AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: jeannot

form_srcid: jeannot

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: jeannot

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'jeannot%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/01/08 08:06:32, Link
Author: jeannot
Jean Peccoud
French PhD student working on ecological speciation

1) Living organisms arose from non-living matter by a purely natural mechanism…
- 7. Since the alternative is neither falsifiable nor scientifically proven.
…that is well understood.
- 4. There are plausible mechanisms, but the actual one is not known (yet).

2) All organisms alive today share common ancestry at some time in the remote past.
- 7. The molecular data supporting this are overwhelming. The viruses share also a common ancestry with all other organisms; they use our genetic code.

3) All organisms alive today reached their modern form as a result of mechanisms that are well understood by science (e.g., mutation, natural selection, drift, and the other elements in the modern theory of evolution).
- 7. That’s the current theory of evolution.

4) Supernatural intervention has played no role in the development of living organisms as we see them today.
- see 1)

5) Supernatural forces are not required to account for the development of living organisms as we see them today.
- see 1)

6) Human beings are related to other species.
- 7.

7) The physical form and behavior of human beings have been shaped by natural selection.
- Not completely true regarding our morphology: 4. You need to add the genetic drift. If you do: 7 (no other mechanisms of evolution are known).
- Regarding our behavior (and culture), its heritability (essentially through learning) does not meet the requirements for natural selection to act: 1.

8) Supernatural intervention played no role in the rise of human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
- See 1). AFAIK, none of the godly interventions mentioned in the bible has been scientifically proven.

9) Supernatural forces are not required to account for human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
- See 1).

10) Natural selection is responsible for the rise of human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
- Regarding our consciousness: 6. The biological material for human consciousness is not precisely known, but it resides certainly in our body, which evolved through natural selection and/or genetic drift.
- Regarding our culture, see 7).

I hope this helps.

Date: 2006/01/28 12:22:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Caledonian @ Jan. 28 2006,18:09)
Even if there were a truly massive extinction event, are there any sufficiently unspecialized lifeforms that could give rise to another Cambrian Explosion?  What's left?

I don't think this is related to specialization, which mainly refers to the ecological niche. Humans are not so specialized after all. ;)

Ecological specialization is often seen as a dead-end, because of the competition between species (niche assembly). It's no longer the case if this competition (including predation, etc) disappears.
For example, the modern sponges could be seen nowadays as ecologically "specialized" species (which is subjective). If the other animals dy in a cataclysm, I'm pretty sure that the absence of predators/competitors would allow the modern sponges to explore new niches and produce new body plants, as their ancestors did before the cambrian.

(I hope my English is good enough)

Date: 2006/01/28 22:43:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 28 2006,20<!--emo&:0)
I've been following this guy Davison for quite some time and I have to tell you he is no dummy. He has a mastery of the classical evolutionary literature. Quite frankly I believe he has put forth a darn convincing scenario that evolution is finished and probably will not ever resume. He is also convinced that sexual reproduction can't perform even speciation at least in the lab.He keeps putting out challenges and nobody responds to him. I am no expert but I have the feeling he is onto something pretty darn revolutionary. From what he said over at his blog I doubt if he would return to Panda's Thumb even if you invited him. He seems pretty hostile to me. I think it would darn interesting if he did. Hells bells - why not ask him?

"Evolution is finished"
What about speciation events and natural selection currently observed in the wild? What about artificial selection in the lab or in the farm?
What about you're children being slightly different from you? Even this is evolution.
If he thinks that evolution is just the rise of new body plans, by other mechanisms than mutations and selection (+ genetic drift), then he is missing something.
And what's this argument anyway? Evolution is finished, so now the Great Designer is in charge? Does Mr. Davison support ID?

"...and probably will not resume"
Did Mr. Davison calculate some probability?

"Sexual reproduction can't perform speciation"
Is this Davison's argument? I doubt it because this is just nonsense. Species can only be defined via sexual reproduction. There is no concept of speciation without sexual reproduction. And I like the "at least in the lab" part that clearly demonstrates that this process is not possible in the wild. Anyway this is wrong since species of Drosophila have been separated from single populations in lab conditions, and a few years. Also, many plant species are produced via hybridizing (even in the lab).

Date: 2006/01/28 22:56:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 29 2006,02:53)
It is commonly held that speciation processes are largely, if not totally, independent of natural selection.

This not commonly held.
Speciation often seems independent of natural selection, yes ; but selection can also boost the process. You can search for "ecological speciation", (a concept pioneered by Dolph Schluter) or "sympatric speciation in cychlids fishes" for example.

Date: 2006/01/29 06:41:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Caledonian @ Jan. 29 2006,09:43)
 I'm talking about the specializations that give rise to phyla - having skeletons, having diversified tissues, having exoskeletons, bilateral symmetry, etc.  My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that once certain features are developed by organisms, they can no longer follow a different "pathway", since the changes necessary to remove major features are so large that they're essentially impossible.

I don't think that mammals could ever lose their skeletons and develop exoskeletons, regardless of the niches they might expand into.  The process of evolving into mammals from less differentiated organisms is irreversible.

Fine, but your conception is not referred to as "specialization" in the scientific community (I am a PhD student). It may be called complexity.
Anyway, you're right. Humans probably cannot give rise to a new body plan without some macromutations (in development genes for instance), and viable macromutations never were revealed in the wild, AFAIK.
But maybe humans can evolve in something quite different in morphology and "ecology" even if the body plan remains the same, the same way some dinosaurs evolved into birds.

However, it is plausible that a sponge (as I said before) could evolve in something like a cnidarian, through mutation, drift and selection, IF its environment (including its competitors) allows this.

Date: 2006/01/29 06:50:57, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 29 2006,10:16)
I'm sure that is the generally accepted view, Caledonian. Which is why JAD's assertion that evolution only takes a species to eventual extinction may have a ring of truth. Once a species has found its niche, rapid environmental change will leave it "high and dry" and less developed species can take over the territory.

"Is ecological specialization a dead-end ?"
"The jack-of-all-trades is master of none"
Theses two sentences have been the subject of manny debates in the scientific world. You can find hundreds (if not thousands) of papers on that topic. ;)

Edit: it is not scientifically correct to say that a species "finds its niche" since the concept of niche is defined by the species itself. A species always fits in its ecological niche.
You could say "a species becomes specialized" or "a species fits in its new environment" or "a species changes its habitat and resources"...

Date: 2006/01/29 07:12:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Caledonian @ Jan. 29 2006,12:57)
Thank you for the terminology correction.  It's been a long time since I studied biology, and quite frankly I've forgotten most of the technical terms.

My impression is that even sponges are far more complex than whatever ur-creatures gave rise to all of the strange body plans we see from the Cambrian.  I suspect that life may have lost the flexibility needed to produce complexity from scratch.

Would modern bacteria ever develop into multicellular organisms if all other forms of life were destroyed?  Algal mats might be able to start over... maybe.

Well, I don't think that modern sponges are so different from cambrian sponges, but I'm not a paleontologist.

Was the ancestor of all the animals something we would assign to the porifera phylum? Or something else much simpler? I think no one knows.
But remember, animals are just very tiny branch in the tree of life.

Date: 2006/01/29 07:30:36, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 29 2006,13:20)
Would modern bacteria ever develop into multicellular organisms if all other forms of life were destroyed?
My guess is "yes", but maybe only after "de-differentiating" somewhat. Because "modern bacteria" are also somewhat (I want to say "specialized", but maybe I should say "compromised in pluripotentiality by their complexity".)

You may be right, but we don't know anything about this.

For example, the modern stromatolites don't look very different from precambrian fossiles.

Date: 2006/01/29 08:35:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Moderator @ Jan. 29 2006,13:47)

I think it's both JAD and Dave, and maybe some others from UD.

I think we have a winner. There seem to be at least two people who have dusted off their modems and are posting via dialup to evade IP banning, since the IP addresses differ from comment to comment and are from at least two different Class A IP address spaces. A password account system is not able to distinguish between two different people who share a password between themselves.

OK, it looks like the trolls want to play whack-a-mole. Send a PM if you'd like to help me out with clearing out the comments as they come up.

I don't think that all their comments should be removed. I may be fun to destroy their arguments. :)
I agree that it's not easy to make the difference between arguments and insults in their posts.

The question Mivart asked was "How can natural selection possibly affect a structure that has not yet appeared?" The answer is it can't because natural selection never had anything to do with evolution any way and neither did sexual reproduction

No, the answer is it can't because natural selection doesn't produce new structures, mutations do.

Jeez, this one was easy.  :D
BTW, what is your scientific theory regarding the apparition of new structures?

Date: 2006/01/29 08:46:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 29 2006,14:42)
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 29 2006,14:35)
I don't think that all their comments should be removed. I may be fun to destroy their arguments. :)
I agree that it's not easy to make the difference between arguments and insults in their posts.

I would not call their latest postings 'arguments' so much as attacks of Tourette's syndrome.

Just give them a chance. It's not easy the write when you have Tourette's syndrome.

Date: 2006/01/29 10:25:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Caledonian @ Jan. 29 2006,16:10)
None of us have the ability to demonstrate how a species of bird evolved from a mammal.

I didn't know that we were supposed to be the ancestors of the albatrosses.  :0

Date: 2006/02/05 10:30:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Feb. 04 2006,10:38)
Crocker said, they are quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.

...Which proves that Crocker doesn't know anything about evolution.

Date: 2006/02/05 11:44:57, Link
Author: jeannot
In other words, she is a good example of Intellectual Dishonesty.

Date: 2006/02/08 11:44:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2006,14:49)

In my mind, this turns out to be something of a semantic question. Obviously, Darwin wasn't opining about changes in nucleic acid sequences; he was looking at observable differences, and in that area I'm not so sure natural selection doesn't still reign supreme.

Dawkins's answer to the question echoes that sentiment. Nevertheless, the fact is that natural selection does not account for most evolutionary change.

... at the molecular level.
This is the neutral theory of Motoo Kimura, indeed.
It is my opinion, but substitutions of billions of non-coding nucleotides don't represent any "evolutionary change". They don't have any impact on the phenotype.

Date: 2006/02/09 12:06:17, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2006,18:25)
Who said that they are all non-coding? Neutral is not synonymous with "silent".

You're right. "Neutral" doesn't refer to mutations that have no effect on phenotype (silent), it refers to mutations that don't affect fitness.
However, as toejam has just pointed out, I don't think we can assert that most phenotypic changes do not affect the fitness of individuals.
And we would have to assign some relative weight to the “evolutionary changes” we measure. Should we consider a mutation in the junk DNA as important as a mutation in a hox gene, which could cause a major morphological change?

Date: 2006/02/12 03:31:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Feb. 12 2006,07:24)
'Neutral evolution' seems a bit pedantic to me - a bit like saying that the main change in Wesley R. Elsberry since he started this board is that his water molecules have been exchanged for different water molecules (including some with a different atomic mass) - rather than that he has got a bit older.

Technically correct to say this the 'main' form of change - but in terms of importance in any other sense? - perhaps not.

That is a fair remark Dean, but we are talking about "evolutionary changes", changes that can be inherited.
Metabolism, maturation, growth, phenotypic plasticity... don't belong to this category.

Date: 2006/02/14 08:30:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2006,13:26)
I thought this was funny.

Is anyone from here still allowed to post?

Seems like a pretty empty invitation.

Actually, we can't asnwer their question. No one can prove that random mutations + selection is responsible for the rise of the eukaryotes.
For this, we would have to test most of the intermediate forms from prokaryotes to eukaryotes (which disappeared more than a billion years ago), detect wich mutations occured and measure their benefits on fitness (not in the lab since it does not perfectly match natural conditions).
Of course, we do have evidence that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, and natural selection is certainly the factor acting here (since we don't know any other evolution mechanism, except drift), but we can't prove it nor test it, AFAIK.

Date: 2006/02/16 01:01:42, Link
Author: jeannot
It was from a troll named "phishyphred" (JAD or Dave Scott?), whose posts have been deleted. ???

Date: 2006/02/17 09:48:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 17 2006,01:47)
There millions upon millions of uncataloged species alive today and they represent only 0.1% of all the species that ever lived.  We haven't even begun to glimpse the bounds of genomic diversity and probably won't ever be able to as 99.9% of all the genomes that ever existed are irretrievably destroyed beyond any ability to sequence or even weigh them.  The first life on earth could have been what someone (somone who unfortunately seems to be a moderation victim and so I cannot ask directly) called a phylogenetic stem cell.  This just another way of saying life on earth began as a seed, if you will, designed to unfold in a more less planned manner much as a human egg is designed to unfold into a human.

If you ignore the question of where the first cell (or cell comes from) which I might remind you is what neodarwinian evolutionary theory does regarding abiogenesis then one can presume it was any size at all of any arbitrary complexity.   Ontogeny and phylogeny have many striking parallels.  Why refuse to consider that one more parallel is that both ontogeny and phylogeny start from a cell programmed to diversify in a defined sequence of events with the environment serving only as a trigger to initiate the next programmed stage?

This theory (front loading?) is neither scientific nor productive. It is just a  new parade of IDers who can't deny common descent anymore.

First, it requires a programmer that could be supernatural, which is not falsifiable, or natural (extra-terrestrials, time travelers), which only pushes the problem further.

You are talking about the majority of species that have disappeared. This is correct, but did they disappear because they were programmed to or because they didn't fit their environment anymore? In this case, it would sound like natural selection, doesn't it?

If there is no natural selection, how are the living species so magically adapted to their environment? Did the Great Programmer, when He programmed LUCA with all the required genes for the future, anticipate all the interactions between organisms and their abiotic environment that would occur billions of years later, given that the biosphere was disturbed by several accidental events (asteroids, etc)? Or was He just very lucky? Maybe Bill can calculate His luck in terms of probability here, and compare it to the probability of adaptation by natural selection. ;)

Given that LUCA should have been a huge cell in order to contain the genes required for all the future living beings, why are the oldest fossils only small bacteria than can only contain a small chromosome? Where are LUCA’s huge descendents that are supposed to contain all these genes?

Also, when has such a pre-programmed evolution stopped, because we don't see it acting nowadays? However, we do have some strong evidence of evolution by mutations, genetic drift and/or natural selection. Just check the last week issue of Nature, you can see two striking examples of adaptive sympatric speciation.

And the analogy between ontology and phylogeny is only observable in animals, which represent a tiny branch in the tree of life.

etc, etc...

Date: 2006/02/18 07:11:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 17 2006,20:06)
She says ID is unscientific because-
"First, it requires a programmer that could be supernatural, which is not falsifiable,"

And so this is a kind of circle that is going on. If the scientist decides that evidence simply cannot point to the supernatural, even indirectly, then what are we to do if our universe was indeed caused by an intelligence or self-existing entity? Science would forever bar itself from discovering truth.

You don't quite understand what "falsifiable" means.

It doesn't mean we cannot prove the existence of a supernatural, it means that we cannot disprove (falsify) it.

Examples: if we find some clear hidden message in our Junk DNA (a paragraph from the Genesis or whatever), if we find this kind of message written on the rocks of Mars... these could be seen as evidence of God.
However, you will never provide a natural fact that could disprove the existence of a supernatural. Therefore your theory involving a supernatural (ID) is not falsifiable because absolutely anything could support it.

BTW, I'm not a woman. Jean is a French masculine name, Jeannot is a common nickname (like Johnny for John).  ;)

Date: 2006/02/19 08:46:22, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 19 2006,14:10)

I see your point. But what are we to do if evidence does point to design.
If design = supernatural, and supernatural= nonscientific then we have a problem if evidence points toward design.

As far as we know, nothing in biology points to design. The DI has yet to provide some results that prove irreducible complexity.

If we find evidence for design, the first thing to do is to search for the designer.

Design != supernatural, however design = intelligence.

Date: 2006/02/20 21:14:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 20 2006,23:15)
Right. I meant that humans didn't necessarily have the same blood type at some point. Some prehuman ancestor may have.

... or may not have.
Sanctum, species like Homo sapiens originate from populations, not from a couple of individuals.

Date: 2006/02/21 21:15:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 21 2006,22:00)
Message from John Davison:

Now I see someone named jeannot claims that evolution involves populations not individuals...

This is not what I claimed. ???

Anyway, instead of writing here a long answer (I don't have the time to do it and English is not my first language), I'd suggest Mr Davison to read "Evolution" by Ridley, then "Speciation" by Coyn & Orr.

Date: 2006/02/25 00:02:10, Link
Author: jeannot
There are also two cases of sympatric speciation reported in Nature, 10 days ago: one in cichlid fishes, one in palms.
Sympatric speciation involves disruptive selection, this is an adaptive mode of speciation.
Speciation without isolation (except hybridation) has always been controversial, but the last discoveries provide some indisputable evidence of its existence.

I am working on a example of adaptive ecological (and maybe sympatric) speciation in an aphid.

Date: 2006/02/25 10:02:30, Link
Author: jeannot
Yes, thank you both for the links.

“Darwin’s famous book was called ‘On the Origin of Species,’ but it was really about natural selection on traits rather than species formation. Since our study suggests that natural selection is a general cause of species formation, it seems that Darwin chose an appropriate title after all.”

They have to be careful with such a claim. What is “a general cause of species formation”… > 50 % of species formation, > 5% …?
Their published results show an association between ecological divergence and reproductive isolation in all the tested taxa, at the same level of genetic distance (= time of evolution in generations). From this, we can suppose that ecological divergence (= adaptation) accelerate reproductive isolation, hence speciation. This is an important result but it doesn't demonstrate that natural selection is involved in most speciation events.
Example: in angiosperms, they show a high positive correlation between species' habitat and post-mating isolation (r=0.43). Ok, in this phylum, ecological divergence seems to accelerate speciation. However, we can still imagine the possibility that most species pairs (90 %) developed reproductive isolation very slowly through allopatry and genetic drift, and that only a small percentage of angiosperm species diverged rapidly through their adaptation to different habitats. This would produce a highly significant correlation as well.
Nevertheless, their huge dataset should easily provide an answer to my interrogation. Maybe a more complete paper is on its way. :)

EDIT: the best evidence of sympatric speciation so far, Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish

Date: 2006/02/25 10:32:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 25 2006,16:13)
Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life.

... from Dave, moderator at UNcommon descent  :D

Date: 2006/02/25 10:44:48, Link
Author: jeannot
I don't quite understand, Pico. Since you seem to embrace common descent, do you agree with Neodarwinism?  :0

Date: 2006/02/25 23:20:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,02:00)
I am unable to get a consistent answer on whether or not that disagrees with NeoDarwinian theory.

Well, you should know that answer, Pico. Heck, you master NeoDarwinism thoroughly enough to rule a weblog that teaches its "controversy".

EDIT, thanks PuckSR.

Date: 2006/02/25 23:46:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 25 2006,16:02)
However, we can still imagine the possibility that most species pairs (90 %) developed reproductive isolation very slowly through allopatry and genetic drift, and that only a small percentage of angiosperm species diverged rapidly through their adaptation to different habitats. This would produce a highly significant correlation as well.

I'd like to comment my own imprecision.
Actually, estimating the role of ecology in the speciation process is not so trivial. When two allopatric sibling species occupy two very close niches (i.e. small ecological divergence), what exactly is the impact of natural selection in their reproductive isolation (in the case of a secondary contact between both species)?
I don't think one can give a precise answer.

Date: 2006/02/26 03:52:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,07:34)
This is too easy.



hmmm... Why don't you expose your ideas about front-loading?

Is it going to be as "easy" as arguing on terms, which of course, clearly demonstrate the validity of your theory?

Date: 2006/02/26 05:36:17, Link
Author: jeannot
I know it's not very legal, but I feel free to post a paragraph from their paper.
Taken together, we present astrong case where only sympatric speciation can account for the origin of a new species from a more widespread one in Lake Apoyoin, 10,000yr (Supplementary Table2). The Lake Apoyo population of the Midas cichlid and the  Arrow cichlid form a monophyletic assemblage (Fig. 2andSupplementaryFig. 3); they are reproductively completely isolated as shown by mate-choice experiments and the analyses of three sets of molecular markers (Table1) ; they are sympatrically distributed, no genetic structuring was detectedin A. citrinellus and A. zaliosus, and even individuals from opposite sides of the crater lake show no sign of differentiation (SupplementaryTable4, SupplementaryFig. 4). The recent volcanic origin of Lake Apoyo, its small size, its degree of isolation, the homogeneous habitat and the sympatric occurrence of both species throughout the lake, as well as the absence of genetic structure in each of the two species rule out the possibility of micro-allopatric or parapatric differentiation.

Date: 2006/02/27 10:56:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Contrary to Bill's stats, this study relies on biological data and doesn't produce meaningless calculations, like the probability of the random formation of a bacterium. ???

Date: 2006/02/28 01:38:17, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, dog races belong to the same species, and diverged from wolves only 12000 years ago IIRC, they can still interbreed. Human and chimp lineages diverged millions of years ago.

However, I don't understand JAD's comment:
You may also tell him why they are all the same species. It is because their karyotypes are basically identical and all the differences that they exhibit are due to Mendelian alleles, none of which ever had anything to do with organic evolution. You see as long as chromosomes can pair properly at meiosis I they will separate to form balanced functional haploid gametes at the end of meiosis.

Does he mean that dog races never evolve the phenotypic differences they show today?
And he is referring to a particular barrier in sexual reproduction: gametic compatibility. I think he overestimates the importance of meiosis in speciation. Sure, gametic incompatibility is a particular form of pre-zygotic isolation, but there are many forms of reproductive isolation, including pre-mating and post-zygotic barriers.

Date: 2006/02/28 10:07:05, Link
Author: jeannot
What a fascinating theory, Steve.  :)
I think we should have it taught in high schools.

Date: 2006/03/01 06:48:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (FishyFred @ Feb. 28 2006,17:50)
Okay, you guys simply must see today's daily dose of moronic ramblings from Davescot: Link

What does the theory of Natural Selection (the most well tested theory in science) predict about Avian Flu?

Anything at all practical that isn't obvious from simple observations of past flu behavior?

Don't hold your breath. The most well tested theory in science is also the most useless theory in science.

The theory of evolution (mutations and natural selection) just predicts that the avian flu virus can recombine with the human flu virus and cause a disaster. How about that Dave?  ???

Date: 2006/03/01 07:49:56, Link
Author: jeannot
It's sometimes very difficult to resist responding when faced with an onslaught of pure unadulterated bullsh*t.
Was that poor guy a scientist? I find it hard to believe.  ???

Date: 2006/03/02 06:02:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 02 2006,01:32)
wait.....when did i say that domestic dogs evolved?

Dogs evolved, and they still do.

Date: 2006/03/03 08:11:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (hehe @ Mar. 03 2006,12:58)
Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.

It doesn't alter the fact that his ideas on evolutionary biology suck.  ???

Date: 2006/03/03 14:01:18, Link
Author: jeannot
I think JAD is the worst of all. His arrogance, rudeness and vanity makes him extremely detestable.  :(

Like Hehe said, how about trying to prove your assertions, JAD? Spitting the same bullsh*t over and over won't make it come true.  ???

Date: 2006/03/04 05:30:25, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 04 2006,11:07)
Does this make any sense?


Date: 2006/03/05 13:10:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Ok, it's my turn to post the answer I posted on PT:

The maximum level of divergence between two gene sequences is 75 %, which is the average divergence between two random sequences.
Of course natural selection can impose constraints to mutations and the maximum level of divergence between two sequences may be lower, but I’m not certain of that.
Gene sequence comparisons between distant taxa are almost exclusively used in phylogenetic studies, AFAIK. A gene that has reached its maximum level of divergence between different given taxa is useless for the phylogenetic inference regarding these taxa. That explains why you never saw a phylogeny that puts mammals, bacteria, and yeats at the same distance, in what we call a “rake” (not sure whether the translation from French “rateau” applies here).
Lots of genes do not qualify for large scale phylogenetic studies, some of them do not even exist in all taxa and others have reached their maximum level of divergence (75% or less).

Date: 2006/03/06 07:45:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 06 2006,12:48)
My message is clear enough to most experts in the field. ... First, I mean protein sequence homology not DNA.

Well, your message wasn't clear enough even for experts because you were talking about genes, not proteins.

Anyway, I don't see the difference. I suppose that lots of proteins are not suitable for large scale phylogenies based on amino acid sequences, because they evolve too fast and have reached their maximum divergence between distant lineages. Cyt b and COI maybe...?

But you raised an interesting point, it could be very instructive to compare the maximum level of divergence (if there is any) for several proteins found in almost all living beings.

However, "Darwinism" does not predict a minimum level of identity between too homologous proteins since a protein doesn't have keep the same function forever.

Date: 2006/03/06 09:54:44, Link
Author: jeannot

Cyt C transfers electrons from complex n° 3 to complex n° 4 in the microchondrium internal membrane, IIRC. That's its function.
So cyt c co-evolves with these two protein complexes (at least) and these complexes also co-evlove with other proteins.

I don't see the reason why there should be a minimal level of identity for homologous cytochromes C just because ATP is produced at the end of the reaction chain.

EDIT: thank you Mr Cox, that was a better answer than I could ever give in English (or even in French after all ;)).

EDIT 2: Shi, phylogenetic inferences are not based on sequence identities anymore (phenetics). We identify precisely all the mutations that occured in each lineage, regardless of the distance between sequences (cladistics).

Date: 2006/03/06 10:21:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Shi, the neutral theory of molecular evolution only applies for neutral mutations. If you think that all amino acid substitutions in Cyt C are neutral, you are plain wrong. Therefore I suggest that you read some books or papers on protein evolution before arguing with Mr Cox who knows far more than you do on this topic.

The theory of evolution does not rely on the molecular clock (which does not very well apply to amino acid sequences). I fail to understand why you think it should. The mutation rate of cyt C is just an average between lineages.
And you seem to confuse genetic distance with mutations.

[BTW, the neutral theory is NOT Darwinism (= evolution by natural selection).]

Date: 2006/03/06 11:39:30, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (J. G. Cox @ Mar. 06 2006,17:30)
As for rakes, don't hesitate to say unresolved polytomy. We're not afraid of big words here.

Polytomy ?
I didn't even know that word.  ???  In French we use "topologie" (=topology?).

Date: 2006/03/06 12:01:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Shi, our homologies with species X doesn't imply that X is our ancestor.
This is one very basic principle in evolutionary biology. So your condescending remarks regarding our knowledge on the subject are not welcome here.
And I don't get your logic. Even if, in several billions of years, the distances between humans, yeasts and bacteria are too high to infer evolutionnary relationships, why would this mean that common descent is wrong?

EDIT, thanks for the explanation Mr Cox. I knew the definition of a polytomy (what I called a rake), I had just forgotten the correct term.

Date: 2006/03/07 08:48:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (hehe @ Mar. 07 2006,13:46)
Javison again: " Of coyrse I haven'r proved Darwinian mechanisms don't work."

Good that you mentioned that, Javison!

Yes, but he's forgotten to mention that he has never shown any evidence of prescribed evolution.

Date: 2006/03/07 09:10:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Just ask Dave how the second law of thermodynamics would allow prescribed evolution, given the fact it's supposed to prevent evolution by mutations, natural selection and drift.

Anyway, why are we wasting our time on thermodynamics, information entropy, etc...?  ???

Date: 2006/03/07 09:33:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (sir_toejam @ Mar. 07 2006,15:28)
Intelligent design is a Gut Science!

...and we all know what comes out the end of a gut.


Date: 2006/03/07 22:24:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 08 2006,02:57)
Over time, a theory grounded in common descent will show NO common descent.  The change from the original will undoubtedly, with the passing of time, be so great as to leave the observer with no choice but to say that these entities are unrelated.

I think I got your point.
After a very long time of evolution, lineages that share a common ancestor will become too much different for scientists to infer their common descent therefore... huh... there is no common descent?  ???

In other words, common descent (and evolution of course) will become wrong within the next billion years.

Date: 2006/03/09 12:10:04, Link
Author: jeannot
I've always had Macs and I can only recommend you to switch.

Date: 2006/03/10 03:57:53, Link
Author: jeannot
It's not possible, currently. XP does not support EFI (the new mac equivalent of BIOS), and vista won't (except vista server).
However, I think it will be possible with some hack.

Date: 2006/03/11 08:15:09, Link
Author: jeannot
double post.

Date: 2006/03/11 08:19:04, Link
Author: jeannot

Darwinian explanation 1: time is not enough and there is no limit on minimal identity.
The phenomenon of conserved domains also invalidates such assumption.  So, the reason that the pattern in paragraph 3 has not been observed is not because time is not long enough or because of no limit on minimal identity.  
Well, we don't know if the bacterian lineages we have today diverged 3 billions years ago. Most of them are probably extinct. But if you compare bacteria with archea, their level divergence appears pretty huge. Wich proves that only two very ancient prokaryote lineages have survived.

Darwinian explanation 2: proteins in advanced species gain extra functions
(The concept of "advanced species" is not supported by any objective fact.) This hypothesis should apply to a very limited set of proteins. We told you that proteins can evolve through co-evolution with other proteins. I don't see any extra functions here.

Even if time is enough and there are limits to diversity, Darwinism can try the following explanation.  The reason that human shows 35% identity in cyto C with bacteria but not any lower is because 35% is the minimal identity allowed and will stay unchanged forever once reached.  The reason that human shows 60% identity in cyto C with yeast but not any lower is the same.  
Why do you think it should be the same reason?

If this is true, Darwinism must assume that a protein in yeast has gained some extra functions compared with its homolog in bacteria.  So more portions of the protein are resistant to change.  This may be true for some proteins.  But it is hard to believe that all proteins in yeast have gained extra functions compared with their homologs in bacteria.  This explanation requires us to believe in an ad hoc hypothesis that is unlikely to be true.
I don't quite follow you. You say that yeasts proteins should have gained extra functions because they show higher identities with ours?
Anyway, your two hypothesis are not mutually exclusive. If you compare DNA sequences (I don't know why you stick to amino acids sequences since DNA is the material of heredity, not proteins), you will notice that non-coding sequences reach the maximal level of divergence (75%) very fast in their evolution so that we can detect homologies anymore. That is your first hypothesis. Genes show different levels of divergence, depending on their function. Fundamental genes such as 16 S rDNA can be used to build the tree of life. Cyt b cannot because its level of divergence between lineages increases too fast. So maybe there is a minimum level of identity for 16s rDNAs, but we don't know it for sure and we don't know when lineages will reach it.

The alternative:
One possible alternative interpretation of all the facts is that maximum species divergence is set up at the beginning and stay unchanged during evolution.  The 35% identity between bacteria and eukaryotes in cyto C was established already 1000 myr ago and stayed largely unchanged during evolution and will remain unchanged in the future.  The 60% identity between yeast and multicelluar eukaryotes in cyto C was established in the beginning.  The more recent the species split, the less diverged versions are used.  We may yet to have a mechanism for how this may occur.
Indeed, you have to. Since you refer to Cyt C, should this mechanism take the theory of endosymbiosis into account?

But there exist many facts at the level of phenotypes that show that maximum phenotype distance is established at the beginning of species split and remains unchanged during evolution. The lack of intermediate transition species in the fossil record and the persistence of the same fossil structure over millions of years are examples of maximum distance at the beginning that stays unchanged through evolution.  
You should also learn more on fossilization. I recommend you to check

The 5 finger pattern of land vertebrates has stayed unchanged for 400 myr since its arrival on earth.
And I didn't know that birds and cetartiodactyles had 5 fingers. Anyway what's your point? Does this disprove Neodarwinism?

The distance between land vertebrates and fish in the 5 finger design has remained at the same level since the design appeared...
Sorry I don't get your point.
...and is likely to remain unchanged forever in the future.

It is only logical to conclude that the genetic distance responsible for such phenotype distance has also remained the same since the appearance of the 5 finger design and its related genes.
The probleme is: what mutations in what genes are required to modify the number of fingers? We don't expect a single gene controling the number of fingers with one allele for each number.  

A self-destructive flaw:
The simple thought experiment on protein homology reveals a self-destructive flaw with the present theory. Both change and no-change or stability are fundamental facts of past life history on earth.  If change/mutation explains both sides of the coin, i.e., change and no-change in phenotype, it explains neither.  A living fossil has remained phenotypically unchanged for millions of years. But Darwinism plus its ad hoc hypothesis the neutral theory...
The neutral theory have been confirmed by many experiments and studies (which also involve micro-evolution that IDers can't deny anymore). You should read more about it.

... requires us to believe (without any facts) that its genotype has changed dramatically. The theory has no way to explain how phenotype stability is maintained by changes in genes.  If change in phenotype is explained by changes in genes, the same theory is self-destructive to say that no-change in phenotype is also explained by changes in genes.

If you've found a link between 16 S rDNA or Cyt C and morphology, you should publish, indeed.

Date: 2006/03/11 11:24:17, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,23:17)
What is the Commonality in common descent?  Please help me understand what  underpins this "fact" of evolution?

The commonality in individuals that have "common descent" is their ancestors.

Date: 2006/03/12 04:53:36, Link
Author: jeannot
JAD seems confused. I am not Hehe.
How could I have quoted him since I've never wasted my time in reading his blog?

Anyway, what is he trying to demonstrate?

Date: 2006/03/13 07:38:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 13 2006,13:16)
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 13 2006,12:41)
In short, some conserved genes should show this pattern, AB 90%, AC 75%, AD 40%, AE 15%, AF 15%, AG 15%.
Can we have evidence that this hasn't occured please, I am also still waiting for this information that evolutionary biologists are aware of (apart from the dozens that I have spoken to apparently) that shows problems with evolution that they are not telling the public about.

If the pattern you quoted has occured, you would have heard about it by now.  Some evolution biologists would be screaming that humans are equally related (or disrelated) to yeast and bacteria.  But all we hear today is that humans are eqaully related to two types of bacteria, eu and archea.  

Depending on the genetic sequence you use, you can easily show the same distance between humans, yeasts and bacteria.
This is nothing new and scientists just interpret it as a useless sequence for their phyologenetic analysis. That's why you won't find any article about it.

In fact, only a few genes can be use to build a phylogeny regrouping mammals an bacteria.

Date: 2006/03/13 07:51:03, Link
Author: jeannot
I see... JAD feels superior because he published some scientific papers and we haven't.
Apparently he doesn't realize that no evolutionary biologist would waste his/her time, arguing with some senile creationist.
I'm just a student, I can afford to waste my time on this thead. But I won't find it fun forever.

Anyway, JAD's publications don't alter the fact that he's a crank. "Prescribed evolution"... LOL :D

Date: 2006/03/13 08:13:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Shi, you should get familiar with phylogenetics, particularly with the term "homoplasy". Otherwise, like Shirley said, this thread will go nowhere. ???

Date: 2006/03/13 08:41:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 13 2006,13:56)

your post lacked substance.

What substance did you expect from an answer to JAD's nonsense?

Date: 2006/03/13 08:55:30, Link
Author: jeannot
Shi, we all fail to get your point.

"Darwinism" makes NO prediction about any minimal level of identity between nucleotids or amino acid sequences in genes or proteins (above the typical 1/4 and 1/20 respectively).
As we told you, a protein may change its function, gain new ones or co-evolve with other proteins while remaining functional. Anything is possible as long as it doesn't alter its organism's fitness.
If you think that some proteins should have some minimal level of identity across distant lineages (maybe this is true in some cases, I'm not a expert in protein evolution) it's your concern, not ours, because it as nothing to see with the falsification of common descent.
You can go to NCBI or genebank, get some proteins sequences and perform all the distance comparisons you like. Maybe you'll find some interesting things that confirm or contradict your thoughts.
Good luck.

Date: 2006/03/13 09:10:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, if he's serious about his "gut to gametes" theory, I'm eager to see it exposed here (like others).  ;)

Date: 2006/03/13 09:28:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, goodby Shi... until you have some clear arguments.

Date: 2006/03/13 09:55:11, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 13 2006,15:38)
I dont have time to educate you about the theory that you claim to know but obviously dont.

Yeah, like confusing mutation rates with genetic distances, homology with ancestry, applying neutral theory to non-neutral mutations, connecting the identity in the "5 fingers design" with Cyt C...

(It's hard to resist responding sometimes... :p )

Date: 2006/03/13 10:11:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Alan, I thought you were in rehab regarding your addiction to JAD's blog.  ;)

Date: 2006/03/14 11:17:18, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 14 2006,16:13)
Small amout of mutation do occur within a species.  But there is no direct evidence that genotype difference between species is caused by accumulation of variations within species.

Have you heard of "ring species"?

Date: 2006/03/14 12:34:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 14 2006,17:41)
Beginning in the species split, dramatic morphology change is associated with very few changes in genotypes.  Several hundred million years later, the same morphology is now correlated with vastly changed genotypes.

Could you give us a precise example supported by some data: the two species involved in a speciation event, the "few changes" in genes that control their dramatically different morphologies (unless you wan't to explain morphology by changes in genes like Cyt C)?
Then, could you give us some evidence of the vastly changed genotypes, at the same loci of course, without new change in their morphologies?
Lastly, could you comment this example regarding the predictions of your theory?

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2006/03/15 00:44:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 14 2006,20:14)
The present explanation of this so-called molecular equidistance is to say that cyto C in yeast has undergone the same rate of mutation as the lineage leading humans.[quote=Russell,Mar. 14 2006,20<!--emo&:0]Can you point to anything, anywhere that states this "explanation"? You're trying to explain a nonexistent phenomenon.

I am really surprised by your lack of information.  Go to the paper by Elsbery and find out for yourself at

In your link, Wesley also explains why the same distance found between different animals (mostly vertebrates) and bacteria unsing Cyt C is not a problem for the theory of evolution, which was Denton's argument

Anyway, your link doesn't refer to the distance between animal, yeasts and bacteria, that you've been talking about.
Do you have a link stating that these three lineages have accumulated the same number of mutations since their divergence (naive question)?

Date: 2006/03/15 07:00:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Sorry Shi I don't have the time to read Denton's book. But I suppose his claims are based on research articles, aren't they? If you have his book, could you paste some references here?

Date: 2006/03/15 08:18:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,13:24)

[quote=Russell,Mar. 15 2006,11:18]The constraints on its evolution - its rate of accumulation of differences after lineage splits - are at least comparable. When you talk about the bacterial homologs, all bets are off.

Okay. But you still need to explain why human, plant, insects, and fish all show equal identity (equal distance) to yeast in cytoC.  The present explanation, as examplified by the Elsberry paper, is the molecular clock idea.  That is that all these vastly different species share the same constant mutation rate in cyto C.  This is pure fancy.  As I said earlier in this thread, the clock is proven invalid now.  So, essentially, we dont presently have any explanation for the equal distance phenomenon, which plainly means that the present theory is inadequate.

Plants and animals show equal distance to yeasts in Cyt C? I doubt it, though I may be wrong.
And why do you think insects, fishes and human should have different distances to yeasts in this protein? What are your arguments?
If you can explain this observation with another hypothesis, can you share your insight with us? You were talking about a distance not increasing between lineages but set from the beginning. Could you be more precise?

You state that the molecular clock has been proved wrong, in a sense I agree. The molecular clock is not applicable in lots of cases (conserved domains in proteins come immediately to mind), but this doesn't imply that it's not applicable to neutral susbstitutions.

Date: 2006/03/15 08:29:04, Link
Author: jeannot
That's what I was thinking too, Henry.

Date: 2006/03/15 09:32:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,15:12)
What dave doesn't know is, every Nobel Prize winner, living and dead, has emailed me to say that Dembski is a fraud. Also, Dembski himself emailed me that he is a fraud. And Mike Behe. But they refuse to say so publicly, because they're afraid of what will happen.

Your lies are far less credible than mine pal, that's the difference. Come back to me when you've learned how to lie credibly. Until then, you're out. -dt

Date: 2006/03/15 09:41:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Shi, what mechanism is supposed to prevent a comparable number of mutations in different lineages after an evolutionary branching?

(not that I'm expecting an answer, after all the unanswered questions I've asked you. :( )

Date: 2006/03/15 09:52:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 15 2006,15:46)
Well, I can think of a couple of things that could throw off the "clock": (1) a different average mutation rate per copy per base pair, or (2) a different average number of generations per year.

Of course Henry, but that wasn't my question. I didn't make myself clear.

Shi appears to have a problem regarding the same amount of mutations accumulating in Cyt c for different lineages.
I wanted to know why he thinks it is *impossible* in that particular case, why he thinks that some lineages *must* (not could) have accumulated more mutations than others.

Can you answer me, Shi?

BTW, your comment on Henry's last post leads me to the conclusion that you agree with darwinism. :0

Date: 2006/03/15 10:08:08, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,16:10)
[quote=jeannot,Mar. 15 2006,15:52]I wanted to know why he thinks it is not possible in that particular case, why he thinks that some lineages *must* (not could) have accumulated more mutations than others.

I can give simple answers.  It is a proven fact, not an assumption.  that 'some lineages *must* (not could) have accumulated more mutations than others.'  Dont believe me? go read the paper by Ayala that I posted earlier.

Ok Shi, since different lineages could not possibly accumulate the same number of mutations (note that you haven't told me why), how do you explain the observed pattern in Cyt c? (a pattern that has not yet convinced me since we cannot really align human Cyt C with the bacterial equivalent)

Date: 2006/03/15 11:01:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, I'm afraid you have not convinced me (yet), Shi.

You haven't provided any clair evidence of a comparable identity between human-yeasts and bacteria (which was the ground of your argumentation). You have not adressed Russel's critiques on your argument.
And even if true, you know, Shi, that the divergence between eubacteria and mitochondria began long before the separation between fungi and animals. Not to mention the divergence between protostomia (insects, molluscs...) and deuterostomia (vertebrates...), that you were taking as example, which is even more recent. Think about it and realize that most of the difference between human-yeasts and bacteria in cyt C accumulated in the common ancestors of animals and fungi, not in their two lineages separately. Moreover, this is considering our lineage only because, we don't know (AFAIK) the amount of mutations that accumulated between the common ancestor of bacteria-mitochondria, and modern bacteria in Cyt C. Maybe it's huge, maybe not. Maybe the ancestor was closer to our mitochondria, maybe it was closer to E. coli.

You know that the molecular clock does not apply in lots of cases, therefore it is not used for phylogenetic analysis anymore. The good old UPGMA is obsolete. We don't use distance matrix to build phylogenetic trees anymore.

Then you lead me to an article (the PNAS papper I suppose) where the evolution rate of different genes is discussed. (Note that I took the time to read the summary.) So you believe it rules out the molecular clock hypothesis for all genes? The molecular clock is not a requirement of Neodarwinism anyway...
So you assert that the molecular clock hypothesis is wrong in all possible cases--without telling us why--whereas your haven't provided any coherent explanation of the pattern you described in Cyt C.

Shi, if you can produce an alternative scientific theory for evolution, we sure like to hear about it. But for know, your arguments against the current theory are rather unclear, to say the least.

(EDIT: various translation mistakes  :( )

Date: 2006/03/16 09:22:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,17:09)
I have no idea what this sentennce means. Viola? I haven't heard that word since a music appreciation class 10 years ago.

He misspelled voilà.

Date: 2006/03/16 10:11:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 16 2006,15:35)
But have you wondered why no textbook is saying anything about the second thesis of Darwin being also vindicated by the sequence data.  The second presentation of the same data set is the molecular equidistance phenomenon: human, rat, frogs, and fish are all equally related to yeast.  You will not find this presentation in any mainstream textbooks.  

You can do the test your self.  Ask people to answer a simple question such as: given orangutan being the common ancestor of both human and chimp, which is more related to orangutan, human or chimp, or are they equally related?  Most people would say chimp is more related to orangutan because they look more similar.  But they are wrong, human and chimp are equally related to orangutan.  You can also ask them, is frog more related to fish than human is?  They would say yes and be wrong.  Human and frog are equally related to fish.

If you do such a test, I believe 99% of non-specialists would fail the test.  It is also clear from this thread.  People like Russell seems to know a lot about evolution and is clearly a biologist but in fact knows little about the equidistance phenomenon.  

This is what I mean that most biologists are casual believers of evolution (including myself for 25 years before I decided to truly know something about evolution).  They only know the story that is selectively presented to them by the specialists.  To truly know something, you need to know both the plus and minus side of it.  You need to know that while the specialists are touting the clock in books for the layman, the same specialists are calling the clock a mirage in specialist journals.

(Shi, we told you that distance is not used to infer phylogenies anymore.)

Of course human, rats, frogs, and fishes are all equally related to yeasts, these animals all have the same common ancestor with fungi. You find it in any book about phylogeny.

And your last examples are just wrong. Orangutan is the ancestor of nothing, human and chimp are not equally related to orangutan (in fact, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas). You are wrong again regarding frogs and fishes.

Date: 2006/03/16 10:21:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Reluctant Cannibal @ Mar. 16 2006,15:40)

Indeed, the fact is that vastly different species shares nearly identical DNA sequence whereas similar species differs vastly in DNA sequences.

Oh yeah? This looks like a pretty strong claim at first sight, but it's not very meaningful without a clear way to quantify both genetic and phenotypic similarity. Sequence matching and cladistic analysis come to mind. Can you name two living species which are "vastly different" phenotypically, and "nearly identical" genetically?

My apologies for the dodgy quoting. Could somebody spare me a clue?

Well, his claim could be true, since most genes used in phylogenetic studies don't control morphology.
Anyway, I don't see how it contradicts the theory of evolution.
It would tend to rule out the current models of gene expression (traduction in proteins and so on). Thus it could as well contradict common design or prescribed evolution.

