An honest critique of intelligent design theory?

Joe: "BTW your position can’t even explain DNA" Joe, your position assumes that I have to explain DNA. I don't pretend to know how life originated. I think that it was without Devine interference but that is just a gut feeling, nothing based on science. Much like your belief in ID. The only thing that I have a good understanding of, based on good science, observation, prediction and experimentation, is that once life originated, it evolved without an outside guiding intelligence. I know that your faith directs you to think otherwise, but that doesn't make it true. Acartia_bogart

Honesty is irrelevant. Our critics understand this, why don't we? Mung

Acartia_bogart- Just because you don't understand what ID says doesn't mean I am equivocating. If ID says that multi-protein complexes are beyond the reach of materialistic processes then that is what must be demonstrated. The designer doesn't need to maintain anything. The design is such that it has the capability to respond to environmental cues. BTW your position can't even explain DNA Joe

Joe, I am afraid that you are just equivocating. We are talking about an arrangement of DNA that codes for an enzyme that has absolutely no purpose in nature. Why would a designer maintain this capability when there is no foreseeable need for it? How does ID explain this? Acartia_bogart

Acartia_bogart- It has to be a protein complex that utilizes many different proteins- the more the better for unguided evolution. As for nylonase- it is a stretch to think blind and undirected processes produced it. And the designer didn't have to know about nylon. The bacteria don't care what it is called. The basic elements and their bonds are well known to bacteria. All that was required was an enzyme to break the bonds so the bacteria can use the elements, like carbon. Joe

Joe: "And if someone went into a lab and demonstrated that accumulations of genetic accidents could produce a bacterial flagellum in a population that didn’t have one, that too would be powerful evidence against ID." Does it have to be a flagellum? what about the production of a new enzyme that is not found in nature? would that suffice? There have been two incidences of bacterial strains developing an enzyme that can break down nylon. Unlike antibiotic resistance, there would be no natural reason for any bacteria to produce this enzyme as nylon is a completely man-made compound and not found anywhere naturally. Unless, of course, the designer foresaw the discovery of nylon by man and provided the genetic code to these bacteria in light of future needs. I think even you would consider this a stretch. Acartia_bogart

REC: You really should be asking, what fact would cause any Popperian falsificationist to give up their falsificationism? But then you'd probably have to supply a fact that would cause you to give up your materialism, in all fairness. I guess it is up to you, but as some guy once said, you live by the sword, you die by the sword ... ScuzzaMan

Stephen Meyer - The Biggest Failure of Critics (In Addressing 'Darwin's Doubt') - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljy1yfGdC5Y bornagain77

REC on Darwinian evolution:

The evidence has been presented many times, and is publicly available.

Actually no such evidence exists. If it did you would just present it and be done. Joe

REC:

What conceivable event would make you abandon the ID hypothesis?

Demonstrating that purely materialistic processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter. And if someone went into a lab and demonstrated that accumulations of genetic accidents could produce a bacterial flagellum in a population that didn't have one, that too would be powerful evidence against ID. Joe

Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it's application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) "Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus's (Theory1), Galileo's (T2), Kepler's (T3), Newton's (T4) ... and Einstein's (T5), along with but this is just my supposition Darwin's (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off... http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm I stick by the quote REC bornagain77

REC, it is amazing how disingenuous you are to the evidence. In this thread I have shown that Darwinism is hopelessly and severely bankrupt: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/an-honest-critique-of-intelligent-design-theory/#comment-504023 And yet you think that if you can just tie up matters on what Lakatos said and what he didn't say then that will somehow absolve you of your empirical responsibility to verify you claims for Darwinian evolution? Are you daft? This is not politics REC! This is science! either you have evidence that Darwinian processes can produce molecular machines, i.e. the bacterial flagellum, or you don't. And since you don't, despite Matzke's infamous literature bluff to the contrary, why do you pretend as if you are being reasonable in all this? Do you think that people cannot see through your shallow rhetoric? What is your payoff? ,,, Personally, I could care less what you believe, it is you that will have to account to God for your actions, but I'm just curious as to what motivates such intellectual dishonesty on your part. bornagain77

The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY and in that beautifully simple and concise statement of what the 'key to science' is all about, Darwinian evolution is shown, by experiment, to be wrong: Here is the empirical falsification of neo-Darwinism: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples-phylogeny-and-competition/#comment-504003 bornagain77

