This occurs above, laterally, and below the globe, but not medially, which would not allow the lacrimal puncta to drain the lacrimal lake. On abduction the plica tends to unfold and flatten, whereas on adduction it is drawn posteriorly and is unfolded by the fibrous slips that extend to the plica and caruncle from the medial rectus. While it never completely unfolds, extreme adduction of the plica causes it to form a true fornix. As this occurs, a small movement of the globe occurs as a result of the retraction of the medial canthal tendon. This keeps the lacrimal puncta properly positioned with the lacrimal lake. The puncta now dips into the lacrimal strip to allow continuous drainage despite the position of the globe. In addition, the plica helps to maintain the lacrimal lake in its proper position and location in the puncta." [3]
So contra the wild claims made by Darwinist storytellers, real science keeps finding functions for "vestigial" organs, and thereby vindicates time and again the teleology inherent in biological systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/the-crazy-way-creationists-try-to-explain-human-tails-without-evolution.html
[2] http://www.eyecalcs.com/DWAN/pages/v8/v8c002.html#pli
"We carry the evidence of this long history in our bodies—features useful to our ancestors but, for various reasons, not to us." [1]
One of the example he gives is that of the plica semilunaris, a fold of conjunctiva in the eye, which is homologous to the nictitating membrane in non-primates. He writes:
"We have a bunched-up third eyelid in the corner of our eye that provided a transparent eye covering for our ancestors, allowing them to “blink” without have to fully shut down their vision." [2]
But is the plica semilunaris merely a useless remnant of the nictitating membrane? Not really:
According to Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology, the plica has the following function:
"In humans, the plica functions as the opposite of a fornix; that is, if the conjunctiva were to directly join the eyelids to the globe, the globe and eyelids would both be restricted in movement. The fornix provides for a fold of conjunctiva that may be extended or retracted as the globe moves. Extension occurs because of fibrous slips that connect the fornix to its extraocular rectus muscle. As the muscle contracts, the globe rotates and the adjacent conjunctiva is retracted. This occurs above, laterally, and below the globe, but not medially, which would not allow the lacrimal puncta to drain the lacrimal lake. On abduction the plica tends to unfold and flatten, whereas on adduction it is drawn posteriorly and is unfolded by the fibrous slips that extend to the plica and caruncle from the medial rectus. While it never completely unfolds, extreme adduction of the plica causes it to form a true fornix. As this occurs, a small movement of the globe occurs as a result of the retraction of the medial canthal tendon. This keeps the lacrimal puncta properly positioned with the lacrimal lake. The puncta now dips into the lacrimal strip to allow continuous drainage despite the position of the globe. In addition, the plica helps to maintain the lacrimal lake in its proper position and location in the puncta." [3]
So contra the wild claims made by Darwinist storytellers, real science keeps finding functions for "vestigial" organs, and thereby vindicates time and again the teleology inherent in biological systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/the-crazy-way-creationists-try-to-explain-human-tails-without-evolution.html
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
The Lavalle Treaty (Reducible Simplicity)
"When you are testing a hypothesis, you have to account for the other ways the condition you are testing could have come about. For a sequence of bases or amino acids, you can add one at a time to a chain, you can take one at a time away from a longer chain, you can join chains together, you can split the middle out of a chain, or you can join a bunch of chains together at the same time.
Any one of these processes could produce a chain out of which you could knock one element and have a non-functioning molecule.
Which, if any, of those processes is the one that is predicted by a model of irreducible complexity?
#2 on the CONFIRM side is not possible to show without exhausting all of the possible pathways. #1 on the CONFIRM side seems to be short some possible ways that the irreducibly complex structure can form, which directly affects how you go about showing #2 on the FALSIFY side of the equation. For #1 on the FALSIFY side, what about on the gain of a protein?
And what about the possibility of trading segments of proteins? I doubt that even Michael Behe supports this idea any longer. I think he has changed the definition."
First of all --- the definition of IC has remained unchanged since it's initial citation in Behe's 1996 book: "Darwin's Black Box", therefore Lavalle's assertion that it has somehow "changed" is really nothing more than an unfounded strawman.
My personal assumption is that Mr. Lavalle generally misunderstands the intended point of the IC hypothesis, which is to highlight the fact that specific complex systems are not physically "REDUCIBLE" to a "Stepwise Darwinian Pathway". IC has absolutely nothing to do with "reducing a system to individual parts", as all designed systems are reducible to individual parts. Why wouldn't they be?
IC is a fairly simple concept (not intended to be applied to everything under the sun), but rather to specifically address the Darwinist position that complex systems will arise over time due to "NS acting on Random Mutations" -- and the IC hypothesis has held up quite well for 18 years.
Genetic Drift was never intended to be addressed here, as GD (in it's simplest form) would basically mean that a complex "outboard motor" just randomly falls together over millions of years for no particular reason and THEN (because an outboard motor is a good thing to have) it gets "Naturally selected for".
There are plenty of legitimate reasons as to why this position is absurd, but again, IC has nothing to do with addressing Genetic Drift and was never intended to do so.
Co-Option is another handwave which is more directly relevant to the IC hypothesis and most ID proponents would agree that exaptation most likely plays a strong role in the construction of new complex systems (such as the flagellar). There is no real dispute on this issue, but the problem for the Darwinists is that "Co-Option" is typically an "action" associated 100% with Intelligent agents and the idea that "evolution" somehow randomly "Co-opts" parts and then reshapes them and re-organizes them into a brand new, sophisticated, complex system is as equally absurd as claiming "Outboard motors randomly fall together given enough time". Evidence, please?
All of this is fairly easy to comprehend...
...which begs the question: "Why does Steven Lavalle avoid comprehending it?"The obvious answer is most likely Dogma and Bias on his part as an admitted "ID skeptic".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)