Date: 2006/03/16 10:29:26, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 16 2006,16:21)
[quote=jeannot,Mar. 16 2006,16:11]And your last examples are just wrong. Orangutan is the ancestor of nothing, human and chimp are not equally related to orangutan (in fact, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas). You are wrong again regarding frogs and fishes.

From your earlier posts, you know little about the equidistance before I made an issue of it here.  Now all of sudden you become an expert and is accusing the teacher being wrong.  I have lost patience with you.  Suffice to say, you have more to learn with the facts.

Oops, I didn't read your post correclty. Yes human and chimps are equally related to orangutan (but chimps are closer to us of course). I thought you were saying that the distance between chimps, orangutan and humans was the same. Strange because I didn't make this mistake when I read your claim about yeast and animals. :0 (keep in mind that English is not my first language.)

However, I don't understand what's your problem with that.

PS: You're still wrong on orangutan being the common ancestor of humans and chimps. Where did you get that from? Or was it just an random example you gave to prove your point?

Date: 2006/03/16 11:28:43, Link
Author: jeannot
If I understand correctly, Shi, we have the same problem.
You regret that a simplistic vision of evolution is still dominant among believers in the theory, even biologists. Most of them only see living beings as more 'primitive' or more 'evolved', which leads them to wrong conceptions: the primitive should be closely related to each others, and the evolved 'advanced' species should belong to different groups.
Well, it's our job to change this old vision of life, but we'll rely on the current theory of evolution for that.

Date: 2006/03/17 00:58:32, Link
Author: jeannot
What did you mean by viola?

Date: 2006/03/17 07:31:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Annecy, haute-savoie.
Je fais ma thèse à Rennes (Bretagne).

Date: 2006/03/17 08:00:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (shi @ Mar. 17 2006,12:26)
The clock idea is based on the assumption that two species split with nearly identical sequences and accumulate mutations gradually.  Based on this assumption, the whole field of clock is built. Under such assumptions, the odds of no clock may be zero, as you may calculate.  But what if this assumption is wrong?

It's not wrong, from the evidence we have.
See in a recent article in Nature: two fish species (Amphilophus citrinellus and A. zaoliosus) recently diverged in a crater lake (Lake apoyo). Basically, the genetic distance between both species in the lake is less than the distance they show with populations of A. citrinellus living outside the lake.
I assume you know how to interpret a haplotype tree.
You have a comparable genetic situation in the polar bear and the brown bear.

Date: 2006/03/17 08:40:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 17 2006,13:51)
C'est presque Suisse! Moi, je me suis installé en Aude depuis  quelques années, mais toujours, je massacre la langue  française.

Non ça à l'air d'aller, à part la Suisse.  ;)
(mais moi aussi j'ai beaucoup de mal à savoir quand mettre le 'the' en anglais)

Date: 2006/03/17 09:03:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (beervolcano @ Mar. 17 2006,14:55)

March 16, 2006
Biologists Are Not Design Experts

Biologists are not design experts. In fact no scientists are design experts. Engineers are design experts. The crew at Panda’s Thumb ought to follow their own advice and step aside where they have no expertise. Complex specified information is digitally encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. Are biologists information experts? Nope. Information science is a branch of mathematics. Evolutionary biologists should stick to putting the phylogenetic tree in the proper order. Lord knows they still have their work cut out for them with just that.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:52 pm

I guess DaveScot thinks that the only thing biologists do is taxonomy.

Of course BIOLOGISTS ARE EXPERTS in detecting design. They are experts in detecting the design of evolution. They are quite adept at detecting the signs of evolution and hence would be experts of detecting whether or not something is the result of evolution or not.

Well, everything in life is the result of evolution. Some biologists discuss the results of natural selection (adaptations). This is not the same thing.

Date: 2006/03/17 14:25:15, Link
Author: jeannot

The example I provided involves two true species, not varieties or subspecies. In fact, all the studied models of speciation show a high genetic identity between the new species (in gene sequences) according to the molecular clock, and rely on random mutations, drift and selection.

However, you suggest that sometimes, a major instant split creating very different species could occure.
Your hypothesis would rely on unknown mechanisms (genetic remodeling...). I have a few questions about it.
When should this process take place? When two genera split ? Or two families, orders, classes, phyla, reigns? Would this process have different magnitudes depending on the phenotypic changes that are needed in order to create a new phyla vs a new genus?
For example, do you think that birds or mammals originated in a single major mutational event, or several?
You also imply that humans were... designed by this unknown process. Could you be more precise regarding the species involved: do you think all human species (H. habilis, erectus, ergaster, neanderthalensis, sapiens) and pre-humans (Saelanthropus, Ausrtalopithecus...) appeared this way, or did some of them appear through the known speciation process? You know that the difference between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens is more subtle than the difference between the two fishes above.

Date: 2006/03/17 14:54:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 17 2006,15:00)
Ah, c'est ça qui arrive quand on tente de frimer. :) Par contre, vous avez maîtrisé parfaitement l'anglais, avec aucune accent en vos écritures (peut-être je me trompe ici, qu'est-ce c'est,  le mot pour "comment".)

Thanks Alan. Your spelling is perfect, which is a remarkable performance when dealing with the French language. I see a few syntactic or grammatical mystakes, but they are difficult to avoid.
I'm sure I make similar mistakes in my posts.

"Commentaire" in French, but we also use the word 'post' in discussion boards. We often resort to English words (thread...).

And when you adress me in French, feel free to say "Tu". That's the rule in most French discussion boards.

Date: 2006/03/17 23:56:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 17 2006,21:53)
All the evidence of evolution presented in scientific papers are merely cases of micro evo.
Please define micro evo, speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab, and advances in molecular biology help us to understand how larger jumps have occured, ape to man is not really much of a problem anymore. You're right it is not fair to dismiss the claims of intelligent people without hearing them out, luckily the claims of the ID movement are ludicrous. Many people have examined the claims of Dembski Behe et al and found them to be utterly without merit, so it is not fair to say we insult their intelligence by ignoring them.

AFAIK, there is no evidence of "larger jumps" in the evolution of life, if by "jumps" you mean changes occurring in one generation.
Evolution can be very fast sometimes, but it's not instant (one generation), except maybe the well understood process of speciation via hybridization and polyploidy.

For Shi,
The gaps in the fossil record are not evidence of evolutionary "jumps", and Gould & Eldredge never mentioned such processes. They refer to fast evolution associated with speciation events (which is self-evident since fossil species are defined by their morphology).
The two fish species I showed would probably support the punctuated equilibria if we only got fossils.

People keep touting the lack of transitional forms as an evidence against evolution. They should know that maybe one fifth (my estimation) of the 2 million identified species are fossils. Since they existed for at least 3 billions years, we've identified only a fraction (1/10,000?) of the billions of extinct species that existed.

Date: 2006/03/18 02:47:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Ok, you were refering to macromutations. Your 'ape to man' after your 'major jumps' confused me.
I'm not an expert in that field but I'm don't think that macromutations happen frequently in nature. The probabilty for them to be favorable is very weak.

Date: 2006/03/18 10:22:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 18 2006,14:28)
One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield.
He's in Leeds, I think his work in thermodynamics is good, he's a fellow of the royal institute of physics. He explains his purely scientific objection to evolution in this book. Im sure there are several non-religous scientists who support ID, that doesn't change the fact that the movement is primarily a religious one.

To me, nobody denies the theory of evolution for purely scientific reasons.
This guy Mackintosh, and Behe, JAD, Meyer, etc... all of them can't accept the theory and try to prove it wrong with various pseudo scientific stuff.
As Ken Miller said, they can't possibly agree with the current theory for religious or moral reasons. Their feeling is so strong that, for them, the theory has to be wrong, therefore it is wrong. They're not hypocritical, they totaly believe in their arguments.
But their motivations aren't scientific. How can you possibly support creation (because this is the only alternative to evolution) on a scientific basis. This is just nonsense.

YOU are nonsense, pal. -dt

Date: 2006/03/18 10:31:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Steve, in case you haven't followed the news from the mac world, you can now install windows xp on an intel mac. 3D acceleration and bluetooth are not working yet, but I think a solution will be found soon.

Date: 2006/03/18 22:50:49, Link
Author: jeannot
I'm going to answer some of your questions Avocationist.
All around us, we see beautifully adapted things, yet we envision a time when there were barely motile flagella and 7% wings. Wouldn't that be a funny world, if we could go back in time?
You can see a funny world now. What you think is perfectly adapted could also be seen as imperfections. Talking about wings, have a look : Does it have completely formed wings? Is it perferctly adapted? Well nobody can tell. If it comes to disappear, as too many species do nowadays, that means it wasn't so well adapted afer all. Adaptation is relative, the environment (Nature if you want) selects the working forms, that doesn't means they are perfect.

You speak of parts A, B, and C evolving together, so that the subsequent removal of one part would of course cause nonfunction. But all this is speculation until we can understand systems closely enough to know if it is plausible.
Protein coevolution is a well known phenomenon in phylogenetics. A mutation occuring in one subunit of a protein complex is followed by mutations in the other subunits. This pattern of evolution can be detected nowadays. Here is an article I just got after googling "protein coevolution"

So I didn't get a clear answer on the chromosome question. Apparently if there are different chromosome numbers, hybridization is possible, as in horse and donkey. But hybrids aren't viable.
That's not always the case. AFAIK, within some species (the mouse, I think) you can have different karyotypes between reproducing individuals. It even happens in humans. IIRC, there is a case where one chromosome 21 is fused with one chromosome 15. After the "digestion" of the separate 21th chromosome in the gametogeneis or meiosis, the zygote can inherit from one parent, the fused chromosome (15-21) with no separate chromosome 21, and a normal gamete from its other parent. Thus, the zygote gets a odd number of chromosomes (only on chromosome in the 21st pair + one fused chromosome in the 15th pair) but the child will be completely viable and normal. You can imagine that in one population, this fused chromosome becomes dominant (for some reasons), resulting in a human population having 44 chromosomes.

And I am wondering how the chromosome number change happens in the first place. If there is a fusion of two, it must occur during one meiosis.
I'm not sure that it has to occur there. It could occur somewhere in the gametogenesis.

How does a chromosome know how to fuse itself with another and come out with a beautiful and coherent result?
Beautiful... it happens to be viable that's all. If it doesn't work it's lethal. Nobody can claim that the chromosome fusion in Homo sapiens has anything to do with our adaptation.

I'm leaving the religious questions to others.  ;)

Date: 2006/03/19 05:15:28, Link
Author: jeannot
March 18, 2006
Neo-Darwinism is Collapsing Under the Weight of the Integration of the Sciences

Keep on dreaming.  :D

Date: 2006/03/21 07:45:37, Link
Author: jeannot
I had just finished reading the first paragraph when I thought  "gee, is it the "gut to gametes theory" that our friend Paley's ghost has promised us ?  :)

Date: 2006/03/21 08:58:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 21 2006,14:16)
To find human and fish are equally related to another fish in genotypes is unexpected for Darwin, for Mayr, for me, and for 99% of casual believers of the theory.
I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about taxonomy and phylogenetics to be sure that there aren't different lineages of fish that diverged before one of those lineages split off our ancestors.

You're absolutely right Russel. And the fossils confirm the molecular data. chondrichtyans (sharks...) and osteichtyans (other fishes) diverged before actinopterygians and sarcopterygians (us) split.

I doubt that Mayr haven't considered that ; and casual believers in the theory have to open their minds and stop considering basic shape only.
This has nothing to do with the facts, BTW.

Oops, I'm a, little late on this. :0

Date: 2006/03/21 09:02:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 21 2006,14:44)
I don't know, but one factor in that is that vertebrates were a single species for a large fraction of the time since their split from fungi.


A single lineage would be more accurate.  ;)

Date: 2006/03/21 09:25:43, Link
Author: jeannot
I don't get your logic Shi, the molecular clock is just the description of an observed pattern. It's not a process. The biological process is mutations + natural selection. Mutations are random, so on average they're expected to happen at a regular timescale (depending also on the generation time). If almost none of them are beneficious, but neutral or deleterious (no positive selection), a molecular clock pattern is expected in DNA or protein sequences.
It works in a lot of cases where it doesn't have any particular reason not to do so, and sometimes it doesn't works (probably because of selective pressure).
So you consider this observation and assert that, since a molecular clock pattern is not observed in some cases, the other cases where it is falsify Neodarwinism. (???)
You'll have to clarify your reasoning here.

The genetic distance between sharks, troots and human may have been surprising for some that didn't think enough about the expected data. They had no reason to think that the lineage leading to human should have accumulated more mutations in Cyt C. Or they didn't consider the paleontological data. Yet, anthropocentrism still influences us.  :(

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that cladistic analysis on morphological data produced the correct topology regarding fishes and tetrapods. So the molecular phylogeny certainly wasn't a suprise for experts in cladistics.

Date: 2006/03/21 10:02:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 21 2006,15:53)
Then, perhaps you can enlighten me why human, rats, frogs, and fish are all equally related to yeast, given that these different species all are proven to have different rates of mutations. If you cannot, then perhaps you can explain why it does not falsify the current theory.
I, and others have tried, repeatedly. Here. Let's give it one more go.

Humans, rats, frogs and fish diverged from one another - and developed their different rates of mutations - at some point in the last relatively short period of time, before which they shared a common ancestor that had already diverged so far from yeast as to retain only the minimal sequence resemblance dictated by the functional demands of the gene products. I expect any truly neutral sequence inherited from an ancestor common to both yeast and humans to be long since scrambled to complete randomness - i.e. unrecognizability.

Do you expect your great-great-grandfather's DNA to be measurably less divergent from a chimp's than your own?

Yes Shi, what about the genetic distances between humans, rats and frogs, compared to their distance between fungi?  That should give you some valuable information.
And talking about mutation rate, what is the age of these species, BTW?

Date: 2006/03/22 00:52:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Actually, Shi should provide the phenograms (and also the cladograms) that support his claims.
We'll be able to discuss the data, and Shi would easily understand what you tell him, Russel.

Date: 2006/03/22 07:38:53, Link
Author: jeannot

And you show me a picture of a perfectly adapted squirrel.
You imply that there is no room for further adaptation in this species (provided its environment remains the same). Could you prove it?

You think the squirrel is on the way to wings?
Not particularly.

What I am asking is, isn't life in a different stage now than some millions of years ago?
Sure it is, and it continues to evolve.

Wouldn't it be funny to see what humans looked like when they were anatomically awkward, between true upright walkers and knuckle walkers. Pelvis not quite right, arms a bit long but short for  knuckle walking, back not quite straight.
Look at walruses. They're rather awkward on the ground, and they don't swim very well compared to dolphins. Do you find them funny (I do)?

Don't you suppose that the reason the little proto-bird with its 27% of a wing still managed to catch insects is because the insects themselves were also in an awkward stage?
Maybe. At this time, insects were not selected for their ability to escape flying predators like birds.

It's not so important if your olfactory sense is poorly developed if your prey hasn't got long enough legs to run away anyway.
You can detect a pray using your olfaction, event if it can't run fast. What's your point?

From this post, you seem to embrace the theory of evolution.  :)

Date: 2006/03/22 07:46:58, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (edmund @ Mar. 20 2006,23:31)
That statement is completely incorrect. When we look at changes in populations over small time-scales, we find that the rates at which they change are much, much faster than the rates of change that we see when we look at changes over long time scales.

Can you develop?
Do we compare the same things at different timescales?

Date: 2006/03/23 11:12:04, Link
Author: jeannot
What the heck do ID and science (I mean research) have to do with homosexuality, IQ, abortion and eugenics? How is this relevant to the topic, you f*cking homophobic racist? ???

Date: 2006/03/25 09:56:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 25 2006,14:08)
From the latest UD post, can anyone even begin to reconcile these two paragraphs:

"(Note: Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only...

... which is not covered by the theory of evolution.  :D

So where is this 'Intelligent Design' if life can evolve through mutations and natural selection?
Even ID supporters don't know what their theory is supposed to demonstrate.

Date: 2006/03/25 10:07:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Clearly, Thordaddy can't make the difference between life and consciousness.

Date: 2006/03/29 21:12:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 30 2006,02:44)
Does current research indicate any possible function for non-coding DNA. One might expect redundant DNA to be lost over time, but not only is it retained but the sequences are highly conserved.

Some non coding regions have a structural role, especially near the centromere, AFAIK.
Evolution does not predict the reduction of size for non-coding DNA, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. In fact, an important proportion of non-coding DNA is made of transposable elements, which replicate themselves in genomes, like parasites. Transposable elements represent 70% of the maize genome for instance. This is a case of selfish gene that can increase its fitness (replication rate) without (apparently) increasing the fitness of its owner. This clearly does not support Intelligent Design.

Date: 2006/03/30 00:08:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Generally, non-coding DNA is not so stable in amount or sequence, AFAIK. I remember the case of the fugu fish (I think) that seem to have lost a large amount of its non-coding DNA. Also, the amount of non-coding DNA in prokaryotes is rather low.
And non-coding sequences have a high mutation rate.
Also, some junk DNA is the result of genome duplications (common in plants) followed by gene silencing. The variation in genome size among angiosperms is pretty huge.

“Parasitic DNA” cannot expand indefinitely since it would certainly reduce the fitness of its owner at some point. Then you might ask “so, even a low level of transposable elements in a genome can be counter adaptive?”. It could be, but sometimes transposable elements can be adaptive; some of them carry resistance genes. Barbara Mclintock (Nobel price in the 80’s) demonstrated that transposable elements in maize are “activated” by abiotic stress. (I’m not an expert on this subject.)
Also, remember that transposable elements derive from viruses (and vice versa), so maybe they can move from “host” to host and replicate inside genomes even if their replications are counter adaptive for their hosts.
Actually, transposable elements cannot exactly be qualified as non-coding DNA, since they can be “activated”, but I think some of them can be completely deactivated at some point.

Date: 2006/03/31 00:08:20, Link
Author: jeannot
I'm sorry Steven; I have to agree with Thordaddy here: consciousness cannot be inferred to a new born.
The only way one can infer consciousness is comparison (which is not very scientific): “I am a conscious human being, you are a human being who behave roughly the same as I do, therefore you should be conscious.”
This comparison cannot be made with a new born because you can’t begin with “I am a conscious new born”.

Date: 2006/03/31 07:34:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 31 2006,11:59)
Ok...sorry to double post...but you must read this
Uncommon Pissant
Scientists discovered the minimal genome size needed for the first life increased by a factor of 2.

Yet another misinterpretation of a scentific fact by IDiots. It's becoming quite amusing.

So E. coli is the "first life"? Breaking news.
Experimental gene knock-out is representative of an evolutionary process? Yeah sure...
Knock the gene of hemoglobin out the human genome and you'll cause an abortion. Clearly, this gene is needed for life. :D

Don't they know that single molecules can replicate themselves, so they can be qualified as alive?  ???

Date: 2006/03/31 08:20:45, Link
Author: jeannot
From the abstract :
Using an in silico representation of the metabolic network of Escherichia coli, we examine the role of contingency by repeatedly simulating the successive loss of genes while controlling for the environment. The minimal networks that result are variable in both gene content and number. Partially different metabolisms can thus evolve owing to contingency alone. The simulation outcomes do preserve a core metabolism, however, which is over-represented in strict intracellular bacteria. Moreover, differences between minimal networks based on lifestyle are predictable: by simulating their respective environmental conditions, we can model evolution of the gene content in Buchnera aphidicola and Wigglesworthia glossinidia with over 80% accuracy. We conclude that, at least for the particular cases considered here, gene content of an organism can be predicted with knowledge of its distant ancestors and its current lifestyle.

This clearly disproves evolution by mutations and natural selection.  :p

Date: 2006/03/31 22:50:18, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,05:47)
be comprised of 100,000 billion unconscious cells?

And how can a conscious human be comprised of 10^22 unconscious molecules?  :p

Date: 2006/04/05 06:18:38, Link
Author: jeannot
A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?) who is not.
And this is easily noticeable from their manners.

My two cents.

Date: 2006/04/05 09:20:57, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 05 2006,11:26)
A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?)

Yes, that's perfectly grammatical, not to worry.

who is not.
And this is easily noticeable from their manners.

My two cents.

You're talking about an identical twin, I assume?

Yes I am.

Date: 2006/04/05 10:04:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Is there any ID supporter who is not a religious appologist?

I am an agnostic. Got that, you f*cking church burner? -dt

Date: 2006/04/06 11:31:06, Link
Author: jeannot
What IDers must understand is that evolutionary biology doesn't make future predictions (except at a short timescale). First, they would be useless since they cannot be verified within a researcher's lifetime. Second, as J. G. said, there is far more than one evolutionary path for a given lineage. Third, we cannot predict future selective pressures (environments).

However evolutionary biology produces predictions on what we can observe or detect, like transitional fossiles, the origin of Homo in Africa (Darwin's prediction), phylogenetic trees, the trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo...

Date: 2006/04/07 10:58:11, Link
Author: jeannot

There is now strong evidence for anything else.

If you think you freely chose your attraction towards females, you're profoundly mistaken.
A evolutionary pathway to a "homosexual" orientation seems contradictory on its face.

Care to read what we told you?
 The search for a "gay gene" has resulted in nothing accept the exposure of science's corruptability under the pressure of political ideologues.  

Could you back-up your assertion?

(why do I ask anyway...?  :( )

Date: 2006/04/07 11:11:16, Link
Author: jeannot
No, we couldn't, for the reasons I gave.

EDIT: I assume you didn't mean: "Since you know that some placental mammals and marsupials converged for several morphological traits, could you predict this if you go back before this convergence?" The answer is yes, in this case.

Date: 2006/04/07 11:45:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (avocationist @ April 07 2006,16:30)
First of all, we can eliminate #3, because you would be making your prediction upon conditions that were shaping up in Australia, i.e., the existence of suitable trees and mammals coming along to create niches for predators. I've been told over and over that science is about being able to make predictions.

Now, granted there is more than one evolutionary path. How can we account for not one but several incredibly similar outcomes? After millions of years of separation from very different early ancestors there arose these almost identical animals. The coincidence of just too out of range of my credulity meter.

I'd rather either discard the notion that they developed separately, or come up with a new facet of evolutionary theory, such as perhaps some sort of Platonic realm of ideas in which there are just so many body forms available.

[i] the trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo...[i/]

That was predicted?

The selective pressures I mentioned rely on the selected traits, since these traits could not be predicted, these selective pressures cannot either, even if we know the precise selecting environments (which we don't).

The concergence between certain eutherians and maruspials is nowhere near incredible. This is just rough morphology, like the wings of a bat and a pterosaur. The anatomy is quite different. Are you amazed at the convergence between different reptiles or birds? Morphological convergence is certainly the results of parallel adaptations. What is your alternate theory about it?

The trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo was not only predicted, it was investigated and detected.

Date: 2006/04/07 11:52:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (avocationist @ April 07 2006,16:35)
Oh, yes, that is pretty much what I meant. please elaborate.

If you know an event, I assume you can go back through time before this event and predict it, provided you don't interfere with its cause.

Shall I develop?

Date: 2006/04/07 12:08:36, Link
Author: jeannot
I don't think homosexuality should be taugh as "normal", since it's obviously not the norm (heterosexuality is).
However, since it's pretty common and, more importantly, not a reprehensible behavior (it's just two people that love each other), I don't get your concern here, daddy. ???

BTW, do you know the difference between correlation and causation?
Don't you grasp that, since homosexuals are constantly rejected, they are more susceptible to fall into drug addiction and violence?

Date: 2006/04/07 12:16:58, Link
Author: jeannot
I personnaly wouldn't say the convergence between some marsupials and eutherians could be predicted with confidence, but it's definitely not surprising.
Note that I don't know about macro-evolutionary models (is there any?).

Date: 2006/04/07 12:40:11, Link
Author: jeannot
Thanks for the story Steve.

What's new on ID?

Well, I'll take this opportunity to tell you about a French creationist anthropologist named Anne d'Ambricourt who believed in prescribed evolution (do you know her, JAD? ;) ). Yes, we have our own Davison.

Needless to say that her theory concerning the prescribed evolution of Homo is not even considered by her colleagues. However she managed to have a documentary shown at prime time on a French-German channel, that was apparently pushed here by some chistian fundation.

Unfortunately, I can't provide you any links in English.

Date: 2006/04/07 13:01:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Based upon what principles would you predict the almost identical morpholigies of the marsupial and placental types?

Based on the post you just quoted. (???)

I could speculate, but I am clueless. Actually, I threw the question out there but I haven't read up on the genetic similarities. I'd like to know more about that.
We don't know any particular genetic similarity between convergent marsupials and eutherians. First, we have to identify the genes responsible for a given morphology. But since these genes interact and co-evolve with others, we don't expect any genetic similarity between analogous forms.

I guess I would lean to the idea that those animals were not really separated for as long as we think they were. and yet, they've got this completely different reproductive strategy.
They were indeed separated a long time ago and we have a remarkable convergence. Yet, this is rather common in animals and even in plants.

Date: 2006/04/07 13:32:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,18:15)
So basically because "homosexuality" exists it must be due to an evolutionary pathway?  We just make this assumption because...?  Even though it seems, on its face, to contradict evolution?

Why do you conclude that?

Because homosexuality exists, we can go back through time and predict it, like any fact or event. The evolutionary pathway is your own interpretation.

Date: 2006/04/08 10:30:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, he hasn't backed up his assertions regarding gene transfers from food to progeny. Yet.

I consider his whole geocentric drivel model off topic.

Date: 2006/04/10 09:36:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ April 09 2006,20:43)
Davetard doesn't think the life we see here on earth began here?
He's neither the smartest guy nor the dumbest guy to entertain that notion. Read Francis Crick's "Life Itself".  Conceivably, the planet was seeded - either intentionally (yes, space aliens) or accidentally - by hardy spores that arose from a start somewhere else. Unfortunately for Dave, moving the origin to a different place and time doesn't make Intelligent Design any more sensible.

But the fact that life got all the way to cells with DNA, ribosomes, genetic code, hundreds of coordinated metabolic pathways presumably associated with the bacteria-like creatures dated to within a 1B years from the planet's origin - including a lot of what must have been pretty inhospitable years - has caused some sane people to speculate on the possibility it got a jump-start from a lineage that had more time at its disposal.

Scientists can only speculate about the probabiliy of evolution of the first life forms on Earth, since they don't know much about the environments, mutation rates and generation times (which may have been as short as a few seconds) of the first replicators.
And most important, no one can compare this probability (which we don't know) with the likelihood of evolution of life in space. (I'm not even considering the seedings by aliens).

I'm disappointed to see that Crick's big numbers tend to look like Dembski's maths. I even saw once his calculations beeing taken as example by a "rational creationist". ???

Date: 2006/04/10 10:24:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ April 10 2006,15<!--emo&:0)
I'm disappointed to see that Crick's big numbers tend to look like Dembski's maths.
I've forgotten. Did Crick present "calculations" in "Life Itself"? Or somewhere else?

I can't tell actually. But he tried to calculate the probabiliy of appearance of the first cell, a little bit like Dembski.

Date: 2006/04/11 09:50:12, Link
Author: jeannot
This whole argument about the conservation of information, or that evolution cannot increase information is just full of sh**.

Life as nothing to do with information intrinsically, because information is only relevant to an observer. It doesn't mean anything on its own. I've never seen any biology textbook discussing information.

You have several identical replicators. A mutation occures in of them, which increases its replication rate. Therefore this mutation is selected. If the increase depends on the environment, this can lead to different types of replicators.
Wether that increases or decreases information entropy or whatever is just intellectual masturbation of pseudo-scientists like Dembski in order to fool the ignorant or the skeptic.
Needless to say that none of them has been able to point a specific evolutionnary process that should be impossible, according to their law of 'conservation of information'.

Date: 2006/04/11 11:36:13, Link
Author: jeannot

From the IDEA site: intelligent design theory is not merely a negative argument against evolution. Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.
What are these predictions besides "things are expected to look designed"? And most important, what predictions does ID make that can falsify its hypothesis? Can it predict things that cannot have been designed?
And don't you understand that the argument of comparison cannot scientific? Following such comparison, every ecosystem, snowflake, planet... must have be specifically designed. Do you think that plate tectonics was designed?
Darwin's argument for natural selection was an argument from ignorance, because he was so utterly ignorant of what he was dealing with.

WHAT? Have you read his book?
When the current theory about the origin of species was just "poof" (like ID), do you think that a verbal model based on evidence and able to produce predictions was an argument from ignorance?

Darwin justified the theory not because he could make observable predictions in the laboratory – after all he was trying to reconstruct the distant past – instead he justified it because it provided a better explanation of the evidenced than the main competitor hypothesis, and that’s precisely how the theory of intelligent design is formed, framed, and justified.
In which way is ID different from the old argument from Paley?
I'm sorry, CSI and IC don't constitute a theory, they don't explain why things are what they are, unless you're satisfied with "poof".

We argue that our theory provides a better explanation of some of the critical pieces of evidence of biology, namely the irreducibly complex molecular machines and circuits that we seen in cells and the presence of this informational software that drives everything in the cell as it’s embedded in the DNA molecule.
This argument from comparison is useless, see above. And BTW, the genome is not a program. Is was not written before its execution, and the the genetic code is part of the genome (as if the programming language was part of the program).
Genetic shuffling during meiosis? It was not meant as an argument for CSI, just as something pretty impressive, hard to imagine it evolving via luck.
Crossing-overs happen when two homologous chromosomes are close to each other. What is impressive here?

"Because homology implies community of descent from...a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would proovide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered...[because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous...[and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes."
A gene is not a phenotype. If you change its environment, the same gene can produce very different traits. A gene alone is meaningless, this is just a random string of symbols. Nothing in the gene for insulin says 'this is gene for a 7 amino acid peptide designed for the regulation of glycemy'... nothing.

   * If evolutionists agree that there are other possibilities for the origin of homologies than common descent, then they should also agree with us that this makes the use of homologies as evidence of common descent null and void, since homology can be just as much evidence of other mechanisms.
There is a term for homologies that are not inherited from a common ancestor. These are called 'homoplasies' and have been a parameter in phylogenetics for decades.

   * The idea that the same set of beneficial mutations can occur randomly twice is astronomically low.
Who said that an homoplasy should be caused by the same set of mutations in two lineages? Do you think that wing developments in birds and bats are based on the same mutations?

First of all, the chances of getting one beneficial mutation is astronomically low.

Every drug resistance, adaptation to abiotic stress... that have been observed in the lab and in the wild are the results of beneficial mutations.

The chances of finding a sequence from point A to point B with all containing beneficial or at least non-lethal configurations is astronomically low.

This calculation is flawed because the mutations don't have to happen simultaneously or to follow a singe pathway. Anf most important mutations don't have any direction to follow. '... to point B' is just meaningless. I know you consider yourself as the product of a purpose, but I'm afraid you are not.

Date: 2006/04/11 11:40:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 11 2006,16:13)
Intelligent Design theory specifically states that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum without intelligent input is impossible because the probability that every protein would form simeltaneously as a random combination of amino acids, along with the correct expression and arrangement mechanisms in place, is less than the universal probability bound. Have you not read No Free Lunch?

I was referring to their blurry arguments regarding the conservation information, not IC.
I will edit my post to make that clear.

Date: 2006/04/11 12:02:25, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,15:53)
It was just stated that if human life were to be defined by conception then it still WOULD NOT present "a good argument against allowing morning-after pills, embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, in vitro reproduction, etc."

That made me think... What are the "good arguments" against eugenics?

Since you obviously cannot make the difference between life and consciousness, faith and facts, science and religion... how could you understand any answer from us?

Date: 2006/04/11 12:21:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Shi thinks that the theory of evolution should explain the universe... does that deserve an answer?

Date: 2006/04/12 11:03:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ April 12 2006,15:29)
No, I am claiming that homosexuality is a high-risk behavior associated with disease like AIDS.

And how is heterosexuality different?

Date: 2006/04/12 11:16:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ April 12 2006,14:55)

Since eugenics is a branch of science, I was expecting more "scientists" to say that there are no good arguments against eugenics since we clearly already practice it to an extent.

It seems to me that science once again is playing politics.

Eugenics WAS an branch of science, rather popular before World war II and nazism.
Now eugenics is a thing of the past. There is no research in this field.

Is discarding an embryo bearing a lethal disease a form of eugenism? No because the aim is not the amelioration of the human kind, it's avoiding pain and suffering. Will you get the difference or will you remain intellectually dishonest?

Date: 2006/04/13 08:32:53, Link
Author: jeannot
I have to admit that Bill and I share some feature, although I'm younger.

Date: 2006/04/13 19:45:08, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ April 13 2006,23:16)
One way to refute the claim that random chance and infinite time can do anything.  Within 50 million years of fish creation, some type of fish evolved into amphibian 350 million years ago.  So such a evolution jump is possible within 50 million years.  If random chance can do it in 50 million years, how come in the subsequent 350 million years since the creation of amphibian, no fish ever evolved again into an amphibian.
The first amphibian faced no competition from land vertebrates. Who knows how many fish lineages would have made the transition if they weren't eaten by the resident land creatures?[/URL]

That's called natural selection. Shi has a problem with that notion apparently.

Date: 2006/04/14 07:35:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Date: 2006/04/14 21:26:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ April 14 2006,18:15)
Tom Ames,


:a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Is this not science?  Why has this been discredited?  Is trying to improve hereditary qualities really discredited?  What of picking and discarding embryos?  This is not eugenics?

Dude, can you just read and try to understand what you're being told? ???

Date: 2006/04/24 08:29:17, Link
Author: jeannot
The apology may not come from the real JAD. The author's name is not clickable, contrary to the death threat post.
The real author of the self-banning apology could be daveScot. :)

Reading this blog is quite an enjoyment.  :D

Date: 2006/04/24 10:53:10, Link
Author: jeannot
That's what happens in blogs that allow comments from unregistered users.  ???
Can Larry cancel the ability to post without being registered?

Date: 2006/04/24 10:56:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 24 2006,12:45)
Personally, I find it very amusing. DS threatening to travel to Vermont and kick JAD's ass. JAD saying "bring it on".

I love it so!  :D

Date: 2006/04/24 11:31:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 06 2006,11:41)
I'll have some time to work on it this weekend. Look for an outline soon...

So, Bill?

Date: 2006/04/25 09:44:09, Link
Author: jeannot
I hope evolutionary biology won't reach its Waterloo before 2008 otherwise I'll have to rename my doctoral thesis.
"An intelligent poofing theory (sic) for ecological specialization in the pea aphid".
How does it sound?

Actually, thinking about it, ID has its good side. The thesis can be quite short, I can write it the day before I present it orally. "The origin of the host races of the pea aphid is... goddidit!"

Date: 2006/04/25 10:16:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (thordaddy @ April 25 2006,15:04)
I think most normal males have both a natural attraction to females and intimacy with females while simultaneously having an aversion to anything relating to male intimacy.

So obviously, 2 lesbiands wouldn't not present the same scenario as 2 homosexuads.

Indeed, lesbians are not attracted towards males, your logic just baffles me.  :0

Date: 2006/04/25 10:52:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wonderpants @ April 25 2006,15:46)
Dave said “A bunch of insecure atheists don’t want to admit that there might be a greater intelligence in the univere than human intelligence and moreover that the effects of said intelligence can be observed and measured.”

I believe you’ve just summarized the essence of this entire debate with that one sentence.

Funny how IDers, DaveScot in particular, always claim that ID isn't religious apologetics and that a lot of them aren't Christian fundies, yet they do so love pulling out the "atheist scientist" card.

I've never heard any atheist claiming that human intelligence is the geatest in the universe, and that we would never observe a greater intelligence.

Poor dave is confused.  :(

Date: 2006/04/25 11:15:47, Link
Author: jeannot
After reading (and posting) a few comments on this blog, I have to admit that one man there impresses me : John A Davison.
I understand your addiction Alan. ;)

The man published in Science, and now he claims that ID is a law that should be followed without question, that evolution is finished (??), exposing this as a fact because HE has some peer reviewed papers, but that he won't read scientific literature because it's a bunch of lies (he was a scientist himself! ) spitting insults in every post like a ten year old kid (how old is he, 70?)... This is just impressive.  :0

Dembski and others (Davescot included) are just evangelists, completely lost in the scientific theories they don't try to understand... But the Davison is unique.
Read again his death threat. He's deadly serious, while other posters are more or less joking or parodying.

I love him so.  :D

Date: 2006/04/25 11:31:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2006,16:21)
Let this be a lesson: plan your life during retirement better than that. Don't let this happen to you. Don't waste your 'golden years' being a bitter old crank who insults everyone and who absolutely no one takes seriously.

Stop it Arden, you're scaring me...!  :0

Date: 2006/04/26 05:07:36, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2006,20:31)
believing in evolution made them have a gay marriage, whereupon the scale-free network catastrophe occurred, and gave him ebola.

You forgot AIDS. The kids have a hight probability to cumulate both diseases, since at least one of their parents certainly had anal sex with some african (you know, the sort of human with a lower IQ).

Date: 2006/04/28 11:06:40, Link
Author: jeannot
mmm, it seems some posts disappear from Larry's blog.

Someone named Ben wrote a very insightful comment on JAD, but now his post is empty.

Date: 2006/04/28 11:18:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Apparently, Ben is not a registered user.

EDIT : Strange, apparently his comment is back. Maybe it was just my web browser, but still...(?)

Date: 2006/05/03 20:16:25, Link
Author: jeannot

Date: 2006/05/04 08:43:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Flint @ May 04 2006,08:50)
And this is a common creationist false assumption. Humans fall spang in the center of the ape clade.

What do you mean?

In a cladogram you can freely 'rotate' any sub-clade so that every taxa can be at the 'center' or at the 'edges', without changing the topology.

Date: 2006/05/04 08:51:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,09<!--emo&:0)
Could you explain why two pieces of DNA couldn't join together and preserve the correct direction.

Different genes in a chromosome can be read in different directions, so there is no 'correct direction'
And given that transcription occures during the interphase, when chromosomes are not condensed (is this the correct term in English?), the direction of a particular locus is meaningless.

Date: 2006/05/04 09:40:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Ok flint, I get your point.
You could have said for instance that Homo and Pan share a more recent ancestor than Pan and Gorilla do.

Date: 2006/05/04 09:43:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,14:03)
It was AFDaves question not mine.

That question is in your post (May 04 2006,09:04).

Date: 2006/05/04 10:55:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,15:47)
Because chromosomes have two strands, it doesn't matter whether they have a direction or not, they can still join up at either end.

I don't get you argument. Could you elaborate?
Are you talking about chromatids?

Date: 2006/05/04 19:58:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,16:11)
Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen.

I think we’re not talking of the same thing. Yes, transcription can only occur in the 5’ -> 3’ direction. But as far as I understand, AfDave was not referring to that. He was unconsciously implying that there was one definite master strand for a whole chromatid, since all genes were supposed to be read in the same direction, for some odd reason. If it were an absolute rule, the way chromosomes join would matter a lot. They would have to fuse both master strand and coding strand with their analogues, and not a master strand with a coding strand.
The fact that DNA has two strands in both direction doesn’t change anything.

Am I correct?

Date: 2006/05/05 02:14:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 05 2006,03:56)
Is the issue that individual codons can be in either DNA strand as once the strands are unwound the RNA polymerase attaches to whichever strand is the master at that point, so it would not matter which way chromosomes fused as it is individual codons that are transcribed, and which strand is the master can swap from codon to codon?

I'm not sure about the question (your sentence is a bit too complicated for me), but for one gene, there is one physical master strand.
Of course, in a chromatid, different genes can have different master strands (that is they are read in different directions).

I hope it helps.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:16:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Indeed, even if the RNA polymerase could transcript the complementary strand of a given gene backward (it can't because this strand lacks a promoter) the resulting mRNA, if translated, would be completely different. Just try it on a piece of paper and see.

And the polymerase can't swap the strands during transcription, they are oriented in opposite directions ( 5'-3' ) (and certainly for other biochemical reasons).
A gene or an operon is read all in once (not sure of the expression). If the polymerase fails before the end, it has to start again from the beginning.

Date: 2006/05/05 08:58:59, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,13:28)
Thanks.  When is uni-directional reading important?  And when is it not?  I think I saw someone say that it is important for some things.  I'm trying to understand where exactly the AIG author went wrong. (other than the jokes about they woke up that morning, they went Creo, etc.)  :-)

It's always important. Replication and transcrition only occurs by 'reading' the master strand from 3' to 5' (therefore, DNA and RNA are synthetised in the opposite direction 5' -> 3';).

Date: 2006/05/06 10:52:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wonderpants @ May 06 2006,12:44)
This is what Darwinists fear, evidence and logic, so these two foundational precepts of science must be repressed at all cost when it comes to origins. Religiously committed blind-watchmaker Darwinists are in a transparent state of panic, because logic and evidence contradict their creation story, which is foundational to their nihilistic faith.

Comment by GilDodgen — May 5, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

These guys really ought to write fantasy novels, given the make-believe world they inhabit.

No, they're right.
We, at the lab, are so afraid of evidence that we've decided to cancel our research programs.  :0

Date: 2006/05/06 23:48:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 07 2006,03:49)
In a (possibly vain) attempt to prove I am not quite as stupid as my few earlier posts might indicate:

My main error was to confuse codon (which I did know - but forgot when posting - refers to a triplet of nucleotides coding for a particular amino-acid) with gene (meaning that  to indicate a nucleotide sequence staring with a promoter, containing exons and introns, finishing with a stopcode, that is transcribed by mRNA polymerase to produce mRNA,, which, after any necessary snipping out of introns, becomes the template for the translation of the encoded sequence into a particular protein.)

Very simplistically, then, could one imagine genes as extension leads with a 5' plug and 3' socket. Imagine  two leads of identical length laid out so each plug is next to each socket and twist  together, and pairs of leads can then be joined to extend the line infinitely, plug connecting to socket, socket to plug. The process can be carried on infinitely. Take one pair of leads, unplug both pairs of  leads, reverse (flip over end to end) the pair of leads by swapping the ends over and reconnect, no problem. Imagine one lead of the pair is blue and the other red, blue represents the coding or master strand of DNA and red the complement. Flipping one pair of leads means instead of a continuum of red and blue leads there will be a section where red plug connects to blue socket etc and the two runs of connected leads will have one section of lead of the opposite colour. When the particular gene is unwound to be transcribed the mRNA polymerase will attach as indicated by the promoter so will automatically find the coding strand and read off in the right direction. So in a chromosome, is the coding strand continuous or can it alternate from one individual gene to individual gene?

Tom Ames' link  seems to indicate this is so for yeast at least.

(Ducks head under parapet hoping not to appear even more stupid!;)

Ok, I didn't get what you meant by the RNA poly using different strands between two codons.

But you're not reading. ;)
I said (page 2 of this thread):
Of course, in a chromatid, different genes can have different master strands (that is they are read in different directions).

There is no reason preventing a strand to be either master or coding for different genes. The RNA poly just detects a promoter and starts the job.

Date: 2006/05/07 06:04:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Dembski's calculations may be accurate, but his hypothesis are flawed and have nothing to see with biological evolution, so why bother? :/

He sees evolution as the search for a specified result whereas it's not. IDers will never understand that, because they can't admit that human wasn't the goal of evolution.

Date: 2006/05/08 01:06:02, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Jay Ray @ May 08 2006,04:28)
No kidding?   That's all there is to the natural lifetime of a cell?  

Not exactly. A cell lineage can live very long after its last division. Most neurons don't divide, but some can live many years.

I don't know much about the subject, but apoptosis (programmed cellular death) is tiggered by many factors, not just telomeric segments.

Date: 2006/05/08 02:36:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,06:17)
Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes.

???? I cannot find where he says this.

Here is what he says ...

Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!

He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards.

If a chromosome fragment cannot be read backward, how could two chromsomes fuse head to head?

If it isn't a biochemical constraint, it's a selective constraint, and the probem would still be impossible to overcome.

Date: 2006/05/08 06:57:30, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:56)
Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here?

That Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference.

Dave, the guy @ AIG basically said "the chromosome fusion was impossible, yet it happened"
Silly mistake indeed.

How do you call something that is impossible but yet happens? I think religious people have a word for that.

And BTW, what is your theory about the chromosomal fusion in our lineage?

Date: 2006/05/08 07:41:23, Link
Author: jeannot

(1) Similarity pointing to Common Design is inadequate.
"A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design …"

This argument isn’t falsifiable (as ID). The world surrounding you may not exist in reality or could have just been created one minute ago, with all your memories. Prove me wrong.

(2) Possibility of higher % differences proves nothing. "
… The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. (p.9)"

Similarity level = 100% - level of difference, and reciprocally. What is your point here?

(3) There may be NO "Haldane's Dillema" at all.
"...Assuming that the human/chimpanzee last common ancestor lived 5 million years ago (Ma), he calculated that an average of 600 “beneficial mutations” must have been fixed in each generation. He concluded that Haldane’s dilemma prohibits such a large number of mutations fixed by selection. (p.10)..."
Several flaws here.
- Thanks to sexual reproduction and recombination, mutations don’t have to be ‘fixed’ at each generation (which is a nonsense), but can occur in different genomes.
- The divergence between chimps and human occurred 15 My ago, IIRC.
- Most mutations are neutral

… If organisms and their genomes are conveying a message (or messages) from the Creator, we should expect a high degree of repetition…
Pure speculation. Genomic evolution can explain this pattern as well.

… the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences.
So where can they be found? In different sun beams that transform a chimp egg into a human egg?

(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.  
Sure, as we should expect civilizations of ‘less evolved’ apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates... Oh wait…

As far as I know, there are Apes and there are Humans.  And there are no existing 'in-betweens.'  How do you explain this?
Don’t know. Extinctions perhaps?

