F: I Debate with a PhD Molecular Biologist 3/20/09

joemarklawson is a PHD molecular biologist, and performs biological and biochemical laboratory tests. He wrote a video on how to become a scientist, his first piont being to “keep an open mind”. He is obviously very well educated, and uses that as a weapon in our discussion, as if the great education he has will scare me off. Actually, I find, the better the education, the more fun the discussion.  Well educated evolutionauts fair no better than poorly educated ones.  It’s very difficult to defend a science based on fantasy. Joe carried on long repetitive  debates with me on my YouTube video about the evolution of skin. It went on and on, and I finally blocked him as the discussion was overwhelming the comments section, and we kept going over the same material. He wound up making an attack video on my “skin” video, which I responded to. He inferred that I was badly beaten and overwhelmed by his discussion, and for those reasons I blocked him.  Obviously this isn’t true.  He answered with another vid, and I again responded a last time with my final vid on this subject. There was simply no point in going farther. We renewed our discussion on his video comments section, and here it is:

My discussion with jormarklawson began with me commenting on joe’s statement that he “accepts” evolution.  (My notations on his comments are in parenthesis.)

stevebee92653

“Accept” delineates religion or belief.

joemarklawson

steve@
“Accept” delineates religion or belief.”
No, I don’t think the average person would have any trouble saying they accept gravity exists. Or they accept that the Earth goes round the sun.
“Evolutionaut”
It’s just childish name calling. I could call you “Steve Lyn-dumb”, but it would just make me look silly. Same for these silly words you invent.
If you reject peer review, then you reject the modern scientific method. It’s the standard in every field, even dentistry.

stevebee92653

I don’t “accept” any science. I don’t accept math, I don’t accept chemistry. If you do, that is your mindthink. Evo is the only “science” I have ever heard of connected with “accept”.
Evolutionaut was coined because evo’s hate the word “evolutionist.” It’s a combo of astronaut and evo, and if you think it’s a pejorative, that’s your filter. It isn’t.
Peer review of evolution materials + or – is completely controlled by evolutionauts, and you know it. So, let’s not play pretend.

joemarklawson

“Peer review of evolution materials + or – is completely controlled by evolutionauts, and you know it. So, let’s not play pretend.”
I don’t know if you spotted my video on HIV causes AIDS. I’ve been in discussion with AIDS denialists, and they always say the same thing you are saying. It’s called selective acceptance.
You accept that science is right on, say, smoking causes cancer, but not that the accumulation of small changes can result in large ones. It’s the same people.

joemarklawson

Science is not, and never has been a democracy. Evidence trumps all. Bold ideas that are supported with evidence cause paradigm shifts. Look at Marguilis and the endosymbiotic theory.
If evidence doesn’t support the idea, even if we really want it to work, it still gets relegated to the dustbin, a la “Aquatic Ape Theory”.
What upsets me about your POV is that you insist that things are unknoweable. You advocate ignorance. That’s different than skepticism. Can you see how?

stevebee92653

Again, morph what I say into what you want it to be. Then you can go on the attack. You evolutionauts call it a strawman attack ad infinitim. Find a quote when I insisted that things are “unknowable” or that I advocate “ignorance”. What a laugh. That is why we can’t communicate. Your communication habits are pretty sad, and your indoctrination spills out all over your writing and vids. I advocate getting rid of a theory that isn’t close to reality. And reloading with reality and real science. Absurd response. How can one carry on a discussion with such absurdity.

joemarklawson

Let me tell you what I am doing right now. I’m designing an assay to detect XMRV, a virus that may be a causative agent of prostate cancer. I’m looking at PLoS Pathog2006, Urisman et al. Identification of a Novel Gammaretrovirus in Prostate Tumors of Patients Homozygous for R462Q RNASEL Variant. In the paper, they are showing alignments against oncogenic viruses of mice. They’ve use ClustalX to create a phylogenetic tree. I am going to pick sequences from mERV which is the mouse endogenous retrovirus, because it’s pretty obvious from the sequences that XMRV evolved from mERV. The reason I am so convinced of evolution is because it works for me every day. I’m using evolution to solve complex problems of biology, possibly saving the lives of people. You say it isn’t close to reality. But I’m afraid that just means you don’t actually understand it.

stevebee92653

If you think you are using “evolution” to save lives, you better get into another business. Of course you can interpret small changes that occur between generations as “evolution” but we both know that is not the evolution that you and I are discussing. You may be using genetics, gene modifications, biochemistry, chemistry, math, but you are not using evolution. Hard for me to believe how someone as smart as you must be doesn’t have the capacity to critically look at Darwin et al.

joemarklawson

You never answered my question about what was the source of irreducibly complex devices placed in organisms. (paraphrase)

stevebee92653

Sure I answered. You just filter out what you don’t like. I told you I don’t have any idea, and neither does any person who lives or has ever lived on the face of the earth. Which is the same with the origin of life and the universe. All equal.
You morph the answer into what you want it to be, just like you morph the questions.
You have no idea why the universe began, or life, but you unblushingly let people know how complex organs and species formed, without any doubt on your part.

joemarklawson

“…you can interpret small changes that occur between generations as “evolution” but… that is not the evolution that you and I are discussing.”
Selective acceptance. Oh, yeah, viruses can reactivate after millions of year of being a lump of junk DNA, jump species, but that’s just a little change. A big change would be… what?
Evolution is just change in allelic frequency over time in a population. What prevents those changes from accumulating?

stevebee92653

“What prevents those changes from accumulating?”
Not the question of a true scientist, which you say you are.
You need to prove that those minor changes caused the formation of complex bio-electromechanical devices. Instead of asking “what would prevent” you need to find that “it did, for certain happen”. And, since you can’t do that, and the only evidence that it did is imaginary, your “science” fails along with you.