3) Do you realize your (pro-falsification, anti-evolution) error in quote-mining him? **What conceivable event would make you abandon the ID hypothesis?*** REC

REC, I stick by the Lakatos quotes, disagree with him on falsification, and agree with him on degenerating programs, his personal opinion on Darwinism could matter less since, as you point out, we know a lot more now. you then claim,,, "The evidence (substantiating Darwinism) has been presented many times, and is publicly available." Well then I'm sure you won't have any trouble whatsoever showing us the evidence since it is so readily available. Let's start with the Bacterial Flagellum: Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291 More Irreducible Complexity Is Found in Flagellar Assembly - September 24, 2013 Concluding Statement: Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It's a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives! - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/more_irreducibl077051.html bornagain77

Let's not stray off topic yet. A couple of reading comprehension questions: 1)What is Imre Lakatos opinion of falsificationism? 2) What is Imre Lakatos opinion on Darwin? 3) Do you realize your (pro-falsification, anti-evolution) error in quote-mining him. **What conceivable event would make you abandon the ID hypothesis?*** "you have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes " The evidence has been presented many times, and is publicly available. You'll ignore it, like the (now conflicting mutually-exclusive) philosophies you cite approvingly and simultaneously. "Not to mention, to stake you eternal soul on it!" So only anti-evolutionists go to heaven? REC

Here is the empirical falsification of neo-Darwinism: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples-phylogeny-and-competition/#comment-504003 bornagain77

REC, in spite of your trying to play games,,, “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) bornagain77

So REC, since you have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even one bacterial flagellum, (or any other comparable molecular machine) why do you personally want Darwinism to be true so badly? You simply don't have the evidence to make the grand claims you do. Not to mention, to stake you eternal soul on it! bornagain77

Wow. You really can have it both ways. You cite an author against falsificationism 5 sentences prior to attacking me with falsificationism. So if you're now pro-falsification? as per your source: "It is always interesting to ask a Marxist, what conceivable event would make him abandon his Marxism." What conceivable event would make you abandon the ID hypothesis? REC

“In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” describes the present state of Darwinism to a T "When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science." ~ Cornelius Hunter That Darwinism is not scientific because it is not falsifiable would only be debated by a Darwinists who is bent on being dishonest towards the evidence! Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. - Evolution explains everything. - William J Murray bornagain77

BA77: "Whereas there is no empirical finding that would provide a rigid falsification for Darwinism, ID does not suffer such an embarrassment of having such a lack." The author, Lakatos, you've been citing with approval throughout this thread rejects rigid falsificationism as a demarcation criteria! See what compelled me to jump in to try to correct this! From your source: "Is, then, Popper's falsifiability criterion the solution to the problem of demarcating science from pseudoscience? No." "Marxism, for a Popperian, is scientific if the Marxists are prepared to specify facts which , if observed, make them give up Marxism. If they refuse to do so, Marxism becomes a pseudoscience. It is always interesting to ask a Marxist, what conceivable event would make him abandon his Marxism. If he is committed to Marxism, he is bound to find it immoral to specify a state of affairs which can falsify it.] Thus a proposition may petrify into pseudo-scientific dogma or become genuine knowledge, depending on whether we are prepared to state observable conditions which would refute it." Do you ever read the sources you post? REC

Whereas there is no empirical finding that would provide a rigid falsification for Darwinism, ID does not suffer such an embarrassment of having such a lack. Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 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.”,,, 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.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - August 2011 Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility. http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness.html bornagain77

"In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that"... Yes, that is where we started. Do you read what you write? "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” Again, as he mentions Darwin in the same breath as Einstein and Copernicus, do you really think he thinks it is a degenerating research project? In this transcript, Darwin, evolution, biology are mentioned not once. "Thus, in a progressive research programme, theory leads to the discovery of hitherto unknown novel facts. In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts. Has, for instance, Marxism ever predicted a stunning novel fact successfully? Never! It has some famous unsuccessful predictions." So, I suppose we should evaluate which researchers are discovering new facts, and who comes up with post-hoc rationalizations for those facts. REC

In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific". Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory bornagain77

Really? All designs follow this pattern?