(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.   Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?  i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?  
So where do the fossils come from?

(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?  
15 million years of divergent evolution can produce some differences.

(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government….
Fundamental science has nothing to do with moral, law or politics.

(5) Was not Adolf Hitler…
See above.

My conclusion then is…
based on nothing very convincing.

Date: 2006/05/08 08:50:33, Link
Author: jeannot
AFDave, since you refer to 'more evolved' humans, do you admit that we are the result of some evolution?  :0

Date: 2006/05/08 09:02:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:50)
I have maintained from the first that I am a fairminded guy and will give up my position readily when it is proven wrong.

Creationism can't be proven wrong (that is not falsifiable, in scientific terms) so why should we bother? ???

Date: 2006/05/08 09:18:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Because we teach them that gravity makes apples fall.

Should we teach them that god pushes every obect downward, but that we are not sure because it can't be proven?

Date: 2006/05/08 09:27:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,14:08)
I think the consensus these days is more like 5 My ago.

I just found my notes on a conference I assisted. There, Yves Coppens (French paleo-anthropologist) said that pre-humans diverged from pan some 10 Mya.

Date: 2006/05/08 10:52:58, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,15:11)
But seriously, I think that the molecular evidence favors the more recent date, and my (American!;)) paleontologist friend says he's comfortable with that, too.

Molecular datation can't contradict geological datation. It is calibrated from geological datation (fossils or other biogeographical data).
About Sahelanthropus tchadensis:
The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500 km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7 million years old.

It doesn't confirm the 10 Mya, but if their datation is correct, -6 Mya is the upper limit regarding the split between our lineage and chimps.
(a French discovery ;) Paleo-anthopology the only scientifict field we have left, so let me be proud of it)

Date: 2006/05/08 11:19:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006)
(By the way, I think we just say "dating" in English).

The dictionary included in Mac OS X thinks that too.
I thought 'datation' was also an English word.

A perfect example of 'Frenglish'.  :(

About a dedicated thread, anytime you want Russel.
I'm not a expert in molecular clock calibration, but I may have to do some molecular datING in my study, so I'll have to get familiar with the subject.

Date: 2006/05/08 12:03:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,16:39)
We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

There are some rules here at ATBC, and I predict you won't persist in babbling your nonsense any longer.  

Date: 2006/05/09 08:57:24, Link
Author: jeannot
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii.

AFDave "I just LOVE this one!  My kids got a great laugh too. "
Well, being evolved is not a scientific attribute. We don’t have any measure for that. All currently living lineages have evolved for the same exact time. Maybe some have undergone more mutations, maybe some have undergone more phenotypic changes… This is moot. The fittest in its environment reproduce more efficiently, that’s all we have to know.

ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens …
Absolutely not. Do people with a more sophisticated brain have more children?

[quote]Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case.

AFDave: "Actually, there is EVERY reason to believe this should be the case if the ToE is true."
No there is not.
Even if there were, do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social …
I skip the politico-social nonsense. If you can’t understand that scientific facts (fundamental science) has nothing to do with morality, this discussion won’t go anywhere.
What is the position of your (creationist) president on social Darwinism?

STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  
OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!;)

With a God Meter of course.  No.  Seriously, there are some very good ways.  Cosmic fine tuning …
Dave, what observation could falsify the existence of God?
Is it possible for us to observe a universe that couldn’t have permitted our existence?

…blablabla COMMON DESIGN blablablabla…
What observation could falsify common design?

Jeannot, have you never heard of a nifty little thing made famous by Americans called FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  Do you not have this in France?
Trolls aren’t well appreciated in discussion boards in both countries. If you keep asking question without willing to learn anything, you are a troll. And I won’t start on this topic if I were you. You know, Christian fundamentalism and freedom of speech don’t go together well.

No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.
If you like, we can call evolution a theory and ID… nothing at all.

Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?

AFDave: "I'm perfectly fine with the idea if it turns out to be proven true."
Out of curiosity, what evidence would convince you?

I am saying that if we took an assortment of recently (let's say they all died at once yesterday, OK?) dead African pygmies…
… and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  
Wow… :/  Paleontologists draw their conclusion on each separate bones.

(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
Question: where do you think these fossils come from? You haven’t answered me yet.

(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
What research have you been doing lately?

(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)
What about doing some research to test your theory?

Date: 2006/05/09 09:14:25, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
Makes for a really interesting thought experiment, doesn't it?

Yes it does. A war experiment actually. I'm pretty sure we would never tolerate a competing species. There wouldn't show any moral or mercy there. It would be a struggle to death. That's my prediction (not that I'd approve it)

How do Vitamin C falsify common design?
I'm not aware of this case, do you have a link?

EDIT: Ok I found one. But it doesn't falsify common design. One could argue that god decided to deactivate this gene for some reason.

Date: 2006/05/09 09:23:26, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:18:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2006,15:10)
[quote=jeannot,May 09 2006,14:23][quote=Henry J,May 09 2006,14:17]Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.[/quote]
You mean Dunkerque?

(There are some problems with nested quotes.  :angry: )

Date: 2006/05/09 10:31:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Personally, I'd like to hear Dave's thoughts about endosymbiosis and the species concept.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:35:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Actually, I thought of this possibility... but too late.  :0

Date: 2006/05/09 10:59:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,15:38)
Then there was the Alamo, but it wasn't (yet) part of the U.S. at the time.

While we're at it, the second famous French defeat, is the battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954), where we got humiliated by Vietnamese (who were not vietnamese at that time). Next comes the Blitzkrieg (1940), and I dare not tell you more about it.
And don't forget Azincourt (1415), where we got soundly beaten by English who were four times less numerous than us.

(I'm preparing my defeat, that's why I'm doing some history. You should too, while there's still time  ;) )

Date: 2006/05/09 11:28:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Don't be ironical.
Dave certainly knows what the guinea pig did, and we'll be PWNED when he expose this biblical evidence.

Date: 2006/05/11 11:38:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Wesley, there are problems with nested quotes. Is there a way to fix that?

Date: 2006/05/12 09:10:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (test @ test)




EDIT, it works!

Date: 2006/05/12 11:31:57, Link
Author: jeannot
The first question is a little vague. Your second question (first line), and therefore the third one, are subjective (you say "look like").
These questions aside, I could answer the others.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:59:09, Link
Author: jeannot
why do you assume these 3 organisms EVER had a functioning GLO gene?  Maybe this gene DOES HAVE a function which we just don't know about.

Dave, we won't convince you that this gene doesn't have a function because it's virtually impossible to prove a negative.
Even it we could remove the gene and show you that this doesn't change anything in the phenotype, you would come and say "maybe it changed something we can't see".

Date: 2006/05/12 13:04:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, here are my answers to your questions BWE.

Brittany (where I live) is an old mountain chain, the Armorican mountains. It's the result of the Hercynian (or was it Caledonian?) orogenesis which occurred during the Paleozoic era. Since then, it has been eroded to its impressive 400 m of maximum altitude.

Fossils: well not much since this is a granitic region, but during that timescale (from Paleozoic to present), a lot of species lived and died.

Species live in a particular places for:
- Ecological reasons: they are fit to a particular niche (habitat, resource, other species) that prevents their migration where it doesn't exist. That's why, if a climate change induces a displacement of their optimal habitat, their individuals that migrate in the correct direction are selected (habitat tracking) therefor a hole biota migrates.
- Historical reasons (seed dispersion, accidents, speciation events...)
(this is a very incomplete answer, it would require a whole book)

A top-level predator regulates its preys which themselves affect the lower levels of the trophic chain and so on. Therefore they are often considered as "key species".

Scientists think dinosaurs existed because they have found fossils. The time required for fossilization and sedimentation is important. Absolute dating by radionuclides confirms this.

Ridges and trenches in the ocean are caused by tectonic plates divergence and subduction.

Mollusks and echinoderms belong to very different groups. Mollusks are protostomian and echinoderms are deuterostomian. But within each group, taxa share ancestral traits, like the balstopore evolving into the mouth or the anus.

The magnetic orientation of some sediments indicates the direction of the magnetic poles, which are frequently inverted. (I think)

Date: 2006/05/12 13:24:07, Link
Author: jeannot
AfDave's initiated some unnecessary threads a couple of times (its "updated hypothesis"), but it's nothing like Thordude who asked basically the same question in four or five differents threads.

I personaly think that Dave's doubts regarding chromosomal fusions and other patterns of primate evolution deserved their own threads.

Date: 2006/05/12 14:13:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA" that apparently isn't junk after all (the gene we are discussing IS one of those genes, right?)?  

You guys are the biology experts ... you should know this.

No, the gene we are discussing is not part of the DNA that IBM researchers have studied. In fact, most of our DNA, contrary to GLO, doesn't show any recognizable genic structure. But it can have a structural function for instance.

And we are aware of the latest discoveries before you, Dave.
However, I would point that there isn't any evidence yet for a biological function in the patterns recently discovered by IBM scientists. Even if it were, it wouldn't contradict evolution in the slightest.

But if you want a proof of common descent, I suggest you google "endosymbiosis" and "nucleomorph" or even "buchnera". (An evidence that is not discussed at talkorigins, afaik.).
Of course, it requires some basic knowledge in biology and doesn't falsify common design (nothing can).

Date: 2006/05/12 14:30:36, Link
Author: jeannot
STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  See

1- This is ironical, coming from someone taking the Bible as evidence for his hypothesis. :) But please, pick some research papers on evolution and explain how evolutionists' arguments evolve as you describe.

2 - Go read some recent scientific journal (Nature, Science) and show us where the shipwreck of 'Darwinism' lies.


Date: 2006/05/12 23:50:01, Link
Author: jeannot
While you're at it, Wesley, could you change some smiley codes? We often add this one  :0 by mistake.

Date: 2006/05/13 07:26:44, Link
Author: jeannot

Is it not just as plausible that both ape and human GLO "broke" independently?   So I think the following possibilities exist ...
(1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.
You’ll have to explain why the species that carry a pseudo-GLO gene are the ones that can’t synthesize vitamin C. Coincidence?

(2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans.  If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO.  You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)
The 36% similarity is in fact a powerful evidence for common descent, given that the absolute minimal level of similarity is 25 %. 36 % is extremely low, and proves that this pseudogene is not subject to stabilizing selection. What is the similarity between human and other apes, out of curiosity?

(3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations.
Hundreds of primate species losing a gene function independently with the same mutations? Do you know the concept of parsimony?

We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record.  Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record.  Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps.  
Wrong, YECs predicted no fossils at all. The fact that they don’t know anything about fossilization and sedimentation make them completely incompetent on the subject.

Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed.  
Could you point a research paper supporting this claim? And what is ‘vertical evolution’?

Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution,
Speciation have been observed in the lab (and in the wild) many times.

After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage.
I admit this is a logical possibility.  I challenge you to find evidence which supports it.
A flying spaghetti monster would allow us to eat spaghetti. The prediction is confirmed.

Date: 2006/05/13 07:40:21, Link
Author: jeannot

They use the term 'lesions' instead of 'nucleotids', which is misleading since most of the homologies are not due to convergent mutations (lesions), but common ancestry.

Anyway, I fail to get their logic. Even if  '36% of identical lesions' were the correct expression, their tree clearly supports common descent : human and other apes belong to a clade where similarities between taxa are far higher than 36%.

EDIT : I didn't notice the question marks after the apes names. But I'm pretty sure that the tree built with GLO will look the like this.

Date: 2006/05/13 11:58:11, Link
Author: jeannot
I just performed a quick BLAST of GULO (exon 10), and the homology between human and chimp is 97%.

Date: 2006/05/13 12:17:14, Link
Author: jeannot
I would also ask :

How did the solar system appear?

Where were your atoms formed?

What is a protein and how is it synthesised?

What is a species?


Date: 2006/05/13 22:35:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Faid @ May 13 2006,20:39)
Agree with what, Dave? that 36% of the point mutations in the two broken genes are the same? Sure, we agree. Now, will you read our answers, and the links we gave you?

It would be more accurate to use the term 'nucleotids' instead of 'mutations', because mutations are changes of ancestral states. 36% of similar point mutations would imply that 36% of the changes in GLO since the human and rodent lineages split are convergent, which is not the case(I'm sure the percentage is just the basic distance between the genes).

So Dave, since 36% of similarity between the broken GLO genes in guinea pigs and human are very low and support our view, what is your interpretation?

Date: 2006/05/13 22:51:36, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,20:27)
I just performed a quick BLAST of GULO (exon 10), and the homology between human and chimp is 97%.
No surprises there, right?

So you want the original article? ... I can probably have it on Monday or Tuesday ...

I appreciate, but I already have the paper (Nishikimi et al.).

Date: 2006/05/14 04:58:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,07:08)
I think they are also pointing out that evolutionists agree that guinea pig GLO broke independently from the simian line, so why shouldn't we expect ape GLO to break independently from human GLO?

We should.  At the very least, we cannot dogmatically say that the GLO gene definitely broke in the common ancestor, then was copied to apes and humans.

Do you agree?

We use the principle of parsimony. All copies of the GLO gene are broken in the same way in primates, which besides were known to share a common ancestor way before (that's why they constitute an order).The pylogeny (tree) made with that pseudogene reflects the phylogenies based on other coding genes.
Parallel loss of function, resulting from the same mutations, are extremely improbable. Do you know how many primate species exist?
And the pattern of mutations confirms, alongside the fact that those organisms can't survive without vitamin C, that GLO is not coding and evolves by genetic drift, not NS.

According to common design, the creator would have put broken copies of a gene in each species, copies that reflect the current phylogeny, built with coding genes. Why would he? A broken gene is not part of a design, it's useless.

You said you would readily accept any evidence for common descent. I don't think you are sincere. What kind of proof would convince you?

And what are your thoughts on the fact that AIG only referred to the 36% homology between guinea pigs and humans, but forgot to mention the 97% identity between us and chimpanzees? Silly mistake again?

Date: 2006/05/14 07:40:17, Link
Author: jeannot
mmm actually, I spoke too fast. :O
Faid, you were right.
There indeed seems to be a convergence between human and guinea pig for some substitutions in GLO. I should have read your post, and the abstract that Russel provided more carefully.        
A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions.

I don't have access to this paper, but to another by one of the authors.

I'm not an expert in molecular biology, but these 36% of convergence are not very disturbing. Convergence increases to a value of 25% as mutations accumulate. Some mutational 'hot spots' (I don't know much about them) may account for the difference.
Anyway, the percentage of identical substitutions between human and chimp is certainly well above 36%.

However, their sentence puzzles me: "from rats to both species occurred... ". Since when are modern rats the ancestors of primates and other rodents?
That could be misleading. One must not consider that GLO in rats is the ancestral state of the borken copies in guinea pigs and primates. The 36% of convergent substitutions might be an overestimation. Some neutral substitutions may have occurred in the rats lineage only.
EDIT : I already see IDers coming. For every gene showing some convergence between lineages (and there are several) they'll be claming "See? Darwinism is doomed, this one gene contradicts comon descent, ah ah...ect." ???

Date: 2006/05/14 08:27:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 14 2006,13:15)
However, their sentence puzzles me: "from rats to both species occurred... ". Since when are modern rats the ancestors of primates and other rodents?
I suspect that's exactly the problem.

I don't have access to the paper, either. But I do have access to GeneBank. What do you want to bet that most of that 36% will turn out to be rat-specific mutations from the consensus?

I won't bet because that's what I think too (except for the "most"). In fact, I edited my post in that way just before I read yours.  ;)

To check that, we should gather several sequences from rodents, primates (and maybe other mammals), if available, and build a maximum likelihood our parsimony phylogeny. The three sequences alone (rat, guinea pig and human) won't do.
But the number of mutations is expected to be much higher in the broken genes, so I don't expect the level of convergence to be much reduced.

Maybe we could write a paper together?  ;)

Date: 2006/05/14 08:52:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Dante @ May 14 2006,13:14)
Then there was Adolf Hitler, who murdered an estimated 12 million, and built his pagan ideology on the philosophies of eugenics, a creation of Darwinism

I thought he was doing God's work... I mean, it even says that in Mein Kampf. Guess he's just a Darwinian Fundamentalist.

Of course, and Hernando Cortez was another Darwinian fanatic.

Date: 2006/05/14 09:46:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Faid @ May 14 2006,14:15)
... a significant number of those could have happened after rats and guinea pigs diverged. That would make the number of simillar subtitutions attributed to other reasons (like mutational hotspots) much less.

That's what Inai et al. measured. The substitutions between rats and guinea pigs (not from rat to guinea pigs, and that's their mistake), which they compared to rat-human substitutions, necessarily occured after their lineages diverged.
The apparent convergence of 36% could be significantly reduced, only if several substitutions accumulated in the rat lineage only, which is not likely since the active GLO is subject to purifying selection.

Date: 2006/05/14 10:24:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Faid @ May 14 2006,15:12)
Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,14:46)
The apparent convergence of 36% could be significantly reduced, only if several substitutions accumulated in the rat lineage only, which is not likely since the active GLO is subject to purifying selection.

I know, that's why I'm speaking of substitutions that do not affect the gene's function. Now, I think such are possible to occur (although much, much less than all the kinds of mutations that accumulate in broken genes, of course)... Otherwise, the GULO gene should be 100% identical in all animals that can make their own vit. C- And I think that is not the case? Or is it? Does anyone have a relevant source?

Did I mention that this is fun?  :)

Sure, synonymous mutations, for instance, are essentially neutral. You can also have some beneficial mutations.
And as you said, the number of neutral substitutions is far higher in a non-coding sequence, since 100% are neutral.

Date: 2006/05/14 10:53:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,15:19)
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?

In fact, he accepts biological evolution in its 'prescribed form'. A theory from his master John A. Davison.

Date: 2006/05/14 11:49:18, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 14 2006,16:32)
Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,10:53)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,15:19)
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?

In fact, he accepts biological evolution in its 'prescribed form'. A theory from his master John A. Davison.

Things may have changed..

Yeah, JAD is no longer Dave's Master, but his ex-champion still supports 'prescribed evolution' doesn't he?

Date: 2006/05/15 10:32:30, Link
Author: jeannot
Indeed Russel, most of the mutations that seemed convergent between guinea pig and human are not, but are specific to the rat lineage. (I did a quick comparison using sequences from rat, pig, guinea pig, human and cow.)
In fact, this doesn't mean that evolution was faster in rats, since lots of mutations occured in the guinea pig lineage only (therefore are not shared with human). I should have thought of that.
In a segment of the gene, I counted 9 mutations in the rat lineage and 10 in the guinea pig lineage, after their divergence. A was expecting the latter to exceed to former by a higher margin. Maybe the loss of function of GULO in guinea pigs was rather recent, but still...

Now, the abstract you posted (Inai et al.) was actually misealding. They clearly imply (unconsciously?) that the gene copy in rats was the ancestor of the copies in humans and guinea pigs, which was a unwarranted assumption.

Date: 2006/05/15 10:41:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, no one understand why you want GLO to be 100% identical between human and chimps, since that's precisely what evolution doesn't predict. This pseudogene is not selected, so it can freely accumulate mutations at a high rate.
But if you want a 100% identical gene between human and chimpanzee, I can find one for you. Would you take it?

PS:  I already posted the 97% homology between human and chimps in GLO. You could have said that a convincing evidence for common descent would be a 98% identity.  ;)

Date: 2006/05/15 11:28:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, you don't seem to undestand what common descent really implies.

Only one mutation broke the gene function. After that, the pseudo-gene underwent a lot of mutations that could also have altered its function (deletions, stop codons), and most of them are shared by humans and chimps (and other apes).

Date: 2006/05/15 11:34:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 15 2006,16:05)
Quote (jeannot @ May 15 2006,15:41)
Dave, no one understand why you want GLO to be 100% identical between human and chimps, since that's precisely what evolution doesn't predict. This pseudogene is not selected, so it can freely accumulate mutations at a high rate.
But if you want a 100% identical gene between human and chimpanzee, I can find one for you. Would you take it?

I'm pretty sure the cytochrome c gene is exactly the same (all codons identical, not just the amino acids they code for) in humans and chimps.

mmm, not Cytochrome C... but I'm pretty sure that the mitochondrial 16 S rRNA gene (and all rRNA genes after all) is 100% identical between human and chimp.

EDIT: Damned, they are slightly different!  :p
Well, maybe there isn't any identical gene between humans and chimps.

Date: 2006/05/15 12:08:32, Link
Author: jeannot
I meant 100% identical in nucleotide sequences, since I was talking about genes, not proteins.

Date: 2006/05/16 06:13:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, imagine God designing apes and man. Ok, he would use the same tools (genes) with only slight differences (mutations) that happen to reflect a common ancestry because all primates look and work the same, but not exactly. For instance, chimps are closer to men in their design compared to gorillas and other apes.
You can hold that argumentation, but it falls as soon as the common features, which he is supposed to have used when designing his creatures, are useless.
Everything that has nothing to do with design (protein production) - third codon position, pseudogenes - reflect our common ancestry and confirms the current theory of evolution.
Moreover, why such neutral loci (loci=pieces of DNA), not subject to selection (typically, the third positions of codons), are more variable between species, as our theory predicts?
You could argue that, since these loci are not important for design, the designer placed them randomly in his creatures. Ok fine. But their distribution is not random actually. The non-coding (ie non-designing) features also reflect common ancestry.
The case of GULO is particularly striking.
You have to imagine that the designer decided to equipped primates with a broken gene (why put a broken gene instead of nothing?) having different errors that (tadaa!;) reflect common ancestry (ie Human closer to chimps than to macaques). And he is also supposed to have inserted a broken GULO in guinea pigs, but a very different copy, with BTW looks like the working gene in rats.  
Why in the world would he do that?
I await your explanation.

Date: 2006/05/16 08:04:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, we can see you coming. You're about to argue "why don't you accept that the same mutations could have occurred independently in primates, since you admit some very improbable event (like the apparition of the first cell for example)".
But you argument is flawed.
To explain the apparition of the first cell for instance, we also have different hypothesis:
- it was the product of an extraordinary event. Creationists like Dembski believe this is our position. (???)
- Goddidit.
- it evolved from less complex life forms (our position).

You have several options:
- claim that common ancestry inferred from the mutations in GULO is in fact the product of an extraordinary chance. Most mutations are random, they may be some 'hot spots', but the probability for them to reflect the exact phylogeny built with dozen of gene is basically zero.
-  explain how common design predicted that the designer would place errors in GULO in several species, errors that reflect the phylogeny we can infer from working parts of genes.
- admit that mutations were inherited by different species from their ancestors, though genetic mechanisms known for decades.
- another hypothesis from your imagination.

Which one will you choose?

And if you're about to assert (like JAD) that all mutations are harmful, I'm afraid you don't have the knowledge to back up this argument.

Date: 2006/05/16 09:11:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Now, we know that a whole genome duplication occurred in the common ancestor of most plants, which could have contributed to their diversification.
This hypothesis is based on the already known effects of genome duplications.
I think this discovery deserves an article, why don't you?

Date: 2006/05/16 09:34:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 16 2006,14:29)
Is this article the first to use polyploidy to explain angiosperm diversification?


Did I say that?

I see Jeannot suggests it's the contribution to unraveling partial vs. whole genome duplication.

No I don't (see my next post).

Date: 2006/05/16 09:40:11, Link
Author: jeannot
They just investigated the historical causes of the diversification of angiosperms (based on known genetic processes). That's their contribution.

Edit: I remember reading a study about some genome duplications in early angiosperms (before the true angiosperms actually, they traced back to trias or something) but I don't remember where. It was several months ago.

Date: 2006/05/16 09:56:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Steverino @ May 16 2006,14:49)
"Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. "

What is Dave talking about?
There is no evidence for self assembly of DNA and ribosomes, hence we don't teach that in classroom. ???

Date: 2006/05/16 10:27:02, Link
Author: jeannot
I may have access to the article, but I can't find it.
Am I dumb or what?  :O

Date: 2006/05/16 10:36:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Apparently, my lab has access to this journal.

Date: 2006/05/16 10:47:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (jeannot @ May 16 2006,14:40)
Edit: I remember reading a study about some genome duplications in early angiosperms (before the true angiosperms actually, they traced back to trias or something) but I don't remember where. It was several months ago.

It was in TREE.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:00:05, Link
Author: jeannot
No problem. If I forget, send me a PM.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:03:32, Link
Author: jeannot
It's quite funny.

Chapter 4

First murder—that didn't take long.


Date: 2006/05/16 11:14:58, Link
Author: jeannot
But.... what are we doing here my friends?

Dave is a YEC, a young Earth creationist. How can we convince a YEC with scientific facts?
13 pages of arguments to nothing. Do we really need to continue?

Date: 2006/05/16 11:30:46, Link
Author: jeannot
(off topic)
With our authentification system, I can access online articles from any computer, anywhere (provided I set some connexion parameters in every computer).
Do your system check your IP adress for authentification?

Date: 2006/05/16 11:48:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 16 2006,16:38)
I assume you all do this for the humor factor, and to sharpen your knives on blunt stone.

For a moment, I thought that Dave could learn something. Some of his reactions were indeed quite amusing, but now I'm getting bored.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:55:59, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (argystokes @ May 16 2006,16:35)
argy stokes!

Congrats, you're the author of the most useless post ever. I hope you enjoyed writing it, because it just ended your presence on this blog. You're outta here. -dt

Date: 2006/05/16 12:14:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 16 2006,17:04)
does your authentication system not require you to utilize a password system somewhere along the line?

Yes, I have a personal password that is sent to a proxy server at each connexion.

Date: 2006/05/17 07:03:40, Link
Author: jeannot
1)  You assume that the ONLY reason human and ape GULO does not work is because of this single deletion.  Am I correct?
2)  You are assuming that pseudo-GULO is in fact "broken GULO".  Argystokes has not yet demonstrated that to me.  To me it is a possibility that "pseudo-GULO" has some as yet undiscovered function.  Remember the good old "vestigial" organs that turned out to have function after all?  Why wouldn't "vestigial" GULO turn out the same way?
Dave, scientists can demonstrate that a gene has lost its function. GULO lacks many portions (exons) in primates, it has STOP codons a different loci (signals that stop the translation) and the fast accumulation of mutations confirms this.      

4)  You assume that this "C deletion" occurring independently in apes and humans is a highly unlikely event.  Why is it so unlikely?  
The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance. Would you drop this argument?  

Creationism does NOT predict everything.  Here are 5 things it does not predict. (but evolution does predict and has been proven wrong)

1) "Upward evolution" ... it predicts "downward"
2) "Seamless fossil record" ... it predicts ubiquitous gaps
3) "Hominid civilizations" (or half-human to make Norm happy on terminology) ... it predicts fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations."
4) "Millions of years coal production" ... it predicts rapid coal formation
5) "An infinite universe" ... it predicts a finite universe that had a beginning

You're completely wrong. The theory of evolution predicts nothing of the sort. You're confusing biology with astronomy and geology. And what does "upward evolution mean"?

Date: 2006/05/17 09:00:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Apparently, Dembski is working on the evolution of allelic frequences in a population (p and q).
I don't know what he wants to prove, but whatever it is, it will not be supported by any data from population genetics, since they totally support evolution by natural selection or drift.

Date: 2006/05/17 09:30:16, Link
Author: jeannot
I thought there were dozens of top scientists at the Disco Institute. Why does Dembski have to hire a mathematician in order to prove ID?

Date: 2006/05/17 09:50:31, Link
Author: jeannot
The problem with Dave, is that he has to answer lots of objections and questions from several posters. Since he obviously can't answer all, and I won't blame him for that, he can freely choose which point he wants to address (sic), leaving the remaining, most relevant points unanswered.
So there can't be any real debate.

Date: 2006/05/18 11:01:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Sure, if Dawkins wrote that kind of papers, nobody would know him and you'd be a happy man, Paley.

What is this quote supposed to demonstrate?

And out of curiosity, what's your position on the evolution of GULO in primates?

Date: 2006/05/18 11:13:10, Link
Author: jeannot
(to Sir_toejam) Well, I gave up trying to convince Davey so I don't mind.

Come on Paley, tell us what you think. Did some primate eat a guinea pig and transfered the broken GULO to its progeny, or the contrary?

Date: 2006/05/19 08:12:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 19 2006,12:23)
A somewhat greater than expected proportion of those substitutions (36% observed vs. 25% expected) ...

For a given couple of mutations occurring independently in two lineages at the same locus, the expected convergence is indeed 25%. But the overall probability of convergence is much lower, considering the probability of occurrence of two mutations at the same locus, which is far lower than 25% if mutations are rare (recent divergence).
25% is the expected convergence, only if mutations are so frequent that the homology between two diverging sequences cannot be detected. (ie : 100% chance of mutating at the same nucleotide).

(Is my English clear enough?)

Date: 2006/05/19 08:20:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (argystokes @ May 19 2006,01:12)
Larry's forum is interesting. When there is no moderation, the mindless jackals of cyberspace are attracted like flies to meat...

This is particularly revealing, since JAD himself is one of the most active users on Larry's blog.


Date: 2006/05/19 08:42:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (incorygible @ May 19 2006,13:28)
2. Of the remainder, what overall degree of convergence do we expect for neutral substitutions in the 75-million-plus years since the LCA between humans, rats and guinea pigs, and non-neutral substitutions since the gene "broke" in humans (~40 mya) and guinea pigs (?unknown?)?  How does this compare statistically to our revised estimate of convergence (i.e., after we have removed the rat-only substitutions)?

3. How would mutational "hot-spots" at some of these loci, if they occur, change our expected convergence in (2).

These questions are difficult to answer precisely.
It depends on the percentage of mutations per locus, which could be estmitated by: the number of mutations from an ancestral sequence / the length of the considered sequence (I guess).
To estimate the number of mutation that have accumulated since an initial split, you have to build a phylogeny using parcimony or likelihood.

But hot spots, and the possibility for a nucleotide to mutate more than once, further complicate calculations.

Date: 2006/05/21 00:54:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,05:40)
So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?

EDIT: oops, I misunderstood 'from now'.

A million years ago, humans were walking in Africa, so I don't see any reason why bacteria should take over the world that fast. They've been coexisting with other life forms for billions of years.

Also, evolution is not only a matter of who wins and who loses. You know, ecosystems...
Each one of your cells is like an ecosystem where bacteria (mitochondria) cooperate with your chromosomes.

Date: 2006/05/21 03:12:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Talking about adaptive mutations, there's a paper in Nature.

Nature 441, 310-314 (18 May 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04677; Received 3 January 2006; Accepted 23 February 2006

Evolution of an obligate social cheater to a superior cooperator

Francesca Fiegna1, Yuen-Tsu N. Yu1, Supriya V. Kadam1 and Gregory J. Velicer1

Top of page
Obligate relationships have evolved many times and can be parasitic or mutualistic. Obligate organisms rely on others to survive and thus coevolve with their host or partner. An important but little explored question is whether obligate status is an evolutionarily terminal condition or whether obligate lineages can evolve back to an autonomous lifestyle. The bacterium Myxococcus xanthus survives starvation by the social development of spore-bearing fruiting bodies. Some M. xanthus genotypes defective at fruiting body development in isolation can nonetheless exploit proficient genotypes in chimaeric groups. Here we report an evolutionary transition from obligate dependence on an altruistic host to an autonomous mode of social cooperation. This restoration of social independence was caused by a single mutation of large effect that confers fitness superiority over both ancestral genotypes, including immunity from exploitation by the ancestral cheater. Thus, a temporary state of obligate cheating served as an evolutionary stepping-stone to a novel state of autonomous social dominance.

Date: 2006/05/21 03:26:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,06:27)
What is Jeannot referring to when she says "And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance." ??  Is she switching back to apes and humans, or is she still talking about humans vs. guinea pigs?

I was referring to primates, but you could add every mammals. Most of the "shared mutations" between us and guinea pigs are not mutations, actually, but ancestral nucleotide states that have not mutated in primates and guinea pigs, but in rats only. Humans and guinea pigs inherited them from their common ancestor, without modification.
But that doesn't means guinea pigs are closer to us than to rats. They share more 'mutations' with rats. Thus, a phylogeny built with GULO won't put primates and guina pigs in the same clade (group).
For the last time, you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene.

And BTW, I'm not a female.

Date: 2006/05/21 03:36:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (JonF @ May 21 2006,07:59)
"Winning" does not necessarily mean "eradicating all other life forms", and almost certainly doesn't mean that here.  In this case it probably means something like "there are more individual bacteria than any other organism" or "all the bacteria weigh more than any other group of organisms", both of which are true.

mmm. I'm not sure. I recently heard that viruses represent the majority of biomass in oceans. But you may not consider viruses as true organisms, after all.

Anyway, the notion of 'victory' doesn't mean squat in science.

Date: 2006/05/21 09:09:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Nice crow. :p

Where is this from?

Date: 2006/05/21 10:07:48, Link
Author: jeannot
One should also consider that most muders in the 20th century were committed by sane people, not psychopaths.
Thus, contrary to common belief, sanity leads to violence more than psycopathy does.

I love their logic.  :p

Date: 2006/05/21 10:21:47, Link
Author: jeannot
I wonder how many coconuts it can carry...

Date: 2006/05/21 10:54:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 21 2006,15:40)
I recently heard that viruses represent the majority of biomass in oceans.

Really?  I always thought it was nematodes.

Can you dig up the reference for that, Jean?

sounds like yet another bit of my knowledge may have become outdated.

Science 12 May 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5775, pp. 870 - 872
DOI: 10.1126/science.312.5775.870

Did DNA Come From Viruses?
Carl Zimmer

A growing number of scientists hope to get rid of that question mark. They recognize that a full account of the evolution of life must include viruses. Not only are they unimaginably abundant--most of the biomass in the ocean is made up of viruses--but they are also extraordinarily diverse genetically, in part because they can acquire genes from their hosts.

I don't have the original article where they estimated the total biomass of 'oceanic' viruses.

Date: 2006/05/22 01:09:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, primates don’t share just one error in GULO. They share many errors; and each one could have broken the gene. They all lack, for instance the same exons. Since mutations appear one at a time, one mutation broke the gene (we don’t know witch one I think), and others freely accumulated after that. Some occurred in the common ancestor of all primates, some occurred only in hominideae (human and chimp) for instance.
Thus, primates don’t share all these mutations. What is particularly sticking is that the primates that share more errors are precisely the ones that were already known to be the closest, i.e. chimps and humans. Then comes others apes and monkeys, who share fewer errors with humans and chimps, as predicted by previous phylogenies.

Man, how many times have we explained this?

Date: 2006/05/22 07:26:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 22 2006,09:40)
The nice birdie in the picture is likely either a Griffin Vulture or close relative.

Indeed, it is Gyps fulvus, the only vulture we can find in France.
In French "vautour fauve" (fauve is the color of lions. Does 'deer' refer to a color in English?)

Date: 2006/05/22 07:57:23, Link
Author: jeannot
... the primates that share more errors are precisely the ones that were already known to be the closest, i.e. chimps and humans. Then comes others apes and monkeys, who share fewer errors with humans and chimps, as predicted by previous phylogenies.

Dave, either you don't understand what is written here, or you are dishonest
What is the part you don't understand?

Date: 2006/05/22 08:09:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 22 2006,12:58)
common design could explain the same thing.

Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?

Date: 2006/05/22 08:14:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Yes Dave, we'd like to hear your thoughts about 'kinds'. Are kinds and species the same?

Date: 2006/05/22 13:17:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 22 2006,15:08)
Gene-Oh writes:

Come on Paley, tell us what you think. Did some primate eat a guinea pig and transfered the broken GULO to its progeny, or the contrary?

No Pepe, I do not believe this. You fail to understand my ground-breaking theory. I am not a crank. I do not believe organisms can pass on character traits to their progeny via food. I only maintain food confounds genetic testing results. Since both humans and apes--and guines pigs too--eat bananas, their alleged "similarities" are based on this. The anthropologist Jonathan Marks in this seminal paper* describes the great genetic similarities between humans and bananas. I wonder where this comes from? Other Creationists have noticed this too. My theory becomes very plausible once the morally and intellectually corrosive dogma is Darwinism is discarded!

Are you serious, Ghost?

Date: 2006/05/23 08:00:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,08:02)
Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?
No.  According to YEC theory, organisms were designed perfectly in the beginning.  The Creator then put a curse on all of nature to remind humans of sin and the need for a Saviour, and to remind us that this world is not our true home.  God will at a future time RE-create the heavens and the earth and they will once again be perfect.  Humans who choose to believe God will be with Him eternally in the newly created heavens and earth.  Those who do not will be eternally separated from Him.  Mutations are assumed by creationists to be a part of this "curse."

Dave, you're going to surpass our friend paley.  :)

So god decided to break GULO in all primates, and produce a nested hierachy of shared errors in this peudo-gene, which matches the phylogenies of perfectly designed working genes? Or did it just happen by chance?

Date: 2006/05/24 06:01:20, Link
Author: jeannot

Resistance to antibiotic is a change that can be inherited.
Wikipedia says :
evolution is a process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation.

Check your definitions Dave.

Date: 2006/05/24 12:07:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,12:38)
I seem to recall that at least two other people said they were NOT claiming that all the breaks are the same.  I think what may be going on here is that you guys are saying that (1) both are broken and (2) they are 95% similar.  From this you conclude that the gene was broken in a supposed common ancestor, then transmitted along two separate lines of evolution.

Now what I am saying is this:  If both are broken and they are 95% similar ... big deal.  Fiestas are 95% similar to Aerostars and their alternators are also 95% similar, and guess what ... they are both susceptible to breaking ... maybe even in the same way!  But they share a Common Designer!  Ditto for Apes and Humans!b

Dave, how many times do we have to rehash this? I you don't want to hear, say it right now, it'll save us some time.

This is the LAST time, read my words carefully.

The data : primates can synthesize vitamin C and all they also have a broken copy GULO. Guinea pigs have also a broken GULO a can't live without vit C.
Now, since GULO wasn't broken in the common ancestor of primates and guinea pigs (otherwise, all rodents would need some vitamin C to survive), common descent predicts that it broke independently in primates and guinea pigs.
However it is highly probable that the gene broke in the common ancestor of primates. Do you know how many primates and mammals species there are? If you did, you could have calculated the probability for the inactivation of GULO in primates as a result of chance. This is, if I am correct : 1/the combination of (number of primate species) from (number of species that have GULO, ie at least all mammals). Think hard Dave, you can understand. If not, get a book on probabilities.
Guess what, this probability is ZERO, even excel can't give the precise result because the computer can't handle it.
Well, you could say it proves nothing and that a probability of a single event is meaningless. True, but primates were already known to share a common ancestor, before the GULO story. Think about it.

Anyway, if you still want to maintain that this is the result of chance, read the following. There are thousands of ways to beak a gene : insertions and deletions at any site, stop signals, etc.
As predicted, primates share lots of common 'errors' in GULO like the deletion of the same exons (portions of gene) by which they differ from guinea pigs.
However, mutations are not frequent (something like 10^-6 per site per generation), they can only happen one at a time in a given copy of a gene (in a gamete).
Hence, a gene inactivation is the consequence of only one mutational event, not two or ten simultaneous mutations. Can you follow this reasoning, Dave? Think hard, until you get it, then you may go on.
So, theory predicts that most detected 'errors' freely accumulated after the inactivation of the gene.
Thus, some mutations accumulated in the common ancestor of different primates species, and other occurred after their divergence (speciation), this process is the same regarding neutral mutations in working genes.
That's why we expect the nested hierarchy (phylogeny) based on errors in GULO to reflect the phylogenies built with data from other genes. [And we certainly don't expect chimps and humans to be 100% identical in GULO.]
Guess what? the prediction is verified. The probability of this observation resulting from independent mutations, is so small you can't even imagine. Not to mention that we have hundreds of peudogenes like GULO in our genome.

Now tell us your alternative. Common design of broken functions, God playing with us wicked primates?

Or if you don't understand, feel free to admit it.

And BTW Dave, a gene is nowhere near a car alternator. A gene doesn't do any job by itself, it's translated. Get a biology textbook, then try to express correct arguments, thanks.

Date: 2006/05/24 12:36:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,17:24)
So no one has any rebuttals of my "Bacterial Resistance" paper?

Can I chock this up to another win?

Do you have particular problems preventing you from reading our posts, Dave?

Your paper is based on wrong assumptions, so why should we bother to debunk each point his author tries to make?

Bacterial resistance is a new trait that can spread in a population by the genetic mechanisms of inheritance. This is the very definition of evolution. Period. Your paper proves nothing.

Date: 2006/05/24 13:37:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Hey, Dave is from Missoury!
Is it a coincidence of do Larry and he share a recent common ancestor?

Date: 2006/05/24 23:52:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (skeptic @ May 25 2006,00:25)
The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?

You said
Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.

... transitional forms [...] don't exist...

Interesting, how will you reconcile both statements?  :)

Oh, and if genealogy was true, we would have identified every single ancestor, back to thousands of years ago (Adam and Eve ?  ;) ), I mean... there's a problem with the current theory of conception.  :p

Date: 2006/05/25 06:20:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 25 2006,10:34)
Sir TJ - I don't take issue with anything you said. All I'm saying is that the definition of "species selection" as laid out in Wesley's piece:  
PE asserts "species selection" as the way in which major adaptive trends proceed. Closely related species are often likely to overlap in niche space (5 above). Ecological processes may cause the displacement and possible extinction of certain species due to competition with other species. If adaptive change in large populations is largely inhibited (6 above), then each species represents a "hypothesis" that is "tested" in competition. This is one of the more controversial points in PE.
doesn't seem incompatible with the H. neanderthalensis - H. sapiens story. I.e. are we talking about something deeper than semantics here?

I think we could consider species selection only if species fitness (which remains to be clearly defined) can produce better predictions than those based on inclusive fitness (allelic fitness). I don't think that is the case.
For instance, when the reproduction rate of a gene and the fitness of its bearer conflict, models and observations indicate that the former always outweigh the latter.
It's certainly the same regarding inclusive or individual fitness vs. species fitness. For instance, I study aphids, and lineages often become completely asexual. When there is no forst during winter, asexual forms are selected for their higher reproductive rate (they don't overwinter in eggs for three months, as sexually reproducing lineages do). So, you can very well imagine that, with global warming, these clonal lineages will outcompete the sexual ones. This would lead to the end of the initial species, since species can only be defined for interbreeding individuals. And of course, all these clonal lineages would be killed by the first winter frost.

Am I clear?

Date: 2006/05/25 06:37:44, Link
Author: jeannot
You're right Dave, resitant bacteria are not an evidence for the abiotic origin of life. They are neither an instance of speciation, nor a proof that all living beings come from LUCA.

huh... what's your point?

Date: 2006/05/25 07:15:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ May 25 2006,11:39)
This way of looking at it seems to make a clearer distinction between "species selection" and "individual selection", and you can sensibly distinguish between them. In the definition I quoted, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

I have seen this discussion framed as "what is the unit of selection: species or individual? And I think the answer to that is individual. But if the issue boils down to "what is a better predictor: the reproduction rate of a gene or the fitness of its bearer?" I would have thought that it would be the latter (which I would visualize as the reproduction rate of a combination of genes). But that's what actual data is for.

Well, the concept of species selection might work as well as indivual or gene selection most of the time. But what's important is to define a concept that always works
That's why this discussion arround the units of selection is completely on topic. If the real units of selection are closer to genes or individual, then there is no need of a 'species selection' concept. Lower level units are more suitable, because we can apply models based on 'harder sciences' (like biochemistry) to their evolution.
In fact, the concept of gene fitness would also be useless if we had the knowledge and computing power to apply equations from quantum mechanics to biology (I think that was Shrodinger's or Eisenberg's dream).

Inclusive fitness is a better predictor than individual fitness. Gene combinations are broken by sexual reproduction. And between two sexual generations, the fitness of any gene and the fitness of its bearer are indistinguishable (a perfect example is parthenogenesis in aphids during summer).
The reproductive rate of individuals can't account for observations like segregation distortion on chromosmes, male sterility and cytoplasmic incompatibilities caused by organelles, sterile castes in social insects (Darwin's big concern), etc.

Date: 2006/05/25 07:34:55, Link
Author: jeannot

Come on, guys.  I thought maybe you were talking about HC=98% and CG=93% (or even CG=95%).  But 1/2 of 1%?  The highest you can get is 1.4% on non-coding?  Please.

But you know what? Even IF we did have HC=98% and CG=95%, this proves nothing with regard to Common Descent Theor

Dave, if you knew anything about statistics, you would have realised that 1% of homology, when based on millions of nucleotides, is highly significant.
But it you prefer, we can show you the distances between humans, chimps and gibbons.

And of course, it doesn't prove common descent, just that humans are a particular species of apes.

Date: 2006/05/25 09:09:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52)
I love it!

You love looking like a ignorant fool in public?

Are you some kind of masochist, AFDave?

Date: 2006/05/25 10:25:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ladlergo @ May 25 2006,15:01)
Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,13:15)
Gene combinations are borken by sexual

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh at that part.  It's a bit of humor after smashing my head against a brick wall.

LOL, sorry for the typo. But my English dictionary says nothing about 'borken', (apparently, it's a german word)

Date: 2006/05/26 06:11:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Renier @ May 26 2006,08:06)
Sceptic wrote :
Neutral theory isn't exclusive of natural selection, at least not the way I read it.

I think that is one thing we all agree on.

As far as I understand, drift (neutrality) and selection are mutually exclusive, by definition.

Date: 2006/05/26 08:00:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Jeannot has been sticking to scientific sounding arguments until yesterday ... he's gotten tired and finally joined the "Insult Hurlers" with something to the effect of "Dave, don't you get tired of looking like a buffoon in public?..."

Sorry Dave, that's just what you are. If you can't get a single sientific argument, at least you seem to have understood my last post.
It's impossible to discuss biology with you, or even science in general. That would require a minimum level of education and honesty.
Man, you don't even know were you come from. I pity you. You should really go back to AiG with you friends YEC, but don't try to argue with educated people here.

Date: 2006/05/26 08:50:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ May 26 2006,12:50)

“Anyone see the origin?” he said. “Anyone see the Big Bang? Anyone see the dinosaurs? These are metaphysical speculations.”
Anyone seen your brain? No? Then it's just a metaphysical speculation.

Your example is inappropriate, since obviously, his brain is not a scientific reality.

Date: 2006/05/26 09:20:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Homonoid' (there, is that better?) civilizations SHOULD BE a prediction of ToE...

...Says an undergraduate electrician.

Date: 2006/05/26 09:32:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Thanks for the clarification, I thought they were referring to a single trait or allele.

Date: 2006/05/26 09:40:30, Link
Author: jeannot
And don't forget Eric's question
Just out of curiosity, Dave: what's your null hypothesis here? Also, what data would you accept as having falsified your hypothesis about languages?

A null hypothesis, do you know what it means? It's how science works.
Amazing, isn't it?

Date: 2006/05/26 09:46:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Oh GoP, I hope you're working on your gut to gamete model.
Your latest thoughts regarding the genetic similarities between humans and guinea pigs through bananas seemed pretty promising.

I can't wait!  :)

Date: 2006/05/26 10:26:09, Link
Author: jeannot
The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

This is from Dave's blog. You're not dreaming, Dave seems to support allopatric and ecological speciation, hence macroevolution!  :O

Date: 2006/05/27 02:09:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,06:44)
"Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the ORIGIN OF THESE GENES, but such an ORIGIN has never been demonstrated ."  See that word "ORIGIN" ??  
Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  

What the heck is your point, Dave?  ???
No, spontaneous mutations in a gene don't provide any evidence regarding its origine. What does a child's broken arm say about his parents?

And your 2nd assertion is just plain wrong, as always.

Date: 2006/05/27 06:00:47, Link
Author: jeannot
mmm, I think we are not asking AFDave the good questions. He doesn't know squat about the scientific method.

First, we should ask him to describe precisely his two hypothesis : his Creator God hypothesis, AND the alternative, ie the Non-Creator God hypothesis.
Then, he shall provide any possible observations that could falsify the former, hence confirming the latter. For example: what a poorly tuned universe would look like (considering that we exist of course), what would be a non-machine living being...
Lastly, he shall explain why these observations could not possibly be compatible with a creator God.

Date: 2006/05/27 09:45:33, Link
Author: jeannot
That's exactly what Guthrie said, it's evolution (sort of) and creationism at the same time.
And JAD acknowledges it. He said once (basically) that ID wasn't a theory, but a law beyond investigation, which should be blindly followed.

Date: 2006/05/27 10:16:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,14:53)
Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Very good, Mr. Carlson.  And how does macroevolution happen, you may ask?  By microevolution happening over millions of years according to the Evos.

True, resistant bacterias are an evidence of micro-evolution. Good point Dave. And evidence of micro-evolution is not an evidence that micro-evo explains macro-evo. We're making progress.

Now, what about the evidence for macro-evolution listed at talkorigins?
So far, your response to the GULO case was :
- it's the result of chance (well, 1 chance in a gazillon to the power of 2 is always a chance :))
- it's a divine message conveyed by errors in a pseudogene.  :D

Who's talking about fairy tales, Dave?
Shall we examine another evidence for marcoevolution, so that you could tell your children a new story tonight?

Date: 2006/05/27 10:25:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 27 2006,15:15)
Davison fully accepts evolutionary theory....

Not from what I heard. He's always saying that RM + SN never produced anything, because mutations are always neutral or deleterious. He has some strange opinions on the topic.

Date: 2006/05/27 11:29:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,16:25)
And evidence of micro-evolution is not an evidence that micro-evo explains macro-evo.

Oh really?  Then what is the mechanism for macroevolution if not microevolution over millions of years?

Dave, read again the sentence you juste quoted. Do it several times.

Date: 2006/05/27 11:35:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,16:25)
Hmmm ... huge, abrupt changes you say?  Whole genome duplication!  Wow!  Can you give some examples of this happening today?  In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?


Dave is about to meet another big disillusion.  :)

But I'll let Russell shoot him down.

Date: 2006/05/27 11:45:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Ghost, I'm glad to see that you're not another global warming denier, though I'm still not convinced you're not parodying a YEC.

Date: 2006/05/27 12:53:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Faid @ May 27 2006,17:14)
dave has raised his mental shields to the maximum: Nothing comes through.

The comparison between Dave and the black knight guarding the bridge in 'Monty Python and the holy Grail' was accurate. "None shall pass!"

Date: 2006/05/27 23:16:20, Link
Author: jeannot
To use technical terms, many lineages undergo stabilizing selection. According to Wright's adaptive landscapes theory, they've been occupying their 'top of hill' for millions of years, and the adaptive landscapes haven't been modified. Species are competitive in their own niches, and some of their descendants will significantly change only if they find a new vacant niche, in a speciation event.
For instance, tetrapods originated from fish when some had the opportunity to exploit the firm ground (is it the correct term?) in the Devonian, but there wasn't any reason why their ancestors couldn't fill their niches (marsh) anymore.
And of course, our ancestors have experienced the same amount of mutations, the genetic distance between sharks and trouts is greater than the distance between humans and trouts (got that AFDave?).

In fact, skeptic's objection is equivalent to "if we come from apes, why are there still apes?"

Date: 2006/05/28 01:53:30, Link
Author: jeannot

True (about functional change).

As others have tried to make you understand, arguing on some supposed 'losses of function' is just masturbation (like Dumbski's conservation of infomation). Find a book where it is stated that a loss of function (even if it were objective) can't be qualified as an evolutionary change.
Same thing regarding his alleged tradeoffs involved in resistance. Resistant bacteria a more efficient than non-resistant bacteria in their environment, with antibiotics. They may be less efficient in their previous environment, but who gives a sh*t ?
d*mned, in the jungle we are less efficient than chimps. Big deal.

Date: 2006/05/28 04:57:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (skeptic @ May 28 2006,09:21)
hat I'm really trying to say is that the process reduces down to chemistry.  All this talk about selective pressures, stabilizing seletion, yada yada must be impacting upon a physical process in the organism.

Of course, why do you think they can't?
That's precisely the strength of the current theory, it's completely compatible with other sciences. Do you think 'Goddidit' is? Is there a branch of quantum mechanics that explains miracles, like the apparition of Adam? Is God a scientific theory?
An organism is the result of the interaction genotype * environment, through a process of chemical reactions. Some organisms with particular genotypes can reproduce more efficiently than others in their environment. That is natural selection.
For instance, some mosquitos (Culex pipiens) can produce more offsprings in some areas because they have a point mutation in the gene coding for acetylcholine esterase. The mutated protein can't be inhibited by insecticides, it's been chemically tested.
Every selelected trait could be explained at the molecular level. It's just hard to do most of the time, because we have to identify the precise mutations and genes involved. Peacocks with longer tails have a better reproductive success, and even if we don't know which mutations affect the size of their tails, this doesn't mean that this trait could not be explained at the molecular level.

Date: 2006/05/28 05:15:46, Link
Author: jeannot
What happens at the molecular level is under environmental selective pressures. If you can simulate a whole population of organisms and their environment, using the equations of quantum mechanics, do it.
None can. That's why we rely on the theory of evolution.

For instance, the precise mutations and chemical pathways leading to the development of legs say nothing on why tetrapods appeared.

EDIT, I just saw your latest post. Glad to see we're reaching an agreement.
Random mutations would seem to favor chaos and in cases were there is no selective pressure and variations are generally equivilant shouldn't there be a more equal distribution within a population and not a bell curve?

What do you mean by chaos? Deleterious mutations are eliminated. Most neutral mutations have no effect on the phenotype of their bearers.
A more equal distribution... I can't tell since I don't know which variable you are referring to (allele, fitness, body size) ?

Date: 2006/05/28 11:52:52, Link
Author: jeannot
The same kind of objections could be made against the causes of global warming, Beervolcano.

Date: 2006/05/30 07:13:28, Link
Author: jeannot
I think Dave wants to become a martyr here, and be like crucified in public. Seriously.
The more you insult him, the better he feels.

Date: 2006/05/30 07:36:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ May 29 2006,18:34)
The whole multiverse idea is pseudoscientific nonsense because there’s no way to test it. There’s only one universe that can be observed, measured, and analyzed. Certain physical constants could have taken on a number of different values when the universe was picoseconds old. Minute variations in some of those would have made it impossible for life as we know it to exist. I take the fine tuning argument as an uninteresting given - the universe was evidently designed and only pseudoscientific infinite multiverse theories can begin to dispute it. -ds

Heh. What a dumbass.

If you remove the last sentence after 'unintersting', his agument makes sense. But at the end, he screwed up.

Some authoritative astrophysicians say that the 'mutliverse' concept is a heresy. According to them, none can claim that several universes could exist because we don't even have a theory of universes. Scientists who invoke this idea want to play God where they don't have the competence to.

I tend to agree.

Date: 2006/05/30 08:59:10, Link
Author: jeannot
I don't see the point to continue. Dave's clearly shown he won't consider any argument from us, and he's not interested in convincing us either. He just wants to preach and be called an idiot, so he could show his friends or family how he manages to make evolutionists lose their cool. So far he's been successful, and since his game becomes boring or truly irritating, we should end it.
I suggest we ignore him, and just discuss languages, the Bible, civilizations and evolution in general as if he were absent.

Date: 2006/05/30 09:21:02, Link
Author: jeannot

I'd like to know your ideological problem with the fact that scientist advised against the production of CFCs (or even CO2).
You keep questioning the validity or their reseach, but I feel that your motives are not scientific. This is not a criticism, you can have a personal opinion on a burning issue like this one. What is it?

I don't buy your claim that scientists were deliberately scaring people. Could you develop?

Date: 2006/05/31 06:34:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 31 2006,10:56)
Here's the deal, Skeptic: every single fossil out there is a "transitional form," between organisms that came earlier and those that came later. A T. rex fossil, for crying out loud, is clearly transitional between earlier theropods and birds.

This is not correct, Tyranosaurus is not an ancestor of birds, but your message is clear.

Nevertheless this argument is not sufficient. You have to assume common descent first. A fossil alone doesn't prove that it is transitional.

Of course, we have a lot of evidence for common descent. I suggest you examine them Skeptic. Also, have you read the article by Wesley about the alleged lack fo transitional fossils?

Date: 2006/05/31 10:34:07, Link
Author: jeannot
Who was the YEC who build his ID hypothesis on good and bad angels?

Date: 2006/06/02 08:35:50, Link
Author: jeannot
What exactly are your contentions regarding the current theory?  Do you accept common descent?

Date: 2006/06/02 08:45:25, Link
Author: jeannot
The theory of big bang indeed indicates an origin for time and space... 13,7 billion years ago, not 6000.  :O

Again, AFDave sees only what he wants to see.

Date: 2006/06/02 13:46:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (skeptic @ June 02 2006,15:07)
...I think a parellel view has broader implications down the road.

Could you be more specific?

Date: 2006/06/02 14:09:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Eric, you raise an interesting question.
LUCA may have been a population of organisms exchanging some genetic content (via strict sexual reproduction or not), but at the end, its first ancestor was the first self replicating structure of its lineage.
Note: I'm not saying it was the first replicator of the Earth, life may have appeared several times before, but only one lineage survived.
Anyway, the first replicator probably appeared among a population of similar non-replicating molecules, but its descendents may have recombined with similar replicators of independent origin, i.e. we don't come from a single living being.
But we'll probably never know.

Date: 2006/06/03 09:16:57, Link
Author: jeannot
(first hit with google)

Date: 2006/06/03 09:30:52, Link
Author: jeannot
This new discovery is interesting. Now I wonder how it will fit in the model of a massive globlal warming caused by an increase of atmospheric CO2 and methane released from the ocean, which is the hypothesis for the permian exctinction (at least, in the documentary I watched).
AFAIK, the meteor impact that killed dinosaurs have generated some sort of glaciation.

EDIT: Apparently, the global warming was just a hypothesis among others.

Date: 2006/06/05 09:34:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Skeptic, common descent is directly observable : two brothers (or sisters) have the same parents. Simple as that. Two species have a common ancestor, this has also been observed in the laboratory, and of course, in the wild.
What has never been seen, is the creation of complex organism, from nothing.

BTW, what do you think of the chromosomal fusion between humans and other apes?

Date: 2006/06/05 09:54:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, out of curiosity, what does you theory have to say about mountains, earthquakes and volcanos?

Date: 2006/06/07 09:39:14, Link
Author: jeannot
I don't see any reason to believe in God.

Date: 2006/06/07 10:31:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Skeptic, your hypothesis of parallele evolution (some kind of lamarckism) is scientifically untenable. How could it explain the observed instances of speciation, the recovery of biodiversity after mass extinctions, the fossil record showing adaptive radiations, etc?
You were claiming that the current theory of evolution needs to be refined, well... your honesty is questionable.
Clearly, you don't want to prove something based on facts, but try to twist reality so it fits your religious beliefs.

Date: 2006/06/07 11:07:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (skeptic @ June 07 2006,15:43)
Quote (jeannot @ June 07 2006,15:31)
Clearly, you don't want to prove something based on facts, but try to twist reality so it fits your religious beliefs.

What religious beliefs?

That God is directly involved in the creation of species (some, at least).

... Or are you the only agnostic creationist in the world?

(DaveScott claims he is an agnostic although I don't buy it, but at least he admits common descent. )

Date: 2006/06/08 10:18:23, Link
Author: jeannot
French (native)
Spanish (but I've forgotten a lot)
I studied Latin (ave caesar, morituri te salutant :p)

Date: 2006/06/10 07:05:22, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, for the second time, what does you theory say about plate tectonics? Thanks. :)

PS: I haven't done the calculation, but the distance between us and chimps is more like 50% lower than the distance between chimps and gorillas. I know your not familiar with maths, but when comparing 0.02 and 0.03 (for instance), the relevant difference is +50%, not +0.1%. Think hard Dave, you can understand.

Using AFDave's logic : "G. W. Bush is only 2% closer to me than to a chimp (1-0.98)? Man, 2 ridiculous percent? Are you kidding?"

See how stupid you can look Dave?

Date: 2006/06/10 09:40:18, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ June 10 2006,09:53)
Well, let's see ... where are we?  We've shown excellent evidence for a Super-Intelligent Designer by observing Cosmic Fine Tuning and Biological Machines... blah blah blah....

Is he talking to himself?

Date: 2006/06/10 10:55:52, Link
Author: jeannot
I vote A), though he's also demonstrated his stupidity.

Date: 2006/06/10 11:11:37, Link
Author: jeannot
IE (Intelligent Evolution) reminds me of ms' Internet Explorer. They can go up to IE v. 7 with this new concept.

Next, they'll move to IM (Intelligent Mutations), then INS (Intelligent Natural Selection) and  IGD (Intelligent Genetic Drift) to unify their theory with the IMNSGDT® 2020 edition.

I don't think YECs will appreciate.  :p

Date: 2006/06/10 13:23:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Not exactly Steve, for what I undestand they're moving toward 'prescribed evolution' or 'Intelligent Evolution'. Man, this is the next big thing. Haven't you learned what Pr. emeritus Davison taught you? ;)
This sort of marco-evolution is not caused by random mutations and SN. It results from front loaded, 100% adaptive macro-mutations (sounds cool, hey?). Hence, Darwin was still wrong, except for micro-evo, but this doesn't matter: apes remain apes, unless the Great Designer transforms them instantaneously into humans.
Of course, nobody knows where the boundary between prescribed evolution and macro-evolution lies (Shi seemed confused on that point).

Date: 2006/06/10 13:36:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Maybe in a few billion years, afer the Earth gets vaporised by our dying Sun, and after humanity colonises the galaxy and discovers other life forms, the last YEC will be dead.

Date: 2006/06/10 22:56:48, Link
Author: jeannot

Quoting Dumbski will only make you look more ridiculous. His understanding about natural selection can be compared to yours (i.e. zilch).
His comparison to a computer program is completely irrelevant, as all his drivel about information theory.
YECs and IDers can't realise that evolution don't have any purpose. How could that be, since they are the center of the universe?

Oh, and what about plate tectonics? What does your reference book say about it? :)

Date: 2006/06/10 23:06:10, Link
Author: jeannot
You should also post comments there and see how your homonym Dave(tard) Springer reacts to your evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old. It'll be interesting.

Date: 2006/06/11 04:28:10, Link
Author: jeannot
... and don't forget plate tectonics.  :p

Date: 2006/06/11 04:37:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Conway Morris sympathized with IDers?? :O
I'm kind of disappointed.

Date: 2006/06/11 08:49:48, Link
Author: jeannot
I'm convinced that GoP is just a troll. I have several reasons to think so :
- In his first posts, he was extremely arrogant, even insulting. Then he became more and more civile. I don't believe that a true fanatic can change this way (see thordude). To me, it looks more like an evolution of trolling strategy.
- His references to the Bible are too scarce for a true YEC (see AFDave).
- Nobody, not even a YEC, can seriously claim this:  
You fail to understand my ground-breaking theory. [...] Since both humans and apes--and guines pigs too--eat bananas, their alleged "similarities" are based on this. [...] My theory becomes very plausible once the morally and intellectually corrosive dogma is Darwinism is discarded!

If he's a troll, he's darn good!

Date: 2006/06/11 08:58:16, Link
Author: jeannot
To me, the number of topics displayed in a forum page is too small. Interesting threads get hidden too quickly.
I don't know what you think of it, folks.

Date: 2006/06/11 09:07:26, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (MidnightVoice @ June 11 2006,13:53)
C'mon now.  One of the strengths of these people is that they can claim anything, as all the evidence against their claims is wrong  :D

A true YEC would say that genetic similarities result from common design. The idea of genetic similarities caused by diet (bananas) is completely crazy, and it's not even a religious argument.
GoP seems to have some sort of scientific background, he should know that this argument is laughable.

I think he's just having fun here.

Date: 2006/06/11 10:43:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Tanks for the tip, I know this extension, but I use safari most of the time.

Date: 2006/06/12 09:59:08, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (incorygible @ June 12 2006,13:36)
 Whether 1% or 100%, what matters is millions of data points examined and p<0.001.  This is what Davey doesn't get.

What's also matters is the relative time of divergence between humans and chimps (homininae and gorillinae to be accurate) compared to chimps and gorillas.
And it's not based on homology, but on difference. The last common ancestor of chimps and gorillas is 40% older than the LCA of chimps and humans, not 0.5% (assuming a molecular clock).

Date: 2006/06/13 07:29:46, Link
Author: jeannot
We often reproach IDers for their personal attacks. I'm not sure you should imitate them.

(to Christopher, Richard and Arden).

Date: 2006/06/13 07:49:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Sorry Dave, I don't see any evidence in what you have covered.

Dawkins admits 'designed appearance' ('Blind Watchmaker' etc)
Which clearly prove he supports your hypothesis. Wait, what was his recent TV show again?  :D

I won't waste my time debunking other arguments, you won't listen. But at least, your posts are quite entertaining.

Date: 2006/06/13 08:08:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2006,12:43)
MarkCC argues that CSI is an oxymoron.

MarkCC needs to be invited onto Panda's Thumb.

I don't agree with his argument that CSI is an oxymoron. Complexity refers to the parts of a system (lots of different parts) whereas specificity refers to its function.  So, a lot of info is required to describe the parts of a system and a few info to describe its function.
To me, the concept is more a tautology very similar to IC : if something looks like it couldn't have evolved (complex) and looks designed for something (specified function), it may have been designed.

Date: 2006/06/13 08:31:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ved @ June 13 2006,13:22)
Quote (stephenWells @ June 13 2006,13:52)
He even doesn't know that, until radioactive dating, people were thinking in terms of hundreds of millions of years, and the idea of a billions-of-years-old earth was a surprise to most everyone, geologist and biologist alike.

Plus, how does a 4.5 billion year old earth really impact biology? Not much unless you're studying the very beginnings of life, and that only happens in the area before 550 million years ago.

Huh, no.
See the latest nature: scientists have discovered 3.5 billion year old stromatolites whose origin is probably biological.

But I agree that nothing in the current theory in evolution says that 3.5 Gy are required to produce the current life forms. And it certainly doesn't require the universe to be 13.7 Gy old.

Date: 2006/06/13 10:07:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 13 2006,13:19)
Complexity in Dembski's CSI does NOT refer to "parts of a system". "Complexity" in CSI is just the same as improbability of occurring due to chance or regularity. Nothing about parts there.

But doesn't this probability depends on the number and/or arrangement of parts?

Date: 2006/06/13 11:07:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Bad assumptions on carbon dating.

And what about dendrochronology, varves, stalactite sections etc? All wrong?
Will you argue that before the flood, tree sections accumulated more than one ring per year?

Oh, I'm still awaiting your opinion on plate tectonics.

Date: 2006/06/13 21:42:32, Link
Author: jeannot
AFAIK, Archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of modern birds either.
Recent researches in China have provided fossils that are closer to transitional forms between dinos and birds (in early cretaceous I think).

Date: 2006/06/14 09:50:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Don't you guys think that discussing portuguese and zircon with AFD is getting excessively boring? Dave isn't going to change is mind. If you still want to argue with him, I suggest you move to another topic, (forget isotopic dating, Dave will dismiss it).

Date: 2006/06/14 10:00:37, Link
Author: jeannot
"Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

Maybe a nuclear war (though it would certainly kill us before many lifes forms), and probably a global warming (just before the sun dies) could exterminate every single organism on this planet, but certainly not a virus.

Date: 2006/06/14 10:08:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 14 2006,15:01)
Yes. I can't wait to hear his description of his "global flood," and "evidence" therefor.

I'm personaly eager to hear him about speciation. It's going to be good. :)

The problem is, the only way to get Dave to move on (despite his repeated threats to do so) is to allow him to claim "victory" (to the extent he doesn't already think he's won), and I for one will not let him do that.

How will you prevent this?  ???

Date: 2006/06/14 10:39:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Stephen Hawking wants to get the attention of IDers?

Is he used to dealing with those twits?

Date: 2006/06/14 10:51:11, Link
Author: jeannot
There've been a bunch of papers in Nature and Science since 2004 (or something) relating the recent discoveries in China. I haven't read them.

You can also google 'microraptor'

Date: 2006/06/15 09:02:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Molecular biology proved conclusively that nothing is "ancestral" to anything else as evolutionists would have liked for it to

So, do chimps and gorillas have a common ancestor or not?

Most of our ancestors are dead now, but I'm told that my parents are my ancestors, and that my children will be my descendants. What about you Davey?

Date: 2006/06/16 06:47:42, Link
Author: jeannot
About 14C...
I'm note an expert, but you can't use 14C to date fossils that are more than 50 ky old.
When the level of 14C in a sample becomes close to zero, it just can't be measured with accuracy. The smallest error in the measure, or contamination, can completely alter the results. If one measures 0.00000000001% of 14C were one were supposed to detect 0, the error is indeed infinite. This is just obvious, but AIG takes this as an argument that the Earth is 6000 years old. They're pathetic.
And 14C can only be dosed in organic mater. Dating 1.5 My old fossils with this method is nonsense, and refering to this is just stupid. We have other radionuclides for that (Uranium, Strontium...). And of course, the author from AIG don't mention it.
He alos forgot the fact that fossils older than 6000 years have been precisely dated with radiocarbon.

Again, AFD provided a perfect example of dishonesty from AIG.

BTW, what do you think of dendrochronology, Dave?

Date: 2006/06/17 13:22:31, Link
Author: jeannot
AFD, I'd like to hear your theory of the Global Flood.  :)

Date: 2006/06/19 09:26:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Hello Folks.
I'm watching a documentary on what I may call our cultural channel ("Arte" for those who know it). It is about the ethnic groups that were considered as inferior in our western civilisation.
In this film, they claim that this racism culminated in "On the Origin of Species...", where Darwin described these people as primitive and missing links (between ape and civilised men, I assume). They even used the term 'evolutionist'.
I haven't finished to read the Origin Of Species, but I don't think Darwin said anything of the sort.
Can you confirm this?
See, I'm not used to hearing such things on TV, but you might be (Foxnews et al.). I'm wondering about writing and email to that TV channel. Do you think I should?

EDIT: In fact this is ambiguous. I recall Darwin using the word "primitive" in his book. But I don't think it had the meaning it has today.

Date: 2006/06/19 11:13:10, Link
Author: jeannot
But did Darwin specifically claim that african people were "missing links" (which was said in that documentary)?

Date: 2006/06/19 12:21:46, Link
Author: jeannot
It's nonsense, of course. That's why I doubt that Darwin said this.

Thanks Thomas.

Date: 2006/06/19 22:44:46, Link
Author: jeannot
It's true that mutations may occur at different rates in different genes. It's also true that some genes are more conserved in a population than others, and that this will generally be true for beneficial genes.

I think you are actually referring to *fixed* mutations (sometimes referred as substitutions, although they can involve insertions/deletions).
Mutation rates in genes doesn't depend on there functions, it mostly depends on the DNA polymerase environment (repetitive motives in particular) when it replicates a chromosome. It can also depend on the activity of transposable elements...
Substitution rates may indeed depend on gene function. If most mutations are deleterious, they won't be fixed in a population. That's why the substitution rate of the rDNA is very low (it isn't translated, so there can't be synonymous mutations).
What do you mean by "beneficial genes"?

Date: 2006/06/19 22:51:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Random mutation, meaning that the mutation that occurs has no bearing upon the fitness of the result

You're confusing "random" with "neutral".

I'm surprised you never heard of "random mutations + natural selection",or "natural selection acting on random mutations". Methinks you don't know what natural selection and/or fitness mean.

Date: 2006/06/20 01:29:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 20 2006,05:51)
Basically, my take is that whatever the situation here, we will colonize space when there is an economic incentive to do so, and not before.

Space colonisation will inevitably become profitable when it determines our survival. Of course, that doesn’t mean it will be feasible at that time, though I don't think it will be for purely economic reasons (rather technical reasons).

Date: 2006/06/20 07:52:32, Link
Author: jeannot
I'm sure it would.
But it will also be necessary to go off Earth sooner or later, wether it provides a profit or not.
The Kyoto protocole and other environmental measures are not motivated by profit, AFAIK (though they are not ratified for economic reasons).

Date: 2006/06/20 23:26:17, Link
Author: jeannot
Consider the choices for the mass of the population... You can  spend your money on bread and circuses until the end comes and you die horribly, or we can offer you the option of spending the short remainder of your life with privation to make possible the escape of a select few, with at least less bread and fewer circuses to amuse you before you die horribly. Take your pick...

I don’t think the mass population will be given this choice. And even so, I’m convinced it’ll choose your second option.
Anyway, space colonization won’t begin abruptly. We spend billions of cash so a couple of people go to Mars. Aren’t there research projects exploring possibilities for the development of new propulsion techniques? Unless I’m mistaken, nothing profitable will be done on Mars that can’t be done here for less cost. This isn’t only fundamental research, but a first step towards space colonization. That’s what NASA’s engineers and directors basically say on TV. And I really don’t think their project is motivated by the economic profit that their grand-grand-grand children may get.
And the mass population would buy more bread and circuses with those billions spend in space exploration.

Date: 2006/06/21 23:48:48, Link
Author: jeannot
And here's something else to think about: my understanding is that bacteria in general have better error-correction machinery, and less non-coding DNA, than eukaryotes (bacteria are generally the pioneers when it comes to biochemistry). If true, this would go some way towards accounting for the fact that bacteria have in some sense evolved much more slowly than eukaryotes

Evolution refers to heritable changes.
We like using the term “evolved” for lineages that have undergone more phenotypic changes compared to other “primitive” lineages, since their divergence. Using this criterion, we would be a lot more “evolved” than bacteria, but not more adapted.
We have a definition of adaptation though it’s not quantitative in the absolute sense, and I’m not sure it can be used to compare very different organisms.

Date: 2006/06/22 06:08:54, Link
Author: jeannot
They expect to find hydrocarbons on Mars?  :O

Date: 2006/06/22 07:58:02, Link
Author: jeannot

An excess of JAD is not good for your health.  ;)

Date: 2006/06/24 10:48:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, it's not very well written and it contains mistakes (wrong interpretations of the fossil record, etc).
The increase of mutation rates under stress is a known phenomenon, that doesn't mean that mutations are not random, in case you think so. They say:  
Since the cause of cell function disruption is random, the resultant mutation's effects on the regulation of development and its ultimate phenotypic expression are also random. In short, if a newly emergent phenotypic property does not kill you, you have it.

They refer to macromutations, but don't discuss their effects on survival and fecundity (fitness), which is contradictory.
I don't think their is any evidence of stress induced macro-mutational changes, leading to new animal and plant species, except their misinterpretation of the fossil record (plant polyploidy is something else). They completely ignore the current theory of speciation, which is well supported.  
geographically isolated subspecies become true species by accumulating minor genetic changes that eventually lead to reproductive incompatibility. Nowhere, however, in these or subsequent formulations of evolutionary change resulting from accumulated genetic modification is the cellular “target” of inferred mutation identified.
This is just wrong.

Date: 2006/06/25 00:47:25, Link
Author: jeannot
What about the Lascaux caves?

Not to mention the Cosquer cave, but Dave will certainly take this as a proof of the Flood.  :p

Date: 2006/06/25 03:18:09, Link
Author: jeannot
All the cultures you mention beyond 5,500 YA are not dated with written records.  It's all C14 or some other equivocal method like dendrochronology.
LOL. And how do you infer dating from written records? Unequivocal indeed. :D


Here is the real story on Dendrochronolgy written by plant physiologist Dr. Don Batten - a guy with no long age pre-conceived fairy tale notions.
Sure, dendrochronology and radiocarbon always agree, but it's only the result of their independent flaws. Don't forget to add the dozens of dating methods in the lot, Dave.

AIG says:
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14...

That's not what I learned. Methinks AIG is again, full of sh*t.

Date: 2006/06/25 04:20:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (improvius @ June 25 2006,09:09)
Quote (argystokes @ June 24 2006,23:20)
Quote (improvius @ June 24 2006,21:15)
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,12:31)
You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you yet again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?
It's real easy.  Just go find some piece of archaeological evidence that contradicts some statement of the Bible and I will accept it.  Go try.  You are so sure the Bible is wrong, it should be easy for you.

Se, Dave?  You STILL can't answer the question.  Your brain just can't handle it.

Perhaps I'll try.

Dave:  Give a hypothetical example of an archaeological piece of data contradicting the Bible, and the specific methods used to generate that data.

Guess what?  Dave STILL can't answer it.

I'm with you guys. We can stop this discussion if Dave can't answer this.

Date: 2006/06/25 05:51:08, Link
Author: jeannot
...the oldest being the first two dated at least at 3200BC...
How have they been dated?

Date: 2006/06/26 08:17:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Well, they don't consider the selective effect of their alleged macromutations, which is nonsense. They are expected to be mostly deleterious.
They also say:  
this model does not require scenarios of reproductive and/or geographical isolation for the emergence of novelty.
This is just stupid. No one said that isolation was required for novelty, but without reproductive isolation, speciation is by definition impossible. Hence, their model don't achieve what it was meant to: explain the origin of (some) new species. It could merely account for phenotypic evolution within a lineage, but as long as you don't have a mechanism of reproductive isolation (which they don't provide), cladogenesis is impossible.
In fact, this is a reminiscence of the old school of speciation by mutations (Bateson, Goldshmidt) whose arguments were debunked by Dobzansky and Mayr 50 years ago. The fact the the authors ignore the recent literature on speciation (although they quote Mayr, 1942) makes me wonder how they got published.

Date: 2006/06/26 10:10:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Tom, I think you're being a bit tough with Skeptic. I admit he came here a little arrogant, but he's shown his will to learn and he takes our remarks into account.

Now Skeptic, have you understood the principle of natural selection?

Date: 2006/06/26 10:26:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (GCT @ June 26 2006,12:24)
I didn't know UD had a definition of ID.  It even comes with positive evidence!

Of course, the positive evidence mostly consists of appeal to incredulity, but it definitely sounds more sciency than "goddidit".

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of... the lack of any known law that can explain... evidence that tends to rule out chance ...


Date: 2006/06/26 11:14:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Then what are you doing on AFDave's thread?  ;)

Date: 2006/06/26 11:42:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (skeptic @ June 26 2006,16:24)
jean, I think I'm pretty firm on natural selection but I did need some clarification on one of your remarks.

but without reproductive isolation, speciation is by definition impossible

here by reproductive isolation, are you referring to germ plasma incompatability or behavior incompatibility, or both?

I am referring to any kind of reproductive isolation. But speciation is usually considered irreversible when post-zygotique reproductive isolation is total (hybrid mortality or sterility). I suggest you just search for "speciation" in wikipedia of even google.

Date: 2006/06/26 23:31:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Yes, heat shock proteins are involved in the expression of mutations, but I’m not sure whether their inactivation under stress has been proved to be adaptive (not sure of the syntax either). However, I don’t know much this topic, and recent info would be welcome.
We could see that phenomenon as a simple disorder in the metabolism of stressed organisms, where HSP can no longer do the job it was selected for. Using this line of reasoning, the production of monsters under high exposure of radiations could also be an adaptation.
If the production of mutant phenotypes under stress is adaptive, it was favoured at some point. This implies that variants bearing “defective” HSP under certain conditions were selected because it increased the probability of survival of their lineages. That’s quite possible, and it would be completely compatible with Darwin’s ideas.

Date: 2006/06/27 20:54:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Actually, according to Coyne & Orr (in their review book "Speciation",2004), genetic drift is not as important as natural selection for the evolution of reproductive isolation. See also the recent paper by Funk & Nosil (PNAS).

Date: 2006/06/29 05:32:44, Link
Author: jeannot
In the "AFDave doesn't know squat about the evolution of apes" topic (that I don't want to continue) we were dicussing the divergence time between our lineage and chimps and also the fact that genomic data contradict paleontological data.
I think this paper in the latest issue of Nature is worth reading, for those who have a subscription.

Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

Nick Patterson1, Daniel J. Richter1, Sante Gnerre1, Eric S. Lander1,2 and David Reich1,3

The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.

Date: 2006/06/30 03:18:26, Link
Author: jeannot
1) Written historical records back to 100,000 or so BC instead of 5500 BC
2) Lots more 'humanoid' fossils than we have now and lots less equivocal ones
3) Existing 'sub-human' cultures found in various parts of the world.
4) Evidence for a Super-Homo-Sapiens race such as the one Hitler thought he had.
5) A true transitional nature of the fossil record -- it is woefully lacking in transitional forms
6) Demonstrated macroevolution in the lab -- like the creation of some Super Fruit flies or something.
7) Observation that mankind behaves just like an animal, nothing more.
8) Archaeological finds contradicting the Bible

1) Why 10000 years? We have drawings and artworks back to 60 000 or so.
2) Why "a lot more"? we have fossils of several human species (not only H. sapiens). Each one debunks the bible.
3) Homo neanderthalensis, who BTW was the first Homo to bury his dead folks.
4) WTF?
5) Define transitional.  Microraptor, Tiktaalik, Australopithecus (ape or human?), Homo erectus (transitional between H. habilis and H. sapiens)...
6) Speciation in the lab in Drosophila and butterflies (+ several plants).
7) We are animals that eat and reproduce. Do you want our behavior to be 100% identical to, say, dogs? Do you want chimps to be 100% identical to gorillas? They aren't.
8) Reading problems, AFDave?

Date: 2006/07/02 10:49:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, are you familiar with maths and meteorology? :)

Given that, during the Flood, most of the continents were under water (is this what the bible says?), let's assume the ocean level rose about one mile above the previous level.

So, it's about 1600 mm of rain per hour (during 40 days). It's about 50 times more than a hurricane like Katrina

Do you think that one man can build an arch and gather millions of animal species under such weather conditions?  :p

Date: 2006/07/03 01:23:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (plasmasnake23 @ July 02 2006,16:53) guys can have fun in your expanding universe where nothing matters.

Excuse me, who are the ones who deny global warming (amongst other things): darwinists or creationists?

Give me a f*cking break.

(Unless plasmasnake was parodying?)

Date: 2006/07/03 09:59:29, Link
Author: jeannot
volution is a myth. Creation is real.

Hey dude, you have it backwards. :p

Date: 2006/07/03 11:24:37, Link
Author: jeannot
I think your theory kind of collapses if you can't show any societal collapses, don't you?

Anticipating Paley's response : the 3rd Reich?

Anyway, why do you ask? Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke.

Date: 2006/07/03 11:30:36, Link
Author: jeannot

:O OMG! You got me Dave! So the Bible is true and evilution is wrong?

Wait, where are the dinosaurs now?


Date: 2006/07/04 10:32:28, Link
Author: jeannot
You can still edit your posts.

Anyway, what does all this ranting about the independance of the US has to do with your hypothesis?
AFAIK, the USA are not the center of the universe.

Date: 2006/07/09 12:43:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ July 08 2006,23:54)
Maybe a biologist might know what "genome based species definition" means, but I don't.


There are dozens of species concepts, but I never heard of this one either.

What do you have in mind, Skeptic?

Date: 2006/07/10 00:54:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (qetzal @ July 09 2006,18:55)
I've seen suggestions that two populations could be called different species whenever they show greater than X% genetic difference. I don't see the value in that though.

I've never heard of that, but some specialists (Drès & Mallet) suggest that two populations should be considered true species if the level of gene flow between them is below 1%.

Date: 2006/07/14 07:04:07, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ July 10 2006,12:16)
Re "but some specialists (Drès & Mallet) suggest that two populations should be considered true species if the level of gene flow between them is below 1%."

What if the lack of gene flow is caused solely by geographic separation, and the two groups would happily merge otherwise?


Actually, they refer to sympatric populations, I forgot to mention it.

The biological species concept doesn't apply well to allopatric populations.

Date: 2006/07/20 12:38:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (MidnightVoice @ July 20 2006,13:16)
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 20 2006,13:00)
Since evolutionists deny the reality of consciousness in order to deny moral responsibility, they completely erase the distinction between the animate and inanimate.

I suppose you can give an example of this claim? Specifically, I'd like to see anyone denying that conciousness exists while saying that rocks and man are exactly alike in cognitive processes. Or will this be another of your multiple claims that you can't support directly, GoP?

I just want to ensure this question is repeated enough times so that GoP has to answer it.

GoP is a troll who doesn't believe in anything he says. :/

This question is pointless.

Date: 2006/07/21 07:17:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 21 2006,07:12)
At the individual level my main problem with the idea is that selection tends not to act on individual genes but phenotypes that are caused due to the interactions between genes.

As I said in another thread, in sexually reproducing populations, recombination breaks the interactions between genes, hence the phenotypes. A phenotype can't be selected if it can't last through generations.
On this basis Dawkins (and before him, Williams) defined his concept of gene : a replicative element that is not broken by recombination.

If a gene can increase its replication rate while decreasing the fecundity of its bearer, it will be selected anyway. Nothing can prevent it, that's the definition of selection.
The main examples of this are altruism, segregation distortion, male cytoplasmic sterility... which BTW completely disprove any Intelligent Design.

Date: 2006/07/21 12:25:54, Link
Author: jeannot
I find rather ironical that AFDave manages to piss us off while he's the one who should be pissed by this huge conspiracy. Man, those evil scientists even imagine that we come from monkeys, that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs 65 My ago and that the universe is 13,7 Gy old, just to contradict the truth of the Bible!  :angry:

Poor Dave. How come all this doesn't drive you mad?


Date: 2006/07/21 13:07:20, Link
Author: jeannot
ahhh, but that doesn't mean there still couldn't be genes acting to increase their own reproductive rates, either in conflict or in concert.
Sure. In fact, the examples I gave often involve conflicts between genes (on different chromosomes or organelles)

besides which, one could easily argue that increasing the fecundity of the host would have a long term benefit to increasing the frequency of whatever gene contributed to it, yes?

The fitness of an individual can explain most of the observations but not all, and those exceptions matter a lot. Meanwhile, the concept of gene fitness has never been contradicted, AFAIK.
You could also say that increasing natality in a population benefits the alleles contributing to it. True, but can you explain the sex ratio of 1:1 in panmictic populations, while it should be biased towards more females for an optimal growth rate? You certainly has the answer.

Date: 2006/07/21 22:20:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ichthyic @ July 21 2006,18:24)
playing devils advocate, extend the idea of sex ratio bias beyond what you just mentioned.

If you're a self-interested gene, why have sex at all?

wouldn't asexual cloning be faster and cheaper?

I realize this overlaps with the recombination issue, but since you brought up the idea of ESS and sex ratios, I thought it would be worth approaching from that angle as well.

Sexual reproduction is currently unexplained (or at least no one provided a consensual explanation).  It doesn't contradict the idea of selfish gene more than it opposes the concept of indivual or group selection, the latter being falsified by the sex ratio.

I want to stress that gene selection-or mutation selection to be more accurate-is the natural consequence of DNA replication, which is the basis of reproduction. I think it's the most fundamental conception of natural selection, hence the best we have, by the principle of Occam's razor. We don't need entities like individuals, populations, species, etc. It is also explains observations that the other theories couldn't.

Date: 2006/07/22 03:52:34, Link
Author: jeannot
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Dude, all birds ARE dinosaurs (as we are apes). Your quote is just stupid.
I won't mention the molecular evidence that confirmed what paleontologists have been thinking for more than 100 years, you won't understand them.

You don't even know how to formulate a coherent hypothetis. Once you mention speciation and common descent, then you say that no transitional species ever existed. ???

But I would like to hear your explanation about the paintings in the Cosquer cave. How do they fit your flood and catastrophic plate tectonic theory? :)

Date: 2006/07/22 08:36:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, men are apes doesn't mean that men are chimps or that men are birds.

You don't know squat about taxonomy. But gohead, discuss concepts you don't understand. Reading you nonsense is quite an entertainment. :p

And what about the Cosquer cave?
Still waiting...  :)

Date: 2006/07/22 08:53:46, Link
Author: jeannot
The Genesis Flood is ONE HUGE Bible Difficulty that I find interesting and it is being resolved as we speak by creationist scientists.

LOL.  :D I'm eager to see their theory in peer review journals and textbooks.

BTW Dave, have a look :

Date: 2006/07/22 11:41:05, Link
Author: jeannot
In fact, without knowing it, she's rehashing this old debate about group selection vs. invidual selection to explain altruism. Unfortunately, it ended a few decades ago with the concept of inclusive fitness.
I tried to point it on uncommonly dense, but I'm afraid my post won't show up.

Next time, she'd better get informed on the topic she wants to discuss. ???

Date: 2006/07/22 22:25:34, Link
Author: jeannot
AFDave, you mentioned underground sources of water to explain the flood. Yet, as far as I can tell (I haven't read the bible) they talk about rain. Can the bible be *gasp* wrong on this??  :O
Please, tell me it isn't.

Date: 2006/07/23 02:03:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Jeannot and Eric ... water came from underground and shot up into the atmosphere forming rain ... easy isn't it?

Sure, so let's say 4 km of rain in 40 days, that's 40'000 mm per day, approximately 40 times a hurricane.  :O

Date: 2006/07/23 06:27:54, Link
Author: jeannot
The main question about the flood is "what triggered it?".

If it was God's will, we don't even need to argue here.
God is omnipotent, He can make the Earth look like 4.5 billions years old while it's only 6000.  :p

So Dave, what caused the flood and how did it happend? Please, detail.

Date: 2006/07/23 07:23:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Why don't you move to China and go into business manufacturing fossils for National Geographic ... I hear there's good money in it!

But but but.... I thought they were manufactured by God® in order to test our faith.  :O

Date: 2006/07/23 21:24:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Welcome to AtBC. :)
A nucleotide can only be said to have a certain phenotypic effect within a given DNA sequence. Cytosine cannot be said to have a certain phenotypic effect on an organism compared to adenine except in a given sequential order of nucleotides.  However, it is meaningful to speak of the phenotypic effect of, say, a gene for green eyes as opposed to a gene for blue eyes, for a gene can be said to have a consistent phenotypic effect which is for the most part independent of its location in the genome, which is not true of a nucleotide

I don't completely agree. A single gene doesn't have more effect than a single nucleotide. If I follow your reasoning about the nucleotide (that I find correct), a gene alone is also meaningless, without the hole genome and the environment (which includes the cytoplasm and translation mechanism that is present in the zygote).
For point mutations that have a significant effect on fitness (typically, some cases of resistance to antibiotics or insectisides), the mutated nucleotide is the fundamental unit of selection : the gene where the mutation occured can be broken by recombination (even if a similar gene is reconstituted), but the mutated nucleotide can't. We can assimilate it as the replicator which increase its replication rate.

Date: 2006/07/25 01:25:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,06:01)
Hey Crabby ... did you not notice from my response to your pretty pictures that ...

National Geographic recanted ... ??

They got fooled by Chinese con artists ... just as YOU have been fooled by the just so story of Evolution!

Riiiight  :D

What was your (just so) story about the GULO gene again? Something like a hidden message coded by God? And what about the 12 languages that appeared simultaneously?
Methinks you don't understand what "just so story" means, 'cause that applies very well to your God hypothesis. You know, blabbering without a single line of evidence, the Flood for instance

But please, develop your theory about those fossils showing feathered dinosaurs. Are the Chinese part of the conspiracy too? And Nature and Science, who published their results?
That's fµcking scary.  :O

Date: 2006/07/25 08:48:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,13:20)
I find many things convincing besides the Bible ...