joemarklawson

No, steve, I think you are missing the point. You concede small changes between generations, but not de novo synthesis of new tissues by the accumulation of those small changes.
You’ve imposed some sort of “limit” to the adaptation we are currently observing. Creating that artificial boundary requires a justification. Why do you accept that the same mechanisms can’t cause both antibiotic resistance and the use of a photolyase to sense light?

joemarklawson

And, as a scientist, I create models to explain the evidence.
The evidence of highly conserved genes like catalase, or 18S rRNA, or mitochondrial DNA suggests that all life had a common ancestor. The sequence patterns support a model of genetic change over time, and are concordant with the fossil and geology evidence.
But I want to make sure you answer my original question:
If you think there was a designer, who/what was the builder? How do IR structures get into living things?

stevebee92653

Where did the universe come from? How did an entire universe pop out of a singularity the size of a proton? Why did it pop when it did, 13.7BYA? How did time begin? If there was no time before the BB, how could change occur that would produce the BB? Why is the universe here instead of nothing? How did life begin? Why did life begin instead of permanent sterility? You have the answers for these, right? Since evos know it all. Or you then MUST believe. Is there ever a point where you say IDK? (I don’t know)

joemarklawson

These are all good questions. There are some good theories to address some of them, and here’s the best part: there are ways to TEST them. In our lifetime, we may know where all the matter in the Universe came from. Because scientists weren’t content with just saying “I don’t know”. There may be limits on what we can be SURE of, but that shouldn’t stop inquiry.
You ask a lot of “Why” questions. Why (mechanism) can probably be answered by science, Why (purpose/meaning) can probably not.

stevebee92653

“that shouldn’t stop inquiry”
A great deal of your discussion involves assigning to me what you hope I might think so you can have a response that satisfies you and your supporters. You did that in your vid with your dissertation on hairlessness.
I ask a lot of “how did it occur” questions. Because you and ev can’t answer, you respond with a lot of “why” answers. Why skin evolved. Why sexual repro is best. Never how, because you can’t answer how. I want to know HOW.

joemarklawson

“I ask a lot of “how did it occur” questions”
It never occurred to me that you didn’t understand the basic mechanisms. It occurs through the accumulation, in the population, of genetic change. Genetic change is more than random mutation and natural selection, although they are important. (This answers HOW?)
Do you understand that (demean when you have no answers) DNA (genes) control phenotype? For our eye example, I would suggest you look up a gene called PAX6, which is found in all bilaterians, and controls retinal placement.

joemarklawson

PAX6 is a shared gene that sets up a gradient in early embryology to establish eye placement. If we monkey around with it, we can have the eye appear anywhere we like. I assume that eyes are in the positions they are in because the form of the gene that maximized survival was selected for. Mutations could have resulted in eyes in the back of our heads, but that would require a lot of energetic expenditure for us, and a substantial remodeling of the structures of the brain.

SpeciationEverywhere ( joe’s fan gets into the frey.)

GO JOE!
SCIENCE FOR THE WIN!

stevebee92653

Yay Science! Rah Rah Rah!

DNAunion (A HUGE attacker of my vids gets into the frey.)

“Dr” Anders Lyndon is shot down again.
Time for you to take some basic biology courses, “Dr”.

stevebee92653 (I satirically placed a picture of a beetle mating with a nautilus underwater to “gain” eyesight in my vid on eye evolution. He thought it was a serious picture, and gave me a lambasting on his attack vid about how I mentioned vertebrates in my dialogue and had a picture of a mollusk. Haha)

Hey DNA, ya seen a beetle humping on a nautilus under water lately so it could get eyes and see? Oh please give me another dissertation on that one! Your first one was so good!

joemarklawson

steve@
You say these things obviously have a designer. Who’s the builder? How do the designs get made? Did animals not have vertebrate eyes one minute, then poof they had them? Or were babies with eyes born to mothers with none?
How does an irreducibly complex organ get into an organism? Give us a mechanism.

stevebee92653

The difference between you and me Joe is I am smart enough to know when I don’t have the answer, which I don’t. You accept a preposterous answer, and for some reason you are 100% sure you are right. (You recommend an open mind? Joe made a vid about how to become a scientist. His first tip was to keep an open mind.) You think random selected events put together this vast group of incredibly complex and fantastically designed devices? Difficult for me to believe a scientist such as yourself would not be far more skeptical than you are. So, you believe, I don’t. And that’s our circle

joemarklawson

“You accept a preposterous answer”
There’s the burden of proof, steve. Why is it preposterous? It’s the continuation of existing, observed mechanisms backwards through time. It’s very much the same process as was used to deduce the Big Bang from the cosmological evidence. Evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) is a fact. The origin of modern biodiversity is deduced from that fact and others.
Is it remarkable? Yes! Is it preposterous? No.

stevebee92653

*** Have “changes in allele frequency in a population over time” ever been shown to INVENT A NEW AND USEFUL ORGAN TYPE, FORM HEALTHY ORGAN TISSUE FOR THAT ORGAN WITH REPEATED SELECTED EVENTS, PLACE THAT TISSUE IN JUST THE CORRECT POSITION ON THE HOST AND IN THAT ORGAN FOR UTILITY AND FOR COMPLETING THE ASSEMBLY OF THAT ORGAN, IN JUST THE CORRECT AMOUNTS, AND CEASE ALL EVENTS WHEN FULL FUNCTIONALITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED? Since this has NEVER been exampled, your stance is nothing but fantasy.

joemarklawson

That’s not a valid test, steve. (What? Demonstrating the evolution of complex organs isn’t a valid test?) You presuppose too much, and you establish a burden of proof that can’t exist. (Then why is evolution a “science”.) You might as well ask why we accept atoms, since we can’t see them.
How about: Can it be shown that parts of the eye have ancestors in non-eye possessing distant relatives, for example.
Is there an explanation that explains the emergence of bilateral symmetry in the fossil record?
Not fantasy, theoretical science.

stevebee92653

This is your response to ***”Have “changes in allele frequency….”. (Two comments upward, starting in blue.) I hope not for your sake, because you just punted

Now you are grasping at straws. You equate atoms, which we can’t see, to the evolution of organs, which we CAN SEE? I should say, COULD SEE if they indeed did evolve as Charlie said they did? And which, if evo was correct, would show up in the fossil record? No species has EVER been shown to start non-eyed, and to evolve eyes over a 350,000 year period. NEVER. Which makes eye evo fantasy. Along with all of the rest of the organs and body parts claimed to have come about by selected mutations.

joemarklawson

“No species has EVER been shown to start non-eyed, and to evolve eyes a 350,000 year period”
1. That’s not even how evolution works. (Eye evolution doesn’t work by eye evolution?)
2. The fossil record shows a clear delineation of forms in eye development. (Where?)
3. Genetics paints an even clearer picture. Photolyases and cryptochromes of plants are distantly related to rhodopsin and alpha-opsins of humans. We can date the divergences by cladistical phylogenetics.
Do you understand that, steve?

stevebee92653

Mentioning “rhodopsin and alpha-opsins of humans” as a step in the evolution of MECHANICS and ELECTRONICS in a complex visual systems is smoke for your non-answers. How did that optic nerve….how did that complex code…what order? I ask HOW. You say WHY, but have absolutely no idea HOW so you mask your non-answers with complex chemicals, and a demeaning question.
Do you understand that, joe?
We are going in circles here just like we did, you a firm believer, me a skeptic, so let’s say BYE. (Joe wants to keep going, so I bite. Just a little more.)

joemarklawson

I don’t “believe” in evolution any more than you believe in internal combustion. It’s an observable fact, and it guides medical research every day.
My “belief” in it is because it works, and it’s the primary tool that makes all metagenomic analysis work. What has your admission of “not knowing the answer” done for us?

stevebee92653

Not knowing, and knowing that we don’t know, makes the Puzzle (!) even more fascinating, and makes us search even harder. “Knowing” when we don’t know makes us think we have the answer, makes us quit looking, and makes us failures in the search.

joemarklawson

“makes the Puzzle (!) even more fascinating, and makes us search even harder.”
All the evidence to date supports the modern theory of evolution. It’s a tested and validated theoretical construct. At this point, to change it, you will need to come up with BETTER model to explain the data, and you will need to find phenomenon that cannot be explained by the current theory.
If you have specific evidence or a superior model, rather than hand-waving, please cite it.

joemarklawson

All of this is getting off-topic, steve. You’ve dodged the question: What mechanism could explain the sudden emergence of what you believe to be irreducibly complex structures. Where did they come from, and how did the traits enter living things?
You simply don’t know? No idea whatsoever? Aliens, maybe?

stevebee92653

We come right back to completing the circle we had on my vid.
You:
say you know when you don’t.
say your evidence is there when it isn’t.

ignore my question on organs that mutated into existence.

I say I don’t know when I don’t.
I say with the evidence we have now we cannot produce a SCIENTIFICALLY acceptable model.
I say we should certainly continue searching, but that evo kills all open-minded and objective searches just like all dogma has done throughout history.

joemarklawson

Okay, so you concede that you have no idea how the irreducibly complex structures were created, but you are darn sure it wasn’t by existing mechanisms of allelic change.
“I say with the evidence we have now we cannot produce a SCIENTIFICALLY acceptable model.”
1. Why not? (After all of this discourse, he still has to ask this question? That is why I blocked him from commenting on my vids. It just goes on and on.)
2. Have you seen all the evidence? What journal do you read? (After all of this discussion, he asks THIS question? It’s called running out of gas.)
3. Should we continue our search with natural forces still in existence, or should we begin to include supernatural forces for these IC changes? (He’s on fumes.)

joemarklawson

“If we assume a generation time of one year, which is common for small and medium-sized aquatic animals, it would take less than 364,000 years for a camera eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch”
Nilsson and Pelger
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1994 256, 53-58
I assume you’ve read this one? (He is out of fumes.)

stevebee92653

How does Nilsson know any better than my dog since the invention of eyes and their evolution has NEVER been demonstrated, and doesn’t exist in the fossil record? Joe, you are a SCIENTIST. How can you possibly go for this? I just don’t get it. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?

stevebee92653

Have “changes in allele frequency in a population over time” ever been shown to INVENT A NEW AND USEFUL ORGAN TYPE, FORM HEALTHY ORGAN TISSUE FOR THAT ORGAN WITH REPEATED SELECTED EVENTS, PLACE THAT TISSUE IN JUST THE CORRECT POSITION ON THE HOST AND IN THE ORGAN FOR UTILITY AND FOR COMPLETING THE ASSEMBLY OF THAT ORGAN, IN JUST THE CORRECT AMOUNTS, AND CEASE THE EVENTS WHEN FULL FUNCTIONALITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED? Since this has NEVER been exampled, your stance is nothing but fantasy.

(I repeat the question that he has ignored. If he gives the same answer I do, “I don’t know” his argument for evolution is dead meat.)

joemarklawson

“The evolution of photoreceptor cell types can now be traced by the comparative analysis of their molecular combinatorial codes. More efficiently than previous anatomical comparisons, this novel evo-devo approach will help to elucidate the evolution of animal photoreceptor cells and thus of animal eyes.”

Detlev Arendt
Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types
Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47: 563-571 (2003)

stevebee92653

Amazing. A science paper about a fantasy!

I thought you wanted mechanisms?

Eye development precedes neural processing. In certain jellyfish, eyes are wired directly to muscles, and in Euglena and Volvox, single celled organisms with eyespots, this is certainly the case.

Complex code is also dispensible for light sensitivity. Again Euglena and Volvox use GTPase, a universal second messenger, as the signal transducer. Signals are processed by proteins (TFs) in the nucleus.

There is evidence, you just haven’t seen it, steve.

