Evolution Intelligent Design News

We are told: Some species are evolving far more quickly than Darwin ever imagined.

Spread the love

For example, Discover:

Mosquitoes that colonized the London Underground in 1863 are now so different they can no longer mate with their above-ground relatives. Chinook salmon from Alaska to California needed just a human generation to become smaller and shorter-lived after an increase in commercial fishing in the 1920s. Adaptation is happening right under our noses, in our lifetimes.

But all of this can be accounted for within the genome of the species without any new information.

Put another way, if it is true that 1863 Tube mosquitos can no longer bred with above-ground mosquitoes, does that not signal a loss rather than a gain in information? Or are we not supposed to ask any more?

215 Replies to “We are told: Some species are evolving far more quickly than Darwin ever imagined.

  1. 1
    Andre says:

    It might be faster than what Darwin imagined but it is exactly as he predicted. Darwinian evolution ticks all the boxes.

  2. 2
    velikovskys says:

    News:
    Put another way, if it is true that 1863 Tube mosquitos can no longer bred with above-ground mosquitoes, does that not signal a loss rather than a gain in information?

    That should be easy to figure out, just subtract the amount of information in one mosquito from the other.

  3. 3
    Joe says:

    It could just be a separation of information. It doesn’t have to be a loss or gain, it could just be a difference.

  4. 4
    Piotr says:

    This is rather old news. The underground population was described as a distinct species (Culex molestus) back in the 1970s; results of breeding experiments and genetic analyses (comparing the common house mosquito, C. pipiens, with the London Underground population) were published 16 years ago (Byrne & Nichols 1999).

    Andre,

    Please remind me where Darwin estimates the rate of speciation in mosquitoes.

  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    Once a mosquito, always a mosquito.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u.....ed-2371691

  6. 6
    johnnyb says:

    Denyse – here is a similar story from a while back. Basically, a lizard grew a new organ in, basically, a single generation. It seems to be responding to symbionts in the environment.

    http://www.bartlettpublishing......1/entry/11

  7. 7
    Piotr says:

    #6 JohnnyB,

    The initial mutation responsible for the formation of a caecal valve surely occurred in one individual, but its spread in the population must have taken several generations. The lizards can breed when they are one year old, so 36 years means about 30 generations of fast population growth (from 5 females and 5 males to many thousand lizards inhabiting the island today). Changes in feeding style have exposed the lizards to new adaptive pressures, accelerating their evolution. In a small but fast-growing population innovations can spread like a wildfire and undergo rapid fixation. As genetic studies show, the London Underground gnats also derive from a single, very small founder population, so any differences between them and the ancestral species were amplified quickly. Read up on founder mutations.

    The caecal valve, by the way, is not a particularly sophisticated “organ”. It’s basically a piece of muscle tissue which can contract, creating a constriction in the animal’s intestine. Thus, it slows down the passage of food, turning the gut into a fermenting chamber where microorganisms (bacteria, nematodes) can flourish, converting cellulose into fatty acids and making plant material digestible for the lizard.

    The valve did not develop in response to the presence of bacteria and nematodes. It was the other way round. Ubiquitous microorganisms took advantage of an accidental opportunity that presented itself. The result was accidentally beneficial for the lizards (it could have been otherwise — many known founder mutations are quite harmful). The same or very similar bacteria and nematodes can be found everywhere, including the nearby island from which the lizards were introduced. Other lizards take them in with their food, but don’t multiply them in their guts simply because they poo too quickly.

    Tell me, Johnny, if it’s a front-loaded response, why don’t those other lizards “respond” to identical potential symbionts in their environment? Because we are dealing with a rare mutation which may also occur elsewhere from time to time but rarely has a chance to be driven to fixation, unless by sheer luck it happens in a tiny founder population.

  8. 8
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: Once a mosquito, always a mosquito.

    Once a deuterostome, always a deuterostome.
    http://classes.midlandstech.ed.....tive_1.jpg

  9. 9
    Joe says:

    So much for objectivity, eh Piotr?

    “It just happened, man”- that is the extent of your position’s “science”.

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    Once a deuterostome, always a deuterostome.

    Once a prokaryote always a prokaryote. Whoops, there goes universal common descent.

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    So we have some neat evidence for adaptive evolution and even speciation but the concern is about loss of information? Darwin had no theory of genetic information so it isn’t a part of Darwinism. And why should speciation in mosquitoes signal a loss of information? Why not an addition? And what information are we taking about?

  12. 12
    ppolish says:

    London Underground Mosquitos are being discovered in many other cities worldwide. Coincidence? Nope. NS & RM? Please stop. Hitchhiking? Maybe. Cool design? Bingo. Founder Effect? Loss of info right there.

  13. 13
    Joe says:

    Earth to Seversky- Baraminology is all about adaptive evolution.

    Just sayin’…

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    I thought Baramin was a character in Lord of the Rings.

  15. 15
    velikovskys says:


    Ppolish

    London Underground Mosquitos are being discovered in many other cities worldwide.

    Always in the underground?

    Coincidence? Nope. NS & RM?

    So you are saying that it is not a coincidence the 1863 are sucessful in one particular environment .

    Please stop.

    Not enough kinds of mosquitoes in the world for the designer,I guess.

    Cool design? Bingo

    Maybe he will work on some new kind of parasite next.

    Founder Effect? Loss of info right there.

    It is true 1863 can’t make new mosquitoes with its surface brethren,I can see how that may be viewed as a loss.However looking at from the other direction the surface mosquitoes don’t have the new information necessary to mate with the 1863. Sounds like a draw.

  16. 16
    Piotr says:

    Once a prokaryote always a prokaryote. Whoops, there goes universal common descent.

    Prokaryotes are a paraphyletic grouping, not a clade, so the same reasoning doesn’t apply. Similarly, vertebrates and birds are clades, but reptiles and fish aren’t. So “once a vertebrate, always a vertebrate”, “once a bird, always a bird” (true), but not “once a reptile, always a reptile” or “once a fish, always a fish” (false).

    The last common ancestor of all prokayotes is the same as the most recent universal common ancestor of all living species, so all you can say is “once an organism, always an organism”, which, I hope, you don’t disagree with.

  17. 17
    Joe says:

    Piotr chimes in with:

    Prokaryotes are a paraphyletic grouping, not a clade

    So what?

    so the same reasoning doesn’t apply.

    That doesn’t follow, Piotr. Actually that is about as lame as it gets.

    Similarly, vertebrates and birds are clades, but reptiles and fish aren’t. So “once a vertebrate, always a vertebrate”, “once a bird, always a bird” (true), but not “once a reptile, always a reptile” or “once a fish, always a fish” (false).

    Wrong. Reptiles will always be reptiles and fish will always be fish. You don’t have a mechanism capable of getting beyond any of that.

    That was a pathetic attempt at trying to refute what I said. Typical but still pathetic.

    Thank you for proving that you don’t have anything beyond bald assertion.

  18. 18
    Joe says:

    In the 1960s 100 identical finches were released an a pacific island that didn’t have any finches. Within 17 years that group diversified, bringing about seemingly new species.

  19. 19
    velikovskys says:

    Joe
    100 identical finches

    Single sex clones?

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    Identical finches, vel. The same species, the same markings, the same beak sizes, the same genes- and within 17 years that all changed- beak sizes with accompanying muscles, markings- all changed.

  21. 21
    Piotr says:

    #17

    Whatev’, Joe. Let’s try and redefine reptiles and fish as clades. For example, you can define “Pisces” as the most recent common ancestor of the great white shark, the Atlantic herring, the coelacanth, and the Queensland lungfish, plus all descendants of that common ancestor. Lampreys and hagfish will not be included (which is OK), but every “true fish” will. A clade so defined, however, also has to include all tetrapods (land vertebrates), so in fact it’s identical with the crown group of Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates). So “Pisces” can be discarded since we already have a well-defined taxon which matches the definition. So instead of saying “once a fish, always a fish” (which would require a fishy redefinition of fish), we say “once a jawed vetrebrate, always a jawed vertebrate”, which is uncontroversially true. Sharks, frogs, humans, lizards, chickens and kangaroos all have jaws.

    Similarly with reptiles. If “Reptilia” = the most recent ancestor of the Nile crocodile, the Galapagos tortoise, the tuatara, and the sidewinder, plus all descendants of that proto-reptile, the clade will contain all bona fide modern reptiles, as well as many extinct ones, such as dinosaurs and pterosaurs (so far, so good) — and birds. There is no way to define Reptilia as a natural, non-paraphyletic taxon, with the birds excluded. And, again, we already have well-defined taxa which include all modern “reptiles” as well as birds but exclude all mammals, making a redefined “Reptilia” superfluous: Sauria, Diapsida, Sauropsida (each included in the next)*. So “once a diapsid, always a diapsid”; and birds are diapsids.

    ——

    *) I assume that turtles, like other extant reptiles, are part of Sauria, as seems increasingly likely. In any case, they belong to Sauropsida.

  22. 22
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Evolutionary rates of a moment, as measured for guppies and lizards, are vastly too rapid to represent the general modes of change that build life’s history through geological ages. — The Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant, S J Gould

    This of course means that the usual proofs of `evolution in action’, e.g. finch beaks on the Galapagos, while good for evolutionist propaganda, i.e. “to attract public attention”, are “utterly invalid” as evidence for large-scale evolution, as revealed in the fossil record.

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CreationEvolutionDesign/conversations/topics/8241

  23. 23
    Andre says:

    Piotr

    Ever seen this last universal common ancestor?

  24. 24
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    Let’s try and redefine reptiles and fish as clades

    Why? Clades are manmade. Reptiles will never be and have never been anything but reptiles. Fish will never be and have never been anything but fish. Birds have always been birds…

    Your trying to change the subject is laughable and demonstrates desperation on your part.

  25. 25
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: Ever seen this last universal common ancestor?

    Ever seen your great-great-great-great-grandparents?

  26. 26
    velikovskys says:

    Joe:
    Identical finches, vel. The same species, the same markings, the same beak sizes, the same genes- and within 17 years that all changed- beak sizes with accompanying muscles, markings- all changed.

    Same genes? How was that determined in 1960’s? I could find no info about this experiment, do you have a link?

  27. 27
    Joe says:

    Page 4, paragraph 3 of the theory of evolution. 🙂

    Conant, S. (1988) “Saving Species by Translocation”. Bioscience 38:254-57

    Pimm, S. L., (1988) “Rapid morphological change in an introduced bird”. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 3: 290-91

  28. 28
    ppolish says:

    “Once a fish, always a fish” is false Piotr? Then it follows that we should see many many transitional forms crawling the earth today. Modern beaches should be awash in gasping fishlike critters. There should also be a plethora of transitioning reptiles alive today.

    An obvious predictiction of Evo Theory is obviously wrong.

  29. 29
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: “Once a fish, always a fish” is false Piotr? Then it follows that we should see many many transitional forms crawling the earth today.

    Not necessarily, for instance, if “gasping fishlike critters” existed in the past. See Shubin et al., Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae, PNAS 2014.

    Then again, a lungfish is a “gasping fishlike critter”.

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    Zachriel is grasping- Tiktaalik wasn’t a “grasping fishlike critter”- it was a fish. Lungfish aren’t “grasping fishlike critters” either.

  31. 31
    ppolish says:

    Zachary, there should be thousands and thousands and thousands of transitional species alive today. Not a few shoreline bottom feeding fish adaptions. What, is Evolution resting?

    Fish are our future, just our past.

  32. 32
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: there should be thousands and thousands and thousands of transitional species alive today.

    Why is that? Those niches are already filled with more derived organisms, leaving many extinct species in the wake.

  33. 33
    ppolish says:

    So Zachary, you’re saying “Once a fish, always a fish” is now true. Not like the good old days when we had niches. Ahh, the good old days when Evo ruled the land and seas. Back then being a fish meant something special.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: you’re saying “Once a fish, always a fish” is now true.

    No. Fish is a paraphyletic designation. Some descendants of fish are not fish, including humans. However, once a gnathostome, always a gnathostome.

  35. 35
    ppolish says:

    Descendants of fish ARE fish. Mountains and netfulls of evidence. Where are the thousands and thousands of gasping crawling transitional fish species that should be around today per Evo Theory. Cricketts. Leaping Cricket fish. Plenty of niches for leaping cricket fish have existed for a 50 million years and are still around today. Where are the thousands and thousands?

  36. 36
    Mapou says:

    Z:

    Some descendants of fish are not fish, including humans.

    Man, that’s pure chicken feather pseudoscience. Just because humans have genes or DNA sequences in common with fish does not mean that they descended from fish. It means that humans and fish had a common designer. Is the modern automobile a descendent of horse carriages because they share some common designs? Please.

    PS. Why do you feign stupidity, Zachriel?

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    ppolish, you really need to let go of your common sense if you are ever going to get this Darwinism stuff down 🙂

    Maybe if you dropped some acid it would help you see the logic of Darwinism more clearly?