... as long as they don't contradict the Bible.  :p

Date: 2006/07/25 09:10:59, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, you think we didn't know about oceanic ridges? Man, your just retarded. You've just been aware of their existence, Dave, haven't you?

You'd better explain why a basalt found thousands of miles aways from a ridge appears millions of years older than a basalt found near the rift, and why this age correlates with the distance.
Wrong isotopic dating again, confusing hours with million years, making the Earth look like millions of years old? Or is it that decay was billions of time faster during the flood?
(this question is a bit complicated for you Dave. Think hard. Hint: basalt is produced in the rift).

Regarding Archaeoraptor, boy your intellectual dishonesty is blatant again.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:38:03, Link
Author: jeannot
You can add my question about the dating of basalt in oceanic plates, Deadman.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:50:03, Link
Author: jeannot
GoP is just a troll. He can believe in anything as long as he's having fun on this board.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:55:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Here you go Dave, just a little picture to be sure you understand.

How is it possible Dave, since the Altantic was formed in a few hours? Why do we have this correlation between dating and distance from the rift?

Oh, and since you like dumping AIG's garbage here, I feel free to post an appropriate quote from Why I believe the Earth is old  
"Flood geology" has been dead ever since leading Christians scholars in geology at Cambridge and Oxford rejected it, and that was before Darwn's Origins was ever published.
By the 1850s, Christian men of science agreed the earth was extremely old.
For some of their reasons, see, "Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science".

Such men included:
Reverend William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford)
Reverend Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge)
Reverend Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts)
John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College)
Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper) and,
Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up by conservative Christian parents, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America).
All of these giants of the geological sciences rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record -- except for possibly the topmost superficial sediments, though Adam Sedgewick and Buckland later abandoned even that hypothesis.
Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, none became evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published.
The "Flood geology" of Henry Morris (founder of the Institute for Creation Research), was a revival in the 1960s that even failed to convince the American Scientific Affiliation -- a longstanding group of Evangelical Christians and scientists whom Morris fled to form his own little group of strictly young-earth creationists, the Institute for Creation Research. Henry Morris' book that sparked the "Flood geology" revival, The Genesis Flood, is filled with so many errors that it appears to be more a work of "Satan" than of God, since it lies about so many things, from the Paluxy manprints (that ICR and Answers in Genesis have since backed away from); to the "human skull found in coal" (the "Frieberg Skull" that two articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly later debunked; to the "Lewis Mountain Overthrust," the world's largest overthrust and reversed layer formation in geology that Morris said would turn the world of modern geology upside down (but later, two ICR scientists, Steve Austin and Kurt Wise, admitted that the evidence that the "Lewis Mountain Overthrust" was a genuine overthrust was reliable, so they have ceased using the world's largest overthrust as evidence of a topsy turvy geological record). In fact, Answers in Genesis has backed away from nearly all claims that "pre-Flood" human bones or artifacts of "pre-Flood" civilizations have been found, and suggested that no such evidence may ever be found. Answers in Genesis has even produced an article at their website concerning "Arguments that Young-Earth that creationists should NOT use
Makes one realize how many Young-earth arguments over the years have added up to cases of embarrassment for creationists far greater than"Piltdown man" and "Nebraska man" were to evolutionists.

The evidence for an OLD earth presently includes:

1) Individually dated tree-rings in two or three separate tree-ring series, stretch back 12,000 years. (Even Young-earthers like Aardsma, formerly with the Institute for Creation Research, have admitted that the evidence from individually dated tree-rings in two totally separate tree-ring series on two different continents, demonstrates the reliability of C-14-dating stretching back 12,000 years in time).

2) Individually (C-14)dated varves in a lake in Japan, stretch back 40,000+ layers. (Green River varves have not been individually C-14 dated, but that would be an interesting experiment to perform since there are over 2 million layers per ancient fossil lake in that region, and all toll, when you count the layers of all the fossilized lakes in that region, noting the lowest and highest layers in each lake and how the time overlaps in each lake, there are over 6 million layers.)

3) Deep ice cores feature 100,000 layers of ice -- each layer having its own distinctive isotopic signature (and other types of layer-distinctive signatures as well), stretching back over 100,000+ layers.

4) Evidence of extremely slow sea-floor spreading over a 100,000,000 years. New sea floor is seen forming today from molten rock that emerges from a ridge that runs right down the middle of the Altantic ocean. On each side of that mid-Atlantic ridge, new molten rock continues to emerge, then it cools and hardens, and the date of cooling (as well as the direction and strength of the earth's magnetic field at the time it cooled) is sealed inside the rock in the iron crystals that harden there. Then the next strip of molten rock emerges from the mid-Atlantic ridge, cools, and hardens, as the continents on either side of the Atlantic ocean continue to drift slowly apart from each other. Thus are formed distinctive strips of sea-floor rock that run all the way from the middle of the Atlantic ocean (where the youngest radiometrically strips are) to the shoreline (where the oldest radiometrically dated strips are found). Such strips of rock along both sides of the mid-Atlantic ridge reflect over a hundred million years of sea floor spreading that occured as the continents of North and South American slowly drifted away from Europe and Africa.

Moreover, the radiometric dates that stretch from the middle of the Atlantic to the shoreline, agree with independent measurements (both land based and satellite based) of the present rate of movement of North and South America away from Europe and Africa. In both cases, the expected time it would take for the continents to move apart at their known present rates of speed are the same.

Even Young Earther's agree that if you try, as they have, to explain the evidence for extremely slow sea-floor spreading simply by speeding up the process and imagining that the continents zipped into their present positions in a mere "year," that hypothesis would require a MIRACLE to cool the molten rocks down instantly and in distinctive stages -- because if the continents "zipped" along, then the rocks and their radioactive isotopes would have run together like soft butter spread on microwaved bread, neither would the sea floor rocks exhibit the crystallization patterns that rocks exhibit that have cooled under conditions of much lower temperatures and pressures, which is what the sea floor rocks presently exhibit. Moreover, after the continents had ceased "zipping" along but slowed to their present extremely slow speeds, what odds would there be of achieving the same MATCH between the known range of radiometric dates of sea-floor rocks from the middle of the Atlantic to the shoreline, AND the present speed of the continent's moving apart from one another today? What a coincidence! The strictly scientific odds look far better that the "continental zip" hypothesis is wrong, and the continents took over a hundred million years to separate, and at the same rate they are presently separating.

The evidence of an old-earth is enormous and defies the "odds." There are thousands of individually dated tree rings -- tens of thousands of individually dated lake varves -- a hundred thousand distinctive layers of ice -- and, sea-floor rocks formed in succession and having hardened over successive periods stretching back over a hundred million years.

I await your refutations, Dave.  :)

Date: 2006/07/25 10:17:56, Link
Author: jeannot
I have to admit that "AssFuckDave" is not very smart.  ???

Date: 2006/07/25 10:36:02, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 25 2006,15:29)
nice double entendre, jeannot:)

It wasn't my intention. ;)

I didn't know the phrase "double entendre". It's not a French expression, at least, not anymore. We would say "double sens" (double meaning).

Date: 2006/07/25 10:42:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 25 2006,15:36)
Jeannot, why would you think it was supposed to be "smart"?  It's directed at a lying moron.

It sounds a bit homophobic.
But remember English is not my first language.

So Dave, your refutations...?

Date: 2006/07/25 11:15:47, Link
Author: jeannot
He's a retard, as you wrote, who can't explain the sediment thickness progression away from the ridges, nor why it is that the far away (dated old) crust is cool, while crust near the ridges is hot

I guess Dave doesn't even know how this contradicts his views.

Date: 2006/07/25 12:24:05, Link
Author: jeannot
I seems global warming denial is somehow correlated to evolution denial, which is the topic of this board.

Date: 2006/07/26 02:49:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Human knowledge is flawed.
Evolutionary theory is a product of human knowledge.
therefore, Evolutionary theory is flawed.

I wouldn't use the word "flawed", rather "imperfect".
But what's your point? Following your theory, all science is flawed. That would include ID if it were science.

Date: 2006/07/26 13:02:32, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, it becomes clear that you doubt what is said in the Bible. You dare not read the links we provide nor answer the questions you've been asked.

You know the Bible is wrong regarding the age of the Earth, but you are too afraid to admit it, hence you're being intellectually disonhest.

Dave, you are a liar and a coward.

Prove us wrong and refute our objections. Remember, Dave?

Date: 2006/07/26 13:19:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ July 26 2006,16:33)
(Oh, yeah, I forgot ... the mountains took the "Disney Down Elevator" to a magical place deep underground, then took the elevator back up ... silly me ... I forgot about that)

Dave, you said
If the pre-Flood mountains were low (3000-5000 ft)...


And talking about magic, do you believe in miracles?

Date: 2006/07/27 07:58:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, you're confused. Plate tectonics is not speculation, it's explained by thousands of evidence, just read a book.
The picture I provided, which debunks all YEC's nonsense and that you little coward can't refute, is just one of them.

Meanwhile, your hydroplate theory is crap.

Admit that the Bible is wrong about the young Earth Dave. We know that you realised it, you're not fooling anyone here. You can quit posting AIG's garbage and be honest once in your life.

But I know you won't. Because you are a liar, your God must be ashamed of you.  :(

Can you at least tell us if you believe in miracles?

Date: 2006/07/27 08:56:08, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Seven Popes @ July 27 2006,13:13)
Dave, why are you ignoring MY point? I have been patient and far more polite than even you.  Thirty days since I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...

Integrity is a virtue that Dave doesn't know.
You point an obvious error in the Bible, the only thing he can do is ignore it.

Dave doesn't have any self esteem either. Calling him a coward won't help it. Playing the buffoon is not a problem for him.

Date: 2006/07/28 07:25:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ July 28 2006,11:43)
LOL even some of the UDers are tired of the stupid word games

July 28, 2006
Shark fins & human limbs


   Researchers found that about a dozen genes that help give rise to a shark’s median fins — those that run along its back and belly — also determine where paired side fins will form on its body. These genes are known to play important roles in the development of paired limbs in humans and other land animals.

   The genes come from an ancient ancestor shared by sharks and humans.

   “It shows that this genetic program [ooops, I’m sorry. Did I accidentally emphasize something there?] for building limbs has its origins in the median fin structures of very early vertebrates,”

Full Article
Filed under: Evolution, Intelligent Design — Scott @ 7:57 am

Yes, Davetard, gene exist, didn't you know?

So the word "program" is an evidence of ID?
Next, it will be "DNA", "Gene", "Protein"...  ???

Date: 2006/07/29 00:14:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, was it sea water or fresh water?

And do you belived in miracles?

Don't tell me that a christian fundie like you can answer these questions.

Date: 2006/07/29 01:35:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (skeptic @ July 29 2006,00:31)
I do not subcribe to ANY creationist theories, explanations...
we have never observed a speciation event for now, this is not to say that we don't see evidence implying that speciation has occured...

What's your point skeptic?
Do you want to prove that speciation never occured while you don't subscribe to creation? What is you theory?

And speciation have been produced and directly observed in the lab: Drosophyla, Butterflies (a recent paper in Nature), lots of plants....

And there's an intersting paper for a biochemist like you :

Date: 2006/08/01 07:43:07, Link
Author: jeannot
Why does a scientist as brilliant as Jerry Coyne waste his time to respond to a jerk ?

Date: 2006/08/01 14:06:28, Link
Author: jeannot
If by "random" you understand that a mutation can occur without a specific cause, then you are profoundly mistaken, skeptic.
Mutation involves chemical reactions, hence suitable conditions. They are known to be triggered by environmental stress for decades.
What is random, is the effect of (most) mutations on their bearers.

However I would point out that, in some bacteria for instance, certain loci controling gene expression (promoters) are more predisposed to mutate, inducing phase transition for instance.
Also, some transposable elements carry particular genes (resistance genes for example), and the activation of such elements lead to mutations whose effects may not be completely random.

Date: 2006/08/02 01:41:30, Link
Author: jeannot

As Dr Podovski clearly shows (http://www.answersingenesis/arefullofshit.php) :  
the usual argument touted by atheist evilutionists regarding the age of basalts from the atlantic ridge (0 Million years) to the shores (160 Myears) is in fact convincing evidence supporting an instantaneous split between continents, occurring 4500 years ago.

Indeed, according to the groundbreaking hydroplate theory, the spacetime continuum in the oceanic crust became distorted, as the Altantic widened, due to the formidable lithospheric forces taking place (another prediction from Einstein's relativity).
Thus, time goes faster as we walk towards the shores. This explains why radionuclids in basalts decayed millions of time faster near the shores, compared to the rift.
Therefore, basalts appear millions of years older than they really are as they are sampled closer to the shores, because they formed solidified in a parallel hyperspace in the oceanic crust, whose spacetime becomes more and more distorted as we approach the shores. Of course, basalts sampled in this area show a normal decay rate in the laboratory: as soon as they are extracted from this parallel hyperspace, the decay of their radionuclids becomes normal again.

Another victory for AFDave.



Date: 2006/08/19 06:17:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Remember my little picture, Dave?

Talking about independent lines of evidence, why do isotopic datings of the altantic basalts confirm the current rate of expansion of the ocean, which is measured every year by satellites?

Will you also skip this question, you coward?  ;)

Date: 2006/08/19 08:14:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Yeah, yeah, JesusDave you are a martyr, booohooohhoo.
Woa, take it easy man.  :D

I'm eager to hear you refute plate tectonics with your microscope. I take your word and await your explanation. :)

But you could use mine, the one involving a spacetime distortion. Didn't it sound cool for a YEC?

Oh, and there is a question you can answer directly: do you believe in miracles?

Date: 2006/08/19 09:10:51, Link
Author: jeannot

So, was the flood a miracle?

Date: 2006/08/19 12:59:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Since you seem to oppose "miracles" to "natural processes", I think we basically have the same understanding of the term.

So was a miracle involved in the flood?

Date: 2006/08/19 23:19:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, before you come with your evidence that radiometric dating, dendrochronology, varves... are flawed, I'd like to know the methods you recommend, besides "the scripture said it was ?6000 years ago ±a few years".

Just curious.

Date: 2006/08/19 23:46:04, Link
Author: jeannot

Nature advance online publication 16 August 2006 | doi:10.1038/nature05113; Received 27 June 2006; Accepted 25 July 2006; Published online 16 August 2006
An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans

Katherine S. Pollard1,7,8, Sofie R. Salama1,2,8, Nelle Lambert4,5, Marie-Alexandra Lambot4, Sandra Coppens4, Jakob S. Pedersen1, Sol Katzman1, Bryan King1,2, Courtney Onodera1, Adam Siepel1,7, Andrew D. Kern1, Colette Dehay6, Haller Igel3, Manuel Ares, Jr3, Pierre Vanderhaeghen4 and David Haussler1,2
Top of page

The developmental and evolutionary mechanisms behind the emergence of human-specific brain features remain largely unknown. However, the recent ability to compare our genome to that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, provides new avenues to link genetic and phenotypic changes in the evolution of the human brain. We devised a ranking of regions in the human genome that show significant evolutionary acceleration. Here we report that the most dramatic of these 'human accelerated regions', HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal–Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. HAR1 and the other human accelerated regions provide new candidates in the search for uniquely human biology.

So Dave, if you read this, you should be reassured.

Date: 2006/08/20 04:58:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Hi, Thomas.

This is the paper, I didn't read your thread.  :(

Well, I'm interested in the genomic comparison.

In short, they searched for conserved regions between chimp and mouse-rat (at least 96% identity over 100bp), to get rid of the junk.
Then, on these 35000 conserved regions, they selected the orthologs that differ the most in humans compared to other amniotes. They performed a likelihood ratio test (don't ask me) to check the significance of the differences.
96% of these 49 "Human Accelerated Regions" are non-coding. A quarter of them are adjacent to neurodevelopmental genes (regulation regions, promoters and such things, I guess. I didn't read the whole article).

Date: 2006/08/20 06:15:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Hmmm Dave, your flood theory puzzles me.

Why don't we mostly have fossils of benthic organisms in the deeper strata and fossils of planktonic organisms in the upper ones?

Why is that Dave?

And again, was it sea water?

Date: 2006/08/20 06:27:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, you're clearly not familiar with the scientific method (and science in general), let me help you analyse the data you provided

1) the fact that most of the layers themselves have  been laid by water (yes, even the Coconino SS)
=> proves that sedimentation mostly occures in water

2) the fact that the non water-laid sediments can be explained as short duration volcanic/tectonic processes during and after the Flood
=> is not a fact.

3) the fact that most layers contain marine fossils
=> proves that their are a lot of water and organisms in the ocean (using conclusion from 1)

4) the fact that present day mountain tops contain marine fossils
=> indicates that those layers were under the sea once

5) the fact of folded (uncracked) strata
=> proves that stata can be folded and remain uncraked

6) the fact of incised meanders showing that sediments were soft when the meander was cut
=> is wrong

7) the fact of two modern examples of flood waters creating very similar features to what we find in the Grand Canyon and other canyons
=> is wrong. Please, show us a recent (hystorical) river that eroded hundred of meters of granite.

8) the fact of historical records which tell of a great flood and legends of such from around the world
=> is not a scientific fact

Got it Dave?

Date: 2006/08/21 00:28:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 20 2006,16:18)
They performed a likelihood ratio test (don't ask me) to check the significance of the differences.

sounds like some sort of non-paramentric chi-square test.

ahh, yes, basically that's it:

I'm a bit confused here though.  It seems they are focusing on genes that produce interactive RNA?  this is something new to me.  do you have any more background on these kinds of genes?

When you get around to reading it in depth, let me know if you think the specific methods warrant the conclusions in this case.


Thanks for the clarification.
My knowledge in molecular evolution will have to be improved seriously by the time I build and publish my phylogeography. Is there a book you would particularly recommend?

I don't know much about interactive RNAs in general. I know that some micro-RNAs can somehow interact with mRNAs before or during translation (or something).
Mirco-RNAs seem actively studied. Someone of my research team works on the micro-RNAs that are supposed to interact with mRNAs of genes controlling the induction of sexual forms in aphids.

Regarding the methods they used, I am afraid I won't have the time to dig into this paper, but I can send it to you, if you wish.

Date: 2006/08/21 07:49:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 21 2006,12:22)
The RM dating is just sciency sounding window dressing to try to add credibility to the sham.

If so, why don't your YEC buddies keep debunking every RM dating, since they are all part of the big conspiracy?

Wonderful defense tactic you have here, Dave. Everything that contradicts your faith must be wrong. You don't even care to provide any evidence.
Come on, you can do better than that. Does it hurt so bad to realize that the book of genesis is bs?

And what about the dating of altantic basalts, big conspiracy or amazing coincidence?

Date: 2006/08/21 07:56:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Interesting. :)
Pardon my insistence (I await eagerly you explaination), but can you point out the honest mistake in the dating of atlantic basalts?

Date: 2006/08/21 09:03:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 21 2006,12:49)
"Sham" is probably too strong a word.  How about "honest mistake"?  Just as many good scientists were honestly mistaken about geocentricity, phlogiston, ether, etc.

Let's see how it sounds :  
The RM dating is just sciency sounding window dressing to try to add credibility to the honest mistakes


Date: 2006/08/21 09:18:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Yes sure. Chrstianity promoted freedom and progess. Go back to the Middle Age and your geocentrism.

Drop it, you troll. You're not fooling anyone here.

Date: 2006/08/21 10:50:59, Link
Author: jeannot
What's the difference between "not true" and "false" from a scientific point of view?

Not true = unproved?

Date: 2006/08/21 11:40:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 21 2006,14:37)

Drop it, you troll. You're not fooling anyone here.

Troll? Troll? Did you know, suh, that the word "Troll" is libel per se in Iceland (something Nordic-related, I believe)*? Just wait until I get a plane ticket and we'll see who's the fool then. Bring a bodyguard, a lawyer, four pints of blood, and a shoehorn (for removing my boot from yo' ass), and we'll have a little chat in "poison".......

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

*potentially false, since I just made it up

You certainly know my definition of troll, troll. ;)

Someone arguing for a geocentrism on a scientific discussion board is either a freak or a troll.
But from your post, I'm starting to wonder... Do you prefer I call you freak?

Date: 2006/08/21 11:45:48, Link
Author: jeannot
How old is the earth?   6000 years or so, evidence given ... oh about 80 pages ago I guess ... were you sleeping that day?


When was it?
I must have skipped the post where you detailed your dating method.


Date: 2006/08/22 07:49:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, you also didn't care to answer my very simple question : was a miracle involved in the flood?

Date: 2006/08/24 07:11:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,11:06)
And as soon as I asked you to define macroevolution, then start posting up evidence on speciation, particularly that of Cichlids, you ran away. Liar  
I am not.  Didn't run.  I'll take you on any day on macroevolution.  Actually ... not any day.  When I get ready.  

So you're an expert in macroevolution too?
Please notify me when you explain how several millions of species got into the arch.

I can't wait.  :)

Date: 2006/08/24 07:19:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Sooooo ... convince me that my worldview is wrong and yours is correct.

Dave, your worldview is deadly wrong as long as you don't adress our objections.

Even you are convinced that it's wrong, it's just that you can't admit it in public. You are a dishonest coward, and a liar.
Or, if you haven't realized yet that the book of genesis is BS, then you are the stupidest man I've ever seen.

Date: 2006/08/24 13:00:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,15:27)
Further, even if it were true that you can't date sediments radiometrically,
... which it is ... you cannot, thus burying Deadman's and your claim that you can.  Cha-ching!!

What the heck is your point Dave?
Any object that is more than 6000 years old (more or less) debunks your "theory". Who gives a sh*t whether it's a sediment or a basalt?

You don't even know how to formulate an hypothesis, don't even try to make a valid objection. For instance, once you refer to speciation, then you say macroveolution never occurred... ???

Dave, you're just... vacuous.

Date: 2006/08/24 13:04:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 24 2006,16:59)
Is there a qualitative difference between the picture of Dave covering his ears with his hands, and the picture of Dave with his head up his ass?

just wondering.

See for youself.

Date: 2006/08/24 21:13:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, when you have sediments between two layers of basalt (lavas) for instance, don't you think one can infer that those sediments were laid some time between both volcanic events?

Duh.  :O

Date: 2006/08/24 21:26:58, Link
Author: jeannot
One day Dave uses some RM dating to prove a young earth.
The day after, he argues that RM dating is flawed.
Then he argues that one can’t safely date sediments. (So is the flawed RM dating still a problem for him?)
He seems to ignore the dating of volcanic layers (remember my Atlantic basalts Dave?).

Dave, at least try to remain coherent with your bullshits.

Date: 2006/08/25 07:57:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 25 2006,09:06)
Dave, when you have sediments between two layers of basalt (lavas) for instance, don't you think one can infer that those sediments were laid some time between both volcanic events? Duh.
It depends on a lot of things.  Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  Give me very specific example.

"maybe yes maybe no..."
So you don't have the answer, an expert in geology like you? Disappointing.

I'm pretty sure you'd find a specific example in the references you've been given, if you care to read them.

But since you apparently can't read...

This is another way to date a sediment in relation to a granitic intrusion. The green sediment are older than the granite. Understood?

Date: 2006/08/26 04:06:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, your logic is just pathetic.

"hypothesis A implies observation B" doesn't no equal to "observation B validates hypothesis A".
Since you probably don't get this, here is a example :
"Geocentrism implies that the sun crosses the sky every day.
Thus, the sun crossing the sky every day validates geocentrism."
Got it?

Introduction to the scientific method, to which AFDave isn't familiar:
Hypothesis H1 true -> observations or results A
H0 true (=H1 false) -> observations or results B

Global Flud => some water-laid sediments <---- correct statement
no Flud => no water-laid sediment <---- WRONG statement!
Therefore, the existence of water laid sediments does NOT prove a global flood.

But I have another test,

A global Flud => kms of sediments laid in a few weeks => benthic organisms quickly buried => fossils of floating plantonic organisms in the upper strata, fossils of benthic organisms in the lower strata, everywhere.
Prediction observed? => no => no global Flud. Simple as that.

Can your little brain assimilate this? Probably not.  ???

Date: 2006/08/26 04:55:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,09:34)
all in the same direction? unlikely.
No.  Didn't say that.  I'm sure they were deposited in many orientations.

So what's your point?

Date: 2006/08/26 22:15:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 27 2006,02:41)
This is how fossil confirmation of radiometric dating works, Sweetcheeks....given that there are dates on the morrison of about 145-158 mya, what kind of fossils can we expect to find in those layers?

Why are there no modern mammal fossils mixed in the layers as your 2350-5000  BC flood would require?

I believe there are no birds either.

Date: 2006/08/27 00:49:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 27 2006,03:35)
I believe there are no birds either.


let me play Dave for a moment?

"Silly Jean, of course there were no bird fossils!  Birds F L Y!!!!!  duhhhhh!

they simply flew OVER the FLOOD.

gawd, you simpletons with your "science"


I also thought that Dave could answer this when I was writing my comment.

Date: 2006/09/01 21:53:59, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, I already explained that the equation
Code Sample
No Flood <=> no water-lais sediments
is wrong.
Can you understand some very basic stuff or are you brain damaged?

Date: 2006/09/01 22:00:53, Link
Author: jeannot
That suggests that it may help to give the human brain its unique ability to think and reason, they say.

Don't chimps and dolphins reason?

Date: 2006/09/04 07:28:59, Link
Author: jeannot
1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  

2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
Lie. And besides, when a moron asserts that homonid fossils are just chimp and human bones mingled together, we don't waste our time to educate him.

3) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages,

4) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds.  If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
Maybe true, but this is certainly explainable.

5) You were shown how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they are so blind they (and you) say it is only a mirage
"apparent design"? Not a scientific evidence.

6) You were shown how your own site which you love (Talk Origins) supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
Opinion? Not a scientific evidence.

7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
Universal morality? Not a fact.

8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
Lie. Speciation in the lab, on fruit flies.

9) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
Lie. And this would not be a scientific evidence.

10) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
Doesn't support your hypothesis better than the current one.

11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
Lie. What about the numerous geologists (several reverends) who came to the conclusion that the flood never happened (before Darwin published the Origins) ?

12) You have been shown that your "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time.  I should show you how much of that occurs in the "Cambrian Explosion"
How does this support a 6000 year old Earth?

13) We touched on the fact that there has been a new term invented -- "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- Why?  Because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
Lie. Read Gould and Eldredge.

14) You have been shown two modern day examples of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock.  
See 10)

15) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.
See 10)

16) You have been shown that incised meanders require soft sediments.
Lie. And see 10)

17) You have been shown these and many other things which support the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed during the receding phase of the Flood.

18) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils, not radiometrically as we are led to believe.

What about the Altantic basalts, Davey ?

Date: 2006/09/04 09:12:34, Link
Author: jeannot

Date: 2006/09/04 10:25:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, I'm getting tired waiting for you to take your microscope out of your ***. ???

Should I formulate my objection again?
This very image completly annihilate your young Earth, Flud, hence Goddidit hypothesis.

So Dave, how a event that occured within a few days some 5000 years ago produced basalts whose levels of radionuclids indicate ages ranging from 0 to 135+ Myears, in a coherent symetrical pattern from the ridge to the shores, and which happen to match the current rate of divergence between the continents, as measured by satellites ?

You can halt your babbling about the Grand Staircase, or about anything else actually. As long as you can't provide an explanation for this picture, your credibility remains zero.
My bet is that you'll NEVER be able to answer this.

Date: 2006/09/04 11:10:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 04 2006,14:55)
As I was writing my last post, BarryA offers Old Yeller and countless other dogs...

What's his theory? that the behaviors of dogs were designed rather than selected?

BarryA should think twice before typing.  ???

Date: 2006/09/05 09:49:07, Link
Author: jeannot
AF"macroevo never happened"Dave, you still have to explain us how millions of animals were carried inside a wooden boat.

P.S: What happened to the fresh water fishes? Or maybe the flood wasn't sea water after all. But in this case, what happened to the marine fishes? :O

(I expect an answer from AIG were they state that salmons can live in sea water and fresh water)

Date: 2006/09/05 10:16:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Since AFDave won't do his homework, are there any volunteers willing to formulate a detailed hypothesis of the flood for him? It could be quite fun to match the current observations (see my theory of spacetime distortion for the age of the Atlantic basalts). :D

I anticipate the parts: "Noah actually had a Heavenly Shrinker, allowing him to carry millions of animals in his Arch".
"Whilst continents were moving at 100 miles per hour..."
"mammals were better swimmers than dinosaurs, and go burried after. Ichtyosaurs actually had difficulties because of their thick bones that made them sink, in this low-density fresh water. The stupid pterosaurs were caught by the Flood while fishing, but the more intelligent birds managed to survive a little longer..."
and "just after the Arch landed and the water evaporated [...] limestones were solidifying, dinosaurs were fossilising, and thousand of african swallows sent by noah, carrying sequoia seeds to repopulate the californian forrest that has been devastated".

Date: 2006/09/06 10:55:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 06 2006,15:16)

Music is a near-universal phenomenon, far broader than the human species. Birds do it. Whales do it. Frogs do it. Crickets do it.

The more, however, I look at the question of beauty in all of its variants, the more I see this as a real challenge to NDE.

Comment by bFast — September 6, 2006 @ 11:33 am

Okay, we're beat. *packs bags and goes home*


I'm also told that trees are musicians. When the wind blows.

Now how will the ToE explain that?!

Duh.  :angry:

Date: 2006/09/08 09:40:04, Link
Author: jeannot
1.  Just because the gene "jumped" to another chromosome, why can that not still be random?  To prove it is not random wouldn’t you have to document that other genes jumped and that all the genes jumping resulted in positive, not negative, results?
You still wouldn't know whether that one gene jumped in a natural process or not. However, transposable elements and other chromosomal re-arrangements are known for decades and are guided by natural processes, as far as we know. It's up to the DI to prove that the designer guides transpositions. They can even start their project rigth know. :p  

2.  If the jumping genes produced a variety of fly that can, when mating, produce sterile offspring, I wouldn't think the ID folks would consider that an evidence of "Intelligence"--would I intelligently create a flaw in my design?
Well, IDers are very good at misinterpreting scientific results.

3.  Could not these changes have resulted from selection pressure and random mutation?
Yes they could and they do. But the fixation of the transposition, which appears deleterious (produces sterile males), is the results probably from genetic drift, unless it was adaptive in a way we don't know.    

4.  Does the mechanism of speciation have any bearing on the ID v. RMNS debate?  How does this "back door" to speciation change anything for ID?

See my answer to your second point. This find is another evidence for macro-evolution by mutations, dift and/or NS. Actually, I would have expected IDers to dismiss this discovery.

Date: 2006/09/08 09:53:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:21)
We'll see who's laughing 10 years from now ...

Sure Davey. See you in 2016.

LOL.  :D

Date: 2006/09/08 10:02:38, Link
Author: jeannot
How did Noah manage to carry millions of animals in his arch, since marco-evo never happened?

What about the Atlantic basalts?

Date: 2006/09/08 10:15:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Odd, it seems that each new page in this topic now appears without delay, as it should.

Date: 2006/09/08 12:24:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,16:52)
Stephen Wells...
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?

Well, keep dreaming Davey.

I'm afraid that, if your YEC buddies use your logic against the scientific community, they won't be able to impose their views by 2016. We'll see you there, Dave.

Date: 2006/09/08 22:04:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,18:43)
How did Noah manage to carry millions of animals in his arch, since marco-evo never happened?
I suppose you mean macro-evo?  I think you are confused.  Noah did not have to carry millions of animals on the ark because micro-evolution does indeed occur and many varieties of animals would have developed after the Flood from just a single pair.  The reason he had to carry 35,000 (Morris/Whitcomb's guess) is because macro-evo has never happened and never will happen.  

Your ridicule is fascinating Dave :D
Variety (biology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In botanical nomenclature, variety is a rank below that of species: As such, it gets a ternary name (a name in three parts).
A variety will have an appearance distinct from other varieties, but will hybridize freely with those other varieties (if brought into contact). Usually varieties will be geographically separate from each other.

But please, gohead and explain us how the million of *known* species of insects are only varieties of a few species.
Are gorillas and macaques two varieties of the "primate kind"?
In this case, you would'nt mind considering human and chimpanzee as two varieties of the "ape kind" Davey, would you? :)

And of course, sometimes after the flood(?), mutations rates were thousands of times higher than they are today. Is it linked to the faster rate of decay, Dave? My theorie of a space-time distortion, could be handy.
If macro-evo was possible, there would be no need for an ark to preserve distinct kinds.

Interesting reasoning. "The Arch had to preserve 35 000 species since macroevolution doesn't happen. 'Cause if it did, Noah wouldn't have had to preserve those 35 000 kinds. Duh." :D

Date: 2006/09/09 05:37:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave's funny theory also predicts that the phylogeography of his "varieties" should reveal common origins arround Mt Ararat.
Well, of course that's not the case, but I wouldn't engage Dave in this discussion, since he can't undestand basic genetics.

Date: 2006/09/09 05:47:32, Link
Author: jeannot
this forum is a "buglight" for skeptics seeking to justify their skepticism
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,10:33)

Dave, we have the whole scientific community (expect a couple of wingnuts) on our "bridge".
If you think you got evidence that its theories are flawed, why don't you send a paper to a scientific journal? If you want the YECs to take over the world within ten years, you should begin today.
I'll be checking Nature and Science for the next decade.


Date: 2006/09/09 10:17:11, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, have you adressed the existence of mountains of limestone (the Jura for instance)?
Cause they are not easily concealable with your young Earth and flood, you know.

Date: 2006/09/09 22:28:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Do you have a tongue, Eric?  Did you read the verse?  It said, "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

I see, you definitely fear that admitting the Bible might be wrong would send you directly to heII.
So you've been LYING from the beginning, when you said you were ready to accept any evidence.

Your intellectual dishonnesty is disguting.

Date: 2006/09/09 22:31:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:00)
...because the age is 15.8 billion years...

It's 13.7.

Date: 2006/09/10 06:56:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,08:42)
Hmmm ... not only are you ignorant about the failure of Argon dating...

Dave, what do you expect with this remark, coming from a guy who doesn't know the first thing about science?

You obviously didn't think what you just said (which makes you a liar and a hypocrite), you've just been taunting us into losing our cool, and you succeded several times. A true honest christian should not be that arrogant, you know.

Date: 2006/09/10 10:40:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Jason Spaceman often posts here some funny stuff from WingNutDaily and other ridiculous creo news. I couldn't imagine an IDer doing this and I'm surprised by your reactions, Thomas and especially blipey. His posts are not a waste of space, but are right on topic and rather interesting.

I sort of agree with GoP (but not his "how ot think" part). This confusion is rather embarrassing. Our reactions should be objective. :(
Anyway, Jason sure looks like a news bot. Is there a real person behind the posts?

Back on topic : why do creo try to hide some evidence if creation is true?

Date: 2006/09/11 07:39:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2006,09:04)
Bravo.  A true pas de deux des tards.

How touching... *sob*  :(

Date: 2006/09/11 12:34:32, Link
Author: jeannot
This is a very particular case of speciation that can be assimilated to stasipatric speciation (maybe?). I don't think it's common.
Ans as I understand it, its doesn't not involve a complete reproductive isolation. I didn't read the paper though.

Date: 2006/09/12 11:03:57, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 12 2006,13:57)
Nice essay, Steve.  You're telling me that Google scholar is not even in the ballpark for the results I posted?  Tell me how to search ISI Web of Science, then, and let's see those results.

You have better things to do than statistics on Ar dating, Dave. I won't give any credibility to your Goddidit hypothesis.

You're boring when you don't post your funny ideas about animals varieties, dinosaurs in the Arch, running continents, etc.


Date: 2006/09/12 11:24:46, Link
Author: jeannot
I did read the posts carefully.
As I said, I don't agree with Paley's "thought policy", rather his remark about Jason being insulted. This is what I find embarrassing.
I wouldn't have assumed that he'd been trolling on this board even if his name were Larry. Maybe Jason is not a common name, but still.

Date: 2006/09/13 03:27:12, Link
Author: jeannot
"...according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable"

No theory derived from Darwin's work claims that the universe is the random result of evolution. Is the Pope ill-informed or lying?
And apparently, he's not familiar with the scientific method. We don't deal with supernatural causes to explain observations.


Date: 2006/09/13 08:15:27, Link
Author: jeannot
I was surprised, that's all.
Case closed.

Date: 2006/09/16 05:26:29, Link
Author: jeannot
A microbe did not mysteriously mutate into Mozart and his music, and most people, thankfully, are smart enough to figure out that this is a silly idea.

This "silly idea" sounds like ID theory (sic), since it doesn't deny common descent any more. Thank you Gil for pointing out the stupidity of IDers.
Or are you going to tell us that the fagellum didn't mysteriously "poofed" into existence?

Date: 2006/09/16 12:49:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 16 2006,12:29)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 16 2006,12:23)
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 16 2006,10:35)
You assume your flood carved the Grand Canyon, despite the fact that you have no evidence your flood ever even happened, and even if you did, you have no way of knowing if the Grand Canyon happened before the flood, during, or after the flood, because you have no independent method of dating it. Was every canyon everywhere carved during the "flood"?

Sorry if this sounds obtuse but how could a Global flood create a canyon? Any canyon. If the whole World was under water, how would it move in a way to carve rock like that?

Open to anyone.

I've wondered that for years.

I think it reflects a Creationist thought process "Lots of Water Do Big Thing,  Make Canyons". I don't think they think it through further than that.

Our friend Dave referred to underground sources of water, therefore unable to erode lanscapes. But presumably, there was enough rain for the erosion of the Grand Canyon in 40 days, but not too much so that Noah could build his arch safely.

You get the picture?

Date: 2006/09/18 07:44:38, Link
Author: jeannot

Date: 2006/09/18 07:48:23, Link
Author: jeannot
to our friend Paley:

Date: 2006/09/19 08:52:59, Link
Author: jeannot
I know it's off topic but right now there is a documentary on the French-German TV about YECs and other IDers. No ambiguity here: they are considered as wingnuts.  :D

Hey, there's Behe talking about his mouse trap.  :p

Interesting, Bruce Chapman admits that the DI wants science to be compatible with christianity. Oops.

LOL, a guy from AIG is babbling on the Grand Canyon.

Date: 2006/09/21 00:54:46, Link
Author: jeannot
You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth.

And what would falsify it, according to you? You don't even know.  ???

BTW, your refutation of the isotopic ratio curve using imaginary red dots was quite amusing. That's some funny AFDave we got here. Give us some more.  :D

Date: 2006/09/21 09:08:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2006,12:38)
You don't know any of this ... why don't you be honest and admit it is speculation?  And your speculation is no better than my speculation.

Why do all the isotopic ratios in chondrites converge towards 4.5 billion years instead of various ages from 0 to 6000 years, genius?

Is god testing our faith again?  :O

And I'm still waiting your explanation about the Atlantic ridge.  :(

Date: 2006/09/22 07:19:01, Link
Author: jeannot
I am sorry that you don't like "my" Jesus.  You will bow before Him someday whether you like Him or not.

How do you know that?

Date: 2006/09/24 01:02:35, Link
Author: jeannot

Interesting. Can your hypothesis explain this?

Date: 2006/09/24 01:41:26, Link
Author: jeannot
There aren't enough details four you, Davey? You have a model but you're not quite sure whether it fits the 65-135 Myear-old crust near the shoreline and you want to be sure it's not 64-134 million years? Man, I wish I had an irony-meter. :D
You could just give your typical explanation like "accelerated decay made the tectonic plates look older than they are, tada!". And then "we have successfully covered plate tectonics, blah blah... I declare victory. :)"

Since you seem a bit lazy :

Date: 2006/09/25 21:11:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Thanks for the link.

I've heard of this for a couple of years. This isn't new, AFAIK.

Date: 2006/09/26 09:03:26, Link
Author: jeannot
"Why the West needs Christianity" by GoP. Oh the irony.

GoP, you are a perfect example of "why the West doesn't need Christianity". Tell us, Bill...
How old is the Earth ?
Is it at the center of the universe ?
When did the Middle Age end ?


Date: 2006/09/27 23:31:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 27 2006,22:12)
As far as "censorship" goes, Inigo Montoya's words of wisdom are quite applicable.

"You killed my father, prepare to die."  ???

Date: 2006/09/30 03:36:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Not only does it show clearly how different organisms are on a molecular level, but it also shows how utterly ridiculous it is to imagine that any organism is "transitional" to any other.

Where does he show that? Last time I checked, my fahter was transitional between my grandfather and myself.
"Organisms on a molecular level" what does that mean?

Evolution needs some time to take place. Sure, huh... what's your point?

As Lenny says: you're, huh, blithering again.  ???

Date: 2006/09/30 08:03:25, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,09:50)
AFD ...  
any organism
Sorry ... any organism ON THIS CHART.

Why would a modern species be transitional to another one?

You see evolution as a ladder, don't you Davey? That wouldn't be surprising after all, given your level of educaction in biology.

Date: 2006/09/30 08:12:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Woa, this looks like an underground website made by some dissident ex-engineer or hacker.
I already love it.  :p

Date: 2006/09/30 23:11:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:40)
Incorygible ...  
What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though.

Yet you implicitly used this argument to prove that no species is "transitional to another" (whatever that means).

A little bit more dishonesty, AFDave, please.

Date: 2006/10/03 07:33:22, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, we told you why Denton and yourself don't understand squat about molecular evolution and phylogenetics.
Are you dishonest or just dumb? I can't tell.

Date: 2006/10/03 07:36:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,12:16)
Almost forgot ...


Praise Satan!  :D

Date: 2006/10/03 21:28:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,21:41)
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

If that's not your claim. Please explain us why you expect a  modern yeast to be closer to a bacterium than a human is.

Methinks you don't even understand your own arguments.

Date: 2006/10/04 06:55:32, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:37)
Christ Hyland...  
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. An yes to your question by the way.
So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?

It's not a guess, dude.

With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors. The genetic distance between this ancestral "lungfish" and its descendent can be calculated. And it goes further, we could predict which point mutations occured in its lineages.

Date: 2006/10/04 07:15:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:04)
With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors.
How do you infer this? On what basis?  

On the principle of descent with modification, that you refuse to admit. I won't waste my time again trying to educate you on this. Go read a book.
We have strong reason for believing that the golden retrievers have virtually identical sequences because they LOOK similar.  

Not because they look similar, because we know they have a very recent common ancestor (which explain why they look similar).
Do you know the genetic distance between the common troot and a lungfish? They sure look similar to some degree.

Date: 2006/10/04 07:49:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:19)
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
and ...
2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences

... Only in genes that control morphology, which is not the case of cytochrome C.
For other sequences that prediction does not apply. The authors didn't have any reason to think that the whole genome of a lineage should stop evolving.

Date: 2006/10/04 09:07:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:58)
Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.

Dave, you obviously didn't understand anything of this discussion.

Date: 2006/10/04 09:53:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Can ID can compete with X-boxes and text messages about edgy TV?

What's the "ID can"?

Date: 2006/10/04 12:10:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)

Dave, posting Denton's idiotic ideas over and over won't make them true.

Date: 2006/10/04 12:30:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 04 2006,15:13)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 04 2006,14:53)
Can ID can compete with X-boxes and text messages about edgy TV?

What's the "ID can"?

I think the second 'can' there is just a typo.

Hey, I noticed.  ;)

Date: 2006/10/04 23:43:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,17:45)
Dave: "Look how similar they are in percentages - evolution says they should be very different, mutated and changed!!!"

Biologist : "No, those proteins are essential to life and cannot be altered hugely -- they must remain basically the same to function, which is why human cytochrome c can be used by yeast."

This is not the best explanation. Sequence divergence is mostly correlated with time of divergence, not morphology.
The divergence in protein sequence can be rather large and the data remain the same for neutral mutations.

Date: 2006/10/06 10:09:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,12:16)

  • All Life - bacteria
  • Eukaryota - humans
  • Metazoa - humans
  • Bilateria - humans
  • Deuterostomia - humans
  • Chordata - humans
  • Craniata - humans
  • Vertebrata - humans
  • Gnathostomata - humans
  • Sarcopterygii - humans
  • Stegocephalia - humans
  • Amniota - humans
  • Synapsida - humans
  • Therapsida - humans
  • Mammalia - humans
  • Eutheria - humans
  • Primates - humans
  • Catarrhini - humans
  • Hominidae - humans
  • Homo - Dave

Not to mention that this list of groups is far from incomplete. A true phylogenetic classification should have a taxon for each known clade.
For instance, the clade comprising archea and eukaryotes is unnamed, AFAIK.

We also belong to the groups:
opisthokonts (propulsive flagellum) - Saccharomyces(yeast)
osteichtyes (vertebrates with true bones)  - Salmo

Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully, but it seems that no one linked the Tree of Life wel project.

Date: 2006/10/06 13:33:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,15:50)
does no one really know, and think the root of the tree is just a tangle of brambles?

Based on your statement about the clade enclosing archae and eukaryotes, I'm guessing the first. Am I right?

Regarding the root of the tree... I am not sure what you mean. The infered common ancestors of each of the three empires are very distant from each other, which implies that a lot of intermediate forms disappeared. But this doesn't alter the fact that LUCA was, at most, a population of indivuduals if gene flow was possible between lineages (some sort of sexual reproduction). Anyway, all lineages eventually coalesce to a single one, a single cell, be it LUCA or one of its ancestors.

