Do You Believe in Evolution?

_{Granville Sewell

April 15, 2016

Design inference, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When someone asks “Do you believe in evolution?” they probably want a short answer, and don’t have the patience to listen to a 15-minute lecture on the different meanings of “evolution” and how you stand on each. So how do you answer this trick question?

Here’s a very short answer that works for me:

Yes, I believe in the evolution of life, and I believe in the evolution of automobiles.

Optionally, to make sure they get the point, you could add “but I don’t believe either could have happened without design.”

It is actually a pretty good analogy, see my April 2,2015 post at ENV, In Biology as in Technology, Similarities Do Not Prove Absence of Intelligent Design

Comments

And apparently Indiana Effigy has tiptoed away. I guess it's best to boogie when facts start emerging. Summary: Intelligent Design is a paradigm in which things that look designed are investigated as if they were. ID takes no position on the designer. Darwinism is a paradigm in which things are assumed to not have any design or purpose until proven. Publishing in technical journals seems to suffer from a random selection process that's become disconnected from scientific signficance. Additionally, anything even remotely connected with ID is either rejected out of hand or in some cases withdrawn after a firestorm of protest. While the peer review process filters out some crank science (not enough in some cases), it also filters out new discoveries and anything that challenges the current consensus. It's been estimated that around a third of published results have not been able to be duplicated. -QQuerius_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Me_Think @ 23 How does it follow that everything should be created in a "jiffy" if one has immense powers? I continue to be astonished at atheists' juvenile concepts of the Creator and their limitless ability to anthropomorphize an eternal and infinite being. I submit that fine-tuning the expansion of the universe to one part in 10^60 is just as powerful as creating one in a "jiffy". An eternal creator did not wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait. The eternal creator's eternity is tota simul i.e. "all at once". The Big Bang is present to him as well as the heat death of the universe and everything in between. There is no waiting and waiting and waiting. You don't get to redefine "eternity" just as you don't get to redefine "nothing". I suggest an introductory course in metaphysics before you turn on the snark. And what's with the Me_Think moniker? It clearly does not fit.RexTugwell_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

IE wrote:
It may be more difficult, as is the case with any research that goes against any currently accepted theory. Remember cold fusion? Or continental drift?
Yep. There was a time when continental drift was considered crackpot pseudo-science. And it would still not be accepted if there were any ideological dissonance attached to it. Oh, and here's an interesting link to an article asserting that "big science" is broken. http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken Comments? -QQuerius_{April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

IE You are not searching for truth... you are just another person with an agenda. You don't have to ask for the information you just need to find it yourself.Andre_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

BTW, Here's a good article on rejected articles in general with numerous references: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/intelligent_des056221.html Here's one on peer-reviewed ID submissions, along with a list of those that were accepted: http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ -QQuerius_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

IE, Did you read this part of the journal's apology?
Within days, the Biological Society of Washington, intimidated by the response of the evolutionary defenders, released a statement apologizing for the publication of the article. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the society’s governing council claimed that the article “was published without the prior knowledge of the council.” The statement went on to declare: “We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” The society’s president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, blamed the article’s publication on the journal’s previous editor, Richard Sternberg, who now serves as a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institute of Health. “My conclusion on this,” McDiarmid said, “was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor’s part.”
I did a search on rejected journal papers and intelligent design, and found mostly ones that were published and then retracted by the journal. Along the way, I found the information in this link very amusing, especially the comments. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/09/10/great_papers_that_have_been_rejected Then I ran across a diatribe by Dr. Warren D. Smith (mathematics and computer science):
. . . All the above numerical figures are based on my experience as a professional scientist. However, my opponents could attack them as merely my biased special anecdotal claims. To respond to that, consider the following study [PLACE CITE HERE LATER]: The authors of the study took 18 random already-published scientific papers, changed the authors and titles, and sent them in to the same journal as submissions, in all cases within a few years of their publication date (thus the articles were still reasonably up to date). Result: 16 of the 18 got rejected. (In 0 cases was the plagiarism detected.) I think this study totally supports my "anecdotal" conclusions from my personal experience, don't you? Case closed.
Here's some correspondence between an editor of a journal and Dr. Behe in which one can see that a paper that Dr. Behe proposed was rejected before it was even written due to the subject material: https://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.php Since Dr. Meyers' paper was officially withdrawn by the Biological Society of Washington along with apologies, what do you find in it that's objectionable or unscientific? http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 Incidentally, I found the search both illuminating and entertaining. -QQuerius_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Andre: "Please stop feeding the troll" I made a very simple request for people to support the oft-repeated claim that scientifically valid papers are being rejected simply because they support ID. And I am being labeled a troll. If that is the best you can do then ID has lost. Again, a simple request. Post a scientifically valid paper that was rejected, along with the reviewers' comments, and we can discuss the paler's merits. Surely one of these papers should be easy to find given the claim being made.Indiana Effigy_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

