Human evolution News

Hunter on “shared error” argument for common ancestry

Spread the love

As at Biologos. He writes:

Venema’s argument is that harmful mutations shared amongst different species, such as the human and chimpanzee, are powerful and compelling evidence for evolution. These harmful mutations disable a useful gene and, importantly, the mutations are identical.

Are not such harmful, shared, mutations analogous to identical typos in the term papers handed in by different students, or in historical manuscripts? Such typos are tell-tale indicators of a common source, for it is unlikely that the same typo would have occurred independently, by chance, in the same place, in different documents. Instead, the documents share a common source.

Now imagine not one, but several such typos, all identical, in the two manuscripts. Surely the evidence is now overwhelming that the documents are related and share a common source.

Except that

In fact repeated designs found in otherwise distant species are ubiquitous in biology. Listening to evolutionists one would think the species fall into an evolutionary pattern with a few minor exceptions here and there. But that is overwhelmingly false. From the morphological to the molecular level, repeated designs are everywhere, and they take on many different forms.More.

See also: Cornelius Hunter’s response to Dennis Venema: If similarity confirms evolutionary relationships, then substantial genetic differences must falsify them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

32 Replies to “Hunter on “shared error” argument for common ancestry

  1. 1
    bFast says:

    Dr. Hunter,
    I have been reading your recent articles with unusual care (which mostly means more closely than skimming.) I have been following links to see what the source material has to say. On a number of occasions I have found really compelling statements in the core of the source material (as opposed to some setup expression that the author then goes out to shoot down.)

    You make a very strong case for design in humanity! Some of your points are very hard to explain from any common descent framework. That said, this argument on Dr. Venima’s part is compelling. Your counter-argument is light. In general you say, “what about all the other evidence flying in from everywhere”. And you have presented lots of other evidence flying in from all over the place. Your evidence is consistent only with an agent doing interesting things in the DNA. I really enjoyed the Chromosome 2 bit.

    However, the “what about all of the other evidence” argument is used by evolutionists all of the time. My scientific mind wants all evidence to make sense, not just most. Disease producing point mutations shared by human and chimp does not make sense to me at all in a “common design” perspective. In fact, the only way I can make it make sense is to conjure up an “enemy” who has the power to inject identically positioned disease producing point mutations.

  2. 2
    Anaxagoras says:

    If Dr Hunter is right, Venema´s main claim in favor of common descent is that the genomes of different species (in particular the human genome) are what we would expect if they evolved according to the standard theory of evolution.
    The problem is that this kind of reasoning constitutes what in formal logic is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

    If A, then B
    B.
    Therefore, A

    This is perfectly inconsistent because a different cause than A could have also brought up the effect B, or simply because (as it could be the case here) other causes could have been necessary apart from A to give completely account of B

    In other words, what has to be explained are not the similarities we share with other species; What needs to be explained is precisely what makes us unique, different, exceptional. And the only theory that CAN NOT explain the enormous differences that we have with apes is, precisely, common descent.

    Unless you can conceive a theory that explains in naturalistic terms the emergence of free will, and a rational mind (apart from all physiological traits, genomic differences, ORPhan genes, and so on), common descent is perfectly irrelevant.

  3. 3
    Andre says:

    Common descent is an assumption nothing else.

  4. 4
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    Let me get this straight: nearly identical features and digital genetic information in widely-varying organisms demonstrate convergent evolution, but nearly identical “typos” in that information demonstrate common descent? Riiiiiight!

    Shorter Biologos: All your evidence are belong to us!

    (apologies to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us)

  5. 5
    J-Mac says:

    Potato and tobacco have 48 chromosomes…
    What’s stopping evolutionists from putting their faith in the scenario that humans have evolved from them?

    Preconceived ideas and biased aligning of the genomes?

    Someone once said that there is no point of convincing some of being wrong if they don’t, don’t want to be wrong… especially if they are absolutely determined to be right… even if they are proven to be wrong…

    Well, no evidence in this world can change that…
    If Jesus’ miracles are true, as far as I can see there were a lot of believers but few sceptics… The sceptics were the ones who had too much to lose by being proven wrong. They would rather deny the miracles than face the consequences…

    But why…?