    Watch What Happens When a Portrait Artist Takes LSD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4Sb8jCJUTw

  38. 38
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: Where are the thousands and thousands of gasping crawling transitional fish species that should be around today per Evo Theory.

    They’re extinct, and we have evidence of their existence.

    Mapou: Man, that’s pure chicken feather pseudoscience.

    This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression. One of the most important facts in biology is that life today is not the same as the life of yesterday, and that life today is descended from the life of yesterday.

  39. 39
    Joe says:

    Zachriel:

    One of the most important facts in biology is that life today is not the same as the life of yesterday, and that life today is descended from the life of yesterday.

    Baraminology, again.

    Some descendants of fish are not fish, including humans.

    All descendants of fish were fish. And it will always be that way until fish go extinct.

    Science says fish give rise to fish. Imagination says Zachriel wants to be Mr Limpet, although not as incredible… 😎

  40. 40
    Joe says:

    Zachriel:

    They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression.

    No one can demonstrate any obvious historical progression. That would be one reason, Zachriel. Story-telling, while interesting, is not science. You need a mechanism that can account for the changes required and you don’t have one.

  41. 41
    Joe says:

    Darwin imagined bears evolving into whales- he was quite the story teller.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video and notes
    http://vimeo.com/30932397

    Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids (fish), comments

    “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”
    Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids – Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14

  43. 43
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression.

    bornagai77: Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids (fish)

    Even better. They can’t even agree on whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion.

  44. 44
    Joe says:

    They can’t even agree on whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion.

    The age of the Earth depends on how it was formed.

  45. 45
    velikovskys says:

    Joe:

    Pimm, S. L., (1988) “Rapid morphological change in an introduced bird”. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 3: 290-91

    Sorry find no support for your claim that” Identical finches, vel. The same species, the same markings, the same beak sizes, the same genes.” In fact that would be counterproductive for the reason the birds were introduced
    To provide alternate viable populations.

    and within 17 years that all changed- beak sizes with accompanying muscles, markings- all changed.

    True, they changed from the orginal population, but interestingly not all the bird translocated had wider beaks , that trait seemed to be correlated with a food source.

  46. 46
    Joe says:

    So you are saying the paper claims they were not identical finches? Even the Conant paper? Really?

    True, they changed from the orginal population, but interestingly not all the bird translocated had wider beaks , that trait seemed to be correlated with a food source.

    Exactly as Spetner predicted. And exactly what Darwin’s finches displayed. His finches didn’t need millions of years as he thought.

  47. 47
    Joe says:

    vel- I screwed up:

    Saving endangered species by translocation

    Conant, S. (1988) “Saving Endangered Species by Translocation”. Bioscience 38:254-57

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach at 43 states:

    “They can’t even agree on whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion.”

    Zach, as a person who believes atheistic materialism to be true, you have far bigger problems than the person does who believes the earth to be young:

    Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor
    Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html

    Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU

    Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008
    Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct.
    http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._tests/P3/

    “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.
    Preceding quote taken from this following video;

    Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness – A New Measurement – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video)
    http://vimeo.com/37517080

    Leggett’s Inequality, the mathematics behind it, and the Theistic implications of it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:

    Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

  49. 49
    Mapou says:

    Z:

    Mapou: Man, that’s pure chicken feather pseudoscience.

    This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression.

    This is a lame and stupid strawman. I’m an IDist and I have no problem with historical progression. It’s in the fossil record.

    One of the most important facts in biology is that life today is not the same as the life of yesterday,

    So what? Biology did not invent this. Darwinists sure did not invent it. It’s there for everybody to see.

    and that life today is descended from the life of yesterday.

    You can spew this crap till you turn blue but it’s still crap. Historical progression does not imply descent. It implies design over time. Ask any archaeologist.

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression.

    Mapou: I’m an IDist and I have no problem with historical progression.

    Sure, but that’s doesn’t contradict the claim, which is that IDers have wildly disparate and contradictory views on the subject. Bornagain77 just cited a young Earth creationist, for instance.

    Mapou: Biology did not invent this.

    No, the discovery is credited to William Smith, a geologist.

    Mapou: Darwinists sure did not invent it. It’s there for everybody to see.

    Think you mean observed, not seen. The idea is that strata in different locations can be correlated.

  51. 51
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel, you’re a propaganda artist, i.e., a weaver of lies and deception. You argued that a historical progression was proof of Darwinian evolution. You were shown to be wrong, as usual. You are weak minded, a pathetic loser with time on his hands.

  52. 52
    ppolish says:

    Zach, the Earth may still have life one billion years from now. Today’s fish are the monkeys of the future. Why have fish stopped evolving? Or are they just taking a breather?

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, so Leggett’s inequality is no problem for your atheistic materialism as long as you can issue ad hominem against YECs?

    Non sequitur!

    As to monolithic beliefs, it seems atheistic evolutionists also suffer from a disparity of views. In fact so deep is the disagreement in the materialistic views of evolution that it threatens to rip neo-Darwinism asunder:

    Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin October 8, 2014
    Excerpt: “The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
    Yet the mere mention of the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis) often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.”
    (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently,” Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) )
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90321.html

    Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Yes! Urgently) – Oct. 2014
    http://www.nature.com/news/doe.....nk-1.16080

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem – video – The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization
    Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to ‘make up’ for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....Ow3u0_mK8t

    Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin – April 22, 2014
    Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology.
    “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.”
    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/0....._of_darwin

  54. 54
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: Why have fish stopped evolving?

    Fish continue to evolve. What makes you think otherwise?

    bornagain77: so Leggett’s inequality is no problem for your atheistic materialism as long as you can issue ad hominem against YECs?

    We didn’t issue an ad hominem, but pointed out that IDers have wildly disparate and contradictory views on the historical progression.

    Leggett’s inequality seems to undermine realism in quantum mechanics, but that’s not the same as metaphysical realism.

    Mapou: You argued that a historical progression was proof of Darwinian evolution.

    Um, no. Science doesn’t deal in proof, but evidence. The term “Darwinian evolution” is ambiguous. Nor is a single line of evidence considered sufficient to support evolution.

  55. 55
    ppolish says:

    Zach, this fish is a model of ID and guided purposeful evolution:
    http://www.nature.com/news/how.....lk-1.15778

    For this fish to give rise to a mammal a hundred or so million years from now would require gobs of ID. Boggles the mind.

  56. 56
    Box says:

    Ppolish: Today’s fish are the monkeys of the future. Why have fish stopped evolving? Or are they just taking a breather?

    Every day we see fish attempt their clumsy first steps at the beach. Problem is they go extinct every time. But perhaps one day …

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, quantum mechanics, contrary to what you believe, falsifies the reductive materialism upon which neo-Darwinism is based.
    Non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information has now been found in molecular biology on a massive scale. i.e. In every DNA and protein molecule.

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules.
    http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quan.....t-systems/

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain – Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija – 2006
    Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural – amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy – classical and quantum state, and (3) information – classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system.
    http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    etc.. etc..

    That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D
    Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialistic basis.

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Bohemian Rhapsody Played by 100+ year old fairground organ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTnGI6Knw5Q

  58. 58
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: this fish is a model of ID and guided purposeful evolution:
    http://www.nature.com/news/how…..lk-1.15778

    The experiment uses artificial selection as a mimic for what was the posited natural selective pressures.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    supplemental note:

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

  60. 60
    ppolish says:

    Box, I think the Evo Creation Story is a bit like Genesis. There was a time for fish creation and a time for crawling thing creation etc. Then it becomes a matter of going forth and multiplying.

  61. 61
    Piotr says:

    Maybe we should have a show of hands: how many people here accept the modern scientific consensus on the age of the Earth (about 4.5 billion years)?

  62. 62
    ppolish says:

    Zach, when I said “fish stopped evolving” I was not talking about going blind in a cave or getting smaller. I was talking about transitioning into land crawlers. And then small furry things. You know, populating the Earth evolution. It seems like they have retired from that kind of thing.

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    In the video I referenced, which Zach took exception to because Dr. Jones may hold a YEC view, (I don’t recall him specifically mentioning it in the video), Dr. Jones noted that “Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.””

    “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”
    Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids – Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14

    Although Zach and other neo-Darwinists would love to dismiss this ‘lack of links’ problem by simply saying that Dr. Jones is a YEC and thus can safely be ignored, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists themselves admit “links” are decidedly missing”. So this ‘problem’ for Darwinists is not the figment of some YEC imagination but is in fact a real problem that Darwinists have no coherent explanation for:

    “Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”
    Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

    “Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? … The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.”
    Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

    “The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”.
    David Raup, former Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    Tom S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999), 246. – Curator of Zoological Collections

    “Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
    George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

    “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.”
    Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187.

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”
    Stephen Jay Gould

    “The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.”
    R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34.

    “Species [in the strata of the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming] that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
    Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95.

    I could cite literally dozens of more quotes by leading paleontologist saying pretty mush the exact same thing ! Thus, the ‘lack of links’ problem is not so easily dismissed as Zach dishonestly tries to pretend it is.

    Moreover, not only are links ‘decidedly missing’ in the fossil record, but the fossil record is actually ‘upside-down’ compared to what is expected in Darwinism.

    The Cambrian Explosion is especially good for showing the ‘upside-down’ pattern of disparity preceding diversity that is completely contrary to Darwinian explanations:

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

    , as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

    The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif

    But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted in his book is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.

    The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (Disparity preceding Diversity)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595

    Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    Thus contrary to the dishonest way in which Zach tried to dismiss what Dr. Jones said, the fact of the matter is that the ‘lack of links problem’ is real and Darwinists, as usual, have no coherent explanation for why the fossil record disagrees with their materialistic theory.

  64. 64
    Piotr says:

    #62 ppolish,

    Why do you think the evolution of fish should drive them to grow legs and colonise land? The first terrestrial tetrapods were pioneers who found plenty of habitable terrestrial niches to fill (plus safety from aquatic predators). Now those niches are no longer empty; lands are overcrowded. Fish can very well evolve in water. Look what has happened to African cichlids since the last ice age: they have radiated into about 2000 species in 15,000 years or so as they colonised newly formed great lakes with varied habitats.

    And then, of course, some fishes do walk on land. Mudskippers, leaping blennies, snakeheads, and many more.

  65. 65
    bornagain77 says:

    ppolish, you may like this:

    Evolution Cartoon – Waiting For That Beneficial Mutation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-QYtxi8Bw

  66. 66
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    Maybe we should have a show of hands: how many people here accept the modern scientific consensus on the age of the Earth (about 4.5 billion years)?

    Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. In order to determine the age of the earth you have to first determine how it was formed. No one has made such a determination.

    In order to get fish to evolve into tetrapods you need a mechanism capable of producing such a transformation. No one has ever demonstrated such a mechanism exists.

  67. 67
    Joe says:

    Fish continue to evolve.

    Into fish. Fish evolved from fish and will continue to evolve into fish. That is what the evidence says.

  68. 68
    Piotr says:

    Joe, can you suggest a mechanism of planet formation which would make it possible to claim that the Earth formed in the year 4004 BC?

  69. 69
    Joe says:

    No, there isn’t any evidence for such an age for the earth, not even in the Bible.

    But say, for example, the earth was made out of old material. If the earth was never totally molten it would be possible to preserve the decay chain that had begun billions of years ago when the meteor, asteroid or comet first formed. Then we come along and think that is the age of the earth when it is only the age of the material that made the earth.

    Again your position is the earth is the result of cosmic collisions- must have been some just-so collisions…

  70. 70
    Mapou says:

    Z:

    Mapou: You argued that a historical progression was proof of Darwinian evolution.

    Um, no. Science doesn’t deal in proof, but evidence. The term “Darwinian evolution” is ambiguous. Nor is a single line of evidence considered sufficient to support evolution.

    Man, give it a rest. Simple logic tells you that if evidence A is advanced for hypothesis X, A can no longer be used as evidence for X if it is also evidence for competing hypothesis Y.

    But since you insist on being many people in one, it goes without saying that simple logic is not your forte, eh Z.?

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    Piotr, although ‘planet formation’ certainly does not line up with a YEC view, if you were fair, you would also acknowledge that planet formation is turning out to be very mysterious to naturalistic models as well:

    Many people simply presume that solar system formation is fairly well understood by modern science but that simply is not the case:

    Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets;
    Excerpt: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems:
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110223b

    Astronomers Discover Planet That Shouldn’t Be There – Dec. 5, 2013
    Excerpt: Weighing in at 11 times Jupiter’s mass and orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-Sun distance, planet HD 106906 b is unlike anything in our own Solar System and throws a wrench in planet formation theories.
    “This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see,” said Vanessa Bailey, who led the research.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141629.htm

    Are Saturn’s Rings Evolving? July – 2010
    Excerpt: Not all is well in theories of planet formation, though. Astrobiology Magazine complained this week that many of the exoplanets discovered around other stars do not fit theories of the origin of the solar system.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100710a

    Lava World Baffles Astronomers: Planet Kepler-78b ‘Shouldn’t Exist’ – Oct. 30, 2013
    Excerpt: Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn’t exist. This scorching lava world circles its star every eight and a half hours at a distance of less than one million miles — one of the tightest known orbits. According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn’t have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142915.htm

    New study sheds new light on planet formation – July 4, 2012
    Excerpt: The study,, began with a curious and unexpected finding: Within three years, the cloud of dust circling a young star in the Scorpius-Centaurus stellar nursery simply disappeared.”The most commonly accepted time scale for the removal of this much dust is in the hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions,” said study co-author Inseok Song,,, “What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.”,,, “Many astronomers may feel uncomfortable with the suggested explanations for the disappearance of the dust because each of them has non-traditional implications,” Song said, “but my hope that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-planet-formation.html

    Our Very Normal Solar System Isn’t Normal Anymore by Robert Krulwich – May 07, 2013
    Excerpt: As of this month, we’ve discovered 884 planets, 692 planetary systems, 132 of them with more than one planet and, strange to tell, almost none of them look like us.,,,
    “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply.” We had our frost line. We knew how solar systems formed. “It was a really beautiful theory,” he says. “And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.”,,,
    “It really is something that I find deeply weird,” he (an astronomer) writes. “What does it all mean? I don’t know. I am certain that this single-minded emphasis on planets-in-habitable-zones is making people forget that there is still a lot of weird stuff happening out there and that we still don’t even understand the basics of how we ourselves got here.”
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulw.....al-anymore

    Ancient alien planets shake up view of our early universe – March 2012
    Excerpt: Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they’re just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.,,, It is widely accepted that planets coalesce from the swirling disks of dust and gas that surround young stars. Classical models of planet formation hold that metal-poor stars are unlikely to harbor planets, while worlds should form far more easily around metal-rich suns. But recent discoveries, including the HIP 11952 system, have astronomers rethinking these models.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46.....3dzpdX5a6N

    Medium size worlds upset “Earth is not unique” planet modelling – January 2012
    Excerpt: But what has puzzled observers and theorists so far is the high proportion of planets — roughly one-third to one-half — that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. These ‘super-Earths’ are emerging as a new category of planet — and they could be the most numerous of all (see ‘Super-Earths rising’). Their very existence upsets conventional models of planetary formation and, furthermore, most of them are in tight orbits around their host star, precisely where the modellers say they shouldn’t be.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....modelling/

    “If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our ‘Garden of Eden’, that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances.”
    Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000)

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    There are many independent characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to host advanced carbon-based life. Two popular books have been written, ‘The Privileged Planet’ by Guillermo Gonzalez and ‘Rare Earth’ by Donald Brownlee, indicating the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. Privileged Planet, which holds that any life supporting planet in the universe will also be ‘privileged’ for observation of the universe, has now been made into a excellent video.

    The Privileged Planet – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ohuG3Vj_48&list=PLbzQ4aXdqWD-9kjFsSm-cxNlzgrkJuko7

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. equals 10^324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. equals 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. equals 10^22

    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf

    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) – video
    https://vimeo.com/118304005

    Still Taking Aim at Eric Metaxas, the Media Underestimate the Degree to which Physicists See Evidence for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – January 13, 2015
    Excerpt: “Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe.”
    London astrobiologist – David Waltham, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional — and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92671.html

    Eric Metaxas – Does Science Argue for or against God? – (2015) video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjGPHF5A6Po

  73. 73
    Piotr says:

    #69 Joe,

    I’m intrigued. How do you make a planet out of old meteorites, comets and asteroids? Today, the total mass of the asteroid belt of the inner Solar system is about 0.05% of the mass of the Earth, so to make an Earth-size planet you would need 2000 times more asteroids than are available today. Let’s suppose, however, that there are enough of them, and you transport them somehow from all over the Solar system to one place. Gravity will pull them together, and they’ll bump into one another — say, about 6000 huge asteroids as massive as Ceres, or, if you prefer, billions of smaller ones. Can you estimate how much thermal energy will be released in the process? Will it melt the planet you are “making”, or not?

  74. 74
    Joe says:

    Piotr, The way your position has the earth being made is by accretion of cosmic material, including comets, meteors and asteroids. So what is your issue?

    No, I don’t know if the planet would be molten- ie hot enough to ensure all crystals were melted. As I said it all depends on how the earth was formed.

  75. 75
    ppolish says:

    Piotr, the formation of the earth is not fully scientifically understood yet. When it started to rotate and give rise to the concept of “earth day” is even less understood. Time as measured as “earth year” is dependent on motion. A “day” as 24 hours is a man made calculation from current rotation/motion – and changing btw.

  76. 76
    velikovskys says:

    Joe,
    vel- I screwed up:

    No problemo.

  77. 77
    Piotr says:

    #75 ppolish,

    Are you serious when you say that the reason why planets rotate is poorly understood? Or is it still 1 April in your time zone?

  78. 78
    Joe says:

    Yes, Piotr, the reason why earth’s rotation is what it is is a mystery. There isn’t any reason for it given the nature of collisions.

  79. 79
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: when I said “fish stopped evolving” I was not talking about going blind in a cave or getting smaller.

    That’s called evolution.

    ppolish: I was talking about transitioning into land crawlers.

    That process took millions of years, and nowadays, those niches are already occupied, so it’s not something that would be expected to occur.

    bornagain77: took exception to because Dr. Jones may hold a YEC view

    http://creation.com/arthur-jon.....n-six-days

    bornagain77: Evolution Cartoon – Waiting For That Beneficial Mutation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-QYtxi8Bw

    Interesting cartoon, but it left out the evolution part.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY

    Mapou: Simple logic tells you that if evidence A is advanced for hypothesis X, A can no longer be used as evidence for X if it is also evidence for competing hypothesis Y.

    Assuming that A is *entailed* in both X and Y, that is correct, though other evidence may be able to eliminate on or the other hypothesis. Nonetheless, you misrepresented our position.

    Piotr: Will it melt the planet you are “making”, or not?

    Melting resets the radiological clock.

  80. 80
    Joe says:

    That’s called evolution.

    That’s called equivocation.

    That process took millions of years,…

    Hiding behind father time is a sure sign your position isn’t scientific.

    Melting resets the radiological clock.

    So when ice melts the radiological clock resets?

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, as I pointed out, leading paleontologists readily acknowledge that Dr. Jones criticism that ‘“links” are decidedly missing”’ is right. Moreover, according to leading paleontologist, the fossil record is ‘upside-down’ compared to what Darwin himself predicted, with ‘disparity preceding diversity’.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-557188

    Zach, Why do you pretend as if the fossil record supports your ‘gradual’ position when it clearly doesn’t? If you were truly ’scientific’, you would follow the evidence wherever it leads instead of trying to use cheap rhetorical ploys to support your atheism!

    As well, your link to Dr. Jones’s essay does not have him mentioning the specific age of the earth, but has him discussing a test he ’successfully’ ran to support his ‘flood hypothesis’ for cichlids.

    I hypothesized that all, or at least most, fish kinds that survived the Flood must be able to survive both seawater and fresh, and much mixing of the two. After the post-Flood diversification within the kinds we should still find that, in marine kinds, there are some species that can tolerate much fresher water and, in freshwater kinds, some species that can tolerate much saltier water. With my cichlids I found that this was indeed the case. I was able to keep some species in pure seawater for more than two years with no harmful effects—they lived and reproduced normally. Literature searches again revealed that this was a common pattern throughout the fish classes.
    http://creation.com/arthur-jon.....n-six-days

    A successful test he ran based on his flood hypothesis refutes his flood hypothesis how exactly?

    You would have to refer to geology to try to refute him on his ‘flood hypothesis’. But if you did that, once again, you would find that the evidence does not clearly support your atheistic position of no global flood, but is actually turning out to support his position.

    Specifically, there is now mounting evidence for global catastrophic flooding 13,000 years before the present:

    Humanpast.net
    Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding – in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124)
    What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt – all at once, everywhere – by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the ‘Younger Dryas’ or ‘Dryas III’. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion – from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today’s 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124)
    A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83)
    http://humanpast.net/environme.....ent11k.htm

    Thus Zach, why did you cite Dr. Jones essay? In the limited YEC ‘flood hypothesis’ he postulated he ran a successful test! Moreover he is supported by geology.
    Thus as far as evidence itself is concerned, it is of no comfort for your atheistic position.

    Do you think, because of your metaphysical prejudice, that merely citing his essay refutes his YEC position? Science is about evidence, not about metaphysical prejudice!

    Now I’m not saying that YEC is not refuted, but to refute it decisively, you have to go outside areas of Dr. Jone’s expertise. To areas such as cosmology, General Relativity, radiometric dating, and such as that.

    But even then, specifically in cosmology and General Relativity, we find overwhelming evidence for a beginning of the universe. Which is, once again, absolutely no help for your atheistic materialism.

    Why don’t you follow the evidence instead of playing stupid games Zach? Do you think that by being purposely obstinate to the evidence that you will change the evidence? If so, you are sorely mistaken! Science will go on whether you decide to be reasonable or not! If need be science will march right over your grave:

    “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”
    — Max Planck

  82. 82
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: In the limited YEC ‘flood hypothesis’ he postulated he ran a successful test! Moreover he is supported by geology.

    As already pointed out, IDer can’t even agree whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion years old. This is obviously an important scientific question, and impacts many fields of study, including biology.

    How old is the Earth?

  83. 83
    Joe says:

    No one knows how old the earth is. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

  84. 84
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel,
    You complain that a YEC view will negatively impact biology. Need I remind you of the false predictions of neo-Darwinism that have negatively effected, and continue to negatively effect, biology? i.e. Junk DNA and vestigial organs, not to mention eugenics, etc..!

    Willful blindness to your own weaknesses does not make you a stronger person but makes you look like an idiot in a debate Zach!

    Now, from a cosmological point of view, I personally believe that the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago and that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. As well, I do not believe those dates are written in stone as it were, but I also don’t think that those ‘billions of years’ dates will change substantially from what they currently are estimated to be.

    Now, as to the creation of the universe specifically, this is obviously a major falsification of your materialistic belief that ‘dirt has always existed’. This obviously has major implications as to how you, and all other materialists, approach all of science since we are in fact talking about how all of reality itself came into being (and how it continues to exist). Thus, how do you square the falsification of a major materialistic prediction, i.e. that the universe has always existed, with the fact that you still believe in materialism which is now shown to be a false conception of reality?

    Of note: from a Quantum Mechanical view, I believe the universe to be 10^-43 seconds old

    Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor
    Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-557166

  85. 85
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: You complain that a YEC view will negatively impact biology.

    A young Earth (thousands of years) is substantially different historically than an old Earth (billions of years). Arthur Jones is a young Earth creationist, which is contradicted by a wide variety of scientific evidence.

    bornagain77: Now, as to the creation of the universe specifically, this is obviously a major falsification of your materialistic belief that ‘dirt has always existed’.

    That is not our position.

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, you claimed that a YEC would…

    “impacts many fields of study, including biology.”

    Yet your own neo-Darwinian belief has severely hampered biological research. Particularly the false predictions of Junk DNA and vestigial organs has been a severe impetus to biological research and even the cause of medical malpractice in the case of the erroneous belief in vestigial organs.

    Those are not minor negative consequences in science. Moreover, to the extent that Darwinian ideas have permeated society at large, those ideas have had drastically negative consequences ranging from abortion, to eugenics, to providing the ‘moral justification’ for Hitler’s holocaust.
    The negative consequences of YEC, in science and society, are not even in comparison to Darwinism’s negative consequences.

    Moreover, viewing biology as Intelligently Designed provides a fruitful heuristic in science, not a negative one as Darwinism does. A positive influence that is presently bearing fruit in systems biology.

    “It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology.”
    David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design

    podcast: “David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1”
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_09-07_00
    podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....0_01-07_00

    How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design – July 2014
    Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems:
    *”Negative feedback for stable operation.”
    *”Frequency filtering” for extracting a signal from a noisy system.
    *Control and signaling to induce a response.
    *”Information storage” where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes:
    “This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. ”
    *”Timing and synchronization,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order.
    *”Addressing,” where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target.
    *”Hierarchies of function,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order.
    *”Redundancy,” as organisms contain backup systems or “fail-safes” if primary essential systems fail.
    *”Adaptation,” where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, “These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way,” and “Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.”,,,
    Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that “just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little ‘junk.'” He explains, “Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible,” and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....87871.html

    Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design – David Snoke – 2014
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2014.3

    In regards to the creation of the entire material universe and the falsification that finding presented to materialism in general, schizophrenic you states in response,,,

    “That is not ‘our’ position”

    Exactly what entity besides energy/matter and randomness does schizophrenic you wish to appeal to in order to explain the origin of the entire material universe (including space-time)? Remember, Mind and Information belong to the ID camp so ‘you’, as an atheist, can’t appeal to those entities!

  87. 87
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Remember, Mind and Information belong to the ID camp so ‘you’, as an atheist, can’t appeal to those entities!

    How about your atheist friend Eugene Wigner? 🙂

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, ‘Wigner’s friend’ is certainly no friend of materialistic atheists. At the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend are highlighted:

    Divinely Planted Quantum States – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4#t=156s

    Moreover, Wiki states that Wigner leaned toward Hinduism later in life not atheism:

    Near the end of his life,,, He became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, particularly its ideas of the universe as an all pervading consciousness. In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

    Wigner also conceived the Wigner’s friend thought experiment in physics, which is an extension of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment. The Wigner’s friend experiment asks the question: “At what stage does a ‘measurement’ take place?” Wigner designed the experiment to highlight how he believed that consciousness is necessary to the quantum-mechanical measurement processes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....ater_years

    Also of note:

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
    Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’

    Of supplemental note to the preceding Wigner ‘consciousness’ quotes, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner’s insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a ‘second’ revolution in quantum mechanics,,,

    Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution – Anton Zeilinger – Sept. 2014
    Conclusion
    It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics,
    http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles....._01010.pdf

    Thus, since Wigner’s insights into the foundational role of the ‘conscious observer’ in Quantum Mechanics are bearing fruit with a ‘Second Quantum Revolution’, then that is certainly very strong evidence that his ‘consciousness’ insights are indeed true.

    Moreover, Wigner, to the extent that you would try to classify him as an atheist, (Hinduism is classified as pantheism by the way), Wigner certainly had no qualms in ruffling atheistic/materialistic feathers by referring to the correspondence of math to physics, and the human mind’s ability to discern that correspondence, as a ‘miracle’. Moreover, he even severely questioned the ability of Darwinism to account for our reasoning ability:

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Of related note, Einstein, who was also Jewish like Wigner, also leaned towards an ‘abstract’ Hindu notion of God:

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pantheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,,
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    For further clarification please see:

    Christianity and Panentheism – (conflict or concordance?) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

  89. 89
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daveS, ‘Wigner’s friend’ is certainly no friend of materialistic atheists. At the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend are highlighted:

    I wasn’t referring to the thought experiment, but merely the fact that you cited him earlier.

    In any case, “atheist” does not imply “materialist”, as I’m sure you are aware.

  90. 90
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, Wigner was not an atheist. So you either lied or severely distorted the truth.

    If you do not hold Mind and information to be ’emergent’ from or reducible to a material basis, as is held in neo-Darwinian thought, please clarify

  91. 91
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daveS, Wigner was not an atheist. So you lied.

    From his Wikipedia entry:

    On religious views, Wigner was an atheist.

    If you do not hold Mind and information to be emergent from a material basis, as is held in neo-Darwinian thought, please clarify

    What’s to clarify? That’s not a claim I make.

  92. 92
    bornagain77 says:

    That atheistic view is in the ‘early life’ section of the cite. In later life, from the same cite, he leaned towards pantheism. Hinduism is not atheism!

    Thus, after a life working in cutting edge science, he switched from atheism to a pantheistic view, Thus, you clearly severely distorted the truth in order to make it seem Wigner was atheist.

    Once again, I rest my case. I find you to be severely disingenuous and dishonest to the evidence at hand and have much better things to do than watch you chase your tail in a circle trying to defend your preferred atheistic belief system.

    as to:

    “That’s not a claim I make.”

    Then don’t butt into my conversation with a neo-Darwinist.

  93. 93
    Piotr says:

    Yes, Piotr, the reason why earth’s rotation is what it is is a mystery. There isn’t any reason for it given the nature of collisions.

    Joe, think twice before you post. A planet that does not rotate at all would be something of a miracle. Perhaps, if you concentrate your mental powers, you will see why.

  94. 94
    Joe says:

    Piotr, Please learn how to read. I did not say a planet’s rotation is a mystery. I said the earth’s is. Ours is very conducive of life. And it is also very different from the other rocky planets in our system.

    And again given the nature of collisions there is no reason for our rotation to be what it is.

  95. 95
    Joe says:

    Arthur Jones is a young Earth creationist, which is contradicted by a wide variety of scientific evidence.

    YECs can understand biology as well as anyone.

  96. 96
    Axel says:

    bornagain77, Aldous Huxley became a Vedantist. He wrote a marvelous book on comparative religion, The Perennial Philosophy, which was instrumental in my refinding my Christian faith.

    By the way, you wrote in earlier posts that matter reduced to energy, but you didn’t say that energy reduced to information. You used another expression. What was it?

  97. 97
    Piotr says:

    Joe,

    And again given the nature of collisions there is no reason for our rotation to be what it is.

    What’s so unusual (or exceptional) about the Earth’s rotation? The direction is the same as in most other solar planets (except Venus and Uranus, both of which are untypical in more than one way), and the rotation period is almost the same as that of Mars. What would you expect “given the nature of collisions”?

  98. 98
    bornagain77 says:

    Axel, not to be picky, but it is not what I say about what reduces to what, it is what the evidence says. Here is the evidence:

    it is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, such as they use in quantum computation, physicists have reduced material, via quantum teleportation, to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy via e=mc2).

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original,,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    Scientists Report Finding Reliable Way to Teleport Data By JOHN MARKOFF – MAY 29, 2014
    Excerpt: They report that they have achieved perfectly accurate teleportation of quantum information over short distances. They are now seeking to repeat their experiment over the distance of more than a kilometer. If they are able to repeatedly show that entanglement works at this distance, it will be a definitive demonstration of the entanglement phenomenon and quantum mechanical theory.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05......html?_r=2

    First Teleportation Of Multiple Quantum Properties Of A Single Photon – Oct 7, 2014
    To truly teleport an object, you have to include all its quantum properties.
    Excerpt: ,,,It is these properties— the spin angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum?(of a photon)—?that Xi-Lin and co have teleported together for the first time.,,,
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/first-teleportation-of-multiple-quantum-properties-of-a-single-photon-7c1e61598565

    Two quantum properties teleported together for first time – Feb 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The values of two inherent properties of one photon – its spin and its orbital angular momentum – have been transferred via quantum teleportation onto another photon for the first time by physicists in China.,,,
    Even the simple photon has various properties such as frequency, momentum, spin and orbital angular momentum (OAM), which are inherently linked.,,,
    Teleporting more than one state simultaneously is essential to fully describe a quantum particle and achieving this would be a tentative step towards teleporting something larger than a quantum particle,
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.....first-time

    Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves – April 2011
    Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
    http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....-computing

    Two quantum properties teleported together for first time – Feb 27, 2015
    Excerpt: To successfully teleport a quantum state, you must make a precise initial measurement of a system, transmit the measurement information to a receiving destination and then reconstruct a perfect copy of the original state. The “no-cloning” theorem of quantum mechanics dictates that it is impossible to make a perfect copy of a quantum particle. But researchers found a way around this via teleportation, which allows a flawless copy of a property of a particle to be made. This occurs thanks to what is ultimately a complete transfer (rather than an actual copy) of the property onto another particle such that the first particle loses all of the properties that are teleported.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.....first-time

  99. 99
    bornagain77 says:

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

    In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

    Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video
    https://vimeo.com/75163272

    Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible?
    As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, “Beam me up, Scotty” one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014
    Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal.
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....eportation

    Scriptural note and music:

    Acts 8:39

    8:39 caught away Philip. This was evidently a unique miracle, God somehow translating Philip rapidly from Gaza to Azotus (same as the ancient Ashdod), twenty miles to the north along the Mediterranean coast. For reference to similar miraculous translations in space, see I Kings 18:12, II Kings 2:16; Ezekiel 3:14; 8:3. A far greater translation will take place when Christ comes again (I Thessalonians 4:16,17).
    http://www.icr.org/books/defenders/6855

    Once in a Lifetime – Talking Heads
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFLiKLoxWD8

  100. 100
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    What’s so unusual (or exceptional) about the Earth’s rotation?

    Many things. If our rotation was as slow as even Mars the obliquity would be greatly effected as would the mixture of atmospheric gases. The strength of our magnetic field would be that much lower, too.

    We wouldn’t exist.

    Like spinning a basketball on your finger the collisions would have had to have been “just so” in order to get our rotation. The last alleged moon-creating giant impact would have to have been especially well timed and placed. And that moon? No moon no us, either. Another obliquity thingy.

  101. 101
    ppolish says:

    BA77, Once in a Lifetime…live version has facepalms:) thanks for your posts.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o7pVjl4Rrtc

  102. 102
    rhampton7 says:

    Joe,

    The earth’s rotation has never been constant. In general it has been slowing in conjunction with the moon’s drifting away (there are fluctuations, but the trend over hundreds of millions of years is pretty clear).

  103. 103
    Joe says:

    I didn’t say it was constant. I said the cosmic collision “hypothesis” cannot account for it. It’s pretty much a miracle under non-design scenarios.

  104. 104
    ppolish says:

    Rhampton7, the rotation is such that our existence depends upon it. And the rotation will soon enough be incompatible with our existence. A very special planet at a very special time/rotation. Very very special.

  105. 105
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    That atheistic view is in the ‘early life’ section of the cite. In later life, from the same cite, he leaned towards pantheism. Hinduism is not atheism!

    I apologize. After reading a bit more in the Recollections book, I don’t think the label “atheist” fits him well, perhaps at any point in his life.

  106. 106
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, thanks for your honesty.

    “So the Wigners easily became Lutherans. Today I am only mildly religious. When I attend church it is with the protestants.,,,
    I found Karl Marx quite unconvincing. And Lenin was even worse.”
    Eugene Wigner – Recollections – page 39 – 1992
    https://books.google.com/books?id=_zGpR89xzOEC&pg=PA39&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

  107. 107
    Piotr says:

    During the Earth’s history, the length of the day has grown from about 6 to 24 hours as a result of tidal locking. An additional 37 minutes (the length of the Martian day is 24h 37m 23s) wouldn’t kill us all.

  108. 108
    Joe says:

    Piotr, Please learn how to read. The speed of Mars’ rotation is just over 500 MPH. Ours is just over 1000 mph. Mars = 1/2 our current rotational speed.

    Obviously you don’t have a clue.

    Many things. If our rotation was as slow as even Mars the obliquity would be greatly effected as would the mixture of atmospheric gases. The strength of our magnetic field would be that much lower, too.

    Speed, Piotr, not rate. You confused yourself and made a kindergarten mistake.

  109. 109
    Clarice says:

    Joe and ppolish, as Piotr pointed out, the rotation speed of the Earth has changed greatly since its formation. The distance between Earth’s moon and the Earth has also changed greatly. Yet there has been life on Earth for over 3 billion years.

    Joe, your assertion that a 37 minute change in the length of an Earth day would prevent or eliminate the existence of humans is absurd.

    ppolish, your assertion that “the rotation will soon enough be incompatible with our existence” is also absurd. The decrease in the Earth’s rotation speed is about 1.06 milliseconds per day per century. If the rate of deceleration were constant, which it is not, it would take (15 min * 60 s/min * 1000 ms/s) / (2 ms / 188 y) = 84.6 million years for the day to lengthen by 15 minutes.

    Don’t worry, you guys, the end is not near, at least from changes in the Earth’s rotation speed.

  110. 110
    Axel says:

    Thank you for that thoroughgoing exposition, ba77.

    Matter has to go through the energy stage was, I think, the nub of what I was trying to remember.’

  111. 111
    Clarice says:

    Joe, what is the speed of the Earth’s rotation in Boston? How about in Phoenix, and at the North Pole? How many hours, minutes, and seconds were there in an Earth day (one rotation of the Earth) a billion years ago, 500 million years ago, and 1 million years ago?How many days were there in a year (one Earth orbit of the Sun) 500 million years ago?

  112. 112
    Piotr says:

    Joe,

    (1) Learn to read for comprehension. I didn’t say “speed” . I said “rotation period” and I meant just that. You keep making kindergarten mistakes when you confuse linear velocity at the equator with rotational speed:

    Mars = 1/2 our current rotational speed.

    No, Joe, rotational speed is not measured in miles per hour, and the rotational speed of Mars is almost equal that of the Earth.

    (2) The linear velocity of a point on the surface of Mars (due to its rotation) can be anything between 0 m/s (at either pole) and 241 m/s (at the equator). On Earth, it can be anything between 0 m/s and 465 m/s. Nothing special depends on this value, which varies depending on the latitude. Where I am now, it’s 286 m/s, not much faster than on the Martian equator.

    (3) The Earth’s magnetic field varies within rather wide limits, fluctuates a lot and often gets reversed. At the moment it’s 35% weaker than 2000 years ago and is probably drifting towards instability and fragmentation, to be followed by another reversal. No harm to humans or other living things is expected.

    You have a long record of using idiosyncratic terminology and denying it.

  113. 113
    Andre says:

    Joe you can ignore Piotr ‘ ignorant waffling. …

    http://www.nasa.gov/content/go.....-in-space/

  114. 114
    Joe says:

    Piotr blows a gasket:

    No, Joe, rotational speed is not measured in miles per hour, and the rotational speed of Mars is almost equal that of the Earth.

    Speed is measured in MPH or KPH, Piotr. You have to be one ignorant ass on an agenda to say that the rotational speed of mars (some 539 MPH) = that of Earth (over 1000 mph)

    You have a long record of using idiosyncratic terminology and denying it.

    You have a long record of being a bloviating arse and enjoying it.

    I made it very clear what I was talking about, Piotr. Don’t blame me for your childish ignorance.

  115. 115
    Joe says:

    NASA says:

    At the equator, the circumference of the Earth is 40,070 kilometers, and the day is 24 hours long so the speed is 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). This decreases by the cosine of your latitude so that at a latitude of 45 degrees, cos(45) = .707 and the speed is .707 x 1670 = 1180 kilometers/hr. You can use this formula to find the speed of rotation at any latitude.

    NASA agrees with me.

  116. 116
    Joe says:

    Mars’ rotational speed:

    The planet has a rotational speed of 868.22 km/h at the equator.

  117. 117
    Clarice says:

    What happened to the comments that I submitted?

  118. 118
    Joe says:

    Clarice:

    Joe and ppolish, as Piotr pointed out, the rotation speed of the Earth has changed greatly since its formation. The distance between Earth’s moon and the Earth has also changed greatly. Yet there has been life on Earth for over 3 billion years.

    Yes, that is the propaganda, anyway. However your position can’t account for it. Any of it.

    Joe, your assertion that a 37 minute change in the length of an Earth day would prevent or eliminate the existence of humans is absurd.

    It is absurd that you think I made such a claim.

  119. 119
    Clarice says:

    Joe, your behavior doesn’t put you in a good position to accuse Piotr or anyone else of childish ignorance or of being a bloviating arse.

    How old are you? I’d estimate about 15 chronologically, about 5 intellectually, and about terrible 2 emotionally.

    To Barry Arrington: Is Joe the kind of person you want as a representative of UD and ID? Do you actually believe that he and others like him are furthering your cause?

  120. 120
    Clarice says:

    I see that the comments I submitted the other day are now posted. Thanks.

  121. 121
    Clarice says:

    Joe, after you’ve answered my other questions, will you demonstrate how your position accounts for “Any of it” (as you put it), without resorting to insults and unsupported claims of design. Bald assertions and name calling won’t do.

    Walk us all through how nature was and is designed, in detail. Please also tell us how old you think this planet and the universe are.

  122. 122
    Axel says:

    There is only Nature and artifacts, Clarice. Artifacts are by very definition designed. Why would nature, almost infinitely more subtle and complex, not be designed, but rather have come together by random chance?

    Unsurprisingly to an innumerate person such as myself, a mathematical impossibility – and surely at the ‘cookiest’ extremities of the imagination.

    All the evidence – a whole world full of evidence – points to design, and not least today, biomimetics.

  123. 123
    Joe says:

    Clarice, Hannibal is looking for you. You can’t answer any questions and all your position has to explain the earth is sheer dumb luck. All you have are unsupported claims. You don’t have any science and it is a safe bet that you don’t understand what science is.

    So grow up and develop an argument. First get an education…

  124. 124
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    (3) The Earth’s magnetic field varies within rather wide limits, fluctuates a lot and often gets reversed. At the moment it’s 35% weaker than 2000 years ago and is probably drifting towards instability and fragmentation, to be followed by another reversal. No harm to humans or other living things is expected.

    Nice strawman, Piotr. What does that have to do with the earth’s speed being reduced by 1/2? That mag field would be so weak radiation would rain down on earth damaging any life- if it could even get started. The gases wouldn’t mix properly and we couldn’t live.

  125. 125
    Piotr says:

    Joe,

    Once again: the linear speed of a point on the equator is an arbitrarily chosen, pretty meaningless parameter. What matters for the strength of a planet’s magnetic field is the size of the molten part of the core, the presence of an internal source of heat to drive convection currents, and the angular speed of the planet’s rotation. Surface equatorial speed isn’t informative in this respect.

    If Mars rotated ten times as fast as it does, it would still generate no appreciable magnetic field, since the Martian core lost its inner source of heat billions of years ago. Mercury, which is smaller than Mars and rotates extremely slowly (its day is longer than its year) has a magnetic field, much weaker than that of the Earth, but still strong enough to deflect the solar wind and generate a magnetosphere.

    Life developed where it could develop. It would be a surprise if we found life in extremely hostile conditions (no liquid water, hard radiation, no magnetosphere, too hot or too cold). Still, the range of parameters making life possible is not nearly as narrow as you make it. The Earth’s rotation has slowed down to 25% of the original value, and there’s still life on it.

  126. 126
    Dr JDD says:

    How do we know the earth’s rotation was 4x faster than it is now?

  127. 127
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    Once again: the linear speed of a point on the equator is an arbitrarily chosen, pretty meaningless parameter.

    Cuz you say so? Spare us your pompous declarations.

    What matters for the strength of a planet’s magnetic field is the size of the molten part of the core, the presence of an internal source of heat to drive convection currents, and the angular speed of the planet’s rotation. Surface equatorial speed isn’t informative in this respect.

    The strength of the magnetic field is directly correlated to the planet’s rotation. I am sure surface equatorial speed has some influence on the core’s convection currents.

    Life developed where it could develop.

    Life develops where it was intelligently designed to develop.

    The Earth’s rotation has slowed down to 25% of the original value, and there’s still life on it.

    Non-sequitur. And you still haven’t addressed the mixing of the gases issue.

    Mercury, which is smaller than Mars and rotates extremely slowly (its day is longer than its year) has a magnetic field

    Most likely magnetized due to its proximity to the Sun. Have you ever put metal into a magnetic field for a period of time?

    “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

    The above quotes are from “The Privileged Planet”

  128. 128
    Joe says:

    Dr JDD- Theirs relies on just-so cosmic collisions to produce the earth’s rotation. They cannot explain its current speed let alone 4x faster. 😉

  129. 129
    Zachriel says:

    Dr JDD: How do we know the earth’s rotation was 4x faster than it is now?

    Newton’s laws determine the effects. We can directly observe the Moon’s tidal forces. The rate is not constant due to continental drift, but the extrapolation is reasonable. Independent confirmation and calibration is available by studying sediments that are dependent on daily tidal motions, such as sandstone or siltstone.

  130. 130
    Piotr says:

    #126 Dr JDD,

    It can be calculated from analyses and simulations of the Earth/Moon system (the tidal locking mechanism), and has been confirmed by independent evidence. Some organisms (especially corals, but also bivalves, bryozoans, brachiopods, and stromatolite-forming microorganisms) deposit diurnal growth rings as well as producing annual growth patterns. For example, studies of Palaeozoic rugose corals show that one year was about 400 days long in the Middle Devonian (ca. 385 Mya) and 387 days in the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian, ca. 300 Mya). Neoproterozoic stromatolites show some 435 days per year, etc.

  131. 131
    Mapou says:

    Folks, it’s time to end this debate. The speed of the earth surface due to rotation is given in meters per hour or something similar. It’s relative to the center of the earth.

    Rotational speed is really angular speed and is given either in degrees per hour or radians per hour.

    Surface speed is proportional to angular speed and distance from the center.

  132. 132
    Clarice says:

    Joe, you have no idea what my “position” is, whatever that means. You obviously assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say is uneducated, and deserving of nothing but your angry attacks. I’m not surprised that most people ignore you, including other IDC advocates.

    Since you obviously feel that you are a top expert on every scientific subject, maybe you would be willing to enlighten the readers here about your education and accomplishments in various scientific fields?

  133. 133
    Clarice says:

    Joe, in addition to the other questions I’ve asked you that you have avoided, I have more questions.

    When I said, “Joe and ppolish, as Piotr pointed out, the rotation speed of the Earth has changed greatly since its formation. The distance between Earth’s moon and the Earth has also changed greatly. Yet there has been life on Earth for over 3 billion years.”, you responded, “Yes, that is the propaganda, anyway.”

    Since you call what I said “propaganda”, do you believe that the Earth’s rotation speed has remained fixed since its formation, and that the distance between Earth’s moon and the Earth has also remained fixed, and that life has not been on Earth for over 3 billion years? If so, please explain and provide your evidence that supports your beliefs.

    And to repeat: Walk us all through how nature was and is designed, in detail. Please also tell us how old you think this planet and the universe are.

  134. 134
    Joe says:

    Clarice, obviously you are just a scientifically illiterate troll. Good luck with that.

    If you ever find some evidence for an alternative to ID please present it. Until then please hold your breath.

  135. 135
    Clarice says:

    Joe, I see that you can’t support your claims and can’t answer questions that are relevant to your claims, and that you are determined to continue to live down to your miserable reputation. Frankly, I’m not surprised.

  136. 136
    Joe says:

    Clarice- My claims are supported by science and your questions prove that you are clueless.

    Joe, what is the speed of the Earth’s rotation in Boston? How about in Phoenix, and at the North Pole? How many hours, minutes, and seconds were there in an Earth day (one rotation of the Earth) a billion years ago, 500 million years ago, and 1 million years ago?How many days were there in a year (one Earth orbit of the Sun) 500 million years ago?

    What does any of that have to do with what I have posted? I will tell you- absolutely NOTHING.

    Frankly, I’m not surprised.

    And to repeat: Walk us all through how nature was and is designed, in detail.

    Only a scientifically illiterate moron would ask for such a thing. Enter sock puppet “Clarice”.

    Please also tell us how old you think this planet and the universe are.

    I don’t know and anyone who says they do is lying.

  137. 137
    Jerad says:

    Joe #136

    I don’t know and anyone who says they do is lying.

    Does that mean you dispute the consensus view of 4.54 billion years, give or take some 50 million years?

  138. 138
    Joe says:

    Does that mean you dispute the consensus view of 4.54 billion years, give or take some 50 million years?

    Consensus? BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

    Science is not done via consensus and the “evidence” for a 4.5x billion year old earth relies on untestable assumptions.

  139. 139
    Jerad says:

    Joe #138

    Consensus? BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

    Science is not done via consensus and the “evidence” for a 4.5x billion year old earth relies on untestable assumptions.

    So you do dispute it. I don’t see how you can do any kind of historical science if you dispute dating techniques.

    PS Found your extra programming in the cell yet?

  140. 140
    Joe says:

    I don’t see how you can do any kind of historical science if you dispute dating techniques.

    Knowledge does that, Jerad. Especially knowledge of faulty assumptions.

    What extra programming? There isn’t any extra programming. There is just the correct amount. And that is the only thing that can explain what we observe inside of a cell. Again, it’s a knowledge thing.

  141. 141
    Jerad says:

    Joe #140

    Knowledge does that, Jerad. Especially knowledge of faulty assumptions.

    What knowledge leads you to think that that dating techniques used to determine the age of the earth might be incorrect? Not what assumption or guess, what knowledge.

    What extra programming? There isn’t any extra programming. There is just the correct amount. And that is the only thing that can explain what we observe inside of a cell. Again, it’s a knowledge thing.

    The extra (above and beyond DNA) coding you claim must exist in cells. Why are you so shy now? You’ve said on your own blog such programming has to exist. I’m just asking if you’ve found it yet. Have you determined how it is encoded and stored? Have you figured out how it affects development? Do you know how that programming is altered from species to species?

  142. 142
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    What knowledge leads you to think that that dating techniques used to determine the age of the earth might be incorrect? Not what assumption or guess, what knowledge.

    Knowledge of the faulty assumptions. Also in order to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. We don’t.

    The extra (above and beyond DNA) coding you claim must exist in cells.

    DNA is basically inert. It doesn’t do anything by itself. It definitely doesn’t code. It didn’t make the code. Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

    As I said programming is the only thing that can explain what we see going on inside of the cell. The “alternative” is “it just happens, dude”. That ain’t science, Jerad.

  143. 143
    Mung says:

    Joe, Science is the magic of explaining magic.

  144. 144
    Jerad says:

    Joe #142

    Knowledge of the faulty assumptions. Also in order to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. We don’t.

    Pick an article explaining how the age of the earth was determined (the one in Wikipedia is a good start but I prefer the discussion in The Greatest Show on Earth) and point out a mistake in the reasoning please.

    DNA is basically inert. It doesn’t do anything by itself. It definitely doesn’t code. It didn’t make the code. Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

    As I said programming is the only thing that can explain what we see going on inside of the cell. The “alternative” is “it just happens, dude”. That ain’t science, Jerad.

    DNA is inert. Okay.

    You have yet to find this programming. You have yet to specify where and how it is stored and encoded. You have yet to explain how it affects development.

    No one is saying ‘it just happens’ except in your strawman argument.

  145. 145
    Jerad says:

    I see Joe has lost interest in this thread. Before he pointed out a mistake in the reasoning used to determine the age of the earth. Shall we take that as an indication that he can’t find a fault?

  146. 146
    lack of Focus says:

    You know Joe. Why let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

  147. 147
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Pick an article explaining how the age of the earth was determined (the one in Wikipedia is a good start but I prefer the discussion in The Greatest Show on Earth) and point out a mistake in the reasoning please.

    How many times do I have to do this, Jerad? I have been over this with you more than once. Obviously you just have issues.

    AGAIN- The faulty assumption is that the earth was so hot that no crystals survived- the crystals that were part of the debris that made the earth. The reasoning depends on that and that is untestable. If the crystals survived then the age measured is that of the crystals and not of the earth.

    No one is saying ‘it just happens’ except in your strawman argument.

    What do they say, then, Jerad? Even Antony Flew saw this evidence as evidence for intelligent design.

    When we put all of the chemicals of a living organism in a test tube nothing happens- same chemicals but nothing happens.

  148. 148
    Jerad says:

    Joe #147

    AGAIN- The faulty assumption is that the earth was so hot that no crystals survived- the crystals that were part of the debris that made the earth. The reasoning depends on that and that is untestable. If the crystals survived then the age measured is that of the crystals and not of the earth.

    And what about the data from meteorites? I think you’ll find your concern has been addressed actually. If you look at all the data and reasoning.

    When we put all of the chemicals of a living organism in a test tube nothing happens- same chemicals but nothing happens.

    Good thing no one is saying that’s how life got started then eh?

  149. 149
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    And what about the data from meteorites?

    What about it?

    I think you’ll find your concern has been addressed actually.

    I am sure that you think so. Care to try to make a case?

    Good thing no one is saying that’s how life got started then eh?

    Totally clueless. I didn’t say that is how life got started. However if life is reducible to chemistry and physics what I said should work just like a cell.

    Obviously you have no idea.

  150. 150
    Jerad says:

    Joe #149

    What about it?

    Even the Wikipedia article on the age of the earth mentions it.

    I am sure that you think so. Care to try to make a case?

    This is a good a place to start as any I suppose:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....earth.html

    Totally clueless. I didn’t say that is how life got started. However if life is reducible to chemistry and physics what I said should work just like a cell.

    Good thing no one is making that claim then eh?

    Your simplistic critiques belie your lack of understanding of the current theories. Perhaps you’d like to actually point out a mistake in a real research paper rather than just knocking over strawman arguments.

  151. 151
    Joe says:

    OK, Jerad, you can’t make a case. Got it.

    Also materialism makes the claim that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry, ie matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions.

    As I said you obviously have no idea.

  152. 152
    Joe says:

    From wikipedia:

    The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

    Exactly what I would expect if I was right. Go figure.

  153. 153
    Jerad says:

    Joe #151, 152

    OK, Jerad, you can’t make a case. Got it.

    Show me something that is wrong in the article I linked to rather than just dismissing it offhandedly.

    Also materialism makes the claim that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry, ie matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions.

    In certain configurations, duh. Not just a bunch of chemical in a jar.

    As I said you obviously have no idea.

    If you could actually find some scientific error in some research or paper then someone might start taking you seriously.

    Exactly what I would expect if I was right. Go figure.

    So, you do agree with the consensus? I’m confused. Or show me where they make the incorrect assumption you’re talking about.

    Look, find a mistake somewhere and show you’ve got a serious criticism. You dance and dodge and say things are wrong but you can’t get specific. If you know how science works then you should be able to point to specific statements or finding or procedure that are incorrect and tells us why exactly.

  154. 154
    Joe says:

    Jerad, I told you already. Grow up. It’s all about the crystals. And if you can’t understand that then perhaps you should shut up about it.

    In certain configurations, duh. Not just a bunch of chemical in a jar.

    You are deranged. I never said anything about a bunch of chemicals in a jar. You must be a big baby.

    If you could actually find some scientific error in some research or paper then someone might start taking you seriously.

    If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it.

  155. 155
    Joe says:

    AGAIN- the radioactive decay date for the age of the earth depends on the assumption that all debris melted, mixed and then solidified- ALL OF IT, INCLUDING ALL CRYSTALS.

    If the crystals did not melt then we cannot use that methodology to determine the age of the earth because those crystals would be older than the earth.

    Why are crystals important? Because the close off contamination. They are isolated little decay systems. And if they remained intact throughout the earth’s creation then we are dating those crystals and not the earth.

  156. 156
    Jerad says:

    Joe #154, 155

    Jerad, I told you already. Grow up. It’s all about the crystals. And if you can’t understand that then perhaps you should shut up about it.

    Then show me where someone makes that mistake please.

    You are deranged. I never said anything about a bunch of chemicals in a jar. You must be a big baby.

    You said test tube, that doesn’t change things.

    If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it.

    Just pick one you think is wrong and find a mistake. Pick one, any one that is pertinent to the discussion.

    AGAIN- the radioactive decay date for the age of the earth depends on the assumption that all debris melted, mixed and then solidified- ALL OF IT, INCLUDING ALL CRYSTALS.

    Show us where someone made that assumption.

    If the crystals did not melt then we cannot use that methodology to determine the age of the earth because those crystals would be older than the earth.

    Find someplace where someone made the mistake you’re claiming they made. Easy peasy.

  157. 157
    Joe says:

    Jeard, Thank you for admitting that you are totally ignorant of how rad dating works. Now tell us what your ignorance means to my argument?

    You said test tube, that doesn’t change things

    Big baby. I didn’t say “a bunch of chemicals” you loser. I made a SPECIFIC claim.

    If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it.

    Still waiting.

    Show us where someone made that assumption.

    Are you really that ignorant? Really? If they don’t make that assumption then they cannot determine the age of the earth, duh.

  158. 158
    Jerad says:

    Joe #157

    Jeard, Thank you for admitting that you are totally ignorant of how rad dating works. Now tell us what your ignorance means to my argument?

    I’d like you to show me a mistake in a research paper or academic publications. I do understand how radiometric dating works, I understand the differential equations that govern them. I’ve taught them. But I’m trying to get you to show me where some researcher has made the mistake you claim is being made.

    Big baby. I didn’t say “a bunch of chemicals” you loser. I made a SPECIFIC claim.

    No one is making the strawman claim you knocked down. That’s the important part.

    If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it.

    You don’t think any research does support unguided evolution so your asking that question is disingenuous.

    YOU pick a paper and show us a mistake. It should be easy if you’re right.

    Are you really that ignorant? Really? If they don’t make that assumption then they cannot determine the age of the earth, duh.

    Then it should be easy to show us where that assumption has been made.

  159. 159
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    I’d like you to show me a mistake in a research paper or academic publications.

    The mistake is the assumption I told you about. What is your problem?

    No one is making the strawman claim you knocked down.

    Materialism makes it. Why do you ignore my responses?

    You don’t think any research does support unguided evolution so your asking that question is disingenuous.

    And you think otherwise so make your case or shut up.

    Then it should be easy to show us where that assumption has been made.

    STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

  160. 160
    Joe says:

    Read Kevin Henke or Dalrymple- then buy a vowel

  161. 161
    Jerad says:

    Joe #159, 160

    The mistake is the assumption I told you about. What is your problem?

    Show us where that assumption is made then.

    Materialism makes it. Why do you ignore my responses?

    Because you got hung up on jar vs test tube and such. No one thinks that a test tube full of the chemical constituents of life will spontaneously act like life. It’s a strawman argument.

    And you think otherwise so make your case or shut up.

    Many, many, many, many people have made the case already. Books and papers and research and data. Show me where there is a mistake.

    STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

    Show us where.

    Read Kevin Henke or Dalrymple- then buy a vowel

    Where in one of their books or publications?

  162. 162
    Joe says:

    Jeard, you are dense. If they do not make that assumption then they are getting the age of the crystal, not the earth.

    Are you really that dim that you cannot grasp that? Oleg T (Johns Hopkins) and I went over this on my blog.

    No one thinks that a test tube full of the chemical constituents of life will spontaneously act like life.

    Why not? What else is there?

    Many, many, many, many people have made the case already.

    We understand that you think so. However we also can see that you cannot produce anything.

  163. 163
    Jerad says:

    Joe #162

    Jeard, you are dense. If they do not make that assumption then they are getting the age of the crystal, not the earth.

    Show me where they make that assumption. It’s a simple query.

    Are you really that dim that you cannot grasp that? Oleg T (Johns Hopkins) and I went over this on my blog.

    Show me where a modern, age of the earth researcher depends on that assumption.

    Why not? What else is there?

    Clearly you do not understand the science.

    We understand that you think so. However we also can see that you cannot produce anything.

    I get tired of you denying everything I offer. Especially when you cannot point to a mistake in any published research that you disagree with. If you can’t find a mistake then . . .

    Just find a mistake. Just do it. Simple, easy.

  164. 164
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Show me where they make that assumption. It’s a simple query.

    It’s a given, Jerad. Write to them and ask. Or remain ignorant.

    Show me where a modern, age of the earth researcher depends on that assumption.

    They have to. Are you really too stupid to understand the reasoning presented?

    Clearly you do not understand the science.

    Clearly you are a bluffing loser.

    I get tired of you denying everything I offer.

    You haven’t offered anything. You haven’t offered one paper tat demonstrates unguided evolution can produce any molecular machinery. Heck you can’t even account for basic asexual reproduction.

    I cannot find a mistake in research that does not exist. What part of taht are you too dense to grasp?

  165. 165
    Joe says:

    age of the earth

    These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements. (bold added)

  166. 166
    Jerad says:

    Joe #165

    These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements

    But it’s pretty clear the writers are aware of the possibility of the error you claim they’ve made. And if you read further . . .

    An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of “primordial crust” but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth’s oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth’s formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth’s oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).

    So, they are not caught out by the assumption you claim they are making. They have addressed the issue.

  167. 167
    Jerad says:

    Joe #164

    It’s a given, Jerad. Write to them and ask. Or remain ignorant.

    You’ve made a claim, you need to defend it. Your example made it clear that the issue was considered and addressed by the researchers.

    They have to. Are you really too stupid to understand the reasoning presented?

    And, if they have considered the issue and dealt with it . . .

    Clearly you are a bluffing loser.

    I’m not the one making a claim.

    You haven’t offered anything. You haven’t offered one paper tat demonstrates unguided evolution can produce any molecular machinery. Heck you can’t even account for basic asexual reproduction.

    I have spent a lot of time in the past trying to give you links and references which you have uniformly denied are valid WITHOUT being able to point to a mistake in any of them.

    I cannot find a mistake in research that does not exist. What part of taht are you too dense to grasp?

    So I haven’t been able to provide you with research that doesn’t exist? What a naughty boy I am.

    When you want to seriously discuss the 150 years of research and work already done then please start by stating clearly where a mistake in methodology or technique or ideology or analysis has been made. You say it’s all rubbish and wrong so . . . show us.

  168. 168
    Joe says:

    I have defended my claim, Jerad. All we can do is measure the decay of the material that makes up the earth.

    And all you have is 150 years of equivocations and bluffing. You can’t even explain basic asexual reproduction- that is out of the reach of unguided evolution. That is why you have to start with everything you really need to explain in the first place.

  169. 169
    lack of Focus says:

    UD routinely bans people for simply disagreeing with the powers that be, even though the comments are polite and civil. Yet they continue to allow Joe and some others, including a couple with posting privileges, to be abusive and resort to name calling. This action speaks volumes. Please do better.

  170. 170
    kairosfocus says:

    LOF: FYI, not in my general experience. What I see, is that apparently many objectors seem to imagine they have a right to be abusive, falsely accusatory, disregarding of truth and basic fairness, or generally obnoxious on someone else’s dime. And BTW, what you just asserted and implied is a case in point, and even your handle may be snidely loaded. Some, may be so habitually boorish that they may not realise how uncivil their behaviour is. UD is not perfect by a long shot, but it has to deal with some really aggressive and ruthless behaviour. KF

  171. 171
    Mung says:

    liar of Focus:

    UD routinely bans people for simply disagreeing with the powers that be, even though the comments are polite and civil.

    That’s a lie.

  172. 172
    lack of Focus says:

    KF, case in point, please refer to Mung at 171 above. I point out an observation and I am called a liar. This is not the behaviour of a mature adult. Personally, I don’t care if UD condones this type of behaviour from ID proponents. I merely point out that it loses all credibility when it does so.

    Btw, my handle simply refers to the fact that I am legally blind. If you think that it is intended as an insult, I apologize.

  173. 173
    Jerad says:

    Joe #168

    I have defended my claim, Jerad. All we can do is measure the decay of the material that makes up the earth.

    The article you linked to shows that researchers have considered the issue you brought up and so were not making that faulty assumption. Additionally they clearly talk about materials not initially found on earth which can be used to triangulate the age of the solar system, thus the age of the earth. I’ll take the matter as settled then.

    And all you have is 150 years of equivocations and bluffing. You can’t even explain basic asexual reproduction- that is out of the reach of unguided evolution. That is why you have to start with everything you really need to explain in the first place.

    If you’d like to change topics that’s fine with me.

  174. 174
    kairosfocus says:

    LOF: “To lie is to speak with disregard to truth, in hopes that what is said or suggested will be taken as true.” This is an unfortunately apt description of what you have done above, which I called you out on, and which Mung far more directly also did. Indeed, it rather seems to me that even your handle you have chosen patently fits that description. I suggest to you, it is time to think again and do better. A lot better. G’day. KF

  175. 175
    Jerad says:

    KF #170

    What I see, is that apparently many objectors seem to imagine they have a right to be abusive, falsely accusatory, disregarding of truth and basic fairness, or generally obnoxious on someone else’s dime.

    I have seen many ID supporters do the same at UD. I’ve been called many names in my time here as you will remember since I’ve pointed it out before.

  176. 176
    lack of Focus says:

    KF, both you and Mung have called me a liar. Could you please tell me what I lied about? If I am incorrect in my statement I will certainly apologize.

    I essentially made two claims:

    1) that ID opponents are banned simply for disagreeing, even when they do it in a polite fashion. Their only sin has been being persistent. I can provide examples if you would like.

    2) that ID supporters get away with abusive language. Again, I can provide plenty of examples.

    Since I can provide evidence for these two statements, I am obviously not lying. An apology would be gladly accepted for falsely accusing me of lying.

  177. 177
    kairosfocus says:

    LOF, to be specific, Mung called you a liar, and above I “merely” pointed out — starting with your handle — on a relevant definition, troubling issues regarding your behaviour that drew a comment you made above to my notice. Where, on years of experience I know the overwhelming pattern of trollish misbehaviour around UD and the oh you censors talking point when disciplinary action is taken. I am not arguing for UD batting 100%, but I am pretty sure of the overall pattern. And, in recent months BA opened back up all accounts of the banned so it is unsurprising that after being on good behaviour for a little while, such would revert to true form, leading tot he choice, allow disruption and destruction of reasonable discussion or act to keep things reasonable. Instead of pretending to wounded innocence and how dare you, were I you, I would address the underlying facts on the table and the patterns they reveal. Remember, there are a lot of trolls and fellow traveller enablers that try to cause disruptions and distractions at UD, so learn from “if it walks and quacks like a duck . . . ” G’day. KF

  178. 178
    lack of Focus says:

    KF, I am certainly not arguing that UD should never ban commenters for trolling and/or abusive behaviour. Unfortunately that is a necessity in maintaining a productive discussion. But when the disciplinary actions are clearly one sided, when there are plenty of trolling and abusive behaviour s on both sides of the debate, the claim that UD welcomes comments from opposing views simply becomes a farce.

    Maybe I am incorrect in my observation. Being an ID opponent, my perceptions may be biased, and am honest enough to admit this, as I am sure that you are. But given that I have never seen an incident of an ID proponent being banned for unacceptable behaviour, when there are plenty of examples of such behaviour, I think that my observations are valid.

    But I don’t want to be accused of dragging this discussion off topic so I will leave it at that.

  179. 179
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    The article you linked to shows that researchers have considered the issue you brought up and so were not making that faulty assumption.

    And they did NOT get the age of the earth, did they?

    Additionally they clearly talk about materials not initially found on earth which can be used to triangulate the age of the solar system, thus the age of the earth.

    So you didn’t get the assumptions they used for that. Got it.

    If you’d like to change topics that’s fine with me.

    That is what we were discussing. Obviously you have other issues.

  180. 180
    Jerad says:

    Joe #179

    And they did NOT get the age of the earth, did they?

    Within a certain tolerance they did, yes.

    So you didn’t get the assumptions they used for that. Got it.

    They talked about the assumption you stated and showed why it was important to avoid the problem.

  181. 181
    Joe says:

    No, Jerad, they didn’t get the age of the earth. They still have untestable assumptions.

    All we have is the age of some of the materials that make up the earth. That is all we will ever have.

  182. 182
    Joe says:

    These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.

    That is EXACTLY as I said.

  183. 183
    Jerad says:

    Joe #181, 182

    No, Jerad, they didn’t get the age of the earth. They still have untestable assumptions.

    Yes they did get a good approximation to the age of the earth. You have been unable to point out where they fell prey to untestable assumptions.

    All we have is the age of some of the materials that make up the earth. That is all we will ever have.

    But, the researchers showed how that data can be cross-correlated to come up with an age for the earth.

    These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.

    That is EXACTLY as I said.

    Yes but you said the were depending on untestable assumptions when they clearly state how they considered and dealt with those assumptions.

  184. 184
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Yes they did get a good approximation to the age of the earth.

    Untestable assumptions.

    But, the researchers showed how that data can be cross-correlated to come up with an age for the earth.

    You have to know how the earth was formed in order to determine its age.

  185. 185
    Jerad says:

    Joe #184

    Untestable assumptions.

    Only if you deny that radioactive decay is constant.

    You have to know how the earth was formed in order to determine its age.

    But clearly the researchers have found a way to work around that.

    Read a more lengthy discussion of the reasoning.

  186. 186
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Only if you deny that radioactive decay is constant.

    Nope, I take that as a concession that you have reading comprehension issues.

    But clearly the researchers have found a way to work around that.

    No, they haven’t.

    Do we get the age of Stonehenge from the stones themselves? Your “logic” sez we should.

  187. 187
    Jerad says:

    Joe #186

    Nope, I take that as a concession that you have reading comprehension issues.

    Look, you haven’t pointed out a mistake in any peer-reviewed paper despite being given the leeway to pick one. You haven’t come up with a criticism of the methods which do account for the issue you brought up.

    No, they haven’t.

    Do we get the age of Stonehenge from the stones themselves? Your “logic” sez we should.

    The age of earth researches have addressed those issue just like the archaeologists have done with Stonehenge.

    You are continually knocking down the same strawman which no serious researcher upholds. As they clearly state.

  188. 188
    Joe says:

    Jerad, They think the earth formed about the same time as the meteorites. They have no idea. All they have is the earth formed via millions of cosmic collisions- sheer dumb luck. That isn’t science, Jerad.

    It is an untestable claim, Jerad. You may want to believe that this is all some freak accumulation of accidents but science does NOT support it.

    You are continually knocking down the same strawman which no serious researcher upholds

    What strawman? You continually accuse me of things and yet never make your case. That is a sure sign of a loser.

  189. 189
    Jerad says:

    Joe #188

    Jerad, They think the earth formed about the same time as the meteorites. They have no idea. All they have is the earth formed via millions of cosmic collisions- sheer dumb luck. That isn’t science, Jerad.

    That is clearly an oversimplification of the reasoning as anyone who reads that actual research will discern.

    It is an untestable claim, Jerad. You may want to believe that this is all some freak accumulation of accidents but science does NOT support it.

    And yet we are talking about published scientific research and reasoning.

    Your designer is a funny guy. He sets up the laws of the universe and gives us a perfect eclipse but then he has to continually break his own setup to induce mutations and guide evolution.

    What strawman? You continually accuse me of things and yet never make your case. That is a sure sign of a loser.

    The strawman that age of the earth researchers solely depend on a single assumption which they have clearly addressed and worked around.

    And I guess you’re alternative is to just give up and say: we can’t know because we weren’t there? Why don’t you give us your estimate for the age of the earth then.

  190. 190
    Joe says:

    Jerad, you are hopeless. The oversimplification is in your favor.

    And yet we are talking about published scientific research and reasoning.

    You think its science and its “reasoning” is based on the flawed assumption of materialism. It can’t be tested so it isn’t science, Jerad.

    Your designer is a funny guy.

    Most likely your view is just twisted.

    He sets up the laws of the universe and gives us a perfect eclipse but then he has to continually break his own setup to induce mutations and guide evolution.

    Geez, Jerad, I have corrected you on this many times and you still repeat it. You are a pathetic little person.

    The strawman that age of the earth researchers solely depend on a single assumption which they have clearly addressed and worked around.

    That is your strawman. I know it is based on several assumptions- you lose, again.

    And I guess you’re alternative is to just give up and say: we can’t know because we weren’t there?

    More imbecilic rantings from the master. No, Jerad, we try to figure out how the earth was actually made. I say it is giving up saying we are just a collection of accidents.

  191. 191
    Jerad says:

    Joe #190

    Jerad, you are hopeless. The oversimplification is in your favor

    Oh well, lucky me then.

    You think its science and its “reasoning” is based on the flawed assumption of materialism. It can’t be tested so it isn’t science, Jerad.

    I think science is based on repeatable, researcher independent results. If it can be repeated and verified then we’ve got something. Something we can measure and analyse because we can make it happen again.

    Geez, Jerad, I have corrected you on this many times and you still repeat it. You are a pathetic little person.

    Sorry but the things that are claimed the designer has done seem a bit . . . tweaky. And somewhat nonsensical.

    That is your strawman. I know it is based on several assumptions- you lose, again.

    You kept insisting that age of the earth researchers had to be operating under a given assumption when they themselves discuss the issue and explain how they avoid that trap.

    More imbecilic rantings from the master. No, Jerad, we try to figure out how the earth was actually made. I say it is giving up saying we are just a collection of accidents.

    And you think it was all guided I guess. Why not just create the world, as per the ultimate design? Why all the billions of years of fussing about, creating millions of species that are left to die off, allowing/inducing asteroids and comets to smack into the earth, allowing disease after disease to propagate, volcanoes, floods, pestilence . . . a whole lot of dying and suffering. Seems like it would have been more humane to have just cut to the chase. I mean if you can fine tune the universe it seems to me you should be able to skip all the dying and just go for the goal. Unless your plan is to see which or your creations is gullible and fooled by false appearances. Not a nice thing to do but hey, I’m not the designer so what do I know? It all just sounds kind of slipshod and cruel to me.

    But it is odd that a designer that set up the rules for how things work would have to continually tweak and jiggle things so they worked out the way ‘he’ wanted. Maybe the tuning wasn’t so fine in the first place?

  192. 192
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    I think science is based on repeatable, researcher independent results. If it can be repeated and verified then we’ve got something. Something we can measure and analyse because we can make it happen again.

    So much for your position’s stance on the earth’s formation.

    Sorry but the things that are claimed the designer has done seem a bit . . . tweaky. And somewhat nonsensical.

    That is your uneducated opinion.

    You kept insisting that age of the earth researchers had to be operating under a given assumption when they themselves discuss the issue and explain how they avoid that trap.

    I supported my claim and I never said that was the only faulty assumption.

    And you think it was all guided I guess.

    Given the evidence that would be the best explanation. Given that your position is both untenable and untestable…

    Why all the billions of years of fussing about

    Why do you think your theological questions mean something?

    But it is odd that a designer that set up the rules for how things work would have to continually tweak and jiggle things so they worked out the way ‘he’ wanted.

    That is your caricature, Jerad.

  193. 193
    Jerad says:

    Joe #192

    Why do you think your theological questions mean something?

    I was talking about the evidence and data in the fossil, genomic, morphologic and bio-geographic records. Millions and millions of years of extinct species, viruses, natural disasters all to produce a species that may be bringing in another great die-off event via preventable climate disruption? Sounds a bit dodgy to me.

    Now, if you can explain the point to all those extinct species I’d be very interested. Why do you claim your designer can fine tune the constants of the universe but takes a few billion years to come up with human beings?

  194. 194
    Joe says:

    BTW Jerad, to get the age of earth rocks one has to assume they were all molten- including all of its crystals. And guess what? They try to tell us the age of earth rocks in that article. You lose.

    Your position cannot explain the fossil record as it cannot get beyond populations of prokaryotes. And again your strawman is showing. Why do you think it took billions of years to come up with human beings?

  195. 195
    Jerad says:

    Joe #194

    BTW Jerad, to get the age of earth rocks one has to assume they were all molten- including all of its crystals. And guess what? They try to tell us the age of earth rocks in that article. You lose.

    Yes but they use more than just the age of any one set of ‘rocks’ and they use different dating techniques. These people aren’t stupid Joe, they have thought and fought long and hard to get their work accepted.

    Your position cannot explain the fossil record as it cannot get beyond populations of prokaryotes. And again your strawman is showing. Why do you think it took billions of years to come up with human beings?

    It took billions of years because it’s an unguided, step-by-step process with no goal in mind.

    Now it’s your turn: according to intelligent design evolution why did it take billions of years for humans to come into being?

  196. 196
    Joe says:

    Jerad, They rely on an untestable assumption. All of those techniques require a molten earth in which no crystals survived.

    Yours can’t explain living organisms. Yours doesn’t have a mechanism of getting beyond prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans.

  197. 197
    Jerad says:

    Joe #196

    Jerad, They rely on an untestable assumption.

    Which one? They are careful to cross-check their results with other methods and samples.

    Yours can’t explain living organisms. Yours doesn’t have a mechanism of getting beyond prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Do you want to change the topic?

    According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans.

    How long does ID say it did take then?

  198. 198
    Joe says:

    Which assumption, they rely on many- They assume a molten earth in which no crystals survived, Jerad. that is one that you still can’t deal with.

    Do you want to change the topic?

    I am on-topic.

    How long does ID say it did take then?

    ID doesn’t say.

  199. 199
    Jerad says:

    Joe #196

    According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans.

    Joe #198

    ID doesn’t say.

    Does ID or does it not have an estimate of how long it took humans to develop? Let’s say from the initial appearance of life on earth and, additionally, from the KT boundary.

  200. 200
    Joe says:

    ID doesn’t say and no one knows how long it would take. No one knows what makes a human a human.

  201. 201
    Jerad says:

    Joe #196

    According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans.

    Joe #200

    ID doesn’t say and no one knows how long it would take. No one knows what makes a human a human.

    How long it would take? How about how long did it take.

    So, ID says it didn’t take billions of years but it doesn’t know how long it took. One billion years? One million years? Not even a clue?

    And ID doesn’t know what makes a human being? What does ID think it takes outside of the genome?

  202. 202
    Joe says:

    Jerad, Thanks to evolutionary biology no one knows what makes a human a human. No one knows if a non-human can evolve into a human. No one has a clue and it is all thanks to evolutionary biology.

    Good job

  203. 203
    Jerad says:

    Joe #202

    Jerad, Thanks to evolutionary biology no one knows what makes a human a human. No one knows if a non-human can evolve into a human. No one has a clue and it is all thanks to evolutionary biology.

    Intelligent design can’t say how long it took human beings to evolve. ID thinks the genome is not enough (apparently) but can’t say what. This aside from ID’s inability to say when or how design was implemented. And now one of it’s supporters is saying it’s evolutionary biology’s fault.

    And that same ID supporter says the science behind age of the earth research is bogus and based on a false assumption. I’d love to hear what other ID supporters think of Joe’s comments and contentions. Does he reflect a common thread or not?

  204. 204
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Intelligent design can’t say how long it took human beings to evolve.

    To evolve what?

    ; ID thinks the genome is not enough (apparently) but can’t say what.

    Enough for what? Genomes do nothing by themselves. Where are the “human” genes? Or how can we test the claim that “genomes are enough”?

    What do YOU have, Jerad?

    It’s evolutionary biology’s fault because it forces us to look in one and only one direction for answers. It’s like trying to understand Stonehenge as a natural geologic formation.

    Saying something is based on untestable assumptions is merely pointing out a FACT, Jerad.

  205. 205
    Joe says:

    “The Privileged Planet” makes the scientific case that the earth is the result of intelligent design. If you think that can find a mistake with it we will gladly discuss it

  206. 206
    Jerad says:

    Joe #204, 205

    To evolve what?

    Into human beings. Please pay attention.

    Enough for what? Genomes do nothing by themselves. Where are the “human” genes? Or how can we test the claim that “genomes are enough”?

    Really, do I have to recap the entire conversation? And years and years and years of research? If you think that the research that has gone into the consensus view is wrong then pick a paper, preferably more than one, and point to errors or mistakes in the reasoning or research. You say it’s wrong well . . . be specific and say where.

    What do YOU have, Jerad?

    We’re trying to figure out what you have Joe.

    It’s evolutionary biology’s fault because it forces us to look in one and only one direction for answers. It’s like trying to understand Stonehenge as a natural geologic formation.

    So, you’re looking in a different direction. That’s great. I’m just asking what you’ve got so far.

    Saying something is based on untestable assumptions is merely pointing out a FACT, Jerad.

    Show me where the researchers did that. Point to something specific.

    “The Privileged Planet” makes the scientific case that the earth is the result of intelligent design. If you think that can find a mistake with it we will gladly discuss it

    A lot of other people have already done that, do you want us to rehash all the arguments against The Privileged Planet. Again? I thought we could take it as given that that view has been widely disputed.

  207. 207
    Joe says:

    Jerad, No one has any scientific criticisms of “The Privileged Planet”. You are sadly mistaken.
    There isn’t any evidence that humans evolved, or can evolve, from no-humans.

    Really, do I have to recap the entire conversation? And years and years and years of research? If you think that the research that has gone into the consensus view is wrong then pick a paper, preferably more than one, and point to errors or mistakes in the reasoning or research. You say it’s wrong well . . . be specific and say where.

    There isn’t any research that says we are the sum of our genome. You are a desperate bluffer.

    Read on:

    To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

    Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

    Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in “The Century of The Gene”.- Dr Michael Denton

    It’s not the genes. It ain’t the genome. It ain’t the same ole genes used differently. And that is the main reason why evolutionism is a failure.

    We’re trying to figure out what you have Joe.

    Why, we have already told you, and you choked. If your position had something ID would be a non-starter.

    Show me where the researchers did that. Point to something specific.

    I already have- they assume the earth is due to cosmic collisions- UNTESTABLE- the assume the earth was so hot no crystals survived- UNTESTABLE- both of these were in the article I linked to.

  208. 208
    Jerad says:

    Joe #207

    Jerad, No one has any scientific criticisms of “The Privileged Planet”. You are sadly mistaken.
    There isn’t any evidence that humans evolved, or can evolve, from no-humans.

    I’m afraid I disagree. In fact, there are some severe criticisms of The Privileged Planet on many blogs. They are easy to find.

    There is lots of evidence that humans have evolved from non-humans. And, so far, ID has presented almost no counter argument except to say: it was designed. You’ve even stated that ID has no idea how long it took. And we know you have avoided discussing HOW design was implemented.

    There isn’t any research that says we are the sum of our genome. You are a desperate bluffer.

    Your quote from Dr Denton is interesting. You choose to believe what he says without granting time for those who disagree with him. I don’t mind as long as you acknowledge that you are picking and choosing what data to believe instead of considering all of it.

    It’s not the genes. It ain’t the genome. It ain’t the same ole genes used differently. And that is the main reason why evolutionism is a failure.

    Well, perhaps you’d like to fill in the gaps then. What can ID bring to the table (aside from: this stuff looks designed) that evolutionary theory cannot. A mechanism? A timeline? A motive? A meaning?

    Why, we have already told you, and you choked. If your position had something ID would be a non-starter.

    Yes but when I ask you certain questions you stop answering. Reasonable questions. And isn’t part of science asking questions?

    I already have- they assume the earth is due to cosmic collisions- UNTESTABLE- the assume the earth was so hot no crystals survived- UNTESTABLE- both of these were in the article I linked to.

    Perhaps you’ve just missed the research which addresses these issues and concerns. Or maybe you’re just ignoring it. I don’t know. But I think you’ll find, if you really look, that all these things have been looked at and considered.

    You seem to think that there’s some agenda that scientists find more compelling than trying to figure out what’s going on. Some giant game of fear or conspiracy. You keep saying millions and millions of research parers are bogus and wrong. That the authors are buying into some kind of fallacious assumption. But you never seem to be able to point to a statement in a research paper that you can identify as incorrect. Why is that? Why is it so difficult for you to point to a specific statement or finding that is incorrect?

    If you could just manage to address specific points in specific papers then we could discuss things.

  209. 209
    Joe says:

    All criticisms of “THe Privileged Planet” are theological.

    There is lots of evidence that humans have evolved from non-humans.

    No, there isn’t as no one knows what makes a human a human. The claim is untestable, Jerad.

    Your quote from Dr Denton is interesting. You choose to believe what he says without granting time for those who disagree with him.

    Shut up, Jerad. Evos have had plenty of time to make their case and they have FAILED.

    I don’t mind as long as you acknowledge that you are picking and choosing what data to believe instead of considering all of it.

    Nice projection.

    Well, perhaps you’d like to fill in the gaps then. What can ID bring to the table (aside from: this stuff looks designed) that evolutionary theory cannot.

    There isn’t any evolutionary theory. You are deluded. And ID brings reality to the table.

    Perhaps you’ve just missed the research which addresses these issues and concerns.

    Most likely you are just a bluffing jester.

    All you can do is make unfounded accusations. All you can do is lie and bluff. You are pathetic.

  210. 210
    Jerad says:

    Joe #209

    All criticisms of “THe Privileged Planet” are theological.

    Isn’t that equivalent to asserting that all claims of The Privileged Planet are also theological?

    No, there isn’t as no one knows what makes a human a human. The claim is untestable, Jerad.

    You mean, obviously, that YOU don’t know what makes a human a human since other people have an idea.

    Shut up, Jerad. Evos have had plenty of time to make their case and they have FAILED.

    They have failed to convince you. I’ll grant you that.

    Nice projection.

    You do have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer.

    There isn’t any evolutionary theory. You are deluded. And ID brings reality to the table.

    Again, there is no evolutionary theory that you accept. Meanwhile, there is no intelligent design hypothesis at all except: we think some things look designed because we can’t figure out how they could have happen via non-directed processes. An argument from incredulity.

    Most likely you are just a bluffing jester.

    Or you did ignore scads and scads of research which are opposed to your point of view. Remember Dr Behe at the Dover trial.

    All you can do is make unfounded accusations. All you can do is lie and bluff. You are pathetic.

    Why the abuse when I’m merely disagreeing with you?

  211. 211
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Isn’t that equivalent to asserting that all claims of The Privileged Planet are also theological?

    No. Why would it?

    You mean, obviously, that YOU don’t know what makes a human a human since other people have an idea.

    And yet their “ideas” remain untestable so to science they don’t exist. No one has found any “human” genes and no one has shown that we are the sum of our genome. Everything Denton said is based on decades of research and Jerad just handwaves it away.

    They have failed to convince you. I’ll grant you that.

    They can only convince their choir. I’ll grant you that.

    You do have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer.

    All evos have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer. And they don’t seem to be able to answer anything.

    Again, there is no evolutionary theory that you accept.

    There isn’t one that you can reference. Looks like I win.

    Meanwhile, there is no intelligent design hypothesis at all except: we think some things look designed because we can’t figure out how they could have happen via non-directed processes.

    That’s your strawman. However if your position had something we wouldn’t even be discussing ID.

    Or you did ignore scads and scads of research which are opposed to your point of view.

    And you can keep bluffing, equivocating and spewing false accusations. If only there was any research that opposed my point of view…

    Remember Dr Behe at the Dover trial.

    Dr. Behe remembers– As I said, Jerad will believe anything it he thinks it helps him.

  212. 212
    Jerad says:

    And yet their “ideas” remain untestable so to science they don’t exist. No one has found any “human” genes and no one has shown that we are the sum of our genome. Everything Denton said is based on decades of research and Jerad just handwaves it away.

    Funny that decades and decades of research and biologists disagree with Dr Denton then.

    All evos have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer. And they don’t seem to be able to answer anything.

    Every time I give you an answer you say it’s not true. So I’m giving up. You don’t acknowledge information that is spoon-fed to you.

    There isn’t one that you can reference. Looks like I win.

    Again, repeatedly you have denied references that have been handed to you on a plate. No one wants to play with someone who can’t abide by the rules.

    That’s your strawman. However if your position had something we wouldn’t even be discussing ID.

    No, ID has to succeed on its own, independently of evolutionary theory.

    And you can keep bluffing, equivocating and spewing false accusations. If only there was any research that opposed my point of view…

    Again, there is research that contradicts your position but you deny it which is not the same thing.

    Dr. Behe remembers- As I said, Jerad will believe anything it he thinks it helps him.

    Remember when he was presented with a large pile of evidence of research into the evolution of the immune system and he said, in court: that’s not enough. Hardly a scientific reaction.

  213. 213
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Funny that decades and decades of research and biologists disagree with Dr Denton then.

    No, they don’t. You cannot find one peer-reviewed paper tat refutes what he said.

    Every time I give you an answer you say it’s not true.

    All of your “answers” are bluffs and nonsense.

    Again, repeatedly you have denied references that have been handed to you on a plate.

    LIAR- You are a pathetic little imp of a liar, Jerad.

    No, ID has to succeed on its own, independently of evolutionary theory.

    Who are you to say such a thing? Your position can’t succeed and science mandates that necessity and chance be eliminated first. Obviously you are ignorant of science.

    Again, there is research that contradicts your position but you deny it which is not the same thing.

    Liar

    Remember when he was presented with a large pile of evidence of research into the evolution of the immune system and he said, in court: that’s not enough.

    Moron- I just linked to Dr Behe proving he did NOT say that.

    You are one pathetic little imp, Jerad.

  214. 214
    Jerad says:

    Joe #213

    I realise your style of discourse is the norm here now so I can’t expect you to be admonished for lack of manners and being a bad sport. And I’d rather not have a discussion with someone you just responds with name calling like some child on a playground.

    Enjoy ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You’re going to have to get better and better at that I suspect.

  215. 215
    Joe says:

    Jerad, Your style of discourse is to lie, bluff and spew nonsense. That is all you do.

    Enjoy being a gullible fool. Please come back if you ever find something that allegedly contradicts my beliefs. No one has so far so you are going to have to get better and better at it.

    BTW I respond the way I do because of you, Jerad. If you weren’t such a pathetic liar and a bluffing coward, well you wouldn’t have anything to say.

Leave a Reply