The first tree represents the correct phylogeny even if the consensus is not shared by the whole scientific community. I think that the term "bacteria" should be used instead of "prokaryotes" to avoid a confusion.

Date: 2006/10/06 13:44:09, Link
Author: jeannot
FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?
It is quite clear that Similar Organisms = Similar Sequence Data

You should compare shark vs. lungfish vs. human, it'll be interesting.
Or maybe sponge vs. jellyfish vs. human? :O

Date: 2006/10/06 14:00:59, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,18:52)
So in other words, a clade (unnamed, as you point out) comprised of the common ancestor of eukaryotes and archae, diverged from eubacteria, and then some time later archae and eukaryotes split off in their separate directions? Would that be accurate?

That seems so, but most of this is unknown (how the nucleus appeared and so on). And don't forget endosymbiosis. We are partially bacterial. I'd like to hear Dave about that BTW, how his hypothesis explains organelles better than the ToE does.

Date: 2006/10/06 23:37:17, Link
Author: jeannot
FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

...proves my point quite clearly.

Yeah, like the distance between chimp and gorilla. You remember, Dave?

Dude, it doesn't prove your point, it proves that organisms which diverged recently are less distant. You took two fish that belong to the same recent family, you idiot. Do you know how many families of fish there are?
Aves and especially homonidae appeared rather recently.

I challenge you to compare the genetic distances between shark and salmon or sponge vs. jellyfish to the distances that separate them from humans. It will prove that you are wrong.
But you wont take this challenge and one will have to put the data just before your eyes. Then you will ignore them or spit your usual nonsense like "man, only 10% difference? Are you kidding?"

Date: 2006/10/07 14:02:17, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2006,16:13)
Something I'm wondering about - average mutation rates are typically given as per number of generations. But with multicelled critters, doesn't the DNA typically get copied several times between one generation and the next, as the organism matures enough to produce offspring? Could that be a factor in why the short generation and long generation species seem to match up on the amount of accumulative mutation?

This amount depends on the fixation rate of new alleles, which essentialy varies with generation time, effective population size and of course mutation rate per generation (for neutral mutations). The latter variable is too low to allow the accumulation of mutations at the same locus in a cell line, even if gametes are produced after many cellular cycles.
However, species whose germinal cell lines undergo many mitosis should have higher mutation rates per generation, all else being equal (which is unrealistic). However, I don't think a longer generation time can be compensated by a higher mutation rate per generation. The differences are not in the same order of magnitude. Moreover, I am not aware of a higher mutation rate/generation in organisms with longer lifespans.

And I'd like to stress again that this reasoning only applies for neutral mutations. We don't know the selection coefficients of the mutations involved in the CytC distance matrix that our friend provided.

Date: 2006/10/08 00:48:35, Link
Author: jeannot
When we compare similar modern organisms, guess what we find ...??

(drum roll) SIMILAR SEQUENCES!!!

But according to you, that's precisely what the ToE predicts, isn't it? So darwinism is confirmed.
Thank you Dave for your help.

Come back to us when you are able to formulate a coherent argument.


Date: 2006/10/09 07:37:58, Link
Author: jeannot
In the late 1970's, Stephen J. Gould challenged the synthesis model of evolution, and proposed a punctuated equilibrium model...

The challenges to the modern synthesis have been overstated, and  by Gould himself (see Ridley for a discussion on this topic).
Nowhere in the equations it appears that morphological changes (that define species in paleontology) must evolve at a constant rate. On the contrary, it is well know that strong selection and founder effect (drift) can accelerate the fixation of new alleles.
And Gould's model is based on Mayr's ideas, specifically peripatric speciation.

Date: 2006/10/09 07:44:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,12:40)
Yes, Mr. Dawkins, 'evolution' did in fact happen in 'Sudden Bursts.'  You can read about those 'sudden bursts' in the Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2.

Does the Book of Genesis indicate the strata where fossils are expected to be found?

Date: 2006/10/09 08:00:59, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 09 2006,12:56)
Dave, read my freaking posts. I (and Occam's Aftershave) showed exactly which parts of the Dawkins quote you left out, and exactly how that deletion amounted to a quote mine, because the part you left out completely demolished your argument.

Forget it Eric, you can put an elephant just before Dave's eyes, he won't see it if he doesn't want to.

Date: 2006/10/09 09:43:12, Link
Author: jeannot
All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve

What the heII does that mean? They had more than two alleles per locus?

I find your mixture bible+genetics quite amusing.  :D

Date: 2006/10/10 09:04:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Maybe Chapman is not aware of how research works, but it's not the funds that indicate good science, it's the results.

Date: 2006/10/10 09:13:43, Link
Author: jeannot

Man this is deep.  :D
You do undesrtand that your tree doesn't include most of the organisms on Earth, and that it's broadly consistent with the tree of life.

You do also realize that this tree involves a common descent for man and other species.

Date: 2006/10/10 10:49:26, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,15:18)
Jeannot--  You must think that the tree on the right is "my tree" ... no.  It is a tree which more accurately represents the data for a ToE interpretation OF that data.  And neither tree has all organisms on earth.  That would be tough.  MY tree is the one with the "Original Created Kinds" on it.

Whether it's your tree or not doesn't change much.
The left tree doesn't has all species on earth indeed, not only it would be tough, it would be pointless. We don't need to put 10 species of animals in the tree of life, we already know they belong to same group: the tiny branch you see on the right, next to the fungi.
The tree on the right doesn't even show plants nor fungi.

"More accurately"? Another claim you don't care to backup.
"Wormlike" is very accurate indeed. :D Does it refer to nematodes or annelids? ??? But if we leave this "detail" aside, you apparently don't realise that this tree is compatible with the tree of life as it is shown. Thus your claim is just stupid, as always.

It's even more stupid coming from a Middle Age creationist. If those taxa don't have a common ancestor, both trees are equally wrong.

Date: 2006/10/10 11:05:08, Link
Author: jeannot

Yeah Dave, where are humans and chimps on these, huh, trees?

Date: 2006/10/11 05:29:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Jeannot asked where the plants are.  Plants are not included for clarity on my "Improved ToE Tree" on the right.  In fact MANY organisms are not included so as not to clutter up the chart unnecessarily.  You will notice that I have only included organisms which I think that ToE proposes to be in the lineage of modern man.

So is it your tree or is it not?
You decided not to include organisms "out of our lineage" (and this expression proves that you have not understood the concept yet), fine. But in this case, you are comparing two different things. Your tree may be just a part of the tree of life.
And you still have to justify why it's more accurate. I can also claim that James Bond is more accurate than the Bible.
For one thing, the upper branch leading to humans (-200 kyears) is not coherent. Where is the branching point?
And you are confused, since both are supposed to be completely wrong how can your tree be more accurate?

Date: 2006/10/11 06:48:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,09:43)
Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?
Reproductive compatibility seems to be an obvious way.  

So, speciation never occurred? You are confused here, Davey boy.

Date: 2006/10/11 07:44:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,11:55)
So is it your tree or is it not?
You decided not to include organisms "out of our lineage" (and this expression proves that you have not understood the concept yet), fine. But in this case, you are comparing two different things. Your tree may be just a part of the tree of life.
And you still have to justify why it's more accurate. I can also claim that James Bond is more accurate than the Bible.
For one thing, the upper branch leading to humans (-200 kyears) is not coherent. Where is the branching point?
And you are confused, since both are supposed to be completely wrong how can your tree be more accurate?
It is not "my" tree.  In my opinion, it is better representation of the ToE regarding human evolution.  I pointed out already two key reasons why this is so.  Please re-read. As for the 200 ky, I simply take numbers I am given in evolutionary publications.

So a Middle-Age creationist like you is going to show scientists how their phylogenetic trees should look like, with the taxa "wormlike, fishlike...". Excuse me while I laugh to death.  :D
I didn't know that the tree of life should be focussed specifically on our lineage.

Mmmmh, I think that the Raelians' ideas are more accurate that the book of genesis regarding creation. You know, they precisely describe the close encounter with extraterrestrials, and the eye-witness (I know it's very important to you) is still alive. Duh.

And I am not contesting the date, I said that there is no branching point at -200 kyears. I assume you forgot to draw a branch leading to other Homo.

Date: 2006/10/11 08:33:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 11 2006,12:59)
Jeannot on the issue in question:

Although the process of genetic coding and codons and... [snip]

Mmm, that wasn't me.

Date: 2006/10/11 08:46:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Speculation.  You really do not know those ancestral relationships.  You are simply finding some fossils that look similar, then applying massive quantities of wishful thinking.

We don't have to prove common descent anymore, it's a scientific fact (see talkorigins for a set of evidence). Based on that principle, the fossil record and phylogenetic relationships, we can make safe inferences. You were told many times to do your homework, Davey boy.

And since Eric issued an excellent post about our recent lineage, I'd like to hear you on our ancestors. Do you still maintain that fossils homininae (Autralopithecus, etc) are just mingled chimp and human bones?
Did Homo erectus exist? Was it our ancestor or another created "kind"?
Justify your position with facts (not your biblic fantasies), thanks.

Date: 2006/10/11 22:33:13, Link
Author: jeannot
It's "Got that? Write that down."

Alan could probably confirm this.

Date: 2006/10/11 22:50:02, Link
Author: jeannot
Transitional fossils?

(and this diagram is not up to date)

H. erectus is transitional between H. habilis and H. sapiens.

Date: 2006/10/12 12:04:31, Link
Author: jeannot
H. neanderthalensis and sapiens are descended from H. erectus.
H. habilis may not be our direct ancestor, be it's certainly a close relative.

Date: 2006/10/13 08:57:14, Link
Author: jeannot
This guy, whoever he is, has been excessively annoying.  ???
OK, it's almost one year to the day when I started this character, so the time has come to fess up....the Ghost is a creation of an evo-loving Deist. It was fun while it lasted, but I'd like to post as a "regular, evolution-supporting guy" from now on.

Date: 2006/10/13 10:07:24, Link
Author: jeannot
I never understood the fine-tuning argument. Pardon me but I find it just stupid. As if someone winning at the lottery were claiming "man, this lottery was fined-tuned!".

The universe cannot be "badly-tuned" (if that's the correct term). If it were, there would be no one to qualify it this way.
It's not inherently fine-tuned. Another universe could be better tuned for hydrogen clouds or whatever, if such things were conscious.

Date: 2006/10/13 10:13:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,14:46)
Deism isn't scientific and I accept that.
I think the evidence favors Deism...

Isn't this contradictory?

Date: 2006/10/13 11:19:11, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,15:31)
I've never cared for this argument because it implicitly confuses what must be true with what we observe.

Nothing is "true" beyond what we observe. Trueness is a human concept. I fail to see your point.
The brittleness of the parameters is an empirical observation; we could very well have existed in a "life friendly" universe that accepted broad changes to the constants.

How does this refute my argument? You are just saying that "if the universe were totally different, then I could argue this [which is not a counter-argument anyway]."

Not even considering that those constants are not part of a universal "reality". These are human constructs too. Most astrophysicians argue that reality is not reachable, and I concur. It's just impossible. For instance, atoms are not "real", they are a model that seem to explain well our observations.
I also miss the whole point of arguing "if the universe were different, then...". We could still claim that the universe is fine-tuned for it allows the constants to change broadly (if that were the case). And why do you want to change the constants anyway? Why don't you want to modify the climate in East Africa some millions years ago to prevent the evolution of homininae?
Eventually, it all boils down to "if the universe had not allowed human life to emerge, then this would be a world of sh*t, therefore it's fine-tuned".
To me, saying that the universe is fine-tuned explains nothing. It's just Goddidit. Is God fine-tuned too?

At last, one could have a serious discussion with you, after a whole year.  :)

Date: 2006/10/13 11:55:07, Link
Author: jeannot
I've been suspecting GoP of trolling for a few months, but I'm convinced that AFDave is an authentic YEC. He completely fits the model of the typical brainwashed fundie that I saw several times on TV. And some are even worse. Some people at AIG claim that, in Eden, where everybody lived in peace and harmony, dinosaurs couldn't possibly be carnivorous. Those with sharp claws and teeth use them to open hard fruits.  :D

What do you think of that, Dave?

Date: 2006/10/13 23:24:59, Link
Author: jeannot
...but trolling is as trolling does, and ya gotta go where the market is.

Like I said before, it's not a matter of what I really believe, but what the market would bear.

So GoP is in the "trolling market".
Although I'm pleased to have this confirmation, I find his job rather pathetic.

As I said, he's been excessively annoying for a whole year and if we had known he was doing this on purpose (from another source), he would have deserved a ban. Yeah, he said "sorry" but is it enough?  ???

Date: 2006/10/14 07:03:53, Link
Author: jeannot
I don't think Dave is mad at Deadman for anything. As always, he just doesn't have anything to add so he's taunting one of us into losing his cool with an outrageous comment.

-Show me where I quote-mined.
-Here and there, you stupid.
-Now Deadman says nothing but "Quoteminer, stupid..."

The sad thing is that AFDave succeeds.  :(

AFDave, why don't you tell us how you determine that two organisms come from the same "ancestral gene pool"?

Date: 2006/10/14 07:29:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 14 2006,12:25)
That geocentric Earth thread is a gem. Truly a gem.

It's no longer a gem, it's now a waste of time.

Date: 2006/10/14 07:41:02, Link
Author: jeannot
I'm lost, wikipedia lists :
George McCready Price (1870–1963), US creationist
George R. Price (1922–1975), US scientist, evolutionary theorist.

Date: 2006/10/14 08:16:15, Link
Author: jeannot
I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont.  :O
John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont.

Date: 2006/10/14 09:26:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Yeah, it's not like no one called him on being a Loki troll.
Since the first post of this thread, a few members have been suspecting Paley of trolling.
From Russell:
"Paley's Ghost" strikes me as a way-over-the-top fake creationist. My bet is he [and the gender is almost certainly he] is a regular, evolution-accepting guy poking fun at creationists and/or evo-defenders he sees as taking it too seriously. That would be my bet.

Date: 2006/10/14 12:42:43, Link
Author: jeannot
When imagining this man behind his screen in a dark room, typing another post full of insults on a random internet forum, I can't help but laugh.  :D

Date: 2006/10/14 12:48:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Not to mention that AFDave really wants to be insulted.

Date: 2006/10/15 08:44:08, Link
Author: jeannot
I don't have anything against Dave being called "liar, dishonnest, coward, lazy, brainwashed, jocker or even stupid", because that's what he is.
But IMO, "di€khead, a$$hole, s€umbag" and the like don't serve our cause. They give the impression that the poster can't provide new arguments and that, in a sens, Dave is winning. Seeing him responding calmly (almost like a robot) while someone is tossing insults at him makes me uneasy. Because that's exactly what he looks for.
Personnaly, I'd love to see Dave losing his calm, but he won't. He's a complete brainwashed fundy.

Date: 2006/10/15 10:21:02, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 15 2006,14:19)
Louis, don't you realise that your very attitude contradicts your contention that I'm an incompetent troll? If I find someone beneath contempt, then I ignore him....I don't write profanity-laced tirades begging that the fellow be banned and "smacked in the mouth". Remember, sweet Louis: Indifference, not hate, is the negation of love.  :D

Competent or not, a troll is still a troll and you've been identified as such by the majority of the members, including myself. At least you should have admitted that.

Now after a whole year of posting outrageous and dishonnest comments, you are reproaching someone for responding to your provocations?

I've been told that you like to document your opponent's distortions. Although I didn't quote any reference, I feel it's pretty much what I did in my response to your fine tuning argument. Now, do you have anything better to offer?

Date: 2006/10/15 10:35:13, Link
Author: jeannot
I said that I had no doubt regarding the authenticity of Dave's YEC, but I since GoP's confession, I may "add some water in my wine" as we say in French.
There's one thing I find impressive with AFDave: his intellectual dishonesty. I would have expected a YEC placed in front of his contradictions (Tyre, Portuguese...) to run away.
Only a troll could be that dishonest.  :O

Date: 2006/10/15 12:24:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 15 2006,15:43)

I've been told that you like to document your opponent's distortions. Although I didn't quote any reference, I feel it's pretty much what I did in my response to your fine tuning argument. Now, do you have anything better to offer?

Perhaps....but would you mind restating your objection in a little more detail? I didn't understand your first attempt.

I could not be clearer, my English won't allow me to. :(

You don't need more detail either. Simply put: for scientific hypothesis, I rely on the principle of parcimony. Thus I don't take 'fine tunning' as the null hypothesis. Unless you provide a way to falsify it, I'll consider this hypothesis as not scientific.

Date: 2006/10/16 08:03:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 16 2006,09:34)
You don't need more detail either. Simply put: for scientific hypothesis, I rely on the principle of parcimony. Thus I don't take 'fine tunning' as the null hypothesis. Unless you provide a way to falsify it, I'll consider this hypothesis as not scientific.

Well, it's true I'm implicitly taking fine tuning as the null hypothesis, but only because the observations pushed it into the "null" position. If the calculations and observations had shown that our universe wasn't sensitive to small changes, then the atheistic position would have gotten the presumption. And even so, there are competing ideas that can still topple the Design Hypothesis; for example, if evidence in favour of the multiverse turns up, then the Design Hypothesis is ruled unlikely due to Occam's Razor. But I won't favour methodological naturalism a priori under all conditions.

This hypothesis is still not falsifiable.
I don't see what the multiverse could change. Even if most of the "universes" were hostile to life, in what way would this be different from the fact that our universe is mostly hostile to life? You could still argue for fine tunning.

Date: 2006/10/16 09:22:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, how do you know that two individuals come from the same ancestral gene pool?

Date: 2006/10/16 11:22:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,16:10)
... to the delight of Creationists!

Oh God, Darwinism is DOOMED? :O

Keep dreaming Davey. Call me when you have your theory peer reviewed and taught in public schools.

Same old, same old....


Date: 2006/10/16 11:48:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Yeah, I'd like to hear Dave's definition of "genetically rich", for a couple of individuals.

Date: 2006/10/16 21:36:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,19:24)
* Jeannot doesn't understand what "genetically rich" means

Indeed I don't. Maybe it's because it doesn't make any sense.
Would you care to explain the concept of "genetic richness" in a single individual, with details, please?


Date: 2006/10/17 00:52:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 16)


This hypothesis is still not falsifiable.

But it's not trivial, because the observations could have gone the other way. Say I pick a ticket with the numbers 12345. Should I be surprised? This depends on:

1) How freely the numbers can vary;

2) How many other people are playing.

As 2) increases, then the individual odds don't change, but the chance of that ticket being selected approach unity. I would be very surprised if the total possibilities were high, and the number of participants was low.

A few points:
- You have not defined your hypothesis. What is a "fine tuned" universe ? A universe where human consciousness can arise? Where life can appear? (in these cases the answer is trivial). A universe designed by God?
- We don't know wether the constants describe the universe with precision (= wether they mean anything beyond our interpretation of reality).
- We don't know the distribution function of these constants, if that even makes sense.
- Even if we knew it, a high probability for their current values would not falsify your hypothesis (universe created by God).
- Their values don't add any support to your hypothesis, no more than the probability of the sequence of mutations that led to human consciouness. Why don't you support prescribed evolution, while you're at it?

Date: 2006/10/17 08:47:04, Link
Author: jeannot
It reminds me of some kind exchange between Davetard and JAD, lately.

Tard : I'll go to you liberal state of Vermont to kick your a$$.
JAD : Bring it on! My 12 gauge shotgun will welcome you.


Date: 2006/10/18 07:55:00, Link
Author: jeannot
yeah Dave, I asked you to explain the concept of genetically rich individuals. Are you dodging the question or are you just unable to understand it?

Date: 2006/10/18 08:13:36, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,12:59)
I see what you are saying ... but how does a "genetically rich" parent population begin if not with two "genetically rich" parents?

Have you heard of mutations Dave?

I guess it won't be a problem for you anyway, since  millions of species appeared within a the last 4 thousand years.

Date: 2006/10/18 09:11:23, Link
Author: jeannot
You just have to know what "gene" and "allele" mean. Obviously Dave doesn't.

But it doesn't alter his arrogance.

Date: 2006/10/18 09:26:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,14:14)
If there are hundreds of alleles for a specific gene, does that mean there must be hundreds/2 common ancestors that are not genetically related to each other?

Huh? By "not genetically related", you mean created?

No, it just means that hundreds of mutations have occurred since the last ancestral allele (the coalescent).

Date: 2006/10/18 09:55:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,14:33)
It's entirely possible that the allele for blue eye color didn't even exist until a few thousand years ago (even if, unlike Dave, you believe humans have existed for 200,000 years).

Interestingly, I read that some human alleles coding for proteins of the HLA system diverged even before humans and chimps did.
Usually, different alleles can't been maintained that long in a population , one eventually reaches fixation (in 4Ne generations for neutral alleles). In this case, they were maintained in our lineage for millions of years by superdominance (the advantage of heterozygotes).

I don't know if it's consistent with Dave's hypothesis, though.

Date: 2006/10/18 10:02:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,14:50)
I understand, conceptually, random mutation and natural selection and I find it perfectly logical.  I can even understand it as a means of speciation over long periods of time.  But I tend to think of ancestry as individuals growing into populations and this seems to imply something different.  What is tripping me up is the comment that the ark story couldn't possibly be true because it would limit us to 16 alleles.  Let me try it this way.  Today there are 6B or so homo sapiens.  At some point, in the distant past, there were none.  If I was to roll the clock backwards, shouldn't I find a point where there were only a handful of homo sapiens and wouldn't the number of alleles be necessarily limited by that population?  The comment earlier that the ark story can't be true because it would only account for 16 alleles while we know there are far more.

I realize that this is probably way too basic of a question to distract you from the main event here.  So, don't feel obligated to walk me through it, if there is a basic genetic primer somewhere around.  I'm perfectly willing to do my own work.

EDIT:  Okay.  Eric's explanation makes sense.  So, the ark being a bottleneck doesn't refer to the limited number of alleles but rather the time needed to mutate into the diversity of alleles we see today from a "starting point" of 16?

It's better to consider alleles, not individuals. All the alleles for a gene eventualy trace back to a common ancestor, which is the coalescent. This common ancestor (gene) can precede the first members of a given species, or the opposite. See my precedent post for an example.

Anyway, it could be possible to have our current polymorphism from only 8 individuals at the beginning (assuming imbreeding is not a problem), but it would take a lot more than 4500 years (even for purely demographic reasons).

Date: 2006/10/18 11:37:47, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,15:28)
More from Ayala on the incredible variation potential available with no mutations at all ...  
Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

p. 63
“It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
p. 64
“In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.

Now with this in mind what about your supposed "bottleneck"?

Dave, you don't understand this quotation.
Ayala is discussing whole populations with "stored genetic variations" that result from (guess what?) mutations, and he makes it perfectly clear.

In a population of two individuals, you can "store" 4 alleles per locus, at most.

Got that? Write that down!   :D

Date: 2006/10/18 11:43:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 18 2006,16:38)
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,16:27)
How, Dave? More "miracles"? Did Adam and Eve (or Noah and his boatmates) had an unusually large number of chromosomes? Did they each have 92 chromosomes, or 184 chromosomes? Where did the extra "genetic richness" come from?

Hehe, well, we're up to AT LEAST 250 chromosomes for HLA-B polymorphism alone (assuming no allelic duplication within either individual or across Adam and Eve). THAT is an intersting idea regarding the created Human "kind" if I ever heard one!

250*23 chromosomes, you mean?  :p

Date: 2006/10/18 11:49:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 18 2006,16:44)
You'd think he'd read something on cheetahs...condors...anything that illustrates the nature and hazards of bottlenecks.

He'd better read a biology textbook first.

Date: 2006/10/19 03:31:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 18 2006,18:56)
O + first and last = Noah
O + beginning and end = Noah
O + end = Noah
O + IN = Noah
O + I Am = Noah
O + G D (first and last) = Intelligent Designer
O + G D (beginning and end ) = Intelligent Designer
O = one sign (that) ( Intelligent Designer + IN)  I Am  "that" I Am
O = no sign


Is it written in C++?

Date: 2006/10/19 03:47:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,08:28)
The latest misunderstanding centers around my "genetically rich" term.  Apparently many of you assume that to me this means that Adam and Eve has 1000 chromosomes or something.  I'm not sure how you came to think that ...

Because there is no other possibilty except mutations, Davey.

Your rant about skin colors explains nothing. We already knew that two parents can theoretically give birth to billions of different children. I learned it when I was 12. Thank you, genius.
We'd like you to explain is how two ancestors can produce descendants having together hundreds of different alleles at the same locus, without mutations.
Go bak to your homework, boy.

Date: 2006/10/19 03:50:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 19 2006,08:46)
Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.

Or 4, at most.

And what about mitochondrial genes, Dave?

Interestingly: only two of Adam and Eve's children had any descendants. I never read the Bible (gasp!;) but our fundy can confirm this. If so, in the most favorable situation where Adam and Eve had together 4 alleles per locus, half of their "genetic richness" at least was lost in the first generation. Man, that's not a good start.  :(
It's called a bottleneck, Davey.

Date: 2006/10/19 06:49:07, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,10:22)
I just answered my own question about "Why could Adam not have had multiple alleles for a given gene?"

Basic features of heredity > Mendelian genetics > Allelic interactions > Multiple alleles

The traits discussed so far all have been governed by the interaction of two possible alleles. [I assume this is quite common?] Many genes, however, are represented by multiple allelic forms within a population. (One individual, of course, can possess only two of these multiple alleles.) Human blood groups—in this case, the well-known ABO system—again provide an example. The gene that governs ABO blood types has three alleles [OK, not much more than two]: IA, IB, and IO. IA and IB are codominant, but IO is recessive. Because of the multiple alleles and their various dominance relationships, there are four phenotypic ABO blood types: type A (genotypes IAIA and IAIO), type B (genotypes IBIB and IBIO), type AB (genotype IAIB), and type O (genotype IOIO).

[url]heredity. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [/url]

So now a logical question would be ... "What percentage of genes have only two alleles and what % have more than two?"  "What causes a gene to have more than two alleles?"  ... and other such questions.

The proportion doesn't matter.
Microsatellite loci have are highly polymorphic (several dozens of alleles) and are found everywhere in our genome. If all the alleles were present in Adam and Eve from the start, that means both (and their descendants) had hundreds of chromosomes.
The fact that some genes only have one allele won't change that.

EDIT: I'm a bit late.  :O

Date: 2006/10/19 07:03:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, we'd like to know: do you propose an accelerated mutation rate?
It must have happened after the flood, think about it.

Date: 2006/10/20 01:00:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 20 2006,05:54)
And I'm still waiting to hear how trees which began growing 5000 years ago, survived a catastrophic, global flood which happened 4500 years ago.

AIG already have their made-up answer : there isn't any 5000 year-old tree.
You know, some trees in greenhouses may accumulate more than on ring per year, therefore the wild californian pines are younger. Irrefutable.

And don't even mention dendrochonology.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:04:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 20 2006,05:54)
Also, the scenario post-flood would be one of disjointed continents scoured of all life; bare rock, with no soil. How did Noah and his family re-establish the World's flora, and what did the animals from the ark do whilst the ecosystems were developing. And where did he get the soil from?

It seems that this objetion alone debunks your flood theory, Dave.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:16:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
Please, somebody explain me.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:30:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 20 2006,12:23)
I am told that current heterozygosity in humans is around 7%.
And, just to be crystal clear here, what do you take that to mean? That, for any given human, about 7% of the genes will have one or more differences between the maternally and paternally inherited copies, or that there's about a 7% sequence difference at all loci? Or yet a 3d interpretation I haven't considered?

Just to be clear - as I believe it has a strong bearing on Dr. Batten's calculations.

In population genetics, heterozygosity is the proportion of heterozygotes at a given locus.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:37:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 20 2006,12:34)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 20 2006,12:16)
Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
Please, somebody explain me.

jeannot, it is relevant because stupid, baseless, irrational creationist argument #45638746 is that there is a law of "conservation of information" analogous to the 2LoT that says "the information on a given system can only remain the same or decrease, never increase". ...

Sure, but why do we even care to answer that? This does not alter the fact that mutations are observed in the wild and in the lab.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:46:32, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,12:41)
You, as a ToE advocate, NEED for mutations to increase information in order for your theory to be plausible.  Without it, you have no mechanism for organisms to become increasingly complex over time.

Can you show me the difference between a mutation that increases information and one that doesn't?

And don't you think that the millions of species that descended from a few thousand represent somehow more information?
Or are you going to claim that all their alleles were stored in the genome of the individuals saved by Noah? Your claim was pretty much debunked regarding Adam and Eve, in case you haven't noticed. And this is another order of magnitude: a couple of huh.."genetically rich" individual had the genetic content of a thousand of species in average. Man, that's a lot.  :O We're talking about thousands of alleles, at least.

Date: 2006/10/20 08:13:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Methinks Dave doesn't know the genetics of meiosis and fertilization.
Too bad for the expert in genetics he claims to be.  ???

Date: 2006/10/20 08:24:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 20 2006,13:11)
In population genetics, heterozygosity is the proportion of heterozygotes at a given locus.
Oh, I know what it means in the real world. I was wondering what, if anything, it means in "afdave's" mind. Beyond just quoting YECs, that is. Does he, for instance, have any idea how that 10^2017 was calculated?

It's 102017 in his quote, which seems a bit low if we consider crossing over.

EDIT: It was a typo.

Date: 2006/10/21 06:17:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Does all this provide a way to falsify the fine tuning hypothesis?

Date: 2006/10/21 07:35:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Again, discussing information theory is irrelevant to Dave's huge problems. And as the concept is not as clear as, say, heterozygosity, he won't understand anything.

There is a more relevant question Dave needs to address: how does he determine that two species come from the same ancestral couple of indivuals?

Date: 2006/10/22 01:32:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Ghost of Paley,

It seems that you don't directly equate fine-tuning to God. Which leads me to a few questions I wan't you to address here. Please don't just provide links, I find that kind of answer annoying. I won't bother to read them.

What precisely differentiates a fine-tuned and a badly-tuned universe? It appears that, for you, a fined-tuned universe is suitable for life, although I don't see how you get the "tuning" from this observation alone. In that case, could a universe that is not propitious for (to?) human life be also fine-tuned? Justify your position.

What arguments lead you to conclude that a fine-tuned universe is the creation or God? I suspect this has to do with some low probability.
Would a high probability falsify the action of God? In other words, how could one falsify your hypothesis?

Do we have any theory that is relevant outside our universe, that says anything about the conditions for its appearance? (In other words, is infinity reachable?)

In that case, why would these particular conditions be more relevant to demonstrate the action of God, that, say, the conditions for the appearence of our hypothetical mutliverse, or the conditions for the apearence of life on Earth, Homo sapiens, yourself? In other terms, what did God design? Did he design himself? Justify you position.

Date: 2006/10/22 02:26:20, Link
Author: jeannot
No, my friends, mutations are a BAD thing, or at best a NEUTRAL thing.

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. You sound like John Davison. Have you heard of this old clown?

So according to you, the average thousand of species that descended from a couple of individuals in the Arch are "BAD things"?
The different species of salmonids adapted to salty and fresh water are all "BAD"?

How did penguins reach Antarctica after the flood, genius? The ice must have melted underwater, I guess. Or did they adapt to some cold environment afterward? But wait, adaptation is impossible as you just said.

Get a clue, Davey.

Date: 2006/10/22 05:48:36, Link
Author: jeannot
Apparently, Dave believes that a couple of individuals can give birth to a thousand of species without the need of mutations, just because it can produce billions of different offspring.

(Ok, maybe you should read a biology book first, but let's try it anyway ???)
So, Davey, if speciation (post-flood evolution) were just based on recombination (allele shuffling) and mutation never produced any adaptation, why have we never seen a couple of individuals giving birth to another species in one generation? (let's not consider hybrid speciation) This should be common according to your bogus theory. Don't deny it, I know you never predicted this YECs don't know what a prediction is.

Or maybe you still think that some organisms can be 500-ploid?   :D

Date: 2006/10/22 21:18:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 22 2006,16:02)
What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.

You're not answering any of my questions.

I was asking you, what do you consider "fine-tuned"? Apparently, it means suitable to carbon-based life. Why carbon-based? Must it include human life, life on Earth? Justify your position.

And as the others pointed out, what do you consider a "narrow room for error" for constants?

Date: 2006/10/23 07:24:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, information theory is the least of your problems. You've been asked a hundred of questions you cannot answer, the fact that mutation rates must have been hundreds of times higher than they are today, for a start. And this has NOTHING to do with genetic "corruption" or adaptation.

But you're dodging the question, as always.

Date: 2006/10/23 10:55:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 23 2006,15:40)
 The ur-dogs had all the genes that all types of modern dogs do.

Not only that, they had the alleles of virtualy all canids, since in average, a couple of individuals from the arch gave birth to a thousand species. :O

Date: 2006/10/23 12:11:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, we know thousands of cases of beneficial mutations. Just search for "positive selection" in pubmed. Understanding how such mutations are detected requires some knowledge in genetics and evolutionary biology.
Trying to explain you the underlying concepts would be a waste of time.

Date: 2006/10/23 12:47:46, Link
Author: jeannot
based on the empirical observation that many of the constants are very "brittle" (change them a little and you have no universe), the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small.

So basically you argue that, because the universe exists and we have some constants in our equations, then "goddidit"?

Date: 2006/10/27 12:21:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,13:22)
AFDave, if you had a sudden flash of insight and realized that evolution was true, would that have any impact on your position in the church, or your relationship with friends or other community members? Just curious.

How could he possibly do that? He basically says that we evolutionists are going to burn like jews did in crematories. How disgusting. ???

This proves his utter dishonesty, saying he was ready to accept evolution. He can't. Evolution/Old Earth = evil = burn in heII. Plain and simple.

Date: 2006/10/27 22:26:22, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 28 2006,02:31)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2006,02:18)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 22 2006,16:02)
What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.

You're not answering any of my questions.

I was asking you, what do you consider "fine-tuned"? Apparently, it means suitable to carbon-based life. Why carbon-based? Must it include human life, life on Earth? Justify your position.

And as the others pointed out, what do you consider a "narrow room for error" for constants?

I was under the impresion that the fine tuning argument was not that there are narrow parameters for life; But the parameters for the Universe existing are narrow.

This applies to all the 4 forces.

The easiest to remember (for me) is gravity. Slightly stronger=Universe collapsing before the first star forms. Slightly weaker=no atoms forming.

The observation of "fine-tuning" is not just a creatioist view. Both Stephen Hawking (a signatory on project Steve) and Brian Greene mention it in detail in their popular science books.

I've read Hawking's book and I don't remember any mention of "fine-tuning". It wasn't in English though.

No atomes != no universe.
So I'm asking again. Under what conditions would Paley consider a fine-tuned universe : atomes, carbon-based life, Homo?

Not to mention that speculating on the probabilies for the appearence of the universe is nonsensical. The probabilities are part of the universe too, according to the definition: the universe (metaphysical) = all.

Date: 2006/10/28 13:24:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 28 2006,09:08)

Not to mention that speculating on the probabilies for the appearence of the universe is nonsensical. The probabilities are part of the universe too, according to the definition: the universe (metaphysical) = all.

Not if there is more than one universe. Then probabilities can be applied. With one universe, then the discussion becomes entirely metaphysical.

"More than one universe" just moves the (non) problem further. It's nothing more than terms. At the end, there is only one "all" (mutliverse if you prefer) and fine-tuning (God) is supposed to be the origin of "all". Or are you arguing that God is just a natural product of the multiverse who fine-tuned our own universe?

(Pardon my English.)

Date: 2006/10/28 13:43:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Have we finished with that information stuff yet? It becomes increasingly boring. ???

I'd like to hear Dave's take on post-Flood ecology *snicker*, in a world without soil and vegetation.
It ought to be good.  :)

Date: 2006/10/29 08:23:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 27 2006,12:26)
By the same logic, though: Wherever we find intelligent, purposeful consciousness (and I take a very generous definition here, including not just human, but animal behavior, even - as Lynn Margulis has pointed out - microbial behavior), i.e. wherever you find what could by even the most generous definition be called "will", it is inextricably associated with a physical assembly of atoms. Would we not be justified in making the extrapolation that the existence of a "noncorporeal will" is a pretty dubious proposition?

That's why Goddidit explains nothing.
According to IC or CSI, the designer is designed.
Then who designed the designer?

Date: 2006/10/31 22:59:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,19:21)
and 3500 years is what I said! Do you have any better data?

What about this?

It isn't ice cores, but your buddy AFDave has been unable to refute it.

Date: 2006/10/31 23:05:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Doug, you may want to check

Date: 2006/11/01 06:48:22, Link
Author: jeannot
In most cases none.  Why?  Because pre-Flood animals could have easily carried 4 alleles per locus.  Woodmorappe notes that most loci have [today] fewer than four alleles per locus.  And of course this is easily explainable due to the strong probability that the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair.  (Woodmorappe, p. 195)

But according to your hypothesis, Davey, one pair of indivuduals gave birth to a thousand of species (except humans, for some reason). And a thousand of species represents thousands of alleles per locus.
Try again.

Date: 2006/11/01 07:46:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,13:29)
2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.

huh... why?

2000 BC Kinds have flourished and spread throughout the world

Woa, man... That's SUPERSPEED!!!  :O

Date: 2006/11/01 08:40:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Woa, this guy is even more arrogant than our friend AFDave.  :O
And his answers are even more evasive: ice core? -> ice age, millions of plants? -> floating seeds, genetic richness? -> AFDave's drivel... tada! Truly impressive. ???

What's your take on plate tectonics, particularly, the ages of the oceanic crusts?
Not that I don't expect a "RM dating is just flawed <insert a random link from AIG>".

Date: 2006/11/02 01:20:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Another arguments from authority, Davey?
Quoting former scientists who turned insane, errh.. YEC, won't help you explain the 500 HLA alleles and the thousands of haplotypes that are found among closely related species (which are supposed to descend from a pair of individuals).

Back to work, Davey. :)

Date: 2006/11/02 08:26:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Nov. 02 2006,14:16)
1. Chimps, like man, should have continued to evolve making today’s chimps somewhat different than the common ancestor.
2. Physical dissimilarities are not significant.  The real significance is in the genetic findings (like a broken vitamin C gene.)

1. They have.
2. Physical dissimilarities are very weak and only quantitative... hairs, brain size? Regarding morpho-anatomy, chimps are not closer to gorillas than to us.
But IIRC, the correct phylogeny has only been resolved by molecular analysis.

Date: 2006/11/02 09:17:22, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Nov. 02 2006,14:55)
Regarding morpho-anatomy, chimps are not closer to gorillas than to us.
Do you have any good links that explain this, anatomy isn't my field (it's larger than a protein :D).

In fact, I just have one book on phylogeny which lists only one derived trait shared by humans and chimps (the list may not be complete though).

Date: 2006/11/02 11:45:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (guthrie @ Nov. 02 2006,15:20)
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Nov. 02 2006,14:39)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 02 2006,14:26)

 It is my understanding that humans have hair designed for swimming while chimps do not (IIRC.)

I suggest replacing the word "designed" with the word "optimised".  That would help remove any doubt about design and designers from the statement.

I really don't think that swimming was a selective factor in our lineage. I would imagine that our low pilosity is somewhat linked to our clothes, but it doesn't seem to fit with those who don't wear any (maybe their ancestors?).

Date: 2006/11/03 07:22:04, Link
Author: jeannot
If I remember correctly, Hawking used in his book the anthropic principle to explore the potential conditions for the early universe. The only plausible scenarios are the ones compatible with carbon-based life. If he had speculated about the action of God in the creation of our universe, I would have noticed it.

Date: 2006/11/03 08:23:32, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 02 2006,19:45)
Kent could get as much as 288 years; Jo could get up to 245 years.

Wha..? For a tax-fraud? :O
Just to be sure I read this correctly, does this means prison for life?

(I'm not american, you know.)

Date: 2006/11/03 13:37:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 29 2006,17:14)

"More than one universe" just moves the (non) problem further. It's nothing more than terms. At the end, there is only one "all" (mutliverse if you prefer) and fine-tuning (God) is supposed to be the origin of "all". Or are you arguing that God is just a natural product of the multiverse who fine-tuned our own universe?

The problem is eliminated in a suitably large multiverse, because this would indicate that the universe had enough trials to hit upon the "correct" constants. But if we find evidence for only a handful of universes, each possessing dramatically different constants and all but one -- ours-- barren of life, then the probability of our universe goes down IMHO. For a suitably evidenced TOE, it's hard to say which hypothesis should be favored, although most scientists would find naturalism vindicated.

Would this falsify fine-tuning? I don't think so.
A large multiverse? What does that mean? Isn't the mutliverse supposed to be infinite?
Before we go any further into this pure speculation, I would like you to define the mutliverse. First, what differentiates two separate universes?

And you've yet to define what you consider a fine-tuned universe.

Date: 2006/11/03 13:57:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 03 2006,15:26)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 03 2006,13:22)
If I remember correctly, Hawking used in his book the anthropic principle to explore the potential conditions for the early universe. The only plausible scenarios are the ones compatible with carbon-based life. If he had speculated about the action of God in the creation of our universe, I would have noticed it.

Read it again. The terms are different but the arguments are the same.

According to both Hawing and Greene we are in a weird situation. They both want the laws to be "plausible" and both see a difficulty.

This is not just a creationist view. Aparently most cosmologists/astrophysicists see a problem.

The vast majority are looking for naturalistic causes. This is the only reason that string theory is taken seriously BTW.

Hawking is not being scientific if he uses this argument (God), I'm sorry.

I know some other cosmologists who claim that no astrophysicist/cosmologist nor anyone else is entitled to draw such conclustion. They just don't know. Resorting to a omnipotent supernatural being because we can't explain the world we live in isn't science. It's creationism, plain and simple, be it from a YEC or a Nobel prize in physics.

I really don't see where the "problem" is. Since I don't have the book right now, you'll have to explain me. The universe is all, speculating about its nature in terms of probabilities is nonsensical, as I have shown. Probabilities are part of the universe itself, by definition. This isn't astrophysics, it's logic.

No one here has offered any definition of a fine-tuned universe, let alone a way to fasifiable the fine-tuning hypothesis

Date: 2006/11/04 11:04:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,11:06)
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,07:08)
How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to?  Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?

No. I'm saying even ten, to say nothing of 100, or 225, or 500, alleles in 450 years is going to present problems for your "hypothesis." Again, for someone who says he doesn't believe in evolution, you're talking about evolution rates far in excess of anything actually proposed by the theory of evolution.

"Genetic richness" isn't going to help you there, Dave.

And we're not even talking about mitochondrial haplotypes.

Date: 2006/11/05 23:59:21, Link
Author: jeannot
I read the abstract of Nijhout's paper. He describes alleles of large effects. What's the problem?

I don't see why the first steps of mimicry would require mutations of large effects in all species.
The initial ressemblance could be the result of another selective factor, an exaptation. For instance, two species of toxic insects could develop flashing colors that warn predators. If the flashing colors are closed (it's quite plausible), predation by birds will favor the ressemblance between the species (mullerian mimics). Then one species may lose its ability to produce toxin, but will still benefit from the toxin produced by the other (batesian mimics).
And this is just the first possibility I have in the top of my head (hope this is the correct expression...).

Regarding the mimic and the model living in different regions... Well, migrations/local extinctions could easily explain this. Maybe the aeras of both species were overlapping, in the past.
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

Date: 2006/11/06 01:15:20, Link
Author: jeannot
My understanding is that, in the context of relativity, a difference in C means nothing. It's like saying "time goes faster, time goes slower". It's juste doesn't make any sense.

And what does this have to do with evolution, BTW?

Date: 2006/11/06 05:39:36, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 04 2006,15:38)
You do know that when Hawking says "God" he is not reffering to the Judeo/Christian God? He is talking about 1st cause IIRC. That could be either purely random or designed.

Yes, I don't care about any religion in particular.
God could be purely random?
If that's designed, as I said, the hypothesis is not scientific.

Date: 2006/11/06 08:54:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Not to support AFDave in any way, but are we sure that those shared alleles between Europeans and Native amricans don't result from introgressions after secondary contact? We can never be sure that an individual that is genotyped today don't have one of his ancestor native from the other continent.
Of course, gene sequences/mutations rates would clarify this. As I said, some alleles diverged even before the existence of homo.

Date: 2006/11/06 09:40:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (improvius @ Nov. 06 2006,15:23)
I still think the focus of this "allele discussion" should be on "kinds" rather than humans.

Sure, that's why I keep reminding Dave the fact that his "kinds" all have hundreds of alleles at many loci.

And we're not even considering mitochondrial loci, for which Dave's notion of "genetic richness" (4 alleles in the parents) cannot work.

Date: 2006/11/06 10:12:28, Link
Author: jeannot
What's particularly interresting in this discovery is that it gives us a glimpse of the loss of fins in the past.
If the pelvic fins had been lost gradually until their complete disparition, through hundreds of mutations and alleles (at different loci or not), should we expect them to re-appear this way, in a single individual? It seems probable that the mutation which occurred in that individual is the reverse of the mutation that happened in its lineage.
Even a recombination of two or more "ancestral" alleles could not easily explain that. Those alleles must have been lost a long time ago.
This dolphin show us what the pelvic fins looked like just before they were completely lost. Of course, it was in a different species and the fins were not exactly the same.

Not to mention that I may be completely wrong. What do you guys think?  :)

Date: 2006/11/06 10:36:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 06 2006,15:48)
Dave, you are either stupid, ignorant or denial.

He can't plead ignorance after what we try to teach him through this whole thread. So it's ether sutpidity or denial...

After all, I'd say it's both.

there is no data from science or archaeology that contradicts the historical record known as the Book of Genesis
You forgot: "...and whenever they do [ie: most of the time], they are wrong or I ignore them".
Remember the atlantic basalts Dave?

Date: 2006/11/06 11:01:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 06 2006,16:50)
Dave, you have absolutely no idea why specific RM results were kept, and why others were discarded. You're assuming it was due to making them concordant with expectations from the fossil record, but that assumption founders on the shoals of different expectations from different paleoanthropologists as to what exactly those dates should be.

To be honnest, IF we found some fossil rabbits in a precambrian layer, we would question the dating method. But if all dating methods indicate the same age, then we would question the theory of evolution.

Date: 2006/11/06 11:19:14, Link
Author: jeannot
No, it would be pointless in a thread about John A Davison. And there's nothing particularly funny in my physionomy (neither in JAD's) if you want to know.
The fun comes from the comparison of JAD's wise face and those childish instults he keeps posting in on any internet forum that hasn't banned him yet.

You know, like the comment you just wrote...
Who, except the man himself, supports this PEH drivel and gets mad on people willing to stay anonymous? (Which BTW never prevented his pathetic attempts to post on this baord under another name).

Davison, is this you? :)

Date: 2006/11/07 09:56:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)
As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.

Well, I showed you a picture about the dating of the altantic ocean crust and I posted a link that gave you all the "detail" you wanted.
I did it many times.

Anyway, your failure to provide a single positive evidence supporting your hypothesis is not our fault. Methinks you're too "lazy" for this job.

Date: 2006/11/07 11:58:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 06 2006,06:44)

Yes, I don't care about any religion in particular.
God could be purely random?
If that's designed, as I said, the hypothesis is not scientific.

Even assuming that fine tuning is unfalsifiable (and in the strict sense, it probably is), does that prevent us from examining the idea?


What's a fine tuned universe (third time asking)?

Date: 2006/11/08 16:43:10, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

God dun it.

Then he died.


'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?

Date: 2006/11/09 14:45:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2006,12:13)

What's a fine tuned universe (third time asking)?

Here's my definition. Notice that there are three components:

1) The constants for life have a low tolerance, which means that a small change makes carbon-based life impossible. This part is not controversial, and should be included in any model that seeks to explain origins.

2) The universe will probably not "choose" life-friendly constants because these constants are only a small subset of all the possible choices available. Therefore, our universe has a very small chance of existing. Everybody's still debating this part, of course.

3) This increases the likelihood that Something designed our universe. Most scientists reject this conclusion.

We don't know if our universe had a very small chance of existing, and this question doesn't make any sense if we consider that the universe is all (the definition I use).

You didn't give me a definition of a fine-tuned universe, but for what you said, I conclude it's a life-friendly universe.

3) follows from the definition (2) only if we consider life as a necessity or a goal. Necessity implies consciousness (unconscious things don't want anything), i.e. God.
So, you presuppose the existence of God in order to estimate a likelihood of design (i.e. the existence fo God). This is a tautology.

Date: 2006/11/11 05:25:02, Link
Author: jeannot
You're not refuting my objection with your quotes, Paley.

"Fine tuning => design" relies on a tautology.
Basically it says: for the universe to be life-friendly, the probabilities may be weak (which we don't know actually), so it must have been designed.

Translation: when God wanted to create life, he didn't rely on random chance because it would have produced an undesired result, hence the universe is designed, hence God exists.
You don't realise it (yet), but this is the underlying reasonning you have when you take "life-friendly" as an evidence of design.

Prove me wrong and show me your argument don't rely on a "required" universe, or show me that unconscious processes (non-God) can want anything.

Date: 2006/11/11 07:24:24, Link
Author: jeannot

Dude, can't you read?
Besides this wild guess based on something that never happened (Flood), you were told many times that, if there had been a 500x higher level of amtospheric C12 before the flood, we would see a huge sudden discordance in the calibration curves built with independent data (varves, dendrochronology...) arround 4500y BP. We don't, you lose and your hypothesis is bunk.

Anyway, we're not here to disprove your hypothesis. It has been 150 years ago. We're here to show people how ridiculous YECs are. And you help us a lot.
Keep it up!  :)

Date: 2006/11/11 07:37:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,07:28)
Varves ... dendrochronology ... "calibration" ... please!  Spare me.  Do you guys have no shame?

When did your refute that? Oh, you didn't.
Trees growing in greenhouses... that magically re-adjust the C-14 calibration curves. Yeah. You do have no shame. :)

What about the basalts of the altantic ocean, then? Do you really want to play the buffoon again, Davey?

Date: 2006/11/11 16:42:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave actually said that the pre-flood atmosphere had 500x more CO2? I think he was talking about C12.

Date: 2006/11/11 17:54:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,17:26)
Whoops!  Did I say 300-500X IN THE ATMOSPHERE?  Looks like I did ... judging by the flagellations I see happening.

Let me fix that ...

Shoulda said ... 300-500X the TOTAL C.  Period.

There ... do we feel better now?

Huh... yeah.
Can you follow this argumentation and show us how this huge amount of C produces the calibration curves you were shown?
And where did the carbon go? Maybe the same place the water went to, after the flood?  :D

Date: 2006/11/11 18:01:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,17:26)
Shoulda said ... 300-500X the TOTAL C.
Living plants and animals would have contained most of this biospheric C

Are you talking about total C or biospheric C? You seem confused.

Date: 2006/11/11 18:20:57, Link
Author: jeannot
And I suppose the level of Strontium was also 500 times higher before the flood?

Date: 2006/11/12 03:57:31, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,18:33)
And where did the carbon go? Maybe the same place the water went to, after the flood?
Jeannot ... have you ever heard of coal and oil?

Dude, you were babbling on "total C".

Date: 2006/11/12 12:19:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2006,11:45)
Let's apply Spetner's methodology. The chance of the each addition letter being fixed is 1/26. And for each letter, we multiply by 1/26. So, that's 1/(26^10) ~ one in a hundred trillion total mutations. If our computer tried a million mutations per second, it would take a few thousand millennia to evolve — according to Spetner.

That's why Darwin proposed the hypothesis of gradual evolution (i.e. not saltation) by natural selection.

That was more than 150 years ago, but some people (namely Dembski) haven't understood it yet.  ???

Date: 2006/11/13 13:04:57, Link
Author: jeannot
So... radiocarbon dating is flawed because:
- total biomass was hundreds of times higher before the flood. (evidence?)
- That makes dead organisms appear older than they really are. (how?)
- Dendrochronology is flawed too. (proof?)
- thus calibration curves are not valid (so where do the correlation come from?)

Very convincing, Davey. Keep it up!  :)

Date: 2006/11/13 14:40:59, Link
Author: jeannot
1)  For your Carbon 14 dating system to work, you need to assume uniform C throughout earth history
Huh, no. Calibration curves show that what you call "C" (which is the atmospheric C12/C14 ratio) wasn't exactly uniform. There is a standard correction for that deviation. With our without, the Earth appears far more than 6000 years old. (and we're not even considering other radionuclids like U or Sr)

2)  Of course you do this because you don't want the creationists to be correct
Sure, we are part of that evil atheist conspiracy.

3)  There is overwhelming evidence that there was a massive Global Flood, which evidence you (incredibly! ) ignore
Millions of dead things
burried in rock layers
all over the earth? :D

4)  The best explanation for the 200X-500X carbon existing in the fossil record is this Global Flood
Well, I'm sorry there is much evidence of the contrary, namely carbon deposits (oil, limestone...) that can't result from a flood.

5)  If there was this much carbon pre-Flood, then your C14 dates are way off

Where are the equations?

Date: 2006/11/13 15:41:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:36)
You're the one that changed the subject.  

We were discussing genetics, but someone (I think you) wanted to talk about C14 ... so I accomodated you.

And refuted you.

I must have missed that.  :D

Answer the questions, coward.

Date: 2006/11/13 15:53:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Don Batten:
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating...

Dave, you (and Don Batten) are an insult to real scientists. Do you think the C14 method is calibrated by datings relying on C14? What don't you understand in the expression "independent method"?

You'd better get educated on dendrochronology from relevant sources.

Date: 2006/11/14 12:30:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me inform you of something ... the Human Species is headed for extinction due to the Deterioration of the Genome.

Natural Selection can't save us.

Beneficial mutations can't save us.

Cloning can't save us.

Medical cures cannot save us.

What a load of BS.  ???

Tell us Dave, how in the world does life expectancy increase year after year? Why do the human population become bigger and bigger?

BTW, Kondrashov is a well know evolutionary biologist for its hypothesis explaining sexual reproduction as a mean to purge deleterious mutations.
And don't forget that the mutations rates you've shown involve the entire genome, not a single locus.

Date: 2006/11/14 16:05:50, Link
Author: jeannot
If you want to be molested by someone else, however, you can try David Berlinski, who has whipped a group of Talk Originers in an online debate over the Second Law...

Paley, do you really think that life/evolution violate the Second Law?  ???

Date: 2006/11/14 16:20:35, Link
Author: jeannot
What kind of carbon?  Not C14 because C14 is made from nitrogen in the atmosphere.

Where does all this organic C come from, genius?
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,15:45)
Now, can we move back to genetics?

Why not... Since you admittedly have nothing to back up your claims on radiocarbon there's no point to continue. ???

So, all life on Earth is doomed? I thought the apocalypse was supposed to come from heavens, not from deleterious mutations.  :O

Date: 2006/11/14 16:33:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2006,16:29)
Re "I thought the apocalypse was supposed to come from heavens,"

Like when the sun runs low on H in a few billion years, and then puffs up into a red giant?

By the time, all living things will be dead from "genome decay".

Date: 2006/11/14 16:41:26, Link
Author: jeannot
Nah, but I agree with Berlinski that abiogenesis is still a mystery. ...

No one said the contrary.

Date: 2006/11/14 17:13:07, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 14 2006,16:50)
So this 100X more carbon was tied up in a huge mass of living plants, right?  When living plants grow from seeds, where do they get their carbon from Dave? From CO2 in the atmosphere.  So now you’re telling us that the atmosphere back then had 100X more CO2 than it does now.
This would make the C14 concentration 1/100 of what it is today all other things being equal.

Why would an extra carbon reservoir of pure C12 in plants affect the atmospheric ratio of C14/C12 Dave?  That’s all that matters for radiocarbon dating.

To be fair, I don't think 100x more biomass would require 100x the pressure of atmospheric CO2.

Not to support Dave, but the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio matters only indirectly in radiocarbon dating. The assumption is on the organic ratio, which is the same as the atmospheric ratio. If a plant only contains some C12, it would appear older if we have an overestimation of its C12/C14 ratio when it died.
But Dave never cared to explain why plants of a larger biosphere would accumulate more C12, compared to our plants. Hence, he proved nothing. Zero. How do you call this sort of blithering? Hand waving?

Date: 2006/11/19 16:01:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,13:37)
Arguments against Davison I do not see at all

'Cause there's nothing at all in JAD's arguments, that's why.

"God 'dun it, then he died."

Date: 2006/11/20 05:52:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 19 2006,19:21)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01)
"God 'dun it, then he died."


'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?"


I love it so!

Date: 2006/11/20 05:56:26, Link
Author: jeannot
I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself.

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 06 2006,12:04)
Posters at AvC seem already to have dealt quite adequately with your concerns. I doubt you will get any further here without some new material. I wouldn't rely on John to come up with anything original.

Date: 2006/11/21 08:20:58, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, we know that most mutations are harmful or neutral, thus most substitutions (fixed mutations) are neutral. The modern theory considered that way before creationists made that claim.
Do you really believe you are teaching us anything? Have you heard about "positive selection"?

Try googling the terms, you may learn something.

Date: 2006/11/21 11:33:32, Link
Author: jeannot
What mechanism can you propose that can stop the deterioration?  What mechanism can you propose that can REVERSE the deterioration and set our species on a path of genome improvement, instead of deterioration?

Sexual reproduction, maybe?
It's been proposed by Muller decades ago, and refined by Kondrashov in the 80's.

Date: 2006/11/21 12:51:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,12:33)

I doubt it.

Mutation rates and sexual reproduction are/were their fields of research. (Well, Kondrashov is interested in theoretical evolutionnary biology in general.)

The most famous paper produced by Kondrashov (it was in Nature) is a landmark in evolutionary biology. It explains the existence of sexual reproduction as a mean to purge deleterious mutations. It relies on high mutation rates.
Muller had a similar hypothesis (Muller's ratchet) but it involve longer timescales.

Now, it seems quite normal that these scientists want to prove their point by measuring high mutations rate. Does it prove they are creationists? Only a clown like yourself would think so.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over?

One wonders.  ???

Date: 2006/11/21 13:11:14, Link
Author: jeannot
What mechanism can you propose that can REVERSE the deterioration and set our species on a path of genome improvement, instead of deterioration?

In that very paper you quote-mined, Kondrashov tells us:
Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.

He also says
Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the N-e of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G < s < 1/4N(e)

Our genome is 3.10^9 bp. Considering that most of it isn't translated, the size of our genome which may be subject to selection is probably shorter than a billion bp. What is our population size, Davey?

Date: 2006/11/21 14:01:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Yeah Eric, the last argument he provided in favour of a young Earth is that plants in a bigger biosphere fix more C12. (?!?)

When he realised he had nothing to back that up, he changed the topic, but I d'like him to provide the equations behind his claim.

Of course he can't.

Date: 2006/11/21 14:15:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 21 2006,13:18)
Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

And he has shown that it's impossible to argue with him.

Davison : "I'm right and darwinism is wrong"
Sane person: "but look all these recent papers that prove YOU are wrong <insert references>"
Davison: "I don't read papers written by darwinists"


Date: 2006/11/21 14:48:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 21 2006,14:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 21 2006,14:01)
Yeah Eric, the last argument he provided in favour of a young Earth is that plants in a bigger biosphere fix more C12. (?!?)

When he realised he had nothing to back that up, he changed the topic, but I d'like him to provide the equations behind his claim.

Of course he can't.

And I'm still, six months later, waiting for Dave to account for the existence of the Andromeda galaxy. Or the sun, for that matter.

Well, he could just claim that "God created light". Then He could have placed rays of lights wherever he liked.
Or maybe the speed of light was different in the past. Or whatever.
This does sound silly, but that's the kind of arguments Dave uses. Nothing particularly funny to expect.

But I really want him to adress my point about basalts of the oceanic crust. Because he would have to provide a ridiculous and funny story like "time goes faster near the shores".
Come on Davey, you can do it!  :)

Date: 2006/11/21 17:36:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 21 2006,16:11)

That is no argument what is written in darwinian books.

Wow, what an insightful answer.

I'm talking about evidence, facts... observations and results published in scientific journals. Like substitution rates indicating positive selection, fact that Davison willfully ignores.

But I'm not going to discuss anything with him. It's just impossible. He can't take any objection, but resorts to childish insults and cries for persecution. The man is insane. This isn't a metaphore. He's really insane.

Date: 2006/11/22 10:05:59, Link
Author: jeannot
More flawed arguments from our pet YEC AFDave

Dave cuts & pasts various words from Kondrashov (an others) in circle and make new sentences:
"accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
(Snip invocation of the "magic wand" of "synergistic epistasis")
<skip other quotes>

"Someone has shown that we accumulate slightly deleterious mutation and I will use it as an argument for my CGH"
"The processes that can counterbalance that and explain how lineages has survived for 3 billion years are BS"
"Why? Because we don't need them, since life was created only 6000 years ago"
"Therefore life must have been created 6000 years ago; otherwise we’d be all dead"
(Condensed version:  “the Bible is right because it is”)

Anticipating Dave’s reasoning:
«Bible says that Noah lived hundreds of years"
"Thus, life expectancy has decreased ever since, because of deleterious mutations"
"Hence, processes that can counterbalance that are BS"
"Therefore the Bible is right"
(Condensed version : the Bible is right because it is).

Date: 2006/11/23 02:20:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 22 2006,22:39)
But I don't know whether JAD could fake Borat-like English like this:

Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form -

But then, suddenly, he seems to become more fluent, which seems to indicate it's Davison and he can't stay in character:

Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    

It's kind of hard to believe he could pull off a sentence like that while elsewhere sounding like a 20-year-old from Bratislava who just had his first English lesson 2 months ago. UNLESS it was JAD faking it.

So Lenny, maybe you're right! If he ever uses the word 'darwimp', that'll be the dead giveaway.

I love it so!

Well, I do remember JAD faking a german whose father was a soldier in WWII (or something) under the name of "phishiphred". His pseudo-Englisk was pathetic, even for me. We're not sure it was JAD himself, but it seemed highly probable provided he could manage not to end his posts by "I love it so".
And on Richard Dawkin's board, a few people noticed his bizarre English.

So we have the combination of:
- a supporter of the PEH (which in itself is pretty rare)
- an arrogant person
- a weird English writing (personaly, I can't tell)

Date: 2006/11/23 13:53:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,12:31)
Chris Hyland ...
Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
Great.  Could you list some please?

Could you list some facts that support your hypothesis?

We've been waiting for six months.


Date: 2006/11/23 14:51:21, Link
Author: jeannot
Together with mentioned case in my previous post where male-like females make up 80% of population and mimetic females only 20% question stands like: How is it possible that mimetic form are not prevalent?  

I'm curious, what is your explaination? What do you think controls the frequence of a phenotype/allele in a population if not its reproduction rate, hence selection (or drift)?
Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber?

Even the most radical creationists don't contest population genetics.   :O

Date: 2006/11/23 15:32:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,15:21)
Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...

So what we have is this ...

I have quoted something like 5 or 6  prominent evolutionary geneticists who basically say that higher genomes are headed for extinction.

This does 2 things ...
1) Proves ToE is impossible
2) Shows that higher genomes HAD to be the   product of Intelligent Design

If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.

Dude, can't you realise how stupid this sounds?

"evolutionary biologists use equations of the ToE whose results prove that the ToE is impossible".  :D

Give us some more, Davey.  :)

Date: 2006/11/23 15:37:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 23 2006,15:33)
So what's your point? Do you have any evidence—any evidence whatsoever—that biodiversity was any lower in the 19th century (before human predation really starting impacting it) than it was thousands, or millions, or hundreds of millions, or billions of years ago? No, you don't.

Actually, he claims that we went from a few thousands to a few million species in roughly 4500 years, while their genomes were driving them to extinction.
If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
The problem, Dave, is that you don't know much about science.
And you can edit your double post BTW (these server downtimes are getting excessively annoying).

Date: 2006/11/24 02:18:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,16:57)
In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.

I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?
Feel free to put forward any natural or supernatural mechanism.

Methinks you don't even have a hypothesis, and the lack of substance in your reply sure makes you sound like JAD.

Date: 2006/11/24 02:29:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 23 2006,19:48)
Smells more like Paley to me.

It can't be Paley. This one is dead an burried.

Date: 2006/11/25 04:03:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Davey, whole genome duplications can be obtained in the lab. Never heard of polyploidy, have you?

And regarding gene duplications, as I work on aphids, I'd like to post the abstract (and other parts) of an interesting paper about the function and evolution of a duplicated gene in a social aphid species.

Venomous protease of aphid soldier for colony defense
Mayako Kutsukake *, Harunobu Shibao *, , Naruo Nikoh , Mizue Morioka , Tomohiro Tamura ¶, Tamotsu Hoshino ¶, Satoru Ohgiya ¶, and Takema Fukatsu *, ||
PNAS | August 3, 2004 | vol. 101 | no. 31 | 11338-11343

In social aphids, morphological, behavioral, and physiological differences between soldiers and normal insects are attributed to differences in gene expression between them, because they are clonal offspring parthenogenetically produced by the same mothers. By using cDNA subtraction, we identified a soldier-specific cysteine protease of the family cathepsin B in a social aphid, Tuberaphis styraci, with a second-instar soldier caste. The cathepsin B gene was specifically expressed in soldiers and first-instar nymphs destined to be soldiers. The cathepsin B protein was preferentially produced in soldiers and showed a protease activity typical of cathepsin B. The cathepsin B mRNA and protein were localized in the midgut of soldiers. For colony defense, soldiers attack enemies with their stylet, which causes paralysis and death of the victims. Notably, after soldiers attacked moth larvae, the cathepsin B protein was detected from the paralyzed larvae. Injection of purified recombinant cathepsin B protein certainly killed the recipient moth larvae. From these results, we concluded that the cathepsin B protein is a major component of the aphid venom produced by soldiers of T. styraci. Soldier-specific expression of the cathepsin B gene was found in other social aphids of the genus Tuberaphis. The soldier-specific cathepsin B gene showed an accelerated molecular evolution probably caused by the action of positive selection, which had been also known from venomous proteins of other animals.

Soldier-Specific and Nonspecific Cathepsin B Genes Expressed in T. styraci. Many proteases including cathepsin B are known to comprise multiple gene families generated through gene duplications (41). It is thought that gene duplications have enabled the exploitation and evolution of novel gene functions, because new gene copy is freed from functional constraints of the original gene copy (42). Therefore, we examined whether cathepsin B genes other than the soldier-specific type exist in T. styraci. By RT-PCR using degenerate primers for cathepsin B proteases, expression of a different cathepsin B gene was identified in T. styraci. The full-length cDNA sequence of the nonspecific cathepsin B gene was determined. The 1,113-bp sequence contained a putative ORF encoding a polypeptide of 340 aa residues, exhibited 58.8%/51.3% (nucleotide/amino acid) sequence similarity to soldier-specific cathepsin B, and was constitutively expressed in both soldiers and nonsoldiers. From closely related social aphids T. coreana, T. taiwana, and T. takenouchii, which also produce second-instar soldiers, the two types of cathepsin B genes were identified by RT-PCR. Molecular phylogenetic analysis revealed that these genes formed two distinct and well defined clades (Fig. 6A). Semiquantitative RT-PCR analysis confirmed that, irrespective of the aphid species, the genes in the soldier-specific clade were expressed in a soldier-specific manner, whereas the genes in the nonspecific clade were expressed constitutively (Fig. 6B). These results suggested an evolutionary scenario that several copies of cathepsin B genes were present in an ancestor of these social aphids, and one of them acquired a novel venom function in the soldier caste.

Accelerated Molecular Evolution in Soldier-Specific Cathepsin B. In venomous animals such as snakes and gastropods, it was found that molecular evolution of their toxic proteins is strikingly accelerated because of positive selection acting on the molecules (43, 44). When exon and intron sequences of the soldier-specific and nonspecific cathepsin B genes were compared between T. styraci and T. coreana, such evolutionary patterns were detected; the KA/KS value obtained from the soldier-specific genes was >1, whereas the value from the nonspecific genes was «1 (Table 1). The accelerated evolution of soldier-specific cathepsin B is probably relevant to its venom function.

How many aphid "kinds" were in the Arch, Davey?  :)

Date: 2006/11/25 15:06:25, Link
Author: jeannot
It ain't chance.

It ain't selection.

It ain't God (because he's dead).

What else, then? :O

Date: 2006/11/25 15:18:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Your aphid example is just like my bee example.  I already answered your question.  Please reread my post.

Where is that? I can't find it.
Maybe you can just tell me wether there were any aphids aboard the Arch (yes or no). If yes, how many kinds?

Because you know, these aphids feed on specific trees, starve within a couple of days and aren't good swimmers.

I think I'm gonna love Dave's "Flood ecology".  :)

Date: 2006/11/26 03:33:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 25 2006,15:18)
Your aphid example is just like my bee example.  I already answered your question.  Please reread my post.

Where is that? I can't find it.
Maybe you can just tell me wether there were any aphids aboard the Arch (yes or no). If yes, how many kinds?

Dave dodges a question again, yet he claims he has already answered.

*Sigh*  :(

Date: 2006/11/26 08:23:26, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 26 2006,07:12)
that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.

Oh, it was?
Dude, how do you encode the "information" of two genes in only one? The same way the "genetic richness" of 500 alleles was contained in 10?  :D
Think hard, boy. Duplicated genes aren't alleles. They are even less compatible with your *cough* hypothesis.

Date: 2006/11/26 11:22:39, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 26 2006,10:53)
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 26 2006,07:12)
Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.

This is one of the strangest claims Dave has made so far. Any major change in any genome in any organism was "already there" before researchers looked, Dave. Do you expect to see gross changes in a genome while researchers watch?

This is part and parcel of Dave's absolutely asinine statement that "no one has ever observed macroevolution."


It's even worse than that.
Since Dave heard about phenotypic plasticity, it certainly explains all the diversity seen among thousands of species. And he somehow believes we'll buy this cr*p!
His arguments are becoming so absurd it staggers the mind.  :O

It's hard to believe isn't it?

EDIT: I don't know if Dave should be proud of that, but his second thread just reached 100 pages.

Date: 2006/11/27 15:45:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 26 2006,15:12)

I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?

I wouldnt say question stands like that. Because female morphs of Papilio  
dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population it is necessary to recognize
existence of switch-gene.

I'm not convinced. Would you care to explain precisely why you came to that conclusion? What's a "switch gene" anyway ? I do some population genetics, but I never heard of that.

Because female morphs of Papilio dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population...

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Date: 2006/11/28 02:21:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Unless you show us some evidence that the universe had to be life-friendly (or anything else), beyond the implicit "God wanted it so", your fine-tuning argument won't go anywhere, GoP.

I'm still waiting for your refutation of my objection regarding this tautology.

Date: 2006/11/28 13:10:02, Link
Author: jeannot
I'll restate my objection in English.
You take some alleged low probabilities as evidences for design. But your argument can only work if we consider the universe as the result of an experiment, in the litteral sense (done by a conscious being who expect results).

You will admit that this reasoning is tautological.

Date: 2006/11/29 13:46:01, Link
Author: jeannot

1) We can say that it is DEGENERATING.  On what authority?  Virtually every investigator ... Kimura, Neel, Kondrashov, Nachman, Crowell, Walker, Keightley and Crow ...
Biological information is degenerating? Can you show us the exact quotes where your authority say that?  

2) The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ...
What a load of cr*p. So, when you have a mutation from A to B then another from B to A, both reduced information? Anyway, all this blithering on information has nothing to do with evolutionary biology and your hypothesis.  

3) We can say that Information Content in genomes was GREATER in the past.  This is a logical inference from (1) and (2)
Since (1) and (2) are completely illogical, so is the conclusion.    

So, I would ask ... what is the point of MEASURING biological information?
There's not point. Who brought the topic of information again?
And you don't need to be able to measure Biological Information to determine the answer.
Tell that to Dembski.

Date: 2006/11/29 14:00:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,13:47)
Wonderful theory, Shirley.  Can you name some real world examples of mutations in which this has occurred?

You do work in the real world, don't you?

Have you heard of reverse mutations or "homoplasy" dude? Of course not. If you had, you wouldn't write such nonsense.

Date: 2006/11/29 14:44:59, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 29 2006,14:22)
If two slightly different copies of a gene result in two slightly different proteins, both of which are used by the organism, are you still going to maintain that information hasn't increased? Yes? Well, I'm even more surprised.

Eric, haven't you understood? The information was already there <insert link to a wiki page about phenotypic plasticity>.

I declare victory. :-)

Date: 2006/12/01 14:24:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 01 2006,13:00)
Eric-- Kimura's curve doesn't touch the vertical axis ... gets real close ... but doesn't touch it.  
davy, the graph is Kimura's model. If it doesn't actually touch the axis, that's because his equation for frequency asymptotically approaches infinity at the zero ("exactly neutral") point.

A frequency can't be greater than 1, which is a finite number.
But if it were an asymptote and if the model perfectly matched reality (what Dave thinks), it would mean that absolutely neutral mutations have an infinite relative frequency, i.e. all mutations are exactly neutral. But Dave argues the contrary. He can't understand/read his own graph correctly.
He is a infinite idiot, certified.  :D

Date: 2006/12/02 11:57:07, Link
Author: jeannot
I have no problem with Dave believing any BS he wants to believe.
But he shouldn't claim to be ready to accept any evidence again his *cough* hypothesis.

In fact, he's unable to even imagine an evidence that he would find acceptable.

That's really sad.  ???

Date: 2006/12/02 12:10:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,12:06)
You've represented my view accurately -- I think beneficial mutations are effectively non-existent.

But science doesn't care what you think.

Especially since you don't know what "beneficial" means.

Date: 2006/12/02 17:58:32, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 02 2006,17:44)
how it can be that without lethally-high levels of mutation or mathematically-impossible amounts of genetic variability, you get from 10,000 "kinds" to ten millions species in 4,500 years?

From the few incoherent assertions Dave has made so far, I think it has something to do with recombination and plasticity (although Dave didn't use the latter term).

Of course it's not supported by any kind of evidence, but don't expect a better explanation from him.

Date: 2006/12/03 05:44:08, Link
Author: jeannot
I think the only way to keep this tread going is to ask one question at a time to Dave, and wait until he answers.
We wouldn't have to ask him anything if he did what he claimed to, i.e. provide some positive evidence for his hypothesis. But he's obviously unable to do this, let alone argue for his CGH in any coherent way.

Therefore, I propose we stop every currently open "debate" and begin with the first question that Dave should have adressed from the start : HOW DO YOU FALSIFY YOUR HYPOTHESIS ?"

Maybe we should start a new thread dedicated to questions to AFDave: one question, one answer, then another question (on the incoherent answer) and so on...

Date: 2006/12/03 05:55:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 03 2006,05:41)
Would you beleive it?

It's hard to believe, isn't it?

Date: 2006/12/03 11:17:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 03 2006,10:44)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 03 2006,05:46)
Eric ... OK, so I missed your point.  I thought you were making the point that the fossil record is as ToE predicted it would be, which is most definitely not the case.

Dave, the worst thing you can say about the ToE's predictions with respect to the fossil record is that that record is not as complete as one would have hoped.

This objection isn't supported by facts, as shown by Wesley in one of his articles.

Date: 2006/12/05 12:40:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 05 2006,12:10)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,11:52)
I have heard very low mutation rates for humans also, but these have lately been revised upward dramatically ... I think I posted a reference to something like 100-300 per individual per generation.

Dave, you do realize that mutations in somatic cells don't get passed on, don't you? You don't? Well, imagine my surprise.

Dave made a typo. It's not per individual, its per genome. Or he should have added "inherited".

But I think the rate he mentionned is correct. Don't forget that each gamete has undergone several mitosis in an individual. I don't know the number, but he may be more than 10.

Date: 2006/12/05 14:17:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  

In asexual organims like bacteria, selection operates at the individual (or genome) level. Even if several mutations occurred in the same bacterium before its division, what only matters in terms of selection is the overall fitness (reproduction rate) of the organism.
In other terms, we don't give a #### whether 0, 10 or 100 bad mutations use genetic "hitch-hiking" and are selected with one linked beneficial mutations. Mutants that reproduce faster invade the population. End of story.

In sexual populations, it's different. Since genomes can recombine, selection operates at the mutation (nucleotide) level. So beneficial mutation can be selected for while bad mutations that occured in the same genome can be selected against.

Date: 2006/12/05 16:23:38, Link
Author: jeannot
What in the world is Davescot trying to demonstrate? That mutations are not random?  ???

BTW, what's the predictive power of ID?  :p

Date: 2006/12/06 12:56:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 06 2006,11:03)
Dave, if VSDM have no effect on fitness or reproductive ability, i.e., they confer no competitive disadvantage at all, then by definition they are not VSDMs! They are neutral mutations, by definition.

Any mutation that cannot be selected for or against is by definition a neutral mutation.

For AFDave, a mutation is by definition deleterious.

Go figure.  ???

Date: 2006/12/06 16:19:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 06 2006,13:42)
Another way of looking at your "mutation load" problem is simply to say this:
You have not shown that deep time as revealed by radiometric dating methods (among many other things) is invalid. Therefore, I am entitled to point out that numerous species other than man have differential mutation rates and have survived over millions of years.

In the case of "mutation loads", on don't see why the relevant unit should be the species. Is speciation supposed to "reset" the alleged mutation load? All extant lineages have the exact same age, more than 3 billion years.

And I like to remind Dave that the evidence for a very old universe and biosphere is beyound doubt. Conversely, the hypothesis that mutation rates should have killed us hundreds of times is not verified at all. In fact, it's proven wrong by our existence.

Taking conjectures as facts and discarding possible explanations only prove you are intellectually dishonnest.

Date: 2006/12/06 16:30:16, Link
Author: jeannot
As far as I know, no one has successfully rebutted it.

This article summarises the current evidence, but does not discuss the possible mechanisms in any detail.

What's your position on this Paley?

Do you think that life originated on Earth through natural processes or do you take our current lack of detailed explanation as evidence of the contrary (argument from ignorance, as Behe's Irreducible Complexity)?

Date: 2006/12/06 16:45:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Faid @ Dec. 06 2006,16:41)
Also, if I remember correctly, dave had said something before about species "becoming extinct in 300 generations" or something. Now he never provided any actual links for that, just asserted that someone (a YEC, I believe, since a non-YEC paper he referred to said nothing of the sort) figured it out... But the issue is: If he accepts that, does he not understand the huge, insurmountable problem this poses for HIS "theory", above all others?
And we're talking about initial populations of 2... Talk about small!

I think you're confusing with mutation rates of 100-300/genome/generation in humans. That number is an estimation by Kondrashov, who certainly isn't a YEC.

Date: 2006/12/06 16:52:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Faid @ Dec. 06 2006,16:03)
Um, as a person living in a non-english speaking country, I feel I should point out that the way this "VMartin" talks is NOT the way people uneducated in English do. You know, skipping articles while keeping his grammar perfect, etc.

That's exactly what I think.

It reminds me of that "phishyphred" who came trolling here once.

The question is : why would you act this way? What is VMartin hiding?
He could really be JAD after all. Can there be two supporters of the PEH that have some sort of mental problem? Coincidence or correlation?

Date: 2006/12/07 09:12:23, Link
Author: jeannot
I think it's time to close this thread.


Date: 2006/12/07 16:05:32, Link
Author: jeannot
I'd personaly like to know what kind of a God would condemned all living beings to death.
What do you think Dave? Is it Sadism?

Date: 2006/12/08 16:09:31, Link
Author: jeannot
I personaly don't find the chess analogy to be a good one.
It has nothing to do with Dave's hypothesis either.

I want more fun. Dave, tell us about post-Flood ecology. What about sequoias, penguins and coral reefs?  :)

Date: 2006/12/08 16:35:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 08 2006,16:30)

Scleractinia (Stony star corals)

All I see here is one or two kinds + phenotypic plasticity (+ other factors).  :p

Date: 2006/12/09 14:51:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (k.e @ Dec. 09 2006,13:59)
Some time ago I asked why  H.S.S had not evolved futher since around 200,000 years ago. From a long line of proto Humans.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. During the last 200 000 years, we have evolved under environmental pressure. Heck, we almost disappeared some 60 000 years ago (no Dave, it's not the flood).
But a few hundred thousand years is short for a species whose generation time is 20-30 years. H. sapiens is very recent.

Date: 2006/12/09 15:03:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,13:15)
Natural Selection has absolutely NO intelligence whatsoever.  Chess players do.

Sure Dave, no one claimed the contrary. Directed mutations would be much more effective than random mutations + selection if such mutations existed.

What's your point ? Does it support your Creator God Hypothesis?
I guess not. So why don't you provide positive evidence for it? Last time you tried, you lamentably failed at disproving radiocabon dating. You were stuck at "the ancient biosphere was 100 times bigger..." Then what ?

It was a few weeks ago and you've been increasingly boring since then.  ???

Date: 2006/12/12 07:01:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave appears to believe that, somehow, you can produce different species without mutations.

He mentionned something about phenotypic plasticity, which is ridiculous.
He mentioned the fact that a couple of individuals can produce billions of different children, which is true. But, Davey, children belong to the same species as their parents and grand parents... and so on, if there isn't any mutation.

It is also a fact that, the thousand species that are supposed to belong to the same "kind" all have a different copy (at least) of each gene (except highly conserved ones).

Date: 2006/12/12 14:22:05, Link
Author: jeannot
..."contrary to Darwin's conception"  (Translation: Darwin was wrong about this)

..."mutations provide a mere trickle of new alleles"

..."much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation"

..."recombination alone is sufficient"

..."no need for new genetic input by mutation"

Do you see what Ayala (and you) has done here?

He has assumed that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" with no experimental verification whatsoever.

Are you dumb or what? (we all know the answer but still...)
How to you create a new allele without a mutation, genius?

I you'have also noticed that Ayala is referring to genetic variation within populations not between species. Big difference.
Show me a model in which post-zygotic isolation can arise between populations without mutation. Don't know what I'm talking about? Just get a clue.

Date: 2006/12/12 16:17:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Did he create also H. erectus and H. habilis separately or do they come from Adam & Co?

What does the bible have to say about?  :)

Date: 2006/12/13 05:48:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,21:19)
Deadman ...  
Pithecanthropus erectus was Dubois' name for Java man...H. erectus. It's no longer used.
Hey Stephen Wells ... keep the Fairy Tale straight, wouldja?

Dude, what are you trying to say? That Homo erectus never existed?

Date: 2006/12/13 14:17:44, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,13:47)
Steve Story...  
I'm sitting here laughing at AFDave's idea that shutting down this thread after 10,000 comments indicates really disgraceful censorship on the part of "Steve Story and Wesley Elsberry".

Wasn't me that said that.  Please don't misquote me.

Did he say it was you?

Again, what about Homo erectus, Davey? Hoax? Our ancestor? A separate "kind"? Pick your choice.

Date: 2006/12/13 15:18:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,14:20)
"What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

One word.


Dave, why don't you keep your pseudo-phylosophy off this thread and provide some evidence for your hypothesis instead?


Date: 2006/12/13 16:27:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 13 2006,16:08)
The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one.

Descartes figured this out a few centuries ago. Some still have a problem with that apparently.

Date: 2006/12/14 05:33:57, Link
Author: jeannot
Woa, this lab is so secret than ID leaders like Dembski and Behe don't even know about it.
Or why wasn't its existence mentionned in Dover, when defendants were asked about the state of "ID research"?

Date: 2006/12/15 12:48:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2006,10:05)
That is incorrect, and the error pervade the entire thread. The molecular clock is primarily due to cell replication, not generation time.

Are you sure?

To me, generation time is very important. A substitution rate per nucleotide per year should be proportional to :
mutation rate (per nucleotide per replication) * number of replications during gametogenesis * 1/generation time (per year)
I don't have any figure to show, but I think that generation time would be the term that varies the most between closely related species.

Date: 2006/12/15 14:20:43, Link
Author: jeannot
No new "order" is being created, indeed. Heck, have you ever met a new order of mammals in your garden? And I'm pretty sure no new empire will appear before the end of the year. We'll be stuck with those darn bacteria, archea and eukaryotes.
Man, evolution must be finished, hence it was prescribed.

I'm convinced.

Date: 2006/12/15 14:30:05, Link
Author: jeannot
So you're basically saying that a butterfly is also a butterfly factory.
I think we're making progess.

Now, do "watch factories" reproduce?


And BTW, do you consider nylonase as a biological machine?

Date: 2006/12/15 17:44:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2006,14:58)
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 15 2006,12:48)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2006,10:05)
That is incorrect, and the error pervade the entire thread. The molecular clock is primarily due to cell replication, not generation time.

Are you sure?

To me, generation time is very important. A substitution rate per nucleotide per year would be proportional to :
mutation rate (per nucleotide per replication) * number of replications in gametogenesis * 1/generation time (per year)
I don't have any figure to show, but I think that generation time would be the term that varies the most between closely related species.

Your formula implies the neutral substitution rate would be inversely proportional to generation time. This is not accurate, nor a correct statement of the molecular clock hypothesis (though there is some correlation! ).

Assuming organisms have the same metabolic rate, then their gametes (esp. in males) would be predicted to mutate at a similar rate. The original molecular clock hypothesis was that they would therefore accumulate the same number of neutral substitutions per time — whether that was within a single organism or several descendent organisms. Hence, though an elephant may have only a single generation to the mouse's twenty, they would still accumulate the same number of mutations somewhere in the germ line. This is the baseline prediction.

The hypothesis has since been modified. Metabolic rates are not constant over species, which, in vertebrates, is correlated to size and generation time. (There are also lots of other anomalies and corrections, including questions about neutrality.) The fact that there is some corrective correlation with generation time has led to some misunderstanding of the molecular clock hypothesis.

That's exactly what my formula says.
I just assumed there wasn't much difference in mutation rates (per nucleotide per replication) and in the number of mitosis during gametogenesis, compared to the huge differences in generation times. I don't have the numbers, though.
Regarding metabolic rates, I learned it was negatively correlated with body size, at least in mammals. Small mammals spend more energy to maintain their temperature, partly because they have a small volume:surface ratio, and respiration produces free radicals which are mutagenic.

EDIT: that's what the abstract of the PNAS paper says.

Date: 2006/12/16 05:35:15, Link
Author: jeannot
The assumption "complexity requires a designer" is completely bogus. It's equivalent to "complexity requires complexity".

AFDave, you are uncommonly dense.  :D

Date: 2006/12/16 13:02:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Hey, Davey, what about speciation in watches? Did they diversify into millions of models after the flood?

Date: 2006/12/16 16:34:31, Link
Author: jeannot
The funnier is that AFDave clearly admits that butterflies evolve, but it doesn't bother him at all. Butterflies are like watches.

Do watches evolve, Davey?  :)

Date: 2006/12/16 17:36:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,17:08)
The Doctors from Oxford say ...


... is equivalent to ...

"Cells came by chance"

What about selection?

You can't learn anything, can you?

Date: 2006/12/16 17:49:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Dave, no one here needs no freaking course on "biological machines", especially from a middle-age YEC like you.

We want some positive evidence for you *cough* hypothesis, not just some "woa, it looks designed to me".

Let's have some fun, teach us "post flood ecology" instead. What did all those carnivorous "kinds" eat after they got off the Arch?  :p

Date: 2006/12/17 03:55:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 17 2006,01:33)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,22:43)
Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
We'd be well on our way, yes.  And I don't think that day is too far away ... did you read the article on the Future of Industrial Automation? (Instead of just pooh pooh it like our professor friend did)

So Dave, if Thomas Edison could have built a simple machine that was capable of building a duplicate of itself (which frankly wouldn't have been hard, even with 19th century technology), he would have created life in the lab?

If a machine is capable of duplicating itself by incorporating without our help elements of its environment, and is also able of producing slightly altered copies, then it could evolve and anything could happen.
I would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.

Of course, it wouldn't support intelligent design in the slightess.

I have a question for you Dave. If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity (maybe it's already been done BTW), would it support your hypothesis?

Date: 2006/12/17 08:18:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 17 2006,07:09)

Eric ...  
I have a question for you Dave. If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity (maybe it's already been done BTW), would it support your hypothesis?
Drop the "evolving" but then "yes."  If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating entity that is able to feed itself, maintain itself, etc., then this would support my hypothesis.  Why? Because it would prove that "intelligence" was required to create life.

Oh it would? Man, you're really that dense.

Let me rephrase : if the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity, by simulating the condition of the early Earth, would it support your hypothesis?

And why should I drop the "evolving" part? Wasn't evolution responsible for the explosion of biodiversity after the Flood?

And my name is Jeannot, btw.

Date: 2006/12/17 09:00:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 17 2006,08:33)

Sorry Jeannot ...  
Let me rephrase : if the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity, by simulating the condition of the early Earth, would it support your hypothesis?
No.  If it can be proven that life can spring from non-life simply by setting up the right conditions, then I would be convinced that ToE was plausible.

Fine. Now I'd like to know your defintion of "life".
Not if you mean "mutations".  It was pre-existing variability.  Remember my friend, Francisco?  (Ayala)

This is just nonsense. Where do you think this "pre-existing variabillity" come from? Do you also believe that the first replicating entity will be a diploid, sexually reproducing organism with 23 pairs of chromosomes?

And facts disprove your view. Ayala is refering to diversity within a population. But there are far more than 4 alleles at each nuclear locus among the average thousand of species which are supposed to descend from the same couple of individuals.
This is also a simple fact that post-zygotic isolation can't possibly evolve without at least two new mutations between populations.

And what about new genes? Remember my paper about this new protein found in social aphids? How did this new protein appear, if not by a gene duplication?

Date: 2006/12/17 16:28:33, Link
Author: jeannot
The big problem that most anti-evolutionist seem to have, is that they can't understand what natural selection means. They believe it's some sort of magical thing that randomly decides what's good and what's not.
This may be why they also believe that, once an individual has been deisgnated as "the fitest", it's just the best regardless of the environment.

I'm pretty sure Dave has this conception of evolution.

Get that into you head Dave: selection is just the fact that in a population, some alleles happen to replicate more in their environment.

Now, if you have a problem with that, Dave, tell us.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:49:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Eric ... Selection has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the present discussion about watches and butterflies.


Answer these questions :
- Do watches evolve?
- Do butterflies evolve?

If you dodge them, it will further prove that you are a dishonest coward, and you know it.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:55:32, Link
Author: jeannot
But wait... What are we doing here?

This argument was debunked 150 years ago, (and a has been again at Dover).

The guy who is unable to understand why is just a hopeless idiot.

Dave can't learn anything.

Jeannot already agreed with me and you would too if you were honest.

Agree with you on what? :O
If it's on your comparison between watches and butterflies, please post a link to where I admitted it had some value. Liar.

Date: 2006/12/18 17:00:30, Link
Author: jeannot

Date: 2006/12/19 08:45:08, Link
Author: jeannot
I predict that Dave will spend the next week on the comparison between genomes and computer programs.

Yawn. ???

Date: 2006/12/19 13:10:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Yes, K.E, Jeannot did agree with me ... he said ...  
I [sic] [he meant "it"] would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.

I don't remember you mention anything about reproduction and evolution in your drivel about watches/butterflies.

Keep dreaming.

Date: 2006/12/20 05:49:00, Link
Author: jeannot
I always love the "This-guy-is-making-me-look-so-dumb-I-think-I'll-try-a-new-tactic" gig from Aftershave...

Among the thousands of viewers and lurkers in this thread, not a single one has taken your defense (well, maybe this guy "bwee"). So if someone looks like a buffoon here, that's definetely you.

Let's try a poll: if you don't think Dave looks dumb, post it.

Date: 2006/12/23 04:30:17, Link
Author: jeannot
I see we haven't made any progress in a week. Dave is still on his argument "it looks designed, therefore it must be".
Dave you're truly a pathetic coward.

Answer the question: do watches evolve?

Date: 2006/12/23 04:34:00, Link
Author: jeannot
I was born in Annecy, France (50 kms from Geneva).
Now I live in Brittany.

Date: 2007/01/07 13:04:27, Link
Author: jeannot
Hello all,

As I said in some other threads, I think a good way to illustrate the problem is selfish DNA and genomic conflits :
- B chromosomes
B-chromosome evolution
Author(s): Camacho JPM, Sharbel TF, Beukeboom LW

- modile DNA (thousands of references)
- Segregation distorters
Author(s): LYTTLE TW
Source: ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENETICS 25: 511-557 1991

- conflict between nuclear and cytoplasmic DNA (including endosymbionts) causing
  * Cytoplasmic Male Sterility
Schnable PS, Wise RP
The molecular basis of cytoplasmic male sterility and fertility restoration
TRENDS IN PLANT SCIENCE 3 (5): 175-180 MAY 1998

  * Feminization, and other effects

When there is a conflict between units of selection (gene/individual/population), the gene always has the last word.
My position, like Dawkins', is that we can explain our perception of the living world more precisely if we consider that selection acts on genes.

Date: 2007/01/07 16:37:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 07 2007,13:42)
I think you're setting youself up for some arguments from the evo-devo folks, but I especially appreciate this particular input in this thread, so thanks.

we now have both ends of the spectrum represented, and I expect eventually this will spark some heated debate.

I'd prefer to stick to specific papers rather than general discussion myself, so with that in mind, do you have a specific article you would like to champion, Jean?

It's not evo-devo, as far as I can't tell, rather some situations found in nature that have been explain by selection acting on gene, in spite of their deleterious effects on population growth and the fitness of other genes.

I haven't read this papers actually. But maybe the review paper on segregation distorters is a good start.

Date: 2007/01/10 15:34:30, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 10 2007,13:49)
Perhaps I'm exposing my ignorance, but isn't Down Syndrome caused by chromosomal nondisjunction during meiosis rather than a duplication of the chromosome?

Of course, dt is wrong on this. First he confuses genetic code with genome, and it's not a chromosomal duplication, which would mean that a DNA replication would occure twice for a chromosome during one interphase in the germinal lineage.
Maybe there are genetical predispositions to nondisjunction, but an important factor is the age of the mother, which greatly increases the risk.

Date: 2007/01/10 16:20:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 10 2007,15:52)
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 10 2007,13:34)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 10 2007,13:49)
Perhaps I'm exposing my ignorance, but isn't Down Syndrome caused by chromosomal nondisjunction during meiosis rather than a duplication of the chromosome?

Of course, dt is wrong on this. First he confuses genetic code with genome, and it's not a chromosomal duplication, which would mean that a DNA replication would occure twice for a chromosome during one interphase in the germinal lineage.
Maybe there are genetical predispositions to nondisjunction, but an important factor is the age of the mother, which greatly increases the risk.

Careful, according to Wikipedia, DT is rarely right
Rarely, a region of chromosome 21 will undergo a duplication event. This will lead to extra copies of some, but not all, of the genes on chromosome 21 (46,XX,dup(21q)).[11] If the duplicated region has genes that are responsible for Down syndrome physical and mental characteristics, such individuals will show those characteristics. This cause is very rare and no rate estimates are available.

Bring on the boasting!

In any case, it's not the duplication of a whole chromosome.

Date: 2007/01/11 15:43:14, Link
Author: jeannot
Especially when you throw in the fact that the fossil record indicates species stability (i.e. fossil cyanobacteria is very similar to modern

What's the problem? Fossil cyanobacteria are 6000 years old at most, aren't they? Like Adam.

Is it your assertion that the millions of species that have diversified after the flood (sic) won't show any fossil?

What an idiot...

Date: 2007/01/12 12:34:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (steve_h @ Jan. 12 2007,06:13)
I don't think DS is contradicting himself in the above (*)example.  He sometimes argues that according to RM+NS,  anything not immediately useful will be lost.

He doesn't know about genetic drift apparently.  ???

From his own perspective, there are designed mechanisms which allow stuff to be conserved indefinitely (eg for front loading of human beings into a much more complex single celled ancestor).

Edit: (*) New page. D'oh!

His misconception of natural selection is interesting. It could be fun to engage him in a debate on the topic, maybe on Alan's blog. The problem is that the Old Crank (JAD) will probably show up.

Date: 2007/01/12 12:50:28, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 12 2007,12:27)
I didn't say it's true.  I just think it's funny.  It sort of represents what I get from evolutionary scientists when I delve into the details of Darwinism.  Big pauses.

"It could be a fraud but it proves my point".
How about something I haven't addressed yet?
... says someone who hasn't been able to answer basic questions for months. Oh the irony. :D

Show us the details of you hypothesis, for instance how you can yell that two organisms belong to the same "kind".

Date: 2007/01/12 18:35:02, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 12 2007,16:30)
The fossil record. Why the fossil record supports common descent so well and does (sic) support sorting by size, speed, brain size etc.

blablabla GAPS blah blah blah

Why don't you answer the question, you coward?

Let me help you : "My book of genesis is a joke"

And BTW, how many fossils have been discovered, compared to the thousands of billions of animals and plants that ever existed?

How did the people who discovered tiktaalik know where to look for and succeed?
What does the bible say about the probability to find a fossil fish with limbs?

Date: 2007/01/13 03:53:15, Link
Author: jeannot
I can anticipate Dave's answer. It's true that, in average marine fossils precede terrestrial fossils, just bause life has been possible only in the ocean for 3 billion years.
Ouf course, Dave ignores the tons of evidence for the production of oxygen in the ocean since -3 Gy and the oxydation of irons, then the release of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Care to comment that diagram, Davey?  :)

Date: 2007/01/13 04:19:52, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 12 2007,23:08)
"Statistically speaking" means you lose, Dave. If the flood sorted fossils statistically, there would be exceptions. There are no exceptions.

Expect Dave to come with a couple of exceptions reported by some Woodmorappe or whoever, ignoring the fact that artifacts are extremely rare and can be explained.

Whereas this is Dave's prediction *snicker* of the geological column, from top to bottom. (We have to do this for him, since he apparently can't make anything of his hypothesis.)

- Flying animals  : pterosaurs, bats, birds, dragonflies...

- "Intelligent" terrestrial animals - cause you know, they climbed the moutains : mammals, ...?

- Swimming and floating organisms : plankton, fishes, cetaceans, ichtyosaurs, jellyfishes, ammonites,...

- Benthic organisms (sensus lato) that got immediately burried : plants and algae, most shells, cyanobacteria, crabs and trilobites, most terrestrial animals?...

Do you support this Davey? If not, why not?
If you do, would you confront this prediction with the known geological column? Do you think it's correct, "statistically" (LOL) ?  :D

Or will you avoid the questions? Certainly.

Date: 2007/01/13 09:15:45, Link
Author: jeannot
What is all this babbling about, Mr Hawkins? As Faid said, you are wasting bandwidth.
Avoiding the questions again Mr Hawkins? Aren't you supposed to be a fighter?

Anyway, while you're at it, show us some evidence that, whenever there are volcanic layers between sedimentary layers, this is actually an artifact (that also screws the isotopic ratios in every volcanic deposit). BTW, what are the absolute datings of the volcanic layers in your nice picture?
And when you have the info, you will propose a model explaining the observations (including the isotopic ratios)

Back to work Davey.  :)

Date: 2007/01/13 13:25:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 13 2007,13:17)
Crabby--  If you want me to check out your "paleosol", you're going to have to post a picture that looks more convincing than JonF's and more convincing than Faid's non-existent one.

Scientists, contrarily to the frauds at AIG, don't draw their conclusions just on the "look" of "pictures", you know.
And what makes you, as an ex-pilot, electrical engineer (?), qualified to determine the alleged origine of a paleosol, just by having a look of a photo?

BTW, don't you think this picture "looks convincing"?

Date: 2007/01/13 13:43:07, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 13 2007,13:33)
Please tell me you are joking.

I guess I'm still a little pissed about the whole situation.

It's certainly true that Dave had thousands of posts to make his point, an oppurtunity he proceeded to squander in an occasionally jaw-dropping fashion. It's also true that there were a lot of side issues involved. But Stevestory clearly stated that one of the reasons for removing Dave was he was tired of dealing with the sniping and possible defamation by PT contributors, and that he thought it made the anticreationist side look bad. He didn't punish the offenders, he PUNISHED DAVE.

On the other side, you are the example of a troll who has been acting for a whole year on a forum, without being banned. Consider yourself lucky. ;)

And Steve closed Dave's thread partly because the guy was unable to learn and support his hypothesis.
I also remember him censoring a few posts containing insults.

Date: 2007/01/13 16:45:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Hey Dave, what's this in your signature?
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell

Now God is an alien Hi-tech designer?  :D

Under this policy, people would be forced to address points and rebut them with support...

...Which is why you can't start a new thread on this board.

Oh the irony!

Date: 2007/01/13 17:12:41, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 13 2007,16:53)
Eric ... we need your help!  Can you give Jeannot a permalink to the start of the flagellum discussion?  You're good at that sort of stuff.

Answer the question, Davey.
Is God an alien Hi-Tech designer?

It shouldn't be too difficult.
Why don't you answer any of my posts directly?
Have you just realized that your signature is ridicule?

Date: 2007/01/13 19:03:05, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 13 2007,18:42)
Eric ... thanks for the link ... thanks also for not writing a 500 word essay to make your single point :-)  "Dave's an idiot" can be said quite succinctly.

Let's make one try to salvage Lenny from his anti-supernaturalism.  Here goes ...

1)  We observe innovations in nature which defy natural explanations.  Therefore, there must be some such thing as the Supernatural.
2)  Therefore, Supernatural things such as a God, angels, demons, etc. might be possible

A flagellum and a butterfly are really really complex.
Therefore Goddidit.

And demons, Noah, angels...

Amen. :D

There.  See?  That wasn't so painful now, was it?

For us? No it's quite fun.
For someone who pulls most of his arguments out of his a$$... Well, you tell us.

Date: 2007/01/14 06:55:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 14 2007,06:00)
I'll give you guys a little hint.  The smartest guys on this thread are Chris Hyland, Arden Chatfield, Alan Fox and others who aren't here.  

The smartest guys on this thread aren't on this thread?  Woa, that's brilliant. :O
Maybe they are the ones who realised that it was pointless to debate with the dumbest guy on this thread, i.e. you.

Does that means you would answer their questions if they were there?
I doubt it.

Date: 2007/01/14 07:01:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 09 2006,12:04)

Arden was pretty close to the real thing.

Date: 2007/01/14 10:31:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Whoa dave...


At first sight, I didn't get the message, I thought he meant "hint: I won't answer any of your questions because you're not clever enough". But you may be right. It sounds more like "hint: the only smart people here are the ones who don't argue with a troll".

So Dave, are you intentionnaly trolling?

Stephen: I'm 100% for the "one question : one answer" strategy. I have even thought about a dedicated thread for that. But if Dave is just trolling...  ???

Date: 2007/01/14 12:16:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2007,10:42)
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 14 2007,11:31)
Whoa dave...


At first sight, I didn't get the message, I thought he meant "hint: I won't answer any of your questions because you're not clever enough". But you may be right. It sounds more like "hint: the only smart people here are the ones who don't argue with a troll".

So Dave, are you intentionnaly trolling?

Stephen: I'm 100% for the "one question : one answer" strategy. I have even thought about a dedicated thread for that. But if Dave is just trolling...  ???

You're giving him too much credit. He actually means, "The evolutionist people who don't argue with me are the smart ones, because I'm devastating, and I make them look bad."

Well, this occurred to me actually.

EDIT : You're right. It becomes clear when you read his second sentence, which I didn't.

So Dave Hawkins, a YEC who believes in witches, angels and demons in the 21st century, thinks he makes his opponents look stupid?
We are reaching unprecedented levels of irony here.  :O

Date: 2007/01/18 14:00:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 18 2007,13:12)
DaveTard opines:      
I have yet to see compelling evidence that any so-called random mutation resulted in improved performance except perhaps a few trivial and arguable examples of an organism escaping the effect of a toxin by minor change in an enzyme which may very well be a directed change. (beneficial human mutations) (beneficial human mutation) (AI Milano -- lots of papers on this topic can be found on your son', I mean AFDave's thread, pt. 2)

Dave's position is untenable, especially for someone who supports common descent (well, given his recent comments, I'm not sure that he does).

He would have to demonstate that adaptations never happen, or that they're not the results of mutations, i.e changes in the genome.
Not to mention the countless instances of positive selection, revelated by phylogenetics and genome comparisons - for example humans vs other primates - that he will have to falsify.

Alternatively, he could prove that beneficial mutations are not explained by known laws of physics (i.e. not the result of stochastic events).
Time to put the lab coat on, Dave.  ;)

Date: 2007/01/19 14:59:02, Link
Author: jeannot
I saw this video before and I thought it was a fake.

Date: 2007/01/20 04:41:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 20 2007,04:08)
What is going on? Are these people for reals?

These posts sound pretty silly, indeed, but I see nothing surreal.
Didn't you know a few wingnuts who thought that your country was rulled by statanists or something?

Date: 2007/01/23 15:33:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Hi, avocationist.

Why don't you provide your scientific theory of ID as many asked you to? Alternatively you could admit that you don't have any, or that you are not interested in fulfilling their requests.
It would save them some time.

Date: 2007/01/25 12:41:18, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2007,09:56)

Joseph turns on the tard:

Design is a mechanism and it is just as valid of a mechanism as anything the ToE has to offer.

WOW. I'm happy you're NOT Santa, Joesph, or I'd have gotten blueprints for Christmas.  :angry:

Wait wait wait... :O

I thought that, according to Dembski, ID wasn't a "mechanistic theory".
I'm lost.  :(

Date: 2007/01/26 17:33:49, Link
Author: jeannot
So Mr Hunter, you think that convergence is somehow problematic for the theory of evolution?
Well it's not, especially when it concerns gross morphology (body shape, etc).
Dolphins are like big fishes, aren't they?

Date: 2007/01/27 05:06:17, Link
Author: jeannot
It appears that Dr Hunter is confused in his argumentation. I’ll try to help him with my best English.

He seems to argue that convergence is a problem for the theory of evolution while, actually, he shows us that convergence is merely a problem for the inference of reliable phylogenies, which is a completely different issue.

Dr Hunter, if you want to use convergence as an argument against the ToE, you'll have to prove that convergent evolution is impossible. You haven't done anything of the sort, yet. We await.

Regarding the phylogenetic inference: yes, homoplasy (be it by convergence, reversion or parallelism) can be problematic. In fact, the whole field of cladistics aims at resolving issues due to homoplasy.  If hompoplasy didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be any researcher in phylogenetics, we would just use the good old principle of parsimony to infer phylogenies that would always be 100% accurate.
But how do we solves the problems?
First, we use our own experience and logic. We know, from experience, that some poorly defined traits like gross morphology can be extremely labile and cannot be used to support common ancestry (otherwise, dolphins would belongs to the fishes, wouldn't they?).
However, there are been confusions, especially in taxonomy, for example when defining the superclass of "pisces", separate from tetrapods, while in fact, we are more closely related to the trout than the trout is related to a shark. But the anatomy of the skeleton indicated us the correct topology. Sharks (chondrichthyes) don't have any bones, while humans and trouts (osteichtythes) do. The fish-like shape can be easily explained by the fact that fish have to swim, but why would humans and trouts have bones, if not by common ancestry?
Another way to get around homoplasy is using data from paleontology. We know, by the fossil record, that tetrapods evolved from particular osteichthyes, sometime in the Devonian,  while chondrichthyes (sharks) already existed. It confirms us that tetrapods and other osteichthyes share a more recent ancestor than osteichtyes and chondrichthyes.
Lastly, we now mainly resort to DNA sequences to infer phylogenies. In this case, all characters (nucleotides) are considered equal. Homoplasy is still common, but researchers have defined models of evolution which are used to detect the most probable tree. And those trees, with a very few exceptions, confirm the phylogenetic relationships that were established thanks to anatomy and paleontology (chondrichthyes and osteichthyes for instance).

I hope that helps.

Date: 2007/01/27 05:17:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 27 2007,04:09)
CH responds:

A niche does not cause an adaptation. <snip>

Are you trying to say that there is some kind of law preventing evolution from creating superficially similar animals?

Dr Hunter's view is not accurate. The environment "causes" the adaptation to a particular niche, by selecting mutations.

Now, as I said, he just has to prove that morphological convergences are impossible, even if they result from different mutations.

I also would like to know his hypothesis. First, do placentals and marsupials share a common ancestor?

Date: 2007/01/27 06:43:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 26 2007,18:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2007,12:09)
Too much time with DaveTard takes its toll:

Tax moneys support scientific research that gets published in extremely high-priced journals that are therefore inaccessible to the American public that pays for the research. Go figure.

Tax moneys support scientific research that gets made into extremely high-priced military equipment that are therefore inaccessible to the American public that pays for the research. Go figure.

I wanna drive the tank. The ID think-tank

Or is it a pray-tank?

People are trying to start more open access journals. But those things still cost money to edit and publish, etc.

But I'm not exactly sure who foots the bill for the open access journals. Do they charge to publish your paper?

Yes, they do.
It's something like $2000 to have a paper published in PLoS Biology, I heard.
But more on the topic, fundamentaly, I think UD is right. Everyone should have access to scientific results. This is what science is all about: knowledge. But in theory, nothing prevents a scientist from showing publicly his/her results (on a website for instance).
Actually, the acess to research journals isn't that much restricted. Every university has a subscription to a variety of journals, and grants the access to its students.

Date: 2007/01/27 19:03:55, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 27 2007,18:44)
We know that, contrary to the preposterous claims of materialists, the universe did not create itself.

But we know that God created himself. ???

Date: 2007/01/28 13:06:08, Link
Author: jeannot
My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?

We answered your question.

Date: 2007/01/29 15:50:29, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2007,14:29)
Re "they do not think that amoebas became fish became reptiles, etc."

Do scientists think a kind of amoeba was predecessor to animals?


Not specifically, as far as I can tell, but unicellular eukaryotes  are our ancestors. For a creationist, that means "ameobas".  ???

Date: 2007/01/29 16:59:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2007,15:40)
Why would nihilists write a book? I mean, what's the point? There's a reason there are no 'nihilist clubs'...

I've read "The stranger" (l'étranger), and yes we may qualify it as "nihilist". The guy kills an arab (Davescot would like this part), almost by accident, while he's staring at the sea, staring at the sun (remember the song by The Cure?  ;) ). Then he's condemned to death by decapitation - the French touch.
A nice book actually.

Date: 2007/01/30 14:55:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (improvius @ Jan. 30 2007,13:34)
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 30 2007,11:42)
In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.

I'm just a layman when it comes to science, and even I can tell this is BS.

Indeed, it's just nonsense.
And this observation would be far more puzzling for IDers. Why would a 'designed' whale have 5 fingers? I'm asking.
As we are reasonably entitled to conclude from looking around at current mammals, from reviewing the evidence from fossil mammals and the geologic contexts in which they are found

If I'm not mistaken, pentadactyly appeared with the tetrapods. Ichthyostega (devonian) had 5 fingers.

Date: 2007/01/31 13:21:54, Link
Author: jeannot
It seems that we are witnessing a shift in Davescot's theory of ID.

He once argued for common descent, now he opposes the concepts behind "micro-evolution" (namely natural selection), that even AIG and other wingnuts admit.


Date: 2007/02/03 17:19:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,15:42)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 04 2007,08:05)
Need I say more?

Je crache dans votre visage!!!!

We would say "je vous crache à la gueule", which is not very kind, to say the least.

Nice frog, BTW.

Date: 2007/02/03 17:52:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 03 2007,16:57)
Re "since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA"

Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared? ;)


Not mentioning that the coalescent is much more ancient for autosomal regions.

Date: 2007/02/04 15:48:25, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 04 2007,15:33)
From a ToE perspective, speciation is just two populations that are reproductively seperated accumulating mutations up to the point where the two populations can no longer interbreed - at which point you have a new species.
Yes, but have you noticed how undetailed that is?

Is that a joke?
Have you read any of the objections to it? Where have we ever seen any interesting new incipient species arising these past few thousand years?

There are thousands articles and dozens of books on speciation, they examine both mathematical and biological models.
I conservatively estimate 4 new species a year

Where did you get that estimation?

Date: 2007/02/07 01:52:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Isn't this bunch of global warming deniers the ones who claim that Darwinists have no morals?

These guys are just disgusting. I think I'm going to throw up. ???

Date: 2007/02/07 15:40:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 07 2007,15:30)
Oh I know. When the ocean rises anyone who lives near sea level will drown instead of walk to higher ground. And the ones that don’t drown will forget to eat. That must be it, huh?

What a moron.  ???

Date: 2007/02/11 15:18:24, Link
Author: jeannot
How can they look at each other with a straight face when they discuss things like this? They will probably make up some mechanism such as cross phyla gene transfer as the basis for this appearance of the same systems in different phyla.

What about common descent?

Date: 2007/02/19 12:14:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (ericmurphy @ Feb. 18 2007,17:24)

Answer the question, Dave. Right here and right now. Or see yourself exposed for the fraud and the liar you are.

It's clear that Dave doesn't know the difference.

That's pretty sad.  ???

Date: 2007/02/21 06:08:51, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 21 2007,05:32)
Lesson to Steve and Carlson--

Things are not always as they appear.  Darwinists may not hold a monopoly of knowledge after all.  Could it be that Creationists might just be right about a thing or two?

You got a point here.

Creationists may be right, after all.  :O

Date: 2007/02/22 15:39:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,10:42)
That the tree of life is “messy” at the bottom lends credence to the notion that horizontal gene transfer played a much more significant role in pre-cellular life than was previously thought.

When an where did those early and massive horizontal gene transfers happened?

AFAIK, the three empires (Archea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes) are clearly delimited using the data from 16S rRNA genes. Why should we suppose some HGT? Are there some discrepancies with phylogenies relying on other sequences?
The ancestors of LUCA can't be known, and if some HGT occurred before the split, we can't detect them, unless I'm completely mistaken.

Help me, Zach.

EDIT: OK I found some links.

Date: 2007/02/23 15:00:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,17:10)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,16:11)
The Three Domain Hypothesis has been under stress for quite some time, starting with mitochondrial resemblance to symbiotic bacteria.

There's still a lot of uncertainty — and undoubtedly more surprises still to come. Remember, scientists are trying to reconstruct events from billions of years ago based only on very fragmentary evidence. Genomics is still in its infancy.

Yes I know about endosymbiosis. I was thinking about nuclear genes (at least in eukaryotes).
It seems there were some massive genetic transfers between archea and bacteria.

Date: 2007/03/01 17:04:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 01 2007,15:43)
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 01 2007,08:07)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 01 2007,07:29)
BTW-does anyone know why Darwin is always cited and not Wallace

The story of Darwin and Wallace is actually very interesting. Darwin had been marshalling evidence for his Theory for more than 20 years when he received a letter from Wallace outlining a very similar theory, writing to Lyell that "he could not have made a better short abstract!" Lyell and Hooker arranged for Darwin's and Wallace's theories to be presented to a meeting of the Linnaean Society in 1858. However, Darwin's theory was far more developed and the publication of Origin of Species the following year changed biology forever. Wallace freely admitted to Darwin's scientific priority.

That's a good thing, I suppose; imagine having to listen to the creos calling us "Wallacians" and defenders of "Neo-Wallacism". Ew.

Darwin is to 'darwimp' as
Wallace is to....



Date: 2007/03/02 18:03:54, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (millipj @ Mar. 02 2007,12:57)
... internationally respected scientific journals such as Rivista di Biologia.


Hahahahahaha!    :D

Date: 2007/03/03 03:12:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Mar. 03 2007,01:31)
Charles Darwin had no understanding of molecular biology. That's why he was free to speculate that if an animal flapped its arms long enough they might someday turn into wings –  

I see a big confusion between Darwin's ideas and Lamarck's here.  ???

Date: 2007/03/13 14:40:43, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2007,11:14)
alrighty we'll get a full bottle. Can't bring myself to do the fois grâs, epicurious as I am.

foie gras.

Date: 2007/03/16 17:36:20, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 14 2007,15:04)
If anybody cares, over at our old buddy AFDave Hawkins has finally given in and agreed to a formal debate with Deadman_932.

The topic is "The Global Flood of Noah described in the Biblical Book of Genesis is a real, historical event and is well supported by the empirical evidence."

DM has already made his opening post, everyone is waiting on Davie to show.

It's a brave new world for Davie - no evading questions, no quote-mining, no equivocating of definitions.  In other words, all his usual tactics are strictly verbotten.

There's a spectator/comments thread already going too.  Lord help me but I'm afraid it's gonna be like watching a tweetybird get run over by a 400 HP riding mower.

To Deadman, if he's still with us:

Since AFDave can't ignore your questions in a formal debate, would you keep one of your 50 posts for this:
This completely debunks his hypothesis, and is also impossible to explain with the common YEC arguments (the alleged non-reliability of isotopic dating won't do). I haven't seen any YEC try to adress this observation yet, and of course, Dave kept ignoring it.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2007/03/31 17:25:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 29 2007,06:28)
Bible-based criticism of evolution, once limited to Protestant fundamentalists in the United States, has become an issue in France now that Pope Benedict and some leading Catholic theologians have criticized the neo-Darwinist view of creation.

"...has become an issue" is vastly overstating the case. ID/Creationism has not impinged at all on mainstream French media and virtually nobody I ask has ever shown any awareness or interest in the topic.

Indeed, Intelligent Design is hardly discussed, even among evolutionary biologists in France. And when it is, we refer to what's happening in the US.
No one is going to support ID/creationism in the French media unless he/she wants to look like a complete idiot. Not that everybody here supports evolution, though...
I've even heard of a female paleontologist who twists her research data to fit her views about some sort of prescribed evolution. It's strange that JAD, who is well aware of any sciencist that wrote a single world against Darwin, never mentioned her.

Date: 2007/04/05 14:03:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Darn Jeanne d'Arc! How can I continue my PhD if everything I've learnt so far is wrong?  :(

Date: 2007/04/06 11:31:08, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2007,06:12)
Oh noes, TO-esque pun cascade alert!

I guess you're not the only one to have got your fingers burnt.

These sort of comments, they always end in flaming. Anyway, a good grad student should have a burning desire to complete his or her PhD. After all they have a massive stake in it.


I didn't get the joke anyway.

Date: 2007/04/06 13:18:56, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2007,12:35)

Dammit! I love a good veal.

{Louis gets off the stage}



You get the joke now right though? Maybe it's an English thing.

It sure ain't French.
I know that Jeanne d'Arc was burnt, of course, but I still don't get it.

Date: 2007/04/06 18:38:49, Link
Author: jeannot
Oh, I know what a word play is.
I was just refering to Bob's post
I guess you're not the only one to have got your fingers burnt.

That I didn't get. Fingers burnt? I know what it meant for Jeanne d'Arc, but for a graduate student...?

Date: 2007/04/07 02:50:29, Link
Author: jeannot
I didn't know the expression. Now I understand.


Date: 2007/04/07 02:54:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,20:19)
I think it sucks...

Filter that.

I think God sucks.

But don't ask me why.  ;)

Date: 2007/04/07 16:16:24, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,15:09)
Let's not have too many challenges going at once.

FTK is a layperson, it's not her job to explain things to our satisfaction. I think a freindly chat around Wes' paper would be a great starting point?

Maybe it's a bit too sciency.
What about this: "how do you falsify ID"?

As not a single IDer, including Behe and Dembski, has ever answered that question, we may attend a premiere if FTK achieves that.
Who knows?

Date: 2007/04/09 15:33:32, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,13:15)
It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues.  I'm hopeless.  I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature.  

In 6000 years or less, definitely not.  ???

Date: 2007/04/09 15:48:57, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,14:09)
There is no positive evidence for common descent either.  Inference...key word here.

You do know that inference comes from observations of facts, that are termed evidence, don't you?

I hope you also know that it means more than just direct visual observation.

Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.

These different interpretations are of equal value to you, of course. Oh wait...
Facts don't support empirical evidence, btw.
Anyway, these interpretations (at least the scientific ones) are actually hypothesis, that allow us to make predictions. And predictions are compared to collected data.
But interpretation comming from creationists are just that, post-observational interpretations. No hypothesis, no prediction, no comparison to observation.
What did your theory predict regarding the isotopic ratios of the basalts in the altantic crust? I'm just curious.

PS: How do you falsify ID?

Date: 2007/04/09 16:10:33, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,15:08)
"There is no positive evidence for common descent either"

I believe speciation has been observed. Heredity is positive evidence. Zach will no doubt offer 250 more.

29+ evidences for macroevolution (and common descent)

Date: 2007/04/10 06:10:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,22:29)
If she wants to argue against common descent, she's taking on not merely the whole scientific community, but much of the ID community. What did Dembski's webmaster say about the matter?

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. ...

...Says the man on his blog,

Date: 2007/04/11 12:24:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Zachriel @ April 11 2007,12:02)
Dogs are possibly the most widely varying species on the planet while still remaining a single species. In 20,000 years of artificial selection and preservation of variants that never would have survived in the wild there hasn’t been a single variant with an anatomical feature not characteristic of canines nor has a new species of dog emerged.

It depends on your definition of "species". I'm sure some dog races are unable to reproduce with wolves.

Domestication has led to distinct specices. That's the case for a few crops, namely cultivated pea, broad bean, and even lentil (if I'm not mistaken), to name only legumes. They are never found in the wild. They have been completely differentiated from their wild ancestors, in just 10000 years of agriculture or less.
However, I don't know about polyploidy in those species.

Date: 2007/04/15 03:31:16, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,18:12)
Hey, man, I'm good with "fair".  I'm just saying I'd have to hear you speak before I came to the conclusion that you'd be "fair".  I certainly want students to understand every facet of this controversy, and that would include the view from opponents of ID.  The topics surrounding this debate are extremely interesting and I believe it would spark the interest of students and lead more of them into the field of science.

Ftk, help us out.

How do you falsify ID?

Date: 2007/04/15 05:10:00, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,01:02)
Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking.

Believing that one can't have an ethic if it is not dictated by an higher power is not even stupid thinking, that's non-thinking. Can't those guys know by themselves what is right or wrong? That's scary.

That the same people tend to be global warming deniers, who apparently don't giva a sh*t about their children as long as environmental welfare is not mentioned in the scripture, is even more frightening.
And they accuse others of being amoral...

They disgust me, really.

Date: 2007/04/15 16:22:25, Link
Author: jeannot
Zachriel, the fun with the type of theologists you just quoted is their strange sense of seeing poetry and beauty in nature. I understand that and I even find them touching.

What I don't understand is the fact that, for them, nature will lose its poetical beauty if this beauty is explained by natural laws. i.e: if nature is so beautiful (even for humans that are part of it), it can't just be natural.
That's a complete nonsense.

And the same people would prefer a natural diamond over an artificial, even if both look the same. Go figure.

Date: 2007/04/15 16:32:18, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (phonon @ April 15 2007,16:03)
Why is it that sex, something humans should do for the survival of the species, feel so good?


(more seriously, "survival of the species" was a common misconception of some early evolutionists. "Survival of the lineage" is more correct. You can dig up the topic about the different levels of selection, started by Sir_T, if you want to discuss this)  ;)

Date: 2007/04/15 16:37:34, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (phonon @ April 15 2007,16:26)
Of course Dembski gets all kinds of wind he doesn't know how to deal with.


Date: 2007/04/16 13:50:08, Link
Author: jeannot
I have a charvel/Jackson electric-acoustic guitar. I don't have a picture though.

Date: 2007/04/16 15:03:43, Link
Author: jeannot
The long term looks good... it depends.

When UD, OE and other comedic sites are shut down, ATBC will get a little boring.
Think about the loss of entertaining value, for christ sake! :angry:

Seriously, from my (French) point of vue, ID is just that. I never considered it as a threat, just a curiosity.

Date: 2007/04/16 15:51:38, Link
Author: jeannot

This thread may sound a bit like the recent "where are you from" thread, but I’d like it more focused on your relationship with ID and other forms or creationism/anti-evolutionism. In other words, why are we here to discuss such topics?
I heard that some of us are evolutionary biologists, so their conflict with IDC would be clear. However, many of us are not biologist, and I would be curious to know the reasons why they became interested in this political/cultural debate.

I am from France, where creationism has lost all credibility for over a century, but I often heard, from a distance, that it was a more (vaguely) threatening movement in the US. But I never paid much attention to it. Though I’ve always been sort of fascinated by such ignorance and blindness.
I specialized in evolutionary biology 2.5 yeas ago, when I began my master. At this time, I never heard of “Intelligent Design”. This was before a mail was delivered in a mailing list (of a local association of evolutionary biologist) which related the event of one of the few ID paper that was published in a Peer review journal-the one by Steven C Meyer, in the proc. Of Washington-and the reaction that followed in Nature and Science. I first got intrigued, but I didn’t go any deeper in the topic at that time, though I read part of the paper.
Then, there was this mess around those sticker that were to be put on biology textbooks, in Arkansas I believe (or was it somewhere else?), and that were supposed to aid student keep an open mind about what was just a theory, evolutionary theory of course. I heard the news in a discussion board, the ars technica discussion board for those of you who know the site. I was amazed to witness the heated discussion between creationists (that were in minority) and defendant of science. Hopefully, ars technica is populated with educated people.
Then I became interested in the debate. Mostly, I was just a lurker, because most of the time, I dare not post comment in English (and this is also very time consuming for me), by I found that witness creationist’s argument being debunk in public very entertaining. People often resort to links toward talk origins, I then discovered the panda’s thumb.
Then I just googled for a real discussion board (not a blog), where creationism could be discussed, but among educated people; and google returned, the critique resource. I first though it was a anti-evolution website.
When I registered to the board, the most prolific topic was featuring Ghost of Paley and his gut to gamete / geocentric theory.
Meanwhile, I began my PhD on evolutionary ecology in a species of aphid, and I followed kitzmiller vs dover with moderate attention.
I’ve found here a bunch of fine people (most of you), and a few amusing jerks (AFDave, JAD…). I particularly appreciate the (now defunct) AFDave CGH and the uncommonly dense discussion thread, particularly, the erudition of Zach, the fun tidbits reported form UD by Phonon, the hilarious dt parody by Richard, Arden, Steve and others. I wish I could participate a bit more, but I mostly don’t have the time nor the motivation to post in English.

What’s your story?

Date: 2007/04/17 16:01:26, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (J-Dog @ April 17 2007,13:47)

What was that supposed to mean?  
"Take two"? (deuxième)
"part two"? (deuxième partie)

Date: 2007/04/18 05:03:03, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Henry J @ April 17 2007,17:20)
The sequel to the movie "Hot Shots" was called "Hot Shots Part Deaux".

Thanks. The French title was different.

Out of curiousity, where is the word play here?

Date: 2007/04/18 09:20:32, Link
Author: jeannot
I chose PhD in science, though I have not finished it yet. The field is evolutionary ecology, but officially it's biology and agronomy just because I work on aphids.

Date: 2007/04/18 09:24:37, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 18 2007,09:20)
Quote (jeannot @ April 18 2007,05:03)
Quote (Henry J @ April 17 2007,17:20)
The sequel to the movie "Hot Shots" was called "Hot Shots Part Deaux".

Thanks. The French title was different.

Out of curiousity, where is the word play here?

I don't think there is any.

By the way, 'deaux' isn't a word, is it?

Deux means two, eaux means waters (plural), deaux means nothing, AFAIK.

Date: 2007/04/18 13:51:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (J-Dog @ April 18 2007,13:25)
jeannot: Merde!  You should note that I took Spanish, NOT French in school, and I spelled that #### word wrong, my original post should have been pretentiously "Part Deux"!  

Sorry about the spelling, and thus the confusion!

So the homology with hot shots is a coincidence?

I'm lost.

(sorry for derailing the thread, btw  :p )

Date: 2007/04/18 13:57:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2007,16:32)
I get a lot of entertainment here. Without posting a big biographical piece--I have to run in a second--....

So Steve, what's your story (steve, story, stevestory... hu huuu *cough*)?

It seems you have a good background in evolutionary biology. Are you a scientist?

Date: 2007/04/18 14:41:57, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 18 2007,13:59)
('Homology with hot shots'? Am I missing something?)

Well, J-Dog said he intended to write "deux" not "deaux". That surprised me because I thought the reference to "hot shots" was intentional.

ok I got it. There isn't any "Hot Shots part deaux". It was dubious from the start.

Date: 2007/04/19 07:02:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 18 2007,17:57)
Quote (jeannot @ April 18 2007,09:24)
deaux means nothing, AFAIK.

It's what the French Homer Simpson says.

It's more like "T'oh!!"

Date: 2007/04/23 16:27:13, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (blipey @ April 23 2007,11:05)
BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.

What's the difference between "age" and "interpretations of the age"?
Does the Earth have a defined age for you?

Date: 2007/04/24 15:55:23, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:03)
Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.
"Flood geology" has been dead ever since leading Christians scholars in geology at Cambridge and Oxford rejected it, and that was before Darwn's Origins was ever published.
By the 1850s, Christian men of science agreed the earth was extremely old.
For some of their reasons, see, "Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science".

Such men included:
Reverend William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford)
Reverend Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge)
Reverend Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts)
John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College)
Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper) and,
Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up by conservative Christian parents, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America).

Date: 2007/04/25 14:59:04, Link
Author: jeannot
If you're getting bored by someone who dodges scientific questions, there's a first-class creo over at PT ("uncommon despair" thread), called Philip Cunningham. He sounds like an average AFDave, and he apparently doesn't fear venturing on (pseudo)scientific grounds.
You could attract this beast to AtBC.

Date: 2007/05/05 11:14:35, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (afdave @ May 05 2007,10:39)
Well ... well.  Suddenly my login is working again.  Odd state?  Yes ... I thought it was quite odd also.

Yeah, no doubt it's a conspiracy of evilutionists against their biggest threat: AFDave.  :O

In case you didn't know, the universe doesn't revolve around you.

Anyway, nice to have you back. Your first post is already a joke.  :)

Date: 2007/05/06 05:23:48, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 05 2007,17:23)
1) OK, then: there are no papers in the literature that calculate the thermodynamics underlying the formation of nucleic acids through abiogenetic processes.

Not that I am strictly answering your assertion, I don't have the time to check ISI for "papers in the literature that calculate the thermodynamics underlying the formation of nucleic acids through abiogenetic processes."

Anyway, I'm not sure whether Stanley Miller calculated any delta(G) after his famous experiment. This won't change the fact that he produced 13 amino acids through abiogenetic processes, and that there is no "room for reasonable doubt" regarding the respect of the second law, as you seem to suggest in another thread.

If you think that, just because he didn't calculate delta(G), 13 amino acids may have been produced in opposition to the second law, you are not being reasonable.

Date: 2007/05/06 11:49:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Yeah, from his latest assertion, it's become pretty clear that either GoP is just another creo, rehashing the same debunked argument about the violation of the SLoT , or he's trolling.
Since he pretends to be an evolutionist, in any case, he's a liar.

I wonder why he's not banned yet. I thought he would have been after he declared being a troll.

Date: 2007/05/06 13:29:04, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 06 2007,13:14)
Quote (jeannot @ May 06 2007,11:49)
Yeah, from his latest assertion, it's become pretty clear that either GoP is just another creo

No, he's just tapeworm who craves attention and gets it by pissing people off as much as he possibly can.

That's why I added "...or he's trolling"

Date: 2007/05/08 02:06:01, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 07 2007,10:33)

Do you honestly think there may not have been enough energy available in the prebiotic Earth to drive NA formation? Do you think it's such an uncertainty that we need to calculate whether it's possible according to SLOT?

If such a calculation exists I'd like to see it.

For example, the magnitude of temperature in the local environment plays a key role in determining whether or not a reaction is spontaneous, especially when we're dealing with exothermic reactions that decrease entropy (not necessarily the case here, of course). Cytosine formation in sufficient concentrations, for example, is proposed to happen in cold environments. This possibly conflicts with the hydrothermal vent model.

Good study here.

Do all the prebiotic elements need to be produced at the same place?

Anyway, if we knew everything about abiogenesis, it wouldn't be an active field of research, don't you think?
I really don't understand your problem, Paley.  ???

Date: 2007/05/08 02:17:12, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (phonon @ May 07 2007,18:09)
bornagain77 would like to add all of the scientific contributions of theism, no Christianity, has had over the ages.
1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
Never mind that the concept of a singularity came purely from mathematics and physics. Or that the concept of spacetime, the foundation of big bang theory, came purely from physics.   [quote]

That's the same drivel posted recently by Philip Cunningham at PT, the man who's been invited here and hasn't showed up.

Date: 2007/05/09 12:56:42, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:49)
News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it.

Let me rephrase.
News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only scientists reject it.

How do you falsify ID, Ftk?

Date: 2007/05/09 13:47:46, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
 In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

Indeed, you have no idea what you're talkin about.

Let me help you. the ToE predicts that one humain chromosome (pair) results from the fusion of two chromosomes that are found in other great apes. The fusion would leave a signature in the chromosomal structure (two centromeric patterns instead of one).
There is no way for a chromosome to be completely lost between apes and humans, this would be lethal for a zygote, according to the theory.
So if every chimp chromosome is found to have its homologue in humans, expect for the one that is missing in our cells, which would have no equivalent, this would mean that one has just disappeared. Since it's not possible according to the ToE, such observation would falsify the theory.
And guess what, human chromosome 2 has been shown to result from the fusion of two chromosomes.

Date: 2007/05/09 15:00:45, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....

No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

A single fossil wouldn't be sufficient to falsify the ToE since a mistake is always possible, but recurrent findings of mammals (for instance) in the middle of precambrian fauna would pose a BIG problem for the theory.

And the ToE makes no prediction about the conservation of soft tissue over time. You're confused.

Date: 2007/05/09 15:37:02, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (J-Dog @ May 09 2007,15:18)
Jeanot - Thank you yes, you are correct, and a Big Thank You to oldmainthesky too, for expressing my point much better than I did!

For the record, the joke about the precembrian rabbit is from JBS Haldane, unless I'm mistaken.

Date: 2007/05/09 15:57:53, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 09 2007,15:47)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....

No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.

Name one. Just one. And please, please, no "polystrate" trees.

I'm pretty sure that AIG has a couple of "misplaced fossils". I'm also pretty sure that those artifacts have been easily explained.

Date: 2007/05/09 16:42:15, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,16:20)
Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,16:15)
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

This would merit its own thread...

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago

Noah's Arch is confirmed!
What, 2000 generations ago? No way. 200 at most.

Date: 2007/05/10 13:24:19, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2007,13:14)
Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,17:35)
Arden sez this merits its own thread, so...


Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

EDIT: Oh,  man. And while we're on the topic of exciting evolutionary discoveries: Chinese researchers seemed to have pinpointed the gene mutation that distinguishes our cognitive abilities from that of apes. I feel overwhelmed. Overwhelmed with evidence.


Scientists may have found a gene mutation that distinguishes us from apes. There are likely to be many genes involved, and many non-protein-coding regulatory regions.

[creo monde ON]

Oh yeah, but were those mutations RANDOM?

[creo mode OFF]

Date: 2007/05/10 13:40:06, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,16:35)
Arden sez this merits it's own thread, so...


Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

Well, the common descent of humans has never been denied by creationists.

Date: 2007/05/10 14:25:09, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 10 2007,14:16)
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,14:14)
the only one being evasive here, is YOU.

Really?  Cool... I must have missed it.  Can you link me to the response from Wes in regard to my questions about biblical literalism?  Thanks.

Now that you're not being evasive anymore, can you tell me what peer-reviewed articles on evolution you've read?

And if she offers a way to falsify ID while she's at it, it would be a world's first.

Date: 2007/05/10 15:15:25, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:07)
It seems to me these two situations are not comparable.

I don't see why not.  Whenever a creationist or an IDist talks about science, you people consistently accuse them of having a religious agenda.  

Excuse me, do you imply that you were talking about science?

Date: 2007/05/10 15:33:40, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:23)
I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

Me on the other thread :

Noah's Arch is confirmed!
What, 2000 generations ago? No way. 200 at most.

God I'm good.

Date: 2007/05/10 16:00:38, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:19)
No, I don't see anything in my sentence that implied that *I* have been discussing science here.

Excuse me, I though you were answering Arden about the current "situations".

You mean you were referring to, say, AFDave or some other creo at the panda's thumb for instance?

Date: 2007/05/11 15:44:50, Link
Author: jeannot
Quote (franky172 @ May 11 2007,09:52)
Per PaV's comments here:

I ran some experiments with GAs and cyclical fitness functions as well as instances where the population itself effects the fitness functions.

A website illustrating the effects of cyclical fitness functions on GA populations and the possibility of th