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    I bump into the common mutation/human/chimp thing too.
    If its powerful and compelling evidence then is the other evidence NOT SO? Hust a thought!
    Why not have some common mutation if we have a like body. Who says mutations are just whims? Why not mutations are directional for reasons? In fact this mutual mutation could be evidence for alternative biological mechanism.
    Perhaps biology changes itself by using mutations but even this is prompted by triggers and the mutations are not from chance.
    there are other options.

  7. 7

    Just thinking out loud here. If there were similarities between two genomes, it could get there by either common descent or common design. If you have a mutation of some sort, it could get there by either common descent or something like a virus that target a similar structure between two different species because of their common design. (Not nearly my area of expertise, just thinking)

    Again, the differences are what matter. Theoretically, you could have a mixture of descent with design modifications.

  8. 8
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Anaxagoras

    *All* science is based on affirming the consequent, AKA induction.

  9. 9
    mk says:

    hi bfast. you said:

    “Disease producing point mutations shared by human and chimp does not make sense to me at all in a “common design” perspective”-

    guess what? we have found shared mutations in pseudogenes without a commondescent. the p2 pseudogene shared a stop codon in human and sheep without a commondescent. so shared mutations cant be evidence for a commondescent. simple logic.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS

    Anaxagoras

    *All* science is based on affirming the consequent, AKA induction.

    So why do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

    An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 22, 2012
    Excerpt: “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?” (Sedgwick to Darwin – 1859),,,
    And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,,
    For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ed-of.html

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/

    related note:

    Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

  11. 11
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bornagain77

    Scientific induction is based on evidence, not on what someone wrote to someone else in a letter.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    “Scientific induction is based on evidence,”

    And since you have no experimental evidence that Darwinian evolution is true, tell me exactly why you believe it?

  13. 13
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bornagain77

    Because reasonable people accept that not all evidence is necessarily experimental.

  14. 14
    Anaxagoras says:

    CLAUDIUS

    Affirming the consequent has nothing to do with science, or induction.
    Induction is the reasoning by which we derive general conclusions (laws) from specific observations. That is how experimental sciences advance.
    Abduction, hypothetical reasoning or inference to the best explanation is the logical method to infer the most likely cause of a specific effect. It is the kind of reasoning we practice in historical sciences like evolutionary biology and the kind of inference we make when we propose an intelligent cause for the order and teleology observed in natural objects. The inference can´t be presented as a strong evidence but just as an exercise of “guessing” that usually needs more complementary elements of confirmation.
    But affirming the consequent can never be an appropriate method of reasoning. The observed effect will not constitute per se a proof of the inferred cause.

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    Because reasonable people accept that not all evidence is necessarily experimental.

    Which is fortunate for ID – I’m now trying to imagine what an experiment to demonstrate that intelligent design has occurred would look like. You can’t just ring up the designer & order a couple of flagella. Unfortunately.

    (this isn’t intended as a criticism of ID – I’m just easily amused)

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Because reasonable people accept that not all evidence is necessarily experimental.”

    First off, there is no such thing as a Darwinist being a reasonable person since, via his denial of free will, the Darwinist forsakes his right to be reasonable, and, via his denial of agency, the Darwinist forsakes his own personhood. Ergo, a Darwinist is self admittedly not a reasonable person!

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

    Secondly, experimental evidence is the foundation of modern science. For a Darwinist to so easily forsake experimental evidence (since he has none) in favor of hypothetical historical evidence is another sure mark that we are dealing with a unfalsifiable pseudo-science instead of a real science such as ID is since ID can be falsified and Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

    “The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
    Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.
    I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.”
    – Dr Michael Behe

    Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

    There simply is no observational evidence, real time or historical, that is allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution as a ‘scientific’ theory

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.

  17. 17
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Anaxagoras

    Affirming the consequent has nothing to do with science, or induction.

    Hilarious!