All intelligent designs over time, yes. And the more complex the designs, the more they have to follow this pattern. The reason is that, within a category, we observe that new designs are always modifications of or additions to existing designs. This is what makes this hypothesis plausible. Having said, your question is irrelevant because it is not necessary for all designs to follow this pattern in order for the design hypothesis to be a testable and thus a scientific hypothesis. I could just as easily ask, do all kinds of natural evolution follow this pattern? The hypothesis is not that aren't other types of evolution or design but that we can choose and pick a hypothesis to test. It's a subtle nuance but an important one. Mapou

REC, so you are not interested in providing evidence that Darwinism is true, and are only interested in playing stupid shell games? Where is your direct empirical evidence man? NOTHING ELSE MATTERS! Perhaps this quote from Lakatos is more to your liking: Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx Here's the audio: Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio lecture http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3 I stick by the quote! bornagain77

"Mapou June 17, 2014 at 8:09 pm Both genomics and the fossil record support a mostly nested hierarchy of living organisms with lots of horizontal gene transfers sprinkled in. This is exactly what one would expect from intelligent design over a long period of time." Really? All designs follow this pattern? REC

"REC, I did not attribute any quote to Coyne." "Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science:" BA77's words, not the author's follow. "Theobald’s paper is a piece of unsubstantiated propaganda." Listen, BA77. I came in to ask what the heck you were doing quoting Lakatos in the manner you had. To anyone who has actually read him, it is a clear misuse, as I demonstrated. Then I find, in the next statement, "says Jerry Conye: but BA77 writes" kinda misattribution. And without analysis, you refer to as pretty common statistical techniques as "unsubstantiated propaganda." Sooo--I'm out. What's the point? REC

Joe:

That genomes exist is evidence for ID.

I like that. Mapou

Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - February 7, 2014 Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" that "well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance." In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other. Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt - (pp. 122-123) ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren't distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that's used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor. If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/the_ghost_of_te081981.html bornagain77

Both genomics and the fossil record support a mostly nested hierarchy of living organisms with lots of horizontal gene transfers sprinkled in. This is exactly what one would expect from intelligent design over a long period of time. In addition, although intermediary species are perfectly acceptable and even necessary, intelligent design is not constrained by Darwinian gradualism (there will be jumps in the record) and, again, this is exactly what is observed in the fossil record. Gradualism has been thoroughly discredited. Mapou

Does Natural Selection Leave "Detectable Statistical Evidence in the Genome"? More Problems with Matzke's Critique of Darwin's Doubt - Casey Luskin August 7, 2013 Excerpt: A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/does_natural_se075171.html The following site gives an overview of the many problems of the statistical method that Theobald used to try to establish 'statistical significance' for common ancestry;: Scientific method: Statistical errors - P values, the 'gold standard' of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. - Regina Nuzzo - 12 February 2014 Excerpt: “P values are not doing their job, because they can't,” says Stephen Ziliak, an economist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois, and a frequent critic of the way statistics are used.,,, “Change your statistical philosophy and all of a sudden different things become important,” says Steven Goodman, a physician and statistician at Stanford. “Then 'laws' handed down from God are no longer handed down from God. They're actually handed down to us by ourselves, through the methodology we adopt.”,, One researcher suggested rechristening the methodology “statistical hypothesis inference testing”3, presumably for the acronym it would yield.,, The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,, Neyman called some of Fisher's work mathematically “worse than useless”,,, “The P value was never meant to be used the way it's used today,” says Goodman.,,, The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,, “It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,, http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140213 bornagain77

Genomics support ID so it cannot be used to critique it. Did you have a point? REC:

Can you provide a couple of sentences on the key premises genomic theory of ID?

So that would be a no, you didn't have a point. As to your question- LoL!- 1) it doesn't follow from what I said and 2) Genomics is a discipline in genetics that applies recombinant DNA, DNA sequencing methods, and bioinformatics to sequence, assemble, and analyze the function and structure of genomes (the complete set of DNA within a single cell of an organism)- wikipedia That genomes exist is evidence for ID. Period. However that is open to falsification is someone can demonstrate that materialistic processes can produce one without having one to copy. Joe

REC, I did not attribute any quote to Coyne, you were mistaken that the unblockquoted words of mine were his. It is your mistake not mine. Moreover, The cited words mean exactly the sentiment I said of Coyne! As to Lakatos, and you having the audacity to compare Darwinian pseudo-science to General Relativity, this paper from this morning shows how far detached Darwinism is from real science "With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html?spref=fb Theobald's paper is not empirical evidence. It relies heavily on Darwinian presuppositions. Theobald's paper is a piece of unsubstantiated propaganda. I noticed, you still provided no empirical evidence that Darwinism is true. Why try to misdirect from the primary issue at hand? Where is you direct empirical evidence man if Darwinism is so well supported? Why the stupid shell game? bornagain77

JoeG: Genomics support ID so it cannot be used to critique it. Did you have a point? Can you provide a couple of sentences on the key premises genomic theory of ID? Just curious. REC

BA77, The quote(mine) in your response is not the same one you attributed to Coyne earlier. What is the citation for the quote above, in my #12? BA77: "I stick by Lakatos quote that Darwinism has no demarcation criteria " Lakatos is critiquing 'militant' use of demarkation criteria, and places Darwinism in with 'good' theories like those of Einstein. BA77: "Theobald’s paper is ‘seeing faces in the clouds’ statistical joke" How so? Which statistical method do you disagree with? The sequence data is publicly available. Is there an ID analysis of them? REC

REC, Theobald's paper is 'seeing faces in the clouds' statistical joke I stick by Lakatos quote that Darwinism has no demarcation criteria so as to falsify it. Feel free to tell us the exact equation to falsify it,,, Yes I do have a citation for Coyne's admission:

“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago

And REC, I note that you provided no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can generate functional in formation/complexity. Why the hesitancy and misdirection if Darwinism is so well supported? This is science is it not? if so (and it certainly is) than by golly quit playing stupid shell games and Produce empirical evidence of one molecular machine arising by unguided Darwinian processes and forever silence your critics! bornagain77

BA77: "REC, so I hold it that you think that Darwinism has become more ‘scientific’ since 1973?" Yes. Say what you will about papers like: "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry", but at least admit there are whole fields of inquiry that were not available for philosophers of science to ponder in the 1970s. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html I see we've moved quickly past your mis-quote of Lakatos. Pity--he does have some interesting thoughts. And oddly, again, the very next quote from you I read I read is.....unsettling. It sounds like Jerry Conye in neither style nor sentiment. Do you have a citation for it? "Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science: The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian concepts, constantly shows us the Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),," REC

I have never met an honest Darwinist or atheist. They're all scared of something or they're full of hate against something. But I think it's mostly cowardice. Mapou

REC:

1973? 41 years ago. Not exactly the golden age of genomics.

Genomics support ID so it cannot be used to critique it. Did you have a point? Joe

Darwinism is a non issue, it cannot and does not work. It has been refuted over and over again. If you want to believe in it that is your business, freedom of religion and all that, but please stop pretending it is science. If you preach Darwinism but don't know any better you are ignorant. If, once you learn the truth and still preach it, you are no longer ignorant but a LIAR. humbled

Moreover, as if that were not devastating enough as to undermining any credibility Natural Selection might have had as to having the causal adequacy to explain the highly integrated levels of overlapping functional information found in organisms, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is now known to not even be on the right playing field in the first place:

The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79

Here is, what a Darwinist termed, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway (which operates as if it were ’4-Dimensional):

ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl

And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to explain a single gene of those ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathways.

"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

The reason why a ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure, such as a ‘horrendously complex metabolic pathway, would be, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to a 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:

Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Dr. Quantum – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

I personally hold that the reason why internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional instead of three dimensional is because of exactly what Darwinian evolution has consistently failed to explain the origination of. i.e. functional information. ‘Higher dimensional’ information, which is bursting at the seams in life, simply cannot be reduced to any 3-dimensional energy-matter basis:

John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. A.C. McINTOSH - Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008 Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral – February 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf

In fact, matter and energy are now both shown to reduce to ‘quantum information’. In fact an entire human can now, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

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

Thus not only is Information not reducible to a 3-Dimensional energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality energy and matter both reduce to a 'transcendent' information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism: Verses and Music:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Matthew 7:24-27 “Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” Solid Rock - the 5th service band Featuring TRU-SERVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4jD70Y-mQ0

bornagain77

Moreover, for the vast majority of times that changes do happen to DNA, they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ by sophisticated molecular machines, not unguided ‘random changes’ from a cosmic ray, chemical imbalance, or some such entropy driven event as that:

How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Shapiro on Random Mutation: “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html

What should be needless to say, having ‘cell-mediated processes’ direct changes to DNA is in direct contradiction to the ‘undirected randomness’ which is held to be foundational to neo-Darwinian thought. Moreover, Natural Selection, that other great pillar upon which Darwinian evolution rests, has also been undermined as having the causal adequacy that neo-Darwinists have attributed to it. First off, to the extent that Natural Selection does do anything, Natural Selection is found to be a eliminative force not a generative force:

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) William Provine - Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk From a Frog to a Prince - video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) - No Beneficial Mutations - Gitt - Spetner - Denton - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

As well, Natural Selection is grossly inadequate to do the work required of it because of what is termed ‘the princess and the pea’ paradox. The devastating ‘princess and the pea’ paradox is clearly elucidated by Dr. John Sanford, at the 8:14 minute mark, of this following video,,,

Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933

Dr. Sanford points out, in the preceding video, that Natural Selection acts at the coarse level of the entire organism (phenotype) and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘slightly detrimental’, and have no noticeable effect on phenotypes, and are thus far below the power of Natural Selection to remove from genomes before they spread throughout the population.

“Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations” - John Sanford - September 6, 2013 Excerpt of concluding comments: Our findings raise a very interesting theoretical problem — in a large genome, how do the millions of low-impact (yet functional) nucleotides arise? It is universally agreed that selection works very well for high-impact mutations. However, unless some new and as yet undiscovered process is operating in nature, there should be selection breakdown for the great majority of mutations that have small impact on fitness.,,, We show that selection breakdown is not just a simple function of population size, but is seriously impacted by other factors, especially selection interference. We are convinced that our formulation and methodology (i.e., genetic accounting) provide the most biologically-realistic analysis of selection breakdown to date. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0011

Here are a few more notes on this insurmountable ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection:

Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video https://vimeo.com/91162565 The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm

bornagain77

REC, so I hold it that you think that Darwinism has become more 'scientific' since 1973? Well I certainly find nothing 'scientific' within Darwinism. In fact, all I find is a bunch of dogmatic atheists running around and making excuses every time Darwinism is dealt another blow by our advances in empirical science. But hey, let's give it a benefit of the doubt and dig down to the foundation and let's see if we can find any 'scientific bedrock' for Darwinism to stand upon, shall we REC? What the vast majority of Darwinists fail to realize (or ever honestly admit to) is that Darwinian evolution is not even a 'real' physical science in any proper sense but that Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science. Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science: The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian concepts, constantly shows us the Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

“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) Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”… http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford

Another primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that Darwinian evolution does not have a demonstrated empirical basis to support its claims (in fact empirical evidence also consistently shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o

Another reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that the two foundational pillars of Darwinian evolution, Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection, are both now shown to be severely compromised as to having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have presupposed for them. For instance, although Darwinian evolution appeals to unguided ‘random mutations/variations’ to DNA as the main creative source for all evolutionary novelty, there are now known to be extensive layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any unguided “random” changes happening to DNA in the first place:

The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011 Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.” http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf

bornagain77

Now, now BA77, It's rare enough to find a critic of ID that will accurately describe what they are criticizing. We should be encouraging such behavior. Although now that I think about it, any hint of approval from the ID camp might send the darwin trolls into a frenzy. Maybe acting all offended is the right tactic. StephenA

this is just my supposition-Darwin’s

Darwin had an hypothesis and nothing else. An hypothesis that has since proven false. jerry

honest critique of intelligent design theory

I have maintained that I have only met one honest Darwinist. I wonder if this guy would make two. Somehow, I doubt it. jerry

1973? 41 years ago. Not exactly the golden age of genomics. Also yet another horrendous quote mine. Lakatos is addressing the failure of those he calls "militant positivists" to solve the demarcation problem in a way that includes good science (including evolutionary biology), and excludes the bad. He's critiquing the demarcation problem, not faulting Darwin for it. Context: "You would end up with a goodies [ed: sound theories] list including, for example, Copernicus', Galileo's, Kepler's, Newton's, Einstein's-along with, and this is just my supposition-Darwin's. and then the sentence you quote. http://tinyurl.com/qatdo57 REC

Well that is just so big of him to allow ID, and YEC, to be brought up in class so to critique them. I wonder if he would show as much charity in allowing the fact that Darwinism is not even science to be brought up in class so as to properly critique it??? Seems only fair! “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific” - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit bornagain77