Joe, you can list all of the papers you want. Evidence doesn’t exist because it cannot. A pump cannot pump until it is a fully sealed pump. There can be no half pump. And what did the pump pump? And through what vessels? And controlled by what brain, and what nerves. So, all of those papers cannot describe what is not possible. They try to and you accept. The best way to get out of a losing argument is to refer the person you are losing to to go read a paper. I thought you were so knowledgeable?

Steve, you amaze me with your lack of knowledge.

The ARTHROPOD HEART IS AN UNSEALED PUMP. And it works fine. It moves blood around WITHOUT VESSELS. This is called an open circulatory system. Did you really not know about this? The reason I refer you to papers is because good evidence is hard to fit into 500 words at a time. Are you afraid or unable to read the evidence? (Where did it get the blood to pump, the nerve to control the heart, the vessels to carry the blood? Why didn’t arthropods evolve fully sealed hearts in 500,000,000 years? What happened to evolution?)

MaximusArurealius (My ally MaximusArurealius gets into the frey.)

SteveBee, “We are going in circles here just like we did, you a firm believer, me a skeptic, so let’s say BYE.”

I see what you mean. I cannot understand how educated people can be so taken in by his. You’d think that when scientists “discovered” that dinos evolved into birds that they would wake up, as if humans and apes descending from a common ancestor fish wasn’t enough already.

Do you know how organs are placed? This is a field of biology called EVO-DEVO, evolution of development. In all bilateria (animals that are symmetrical), an anterior-posterior gradient is established. Secondary gradients are based off that one. (Isn’t fantasy wonderful. A whole field of “science” on how organs are placed by evolution, with absolutely no evidence.)

Remember the heart? Tell me you’ve seen the progession of the vertebrate heart, from earthworms aortic arches to fishes to amphibians to mammals? Do you know about the arthropod “heart”. You can’t draw a few simple conclusions about that?  (Joe doesn’t realize that from nothing to a heart, no matter how simple, is a path that cannot be taken without a plan.)

Ciona heart precursor cells form bilateral rudiments that migrate anteriorly and ventrally along the endoderm to fuse at the ventral midline.

Although Ciona myocytes differ in structure from their vertebrate counterparts (Robb 1965), homology is suggested by the expression of a variety of molecular markers, including a specific splice isoform of Troponin I. There is every indication that the earliest phases of cardiac mesoderm specification are conserved in Ciona and vertebrates.

Above quote re: Ciona heart precursor cells is an elegant paper on evo devo of the heart.

Davidson et al.

FGF signaling delineates the cardiac progenitor field in the simple chordate, Ciona intestinalis

Genes & Dev. 2006. 20: 2728-2738

There’s lots of evidence, steve.

GENETICS, steve! Metagenomics, to be more precise.

PAX6 protein is 99% conserved between you and a chicken, but only 50% conserved between you and a fly.

Cyptochrome 1 protein is 70% similar between you and a mosquito, and 45% similar to the cryptochrome in rice. The chemical in your eye is also in rice leaves! Performing a similar function.

If you will read some of these articles, and do some serious research, the answer are out there.

“The evolution of photoreceptor cell types can now be traced by the comparative analysis of their molecular combinatorial codes. More efficiently than previous anatomical comparisons, this novel evo-devo approach will help to elucidate the evolution of animal photoreceptor cells and thus of animal eyes.”

Detlev Arendt

Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types

Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47: 563-571 (2003)

You didn’t bother to read it, did you steve? How can you be so sure evidence doesn’t exist, if you don’t do some research? Enter the lion’s den, and go to Panda’s Thumb. They have some nice summaries of evidence for eye evolution and development.

It’s so naive of you to think I didn’t do an awful lot of reading before making my vids. (Including TO and Panda’s Thumb) What you are using is the tactic of a loser. You can’t “win” a discussion with me, so you recommend the writings of others who have been sucked in by this fantasy. Pretty transparent.

I have some research for you to do. Watch the video on “How to Become a Scientist” by joemarklawson. The first point in the vid will help you become a much better scientist. (Joe’s video recommends to keep an open mind. Funny, eh?)

hmm well maybe thats whats missing in the theory of evolution….the soul, thats why it comes across as robotic. (My ally gets into the frey)
Really? I find it beautiful. We are related to all living things on Earth. Once upon a time, you and the grass you walk on shared an ancestor. All living things are related over a vast expanse of time. We are the stuff of supernovas. Our atoms were born in the most intense explosion of a supermassive object imaginable.
What makes us each unique is so small compared to what makes us similar. Humankind really is one big family.

aaugoaa

hmm well maybe thats whats missing in the theory of evolution….the soul, thats why it comes across as robotic. (My ally gets into the frey)

joemarklawson

Really? I find it beautiful. We are related to all living things on Earth. Once upon a time, you and the grass you walk on shared an ancestor. All living things are related over a vast expanse of time. We are the stuff of supernovas. Our atoms were born in the most intense explosion of a

supermassive object imaginable.
What makes us each unique is so small compared to what makes us similar. Humankind really is one big family.

aaugoaa

well that was interesting, it was like reading a debate were one was human and the other a robot. lol

joemarklawson

Really? My favorite part was when steve said “Evidence doesn’t exist because it cannot…. So, all of those papers cannot describe what is not possible.”
Now tell me, who has an open mind, and who has a foregone conclusion?

MaximusArurealius

Joe, You are an example of someone who was educated beyond your mental ability to manage it. I am not of a mind to exhaust myself in an endless argument with you. Your thinking is so convoluted as to be impossible to sort out. Makes me tired just thinking about it. Steve has been more tolerant of you than you deserve. Your personal attacks were unjustified and self-demeaning.

joemarklawson (Joe wants to continue on even after I say BYE.)

I apologize to steve for being snarky.
Let’s agree/disagree on a few things:
1. Scientific rationalism is the best way to understand the natural world. (i.e. no fairies and unicorns)
2. Almost all serious scientists for the last 250 agree that the evidence supports the existence of evolution and common ancestry.
3. All life on Earth show evidence of relatedness, in proportion to the chronological distance to their last common ancestor.

4. All populations on Earth have some measure of genetic diversity, resulting in phenotypic diversity.

5. These phenotypes determine the relative chance of survival and reproduction.

joemarklawson

And neither did Australopithicus. (?) Let’s pick as an example the wooly mammoth. You’ve seen pictures, I presume. Look like anything in the modern world? (elephant, BTW) But what is missing? And where do we find the Asian and African elephant? Take a look on Wikipedia. Are there any in Siberia, Northern China, Central Europe? Why not? Pick our closest relatives. How widely distributed are the chimps, gorillas, and orangs? Why?

joemarklawson

Are you going to pretend that you knew all about the arthropod heart before making your analogy?  (I am done and Joe keeps on, the actions of a loser. Does he actually think that because arthropods have partial hearts that proves evolution invented hearts, mutated heart cells, placed them in just the correct numbers in just the correct location so they could be utilized by the host?)

MaximusArurealius

Joe said, “All vertebrates have skin.” Look Joe none of those animals wear clothes do they? BTW Steve said, “Almost all animals can do well in a huge range of temperature conditions.” He didn’t say that all animals can live anywhere in the world. He is correct and you are nitpicking and whinning. Your voice is soo whinney that it is hard to listen to.


Addendum #1: Joemarklawson: responds to my video on The Age of the Universe: a Paradox.

joemarklawson

I think you have stumbled into some bad philosophy, Steve. The phenomenon that cause what we perceive as light and sound exist independent of observers, ‘in potentia’. Photons exist whether we observe them or not. They transfer light energy even when not striking the eye of a sentient being.

What you propose leads to pure subjectivism: Nothing exists but what you observe with your senses. That makes perception = limits of reality. No stars exist, then, until we are looking at them.

stevebee92653

“No stars exist, then, until we are looking at them.”
That is correct. Nothing exists without an observer. Light is only in our visual cortex, just like sound. It doesn’t exits outside of an observer. The concept is bad for evolution, so that will make you fight the concept. And common sense is required as well, and you don’t like common sense.

joemarklawson

Wikipedia, definition of light:
“Light is electromagnetic radiation, particularly radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (about 400700 nm), or perhaps 380750 nm. In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.”

You’ve made a distinction without a purpose, one not recognized by physicists. Light energy is emitted by the Sun, not ‘made in the brain’. Find a physicist who disagrees.

stevebee92653

Mark, you are going to lose this one badly. You must not have watched to the end. Did you see Linde and  Greestein. We call it light, because that is what we perceive from EMR. But the light, color and visual images are in our visual cortex, nowhere else. No cortex, no light. EMR is made by the sun, light is made by our visual cortex. Watch the last minute if you didn’t. Or read “The Symbiotic Universe”. Or both. Even your Wiki definition backs what I say, not what you say.

joemarklawson

As I have previously pointed out, light energy is striking living things constantly.
An iron-reducing bateria had all the machinery for harvesting this energy, except a photosensitive dye, which can be produced with small changes from photolyase. This was the first autotroph (plant).
Plants respond to the sun, opening petals, turning leaves, opening stomata. The chemicals in plants for sensing light are also present in the human eye. I don’t think that’s coincidence.

joemarklawson

Andrei Linde was explaining the strong anthropic principle. Based on my reading of his papers and website, I see no evidence he would support your proposal that the Universe is a purely subjective construct of our perceptions. In fact, I have a presentation where he calculates the Planck time variables for expansion, suggesting he would strongly disagree with you, and possibly accuse you of quote-mining and bad philosophy.  Maybe you could back your statement up with references?

stevebee92653

Are you joking? How about LINDE HIMSELF. Is that a good enough reference? How about The Symbiotic Universe. Is that a good reference? Your problem is you try to change what people say to fit your belief system. Would Linde disagree with what he himself said a few weeks ago? Only in your world.

joemarklawson

All of this is philosophy, not natural science. Everything around you could be a Matrix-style virtual reality, you could be hallucinating; maybe you are a butterfly dreaming you are a man.
Very mystical and fun, but these concepts describe a Universe that cannot be trusted, a world that only exists in the darkness behind your eyes. No objective reality.
You seem to be suggesting that this is supported by observations of uncertainty, which is false.

stevebee92653

Nice try. You are wrong. Light is an invention of life, and without life, there is no color, light, or visual images. Where do you suppose images would form without life? You need to think to the next level on this one. It’s not philosophy. It’s common sense. Your problem is you can’t take yourself and your own perception out of the equation. Ten years before you were born was there a universe FOR YOU? Was there such a thing as light FOR YOU? And, if you eliminate life, there is nothing.

Addendum #2: Mark (his real name) and I had many more encounters, but this one is very sad and telling. Evolutionauts seem to be devoid of humor, and fun. They are a grumpy, serious, name calling lot. I know that doesn’t mean every one, and if you are reading this as an evolutionaut, I hope you are not in that category. But I haven’t seen a lick of fun from any of them that I can think of. Which is sad. Is this a science that makes people unhappy, or are they that way before they become evolutionauts. I really don’t know. This part of Mark and my discussion is telling:

“new biologists are going into microbiology”
I have an advanced degree in microbiology, Max, and my dissertation was on the evolution of a retrovirus that is a relative of HIV. That understanding may lead to a vaccine for HIV someday.  All fields of science use evolution. It’s rare that a school has an EB specialization.  If you have a referenced article to prove me wrong, I’d love to see it.
Did the retrovirus evolve a complex visual system? Does it see? Does it have a light sensitive spot? Just wondering. Wouldn’t that be exciting if it DID!! Do you know? I wonder what that RV evolved from over 3,700,000,000 years. What was it’s common ancestor? I bet maybe a quark? Or string?  (Of course I’m kidding)

(Sadly, Mark takes me seriously, and the dogma tape begins.)