    “… the scientific method unavoidably commits the fallacy of ‘affirming the consequent'” (here)

    “… the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, is at the heart of scientific method.” (here)

    “… abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent” (Wikipedia)

    “As two stages of the development, extension, etc., of a hypothesis in scientific inquiry, abduction and also induction are often collapsed into one overarching concept — the hypothesis.” (Wikipedia)

  18. 18
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bornagain77

    there is no such thing as a Darwinist being a reasonable person …

    Whatever. I am not a Darwinist.

    experimental evidence is the foundation of modern science

    Laughably wrong.

    “… historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.”

    Cleland, C., “Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method”, Dept of Philosophy, University of Colorado (here)

    There simply is no observational evidence, real time or historical, that is allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution as a ‘scientific’ theory

    LOL! Darwinian evolution has already been falsified by neutral theory: Non-Darwinian Evolution

  19. 19
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bornagain77

    It is certainly true that, over the long course of history, many critical gain-of-FCT [gain of function] events occurred.

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS, you are naively ignorant about science! FYI, historical science is firmly grounded in ‘presently acting causes known to produce the effect in question’. i.e. in Experimental, real time, evidence! Without such a grounding in ‘presently acting causes’, i.e. experimental science. historical science would have absolutely no mooring to the real world and would be worse than useless! Stephen Meyer, who earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation the methodology of the historical sciences and on the history of origin-of-life biology, has shown that Darwin himself used this method of reasoning. i.e. ‘presently acting causes’, and has also shown that Intelligent Design, using the same exact method of reasoning that Darwin used, is superior to Darwinian evolution as an explanation for biological information.

    Stephen Meyer: Charles Darwin’s Methods, Different Conclusion – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqq6JP5gE0E

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    as to the quote mine at 19

    Even More From Jerry Coyne
    Michael Behe January 12, 2011
    To sum up, the important point of “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'” is not that anything in particular in evolution is absolutely ruled out. Rather, the point is that short term adaptation tends to be dominated by LOF mutations. And, tinkerer that it is, Darwinian evolution always works in the short term. –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....GRZMd.dpuf

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    “Darwinian evolution has already been falsified by neutral theory”

    Thanks for admitting that, and FYI neutral theory is now falsified as well:

    Kimura’s Quandary
    Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in response to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most ‘evolution’ must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom’s (neo-Darwinism’s) very validity.
    John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 161 – 162

    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – John Sanford – 2008
    Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
    Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Theory.pdf

    Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution (neutral theory included),, (via John Sanford and company)
    http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    me: there is no such thing as a Darwinist being a reasonable person …

    Claude: “Whatever. I am not a Darwinist.”

    This is a prime example of the disingenuous nature in which atheists argue. Although I was clear in pointing out that the denial of mind and free will by atheists is what, by their own admission, prevents them from ever being ‘reasonable persons’, Claude, although he still, as an atheistic materialist, must deny he has a mind and free will, none-the-less pretends that denying Darwinism because he is instead a ‘neutralist’ addresses the crushing issue against his worldview.

    Atheists, at least the ones I’ve dealt with on UD, are despicably dishonest!

  24. 24
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bornagain77

    CLAVDIVS, you are naively ignorant about science! FYI, historical science is firmly grounded in ‘presently acting causes known to produce the effect in question’. i.e. in Experimental, real time, evidence!

    Hilarious! bornagain77, you are naively ignorant about english. Hint: ‘presently acting’ does not mean ‘experimental’.

    You were wrong about experimental evidence being the foundation of modern science. The Cleland paper proves it. Deal with it.

    Behe 2010: “It is certainly true that, over the long course of history, many critical gain-of-FCT [gain of function] events occurred.”

    Behe 2011: … the point is that short term adaptation tends to be dominated by LOF mutations. And, tinkerer that it is, Darwinian evolution always works in the short term.

    So Behe disagrees with himself and destroys his own credibility. Thanks for kicking an own goal!

    CLAVDIVS: “Darwinian evolution has already been falsified by neutral theory”

    Thanks for admitting that, and FYI neutral theory is now falsified as well…

    Thanks for admitting that I completely refuted your original, laughably bogus claim: that “no observational evidence … is allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution”. What, did you think nobody would notice yet another own goal by you?

  25. 25
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bornagain77

    I’m not an atheist. I’m not a materialist.

    I’ve told you this before.

    That makes you a liar.

  26. 26
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bornagain77

    I’m not a neutralist either.

    Hilarious!

  27. 27
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 16 –

    Secondly, experimental evidence is the foundation of modern science. For a Darwinist to so easily forsake experimental evidence (since he has none) in favor of hypothetical historical evidence is another sure mark that we are dealing with a unfalsifiable pseudo-science instead of a real science such as ID is since ID can be falsified and Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified.

    (a) what experimental evidence is there for ID?
    (b) how can ID be falsified? Remember that showing that showing that mechanism A can do X doesn’t mean that mechanism B can’t.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS,

    Hint: ‘presently acting’ does not mean ‘experimental’.

    REALLY??? So you play words games and you think this absolves you of the sheer poverty of real time evidence for unguided material processes creating functional information? Priceless and dishonest as usual!

    The Cleland paper is an exercise in intellectual flatulence. For instance, if I am allowed to posit ANY cause in historical science, instead of referencing presently acting causes, then I can say pink unicorns built Stonehenge and there is not one thing you can do about my claim since I can ignore any presently acting cause you may choose to present against my claim!

    Behe is consistent, you are the one who is inconsistent. Moreover, the GOF mutations listed in Behe’s paper all occur after a gene was artificially removed and the programming of the cell instigated compensatory mutations. i.e. The GOF mutations listed in Behe’s paper WERE NOT arrived at by purely Darwinian processes but were arrived at by an extremely sophisticated and preexisting program within the cell.

    If the main theory of Darwinian evolution is truly ‘falsified’ by neutral theory as you say, then why in blue blazes do they still widely teach the main theory of Darwinism as if it were undeniably true? You are playing stupid word games again!

    Moreover, as far as experimental science itself is concerned, a more rigid falsification of Darwinism, in all its flavors, is achieved by Quantum Mechanics.

    Molecular Biology – 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater

    You claim you are not a materialistic atheist, but have in this thread, as far as I can tell, argued as if you are one. And you accuse me of being a liar? The false pretenses you have displayed makes you a deceiver!

    As far as I can tell, you have no intention of being honest, and I will waste no more time on you.

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “(a) what experimental evidence is there for ID?”

    see you own post at 27 for experimental evidence of a presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    related note:

    Isn’t it just amazing how evolution can create the same exact genes in such widely divergent species? Either that or, more realistically, evolution is really just a pseudo-science that is impervious to falsification!

    Research shows that corals share many of the genes in the human genome – June 1, 2016
    Excerpt: UH M?noa scientists,,, have published new research showing that corals share many of the genes humans possess, especially those that can sense temperature and acidity, both of which are important to keeping both coral and humans healthy.,,
    “it was surprising to find that corals share many of the genes we possess,” said Dr. Stokes.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-06-c.....enome.html

  31. 31
    Mung says:

    Common descent is not just an assumption.

    Even the most ardent Creationist believes all extant humans share a common ancestor. Do they just assume it?

    Even the most ardent Creationist believes all extant animals share a common ancestor with some creature that exited the ark. Or do they just assume it?

  32. 32
    Anaxagoras says:

    CLAUDIUS

    Just wanted to mention how absurd it is that “scientific” papers, along with Wikipedia present such a misrepresentation of abduction. Poor Charles Sanders Peirce!! I was so surprised that I checked other entries for abduction in Wikipedia in other languages (French and Spanish) to verify if they commit the same mistake. They don´t

    They make a faithful presentation of the concept of abduction as the third system of reasoning accepted in formal logic together with deduction and induction.

    Peirce presented abduction (hypothetical reasoning) as a kind of “guessing”, as an “illumination”, an enlightening intuition that opened our mind to a new knowledge. It is true that he considered abduction as “the first step” in the logical process of scientific research. But he never took the abductive inference for a deduction in a deductive process (that is, the fallacy of affirming the consequent).

Leave a Reply