deletedes58_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Please stop feeding the trollAndre_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Origenes: "wrt your question in #51, have you read posts #47 and #48?" My apologies. I, like many others, routinely scroll past BA77's cut-and-pastafests as they are seldom on topic. I looked at a few of his links and see a couple papers that were published. Again, disproving the claim that ID research can't get published. It may be more difficult, as is the case with any research that goes against any currently accepted theory. Remember cold fusion? Or continental drift? I am still waiting for someone to post a paper that was rejected, along with reviewer comments, so that we can discuss the merits. This should be easy to do given the claims that have been made.Indiana Effigy_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Indiana Effigy, wrt your question in #51, have you read posts #47 and #48?Origenes_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Querius: "Sure, IE. Here’s an example." All this shows is that peer-review is not a perfect process. Which is why journals have a process for retracting papers. If anything, this simply disproves the oft-repeated claim that journals will not publish ID research. Now, the second part of my question. Post a paper that was rejected, along with the reviewers' comments, and we will discuss its merits.Indiana Effigy_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Querius @ 47, referencing “Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy” http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/09/15/panicked-evolutionists-the-stephen-meyer-controversy/ -------------------- "Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise." ------------------------- And thanks bornagain77 for more no-nonsense references. My own impression of intelligent design in nature, is that, a multiplicity of parallel interconnecting complexities exists in any life unit or component. However, even simple or utter complexity, would not jump start into life by itself. We breathe automatically, without conscious effort or will, the same for heart beats. Now it's seems, any single step evolutionary mechanism, as Darwin envisaged, would simply never get past go, to suddenly live. When banned are flaws in a scientific system, such leads to a greater increase in depleted scientism. The world, in human terms is held together by thought, by belief. Darwinism is the prevailing belief; however, that does not guarantee truth. From the problems associated with the theory, it is far from the truth in its essential elements. In terms of ID, that is, in the context of a proportional intelligent increase of information, by some means; there appears another problem that ID may address - the instantaneous irreducible interconnected complexity of a life component, life unit, life organ in order to burst into life. You may say, but that is irreducible creationism. However, keeping to the terms of ID, that is not necessarily the case, no more than Darwinism may be part of atheism or Judaeo-Christianity. No creator is defined, no intelligence is defined, expect the axiom; complex intelligent grouping has existed, and is inbuilt from the beginning of any life form; as with design. That perception is grounded in observation, past and present. Nevertheless you would think that such intelligence, would communicate intelligently, and simply. However, that is not in the remit of ID. It fights a difficult enough battle as it is. Non serviam was basically Darwin’s axiom: a block-head type of nature serves us. Still, in atheistic terms, such nature is a god, as we certainly did not produce ourselves, nor had any free will in the matter of being created. The choice would be simple if we knew we had a choice, to acknowledge a higher intelligence or not, the consequences ours. How can we know. Belief, but based on the minimum of supernatural evidence, for the maximum effect in human free will. Belief in Darwinian terms is based on intelligent beings being totally absent at origins. At the centre of Darwinism is a belief system imposed on everybody. Darwin certainly gained the world.....mw_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

OT: podcast - Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Listen in as Dr. Wells explains. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2016/04/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/bornagain77_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk Academic Freedom Under Fire — Again! - October 2010 Excerpt: All Dr. Avital wanted to do was expose students to some of the weaknesses inherent in Darwin’s theory. Surely there’s no harm in that — or so one would think. But, of course, to the Darwinian faithful, such weaknesses apparently do not exist. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/academic_freedom_under_fire_-_038911.html BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN - UPDATED – Dec. 2015 http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141bornagain77_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article - Granville Sewell episode - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/how_the_scienti_1076101.html Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey Luskin - August 20, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/censorship_lose075541.html ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe - September 22, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/id-theorist-mike-behe-was-refused-a-response-in-microbe/ At the beginning of the following video Dr. Behe tells of how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracise him for supporting Intelligent Design: TEDxLehighU - Michael Behe - Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCP9UDFNHlo The Letter that Science Refused to Publish - November 8, 2013 Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin's Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest. See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/the_letter_that078871.html Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? - David Klinghoffer January 17, 2014 Excerpt: Charles Darwin himself, whose birthday is commemorated on the day bearing his name, insisted that getting at the truth, sorting true from false, requires an unimpeded airing of views: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Ironically, it is his latter-day advocates and defenders who are the most eager to muffle dissenting opinions, and the most unashamed about doing so. And again, not just unashamed, but proud. A victory in shutting down a college class, punishing a teacher, thwarting a law intended to protect educators from administrative reprisals, intimidating a publisher into a canceling a book contract, erasing words from the wall of a public museum -- such things are not merely done, they are candidly, brazenly bragged about. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/censor_of_the_y081261.html On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.htmlbornagain77_{April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Sure, IE. Here's an example. This is a paper that was published in a refereed journal: http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 And here's the firestorm that resulted: http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/09/15/panicked-evolutionists-the-stephen-meyer-controversy/ -QQuerius_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

I don't agree evolution is true by the mechanisms claimed in evolutionism. its not about design alone. Remember evolution could not be true if the earth is only 6000 years. Selection has done very little work. Other mechanisms did all the work since creation week and the fall. To the author of the thread. If evolution is true WHat evolved? What did it look like and then look like? Did people evolve to bring the different looks?Robert Byers_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

The person who asks "do you believe in evolution?" knows that it's a loaded question. Frankly, I'm not sure if I want to get in a discussion with such a person. So I would simply say, "Yeah, sure." Now if somebody had the insight to ask me which type of evolution I believe in, Darwinian, or some other type, then the conversation begins.CannuckianYankee_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Querius: "ID papers are routinely rejected from publication on ideological grounds. And when one does get published, there’s a firestorm of protest." I keep hearing this trope from the ID side, yet when I ask them to post one of these rejected papers along with their reviews, they become silent. So I will ask you the same. Post one of your rejected ID papers along with the reviews and we can discuss the merits of your paper. And your statement about a firestorm is just nonsense. If the paper can't withstand scrutiny, it deserves to be seriously criticized. As are many papers by biologists "within the fold". If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.Indiana Effigy_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

There is no Roy, and besides, if he really existed, everyone knows he would write in French.
Idiot.Roy_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Roy, you’re misunderstanding ID. ID takes no position on God.
No, I'm not. The 'intelligent designer' of ID is synonymous with 'God'.Roy_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

