Hello. My name in Inigo Montoya. Prepare to die! 
1 Like
Because it was completely incoherent. Which I said in the previous comment. Try saying whatever you were trying to say again, and maybe it will be comprehensible.
1 Like
first_time.jpg
3 Likes
Of course, he has to try and change the subject. No surprise there. Mousetraps don’t have genomes, and yet Behe used them as examples of IC.
1 Like
What would “the beginning of the rhino horn” look like? Are you expecting some tiny, stumpy horn to just suddenly appear on the face of an animal whose ancestors had no horns there? Or what, exactly?
According to the theory of evolution, what do you think the “beginning” of, say, the liver, or an eye, or a wing, or the Kreb’s cycle would have looked like?
1 Like
Given that neither apes nor humans exhibit incipient rhino horns, nor feature any other novel anatomical differences other than by extent, degree, or finesse, I suppose you would have no problem with the common ancestry of apes and hominids.
No? Then what is the point of your suggestion that a completely new, and pointless, anatomical structure should be expected to arise given some number of mutations among 8 billion people?
Oh, and this. Bold italics are mine…
All right then. The step by step records of middle ear evolution do not count, because it is the molecular change that is supposed to matter. And then posted right below is this…
I’m just killing time here, aren’t I?
4 Likes
That’s because they’re archosauromorphs.
Note that when people give him anatomy, he demands molecules, and when people give him molecules, he demands anatomy. Meanwhile, he supplies cars and trucks.
7 Likes
This is blatantly false. He supplies self-replicating cars with DNA.
And if you give him both, he says ‘But my horrendously misinformed understanding says they don’t agree!?!’
1 Like
I hope you were able to navigate my poor grammar. Both instances of the word biological should have read biologically. Did you understand that?
You seem to have no patience with the layman trying to sort things out a bit. Your stock answer seems to be get educated or understand the science. Well, that isn’t going to happen in large measure for millions, if not hundreds of millions of North American people.
But if you could condescend to try and explain - do you disagree with the statement (Behe’s and I think I get your feelings for Behe, nevertheless) “Since inherited changes are caused by molecular changes,”
You say, “Evolutionary change occurs at the level of the sequences of bases in the genomes of members of a population. This level can be represented by simple sequences of letters representing the various bases and no chemistry need be invoked.” (emphasis mine) Are you actually saying that the change you are describing does not involve chemistry?
You seem very prickly and easily worked up, (I am not offending on purpose) but your analogy to the renovation, unfortunately for me, does nothing to help me. And, if I may be so bold to suggest you are wrong. But please tell me what you mean if you stand by it.
It seems to me this is exactly wrong. I could change or remove 1 molecule from a brick and no one would notice that I’d done a renovation. On the other hand, if I remove 1 or many bricks to effect the renovation, I have probably affected billions of molecules. If I remove a brick(s) to create a window opening, I have made many molecular changes have I not.
Granted. What does that have to do with the fact that changes have taken place to the chemical structure of the building?
I guess you are making a joke? But a total non-sequitur. I’m a retired carpenter (light goes off in Faizal’s brain - no wonder this guy is so dense. Come on, I’m kidding. 
) who worked many years with a former physicist. The best builder I have ever come across. He is a great artist and can visualize in 3D better than most.
Yes. And…? Do you think a better approach is to remain ignorant and not understand the science?
I did, remember? And you didn’t bother to read or understand what I linked and wrote, saying I had ignored details that were clearly spelled out.
No. “Invoked” and “involved” may sound alike, but they don’t have the same meaning.
But the chemical structure of the bricks at the molecular level has not been affected. Understand?
It hasn’t. You don’t understand what is meant by “chemical structure.” So add that to the list of things you need to learn.
I didn’t expect you to take me so literally. Obviously (or so I would have thought) getting a degree in physics does not have some mysterious effect on the brain that renders someone unable to do construction work. But if you get the chance, ask your friend how necessary his understanding of relativity or quantum mechanics was to his construction work.
But as an amateur woodworker myself, you won’t get any condescension from me for being a carpenter. I’ve built enough stuff that wouldn’t stand straight to know how difficult that can be.
1 Like
Let me try to explain what @Faizal_Ali is saying.
Imagine a large meteorite struck our planet tomorrow, eliminating all but 100 people. In the aftermath, the atmosphere becomes heavily saturated with other gases, reducing the amount of oxygen these survivors can get per breath on average. Let’s assumed the lowered oxygen supply in the long run turns out to be detrimental to their health. Let’s also assume the DNA sequence below, in their genomes control how much red blood cells they can produce (more red blood cells means you can take more oxygen from the atmosphere and vice versa):
…AAGTCGTCGTGTTT…
Those who have the above sequence make, say, 2 million red blood cells on average.
The survivors decide to restore the human race. They hookup, have kids and birth a new generation of humans. Let’s imagine that 20 of these kids have a mutation in the above sequence that raises their average red blood cell levels by a significant fraction. The mutant sequence is now:
…AAGTCGTCGTATTT…
The changed or mutated base is boldened.
Due to the advantageous nature of this change, kids who have this mutation go about their normal activities (because they can take in more oxygen) more easily than their contemporaries who don’t and they contribute more offspring to the next generation (natural selection is acting).
In summary, biochemistry explains how the raw materials (that mutated base above) for evolutionary change arise. However, to explain what happens to these raw materials after they are generated, we don’t need biochemistry anymore and that’s where evolutionary mechanisms come in.
2 Likes
sorry but what this have to do with a new anatomical trait evolving? and by the way the mesonephros is indeed functional in human embryo (from wiki):
“The mesonephros acts as a structure similar to the kidney that, in humans, functions between the sixth and tenth weeks of embryological life.”
this is not a new anatomical feature, but just a duplication of existing one.
which also was a type of a globin. so you start with a globin and end up with a complex of few globins, so its not realy a globin evolution (and by the way im not sure that even the evolution of a single globin to hemoglobin is possible but lets be in focus here). anyway, this have nothing to do with my claim.
why not? if the rhino horn can evolve by suppose 10 small steps, we should probably see the first step.
we will get to it probably later. but first we need to agree on the number of mutations which required to that new feature.
actually these are two unrelated points.
So what you’re looking for is for something to poof into existence from nothing? Is that how you think evolution works?
2 Likes
This is at least “micro” evolution. Do you really expect a few simple changes to remake globin into a car, or a watch??
1 Like
Just as it is not the case that hundreds of millions of North Americans will master oncology, or hedge fund management, or classical piano, or petroleum engineering, or the history of ancient Mesopotamia, or … or…
A scientist spends a solid decade of his/her life mastering the extremely technical and challenging craft and standards of a community of practice that has collectively mastered that craft. When you come to a forum like this and ask that they boil everything down to a simple and obvious explanation that every layman can understand, you are asking something exceptionally difficult of them.
So they resort to imperfect analogies rather than “explain the math” in detail. And then the layman finds a hole in the analogy and expresses frustration, or even passes judgment on the scientist’s supposed folly:
It is good, Sam, that you want to learn. As the discussions occur, please give the scientists a break and realize how difficult their task is, and how they, too, can become easily frustrated in the process. Recognize that their imperfect analogies are not the result of folly but of their desire to communicate a highly technical expertise that few outsiders could understand without devoting many unbroken years of study to the task.
Thanks,
Chris
6 Likes
There will be a first step, sure.
Can you tell how you would determine that that first step will, possibly thousands of years later, end up being a horn on the nose of a creature that looks like a rhino (because, remember, the creature on which the horn begins may not much look like the modern rhino)?
1 Like
So you start with a G protein-coupled receptor, and end up with pigments enabling color vision, taste, smell, brain receptors for neurotransmitters, regulation of blood pressure and heart rate, just to get started. You start with keratin, and end up with scales, hair, nails, feathers, claws, horns, and hooves. The diversity of animals you see start with a basic arrangement, which are then stretched, squashed and proportioned to be adapted to their environment. That really is evolution, including globin evolution. You start with a common ancestor, and end up with a complex tree of life.
4 Likes
You’re claiming to have already sorted everything out, remember?
So what? That can happen with you, if you’re willing.
The fact that you keep going on about “Darwinism” after being informed that non-Darwinian mechanisms have been a major part of evolutionary biology for decades is not a good sign that you’re trying to sort anything out.
But since you claim that Behe’s biochemistry experience is some sort of trump card and are unwilling to revise your notions of the relationships between fields within biology, as a start please read the following paper:
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/42/11115
and tell me if I have expertise in biochemistry.
3 Likes