“Did the retrovirus evolve a complex visual system?”
Why would it need to, steve?
“I wonder what that RV evolved from”
Actually, data suggests that HIV-1 first emerged in 1931 in Congo. It has clear homology to SIVmacaque. Understanding the evolution of this virus helps us to develop therapeutics against it. Some genes were lost, some were modified in the host switch. We also know a lot about the difference between us and the macaque, which is important immunologically.

“What was it’s common ancestor? I bet maybe a quark? Or string?”
Steve, quarks and strings are not living things, and have no inheritance. You should read more on quantum physics to understand the difference.
If you really are curious about the primordial retrovirus, it’s very well characterized. They share a consensus sequence for reverse transcriptase, so there was probably a common origin. In fact, the RT shows homology to a cellular DNA polymerase, suggesting cellular origin.
mark, ya know the first point of my response to your attack on my eye evo vid? Where I say evolutionauts are the most sour unhappy group I have ever seen? Thanks for proving it. This was the lab test that you always ask for. You were the guinea pig! You proved my point without question. You have no idea when your chain is being pulled. Boy do I feel sorry for you. Push mark’s button and out comes the serious intense evo-rhetoric. Without a lick of thought.
“You couldn’t possibly have thought Iwas serious “
I don’t like to presume your level of knowledge, Steve. For example, you think that an unsealed pump is worthless with regards to the heart, when the majority of hearts on this planet are unsealed pumps. It’s best I just assume you know nothing about anything.
Did you ever manage to answer my question about the identity of the designer?
Did you ever answer my challenge about a unique gene for a complex structure?
Yes, Mark, I thought viruses evolved complex visual systems. Excuse me but har har har. You need to get out of that lab and take a big breath of fresh air. It must be getting to you. I can’t imaging a creationist or IDer who would take that notion seriously. And of course you go right on to unsealed pump dogma instead of giving a good laugh at yourself like you deserve, and like a normal human being that doesn’t think his kids faces came from mutations would do.
I think I’ll write a paper on how evolution destroys the fun and sense of humor of those who believe. Or maybe the sour demeanor comes first? What would evolution have to say about that? Anyway, I want to get it peer reviewed, and I will let you know how that goes. Maybe the psychology dept of the U of T. A Arlington? You couldn’t possibly have thought I was serious when I asked if quarks or strings were the common ancestors of RV’s, or if they had light sensitive spots Could you?
‘evolution destroys the fun and sense of humor’ Good point. I once asked Potholer
why humans would lose fur and evolve bare skin and he in all seriousness started talking about some gene that mutated… what a laughing stock!!

13 Comments

  1. louisa said,

    hi steve its me aaugoaa, ive been reading the comments on joemarklawson’s channel, you both have been locking horns lol, i think unless you feel joe as something to teach you why bother, you do great videos and they make sense, do what you do best, the guy Duaunion is just out to insult you, sick your nose in the air and walk away steve, your better than that 🙂

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    Yea, I keep getting sucked back in to those fools. I logged of for the last time.

    • Phyerbyrd said,

      I think he makes a good point, why do you think you understand evolution so well? You don’t have any major biology degrees, you haven’t studied living organisms in the lab, why do you think you can say what it says? By the way, light is a specific form of electromagnetic radiation different from regular electromagnetic waves. The way the photons are ordered is different in light from say, the field of a magnet. The only thing that exists only in our mind about light is how it looks. By the way, you seemed to insult him far more than he insulted you. About the open heart, if you think a sealed heart would be better why didn’t the intelligent force that created life give insects them? That thing about him taking you too seriously in that comment, a lot of people wouldn’t be joking about that and he simply mistook you for one of them. Same thing with the DNAunion guy. You have to understand that mostly only religious fundamentalists question evolution, and eventually the association creeps into everyone’s mind. There are people who would be serious about those sorts of things, and they often share similar views to people like you, and there are very few people who think the way you do, leading to an incorrect, if not unfounded, association.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your second sentence is light years off. I have dissected the entire human body. I had human eyeballs and brains in my hand. My education in biology far exceeds a masters in biology. Sorry to disappoint you. “Light” is EMR of specific wavelengths. It doesn’t exist as light except to a living organism. You live in a pitch dark world with waves which your retina and visual cortex translates into light, color, and visual images.
        Give chambered hearts to insects? c’mon. Don’t be absurd.
        No evolutionaut knows when they are being kidded. At least I haven’t found one yet. You guys are so angry and intense, you couldn’t tell when you sat on a whoppee cushion.

  3. Glacier said,

    “Have “changes in allele frequency in a population over time” ever been shown to INVENT A NEW AND USEFUL ORGAN TYPE, FORM HEALTHY ORGAN TISSUE FOR THAT ORGAN WITH REPEATED SELECTED EVENTS, PLACE THAT TISSUE IN JUST THE CORRECT POSITION ON THE HOST AND IN THE ORGAN FOR UTILITY AND FOR COMPLETING THE ASSEMBLY OF THAT ORGAN, IN JUST THE CORRECT AMOUNTS, AND CEASE THE EVENTS WHEN FULL FUNCTIONALITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED?”

    There are so many flaws in this question that I just need to go through them one by one. At first it starts as a simple yes/no question on whether or not allele frequency changes over time can create complexity and the answer to that has always been a resounding YES, but it happens through small incremental steps over the course of hundreds of millions of years. The idea that it happens instantly is neither supported by the fossil record or genomic research and it’s just plain bizarre that you have such a hard time understanding that.

    “REPEATED SELECTED EVENTS,”
    What the hell is this supposed to even mean? When did organisms get to fully decide what kind of selective pressures could be placed on them? Obviously, no thought whatsoever was put into this part of the question.

    “PLACE THAT TISSUE IN JUST THE CORRECT POSITION ON THE HOST AND IN THE ORGAN FOR UTILITY AND FOR COMPLETING THE ASSEMBLY OF THAT ORGAN, IN JUST THE CORRECT AMOUNTS,”
    Now you’re trying to compare natural processes to some sort of machine shop and this is where your entire premise really falls apart. When REAL naturalists look at nature and all its intricacy, they use the word ‘design’ as a simple analogy that’s not meant to be taken literally in any way. Machine shops have lathes, drills, anvils, hammers, welding torches, and all kinds of tools made from non-living metallic substances. Can a buzz-saw and drawing board undergo allele frequency change? I don’t think so, but DNA subject to the dynamics of its environment can.

    “AND CEASE THE EVENTS WHEN FULL FUNCTIONALITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED?”
    First you need to explain what those “EVENTS” are and what should count as “FUNCTIONALITY”. Jellyfish have an extremely simple visual system that can only distinguish night from day and they’re perfectly successful animals. Does that count as functional? You think that light only exists in the mind and that electromagnetic radiation and photons are not real. Does that make your brain any more functional?

    Overall, your question fails because it veers waaaay of course less than half-way through and becomes a great example of the creationist tactic of Moving the Goalpost through equivocation, or rigging a question that’s too stupid to be answered anyway.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      “Instantly” was never said and was not my point. Where did you see that? Doesn’t matter how small the increments are. Each selected mutation had to place the correct tissue in the correct location.
      At some point. Otherwise all organs would be mixed up garbage. The flaw is in your filtered thinking.
      You don’t know your own belief system. I never said the “organisms selected” the tissues/mutations. But the mutations had to be “selected for” as a result of natural selection, otherwise the “good ones” would vanish.
      At some point organs and bio-systems had to reach their “final design and shape”. Or are you saying that never happened. If so, you are not thinking. It had to.
      Jellyfish “eyes” had to have a final design and shape. And those mutations that were selected for had to cease when that final design was reached.
      You clearly can’t think this out. You are so enamored with evolution and it’s fantasy power, that you gloss over reality. The question is a good one, and one you can’t and shouldn’t have tried answering, because you failed badly. Questions evolutionauts can’t answer are always “too stupid to answer”. That is your only ploy. I say you made a great strategy selection! Dawkins would be proud.

  4. Bladder said,

    ““Instantly” was never said and was not my point. Where did you see that? Doesn’t matter how small the increments are. Each selected mutation had to place the correct tissue in the correct location.At some point. Otherwise all organs would be mixed up garbage. The flaw is in your filtered thinking.”
    Inconsistency seems to be your middle name. In your previous blog entries you typically dismiss natural selection as “dogma” and now you’re using it favorably in this rebuttal. It’s a pretty dismal sign when you don’t even know what side of the debate you’re taking.

    “You don’t know your own belief system.”
    Evolution is NOT a belief system, it’s the backbone of modern biology. Deal with it.

    “I never said the “organisms selected” the tissues/mutations.”
    It’s what that part of the question implied.

    “But the mutations had to be “selected for” as a result of natural selection, otherwise the “good ones” would vanish.”
    Mostly just a repeat of the first statement. You need to get out of this repetition habit you have.

    “At some point organs and bio-systems had to reach their “final design and shape”. Or are you saying that never happened. If so, you are not thinking. It had to.
    Jellyfish “eyes” had to have a final design and shape. And those mutations that were selected for had to cease when that final design was reached.”
    This part of your rebuttal is based on the false pretense that evolution has an ultimate goal in mind when the science behind taxonomy, speciation, population genetics, and common ancestry says otherwise. This idea is still used in anime and some science-fiction but that’s about as far as you can take it. Last I checked, evolution was all about bio-diversity and how certain features were naturally selected due to the specifics of their environment, not about reaching some ultimate level, unless you want to believe that we’ll evolve into gods some time in the distant future. Now there’s an ultimate goal right there.

    “You clearly can’t think this out. You are so enamored with evolution and it’s fantasy power, that you gloss over reality.”
    Which “reality” are we talking about here? Is it the one we’re in right now or is it the one where our knowledge of biology is still in the dark ages and there’s no Delta-36 mutation in Europeans to help them fight off the Black Death?

    “The question is a good one, and one you can’t and shouldn’t have tried answering, because you failed badly. Questions evolutionauts can’t answer are always “too stupid to answer”.”
    The question is based entirely on a faulty premise where you try to compare natural processes to some form of artificial assembly used exclusively by us humans. You need to revamp it completely if you ever want it to be answered and you also need to drop the habit of dissing and dismissing people when they respond to it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Your stuff is just dogma spouting. You can’t answer the question, and you can’t actually think of how evolution would have worked for us to wind up with the organs and bio-systems we have. You think evo just kind of magically brought them together, the MO doesn’t matter to you. You are a believer. So, believe away. Dogma is old and tiring. I have plenty of challenges on this blog for you to attack. You are doing the typical. Spouting generalized “you don’t understand, evolution is wonderful” BS. The question is real and concrete. Your answer is typical of a person who can’t answer and who avoids the reality of “how did it actually take place”.

      • Tundra said,

        “Your stuff is just dogma spouting.”
        Your definition of dogma is in serious conflict with any and all dictionaries. It applies only to religious and authoritative organizations and biological science does not meat that description because it’s self-correcting and thrives on scrutiny.

        “You can’t answer the question, and you can’t actually think of how evolution would have worked for us to wind up with the organs and bio-systems we have.”
        560 million years ago, most animals didn’t have any of the organs you described in your hokey videos. Arthropods certainly didn’t have kidneys back in the Cambrian and they still don’t have them now due to the setup of their circulatory systems. Organs started off as simple glands that served a simple function such as the digestion of food particles. The first multicellular metazoans started off with just a simple digestive cavity that built up from there as more cells were added. The scale of the creatures increased to the point where this was no longer adequate and naturally selected additions from mutations added the rest.
        The next big problem is your over-use of the term ‘bio-system’ which after some heavy background checking, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not an acceptable term to use if you really want to talk science because it’s far too vague. Kind of like ‘biblical kinds’.

        “You think evo just kind of magically brought them together, the MO doesn’t matter to you.”
        I don’t believe in magic and evolution doesn’t allow for any of it. You also contradict yourself here by accusing evo-science of being magical when your non-existent counter-hypothesis requires something supernatural in order to be valid.

        “You are a believer. So, believe away. Dogma is old and tiring.”
        Repeating your first sentence doesn’t help you one bit.

        “I have plenty of challenges on this blog for you to attack.”
        None of those challenges address anything and there’s little point in answering them if you’re just going to reject every legitimate response you’re given just because you’re proven wrong.

        “You are doing the typical. Spouting generalized “you don’t understand, evolution is wonderful” BS.”
        Easy now, it’s not our fault you lack the drive to do any actual research to test the validity of the responses you get. If this is supposed to be an “objective look” at evolution, what’s stopping you from doing some ACTUAL research?

        “The question is real and concrete.”
        No, the question tries to compare natural processes to man-made production facilities which is a poor analogy at best. Find some metaphorical connection between the two and incorporate that into the question BEFORE asking it.

        “Your answer is typical of a person who can’t answer and who avoids the reality of “how did it actually take place”.”
        We already know how it took place through naturally selective pressures and genetic variation, unfortunately, your idea of “reality” lacks depth. Provide us with a question that’s actually worth our time and we’ll answer it for you. If you reject the answer you’re given, explain why in great detail. Your adversaries could use a good laugh.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I find it amazing that you criticize my description of your dogma spouting, then you dogma spout. Evolution IS religious and authoritarian.

        No person who ever lived on the earth knows how biological systems formed including you. But you go on and give me a good fable made up by you or someone. That IS dogma.
        As you say, “biological science doesn’t meat” (try “meet”) that description, but evolution does. They are two entirely different sciences. You should know that.
        Evo isn’t self correcting. How can you correct or change natural selection or random mutations? That’s it. It has failed and it is stuck.
        Hokey vids? I am hurt.
        Bio-system? Short for “biological” and “system”. Look up look up those two words. You might find them in the dictionary. What an absurd complaint. It’s biblical? Which chapter?
        Re:”None of the challenges address anything?”You dismiss the challenges I have in this blog because you can’t respond. There is no scientific response possible without dogma. Typical. Makes you look bad. The evolution of the Kreb’s cycle, or arboreal bird nests (an easy one for you), or hearts and eyes, flight? The invention of vision and pumps (hearts) when none existed 550MYA? These are to be dismissed? I don’t blame you. Dismissing is your best strategy, and the one I would take if I were you. Your only hope.
        Re: Research? There are tons of “evo-peer reviewed papers” and articles referenced, scientific evolution videos/programs, and books on evolution in this blog, which you obviously haven’t read.

        The answers I have received haven’t reached pathetic. I have spent the time analyzing them and commenting back. But as in all of evo, any answer is supposed to be accepted as a good one. Right?

        “naturally selective pressures and genetic variation” invented and assembled pumps, vision, ball and socket joints, intelligence, auditory systems, consciousness? You actually believe that? You finish with more dogma that you think will answer all question. Try actually thinking out what you say. You can’t. You MUST defend at all cost, even if that means you don’t have to think.

  5. F.Whitman said,

    I’ve just read this one and it’s pathetically sad. At this stage in the game I’m now starting to think that you’re genuinely sick and have felt compassion for you and your seemingly bottomless pit of incredulity. What we are seeing here is a view/stance that is probably unique in it’s refusal to even acknowledge a single shred of evidence no mater how big or small. Work that teams of people have spent their lives working on are dismissed by Steve and his cohorts. Lifetime’s of graft and ingenuity and great thinking that have not only lead to the explanation of facts but have helped mankind out of the misery of life without enquiry or knowledge. Yet Stevebee just negates all of it in favour of …’something else’ which despite centuries of thinking no one has managed to postulate – that may be because the best, most obvious, plausible and ultimately demonstrable explanation is already here. The fact that it ties in with so many other lines of enquiry, unifying biological discovery should be evidence in itself when you consider the sheer amount of data that it corroborates.

    The other problem with your ‘debates’ is that you, for some strange reason when talking to qualified people on a serious subject often slip in some off the cuff, jokey, sarcastic, irrelevant, supposedly funny comment which people then address as a valid point in your commentary. What this should tell you is that it’s impossible to distinguish the preposterous and inane from the silly and humorous and we see this again and again on your discussions. There’s no way for an intelligent person to see that it’s a joke because it’s impossible to tell with so much garbage being spilled out onto a single page just what is what. I would refrain from that if I were you and stick to serious rebuttal and argument without silly pet words for people and things and also have at least an ounce of respect for those who dedicate their life to science since we owe much to them.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I am thoroughly convinced you are a robot with an embedded CD. You have nothing to say, you repeat dogma without realizing it, can’t intelligently discuss any point in the blog. Just like all the other robots. But you disdain humor which is typical evolutionaut fare. So, good for you. Dedication doesn’t mean correct.
      “bottomless pit of incredulity, helped mankind out of the misery of life, the sheer amount of data that it corroborates.”
      You have been well indoctrinated and fooled. Science has certainly helped mankind, but not evo-fables.
      Charge me with copying? Where? Cite it. Just like evos always cry for proper citing. Cite it.

      • Challagar said,

        HAHA, I just stumbled upon this Freudian slip in F. Whitman’s comment:

        “Lifetime’s of graft and ingenuity…”

        According to dictionary.com one definition of graft is the acquisition of money, gain, or advantage by dishonest, unfair, or illegal means, especially through the abuse of one’s position or influence in politics, business, etc.

        I am sure that wasn’t the word he was looking for, but his slip up inadvertently gives a very telling picture of how evolution has so successfully kept its position as the imminent scientific theory today.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: