Culture Human evolution Intelligent Design Naturalism Religion

A just-so story about the origin of religious beliefs

Spread the love

This one is about stones:

By 500,000 years ago, Homo had mastered the skill of shaping stone, bone, hides, horns, and wood into dozens of tool types. Some of these tools were so symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing that some scientists speculate toolmaking took on a ritual aspect that connected Homo artisans with their traditions and community. These ritualistic behaviors may have evolved, hundreds of thousands of years later, into the rituals we see in religions.

Agustín Fuentes, “How Did Belief Evolve?” at Sapiens

Some of us would be more impressed if the authors of this type of work attributed their own beliefs to these types of sources.

How about this: Belief that there is no design in nature comes from spending a lot of time reading boring useless papers and sitting in boring useless meetings, Eventually, homo academicus evolved to believe that all nature is like that.

There’s that’s a good enough thesis. Let’s publish it. But first we need to find a journal that is not run by homo academicus himself. Nah. Let’s do a Sokal hoax on this stuff instead. Any ideas?

See also: If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?

Evolutionary conundrum: is religion a useful, useless, or harmful adaptation?

and

Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain

265 Replies to “A just-so story about the origin of religious beliefs

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Actually belief in Darwin arises from a strictly Darwinian process.

    Belief in fashionable nonsense is an adaptation that leads to survival and food. If you don’t believe, you don’t get grants so you starve. It’s also selected by mating and domestication. If you don’t believe, you don’t get friends and mates, and you are forcibly culled from the hive.

  2. 2
    Ed George says:

    I doubt that we will ever know exactly how religion developed. But the idea that certain behaviours that are beneficial become ritualized is a valid observation.

    If I were to develop a “just so” story about religion I would keep it simple. Except in times of epidemic, I don’t think anyone would argue that anything that reinforces social cohesion is beneficial to society. And we all know that religion plays this role. We also know that nothing strengthens social cohesion like an adversary. The Germans and Japanese during WWII, the Russians during the Cold War, the muslims after 9/11, Satan, homosexuals, adulterers, etc.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, The OP rightly points to self-referential incoherence by way of implicit appeal to grand delusion. If a claim or argument radically undermines credibility of mind, it fails. As to claims that “religion” is rooted in the magic of social collusion etc, they simply bark up the wrong tree. We are contingent, reasoning, inescapably morally governed creatures. Indeed an implicit appeal of your argument (ultimately, fatal) is that we are duty-bound to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness, justice etc. That conscience attested law of our morally governed nature is no grand delusion on pain of instant absurdity. It points to the roots of reality, the only place IS and OUGHT can be bridged without ungrounded ought. That sets a bill of requisites for that root: capable of being a source of worlds and particularly of worlds with such creatures. Where, our world gives every strong sign of intelligent design, start with coded algorithmic [so, purposeful] information in cell based life, in a cosmos where the physics is fine tuned for C-chem, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet, cell based life. Many other signs of design and artistry confront us also — just this morning I was looking at gradient fills in the sky. Design is manifest and points to designer. Further, to bridge IS and OUGHT, the root of reality is inherently good and utterly wise. Such things are not hard to see, it takes systematic, aggressive indoctrination backed by power to keep driving them out of the public square. But clearly, belief in a good God is a natural, responsible state of belief. KF

    PS: And we haven’t got to the He is there and is not silent factor yet.

  4. 4
    Ed George says:

    KF, do you honestly think that Judeo-Christian religions would have been as successful if they didn’t invent the idea of third-party (ie, Satan, demons, etc) temptation towards “sin”. Without that, they would have little more social cohesion strength that the Lions club, or the Legion.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, loaded language disqualification, by which you imply fundamental falsity before the matter is examined. The question fails. KF

  6. 6
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, loaded language disqualification, by which you imply fundamental falsity before the matter is examined. The question fails. KF

    I have noticed a trend. Whenever anyone asks you an uncomfortable question you declare it a loaded question and refuse to answer.

    I agree that my question is a loaded question, but only because there is only one logically coherent and consistent answer. And that is, Judeo-Christian religions would not have been as successful as they have been if they didn’t attribute socially negative behaviour to temptation by some evil intelligence (Satan, demons, etc).

  7. 7
    Belfast says:

    EG
    I notice a trend too. When people get exasperated by your inane rhetorical questions, you chortle to yourself that they have been made ‘uncomfortable’.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    @6 Ed George

    I have noticed a trend.

    ‘You’ have noticed nothing, ‘you’ are a ‘neuronal residue’ (according to materialism). Did you say you are not a materialist? What is your ‘understanding’ of ‘reality’? Maybe you are an idealist?

    I agree that my question is a loaded question,

    Logical fallacy.

    But only because there is only one logically coherent and consistent answer. And that is, Judeo-Christian religions would not have been as successful as they have been if they didn’t attribute socially negative behaviour to temptation by some evil intelligence (Satan, demons, etc).

    Question-begging.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, I could point out again, for cause, that you have begged the question by way of loaded, complex questions that presume conclusions about reality that should rather be warranted. Others have pointed it out, too. Your doubling down in response is predictable. Your continual harping on sexual perversities is also there, and as was long since pointed out is both repulsive and a manifestation of the delusion of trying to judge what is straight and upright by a crooked yardstick. I will not elaborate on such. Instead, I will let the testimony of the White Rose martyrs speak on the reality of manifest, radical, demonic evil, which has been particularly evident over the past 100+ years; but which is conveniently sidelined by too many who should know better. I also remind, that a further manifestation of such demonic evil is the ongoing widely unacknowledged holocaust of our living posterity in the womb at a global rate of about a million victims per week, per Guttmacher-UN numbers. Collectively, we are worse, more tainted, warped, deluded and enslaved by radical, manifestly literally and patently demonic evil than was the late, unlamented Third Reich of Hitler and co. We are collectively Nazis on steroids now, enmeshed in lies, perversities, crookedness and mass blood guilt on an unprecedented, global scale. Guilty, guilty, guilty are we. Our whole civilisation therefore needs exorcism, starting with a truth and reconciliation commission at which the truth will be exposed; beginning the process by breaking free from a web of lies. And we know whose native language is the lie, as he is father of lies. Be reminded of the Dominical warning, that because One spoke truth, some — caught up in crooked yardsticks — were unable to hear it and set out to do the bidding of the father of lies. KF

    PS: The White Rose martyrs speak, in words paid for in their blood, shed through judicial murder at the hands of kangaroo courts:

    WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!

    WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler’s mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.

    After this, I simply note: please open your eyes to see and acknowledge the manifest reality of radical, perverse, utterly demonic evil haunting our civilisation and indeed the whole world.

  10. 10
    Ed George says:

    KF

    After this, I simply note: please open your eyes to see and acknowledge the manifest reality of radical, perverse, utterly demonic evil haunting our civilisation and indeed the whole world.

    Who determines what is radically perverse? Is masturbation radically perverse? I would argue that it is a reasonable response to unattainable sexual desire. Is homosexuality radically perverse? I would argue that it is simply two people showing love for each other. Is premarital sex radically perverse? I would argue that it is an important means of two people determining compatibility.

    You see any sex act other than for reproductive purpose between a married couple as a radically perverse act. I argue that anyone who believes this is missing out on some of the best parts of a full life. Sex is fun. There is nothing radically perverse about two consenting adults, regardless of marital status, getting down and dirty. Bumping uglies. Knocking ankles. Hiding the sausage. Oral sex. Anal sex. Whatever.

    However, I agree that when someone has taken marriage vows, they are promising that they will be faithful to the other person. Breaking this vow is wrong. I have been married for 38 years and my wife and I still do the horizontal bop two to three times per week for no other reason than the pleasures of the flesh. If you choose to forsake this pure pleasure for puritanical reasons, I feel sorry for your wife.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Is masturbation radically perverse?

    It could be.

    Is homosexuality radically perverse?

    It goes against nature.

    And please stop telling other people what they think. That is a sure sign of the desperation of a little-minded troll. But then again, we already knew.

  12. 12
    Truthfreedom says:

    @10 Ed George
    So you are a totalitarian darwinist. You are insulting Kairosfocus because his brain chemistry is different than yours. He did not choose his brain. How do you dare to suggest certain chemistries are better than others?

    You discriminate against chemical diversity. You should feel ashamed.

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    ET, 11: It goes against nature.

    Are you sure? You do know that homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species.

  14. 14
    Truthfreedom says:

    @13 JVL

    Are you sure? You do know that homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species.

    And infanticidal behavior. And cannibalistic behavior. And many other behaviors.
    According to naturalism, everything is ‘natural’. Of course, because only ‘nature’ exists. ‘Morals’ are also ‘natural’ and subjective.

  15. 15
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 14: And infanticidal behavior. And cannibalistic behavior. And many other behaviors.
    According to naturalism, everything is ‘natural’. Of course, because only ‘nature’ exists. ‘Morals’ are also ‘natural’ and subjective.

    I’m not condoning or approving any behaviour; I’m just asking if homosexuality in particular can be said to ‘go against nature’.

    Human beings can and usually do ‘rise’ above nature. While I frequently despair of somethings some humans do I am also amazed and pleased at some of the incredible accomplishment the human race has achieved which have nothing to do with eating, reproducing, etc.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    EG,

    yet again, the pattern emerges, not only the now clearly habitual obsessions but the implication of nihilistic will to power that looms behind legal positivism: “who determines . . .”?

    In the first instance as repeatedly pointed out but studiously side stepped, it is a what not a who. That what is the rationally identifiable, inherently reasonable law of our morally governed nature. For instance, even your arguments cannot escape the expectation that we intuitively know and acknowledge that we are bound by built-in duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, respect for neighbour of like rational & responsible significantly free nature, fairness & justice, etc. So, there is an inescapable law of our nature that even governs our arguing, thinking, reasoning. A law that then extends to sound community and finds expression in civil law and government that act to uphold and protect the civil peace of justice. Where, justice can be seen as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities.

    Exactly those things which, when laid out in your presence you have consistently dodged using rhetorical techniques reminiscent of Wilson’s Arte of Rhetorique and its evil counsel to side step what it is not convenient to address. Here, the core principle of law.

    Which principle then sets proper limits on civil law; those with primary or derivative law-making or regulatory or precedent setting powers in community are themselves subject to the built-in law. Accordingly, they are under the said duties and are duty bound to take care that rights, freedoms and responsibilities are in due balance. As a result, if they err significantly or they set out to impose a dubious agenda contrary to that built in rationally discernible law or they become crooked and corrupt or resort to making a false crooked yardstick the standard of straightness, uprightness and accuracy, there is an accountability before the common, built in law which is antecedent to either the Common Law or Constitutions or Parliaments or Courts or grand treaties or the historic corpus of Roman Law and its derivatives etc. (By pointing to the two traditions, I am highlighting the two main streams of civil law as yardstick examples.)

    Accordingly, the built in law implies a right of responsible, reasonable remonstrance, petition and reform. Where, stubborn resistance to remonstrance and reform opens up the issue of interposition and if necessary revolution as the frame for the US DoI of 1776 exemplifies. Where, bought with blood, we have the peaceful general election as a proxy for the judgement of the general public as to what is thought the best reform. However, the public can go wrong if it fails to do diligence by the identified, built in first duties. Hence, we are back to that built in law of our morally governed nature.

    Further to such built in WHAT, there is indeed a who. For, we are contingent creatures in a contingent world, morally governed and enlightened by sound conscience that illuminates sound, responsible reasoning that uses our freedom to think, warrant, acknowledge and rightly decide. So, we see a bill of requisites for the root of reality.

    That root must be capable of being source and sustainer of a fine tuned world in which cell based creatures have DNA code and algorithms in their cells; manifestations of language, purpose and design antecedent to life. Further, some creatures are morally governed, requiring that that root also be inherently good and utterly wise. Which further implies that soundness, goodness, power and wisdom cannot be severed from the inherent nature of that Root, recognisable as the God of ethical theism. And yes, IS-OUGHT is bridged through that unity, and the Euthyphro dilemma, so called is also answered by that unity.

    Where, we recall your dismissive language regarding God: fabricate and delusion.

    No, God as pivotal root of reality is not an arbitrary fabrication or tool of manipulation. He answers to the challenge of reality root. Namely, that the root of existence is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and of our responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature.

    Many implications flow therefrom.

    And so, moral government is not arbitrary but reasonable, responsible and intelligible to those who seek the sound.

    KF

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, there is a manifest, built in purpose for our two complementary sexes. Disorders, perversions and the like are possible but to the sound eye the purpose is manifest; in a context where we are responsibly, rationally free, morally governed creatures, even in our reasoning. KF

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Notice, dear reader, how that central evil of our time subtly distorts even our understanding of reason. Namely, how we have warped our civilisation to sustain the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb. Once we soundly face this, all else will be cleared. Abortion on demand has become the crooked yardstick corrupting government, law, justice, institutions, media, education, professions and more, leading to a march of ruinous folly.

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    KF

    I was merely wondering if the use of the expression “against nature” could be use regarding same-sex behaviour since it’s quite common in many different animal species. You and I pretty clearly disagree wether or not it’s appropriate behaviour for humans but I think that’s a moral/ethical/value judgement. And I really don’t feel the need to argue about our differing views; we’re not going to agree and that’s fine.

    And let me reiterate: Humans frequently (mostly?) behave in ways NOT dictated by “nature” and I am very, very grateful for that.

  20. 20
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ JVL

    While I frequently despair of somethings some humans do I am also amazed and pleased at some of the incredible accomplishment the human race has achieved which have nothing to do with eating, reproducing, etc.

    The sad truth is, that according to darwinism, in the end, everything has to do with eating/ mating/ temporarily surviving longer than your peers.
    Though we may think we are acting in a good manner, darwinism has ‘discovered’ it is just another evolutive ‘trick’.

    You donating your organs to a stranger has some ‘evolutive explanation’ related to survival/ mating/ selfish gene propagation/ spandrel result…etc though you are not aware.

    You are not even in control of your brain according to this repulsive doctrine. When you say ‘good’, evolution whispers ‘cheated’.

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, what is the nature of the manifest biological complementarity of the two sexes? How is this connected to individual identity and to stability of a community given requisites of sound child nurture? KF

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, let me add, what does morally governed nature suggest to you? Responsible, rational freedom? First duties, to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and justice? First principles of right reason, and particularly the principle of distinct identity with its close corollaries? KF

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Yes, JVL, anyone who has taken biology and anatomy understands that homosexuality goes against nature. So I understand why you wouldn’t know that.

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 20

    Certainly some people do have the views you express. For me, “Darwinism” isn’t a doctrine or a directive; it’s just a statement of how things happened. I believe in listening to, relating to and supporting other people in the best ways I can.

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    “For me, “Darwinism” isn’t a doctrine or a directive; it’s just a statement of how things happened.”

    JVL,

    If you think Darwinism is a statement sufficient to describe “how things happened”, you have made a couple of major errors.

    1. “how things happened” is way too general to be meaningful. What f’n things?

    2. Anyone who is paying attention has observed that Darwin missed on a lot of things, due to new information coming to light and him just being wrong. Why someone would put him on any kind of pedestal just indicates they’ve been duped.

    Andrew

  26. 26
    JVL says:

    KF, 21: what is the nature of the manifest biological complementarity of the two sexes?

    I’m all in favour of reproduction! But, again, same-sex interactions seem to be fairly common among animals so maybe a certain amount of that is “natural”?

    How is this connected to individual identity and to stability of a community given requisites of sound child nurture?

    I would hate to see society shun folks like Alan Turing so there must be some middle ground where people are not discriminated against because they have a different world view and practices.

    22: let me add, what does morally governed nature suggest to you? Responsible, rational freedom? First duties, to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and justice? First principles of right reason, and particularly the principle of distinct identity with its close corollaries?

    Sure, I think we can all agree/support most if not all of those ideals. But I think we can do that and still be supportive and loving of people whose personal lives and practices we don’t share.

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    ET, 23: Yes, JVL, anyone who has taken biology and anatomy understands that homosexuality goes against nature. So I understand why you wouldn’t know that.

    Like I said, same-sex interactions are fairly common in nature so maybe a certain amount of that is “natural”.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Like I said, same-sex interactions are fairly common in nature so maybe a certain amount of that is “natural”.

    That doesn’t follow. It just shows how unguided evolutionary processes messed up a good design.

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    Asauber, 25: 1. “how things happened” is way too general to be meaningful. What f’n things?

    How life developed into the various forms we see today.

    Anyone who is paying attention has observed that Darwin missed on a lot of things, due to new information coming to light and him just being wrong. Why someone would put him on any kind of pedestal just indicates they’ve been duped.

    Good thing I don’t put him on a pedestal then!! Which is why I shun the term “Darwinism”; I think that gives the wrong connotation. He did get a lot right and he got some things wrong, sometimes because he was lacking information we now have. Anyway, he was the first to elucidate unguided universal common descent via inherited modifications fairly fully and that was a significant milestone. He should be honoured as a great scientist but NOT a philosopher or ethicist.

  30. 30
    asauber says:

    “How life developed into the various forms we see today.”

    JVL,

    Still way too general. See, what you have bought into and that you have repeated twice now is a genral worldview and perhaps you don’t realize it. If you are serious about finding the truth about this subject matter you have to get past the generalizations that you seem to be stuck on, and discover stuff without your erroneous filter. UD is a great site to help with that, BTW.

    Andrew

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Darwinian evolution cannot account for the diversity of life starting from populations of prokaryotes.

    What did Darwin get right?

  32. 32
    Truthfreedom says:

    @29 JVL

    Anyway, he was the first to elucidate unguided universal common descent

    ‘Unguided’ according to whom and in respect to what?

  33. 33
    JVL says:

    Asuaber, 30: Still way too general. See, what you have bought into and that you have repeated twice now is a genral worldview and perhaps you don’t realize it. If you are serious about finding the truth about this subject matter you have to get past the generalizations that you seem to be stuck on, and discover stuff without your erroneous filter. UD is a great site to help with that, BTW.

    I was partly being vague on purpose because I doubt anything I said would be unusual or different from what most participants here have heard before. And I’m not at UD to tell you what I think.

    I am interested in how ID supporters see the situation; otherwise, why would I be here?

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    ET, 31: Darwinian evolution cannot account for the diversity of life starting from populations of prokaryotes. What did Darwin get right?

    I think he got the general outline correct: that the biodiversity we see came via unguided process acting on heritable variations in phenotypes. I think he was right about what would shoot his ideas down. I think he tried very hard to come up with examples that would support his ideas.

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    32, Truthfreedom: ‘Unguided’ according to whom and in respect to what?

    Unguided in that no intelligence behind the process. According to . . . well, initially, Darwin himself.

  36. 36
    asauber says:

    “I think he got the general outline correct”

    See JVL? You are deeply stuck in the rut.

    Andrew

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you know you are evading the point. The sexes are complementary, that is manifest, and this leads to reproduction. behaviour of animals is not morally governed as they are not rational, responsible, significantly free, morally governed agents. We are. You are in obvious denial of a law thatis literally written into our chromosomes. KF

  38. 38
    Truthfreedom says:

    @35 JVL

    Unguided in that no intelligence behind the process. According to . . . well, initially, Darwin himself.

    And how did Darwin ‘knew’ there was ‘no intelligence’ behind the process?
    What if there is an intelligence he was not able to understand?

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this claim:

    he was the first to elucidate unguided universal common descent via inherited modifications fairly fully and that was a significant milestone.

    Really???

    Evolution; Not As Recent a Theory As You May Think!
    The Pagan Roots of Evolution: Be Prepared For Surprises!
    Excerpt: it is frequently not realised that the central tenets of Darwinism stretch back to the ancient Hindu world. Many – steeped in the reverence of Charles Darwin – will be astonished at the true antiquity of the main points of evolutionary theory,,,,
    ‘Natural Selection’ has been detected in Pythagoras and, as is well known, Plato built upon Pythagoras:
    “These are the principles on which living creatures change and have changed into one another, the transformation depending on the loss or gain of understanding or folly.” (Plato, Timaeus 49: 80-108).
    This is Brahmin evolutionary thought – now occurring among the Greeks, and many hundreds of years before Darwin!
    So Aristotle (384-322BC) already held a form of evolutionary theory.
    Anaximander (610-540BC) believed that people had evolved from fish! (Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, 1:6;1-7)
    Empedocles (490-430BC), stated, “The greater part of the members of animals came but by chance.”
    We now move much further toward our own day. Voltaire, in his ‘Dictionary of Philosophy’, 1764, 1st edition, wrote,
    “When I first read Plato and came upon the gradation of beings which rises from the lightest atom to the supreme being, I was struck with admiration.”
    Voltaire was, of course a major leader in the enlightenment’s persistent undermining of Christianity.
    Around the same time, James Burnet (Lord Monbaddo) was active. He was later called the ‘Scottish Father of Evolution’ and he lived 1714-1799. All the essentials of Darwinism were already present in Burnet. He believed that humans had developed from orang utans, and that they were a link between men and monkeys. Again, this was over 60 years before Darwin’s 1859 book, Origin of Species. Burnet wrote,
    “There are, I know, many who will think this progress of man, from a quadruped and an orang utan to men such as we now see them, very disgraceful to the species. but they should consider their own progress as an individual in the womb, man is no better than a vegetable…” (Burnet, Metaphysics, Vol. IV, p32, 1795).
    Let us be sensible about this: Darwin drew on many such sources! He was not the scientific genius who first stumbled upon evolution in any sort of “Eureka!” moment. So many Darwin admirers think that it all came to him like a flash of lightning when he visited the Galapagos Islands, but that is just not the way it was.
    Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) already had pretty much developed a full theory of evolution. Here was Charles’ main and most assessible influence, but there were many other helpful sources as we have seen. Erasmus had written a book, Zoonomia in 1794 – it’s all there, but the difference was that Erasmus gave credit to God; he was probably the first supporter of theistic evolution. Of course, Alfred William Wallace also developed his own study of origins just shortly before Charles Darwin, again, it was just about the same thing. Wallace, by the way, also seems to have been a spiritualist medium.
    http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/1holden.htm

    As to this claim,

    He (Darwin) should be honoured as a great scientist but NOT a philosopher or ethicist.

    Balderdash! Darwin was trained in theology and his book “Origin of Species” contained no mathematics, (in fact he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’), nor did his book contain any laboratory experiments, but his book was, in large measure, a theological argument for evolution that was based on bad theological presuppositions (see Stephen Dilley and Paul Nelson).

    Even Darwin himself confessed that , “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” and “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.”

    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/

    i.e. Inductive reasoning is the backbone of experimental science,

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

    Thus since, inductive reasoning is the backbone of experimental science, and since, according to Darwin himself, his theory is “in large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Then it necessarily follows that Darwin was certainly NOT “a great scientist”. In fact, truth be told, far from ever being a ‘great scientist’, he was a mediocre theologian who made astonishingly bad theological arguments against God. Juvenile theological arguments against God that should be ranked alongside the arguments made in college dorm rooms after drinking a few beers!

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    To this day, since they have no empirical evidence to support their claims, Darwinists are still heavily dependent on bad theological argumentation in order to try to make their case for evolution”

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    Asuaber: 36: See JVL? You are deeply stuck in the rut.

    I don’t think I should take up loads of space on this forum spelling out lots and lots of details that anyone can find online or in many decent books. I’m sure you are very familiar with it all!! In my experience most ID proponents are quite well versed in what is in evolutionary textbooks.

    Also, I am conscious that this thread is starting to wander from the original post. I don’t mind but some might.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    KF, 37: you know you are evading the point. The sexes are complementary, that is manifest, and this leads to reproduction. behaviour of animals is not morally governed as they are not rational, responsible, significantly free, morally governed agents. We are. You are in obvious denial of a law thatis literally written into our chromosomes

    I agree, we are morally governed agents. Well, most of us humans anyway. There are some that are just broken. And, for me, part of my moral stance is being supportive and kind to other people regardless of race, creed or sexual behaviour.

  42. 42
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 38: And how did Darwin ‘knew’ there was ‘no intelligence’ behind the process?
    What if there is an intelligence he was not able to understand?

    I don’t know how he came to his views precisely. I suspect he saw the incredible amount of suffering and death and waste inherent in the unguided evolutionary process and thought: who would have dictated this? But that’s just a guess.

    I am trying to keep an open mind; one always has to consider new data and evidence after all.

  43. 43
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I think he got the general outline correct:

    And I know that he didn’t.

    that the biodiversity we see came via unguided process acting on heritable variations in phenotypes.

    There isn’t any way to test that claim.

    I think he was right about what would shoot his ideas down.

    He should have been focusing on a methodology to test his ideas. That is what science mandates.

    To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem.

    No one uses universal common descent via unguided processes for anything. It hasn’t helped advance anything beyond atheism.

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    BA77, 39: Really???

    Well, you know more about the history of scientific thought than I do! I guess like mathematics, nothing arises without precursors and ancestors.

    Balderdash! Darwin was trained in theology and his book “Origin of Species” contained no mathematics, (in fact he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’), nor did his book contain any laboratory experiments, but his book was, in large measure, a theological argument for evolution that was based on bad theological presuppositions (see Stephen Dilley and Paul Nelson). Even Darwin himself confessed that , “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” and “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.”

    Hmmm . . . I think that historical sciences do have to, sometimes, draw conclusions in ways different from lab or experimental sciences. And, I would say, that Darwin’s theological training would have slowed down his coming to the conclusion that there was no intelligence behind the scenes. I think that’s part of the reason it took him so long to publish; first he had to convince himself and then he had to try and make his ideas palatable to others. And he probably would have waited even longer to publish if it weren’t for Wallace’s letter.

    Anyway, after half-a-century almost all biologists agreed with him, in general, so his ideas must have some merit.

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    ET, 43: And I know that he didn’t.

    Okay!

    There isn’t any way to test that claim.

    You can look for things that would contradict that thesis, as Darwin himself mentioned. Which is why Dr Behe has been developing the idea of some biological structures being irreducibly complex.

    To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem.

    I have to disagree with you there; I think people are working on that. It’s just that it’s really complicated and you can only check very small steps and pieces at a time.

    No one uses universal common descent via unguided processes for anything. It hasn’t helped advance anything beyond atheism.

    There are some biologists who believe in modern evolutionary theory but are still theists. I can’t pretend to understand exactly how they mesh those two views together but I know such people exist. So it seems that evolutionary theory and theological beliefs can coincide.

  46. 46
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You can look for things that would contradict that thesis, as Darwin himself mentioned.

    That is NOT a way to test his claims.

    I have to disagree with you there; I think people are working on that.

    Disagree all you want. You cannot show there are people working on it.

    There are some biologists who believe in modern evolutionary theory but are still theists.

    So what? You cannot show that anyone uses universal common descent via unguided processes for anything. It hasn’t helped advance anything beyond atheism.

    If Darwin knew then what high school biology students know today, he would have never posited unguided evolution as a means to produce what we observe in biology.

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, just to argue you depend on our implicit recognition of duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness, justice. This is already inescapable, built in law of our morally governed nature. We therefore face the IS-OUGHT gap and the need to bridge it; only feasible at reality root. Moral government flows from the root of reality. One of the manifest truths just happens to be that we come in complementary sexes, require effectively life long stable reproductive pair bonds and supportive community to soundly raise up successive generations. Precisely what fashionable perversities and linked cultural marxist ideologies regarding sexual identity are seeking to wrench into a crooked yardstick. The implications of such a march of folly are fairly obvious, but that does not deter the agenda. Similar to how for a generation we have seen deliberate enabling of the worst holocaust in history, our living posterity in the womb. There is going to be a terrible reckoning with a lot to account for. Maybe, it is time to look at a plumb line and acknowledge that it is naturally straight and upright, thus corrective to fashionable agendas. KF

  48. 48
    JVL says:

    ET, 46: That is NOT a way to test his claims.

    Okay.

    Disagree all you want. You cannot show there are people working on it.

    A quick Google academic search seems to indicate there are. But I’ll drop it.

    So what? You cannot show that anyone uses universal common descent via unguided processes for anything. It hasn’t helped advance anything beyond atheism.

    It’s helped further our understanding of how things happened and why some things are the way they are. Pursuing knowledge is good in and of itself.

    If Darwin knew then what high school biology students know today, he would have never posited unguided evolution as a means to produce what we observe in biology.

    That’s possible but we’ll never know. His ideas are still widely accepted and considered a great landmark in biology.

  49. 49
    JVL says:

    KF, 47: Precisely what fashionable perversities and linked cultural marxist ideologies regarding sexual identity are seeking to wrench into a crooked yardstick.

    Just hang on a minute . . . “linked cultural marxist ideologies”? I tell you what, let’s just agree to disagree, okay? Our views are incredibly different on these matters and I don’t think mapping out the gulf between us would be that helpful. I’m happy to discuss the science though.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever JVL, you, like Darwin, have no empirical evidence to support your claims for Darwinian evolution, Therefore you, and all other modern day Darwinists, like Darwin, are not even in the realm of empirical science.

    i.e. You, like Darwin, are certainly NOT “a great scientist”.

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    BA77, 50: Whatever JVL, you, like Darwin, have no empirical evidence to support your claims for Darwinian evolution, Therefore you, and all other modern day Darwinists, like Darwin, are not even in the realm of empirical science. i.e. You, like Darwin, are certainly NOT “a great scientist”.

    I never claimed to be a scientist of any kind. We’re going to strongly disagree on the evidence and I’m happy to leave it since discussing it further would probably not get us anywhere.

    Can I ask you a question? It seems that there are different ideas of what Intelligent Design means in terms of when design has been implemented. I’m thinking of say someone who thinks all the design was front-loaded (a long time ago presumably) as opposed to someone who thinks there has been more frequent interventions. Do you have an opinion or preference about that? Or am I missing something important?

  52. 52
    ET says:

    JVL:

    A quick Google academic search seems to indicate there are.

    Then please reference one paper.

    It’s helped further our understanding of how things happened and why some things are the way they are.

    Except no one knows how things happened with respect to unguided evolution.

    His ideas are still widely accepted and considered a great landmark in biology.

    In what way? Natural selection, Darwin’s greatest idea, has been a total bust with respect to being a designer mimic.

  53. 53
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    JVL:
    That’s possible but we’ll never know. His ideas are still widely accepted and considered a great landmark in biology.Evolution researchers generate over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day. There’s no alternative hypotheses generating anything. The Young Earth people, in their magazine, generate about 10 “papers” per year, but that’s just embarrassing.

  54. 54
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Jim Thibodeau
    March 5, 2020 at 12:37 pm
    JVL:

    That’s possible but we’ll never know. His ideas are still widely accepted and considered a great landmark in biology.

    Evolution researchers generate over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day. There’s no alternative hypotheses generating anything. The Young Earth people, in their magazine, generate about 10 “papers” per year, but that’s just embarrassing.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    What is hugely embarrassing for Darwinists is that out of the “over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day”, not one of those papers/experiments from Darwinists has ever demonstrated the origin of a single gene and/or protein.

    Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

    Nor has any Darwinist ever demonstrated that it is possible to transform one protein of one function into a brand new protein of a new function by gradual step by step mutations.

    “Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
    Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
    Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91701.html

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: To the extent that Tawfik’s selection experiments were successful, it is because mutations were localized and contextualized. Mutation had a key but confined role. If evolution proceeded, the prevailing architecture of the active sites and protein shapes nonetheless remains intact. Changes were not to central structures, but to peripheral loops. A great deal of flexibility was discovered. Still, it is hard to see how any of this could build proteins—that is, in the sense of building their fundamental shapes, or scaffolds; and build proteins in terms of explaining the key catalytic strategies of each active site. Even in the impressive demonstration of a transition through nine orders of magnitude, in which a full exchange of a promiscuous activity for the primary activity was seen, the overall geometry of the protein was unchanged, and, although substrates had changed, the fundamental active site strategy stayed the same. ,,,
    “Modern neo-Darwinism and neutral evolutionary treatments,” remark Leonard Bogarad and Michael Deem, “fail to explain satisfactorily the generation of the diversity of life found on our planet.” It is not that they did not evolve, they say, but that “… most theoretical treatments of evolution consider only the limited point-mutation events that form the basis of these theories.” Their sober conclusion is that “point mutation alone is incapable of evolving systems with substantially new protein folds.”60,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    Much less has anyone ever demonstrated the origin of a brand new species from an existing species.

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.

    Besides such an embarrassing empirical shortcoming for “over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day”, what is even more embarrassing for Darwinists is that it is impossible for Darwinists not to use teleological, (i.e. purpose and goal oriented), language in those “over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day”.

    As J. B. S. Haldane once noted, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”

    “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
    J. B. S. Haldane

    Teleological, (i.e. purpose, goal directed), explanations of any sort are simply self defeating to any Darwinian explanation that seeks to explain biological life as being purely the result of completely blind and purposeless processes (as Darwinists are supposedly ‘purposely intent’ on doing). Yet teleological language is rampant within Darwinian explanations.

    In the following article, Stephen Talbott points out that it is impossible to describe the complexities of biological life without illegitimately using language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness (i.e. teleology). He even challenges readers to “take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1.”

    The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

    Denis Noble also notes that “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.

    “the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence.
    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
    – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.
    http://www.thebestschools.org/.....interview/

    This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”

    Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011
    Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.
    Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....nt-8858161

    Bottom line, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use, i.e. teleological design language, i.e. “God talk”, when they are doing their biological research and/or writing their papers, falsifies Darwinian evolution and validates Intelligent Design:

    Now THAT is certainly VERY embarrassing!

    Verse:

    Matthew 12:37
    For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

  56. 56
    Truthfreedom says:

    Ouch Jim Thibodeau!

  57. 57
    Ed George says:

    KF refers to some sexual behaviours as radical perversions. But all he is doing is expressing his opinion, which he is entitled to do. I am honest enough to admit that the idea of homosexuality makes me feel uncomfortable. But I am intelligent enough to know that the problem is mine, not theirs, and that I have no right to to infringe on their ability to seek happiness as they see fit as long as it does no harm to others.

    I am reminded of the story about a researcher who surveyed thousands of men about whether or not they masturbated. 95% responded that they masturbated on at least a monthly basis. The conclusion of the research paper was that 5% of men lie.

  58. 58
    asauber says:

    “Evolution researchers generate over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day”

    They should quit and get real jobs, then. Save some trees.

    Andrew

  59. 59
    JVL says:

    ET, 52: Then please reference one paper.

    Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14447

    Except no one knows how things happened with respect to unguided evolution.

    But we’re learning!

    In what way? Natural selection, Darwin’s greatest idea, has been a total bust with respect to being a designer mimic.

    I’m not sure most biologists would agree with you.

  60. 60
    JVL says:

    BA77, 55: Much less has anyone ever demonstrated the origin of a brand new species from an existing species.

    A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

    https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

    Bottom line, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use, i.e. teleological design language, i.e. “God talk”, when they are doing their biological research and/or writing their papers, falsifies Darwinian evolution and validates Intelligent Design:

    Their choice of words falsifies the idea?

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    “Their choice of words falsifies the idea?”

    Your very own words in you very own sentence falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    If they made a free will choice of which words to use in their papers then that necessarily falsifies the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution which explicitly denies the existence of free will choices.

    i.e. They had no “choice” whatsoever in what words they would write down. If your atheistic worldview is true, everyone is a deterministic ‘meat robot’.

    Insanity, thy name is Darwinian materialism!

    Michael Egnor Shows You’re Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQo6SWjwQIk

    As to Darwin’s finches, how quaint!

    From your paper,,,

    It’s two of these (finch) species that came together in what is called species hybridisation to create an entirely new one.

    I can’t decide if this deserves a double or triple face palm. Let’s go triple

    Triple face palm
    https://massivelyop.com/triple-facepalm/

    Anyways,

    Darwin’s finches not a good example of Darwinian evolution? – February 12, 2015
    Excerpt: The most extensive genetic study ever conducted of Darwin’s finches, from the Galapagos Islands, has revealed a messy family tree with a surprising level of interbreeding between species.
    It also suggests that changes in one particular gene triggered the wide variation seen in their beak shapes …
    The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of “gene flow” between the branches of the family.
    This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands.…
    “It’s been observed that the species of Darwin’s finches sometimes hybridise – Peter and Rosemary Grant have seen that during their fieldwork,” Prof Andersson told the BBC.
    “But it’s difficult to say what the long-term evolutionary significance of that is. What does it contribute?”
    What it contributes is that one would be hard pressed to show that there is any evolution going on, in the face of this much hybridization.,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Darwin’s Finches: Answers From Epigenetics by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. – August 29. 2014
    Excerpt: Just one year prior to this 2014 study,1 the epigenetic basis of speciation was demonstrated in birds in which the progressive geographical spread and ecological patterns of adaptation for a newly introduced songbird species were characterized by differences in DNA methylation patterns, not variation in the actual DNA sequence.2 In contrast, traditional Darwinian evolution alleges that random changes in the DNA itself generate new and useful variants that are then selected by the environment. In reality, researchers are now discovering that organisms can robustly adapt to different ecological niches without major changes in their DNA sequence.,,,
    What underlies this variation in finch beaks? In studies attempting to determine the molecular basis for beak variability in finches, researchers have found that very similar developmental genetic pathways among species can produce markedly different beak shapes.5 So if the genes are essentially the same, then what seems to be the major source of variation? In this current effort, the researchers studied two different factors in the genome. The first were short sections of non-coding DNA sequence that varied in the number of copies—repeated units—called copy number variants or CNVs. In humans, differences in CNVs form the basis for studying forensics and paternity testing. The second factor studied was epigenetically-based, using an analysis of DNA methylation patterns around the genome.
    From these analyses, the researchers found that epigenetics correlated well with increased diversity among species while CNVs, based on actual DNA sequences, did not. In addition, they also undertook a more focused study of the epigenetic profiles of specific genes involved in the morphogenesis of beak shape, immune-system responses, and coloring of the birds. Once again, the epigenetic profiles of the different bird species for all of these gene groups were different while the DNA sequences were nearly identical.
    In addition, the amazing cellular machinery that reads, regulates, replicates, and modifies epigenetic states in the genome is so incredibly sophisticated and complex that it can only be attributed to the work of an Omnipotent Creator.
    http://www.icr.org/article/8338/

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Jim Thibodeau:

    Evolution researchers generate over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day.

    Your equivocation is duly noted. Must be nice to be ignorant of what ID is and what is being debated.

  63. 63
    ET says:

    JVL-You need to do more than a title search. No one is in a lab seeing if prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. Finding intelligently designed intermediates don’t help. And what we are learning says that unguided evolution is nonsense. Biologists may disagree with me but they cannot refute what I said.

    Natural selection, Darwin’s greatest idea, has been a total bust with respect to being a designer mimic. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise

  64. 64
    ET says:

    To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem.

  65. 65
    Truthfreedom says:

    @42 JVL

    I don’t know how he came to his views precisely. I suspect he saw the incredible amount of suffering and death and waste inherent in the unguided evolutionary process and thought: who would have dictated this? But that’s just a guess.

    This is philosophy. In other post you wrote that darwin was no philosopher.

    – And why if the perception of ‘suffering’ is just another evolutive ‘trick’? As ‘morals’ or ‘love’ or ‘reality’ or… everything under the darwinian/evolutive paradigm?
    Ironically, darwinism refutes itself.

  66. 66
    Truthfreedom says:

    *What if*, not *why if* @ my post 67.

  67. 67
    Truthfreedom says:

    Post 65. Argh! Monkey brain!

  68. 68
    Truthfreedom says:

    How militant atheists stole your sense of meaning to enhance theirs.

    “More Than Allegory is my attempt to restore balance to the cultural debate by denying atheo-materialism its illegitimate claim to rational high-ground. Religion doesn’t contradict linear logic, it simply transcends it. Religion doesn’t contradict empirical evidence, it just looks at dimensions of experience that atheo-materialism arbitrarily ignores. Religion isn’t composed through linear steps of reasoning, but intuitively sensed in the obfuscated trans-personal depths of the human psyche, which are anchored in primordial truths. Religion isn’t wish-fulfillment, but intuitive realization. And it is atheo-materialism that constitutes an engineered attempt to safeguard one’s sense of meaning, not religion. Religion had already sprung spontaneously from the depths of the human psyche since much before the perceived threats to meaning that motivated our first wish-fulfillment maneuvers”.

    “Let us restore the legitimacy of the human religious impulse. It deserves no less. And so do we”.

    https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/02/atheism-historys-greatest-theft.html?m=1

  69. 69
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL & EG, fashionable agendas don’t re-write what is in our chromosomes. And BTW, yes, Frankfurt School-derived cultural marxism has for decades set out on an agenda of upending our civilisation through creating Marxist thesis antithesis narratives on any number of issues; the many forms of “critical theory” manifest this pattern. The enabling of holocaust of our living posterity in the womb is a capital — and pivotal — example as is the attempt to pretend that our chromosomes do not establish two complementary sexes with linked need for long term child nurture in stable families that pivot on the male-female bond; and no, playing if you dare disagree with our narrative you are only giving an opinion is not ever going to change the basic facts of maleness and femaleness; but then, once a crooked yardstick is set up as power-backed standard of straight, accurate and upright, what is genuinely or even naturally so will never correspond with the false standard of crookedness.. As a result, over the past generation, we have deeply corrupted our civilisation through unprecedented mass blood guilt, which is going to come back to haunt us; not least through the inherent radical relativism and might/ manipulation make ‘right’ nihilism of an ancient philosophy now dressed up in the lab coat, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. Plato was right 2360 years ago in The Laws, Bk X. As a clue, notice that a proper understanding of truth is that it accurately describes reality, so warped notions will ultimately fail because they are out of alignment with reality. KF

    PS: Plato’s warning, which we would do well to heed (but likely won’t until things go over the cliff, as happened to Athens through the Peloponnesian war):

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

  70. 70
    JVL says:

    BA77, 61: I can’t decide if this deserves a double or triple face palm. Let’s go triple

    You asked for an example of a new species arising from an old one. I easily found a paper referencing such a thing.

  71. 71
    JVL says:

    ET, 63: You need to do more than a title search. No one is in a lab seeing if prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. Finding intelligently designed intermediates don’t help. And what we are learning says that unguided evolution is nonsense. Biologists may disagree with me but they cannot refute what I said.

    You claimed no one was working on the problem and clearly they are. You may choose to examine the issue in a different way but it is a topic of ongoing research.

    To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem.

    Okay.

  72. 72
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 65: This is philosophy. In other post you wrote that darwin was no philosopher. – And why if the perception of ‘suffering’ is just another evolutive ‘trick’? As ‘morals’ or ‘love’ or ‘reality’ or… everything under the darwinian/evolutive paradigm? Ironically, darwinism refutes itself.

    I just guessed; as I stated I don’t know his motivations or perceptions. I don’t need to consider his reasons or motivations if the science stands up independently.

  73. 73
    JVL says:

    KF:

    From https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780199315468/student/ch5/wed/plato/

    At one time Plato wrote that the best relationship would be an erotically charged relationship between men, though he believed the highest relationship would not involve actual sexual contact. It is from this ideal that we get the term platonic relationship. However today a platonic relationship refers to a completely non-sexual relationship. Despite Plato’s assertion that an erotically charged but sexually unconsummated relationship was best, he does have Socrates say in the Phaedrus, that pairs of lovers, eromenoi (lover) and erastoi (beloved) could reach heaven even if they did take part in “that desire of their hearts which to many is bliss” (Crompton, 2003, p. 60-61). Crompton (2011) stated that in general “Plato’s dialogues are suffused with a homoerotic ambience”

    Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous [made up of a man and a woman] are lovers of women, adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments: the female companions [that is, lesbians] are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them [the Greek verb implies a sexual sense], and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. [bracketed material in Crompton] (Crompton, 2003, p. 58).

    This passage is an unusual celebration of male same-sex desire by contemporary Western standards. Plato is explicitly linking manliness not with heterosexual desire but with homosexual desire.

  74. 74
    Truthfreedom says:

    @72 JVL

    I just guessed; as I stated I don’t know his motivations or perceptions. I don’t need to consider his reasons or motivations if the science stands up independently.

    Okay.
    ‘Un-guided’ is a philosophical add-on. It can not be scientifically proven. No scientific ‘knows’ if there is a designer or not.
    Can you please point to any ‘science experiments’ being carried out to ‘prove if there is a designer in nature’?
    Bad theology/ personal biases do not count.

  75. 75
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 74: Can you please point to any ‘science experiments’ being carried out to ‘prove if there is a designer in nature’?

    Not that I am aware of. But I can’t speak for all ID supporters.

  76. 76
    Truthfreedom says:

    @75 JVL
    Then darwin was wrong when he illegitimately inferred ‘un-guided’, trying to pass it as ‘science’.
    Same goes for atheist/materialists parroting: ‘science has demonstrated un-guided evolution’.
    No, it has not.

  77. 77
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 76: Then darwin was wrong when he illegitimately inferred ‘un-guided’, trying to pass it as ‘science’. Same goes for atheist/materialists parroting: ‘science has demonstrated un-guided evolution’. No, it has not.

    Okay. But it doesn’t mean it was designed then either.

  78. 78
    Truthfreedom says:

    Inferring ‘randomness’:

    “Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters. Dice, for example, do not have randomly determined numbers of sides. They are designed. If a die has six sides, it is designed and intended to have six sides; if it has four sides, then likewise, this is the product of intentional design”.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!searchin/metaphysical-speculations/Evolution$20/metaphysical-speculations/HYxtwN7jKA8

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL claims that,

    You asked for an example of a new species arising from an old one. I easily found a paper referencing such a thing.

    Perhaps, to save himself from embarrassing himself, JVL should have read past the attention grabbing headline of his ‘easily found’ example? In what should be needless to say, two ‘species’ of finches interbreeding is NOT proof for a brand new species arising from an old one.

    What the article is actually undeniable proof of is NOT the “origin of a brand new species but that JVL, nor the author of JVL’s referenced article, nor the researcher of the paper on which the article was based, have a realistic clue of what the term ‘species’ actually means.

    That Darwinists have no realistic clue what the term species actually means is not surprising since the term ‘species’ itself is a immaterial categorization and/or definition that arises from the immaterial mind. That is to say, the definition of species itself cannot reduced to any possible reductive materialistic explanation of Darwinian evolution.

    i.e. How much does the concept of species weigh? Does the concept ‘species’ weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long in the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?..

    That is to say, if something is not composed of particles, or does not have physical properties (e.g., length, mass, energy, momentum, orientation, position, etc), it is, of necessity, a immaterial categorization and/or definition of the immaterial mind. The concept of species simply has no physical properties that we can measure, and therefore the concept of species itself is forever beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations.

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Last year a Darwinist admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”

    What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019
    Excerpt: Enough of species?
    This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete.
    The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,,
    some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,,
    https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

    In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”

    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    – Charles Darwin

    As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place!

    The Species Problem, Why Again? – Igor Ya. Pavlinov – February 6th 2013
    Excerpt: Discussants, even belonging to opposite research schools, can quite agree with each other in recognition of fundamental status of the above “Boethian question”, whatever its particular answer might be. For instance, both “methodist” Linnaeus and “naturalist” Buffon (in his later years) believed in objective (real) status of the species as a universal and fundamental “unit of the Nature”. On the other hand, evolutionist Darwin, rejecting alongside with logician J. Bentham distinctiveness of the species as a fundamental taxonomic and eventually natural category, called however his famous book just “The Origin of Species…”, and not of races or of something like that.
    https://www.intechopen.com/books/the-species-problem-ongoing-issues/the-species-problem-why-again-

    Whereas Darwinists cannot even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition of what a species actually is, on the other hand, normal people in general, and Christians in particular, have no problem whatsoever recognizing what a species actually is:

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    Thus since Darwinists have no hope, within their reductive materialistic framework, of ever providing a proper definition of what a species actually is, then, to repeat, it necessarily follows that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be the proper scientific explanation that purportedly explains the “Origin of Species” in the first place.

    Besides the term “species”, there are many other immaterial categorizations and/or definitions that arise from the immaterial mind. Many immaterial categorizations that are necessary for us to even practice science in the first place.

    Mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into that category of being an immaterial categorization of the immaterial mind.

    It is amazing how many things fall into that immaterial’ category even though most everyone, including atheists, (“atheists” also happens to be an immaterial definition itself), swear that they exist physically.

    The primary ‘immaterial’ thing that completely invalidates the Darwinist’s claim that Darwinian evolution qualifies as a hard science, (a hard science that is supposedly as ‘well established as gravity’), is the fact that mathematics, and logic, themselves, (which are the very backbone of all science, technology and engineering), are immaterial in their foundational nature and therefore mathematics, and logic, themselves cannot possibly find grounding within the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution.

    And as M. Anthony Mills explains, “In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Mathematics and logic themselves, (which are, again, the very backbone of all science, technology and engineering), simply cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations.

    As Dr. Egnor explains, “What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem?,,, What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions?,,, What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? ”

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,
    Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.
    The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

    Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent, i.e. beyond space and time, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the objective reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even qualify as a hard science in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.

    Furthermore, the theistic implications of all this are fairly obvious. As Berlinski noted, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    Moreover, the fact humans can think about this timeless and immaterial realm of Platonic mathematical objects is proof in and of itself that humans cannot possibly be purely material beings, as is held within Darwinian thought, but that humans must possess a timeless and immaterial component to their being. In other, our ability to ‘do mathematics’, in of itself, is compelling proof Humans must possess a ‘soul’.

    As Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary, himself noted “Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”

    “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
    Alfred Russel Wallace – Co-Discoverer of Natural Selection

    Thus in conclusion, if JVL were ever honest enough to trace out the exact error of his ways in his false claim that he had proof for ‘a new species arising from an old one’. (his exact error being that ‘species’ is an immaterial concept in and of itself), then JVL would be led inexorably to the necessity of his own immaterial mind in order to properly define what a species is in the first place.

    But alas, JVL, since he is a dogmatic Darwinist, is forever stuck, (for whatever severely misguided reason), in the insanity of his chosen worldview of Darwinian materialism.

    After years of dealing with dogmatic Darwinists, I have little hope left that he will recover from his insane Darwinian worldview.

    Zechariah 7:11
    But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder; they stopped up their ears from hearing.

  80. 80
    asauber says:

    So JVL is just another Evolutionist here to promote his worldview, not here to have a serious conversation about evolution.

    Just like every other Evolutionist we know.

    Sigh.

    Andrew

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, I am fully aware of the serious moral challenges the classical philosophers etc had; e.g. in discussing love in The Republic it was all about taste — and it was all about favoured looks — in BOYS . . . and Zeus the chief god was a pedophile, as the story of Ganymede will plainly show; do you wish to take such sad facts as implying that pedophilia is or should be acceptable? That error does not imply that the very hard historical lessons taught by the Athenian collapse through the Peloponnesian war are irrelevant. KF

  82. 82
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You claimed no one was working on the problem and clearly they are.

    That isn’t what I claimed and that paper didn’t even address what I said. You lose.

    You may choose to examine the issue in a different way but it is a topic of ongoing research.

    What is a topic of ongoing research?

  83. 83
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Lesson 2 from Plato, through his Ship of State parable:

    It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.)

    Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:

    >>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.

    Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it]

    The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27].

    Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.

    Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

    [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus.

    [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ –> here we see Plato’s philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already.

    [Ad.] Certainly.

    [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.

    [Ad.] I will.

    [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [–> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ –> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.

    [Ad.] Precisely so, he said.

    [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [–> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [–> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].

    [Ad.] Yes.

    [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?

    [Ad.] True.

    [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [–> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?

    [Ad.] By all means.

    [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ — > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ –> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [–> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>

    (There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)

    Lessons of history . . .

  84. 84
    ET says:

    Earth to JVL- a finch evolving into a finch is NOT an example of producing a brand new species. It’s just more of the same.

  85. 85
    kairosfocus says:

    AS,

    here is my challenge in the current Economist thread:

    the ad hom dismissal of hoi polloi with implicit appeal to the collective authority of the evolutionary materialist, scientism magisterium. Evolutionary materialism, demonstrably, is self referentially incoherent and self-falsifying; start with, if intellectual processes are wholly driven and controlled by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, turning us into jumped up pond goo with too many neurons for our own god, the credibility of our ‘thinking,” “reasoning” and “conclusions” is fatally undermined, as Darwin admitted and as Crick admitted. This of course, includes those intellectual processes that have led to evolutionary materialistic scientism. However, we can focus on a core that mere Economists and Auto mechanics can see for themselves regarding the design inference. Something that is now routinely taught in grade school and high school science: DNA. DNA has in it string data structures holding alphanumeric codes with algorithms for protein assembly. Codes, so language and goal-directed, purposeful process at the core of and antecedent to existence of C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. All of this in a cosmos with its physics at a fine tuned operating point for such life. Even Economists and Auto Mechanics can figure out, for good reason, why language, goal-directed processes and a fine tuned cosmos are strong signs of design. Now, your cogent, empirical observation — not, just so ideological story — based reason for rejecting such signs is ______ and the prizes won for the empirical observation anchored demonstration of blind watchmaker OoL are ____ and those for empirical observation anchored demonstration of blind watchmaker origin of body plans are _____ Prediction, given the still open UD challenge, these blanks cannot be soundly filled in. On such merits, the common sense conclusion is that the Magisterium is unable to adequately warrant its case while there are abundant, highly reliable and manifest signs of design on the ground, backed by analysis of blind search challenge in large configuration spaces.

    Let’s see

    KF

  86. 86
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But it doesn’t mean it was designed then either.

    Our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships says it was intelligently designed.

  87. 87
  88. 88
    JVL says:

    BA77, 79: Perhaps, to save himself from embarrassing himself, JVL should have read past the attention grabbing headline of his ‘easily found’ example? In what should be needless to say, two ‘species’ of finches interbreeding is NOT proof for a brand new species arising from an old one.

    You asked for a new species, that’s what I found. How much different do you want a ‘brand new species’ to be exactly?

  89. 89
    JVL says:

    Asauber, 80: So JVL is just another Evolutionist here to promote his worldview, not here to have a serious conversation about evolution.

    I was answering the questions that were posed to me. What would you like me to say or do instead?

  90. 90
    JVL says:

    ET, 82: What is a topic of ongoing research?

    A topic that is being researched! Something that scientists are working on.

  91. 91
    JVL says:

    ET, 84: Earth to JVL- a finch evolving into a finch is NOT an example of producing a brand new species. It’s just more of the same.

    How much different does a new species have to be for you to consider it a “brand new species”?

  92. 92
    JVL says:

    ET, 86: Our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships says it was intelligently designed.

    in 74 above Truthfreedom said: No scientific ‘knows’ if there is a designer or not.

    Maybe you should argue with him about there being a designer or not. I’ll stay out of that!

  93. 93
    Truthfreedom says:

    @88 JVL

    How much different do you want a ‘brand new species’ to be exactly?

    First you need a definition of ‘species’.

  94. 94
    ET says:

    JVL:

    How much different does a new species have to be for you to consider it a “brand new species”?

    New body plan

  95. 95
    ET says:

    JVL:

    A topic that is being researched! Something that scientists are working on.

    Vague and useless. Like all of your comments.

  96. 96
    ET says:

    To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem.

    Jerad disagrees but cannot find anything to support his disagreement.

  97. 97
    JVL says:

    93, Truthfreedom: First you need a definition of ‘species’.

    You want me to provide a definition and then give an example of a “brand new” one coming into existence? What definition makes sense to you?

    How about: the inability to breed with existing species? The new species matches that criteria. From the article:

    The birds had a different song from G. fortis, as well as different beak size and shape, and these are what the finches use to attract mates. Reproductively, the new species was completely isolated, and had to mate within its own kind to survive.

  98. 98
    Truthfreedom says:

    @95 ET:

    Vague.

    Yes, vagueness is the anthithesis of science.

  99. 99
    JVL says:

    ET, 96: To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem. Jerad disagrees but cannot find anything to support his disagreement.

    I think I did (and there were hundreds of other published works); you think I didn’t. Nothing more to say really. Best let it drop.

  100. 100
    JVL says:

    ET, 94: New body plan

    So that means most quadrupeds are NOT “brand new species”? Most insects are NOT “brand new species”? Most birds are NOT “brand new species”? Do chimps and humans have different body plans? How about tigers and leopards? Do plants count?

  101. 101
    Truthfreedom says:

    @97 HVL

    You want me to provide a definition…

    No, I do not ‘want’ it. Science demands it.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

    …and then give an example of a “brand new” one coming into existence? What definition makes sense to you?

    Again, it is not ‘my’ opinion. It is what makes logical sense/ does not contradict itself.

  102. 102
    bornagain77 says:

    Oh goody, JVL is going to solve the ‘species problem’:

    What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019
    Excerpt: Enough of species?
    This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete.
    The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,,
    some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,,
    https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

    I’ll go get my popcorn! before JVL once and for all tells us exactly what the term species means for a Darwinists 🙂 This ought to be VERY entertaining! 🙂

  103. 103
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 101:

    What part of the Wikipedia article did the new species of finches NOT meet? ET says a “brand new species” means it has to have a new body plan. Do you agree? It would be easier if you guys agreed on what you want.

  104. 104
    asauber says:

    “What part of the Wikipedia article did the new species of finches NOT meet?”

    So JVL appeals to Wikipedia for his worldview?

    No offense, JVL, but that’s truly pathetic.

    Andrew

  105. 105
    JVL says:

    BA77, 102: I’ll go get my popcorn! before JVL once and for all tells us exactly what the term species means for a Darwinists ???? This ought to be VERY entertaining! ????

    If you don’t know what it is then how will you decide if I’ve given an example of a new one? ET says a “brand new species” means it has a new body plan. Do you agree? The article I linked to described the new species as being unable to breed with existing species, that’s a pretty strong indication is it not?

  106. 106
    JVL says:

    Asauber, 104: So JVL appeals to Wikipedia for his worldview? No offense, JVL, but that’s truly pathetic.

    Truthfreedom linked to a Wikipedia article, not me. ET says a “brand new species” means it has a new body plan; do you agree? What about the inability to breed with existing species? The article I linked to says the new species meets that criteria.

  107. 107
    Truthfreedom says:

    @103 JVL:

    It would be easier if you guys agreed on what you want.

    No, it would be easier if ‘evolutionary scientists’ (cough cough) would agree on their ‘science’.
    29 definitions of ‘species’, JVL.
    Which one you ‘choose’ and why?

  108. 108
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So that means most quadrupeds are NOT “brand new species”?

    That doesn’t follow. Perhaps you should take some biology and anatomy classes.

  109. 109
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I think I did (and there were hundreds of other published works); you think I didn’t.

    You didn’t. That much is obvious to anyone who reads what you linked to.

    Perhaps you should just go to an evo echo chamber. You would be very welcome there with your bluffs and inability to follow along.

  110. 110
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 107: Which one you ‘choose’ and why?

    I agree, it is a slippery issue. But the inability to interbreed with other species is a pretty common and strong indication so I’ll start with that. And the new finches meet that criteria.

  111. 111
    JVL says:

    ET, 108: That doesn’t follow. Perhaps you should take some biology and anatomy classes.

    What do YOU mean by “new body plan” then?

  112. 112
    JVL says:

    I’m content with Mayr’s definition of species for the purposes of this conversation: groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups

  113. 113
    bornagain77 says:

    Au contraire JVL, I, and every other normal human being, automatically KNOW what species belongs to what group when we see it. It is Darwinists themselves, as the reference I highlighted made clear, who have no clue how to solve the ‘species problem’ .
    Nor, as I highlighted in post 76, will Darwinists ever solve ‘the species problem’, and that, in and of itself, falsifies the claim from Darwinists that their theory is a hard science rather than a pseudoscience based on smoke and mirrors.

    As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place!
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-just-so-story-about-the-origin-of-religious-beliefs/#comment-694218

  114. 114
    Truthfreedom says:

    @110 JVL

    I agree, it is a slippery issue.

    Absolutely.

    But the inability to interbreed with other species is a pretty common and strong indication so I’ll start with that.

    I have 0 problem with it. But please explain why did you choose that definition and not a different one.

  115. 115
    ET says:

    JVL:

    What do YOU mean by “new body plan” then?

    Exactly what the experts say. As I said, perhaps you should take some biology and anatomy classes.

    Do you really think that a knuckle-walker and upright biped have the same body plan? Really?

  116. 116
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ JVL

    Despite the long historical acceptance of the biological species concept, it has become cocontroversial because a growing number of evolutionary biologists have found the biological species concept unworkable in a wide variety of situations. Critics of the biological species concept come from the fields of both botany and zoology. A fundamental drawback to this concept is that it is exclusively defined in terms of sexual reproduction. Asexual taxa are obviously excluded from this concept, but it is also true that many species capable of sexual reproduction cannot be easily accommodated within the framework of the biological species concept… []”.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/species-concept

    PLEASE NOTE IT IS NOT A PROBLEM OF ID.

  117. 117
    JVL says:

    BA77, 113: I, and every other normal human being, automatically KNOW what species belongs to what group when we see it.

    Do you mean the biological definition of group?

  118. 118
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 114: I have 0 problem with it. But please explain why did you choose that definition and not a different one.

    It’s a pretty common criteria that’s easy to understand and check.

  119. 119
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL 118

    It’s a pretty common criteria that’s easy to understand and check.

    Non-answer. Did you read @116? It takes time to post information and links. Please acknowledge the new information. Thank you.

  120. 120
    JVL says:

    ET, 115: Exactly what the experts say. As I said, perhaps you should take some biology and anatomy classes. Do you really think that a knuckle-walker and upright biped have the same body plan? Really?

    A human and a chimp have the same number of limbs, body hair, etc, etc. Anyway, you’re the one that’s asking for a new body plan so tell me what you want.

  121. 121
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 119: Non-answer. Did you read @116? It takes time to post information and links. Please acknowledge the new information. Thank you.

    You said you had “0 problem with it” so . . .

  122. 122
    Truthfreedom says:

    @121 JVL
    So you are not interested in reading new information.
    Why are you here then? Do not you care about dialogue? I search for (non-ID) links and you do not even bother to take a look?
    That is very disrespectful.

  123. 123
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 122: So you are not interested in reading new information. Why are you here then? Do not you care about dialogue? I search for (non-ID) links and you do not even bother to take a look? That is very disrespectful.

    Sorry, I thought you wanted to agree on a criteria quickly and then get on with seeing if a “new” species had, in fact, been observed to have arisen. I am aware that there is NO comprehensive definition of species that covers all cases or has no problems or caveats. I will be happy to read the linked article a bit later and, if you’re happy to wait, we can continue later. Okay?

  124. 124
    Truthfreedom says:

    @123 JVL
    I did not mean to be rude (though it may sometimes look like that!).

  125. 125
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 124: I did not mean to be rude (though it may sometimes look like that!).

    No worries! When I have time later to concentrate fully on the article I will read it and let you know. It might be a while though. I’m doing some household chores for a bit.

  126. 126
    ET says:

    JVL:

    A human and a chimp have the same number of limbs, body hair, etc, etc.

    It’s amazing then, how we can tell them apart. Again, take biology and anatomy classes. Humans and chimps definitely have different body plans.

    You need to show that a finch can give rise to something that isn’t a finch, if you want to use finches as your starting point.

  127. 127
    asauber says:

    “Truthfreedom linked to a Wikipedia article, not me.”

    JVL,

    But you appealed to its content in order to pretend to decide what you think. You think what someone else thinks. I don’t think that’s a very impressive way to form a position.

    Andrew

  128. 128
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom:

    I had a pretty good look at several of the short articles at the link you posted. I have refamiliarised myself with the three basic categories of species definitions: the biological species concept (BSC), the ecological species concept (ESC), and the phylogenic species concept (PSC). I’m happy to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of all three a bit later. I know, I keep saying that, but I’m conscious of not wanting to appear to be kicking the conversation into the long grass and still having some stuff around the house I need to attend to. It’s coming up towards evening where I live so I really will be absent a lot.

    I think, for the example we were discussing, the BSC model still works pretty well. What are your thoughts?

  129. 129
    JVL says:

    ET, 126: It’s amazing then, how we can tell them apart. Again, take biology and anatomy classes. Humans and chimps definitely have different body plans.

    According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_plan some people have thought there were as few as four basic body plans. If you want to use a specific definition then just state it or link to it.

    You need to show that a finch can give rise to something that isn’t a finch, if you want to use finches as your starting point.

    Does another kind of bird count? Something further than that? It could take a long time.

  130. 130
    JVL says:

    Asauber, 127: But you appealed to its content in order to pretend to decide what you think. You think what someone else thinks. I don’t think that’s a very impressive way to form a position.

    Does “Asauber” mean something? Is it related to your name? Just curious.

    You don’t know how I arrived at what I think! As I said above, I thought Truthfreedom was interested in moving the conversation ahead more quickly so I made a quick call. He (?) and I have slowed down a bit and will hopefully make some progress later.

  131. 131
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL’s main problem, that I pointed out way back at post 79, is that JVL, as a Darwinist, since Darwinists deny ‘true species or essences’, simply has no way to rigidly demarcate when one species ends and another begins,

    To repeat part of post 79,

    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-just-so-story-about-the-origin-of-religious-beliefs/#comment-694218

    If JVL were honest, which it is increasing apparent that he is not honest, he would have honestly acknowledged the fact Darwinian evolution cannot ground ‘true species or essences’, and/or ‘permanence of form’ of any sort, and would have acknowledged that Darwinian evolution is therefore a bankrupt worldview as to explaining the “Origin of Species” since it cannot even rigidly define exactly where a species begins and where it ends in the first place.

    Furthermore, we find that the basic body plans of groups of species do not ‘blend together’ as is predicted within the Darwinian framework, but that they are clearly demarcated from each other,

    As Stephen Meyer explained, “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.”

    “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)

    “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”
    Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)

    In fact, the fossil record is completely upside-down from what Darwin predicted, The fossil record reveal a top down pattern rather than the bottom up pattern that Darwin predicted

    Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012
    Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms.
    Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67021.html

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    “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

    Do Phyletic Lineages Evolve from the Bottom Up or Develop from the Top Down? – Robert F. DeHaan – 1998
    Excerpt: The authors concluded:
    “Most higher taxa were built from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families…the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”48 and 49,,,
    48 D. H. Erwin, J. W. Valentine, and J. J. Sepkowski, “A Comparative Study Of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus The Mesozoic,” Evolution 41 (1987): 1177ñ86.
    49 Ibid., 1183. Herein lies the origin of the “top-down” and “bottom-up” metaphors.
    https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF12-98DeHaan.html

    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

    Here is a another quote from a researcher was ‘surprised’ to find ‘Distinct kinds’ instead of a ‘blending together of characteristics as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions.

    “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

    On top of all that, Darwinists simply have no proof that it is possible to change one body plan into another body plan by mutating DNA alone.

    As Stephen Meyer commented, “you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan.”

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    – Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video – 5:55 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/hs4y4XLGQ-Y?t=354

    Darwinists simply have no clue how any organism might achieve its basic biological form:

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    If JVL were honest he would honestly admit these fatal flaws to his Darwinian worldview, But alas, honesty is apparently in extremely short supply for those dogmatically committed to the atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution.

  132. 132
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, in the 80’s there was a famous cross species mating of finches that gave rise to fertile offspring. Similarly when North American Elk were introduced into Switzerland, they interbred with European red deer. All in all I suggest the family is often the material body plan level, though obviously that goes up to phyla. There is no empirical observation warranted blind mechanism that adequately accounts for origin of body plans, including the first. Likewise, even between close species there are often significant protein differences, the gaps are not just in gross body plan. KF

  133. 133
    kairosfocus says:

    Introduced into New Zealand, oops.

  134. 134
    JVL says:

    BA77, 131: JVL’s main problem, that I pointed out way back at post 79, is that JVL, as a Darwinist, since Darwinists deny ‘true species or essences’, simply has no way to rigidly demarcate when one species ends and another begins,

    That is correct. Species are human demarcations. The truth is that there is no hard line between species. We can pick splitting points but they are arbitrary.

    If JVL were honest, which it is increasing apparent that he is not honest, he would have honestly acknowledged the fact Darwinian evolution cannot ground ‘true species or essences’, and/or ‘permanence of form’ of any sort, and would have acknowledged that Darwinian evolution is therefore a bankrupt worldview as to explaining the “Origin of Species” since it cannot even rigidly define exactly where a species begins and where it ends in the first place.

    I will happily admit that. Humans like categorising things so species, genus, etc are all human inventions in some attempt to organise the different life forms we observe. I do not believe in a “true species” or “essence”.

    If JVL were honest he would honestly admit these fatal flaws to his Darwinian worldview, But alas, honesty is apparently in extremely short supply for those dogmatically committed to the atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution.

    I would say that your interpretation of the data differs greatly from mainstream biology. As I mentioned above to ET some biologists think there are only a very few body plans which evolved quite a long time ago.

    I think we have very, very different interpretations of the data. I’m happy to discuss those differences if you like. I promise not to be condescending or rude.

  135. 135
    JVL says:

    KF, 132:

    Again, I would like you and ET to be very specific in how you are using the term “body plan”. If you can be specific then I can better address your queries. Which I am trying hard to do!!

  136. 136
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL claims,

    Species are human demarcations. The truth is that there is no hard line between species. We can pick splitting points but they are arbitrary.

    Yet the fossil record, and reality itself, disagree with you. There simply is no ‘blending together’ of forms as is predicted by Darwin’s theory to be found in the fossil record, nor has anyone been able radically depart a species from its basic biological form. As Jonathan wells noted, “We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes:
    A normal fruit fly;
    A defective fruit fly; or
    A dead fruit fly.”

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,,
    (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes:
    A normal fruit fly;
    A defective fruit fly; or
    A dead fruit fly.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.html

    JVL then claims

    I do not believe in a “true species” or “essence”.

    And that honest admission completely defeats the claim that he previously made in regards to having evidence that a ‘new species’ formed by the interbreeding of two finch species. i.e. He simply has no way of knowing when a new species has been formed.

    JVL then states,

    I would say that your interpretation of the data differs greatly from mainstream biology.

    First off, ‘mainstream biology’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophical presupposition of Darwinian evolution and/or with ‘evolutionary biology’

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    Secondly, my ‘interpretation’ of the ‘top down’ fossil record is directly in line with the prevailing view from leading paleontologists themselves that the fossil record DOES NOT conform to what Darwin predicted,

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” –
    Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    “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.

    “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
    NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., – The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

    “The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
    (Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

    “Almost all currently existing Metazoan phyla emerged during a relatively short Cambrian period around 510–550 million years ago (Cambrian Explosion) (reviewed in refs. 1 and 2). In previous periods paleontologists find diverse fauna of unicellular organisms and spongi. Shortly before Cambrian period some Cnidarian and Ediacaran fauna was found, but no other Metazoa. The appearance in evolution of the entire Metazoan fauna seems to have been very sudden.”
    Shermer, M. – Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution. Cell Cycle. 2007 Aug 1;6(15):1873-7

    “If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world’s higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.”
    (Valentine, Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987)

    “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
    (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)

    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin January 29, 2015
    Excerpt: Rather than showing gradual Darwinian evolution, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without clear evolutionary precursors. Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem:
    “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . .”98
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91141.html

    “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.”
    Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105.

    “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’
    Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132.

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  137. 137
    ET says:

    JVL, I never said anything about basic body plan. See The origin of the turtle body plan: evidence from fossils and embryos

    Turtles are vertebrates and quadrupeds. Yet clearly they also have a specific TURTLE body plan.

    An upright biped clearly has a different body plan than that of a quadruped or knuckle-walker.

  138. 138
    JVL says:

    BA77, 136; Yet the fossil record, and reality itself, disagree with you. There simply is no ‘blending together’ of forms as is predicted by Darwin’s theory to be found in the fossil record, nor has anyone been able radically depart a species from its basic biological form.

    The fossil record is a highly incomplete record of the development of life. No way it should be considered a complete recording of life forms. That’s why biologists look at the other lines of evidence to support evolution. NO ONE seriously expects the fossil record to be complete.

    And that honest admission completely defeats the claim that he previously made in regards to having evidence that a ‘new species’ formed by the interbreeding of two finch species. i.e. He simply has no way of knowing when a new species has been formed.

    Species are a human construct, created to attempt to categorise different life forms into different categories. This is why I tend to fall back on the inability to breed with other species as an indication of a new species. That criteria is strong and testable. And the article I linked to showed a new “species” that was unable to breed with existing “species”. So differentiation happens. We can watch it happen.

    But, again, the species designation is just a human construct. It doesn’t mean nature cares about it.

  139. 139
    Ed George says:

    JVL

    ET says a “brand new species” means it has to have a new body plan.

    That made me laugh so hard I spit beer out my nose.

  140. 140
    JVL says:

    ET, 137:

    Okay, so, again, when you ask for evidence that a new body plan has been produced what do you mean?

    I would just like to know what criteria you are using. You are differentiating between “body plan” and “basic body plan”. Can you be more specific? How can I tell if I can provide you with an adequate example?

    I would like to address your concerns but I have to know what they are first. Yes?

  141. 141
    JVL says:

    Ed George, 139: That made me laugh so hard I spit beer out my nose.

    What a shame; I hate to see a good beer wasted. I like a good ale myself.

  142. 142
    Ed George says:

    The term “body plan” refers to the general similarities in development and form and function among members of a particular phylum. Another name for these similarities is baüplan, which is the German word for “body plan.”

    And that only took ten seconds on google.

  143. 143
    Ed George says:

    JVL

    What a shame; I hate to see a good beer wasted.

    Especially knowing the source of such blatantly stupid comments.

    I like a good ale myself.

    I’ve really been enjoying the proliferation of craft beers over the last few years. They are often hit-and-miss but you occasionally get a winner.

  144. 144
    ET says:

    So neither “Ed George” nor Jerad has ever taken a biology course. Why does a PEER REVIEWED article talk of a TURTLE BODY PLAN?

    AGAIN, for the willfully ignorant: The origin of the turtle body plan

    The source of such blatantly stupid comments is obviously “Ed George”. Nice own goal, Eddie.

  145. 145
    ET says:

    It’s very telling that I said I was NOT talking about “basic body plans” and Eddie posts the definition of a basic body plan.

    It’s as if Eddie thinks its willful ignorance is an argument. Does anyone else find that to be a bit strange?

  146. 146
    JVL says:

    ET,

    Chill out a bit. Lovely article about the evolutionary history of turtles. But that doesn’t answer the general question: what do you mean by a “new” body plan? You asked for such a thing, you should be able to say what it is.

  147. 147
    Truthfreedom says:

    Off-topic: does anyone know if Silver Asiatic is ok?

  148. 148
    ET says:

    JVL- it’s all covered in biology classes. Take a look at Linnaean taxonomy. Pay attention to the criteria for each level. The point is that Linnaean taxonomy was based on body plans. He was trying to figure out what the Created Kinds were. Those Created Kinds had that original body plan for that type of organism. Linne eventually had that at the level of Genera. But now we realize it isn’t as black and white. It still all depends.

    As for the turtles, that was just to show that specific body plans run deeper than the basic definition covers.

  149. 149
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, I already pointed out the range family to phyla and equivalent; the term is not mine, it is used generally in biology and even in common discussion, e.g. cats and wolves/dogs, ranging up to the phyla and subphyla identified in the Cambrian fossils and identified as persisting to today. We can recognise a cat and distinguish from a bat, say. A key issue is origin of significant differences of general organisation, organs, systems and the like, which will affect early development of the organism. I have further pointed out molecular issues of similar import. I also note that species is typically hard to give a precising definition, though reproductive isolation has been a key issue; e.g. it took experiments to conclude that the native trout of Britain were one species, the Brown trout. The difference with say the weakfish commonly termed sea trout is clear enough.. KF

  150. 150
    JVL says:

    ET, 148:

    So . . . still . . . what is YOUR criteria for a “new body plan”?

    Oh, by the way . . . if the level of basic body plans is above the species level and you’re saying IF I start with a finch and want to generate a new body plan that then I have to “move” up to a higher level and then down to another species? I don’t think it works that way.

  151. 151
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Definitions on bauplan or body plan (note, implication of architecture, structure, function and archetype):

    Merriam Webster [and yes, it is that obviously accessible]:

    Bauplan noun

    Bau·?plan | \ ?bau?-?plän
    \
    variants: or bauplan \ ?bau?-??plän
    \
    plural Bauplans or Baupläne\ ?bau?-??pl?-?n?
    \ or bauplans or baupläne
    Definition of Bauplan

    biology: the generalized structural body plan that characterizes a group of organisms and especially a major taxon (such as a phylum) All feline species have inherited the unique Bauplan of cats, and cannot deviate from this commonality as they adapt, each in its own particular way.— Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002 The results of this study demonstrate that in chelonians, as in mammals and birds, features characteristic of an apparently discrete and highly integrated Bauplan were accumulated gradually and in a precise order.— Michael S. Y. Lee, Science, 24 Sept. 1993 But nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that evolution has ever been jumpy enough to invent a whole new bauplan in one step.— Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 1995 The entire organism encompasses a definable bauplan, and the specific organ systems themselves also encompass describable bauplans; in both cases the structural and functional components of the particular plan establish both capabilities and limits.— Richard C. Brusca and Gary J. Brusca, Invertebrates, 2nd edition, 2003 — compare archetype sense 3a

    Key reference: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12052-012-0424-z.pdf And notice, the embedding of evolutionary materialistic concepts in the discussion. A key issue involved here, is that there is failure to adequately reckon with the obvious issue of integrated configurational information and ties between structure, function, early foetal development [or the equivalent] and deep isolation in the space of possible configurations.

    This is the context in which it has been noted that mutations that are late-term do not generally affect the bauplan and are fairly often observed; typically with deleterious but limited effects. Those that do affect the bauplan occur relatively early and as a rule random changes in core architecture will trigger disproportionate damage. They often prove fatal. Recall, here, the unfortunate effects of thalidomide.

    The pattern we see illustrates the problems with the dominant evolutionary materialistic scientism, once it has to deal with complex functional organisation and associated information; which naturally leads to deeply isolated islands of function in configuration spaces. When things must fit and work together as components of an integrated whole, need to match, be available at correct assembly point, be correctly placed, oriented, coupled and energised etc lead to copious, implicit functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, thus islands of function. It is not hard to see that description languages allow chains of Y/N q’s that specify the structure [and assembly process] thus quantifying the information.

    Beyond 500 – 1,000 bits, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity on gamut, sol system to observed cosmos [the only actually observed cosmos] is not capable of anything significantly different from no search, and search for golden search comes from the power set, i.e. is exponentially harder. Set n elements has 2^n subsets, and a search samples a subset of the whole.

    And of course that’s where my abbreviation, FSCO/I comes from.

    KF

  152. 152
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, observe Gould, on cats. We see an obvious cascade of archetypal elements in a genus-difference pattern which goes here from life vs non life to eukaryote vs prokaryote etc, to vertebrate vs invertebrate to mammals vs other vertebrates to the cat family’s common architecture then to the species that is reproductively isolated and on to the individual. The attempt to suggest that that pattern is absent or dubious or only applies at say phylum level or kingdom level, fails. KF

    PS: As Wikipedia has been called in, testimony against known ideological interest, tabulation on Felis catus:

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Carnivora
    Suborder: Feliformia
    Family: Felidae
    Subfamily: Felinae
    Genus: Felis
    Species: F. catus[1]

  153. 153
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Contrast, Panthera pardus, the Leopard:

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Carnivora
    Suborder: Feliformia
    Family: Felidae
    Subfamily: Pantherinae
    Genus: Panthera
    Species: P. pardus
    [1]

  154. 154
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: Note the closer contrast, the African Wildcat:

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Carnivora
    Suborder: Feliformia
    Family: Felidae
    Subfamily: Felinae
    Genus: Felis
    Species: F. lybica

  155. 155
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPPS: Contrast what seems to have been the very first species described in his structure of cladistics or taxonomy by Linnaeus, the Brown Trout:

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Actinopterygii
    Order: Salmoniformes
    Family: Salmonidae
    Genus: Salmo
    Species: S. trutta

    Notice, how, implicitly we see the principle of distinct idea at work with the in-common archetypes and the distinguishing characteristics down to the particular individual. Bauplane are real.

  156. 156
    kairosfocus says:

    5PS: The goldfish:

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Actinopterygii
    Order: Cypriniformes
    Family: Cyprinidae
    Subfamily: Cyprininae
    Genus: Carassius
    Species: C. auratus

    The pattern should be clear.

  157. 157
    kairosfocus says:

    6PS: Sitka Spruce:

    Kingdom: Plantae
    Clade: Tracheophytes
    Division: Pinophyta
    Class: Pinopsida
    Order: Pinales
    Family: Pinaceae
    Genus: Picea
    Species: P. sitchensis

  158. 158
    bornagain77 says:

    At 138 JVL claims that,

    The fossil record is a highly incomplete record of the development of life. No way it should be considered a complete recording of life forms.,,,, NO ONE seriously expects the fossil record to be complete.

    That is the oft repeated claim from dogmatic Darwinists who refuse to accept the fossil record at face value. And that oft repeated claim is shown to be a patently false from, at least, a couple of lines of evidence.

    First, his claim that “NO ONE seriously expects the fossil record to be complete” is false.

    I guess JVL capitalized “NO ONE” to highlight his own personal certainty in that claim. Perhaps JVL fancies himself to be an expert on what EVERY paleontologist in the world thinks about the fossil record since he provided no reference for that claim?

    Which is just as well, because the claim, just like every other claim JVL has made for Darwinism, is patently false. Gould himself postulated the theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ because he thought the fossil record was certainly ‘complete enough’ for us to infer the “extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record”

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

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    The fossil record, contrary to what JVL wants to believe beforehand, is simply hugely embarrassing for Darwinists. As Colin Patterson honestly admitted “there is not one such (transitional) fossil for which one could make a watertight argument (for gradualism).”

    “Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
    Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.

    But besides JVL’s claim that “NO ONE seriously expects the fossil record to be complete” being shown to be patently false, there are also a couple of other lines of evidence we can use to show that the fossil record is far more complete than Darwinists would prefer it to be..

    First off, in the following video Dr. Stephen Meyer notes the significance of finding Sponge Embryos in the geologic record immediately prior to the the Cambrian explosion.

    Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin’s Dilemma – The Significance of Sponge Embryos – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPs8E7y0ySs

    As Jonathan Wells explained, “The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved.”

    Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma – Jonathan Wells – Sept. 2009
    Excerpt: “The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved.”
    http://www.discovery.org/a/12471

    Moreover, if the fossil record were as incomplete as Darwinists want to believe, then there should be a certain pattern of discovery in which new fossil discoveries would start filling in the gaps, but is not the pattern we find. Newly unearthed fossils almost always fall into already existing groups of already known fossils.

    How complete is the current fossil record and what does that tell us about the theory of evolution? Gunter Bechly – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCam4z1Ic9w&index=9&t=1s&list=PLtAP1KN7ahiZ80ClsWz-IAmP_fWHpqWar

    As the following study found, “we find that completeness (of the fossil record) is rather high for many animal groups.”

    Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil record. – Foote M1, Sepkoski JJ Jr. – 1999
    Excerpt: These measurements are nonetheless highly correlated, with outliers quite explicable, and we find that completeness (of the fossil record) is rather high for many animal groups.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536900

    In fact the pattern of discovery in the fossil record is exactly opposite of what Darwinists expect, As Luther D. Sunderland explained, “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.”

    “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

    And as Simon Conway Morris explained,

    Does Lots of Sediment in the Ocean Solve the “Mystery” of the Cambrian Explosion? – Casey Luskin April, 2012
    Excerpt: I think the Cambrian fossil record is surprisingly complete. I think it may be more complete than we realize. The reason for that is, for instance, if you look at the stratigraphy of the world, if I go and collect Cambrian rocks in Wales and find certain fossils, if I then go to China, I don’t find the same species but I find the same sorts of fossils. If I go into Carboniferous rocks, I go to Canada, they are the same as what I find in this country. So there is a clear set of faunas and floras that take us through geological time. The overall framework is falling into position.
    – Simon Conway Morris
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....59021.html

    Moreover, the pattern that is found in the fossil record, (the pattern that is continually reinforced as more and more fossil discoveries are made), is the completely opposite pattern from what Darwin himself predicted. i.e. we find a ‘top down’ pattern rather than the ‘bottom up’ pattern that was predicted by Darwin himself.

    Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012
    Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms.
    Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67021.html

    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. JVL’s appeal to imperfections in the fossil record to support his belief in Darwinian gradualism is found to be a post hoc rationalization on his part that is directly refuted by the nature and pattern of fossils being discovered.

    JVL goes on to claim that.

    That, (the falsely presupposed incompleteness of the fossil record), is why (evolutionary) biologists look at the other lines of evidence to support evolution.

    I wonder what evidence JVL is referring to? There is simply NO EVIDENCE to support the Darwinist’s belief in gradualism.

    As already mentioned in post 55, Darwinists simply have no real time evidence that Darwinian gradualism is possible

    (No) Darwinist has ever demonstrated the origin of a single gene and/or protein.,,,
    Nor has any Darwinist ever demonstrated that it is possible to transform one protein of one function into a brand new protein of a new function by gradual step by step mutations.,,,
    Much less has anyone ever demonstrated the origin of a brand new species from an existing species.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-just-so-story-about-the-origin-of-religious-beliefs/#comment-694181

    I guess, since JVL provided no references, that JVL might be referring to sequence comparisons? But alas, in spite of the usual Darwinian bluff and bluster, sequence comparisons actually falsify Darwinian claims, and do not support their claims.

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.
    Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model.
    Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree.
    Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process.
    Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model.
    Where It Counts
    Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
    Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
    Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.
    Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division.
    The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division.
    Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth?
    Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!
    By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent.
    10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
    This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

    Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin February 9, 2015
    Excerpt: Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,,
    Biochemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution.126 Each case shows an example where biological similarity — even at the genetic level — is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. So what does this do to the main assumption of tree-building that biological similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor? With so many exceptions to the rule, one has to wonder if the rule itself holds merit.,,,
    – per evolution news

    The Real Problem With Convergence – Cornelius Hunter – May 25, 2017
    Excerpt: 21st century evolutionists are still befuddled by convergence, which is rampant in biology, and how it could occur. This certainly is a problem for the theory.,,,
    a fundamental evidence and prediction of evolution is falsified.
    The species do not fall into the expected evolutionary pattern.
    The failure of fundamental predictions — and this is a hard failure — is fatal for scientific theories. It leaves evolution not as a scientific theory but as an ad hoc exercise in storytelling.
    – per evolution news

    Since all lines of evidence that I know about directly falsify Darwinian predictions, perhaps JVL might enlighten us to exactly what type of evidence evolutionary biologists rely on so as to make their case for Darwinian gradualism? Much like the mythical “Fountain of Youth” that Ponce de León searched for, I’ve been searching for years for any evidence that would substantiate the grandiose claims of Darwinists,, I simply find any evidence for their claims.

  159. 159
    Ed George says:

    KF quoting dictionary

    biology: the generalized structural body plan that characterizes a group of organisms and especially a major taxon (such as a phylum)

    Hmm. KF agreed that body plan refers to a very high taxonomic level, like phylum. I wonder if ET will come back with insults against KF?

  160. 160
    ET says:

    JVL- The way it works with respect to evolutionism is new species led to new body plans. Phyla came from speciation. Or didn’t you realize that? The Animal Kingdom evolved that way, according to evolutionism. The bottom led to the top.

    As I said, perhaps you would be better served if you took actual biology courses.

  161. 161
    ET says:

    LoL! @ “ED George” and its quote-mining. Try reading the whole post, Eddie. I doubt that you will understand it, but at least try.

    ARCHETYPE- that is what Linne used- refers to the prototypical body plan of the Created Kinds:

    “One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that “archetype” was replaced by the common ancestor.”– Ernst Mayr

    And From Gaylord Simpson we have:

    “From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.”

  162. 162
    Truthfreedom says:

    @29 JVL

    He (darwin) should be honoured as a great scientist…

    Errrr… no. Under the atheist/evolutionary paradigm, there is no such a thing as ‘merit’.
    -It was just a ‘bunch of neurons’ computing information related to his environment and reaching a ‘result’ or ‘conclusion’. No more ‘merit’ than i.e. a digestive process.

  163. 163
    Truthfreedom says:

    @27 JVL

    Like I said, same-sex interactions are fairly common in nature so maybe a certain amount of that is “natural”.

    – What ‘amount’ would that be?

  164. 164
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you managed to snip out of context. While in fact there are archetypes at kingdom, phyla and subphyla levels — which latter appear top down [esp in the Cambrian fossil strata] — that give architectures at that level, the genus-differentia pattern continues to lower and lower levels, reflecting the quantum of information involved and the resulting islands of function pattern. Indeed, it is reflected in the molecular level also not just the gross anatomy one. Notice, particularly Gould’s remark as cited . . . about cats . . . i.e. “All feline species have inherited the unique Bauplan of cats, and cannot deviate from this commonality as they adapt, each in its own particular way.” Notice, the unique Bauplan of cats. Likewise, it is a fact of life of deeply experienced field biologists that they can instantly recognise membership in a taxon due to intuitive grasp of the hierarchy of archetypes. Spotting Cichlids on sight just by looking is a case in point. Even lay people can recognise patterns. In the same fashion, the claim that the fossil record is grossly incomplete is now threadbare, 160 years after Darwin wrote. We have fossil beds with billions seen in the ground [the fossil corals making up much of Barbados spring to mind as a personal observation], dozens of millions in drawers and something like 250+ k fossil species. Were incrementalist gradualism across a vast continent in config space the reality of the history of life, that degree of sampling should reflect it. It simply does not and there comes a time to accept that an unwelcome pattern from the gradualist perspective is in fact what we are seeing, never mind remarks on the trade secret of paleontology by the same Gould in his last book. There is a pattern of successive archetypes there, similar to an object space for computing and for a very similar reason: complex functionality comes in deeply isolated islands of function in the space of mostly non functional configurations, a further signature of design constrained by a need to work well enough. Yes, different architectures are doubtless possible, but they too will reflect the same constraints and patterns. That is what is reflected in the taxonomical pattern in which most of us can spot a cat as a cat or a mango tree as a mango tree or bamboo as bamboo or a palm as a palm or notice the four vs five finger pattern for new vs old world monkeys, or note that insects have six legs, etc. And of course, the underlying DNA has string data structures with algorithmic coded information, reflecting that language, alphanumerical symbol strings and purpose are embedded in the core architecture of life, the cell. The signs of design are staring us in the face. KF

    PS: The lion:

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Carnivora
    Suborder: Feliformia
    Family: Felidae
    Subfamily: Pantherinae
    Genus: Panthera
    Species: P. leo[1
    ]

  165. 165
    Truthfreedom says:

    @48 JVL

    Pursuing knowledge is good in and of itself.

    -Again, under the atheist/ evolutionary paradigm, there are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ things.
    ‘Pursuing knowledge is another biological function, like i. e. a digestive process. It is neurons exploring their habitats, but that does not entail any ‘goodness’.

  166. 166
    Truthfreedom says:

    @77 JVL

    Okay. But it doesn’t mean it was designed then either.

    Blanket statement. You first have to define the designer you are speaking about.

  167. 167
    Truthfreedom says:

    @92 JVL

    In 74 above Truthfreedom said: No scientific ‘knows’ if there is a designer or not.

    Exactly. If the designer is i.e.immaterial, scientists, that are focused on what can be quantified, can not know about that designer.

    ××× But detecting a designer an its products (‘designs’) are different things.
    Science can be of assistance with the latter.

  168. 168
    Truthfreedom says:

    *be of assistance to*.
    Sorry, being a ‘meat-robot’ is hard.

  169. 169
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 162: Errrr… no. Under the atheist/evolutionary paradigm, there is no such a thing as ‘merit’. -It was just a ‘bunch of neurons’ computing information related to his environment and reaching a ‘result’ or ‘conclusion’. No more ‘merit’ than i.e. a digestive process.:

    You know, it’s a bit insulting to be told I cannot have any ethics or morals or valuations of merit. I just get tired of being treated like some kind of second classes human.

    – What ‘amount’ would that be?

    I don’t know but, as homosexual behaviour is quite common in the animal kingdom then perhaps it is “natural” albeit a minority approach.

    -Again, under the atheist/ evolutionary paradigm, there are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ things.
    ‘Pursuing knowledge is another biological function, like i. e. a digestive process. It is neurons exploring their habitats, but that does not entail any ‘goodness’.

    I have tried, honestly, to have a polite and engaging conversation, to answer questions that are posed to me, to ignore questions I ask that are dodged or ignored, to not take offence when I am told that I can’t possibly believe certain things. I really am trying. But when I just get constant criticism I’m not sure why I’m bothering.

    Blanket statement. You first have to define the designer you are speaking about.

    I don’t think there is a designer. You said no scientist could possibly know if there was one or not.

    Exactly. If the designer is i.e.immaterial, scientists, that are focused on what can be quantified, can not know about that designer.

    ××× But detecting a designer an its products (‘designs’) are different things.
    Science can be of assistance with the latter.

    How can an immaterial designer interact with the material world? I don’t understand how that would work?

  170. 170
    JVL says:

    Regarding fossils:

    From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Fossil_record

    Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. Paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.

    Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, logic dictates that known fossils represent only a small percentage of all life-forms that ever existed—and that each discovery represents only a snapshot of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.

    And a list of transitional fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    I know you’re all going to tell me how stupid I am, that I should take a biology class, that I am deluded, that I can’t have morals, I have really tried to be honest and straight and serious and respectful; I would like to have a conversation, why else would I be here? I just get the feeling that some of my sentiments are not reciprocated. I can understand the feeling of being ostracised and neglected but is doing the same thing back really the best strategy? Especially when someone comes to you and is willing to talk?

  171. 171
    JVL says:

    On body plans: (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_plan)

    Ernst Haeckel, in his 1866 Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, asserted that all living things were monophyletic (had a single evolutionary origin), being divided into plants, protista, and animals. His protista were divided into moneres, protoplasts, flagellates, diatoms, myxomycetes, myxocystodes, rhizopods, and sponges. His animals were divided into groups with distinct body plans: he named these phyla. Haeckel’s animal phyla were coelenterates, echinoderms, and (following Cuvier) articulates, molluscs, and vertebrates.

    This sounds consistent with other references I have found. So, less than 40 body plans. And it looks like all vertebrates are considered to have the same body plan. That’s why I was asking for clarification. I wanted to know what others considered a “body plan” rather than force them to accept what someone else decided or said.

    You can now all tell me how wrong I am.

  172. 172
    ET says:

    Wow. Turtles are vertebrates. Turtles have their own body plan. I provided a peer-reviewed paper to support that.

    But please, do keep trying to learn about biology, zoology and classification by reading Wikipedia.

  173. 173
    ET says:

    Regarding fossils- the vast majority of the fossils, over 95%, are of marine invertebrates. Which, given what we know about fossilization, is to be expected but maybe not to that degree. The point being is in that vast majority we do NOT see any evidence for universal common descent.

    And that the fossil record is known to be incomplete that means you cannot say that there is evidence for UCD. Meaning transitional fossils only exist in the minds of those who need them.

  174. 174
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I don’t know but, as homosexual behaviour is quite common in the animal kingdom then perhaps it is “natural” albeit a minority approach.

    All mental illnesses are natural.

    I don’t think there is a designer.

    And yet there isn’t any evidence that nature can not only produce nature but also coded information processing systems, the likes of which make up living organisms. There isn’t anything in the laws that nature has to work with that allows for nature to produce such systems. That is because such systems are not determined by laws.

  175. 175
    Truthfreedom says:

    @169 JVL

    You know, it’s a bit insulting to be told I cannot have any ethics or morals or valuations of merit. I just get tired of being treated like some kind of second classes human.

    JVL, you are aiming at the wrong target. If you are angry, you should direct your anger towards the darwinian/ materialist worldview, not towards me or UD. The things I write that you (and other UD contributors) find so offensive, are not my thoughts. (I do not espouse them, I do find them horrific ).
    -The problem here is that if you follow darwinism/ materialism to its logical conclusions, that is what you’ll find.

    For example, a/mat ‘philosopher’ A. Rosenberg has written:

    ” There is no free will, morality, meaning, aboutness .”

    I do not like Rosenberg, but he is honest because he does not shy away from what darwinism entails.
    Are you angry at Rosenberg?
    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.....p.html?m=1

  176. 176
    Truthfreedom says:

    What Naturalism Entails

    Rosenberg’s thesis? That naturalism entails nihilism; in particular, that it entails denying the existence of objective moral value, of beliefs and desires, of the self, of linguistic meaning, and indeed of meaning or purpose of any sort. All attempts to evade this conclusion, to reconcile naturalism with our common sense understanding of human life, inevitably fail. Naturalism, when consistently worked out, leads to a radical eliminativism”.

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.....m.html?m=1

    Maybe now you understand why certain people (me for example) HATE naturalism? Because it makes humanity worthless.

  177. 177
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL apparently did not bother to read my post and just regurgitated some tripe from wikipedia. A site which is notoriously hostile towards Intelligent deign. Shoot, wikipedia ‘erased’ Günter Bechly, who has stellar credentials as a paleontologist, and who was curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, before being ‘pushed out’ after revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design.

    What is even more insulting is that it was basically just atheistic internet trolls who had Günter Bechly ‘erased’ from wikipedia.

    Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly – October 10, 2017
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/

    Günter Bechly is far from the only person who has been fired from his job for daring to question Darwinian orthodoxy.

    Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters
    by Dr. Jerry Bergman
    (Leafcutter Press, 2008, 477 pages)
    If Ben Stein’s 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was the tip, then Dr. Jerry Bergman’s Slaughter of the Dissidents is the rest of the iceberg. With clarity and thoroughness, Bergman provides detailed accounts of 17 of the over 300 scientists and educators he has interviewed, all of whom have advanced degrees. Though their views range from creation science to intelligent design to evolution, all of them expressed some doubt regarding neo-Darwinism, observing that selection of mutations is not creating life’s diversity. And all of them have received some form of discrimination.
    https://www.icr.org/article/book-review-slaughter-dissidents/

    Since they have no real time evidence to support their grandiose claims, that is how atheists maintain consensus to Darwinian theory. Disagree with Darwinian orthodoxy and atheists will do their damnedest to smear your name and/or get you fired from your job.

    Here is an excellent lecture video from Günter Bechly

    Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs
    The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

    JVL then lists this link from Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    As anyone can see, most of the fossils listed in that link are not even ‘transitional’ at all. For instance, “The oldest known species of bee.”, “The earliest known species of ant”, “Oldest known bony fish” etc… etc…

    Moreover, I know for a fact that some of the claimed transitional fossils in the series leading to man are either fraudulent and/or highly misleading.

    Here is an excellent resource that reveals that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.

    Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? – Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe
    Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.
    We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis).
    We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume.
    We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,,
    We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities.
    https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/

    Here is a video playlist of Dr. Giem’s series reviewing John Sanford’s book “Contested Bones”.

    “Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    Supplemental notes:

    Making human brain evolution look gradual by ignoring enough data… – February 23, 2018
    Excerpt: From U Wisconsin paleoanthropologist John Hawks:
    Bernard Wood’s research group has a new paper on brain size evolution in hominins, led by Andrew Du in Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B: “Pattern and process in hominin brain size evolution are scale-dependent”.
    In this paper, I notice that the researchers have done a really weird thing: Their analyses include only hominin fossils before 500,000 years ago.…
    The specimens reflect every hominin species from Australopithecus afarensis up to “Homo heidelbergensis”. Modern humans and Neanderthals have been left out of the dataset—they don’t fall within the pre-500,000-year time range.
    On the basis of this dataset, the authors conclude that the entire hominin lineage is compatible with a single pattern of gradual evolutionary increase over time.
    Charts are offered by way of illustration.
    There are two species entirely missing from the data examined by Du and colleagues. The fossil records of endocranial volume in Homo naledi and Homo floresiensis both date to the last 300,000 years. When you include them, they both reject the notion of gradual monotonic increase in brain size.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/making-human-brain-evolution-look-gradual-by-ignoring-enough-data/

    Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – February 25, 2020
    Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
    – Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University,
    “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,,
    A Big Bang at Man’s Origin?
    To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that
    1. “differences exist on an unusual scale”
    2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented”
    3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.”
    5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive”
    6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.”
    7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.”
    8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.”
    9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,,
    “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,,
    Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts….
    98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity?
    Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million).
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/neo-darwinism-and-the-big-bang-of-mans-origin/
    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.

    Here’s Dr. Lönnig’s pdf on the subject

    The Evolution of Man: What do We Really Know? Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 21 August 2019
    http://www.weloennig.de/HumanEvolution.pdf

  178. 178
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 175:

    I disagree with Rosenberg; I rather doubt he lives his life as if it has no meaning or ethics or morals. And just because one or more materialists express a viewpoint does not make it true or universally accepted. It would be wrong of me to look at the opinions of members of the Westboro Baptist Church and assume they are representative of all Christians.

    You agree with people like Rosenberg because . . . well, I don’t know why you agree with him. I won’t speculate. I won’t assume you have beliefs that would uphold my pre-existing prejudices.

    This idea that life has no meaning or purpose if there isn’t a deity confuses me. About 100 years ago women (and men) in England and the US were fighting for the right for women to vote. All those suffragettes are dead now but their lives had meaning and value because of what the bequeathed to the following generations. All the scientists and doctors who helped develop vaccines gave the gift of life to millions of people who came after them. The deist thinkers who formulated the US Constitution gave the world one of the best governmental systems ever devised by humans (in my opinion). All the writers and artists and poets and architects and sculptures have enriched generation after generation with their aesthetic visions. How can one say with no god their lives were meaningless? Can we say that what Martin Luther King achieved only counts because he was a Christian? Surely all the peacemakers are blessed no matter what their theological outlook.

    I don’t know if there is a deity out there somewhere watching us struggle along. I try hard to live my life along the same basic lines that I assume you do: I look out for other people, I’m not mean or cruel or intolerant, I try and respect the planet. But because I doubt the existence of a god you tell me I HAVE to accept that my life is a waste of time. Thanks.

    Naturalism does not make humanity worthless. You (and some others) think it does. But that doesn’t make it so. Why don’t you judge people based on their actions not your interpretations of their beliefs? I will do the same. Unless you’d rather I just picked some Christian group and assume you have the same worldview?

  179. 179
    JVL says:

    BA77, 177: Günter Bechly is far from the only person who has been fired from his job for daring to question Darwinian orthodoxy.

    I don’t think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job.

    I have no idea why he was expunged from Wikipedia, which, I agree, is not the font of all wisdom. I do find it a good place to start and one that is available to everyone so that links to there are visible to everyone. Who initially created Dr Bechly’s entry? Did they follow the Wikipedia guidelines? Have you tried to create an entry for him?

    If Dr Bechly was ‘expelled’ from Wikipedia for supporting intelligent design then why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there? Supporting ID does not get you kicked off Wikipedia; there’s some part of the story we are missing.

  180. 180
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL states,

    I don’t think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job.

    I did not claim that it was.

    “Shoot, wikipedia ‘erased’ Günter Bechly, who has stellar credentials as a paleontologist, and who was curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, before being ‘pushed out’ after revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design.

    Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly – David Klinghoffer – October 10, 2017
    Excerpt: Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. He subsequently joined Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture as a Senior Fellow. Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.,,,
    ,,, It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested, to be ruled upon by a 23-year-old “boy” and 500-year-old wizard called “Jo-Jo.” Such is the alternative reality of Wikipedia.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/

    JVL then tries to claim that wikipedia ‘is a good place to start’ and that wikipedia is not inherently biased against ID since “why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there?”

    Here are some of the supposedly unbiased entries on ID via wikipedia from the very first sentence of each entry on wikipedia

    William Albert “Bill” Dembski (born July 18, 1960),,, a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience,

    Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).

    Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.

    John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells (born 1942),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design.

    Wikipedia is a “good place to start” my foot!

    JVL then acts like it is easy for an ID advocate to correct the incorrect information on wikipedia, or for an ID advocate to ‘create an entry’ in the first place.

    Hogwash! The cofounder of wikipedia agrees that wikipedia is openly hostile towards ID

    Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. – December 1, 2016
    Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted.
    I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed.”
    In a response Mr. Sanger stated:
    “For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…”
    There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ty-policy/

    In trying to correct misinformation and lies about ID on wikipedia,,, Atheistic internet trolls vigilantly police wikipedia to prevent the misinformtion and lies from being corrected

    Wikipedia’s Tyranny of the Unemployed – David Klinghoffer – June 24, 2012
    Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia’s articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia’s volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight.
    You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again.
    ,,, on Wikipedia, “fact” is established by the party with the free time that’s required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61281.html

    As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie “that Intelligent Design is a “pseudoscientific principle”, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists on wikipedia and elsewhere, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudoscience, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or on the presupposition of Darwinian materialism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Furthermore, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  181. 181
    JVL says:

    BA77, 180: As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie “that Intelligent Design is a “pseudoscientific principle”, nothing could be further from the truth.

    That does accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians. You disagree, clearly, but I’m afraid the tail doesn’t get to wag the dog. Keep working on getting your views understood and accepted and things will change.

    I hadn’t realised that Dr Bechly had, effectively, been forced out of his job (according to him, even his own website didn’t discuss that situation oddly). The Wikipedia lack I do find strange but, clearly, being an ID advocate DOES NOT get you booted off the site.

  182. 182
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    I note:

    I disagree with Rosenberg; I rather doubt he lives his life as if it has no meaning or ethics or morals. And just because one or more materialists express a viewpoint does not make it true or universally accepted.

    However, when one — or a society as a whole — cannot live in general accord with the tenets and implications of a worldview, that is a sign that it is a root of chaotic error. That is in turn a strong sign that it is false and ruinous.

    And BTW, Rosenberg is hardly the only current voice to see or acknowledge the inherent problems of evolutionary materialistic scientism. William Provine, in his 1998 U Tenn. Darwin Day keynote address made the following observations:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .

    The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [–> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn — and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

    Notice, clear CONSEQUENCES.

    An outworking of the inner logic and dynamics, not disputable or merely idiosyncratic opinion.

    Grey in the UK and others have spoken in like vein.

    For cause.

    However, the problem is not new.

    It is longstanding.

    That’s why, 2360 years ago, Plato warned in no uncertain terms:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    In short, the epistemological self-defeat and chaotic, nihilism-inviting amorality of evolutionary materialism have been on record since the dawn of serious intellectual reflection in our civilisation. That over the past 160 years it has been dressed up in a lab coat and has usurped institutional power and prestige has not fundamentally changed that tendency.

    However, that is a negative case, one that — predictably — you and ilk will ignore in haste to promote what you see as the champion of progress and prosperity for our civilisation. It isn’t.

    A more positive approach, is to highlight that in your own arguing above, you implicitly, inevitably, inescapably, repeatedly appealed to our known first duties of reason. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness and justice, etc. That is, you cannot escape the premise that we habitually demonstrate that starting with our responsible rationality, we are governed by built-in law, the known, in key parts self-evident law of our morally governed nature. Where, that law specifically governs our reasoning and arguing, so we are forced to imply its truth ever were we to try to doubt or argue against it . . . such doubts and attempted counter arguments fall under Epictetus’ dictum: they are forced to appeal to what they would challenge, so it is inescapably true.

    That is, first duties of responsible reason, under built-in, known, conscience-atested law of our morally governed nature are a start-point for both reason and morality. BTW, that’s why — unless he were insane — a Rosenberg will not live in accord with nihilism and linked utter chaotic meaninglessness, hyperskepticism, etc. Such utter perversities are so at odds with our nature that we cannot preserve a semblance of sanity or decency and live by them. That’s part of why perverted imitation is the homage vice pays to virtue, starting with the dark ways of the rhetoric of deceitful manipulation and its reliance on fallacies and psychological principles.

    Going on, it is undeniable that we are morally governed. The very act of denial appeals for any credit it could get, to what it would overturn.

    We are governed by built in, morally tinged law, the law of our morally governed nature.

    The IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged, for responsible rationality to be coherent. Such can only be done in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. And thus, equally ungrounded reason. Such requires that that root at once be adequate to found worlds, rationality (including Mathematics) and morality. We, need awesome power, utter rationality and inherent goodness coupled to utter wisdom.

    A familiar bill of requisites.

    After centuries of debates, it remains that there is just one serious candidate to fill that bill. If you doubt me, simply provide an alternative ______ and explain how this is superior on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork) _______ . Prediction, a lot harder to do than may be imagined.

    Namely, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; one fully worthy of our loyalty and trust; as well as of our reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident, manifest, morally governed nature. The God of ethical theism, a general major worldview option. In that context, our civilisation’s Judaeo-Christian tradition is a religious heritage that speaks to such a good God who is there, is not silent and enters into not only conversation but covenant with individuals, families, communities and nations; reaching out in redemptive love.

    And so, we see that the religious impulse reflects the built-in law of our morally governed nature, it is not merely institutionalised ritual.

    KF

  183. 183
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: You speak of suffragetes as though it were in isolation. 100 years ago, most men did not have the vote either, in most jurisdictions; due to property or class disqualifications, or systems of government in which a general election was not part of the way things were, etc. There had just been a world war, in which the major monarchies of Europe fought to ruin, leading to revolutions. One of the monarchies that collapsed was the one that inherited the mantle of the Holy Roman Empire. Another, was the Caliphate. The Russian and German Empires collapsed in revolutions that directly led to seventy years of global struggle. The British Empire came to bankruptcy and in the aftermath of the phase 2 of the thirty-years war of C20, it collapsed. And chaotic consequences would follow down to the turn of the 90’s, then onward to today. In that context, the issue that democracies are unstable and prone to mob rule or usurpation leading to open or veiled rule by oligarchies or autocratic tyrannies was an open issue. That is what faces the USA today, with a Supreme Court that 47 years ago usurped Constitutional authority to make holocaust of living posterity in the womb the central issue of government; on dubious grounds. That is in fact the root of the deep polarisation and early phase 4th generation style unacknowledged civil war that obtains in the USA today.

  184. 184
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL claims that ID is a pseudoscience since “That does (not) accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians.”

    So JVL appeals to a ‘consensus’ of “working scientists” to try to refute the fairly detailed arguments that I provided for why Darwinian evolution actually is the pseudoscience instead of ID being a pseudoscience as atheists claim on wikipedia?

    As Crichton would say, JVL is a scoundrel:

    Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

    I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    And he continues:

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

  185. 185
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, notice, how you substituted opinion and the institutional power of the evolutionary materialistic magisterium for the balance on merits of fact, in trying to dismiss BA77’s note on Wikipedia’s entrenched slander of the design inference and its leading thinkers. Including in the case of Dr Bechly. All you are doing is documenting the depth of polarisation and the presence of the domineering factionalism Plato warned against. Kindly, define, what is pseudoscientific ___ , on objective grounds ____, showing the non-question-begging validity and coherence of demarcation criteria you use ____ . Prediction, on failure of such demarcation attempts in recent decades: you cannot fill in those blanks in a sound, cogent fashion. Next, identify for us cases where complex [in the beyond 500 – 1,000 bits sense] functional language, alphanumeric codes and/or algorithms have been OBSERVED to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, i.e. without material involvement of intelligently directed configuration ________ . Again, predictably, you cannot fill that blank in successfully. By contrast, this very thread stands as yet further examples of how language and related phenomena routinely arise by intelligent design. There are trillions of cases in point and no sound counter-examples, backed up by analysis of search challenge in large configuration spaces. So, on reasonable inductive inference on reliable sign, we are well within epistemological and scientific rights to infer design on seeing FSCO/I. The rulings otherwise, invariably, come from ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. Wikipedia is here serving as further imposition of agit prop, backed up by the loose defamation law in the USA which robs targetted people of the right of innocent reputation. KF

  186. 186
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: DNA, of course, is at the heart of cell based life and manifests language in the form of alphanumeric codes used to store algorithms for creation of proteins, the workhorse molecules of cell based life. This case alone is more than enough to warrant a design inference as best scientific, inductive explanation for biological life, on reliable sign.

  187. 187
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Lewontin’s inadvertent, cat out of bag explanation of the consensus you appeal to:

    . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

    This is backed by the US National Science Teachers Association, in 2000:

    All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [–> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [–> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [–> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [–> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . .

    Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [–> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [–> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [–> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that’s why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [–> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [–> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [–> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . .

    Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [–> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]

    See why “consensus” fails to justify slander?

  188. 188
    JVL says:

    KF, 182: However, that is a negative case, one that — predictably — you and ilk will ignore in haste to promote what you see as the champion of progress and prosperity for our civilisation. It isn’t.

    In the last 150 years . . . woman have been given the right to vote all over the planet, that is a good thing. State sanctioned slavery has ended, that is a good thing. Vaccines have come into wide-spread use saving probably millions of lives, another good thing. Many, many improvements in hygiene and medicine have meant the average life expectancy all over the planet has risen. Police forces are now commonplace and are helping to protect the lives of citizens everywhere. Widespread public transport means that more people can travel outside a small radius near their home. Public museums, art galleries and libraries allow everyone to see, hear and read great works of art from all of history. The development of air travel means many, many people can afford to travel to other cultures and get a better world perspective. (I remember when I first travelled to Europe and visited as many gothic cathedrals as I could find, glorious!!) Higher education has become much more available in my father’s lifetime which millions and millions of people (and society) have benefited from. Literacy levels are much, much higher all over the planet. State supported medical assistance and pension programmes are benefitting many individuals. Banks are more secure and individual’s deposits are generally protected by laws and governments.

    Of course there have been wars, some pretty hideous. But that’s not a new thing, more of a holdover.

    In general the lot of the average person on this planet has improved dramatically since Darwin published On the Origin of Species. I’m not saying the improvements came from those espousing his views but pretty clearly the ever greater acceptance of evolutionary theory didn’t stop all the progress that has been made.

    Would you rather live now or in 1850? I know what I’d pick.

    And, again, just because some folks think that if you support unguided evolutionary theory you have to consider human life to be meaningless does not mean everyone shares that sentiment. You don’t like being assumed to share the views of all Christians so please do not make that mistake in reverse.

  189. 189
    JVL says:

    I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true.

  190. 190
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true. As predicted, you cannot back it up. As for oh there has been progress, yes there has been. There has also been holocaust including the ongoing worst holocaust in history. Furthermore, none of the progress that has happened, traces to imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. I trust, we do not need to go into a discussion of the roots of modern science in the only place and time where such an endeavour has emerged as a sustained movement. KF

  191. 191
    JVL says:

    KF, 190: your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true.

    So, anytime I mentioned something that is true (how the majority feels) implies I endorse it? And even if I do agree with the majority view am I not allowed to discuss it?

    Remember, BA77 initially brought up the Wikipedia references to ID as pseudoscience, not me.

    I understand your feelings but I don’t think it’s fair to shut down a thread of a conversation because you disagree with something. But I’m happy to drop the issue.

  192. 192
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud. in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority. That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted. next, I took time to highlight the relevant issues, outlining the principle that we are dealing with applied inductive reasoning, with defeatable warrant on reliable sign being on the table. That warrant has to do with a very observable phenomenon, FSCO/I, which on trillions of cases in point and on linked search challenge for blind search of large configuration spaces, is reliably a sign of intelligently directed configuration. I also pointed to the presence of language, alphanumeric code and algorithms in DNA, which lies at the heart of cell based life. Can you show that such FSCO/I, language, alphanumeric symbolic code and algorithms have been reliably observed to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity? Evidently, not. Further, I documented the ideological imposition that has begged the question. Those are what you need to cogently answer. KF

  193. 193
    JVL says:

    KF, 192: the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud.

    Good thing I didn’t personally use it to refer to ID.

    in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority.

    I disagree, I think you can mention something without agreeing with it.

    That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted.

    I wasn’t trying to answer the challenge since I did not personally apply the term.

    I know the relevant issues and I’m quite sure that I could not make a contribution that you would find compelling based on what I’ve read at UD over the years. So I won’t waste your time if that’s okay. Which is not a concession or a put down or a challenge. I do believe in unguided evolutionary theory but I can’t see that I could bring up anything you haven’t already heard and dealt with.

  194. 194
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true.

    Except for the fact that you don’t know that. The majority of people accept some form of ID. And those who don’t accept ID don’t have a viable scientific alternative. And I don’t care if you or anyone else disagrees with that. You definitely cannot provide anything to refute it.

  195. 195
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I do believe in unguided evolutionary theory …

    There isn’t any such theory. There aren’t even testable hypotheses. So you have to believe in it- pure faith.

  196. 196
    ET says:

    JVL does NOT speak for any scientists. JVL cannot say what any majority of scientists think. Yet he thinks that he does. Strange but true.

  197. 197
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you neatly omitted that you did not establish a critical distance between yourself and the slanders at Wikipedia. Let’s clip across this morning:

    179 JVL March 8, 2020 at 2:32 am

    BA77, 177: Günter Bechly is far from the only person who has been fired from his job for daring to question Darwinian orthodoxy.

    I don’t think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job.

    I have no idea why he was expunged from Wikipedia, which, I agree, is not the font of all wisdom. I do find it a good place to start and one that is available to everyone so that links to there are visible to everyone. Who initially created Dr Bechly’s entry? Did they follow the Wikipedia guidelines? Have you tried to create an entry for him?

    If Dr Bechly was ‘expelled’ from Wikipedia for supporting intelligent design then why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there? Supporting ID does not get you kicked off Wikipedia; there’s some part of the story we are missing.
    _______________

    180 bornagain77 March 8, 2020 at 3:44 am

    JVL states,

    I don’t think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job.

    I did not claim that it was.

    “Shoot, wikipedia ‘erased’ Günter Bechly, who has stellar credentials as a paleontologist, and who was curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, before being ‘pushed out’ after revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design.”

    Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly – David Klinghoffer – October 10, 2017
    Excerpt: Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. He subsequently joined Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture as a Senior Fellow. Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.,,,
    ,,, It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested, to be ruled upon by a 23-year-old “boy” and 500-year-old wizard called “Jo-Jo.” Such is the alternative reality of Wikipedia.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/

    JVL then tries to claim that wikipedia ‘is a good place to start’ and that wikipedia is not inherently biased against ID since “why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there?”

    Here are some of the supposedly unbiased entries on ID via wikipedia from the very first sentence of each entry on wikipedia

    William Albert “Bill” Dembski (born July 18, 1960),,, a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience,

    Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).

    Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.

    John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells (born 1942),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design.

    Wikipedia is a “good place to start” my foot!

    JVL then acts like it is easy for an ID advocate to correct the incorrect information on wikipedia, or for an ID advocate to ‘create an entry’ in the first place.

    Hogwash! The cofounder of wikipedia agrees that wikipedia is openly hostile towards ID

    Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. – December 1, 2016
    Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted.
    I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia [–> lesse, is it about no 5 or 6 on the Internet in terms of hits?] articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed.”
    In a response Mr. Sanger stated:
    “For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…”
    There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com…..ty-policy/

    In trying to correct misinformation and lies about ID on wikipedia,,, Atheistic internet trolls vigilantly police wikipedia to prevent the misinformtion and lies from being corrected

    Wikipedia’s Tyranny of the Unemployed – David Klinghoffer – June 24, 2012
    Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia’s articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia’s volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight.
    You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again.

    ,,, on Wikipedia, “fact” is established by the party with the free time that’s required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..61281.html

    As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie “that Intelligent Design is a “pseudoscientific principle”, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists on wikipedia and elsewhere, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudoscience, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or on the presupposition of Darwinian materialism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Furthermore, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be . . .
    _____________

    181 JVL March 8, 2020 at 4:07 am

    BA77, 180: As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie “that Intelligent Design is a “pseudoscientific principle”, nothing could be further from the truth.

    That does accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians. You disagree, clearly, but I’m afraid the tail doesn’t get to wag the dog. [–> note the context of active suppression of correction of slander and the wider context that by 2017, several dozens of peer-reviewed ID supportive articles were in the literature and so were corrections of the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism by question begging a priori] Keep working on getting your views understood and accepted and things will change.

    I hadn’t realised that Dr Bechly had, effectively, been forced out of his job (according to him, even his own website didn’t discuss that situation oddly). The Wikipedia lack I do find strange but, clearly, being an ID advocate DOES NOT get you booted off the site. [–> at minimum, it gets you smeared with persistent slander that takes advantage of the looseness of defamation law in the USA, for Bechley, it got him both disappeared from Wikipedia — as he headed a relevant museum so could not be derided as a fringe personality, and it got him pushed out of the job; as in Expelled]
    _______________

    184 bornagain77 March 8, 2020 at 4:28 am

    JVL claims that ID is a pseudoscience since “That does (not) accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians.”

    So JVL appeals to a ‘consensus’ of “working scientists” to try to refute the fairly detailed arguments that I provided for why Darwinian evolution actually is the pseudoscience instead of ID being a pseudoscience as atheists claim on wikipedia?

    As Crichton would say, JVL is a scoundrel [–> language I would not use]:

    Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

    I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    And he continues:

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. [–> a fair enough summary of scientific revolutions, though of course several such faced dubious opposition that did appeal to the prevailing consensus, try Semmelweiss] There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

    ____________________

    185 kairosfocus March 8, 2020 at 4:46 am

    JVL, notice, how you substituted opinion and the institutional power of the evolutionary materialistic magisterium for the balance on merits of fact, in trying to dismiss BA77’s note on Wikipedia’s entrenched slander of the design inference and its leading thinkers. Including in the case of Dr Bechly. All you are doing is documenting the depth of polarisation and the presence of the domineering factionalism Plato warned against. Kindly, define, what is pseudoscientific ___ , on objective grounds ____, showing the non-question-begging validity and coherence of demarcation criteria you use ____ . Prediction, on failure of such demarcation attempts in recent decades: you cannot fill in those blanks in a sound, cogent fashion. Next, identify for us cases where complex [in the beyond 500 – 1,000 bits sense] functional language, alphanumeric codes and/or algorithms have been OBSERVED to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, i.e. without material involvement of intelligently directed configuration ________ . Again, predictably, you cannot fill that blank in successfully [–> notice, how there has been no cogent answer on these two challenges]. By contrast, this very thread stands as yet further examples of how language and related phenomena routinely arise by intelligent design. There are trillions of cases in point and no sound counter-examples, backed up by analysis of search challenge in large configuration spaces. So, on reasonable inductive inference on reliable sign, we are well within epistemological and scientific rights to infer design on seeing FSCO/I. The rulings otherwise, invariably, come from ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. Wikipedia is here serving as further imposition of agit prop, backed up by the loose defamation law in the USA which robs targetted people of the right of innocent reputation. KF

    _____________

    189 JVL March 8, 2020 at 4:59 am

    I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true.

    __________________

    190 kairosfocus March 8, 2020 at 5:20 am

    JVL, your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true. As predicted, you cannot back it up. As for oh there has been progress, yes there has been. There has also been holocaust including the ongoing worst holocaust in history. Furthermore, none of the progress that has happened, traces to imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. I trust, we do not need to go into a discussion of the roots of modern science in the only place and time where such an endeavour has emerged as a sustained movement. KF
    _____________

    191 JVL March 8, 2020 at 5:54 am

    KF, 190: your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true.

    So, anytime I mentioned something that is true (how the majority feels) implies I endorse it? And even if I do agree with the majority view am I not allowed to discuss it?

    Remember, BA77 initially brought up the Wikipedia references to ID as pseudoscience, not me.

    I understand your feelings but I don’t think it’s fair to shut down a thread of a conversation because you disagree with something. [–> having set up a strawman with an implicit ad hominem of censorship, JVL knocks it over] But I’m happy to drop the issue.
    ______________
    192
    kairosfocus
    March 8, 2020 at 6:43 am

    JVL, the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud. in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself [–> notice the key step] unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority. That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted. next, I took time to highlight the relevant issues, outlining the principle that we are dealing with applied inductive reasoning, with defeatable warrant on reliable sign being on the table. That warrant has to do with a very observable phenomenon, FSCO/I, which on trillions of cases in point and on linked search challenge for blind search of large configuration spaces, is reliably a sign of intelligently directed configuration. I also pointed to the presence of language, alphanumeric code and algorithms in DNA, which lies at the heart of cell based life. Can you show that such FSCO/I, language, alphanumeric symbolic code and algorithms have been reliably observed to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity? Evidently, not. Further, I documented the ideological imposition that has begged the question. Those are what you need to cogently answer. KF
    _____________

    193 JVL March 8, 2020 at 6:55 am

    KF, 192: the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud.

    Good thing I didn’t personally use it to refer to ID

    [–> yes, you simply spread the slander without correcting it as slander, implying endorsement, which is further reinforced by remarks as to how Wikipedia is a good place to begin from]

    in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority.

    I disagree, I think you can mention something [–> what kind of “something” . . . an echo of someone’s indirect reference to the 9/11 attacks] without agreeing with it.

    [–> In a context of widespread slander, there is a duty of care to defend innocent reputation. More broadly, a responsible party will not circularte strongly adverse views on people without confirming their veracity on good warrant. Otherwise one is doing little more than propagating slander irresponsibly.]

    That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted.

    I wasn’t trying to answer the challenge since I did not personally apply the term.

    [–> a clear evasion of responsibility to respect innocent reputation and to warrant accusations before making or spreading them.]
    ____________

    194 ET March 8, 2020 at 7:30 am

    JVL:

    I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true.

    Except for the fact that you don’t know that. The majority of people accept some form of ID. And those who don’t accept ID don’t have a viable scientific alternative. And I don’t care if you or anyone else disagrees with that. You definitely cannot provide anything to refute it.

    the pattern of irresponsible rhetoric is clear.

    KF

  198. 198
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: here is Wiki’s definition of pseudoscience, I will markup DV on my return:

    Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative,[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2] [–> so guilty if you protest your innocence . . . ]

    The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, occult beliefs, religious beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7]

    Pseudoscience can be harmful. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatment with demonstrable health benefits.[8]

    KF

  199. 199
    JVL says:

    KF, 197: you neatly omitted that you did not establish a critical distance between yourself and the slanders at Wikipedia

    I personally did not use the term pseudoscience in reference to ID. If you want to make assumptions it’s up to you.

    JVL then tries to claim that wikipedia ‘is a good place to start’ and that wikipedia is not inherently biased against ID since “why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there?”

    I mentioned the articles about Drs Dembski, Behe, etc to establish that support for ID is not a ticket off Wikipedia. Whether or not it’s biased would take more investigation.

    [–> note the context of active suppression of correction of slander and the wider context that by 2017, several dozens of peer-reviewed ID supportive articles were in the literature and so were corrections of the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism by question begging a priori]

    Again, I personally did not use the term pseudoscience referring to ID. And I don’t think you can say the use of the term is slanderous.

    The comments from Mr Sanger are interesting but, as he himself notes, he is no longer with the organisation.

    As Crichton would say, JVL is a scoundrel [–> language I would not use]:

    Thank you for that.

    [–> yes, you simply spread the slander without correcting it as slander, implying endorsement, which is further reinforced by remarks as to how Wikipedia is a good place to begin from]

    I doubt it’s slanderous, I didn’t use it, I didn’t even enter it into the conversation. And, obviously, all resources should be looked at with a critical eye, I certainly do so with Wikipedia. Given that I still think it’s a good place to start as one can get references to other online sources and topics.

    [–> In a context of widespread slander, there is a duty of care to defend innocent reputation. More broadly, a responsible party will not circularte strongly adverse views on people without confirming their veracity on good warrant. Otherwise one is doing little more than propagating slander irresponsibly.]

    I personally did not use the term pseudoscientific in reference to ID because I am not familiar with the common definition of pseudoscience so I cannot confirm or deny the appropriateness of it’s use. And, again, I doubt it’s actually slanderous.

    [–> a clear evasion of responsibility to respect innocent reputation and to warrant accusations before making or spreading them.]

    I personally did not refer to ID as pseudoscience. I offered and opinion which may or may not be true (I strongly believe it is having listened to lots of scientists discuss ID and having read the article on ID) but I categorically did not state my own opinion.

    I assume if Wikipedia was being legally slanderous then the Discovery Institute would have tried to take them to court. Perhaps they have, I’d be interested in what happened if they did.

  200. 200
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the point of concern stands. KF

  201. 201
    JVL says:

    KF, 200: the point of concern stands.

    Okay.

  202. 202
    Seversky says:

    JVL @ 181

    I hadn’t realised that Dr Bechly had, effectively, been forced out of his job (according to him, even his own website didn’t discuss that situation oddly). The Wikipedia lack I do find strange but, clearly, being an ID advocate DOES NOT get you booted off the site.

    I also found it odd that Dr Bechly’s entry on Wikipedia had been deleted when those of more prominent advocates of ID had been left up. Why pick on a little-known (in the US at least) German scientist? Could there have been other reasons behind it? If the only reason for removing him was his conversion to belief in ID then, in my view, it was a highly questionable decision and should have been challenged.

    However, it should also be noted that David Klinghoffer omitted to mention that Dr Bechly has not been entirely expunged from Wikipedia. A Google search easily found this entry for him from the German-language version.

  203. 203
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Let’s look at Wiki:

    >>Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1]>>

    1: There is no one “scientific method.” There is thus no demarcation line between science and non-science or pseudo-science.

    2: What can be warranted is that inductive reasoning [modern sense] can and does warrant empirically grounded investigations, in some cases to moral certainty.

    3: The issue is, warrant for fact claims and best explanations. But this applies to Sciences as conventionally called, history, forensics, management, economics and other social sciences, education, statistics and a lot of other disciplines, as well as to ordinary common sense and prudence.

    4: However, ironically, given the pessimistic induction, while many facts of observation and reliability of signs can often be warranted to moral certainty, no big enough body of theory can be warranted to more that being a best explanation so far subject to correction or replacement.

    5: This holds doubly for observational sciences and triply for things we infer about what we cannot observe but address on here and now traces. That includes speculations about astronomically remote entities and for reconstructions of the deep past of origins.

    6: So, inherently, grand theories of earth history, solar system and cosmos origins as well as origins of life and of body plans are triply provisional.

    7: Ironically, when we observe DNA and its FSCO/I with language, code, algorithms etc, we are far better warranted in inferring reliably on signs that such reflect reliable signs of design that those who impose a priori evolutionary materialism and then claim that their ideologically loaded reconstructions of the past have passed the level of theory to that of fact.

    8: So, already, we see that if anything may legitimately be deemed a poor induction, which ought not to be presented or taught as if it were practically certain, it is the sorts of things that are routinely sold to us as the “facts” of our past.

    >> Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; >>

    9: More correctly, poor reasoning “is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims.”

    >>reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation;>>

    10: The imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat is a capital case in point.

    11: That said, Popperian falsificationism is not actually a very useful criterion. What would be better, is that as inductive arguments are inherently defeatable, responsible, feasible tests should be done to establish reliability so far, and due notes on limitations should be made.

    12: For instance, a single well established case of observed creation of FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits through blind chance and/or mechanical necessity alone, would suffice to overturn the design inference. In fact, trillions of cases are observed, including in this thread, and consistently FSCO/I comes about by design reliably as search challenge demonstrates.

    >> lack of openness to evaluation by other experts;>>

    13: Again, a mark of poor reasoning rather than poor science.

    14: Where, the repeated tendency to disqualify, discredit, lock out, expel and slander critics of evolutionary materialistic scientism speaks for itself regarding the fallacy of the closed, hostile mind.

    >> absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses;>>

    15: In scientific inductive reasoning, there are many, many systematic practices, however, absolutely key inductive insights have often come about in intuitive, creative ways.

    16: Kekule’s dream about a snake forming a circle providing the solution to the Benzine ring, or Einstein’s daydream of riding on a beam of light or Newton’s insight of a falling apple vs the orbiting Moon or Archimedes running through the streets shouting Eureka, as he saw the relevance of density to identifying the substance in his king’s crown all spring to mind.

    17: The issue is inference to best, empirically anchored explanation, not whether the idea came in a dream or the like. Often, that is how the unconscious speaks.

    >>and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.>>

    18: Closed mindedness in the face of empirical evidence that falsifies — not merely “discredits” is a fallacy of reasoning, not merely of “pseudoscience.” Notice, how the demarcation lines used to try to create a citadel of prestige have fallen.

    19: Where, also, manifestly, evolutionary materialistic scientism is multiply self referentially incoherent and self refuting [by way of undermining rational responsible intellectual freedom], it is necessarily false.

    >> The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative,[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively.>>

    19: For cause, and here we see that if one is making a strong adverse claim against another, one has a duty of care to provide adequate warrant.

    >>Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]>>

    20: In too many cases as we see relevant to design theory, for cause. And, given the right of innocent reputation and the reasonable principle that one is innocent unless adequately shown in the wrong, guilt by accusation and compounding this by oh you deny it and every guilty party denies it, is slander.

    >>The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5]>>

    21: As pointed out, such demarcation lines cannot be warranted as between science and non science or pseudo science. The demarcation lines are those between strong and weak of failed inductive reasoning.

    >>Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6]>>

    22: Errors carried forward. The issue is instead to be responsible in inductive reasoning. Unfortunately, this whole presentation fails that test already.

    >>Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, occult beliefs, religious beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7]>>

    23: Little more than creating an ideological lock-in and scarlet branding what one does not like, given the above. What is needed instead, is to show good vs poor inductive reasoning in the modern sense.

    >>Pseudoscience can be harmful. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatment with demonstrable health benefits.[8] >>

    24: Nothing is gained by using “pseudoscience,” rather than poor inductive reasoning in particular, and poor reasoning in general.

    KF

  204. 204
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, he was head of a significant science museum. T=Given what else has been going on, that speaks for itself. And of course, the debates are in the anglophone world, so I am not particularly surprised to see that he is still around in German. KF

  205. 205
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Googlr translate: >>Günter Bechly (born October 16, 1963 in Sindelfingen) is a German paleontologist and entomologist who works with fossil insects (especially dragonflies). From 1999 to 2016 he was scientific curator for amber and fossil insects at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart. [1]>>

  206. 206
    JVL says:

    So, if Dr Günter Bechly still has an entry on the German Wikipedia can we say he was expunged from Wikipedia? Perhaps the statement needs to be amended? And it brings up some questions: are the different language versions of Wikipedia completely independent? Did something happen with the English language Dr Günter Bechly entree have some particular controversy associated with it that caused it to be purged? It would be good to know.

  207. 207
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, US defamation law has been so corrupted that it has little point unless truly unusual circumstances obtain. For me, the eye-opener case was the Gen Westmoreland suit over the Vietnam war. There is now, clearly, a culture of I can slander as I feel like in the US, which is now corrupting even the Constitution . . . and undermining recognition of the ever present natural law that rightly demands truth, prudence, fairness and justice so also the right to innocent reputation. Such cannot end well. KF

  208. 208
    kairosfocus says:

    JV L, the relevant version is of course the English one, that’s where the issues are. KF

  209. 209
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, your I doubt it is slander should be reviewed in light of the problems with the pseudoscience concept. The actual balance on inductive merits is also relevant. When science is ideologised, it begins to lose credibility, thus value. Which, for cause, is already happening. KF

  210. 210
    JVL says:

    KF, 207:

    I would like to think your pessimism is misplaced but, sadly, I too am dismayed at many recent developments especially regarding legal matters. I’d like to have ‘faith’ in the system but . . .

  211. 211
    JVL says:

    KF 209: your I doubt it is slander should be reviewed in light of the problems with the pseudoscience concept.

    I really don’t know, obviously and I would be very interested if someone chose to bring a case against Wikipedia.

    And can I just say, definitively that I will not refer to ID as a pseudoscience.

  212. 212
    Ed George says:

    KF

    However, when one — or a society as a whole — cannot live in general accord with the tenets and implications of a worldview, that is a sign that it is a root of chaotic error.

    I agree. However, a desire to live within a stable and supportive society necessitates tenets of behaviour that form the basis of a worldview. I don’t see how a religion is required, although I can see how it can be used (and abused) to standardize certain behaviours and thoughts within a society.

  213. 213
    Ed George says:

    KF

    JVL, your I doubt it is slander should be reviewed in light of the problems with the pseudoscience concept. KF

    When someone refers to ID as pseudoscience you declare it slander, yet I don’t remember you raising the same accusation over the numerous times on this site that evolution has been called a pseudoscience.

    The actual balance on inductive merits is also relevant. When science is ideologised, it begins to lose credibility, thus value. Which, for cause, is already happening.

    Yet when people on this site repeatedly equate evolutionary science with religion and ideology, you remain strangely silent. If you expect a certain level of respect, civility and honesty from those who disagree with you, a good start would be to apply the same standard to those who agree with you. Food for thought.

  214. 214
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, I addressed the pseudoscience concept step by step above [using Wikipedia’s discussion], including on how it is a poor fit to the design controversy; and the basic issues on inductive reasoning. I suggest that you respond in that light. KF

  215. 215
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL (despite the obvious uncorrected slander that ‘ID is a pseudoscience’ that he let stand previously, (as outlined by kf), now ‘promises’,

    can I just say, definitively that I will not refer to ID as a pseudoscience.

    Unlike JVL, or any other Darwinist, who can provide no valid reason why ID should be considered a pseudoscience, I WILL DEFINITELY refer to Darwinian evolution as a pseudoscience, and I will DEFINITELY provide valid reasons why Darwinism should be considered a pseudoscience!

    We cannot, as far as experimental science itself is concerned, ever be 100% certain that a certain theory is undeniably true, i.e. proven, but we can be certain that a theory has been falsified by experimental evidence. i.e. disproven. As Einstein himself noted,

    “The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “Yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.”
    – Einstein

    And as Richard Feynman stated,

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman

    In fact the ‘potential’ ability of a theory to be falsified by experimentation is exactly why Popper’s falsification criteria is considered the primary criteria in science for judging whether a theory is even to be considered scientific or not.

    “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 R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    Since Darwinists simply refuse to accept any of the many falsifying evidences against their theory, then that means that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a scientific theory in the first place, (at least how Darwinists themselves treat their theory).

    Here are a few falsifications of Darwinism that Darwinian atheists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory,

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

    Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science.

    As Berlinski noted,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinian evolution, is very much a falsifiable scientific theory.

    Another major failing of Darwinian evolution that disqualifies it from being considered a proper scientific theory is that Darwinian evolution has no known law in the universe for Darwinists to base their math on in order to build realistic models of their theory,

    As Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” once stated “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    Since Darwinists have no known law in the universe to base their math on in order to build a realistic model, then, as Robert Marks explains, “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science directly, or almost directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas – El Paso – May 2012
    Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....econd-law/

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) to base its math on to build realistic models upon in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

    Thus again, by all rights, Intelligent Design qualifies as a rigorous and testable science that is ‘potentially’ falsifiable, whereas Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science by any reasonable measure one might wish to invoke to tell if a theory is even scientific or not.

    In short, Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience that makes astrology look tame by comparison:

    Is evolution pseudoscience?
    Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
    http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

  216. 216
  217. 217
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, pseudoscience is in effect a dismissive label with little merit. I suggest, deal with the actual specific challenges with inductive reasoning. KF

  218. 218
    JVL says:

    BA77, 215: In short, Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience that makes astrology look tame by comparison:

    I wonder if KF will consider this slanderous? We shall see eh?

  219. 219
    JVL says:

    KF, 217: BA77, pseudoscience is in effect a dismissive label with little merit. I suggest, deal with the actual specific challenges with inductive reasoning.

    Thank you. You are being fair and consistent.

  220. 220
    bornagain77 says:

    Au Contraire kf, I laid out valid reasons exactly why Darwinian evolution should, by all rights, be considered a pseudoscience. Therefore it is NOT a false accusation but a true statement. i.e. I DID NOT SLANDER!

    slan·der
    /?sland?r/
    the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.

    I will NOT back off my claim that Darwinian evolution is in fact a pseudoscience!

  221. 221
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, no competent lawyer in the US would advise bringing a defamation suit once the victim of defamation can in any wise be construed a public enough figure; unless they have irrefutable evidence of a confession of malice or the like . . . and as malice is a state of mind it is next to unprovable. That is how corrupt US defamation law has become. Sadly, even actual proof of the falsity of charges will not suffice to recover a reputation. The current climate of guilt by accusation is the natural result and it will not end well. The media lynch mobs and lawfare tactics using star chamber courts we have seen, hailed by major media outlets, point to where this ends. Beyond a certain point, someone is going to reach the pitch of rage beyond all control and will resort to the US equivalent of rule 303 at 600 yards, live on camera. Something like that has already happened with the attack on FRC and the attack on Congressmen at baseball practice. A journalist was already shot dead on camera (though that may have been over personal issues?). I shudder to think of where it will go beyond that point, but that is the sort of fire that is being recklessly played with. KF

  222. 222
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, my point is, that pseudoscience has become essentially meaningless, an empty agitprop word of abuse, much like X-phobia and, increasingly, Nazi. Far better to expose the inductive reasoning failures and ideological question begging involved in evolutionary materialistic scientism; then challenge, why should I submit to having my kids indoctrinated in such question begging, self-refuting fallacies? KF

  223. 223
    JVL says:

    KF, 221:

    Well, then I suspect the Wikipedia statement will stand. That’ll make it harder to gain acceptance. Lots of work to do then.

  224. 224
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, there is a reason why Wikipedia has forfeited academic credibility, even though it may be the no 5 or 6 web site. The major media are in the process of a drastic loss of credibility. Soon, education and textbook publishers will follow suit. Then, the courts. After that, Katy, bar the door, here’s the blunderbuss. KF

  225. 225
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    I will NOT back off my claim that Darwinian evolution is in fact a pseudoscience!

    KF, are you going to stand by while thousands of hard working scientists are being slandered yet get mad when ID is slandered?

  226. 226
    ET says:

    There aren’t any hard working scientists who use Darwinian evolution for anything.

  227. 227
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, evolutionary materialistic scientism is an un-scientific and too often pseudo-scientific ideology, insofar as the latter has any meaning. That’s the problem, it has become little more than an ideological smear word that shuts off serious reflection on the question-begging and poor inductive reasoning involved. The scientism in particular makes the blunder that big-S Science effectively monopolises or dominates knowledge and efficacious methods of creating knowledge. When, epistemology — the study of knowledge and its conditions — is properly a branch of philosophy. The Evolutionary materialism is self-refuting. The proper answer is to recognise the epistemological and logic issues, avoid question begging impositions and recognise that everyday, weak form knowledge claims are defeatable so should not be turned into indoctrination. That includes, under colours of education. KF

  228. 228
    bornagain77 says:

    EG, as usual, (who has refused to get into the scientific details time after time), engages in pointless rhetoric and claims that I slandered “thousands of hard working scientists”.

    That claim is unmitigated hogwash

    I laid out my exact reasons for exactly why Darwinian evolution itself should, by all rights, be considered a unfalsifiable pseudoscience instead of as a testable science. Feigning hurt feelings for “thousands of hard working scientists ” is not a valid refutation of those exact reasons.

    Furthermore, Darwinism is absolutely useless as a fruitful heuristic to those “thousands of hard working scientists”. If EG disagrees then he is free to try to prove otherwise. But alas, EG modus operandi is pointless rhetoric, not a substantive search for the truth!

    But anyways, to further prove that Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience, Francis Bacon, whom many consider to be the founder of the scientific method, put the ‘fruitfulness’ criteria for determining whether something is to be considered science or not this way,,,

    “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy”
    Francis Bacon – widely regarded as the founder of the scientific method,, a devout Anglican Christian

    That is to say, truthful scientific theories, as opposed to pseudosciences, have a history of deepening man’s understanding of Nature, and thus providing man with beneficial technological breakthroughs because of that deepened understanding of nature (For instance, Newton’s theory of Gravity was ‘good enough’ to land men on the moon). Evolution, unlike those other scientific theories, has completely failed on this account to foster research and deliver technological breakthroughs.

    No less than Jerry Coyne himself agrees with this,

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).

    As Philip Skell noted, “Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

    Here are a few more quotes to drive this point home that Darwinian evolution is absolutely useless to experimental biology

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)

    In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has hindered scientific discovery, and has also led to much medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs (not to mention many other failed ‘scientific predictions’ (Cornelius Hunter).)

    And that is not even including the horrid social consequence Darwinism fostered by providing a fraudulent scientific basis for Marxism which resulted in the death of a about 200 million people in the 20th century

    Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010
    Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx –
    “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.”
    Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 –
    “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”
    The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”
    Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?”
    To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/

    On the other hand, Intelligent Design, far from having disastrous social consequences, and hindering scientific discovery as Darwinian evolution has done, is found to be a ‘driver of science’:

    Intelligent Design 3.0 ? What’s the future of Intelligent Design research? 
    Dr. Stephen Meyer gives us a glimpse starting at the 38:00 minute mark of the following video:
    Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video
    https://youtu.be/dvwBaD8-00w?t=2277  

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

    And to repeat what I stated earlier

    Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists on wikipedia and elsewhere, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudoscience, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or on the presupposition of Darwinian materialism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Verse:

    Matthew 7
    17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire

  229. 229
    Truthfreedom says:

    @97 JVL

    How about: the inability to breed with existing species? The new species matches that criteria. From the article: https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos?ignore_amp

    1st Problem Here
    BSC (Biological Species Concept), from Mayr:

    Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.

    Geospiza conirostris and Geospiza fortis mated and reproduced, so according to this BSC, they were not different species to begin with.

  230. 230
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, evolutionary materialistic scientism is an un-scientific and too often pseudo-scientific ideology, …

    OK, I guess having a double standard is better than having no standard.

  231. 231
    ET says:

    What is this alleged double standard? ID makes testable claims. Evolutionism does not.

  232. 232
    Truthfreedom says:

    @103 JVL

    What part of the Wikipedia article did the new species of finches NOT meet?

    Please refer to my post @229. G. rostris and G. fortis were not different species according to the BSC definition.

  233. 233
    Truthfreedom says:

    @110 JVL

    I agree, it is a slippery issue. But the inability to interbreed with other species is a pretty common and strong indication so I’ll start with that. And the new finches meet that criteria.

    But the old ones do not meet that criteria. G. conirostris and G. fortis mated and reproduced.
    It is then a strong problem for the article.

  234. 234
    Truthfreedom says:

    @112 JVL

    I’m content with Mayr’s definition of species for the purposes of this conversation: groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.

    So you are content with acknowledging the article is wrong, because G. conirostris and G. fortis were not reproductively isolated = they were not different species according to your BSC definition.

  235. 235
    Truthfreedom says:

    @105 JVL

    The article I linked to described the new species as being unable to breed with existing species, that’s a pretty strong indication is it not?

    Yes, it is a pretty strong indication that G. conirostris and G. fortis were not different species to begin with.

  236. 236
    Truthfreedom says:

    @169 JVL
    Truthfreedom asked: – What ‘amount’ (of ‘natural’ homosexuality) would that be?
    JVL replied:
    ‘I don’t know but, as homosexual behaviour is quite common in the animal kingdom then perhaps it is “natural” albeit a minority approach’.

    You do not know the ‘number’ then. ‘Quite common’ and ‘minority’ are numbers/ proportions. If you can not give exact quantities, then it is all speculation.

  237. 237
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: So you are content with acknowledging the article is wrong, because G. conirostris and G. fortis were not reproductively isolated = they were not different species according to your BSC definition.

    But those were NOT the new species! The NEW species was reproductively isolated. The NEW species was not named in the article.

    No one knows the exact proportion of homosexual behaviour but we know it occurs quite often, that is not speculation. What difference does it make if you have an exact number?

  238. 238
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, really. Kindly read. Note, I spoke to an ideology that dresses itself up in a lab coat. That ideology, Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism is the heart of Naturalism, a worldview; to the point that it is effectively almost a definition by description. These are categorically distinct from the theory or theories of evolution, though they influence such. In this latter context, so-called micro-evolution, population variation through various mechanisms, can be observed, though it poses challenges to things such as how we often define a species. Macro-evolution as it addresses body plans, is a different matter. It is an extrapolation that is too often ideologically driven, and it is not actually observed. That puts it in the class of historical or origins theories and, per Newton’s Rules, requires that we have in hand observed adequate causal mechanisms that account for the like effects in our observation. That, we don’t, not after 162 years of trying. The only actually observed cause of required FSCO/I (we can show that needed cell types, tissues etc likely require 10 – 100+ million new bases, so a similar number of bits), is design. Which, is being ideologically locked out. That’s where BA77 and ET are quite right, we have a weak, flawed theory that has become the established orthodoxy in the teeth of lacking an adequate mechanism, a theory that dates to when the cell was seen as a simple blob of protoplasm, not understood to be the complex, deeply integrated information rich system that uses alphanumeric codes and algorithms to synthesise proteins, etc. That’s a big clue: language, applied to programming, is at the heart of the cell. Language is antecedent causally to cell based life. Language, being a strong sign of intelligence, where symbol systems, communication protocols and algorithms are all characteristic of intelligence. The dominant ideology and the evidence are at odds, but entrenched ideology that has significant cultural power and enables cultural agendas favoured by dominant elites will not go down easily. Never mind, the inherent self-falsification through undermining credibility of mind and reasoning, the amorality and radical relativism that invites nihilism and ruthless factions etc. To many, those are features, not bugs. Our civilisation is in deep trouble, and the low grade civil war in its leading country is simply the most important case. The demographics point to civilisational suicide, as does the rise of decadence, perversity and cultural marxist agendas. We are dancing on a crumbling cliff’s edge, heedless of warnings and signs of danger. We are already guilty of the worst holocaust in history, that of our living posterity in the womb; driven by devaluation of human life itself in our minds. Something which is directly traceable to the ideology and the presumed status of such as “fact.” The predictable result is that the cliff will collapse underfoot and it is pain, grief and loss that will open our collective eyes to our folly. That is what Plato in effect testifies to about Athens, post Peloponnesian War, in The Laws, Bk X, where, The Republic’s parable of the ship of state tells how the mutineer factions seized power and drove the ship to ruin. Acts 27 is a microcosm concrete event. We cannot say we have not been warned, including specifically on the folly of evolutionary materialism, the lab coat we see today only serves to confer cultural power. KF

    PS: Again, Plato’s warning — and note his remarks on the cynical dismissal of all religion as a cook-up:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

  239. 239
    kairosfocus says:

    TF and JVL, we are not like the horse, mule or donkey which all lack understanding. We are responsibly and rationally free morally governed creatures, starting with the inescapable first duties of reason. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness, to justice etc. As, even the arguments of the opposed inevitably appeal to. That means IS and OUGHT must be bridged, on pain of shattering incoherence in our life of reason. Such can only be done in the roots of reality; pointing to needing a root capable of being the source of worlds, being inherently good and utterly wise, while being necessary [causally independent] being. A familiar figure looms. KF

  240. 240
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL 237

    But those were NOT the new species!

    The problem is that according to the BSC, there were never any ‘old species’ to begin with. Bizarre.
    That is why I wrote ‘1st Problem Here’.
    Now, 2nd Problem Here

    The NEW species was reproductively isolated. The NEW species was not named in the article.

    – How strange. A ‘new species’ is discovered (assumed but not proved) but it has NO NAME?
    https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos?ignore_amp

  241. 241
    asauber says:

    For the Wikipedia Lovers commenting here:

    https://electroverse.net/wikipedia-deletes/

    Andrew

  242. 242
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 240: The problem is that according to the BSC, there were never any ‘old species’ to begin with. Bizarre.

    Clearly there were two previous species. They are named. The article mentions how hybrids can sometimes occur.

    How strange. A ‘new species’ is discovered (assumed but not proved) but it has NO NAME?

    Well not yet! They don’t just make something up at that moment.

  243. 243
    Truthfreedom says:

    @237 JVL

    No one knows the exact proportion of homosexual behaviour but we know it occurs quite often, that is not speculation. What difference does it make if you have an exact number?

    I do not know. It is you who is trying to relate an ‘undetermined quantity/ number’ to ‘naturalness’.

    If only ‘nature’ exists, EVERYTHING is ‘natural’.,

  244. 244
    Truthfreedom says:

    Clearly there were two previous species. They are named.

    Clearly, according to Mayr (BSC), there were not. Hybridisation is a patch to an ill-defined concept (‘species’).

    Well, not yet! They don’t just make something up at that moment.

    How so? 3 years have passed (article is from 2017) and NO NAME? Or am I wrong?

  245. 245
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL 178

    I disagree with Rosenberg.

    But my question was: are you mad at Rosenberg? 🙂

    I rather doubt he lives his life as if it has no meaning or ethics or morals.

    Me too. Because naturalism is a false doctrine. It can not explain reality. But Rosenberg understands what naturalism entails: nihilism.

    And just because one or more materialists express a viewpoint does not make it true or universally accepted. It would be wrong of me to look at the opinions of members of the Westboro Baptist Church and assume they are representative of all Christians.

    Rosenberg is a philosopher. He is following the logic.

    You agree with people like Rosenberg because . . . well, I don’t know why you agree with him. 9

    I clearly stated I do not agree with Rosenberg. I find naturalism repellent. (And it is illogical).

  246. 246
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: I do not know. It is you who is trying to relate an ‘undetermined quantity/ number’ to ‘naturalness’.

    Okay, I’ll drop it.

    Clearly, according to Mayr (BSC), there were not. Hybridisation is a patch to an ill-defined concept (‘species’).

    Okay, then a new species arose from a single one. The point was that a new species arose. The new species is reproductively isolated from its “parent” specie(s).

    How so? 3 years have passed (article is from 2017) and NO NAME? Or am I wrong?

    So they scientists didn’t go back and amend an article they didn’t write? The article clearly states that a new species arose that was reproductively isolated from its sources.

    I clearly stated I do not agree with Rosenberg. I find naturalism repellent. (And it is illogical).

    I should have said: you agree with Rosenberg’s interpretation of the implications of materialism.

  247. 247
    kairosfocus says:

    As, the Wikipedia spiral into agit prop continues. KF

  248. 248
    Truthfreedom says:

    @246 JVL

    Truthfreedom: I do not know. It is you who is trying to relate an ‘undetermined quantity/ number’ to ‘naturalness’.

    JVL: Okay, I’ll drop it.

    Makes sense. Just a little reminder. There is a certain amount of cancer in nature. It is ‘natural’. Should we stop treating cancer then? (I am not saying homosexuality is cancer. Please do not go that way).

  249. 249
    Truthfreedom says:

    @247 JVL

    Truthfreedom: Clearly, according to Mayr (BSC), there were not. Hybridisation is a patch to an ill-defined concept (‘species’).

    JVL:
    *Okay, then a new species arose from a single one. The point was that a new species arose. The new species is reproductively isolated from its “parent” specie(s).*

    No. The point is that supposedly experts can not even agree on what the term ‘species’ is. The article you cited can not coherently explain it. They (and the Grants) do not even understand that they are contradicting Mayr (BSC). How strange.

  250. 250
    Truthfreedom says:

    @247 JVL

    Truthfreedom: How so? 3 years have passed (article is from 2017) and NO NAME? Or am I wrong?

    JVL: So they scientists didn’t go back and amend an article they didn’t write? The article clearly states that a new species arose that was reproductively isolated from its sources.

    No. That this alleged (not proved) new ‘species’ does not even have a name. I have been searching and it is still Big Bird.
    That is not even scientific nomenclature. It reminds me of a 5-year-old playing ‘doctor’. Big Bird? Really?

  251. 251
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 248: Just a little reminder. There is a certain amount of cancer in nature. It is ‘natural’. Should we stop treating cancer then?

    What? As you also said, homosexuality is not cancer so your question is pretty weird. Cancer kills people, sometimes slowly and painfully. Homosexuality does not.

    No. The point is that supposedly experts can not even agree on what the term ‘species’ is. The article you cited can not coherently explain it. They (and the Grants) do not even understand that they are contradicting Mayr (BSC). How strange.

    Fine. Someone asked me to provide an example of a new species arising. I did that. The new species did not violate BSC.

    No. That this alleged (not proved) new ‘species’ does not even have a name. I have been searching and it is still Big Bird.
    That is not even scientific nomenclature. It reminds me of a 5-year-old playing ‘doctor’. Big Bird? Really?>/b>

    I don’t know why there is no name. Maybe the new species designation was mistaken in which case you should be able to find a retraction.

  252. 252
    ET says:

    Homosexuality does not.

    AIDS kills.

  253. 253
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL 251

    Truthfreedom, 248: Just a little reminder. There is a certain amount of cancer in nature. It is ‘natural’. Should we stop treating cancer then?

    JVL: What? As you also said, homosexuality is not cancer so your question is pretty weird. Cancer kills people, sometimes slowly and painfully. Homosexuality does not.

    Exactly. Does ‘natural’ equate ‘we should not care’? (Incest i. e. does not kill people). Bestiality does not kill people. Is it ‘natural’?

  254. 254
    Truthfreedom says:

    @251 JVL

    Truthfreedom: No. The point is that supposedly experts can not even agree on what the term ‘species’ is. The article you cited can not coherently explain it. They (and the Grants) do not even understand that they are contradicting Mayr (BSC). How strange.

    Fine. Someone asked me to provide an example of a new species arising. I did that. The new species did not violate BSC.

    The paper violates the ‘science’ it allegedly relies on. Would you trust a doctor that can not coherently define ‘illness’? Sir, you are ill though I do not know what that means?

  255. 255
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Exactly. Does ‘natural’ equate ‘we should not care’?

    Of course not! No one ever said that!

    I’m not even going to respond to your attempts to slide into discussions about incest and bestiality.

    Homosexuality between two consenting adults is just fine as far as I am concerned. AND, all I said was, can you say homosexuality is against nature, or something like that. I don’t think you can. You want to start dragging all kinds of other issues into the conversation which I was not addressing.

  256. 256
    ET says:

    Anyone who understands biology and anatomy can say that homosexuality is unnatural. That is why Jerad has issues.

  257. 257
    ET says:

    Also the other issues are relevant because why do we have to stop at homosexuality? Incest and bestiality have the same claims as homosexuality. But we all understand why Jerad, et al., don’t want to bring those up

  258. 258
    Truthfreedom says:

    @253 JVL

    Truthfreedom: That shows that this alleged (not proved) new ‘species’ does not even have a name. I have been searching and it is still Big Bird.
    That is not even scientific nomenclature. It reminds me of a 5-year-old playing ‘doctor’. Big Bird? Really?

    JVL: I don’t know why there is no name. Maybe the new species designation was mistaken in which case you should be able to find a retraction.

    According to the Grants, it never had a real, scientific name. Big Bird then and Big Bird now.
    5-year-olds playing ‘doctor’.
    Linnaeus is rolling over in his grave.

  259. 259
    Truthfreedom says:

    @255 JVL:

    Homosexuality between two consenting adults is just fine as far as I am concerned.

    If I told you that I have consensual sex with my dad (both adults): would you say it is ‘fine’?

  260. 260
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: According to the Grants, it never had a real, scientific name. Big Bird then and Big Bird now.
    5-year-olds playing ‘doctor’.
    Linnaeus is rolling over in his grave.

    Whatever.

    If I told you that I have consensual sex with my dad (both adults): would you say it is ‘fine’?

    This has nothing to do with my original comment. I’m sorry I even made it. You want to go through tons of weird and dodgy behaviour to prove that, deep down, I think most anything is okay and that proves how awful materialism is. I never even said I was a materialist. And I don’t feel like playing your game anymore.

  261. 261
    JVL says:

    I don’t have issues. I do my best to support and take care of other people, to respect them and let them have autonomy. I try hard not to judge others unless they are hurting other people. You guys just want to make any kind of concession the start of some slippery slope that leads to depravity. I’m not going to play along anymore.

  262. 262
    ET says:

    The slippery slope already exists. And that is thanks to people like you and “Ed George”

  263. 263
    asauber says:

    “I’m not going to play along anymore.”

    Don’t worry, JVL. We already knew you were never interested in a serious conversation.

    Andrew

  264. 264
    Truthfreedom says:

    @260 JVL

    Truthfreedom: According to the Grants, it never had a real, scientific name. Big Bird then and Big Bird now.
    5-year-olds playing ‘doctor’.
    Linnaeus is rolling over in his grave.

    JVL: Whatever

    .
    That is not an argument. Neither is okay. You are conceding the point.

    Truthfreedom: If I told you that I have consensual sex with my dad (both adults): would you say it is ‘fine’?

    This has nothing to do with my original comment. I’m sorry I even made it. You want to go through tons of weird and dodgy behaviour to prove that, deep down, I think most anything is okay and that proves how awful materialism is. I never even said I was a materialist. And I don’t feel like playing your game anymore.

    So because you can not defend your argument, I am ‘playing games’? You give up way too easily. Prove me wrong with arguments. If my logic does not stand on its own, I will concede the point. Right now you are being emotional, not fair.

  265. 265
    Ed George says:

    TF

    If I told you that I have consensual sex with my dad (both adults): would you say it is ‘fine’?

    How long have you been having sex wth your dad? Does your mom know?

Leave a Reply