"There is in fact no evidence that Roy exists. A coke bottle most likely became entangled in the ring of a window sash cord, and the wind made the bottle tap a nearby Morse code key that was connected to a large medium frequency transmitter in San Francisco." On the Beach. With Gregory Peck, Fred Astaire and Ava Gardner.Indiana Effigy_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Dean_from_Ohio, LOL!
A coke bottle most likely became entangled in the ring of a window sash cord, and the wind made the bottle tap a nearby Morse code key that was connected to a large medium frequency transmitter in San Francisco.
While this might seem improbable, given billions and billions of years, not to mention the multiverse, this series of events not only becomes probable, but a virtual certainty! Well done! :-) -QQuerius_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Darwinism takes facts and observations as if they were shards of colored glass that they can piece together using the grout of speculation to form a mosaic of any image you desire. For example, imagine someone writing a book titled, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and then writing a book titled, The Descent of Man, in which he concluded that man (sic), having evolved from apes, continued evolving into various races, judging the "white race" more advanced than “lower organisms” such as pygmies. Naturally other racists took this information to justify "genetic hygiene" in cleansing the German gene pool of inferior elements. The amazing part of Darwinism is that beginning with the wooden masted ships of the British Empire, it could justify colonialism and all sorts of atrocities in Africa and Asia . . evolve into justifying Margaret Sanger's ideals that excluded blacks, Christians, and her other undesirable elements of society, followed by the horrors of Nazi racism and genocide, and now an imaginative story in support of today's narrative. Think of Darwinism as intellectual modeling clay that can justify anything in the name of science. For example, isn't it obvious that the planet is dangerously overpopulated? Hasn't it been scientifically demonstrated that the excess human population is severely damaging the biosphere? If there are too many animals, what do you do? You humanely, and with deepest sensitivity, cull them, right? But who do you cull? A modest proposal would be anyone who is not contributing to society or supportive of the modern enlightened narrative. This would certainly begin with the elderly and incurably infirm, including "retirees" (with exceptions, of course). I had a professor in college who advocated abortion of a child up to the age of two, citing that maintaining an unwanted child was the worst form of child abuse. Yes, a professor. -QQuerius_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Hi, Indiana Effigy # 32, ------------------- "Physics doesn’t lie." -------------------- Against the datum of pure physics that would be true. Against throwing away the key to why physics; certainly in terms of radiometric dating, gives flawed readings; is because, according to certain belief, creation was matured in six days, and other factors need to be considered. The measurements you advocate are fallible, relative to supernatural origins, which you call "magic," unable to acknowledge the possibility of miracles: well, neither could Darwin, casting out documented historic history to follow natural explanations shrouded in leaps of common descent magic. When children have to be coerced into believing what looks like designed is not designed, then an iron curtain evolutionist belief system and mentality shackles education facilities. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/evolution_in_ki102776.html That is the real damaging "lie," that apparently you wish to perpetuate? As for "magic;" it is magic to believe you can extract biologically, out of Darwin's hat, so to speak, a human from a worm. Or should I say, a powerful delusion?mw_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

IE,
Are you suggesting that my list is not a list of “useful” things?
Please enlighten us as to what AIDS is useful for. And that's besides the point, because Andre was arguing against the macro evolutionary origin of living things, to which you responded with a list of arguably micro evolutionary examples. Based on his research on malaria, Mike Behe made some calculations on the probability of a certain combination of two mutations to predict how long it would take for the mutation to show up. It turns out that he was right.
Intelligent Design: A designer (who may be God) is responsible for facilitating the creation of all life on earth.
Wrong again. ID is a paradigm in which one assumes unknown structures and functions that look designed should be treated as if they were. That's it. If you want to attribute the design to God or to an alien intelligence from among the "billions and billions" of planets in the universe, that's your prerogative, but it's philosophical speculation.
Yes, now I see how they are very distinct. Thank you for correcting my misperceptions.
You're welcome. Glad you're open minded enough to acknowledge that you don't understand ID.
Q: Of course it does. Go read Susumu Ohno’s 1972 paper where he assumes that what later became called non-coding DNA is labeled evolutionary “junk.” IE: No it doesn’t. Junk DNA is not precluded by evolution, but it is not a necessary prediction from the theory.
You didn't read Ohno's paper, did you? The paper is quite short, but he includes some ingenious possibilities that deserved more attention at the time. But since he *assumed* that what we now call non-coding DNA was "junk," (his term), science did not pursue investigating it for years, being satisfied that "junk" DNA was yet more evidence for evolution. It turned out that they were wrong.
I have found thousands of peer-reviewed papers on junk DNA but have failed to find a single one that is authored by a known ID scientist, or even concludes that this is strong evidence for ID. That is why I asked. Maybe I missed some.
And the majority of them turned out to be wrong. ID papers are routinely rejected from publication on ideological grounds. And when one does get published, there's a firestorm of protest. The tyranny of the mainstream also extends to many other discoveries in science. For example, this is why Watson and Crick had to publish their discovery of the structure of DNA in Nature rather than a scientific journal in their field.
Q: So, in the 1925 Scopes trial, Robert Wiedersheim presented a list of 86 vestigial organs in humans. How many on that list are left?” IE: I have no idea. But I also suggest that you look up the definition of “vestigial”. It does not mean that there is no function.
In the scopes trial, "vestigial" was defined as a non-functional vestige of evolution. Because of the numerous embarrassments when it turned out that these "vestigial" parts did have a function after all, the definition was changed to mean that they were vestiges of evolution, but DID have a function. Of course, that definition would apply to ALL parts of human anatomy, wouldn't it? The eye is a vestige of evolution, isn't it?
Hence the thousands of published papers on junk DNA.
Which are mostly wrong. Non-coding DNA is not "junk" after all. But who cares when you have to "publish or perish."
Q: . . . it would be pointless to test them so since we *know* that there couldn’t possibly be any carbon 14 left, and we don’t bother looking. And that’s the problem. IE: No, that is a case of using the right tools for the right job. Multiple independent procedures confirm that dinosaur fossils are 65+ million years old. C14 can only be reliably use for organic matter up to approximately 50,000 years old. This doesn’t mean that you won’t get a value for older samples, just that the value obtained is useless. Physics doesn’t lie.
Indeed, physics doesn't lie. That's why mainstream researchers ARE AFRAID to test the pliable tissue samples from inside the unfossilized bones of dinosaurs. There should be essentially zero C-14 in those samples. If there's a significant amount of C-14 found in them, you can't just discount it based on preconceptions! As you said, physics doesn't lie. You would first verify whether there's any verified biological contamination of the samples and that the labs didn't mess up. This can happen. But once you establish the presence of C-14, you are ethically obligated to follow the data. You probably aren't aware of this, but significant amounts C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones! Read what happened next. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html -QQuerius_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Querius: "That mutations occur in organisms is amply demonstrated. That such mutations can create anything useful from multiple mutations is exactly what Mike Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, is all about." Are you suggesting that my list is not a list of "useful" things? "Wrong. Apparently you haven’t a clue how and when ID was formulated. Conflating it with creationism is like conflating Darwinism with spontaneous generation." Thank you for providing me with a good laugh on a Saturday morning. Scientific creationism: God (a designer) is responsible for facilitating the creation of all life on earth. Intelligent Design: A designer (who may be God) is responsible for facilitating the creation of all life on earth. Yes, now I see how they are very distinct. Thank you for correcting my misperceptions. "Of course it does. Go read Susumu Ohno’s 1972 paper where he assumes that what later became called non-coding DNA is labeled evolutionary “junk.”" No it doesn't. Junk DNA is not precluded by evolution, but it is not a necessary prediction from the theory. "No, do your own homework." I have. I have found thousands of peer-reviewed papers on junk DNA but have failed to find a single one that is authored by a known ID scientist, or even concludes that this is strong evidence for ID. That is why I asked. Maybe I missed some. "So, in the 1925 Scopes trial, Robert Wiedersheim presented a list of 86 vestigial organs in humans. How many on that list are left?" I have no idea. But I also suggest that you look up the definition of "vestigial". It does not mean that there is no function. "As anyone with an open mind can see, evolutionary presuppositions have slowed scientific progress. If so called “junk” DNA has no function, what institution in their right mind would fund research into it? They generally don’t." Hence the thousands of published papers on junk DNA. "– Is anyone bothering to carbon date these samples? I’ll give you the answer. No, researchers aren’t carbon dating these samples for the reason that since these samples are assumed to be at least 60 million years old, it would be pointless to test them so since we *know* that there couldn’t possibly be any carbon 14 left, and we don’t bother looking. And that’s the problem." No, that is a case of using the right tools for the right job. Multiple independent procedures confirm that dinosaur fossils are 65+ million years old. C14 can only be reliably use for organic matter up to approximately 50,000 years old. This doesn't mean that you won't get a value for older samples, just that the value obtained is useless. Physics doesn't lie.Indiana Effigy_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Andre: "These things poofed into existence? You really believe that? Guess I’m not the feeble mind superstitious one…" I must have missed the part of evolutionary theory that says that anything "poofed" into existance. There are only two mechanisms that postulate things "poofing" into existance are magic and ID.Indiana Effigy_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

bFast: I would definitely say that eukaryogenesis, the origin of metazoa, and many other key points in life evolution are at least as complex and improbable as OOL itself. Indeed, any new complex protein cannot be explained in "non design" terms, but it is certainly true that the great steps mentioned above are absolute and outstanding "miracles of design" in a natural history which is in itself a constant miracle of design.gpuccio_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply